Swadharma » pain

Desire and Suffering in Balzac

Brittany — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 01:49:53 +0000

For one of my literature classes, we read an essay about the role of desire in narratives. This essay used Balzac’s novel La Peau de Chagrin as an example of a novel whose narrative is driven by desire; however, it is twisted such that the narrative is actually driven by the protagonist’s attempt to avoid desire. He was given a talisman that would grant him his every wish; however, it also would gradually destroy him. I found this to be an interesting exploration of the interplay of desire and pain. Often, desire is associated with emotional pain such as the loss of something or someone one loves, but in Balzac’s story, desire has been associated with physical pain, and ultimately, death.

I am not sure how the association with physical rather than emotional pain changes the portrayal of desire. At first, I thought that the association with physical pain seemed to cast a more negative light on desire, especially since desire here was ultimately associated with death even more so than with pain. The more I though about it, the more I began to think that perhaps emotional pain was in fact the more damaging. One can attempt to ignore or at least lessen physical pain by focusing on something else, but no matter how hard one tries, one cannot escape from the pain inside one’s head. The physical aspect of pain is more visible to others, but mental pain is hidden.

Regardless of the form that pain takes, I found it interesting that Balzac’s portrayal of desire in his novel is so similar to the Hindu belief that desire and attachment lead to suffering. We tend to believe that we will be happier if we have something; however, often once we have whatever we desired, we realize that it was not worth the cost. Alternatively, we experience desire and attachment towards something we have, and we suffer when it is lost. Balzac deals with both of these points in his novel. The main character experiences physical pain as the cost of obtaining what he desires, and when he finally receives his ultimate desire, he experiences the pain of losing it through his death.

Rangoli annoys the local homeowners association There’s an interesting article in the Washington Post about a...
Detachment In the “current question” Saketh posted earlier, he mentioned the...
The Dark Knight, Continued In a previous post, Saketh argues that the Joker acts...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

God Tussi Confusing Ho

Sharmila — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 00:27:59 +0000

This summer, my grandmother is visiting from India, so my parents decided to get the Indian channels on TV. A few weeks ago, a movie called God Tussi Great Ho was on. An Indian twist on Bruce Almighty, it depicts Salman Khan as a very angry man who regards the constant stream of problems in his life as an indication that God is picking on him. Finally, I suppose God grows tired of Salman Khan’s constant tirades and finger-pointing at the sky, so he reveals himself in a human form (played, of course, by Amitabh Bachchan) and decides to give Salman Khan divine powers for ten days to cure all the problems of the world.

When on the tenth day Salman Khan decides to grant everyone’s wishes, all hell breaks loose. The girl he was supposed to marry falls in love with someone else who wished she were his. A man who spent his whole life dreaming of a motorcycle gets one, but since he doesn’t know how to drive it, gets into an accident. And the maid who buys lottery tickets everyday finally wins, prompting her husband (named Dagdu) to take all the money and leave her and her children without any way to support themselves.

After seeing all of this Salman Khan goes back to Amitabh Bhagavan and begs him to undo the disaster he caused. God explains that before Salman Khan ruined everything, people didn’t have everything they wanted, and all of their dreams were not fulfilled, but they were all considerably better off than after Salman Khan answered all their prayers. So even though there are setbacks in our lives, we should be content with what we have and understand that everything happens for a reason.

But sometimes I feel that these explanations fall a little short. Sometimes I feel that really unfortunate things happen to good people. Young children lose a parent to a terminal illness. Or sober bystanders become victims in drunk driving accidents. How can not having a parent be a better situation than having one? How can one argue that being in that accident was better than not being on the road? And why is it that these things seem to happen to good people so often?

Detachment as a Problem-Solving Mechanism Every day, we inevitably encounter problems that slow our momentum ...
Marriage: The Union of Two Worlds I’m sure that many of us have noticed the constant...
Testing our limits I was watching The Day the Earth Stood Still the...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.