So what is the nature of reality anyway, John Updike?

John Updike and I disagree about the physical resurrection of Christ and the importance of metaphor.

In my last posts, I looked at two of the most important artists of the 20th century, Dimitri Shostakovich and John Updike, in their relation to one of the driving forces of their work: the fear of death. And now, looking again, I wonder how they can both be denizens of the same world. They’re so different. Shostakovich was so despairing, Updike so hopeful, never mind the ways in which they expressed themselves.

And then, I’m reminded of a poem Updike wrote early on in his career. I’m sure Shostakovich would have had none of it.

Man in waiting room with Roualt's Christ

Make no mistake: if He rose at all
it was as His body:
If the cells’ dissolution did not reverse, the molecules
reknit, the amino acids rekindle,
the Church will fall.

Let us not mock God with metaphor,
analogy, sidestepping transcendence,
making of the event a parable, a sign painted in the faded
credulity of earlier ages:
let us walk through the door.

It’s a passionate poem, almost convincing, and then I get angry: what’s this, metaphor and parable are feeble ways of understanding that belong to the past? To me, the poem not only defends the bodily resurrection of Christ as central to Christianity, but surrenders to a materialism that I think should be a thing of the past. I don’t pretend to understand modern physics, but I do know that nothing is what it seems: a whir of electrons, a universe full black holes-that is a universe shot through with nothingness-the list goes on and on. Except for mathematical formulas, there is no way human beings will ever understand any of it without metaphor, and perhaps even parable.

NASA Goddard photo and video, Hubble image, April 8, 2010. Creative Commons.

It is said that in the not so distant past, the visible world was never taken literally. Nothing was what it seemed to be; everything was symbolic of another, a sacred reality. The sturdy literalism that too many of us live by today where a table is just a table and to kick a stone and stub your toe is sufficient proof of it, wasn’t even on the radar. Today, again, we know that whatever reality is, it’s not what it seems. It’s multi-dimensional and mysterious, and has only incidentally and in one small dimension to do with tables.

Which gets us back to the other force that feeds our creativity: the awesomeness of it all. And so I say, hail to the metaphor, which is the only way I can pretend to grasp anything, and the essence of art to boot.

So there, take that, John Updike!

Author: latefruit

I am forever writing the great American novel, practicing the piano (in hopes of joining an amateur string quartet someday), gardening, and now, since I've gotten old when I wasn't looking, trying to figure out what that means.

One thought on “So what is the nature of reality anyway, John Updike?”

  1. Perhaps it’s both a metaphor for the triumph of goodness/life over evil/death as well as some mysterious and tangible reality beyond understanding? Better to live with hope than with dispair? Lots to think about. Maybe better to simply ignore all the doctrine and live with what we think we know and are able to influence positively?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: