On My First Triathlon

Over a year ago, I bet Kristina that if she read The Brothers Karamazov, that I would run a triathlon.  Naturally, I assumed this meant I would never run a triathlon.  She finished it in 6 weeks.

Yesterday, I finally fulfilled my end of the bargain.  As I ran the TryByKnight Sprint Triathlon at Wartburg College in Waverly, IA.

My swim featured an embarrassing amount of backstroke, my biking had more than its fair share of coasting and fidgeting with the gears, and my 5k was scarcely better than a light jog (though it was a consistent jog, no walking). I was fat, slow, tired, and hangry, and hated almost every minute of it.

Almost.

Because when I got that runner's high almost in spite of myself, I caught a glimmer of why so many people spend so much of their precious time and hard earned money for the privelege to run themselves ragged; as for myself, I felt the sense of accomplishment that comes of doing something I'm not naturally good at; and what's more, no matter if they take everything else from me, I can now always say: I am a triathlete.

It's OK For Church To Be Boring Sometimes

Once in an interview, Slajov Zizek attempted to discuss the thesis of his new book through the example of a small child not wanting to visit Grandma, but his Dad just says "shut up, we're going"--that was the older model, said Zizek; now, in our more modern, "Enlightened" form of parenting, we tell the kid he doesn't have to go, it's his choice, but Grandma has been looking forward to seeing him for so long, and how terribly disappointed she'll be if he doesn't come. 

Though this newer version is certainly less nakedly forceful, says Zizek, it is actually a far more insidious form of coercion--for not only are we still in fact forcing the kid to go to Grandma's, but we are also forcing him to enjoy going, as well.

"So you're saying we should go back to that older form of just forcing the kid?" asked the interviewer.  "Yes," said Zizek, "It's more honest."

Now, Zizek is a misanthrope and a plagiarist, and at some point it doesn't matter if he's just kidding about being a Stalinist, it's not funny; nevertheless, that doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong, at least not on this particular point.  Because growing up, I've heard sermon after sermon about how, if you're bored at Church, it is more a reflection of your own lack of spiritual preparedness. As in Zizek's example, we coerce not only our kids but each other and ourselves into liking Church, even if it's dull.  And you know what?  Sometimes it is on us--we show up in a bad or lackadaisical mood, we're not paying attention like we should, and we're the one who misses out.  Sometimes it really is us.

But here's the thing: sometimes it's not!  Sometimes the speakers really are dry and dull.  Sometimes the Sunday School teachers really are unprepared and class discussion is nil.  Sometimes Church really is just boring.

And that's OK! I am convinced that if we all just admitted Church is boring sometimes, that it would actually make it far easier to go.  We would quit blaming ourselves for others dullness, our repressed resentment would go down, it would explode far less frequently into a faith crisis, and we would feel far less coerced into attending something that should only be by our own freewill and choice. 

I've come to the conclusion that it's far less healthy to say, "I didn't get much out of Church today, there must be something wrong with me," than it is to say, "You know what?  Church was boring today.  Oh well.  I'll be back next week." 

Because we don't go to Church to be perfected at a perfect institution, but to help deal with each others many failings mutually.  That means there's going to be some screw-ups, that means some Sundays will be plain boring.  But it's OK, it's all a work in progress, we'll be back next week to keep working on it.  Teaching people to blame themselves when an imperfect institution is imperfect, only sets them up for their entire world to collapse out from under them when they do finally wise up to these rather obvious imperfections.  But teaching people that sometimes Church is boring but we're going anyways just makes it all the sweeter when it is good!

This is all just a round-about way of saying that, whenever someone preaches the importance of coming to Church "spiritually prepared," I just roll my eyes and grin, and say to myself: "No, actually, sometimes Church really is just boring; but that's OK, I'll be back next week."

On Art Actually Mattering

In Book X of Plato's Republic, Socrates, in describing his ideal Republic, calls for the complete removal of the poets, considering the lot of them to be charlatans, pale imitators of truth, and corrupters of public morals--"Notwithstanding this," he concludes, "let us assure our sweet friend and the sister arts of imitation that if she will only prove her title to exist in a well-ordered State we shall be delighted to receive her."

Over the past 2,400 years, Western poets have attempted to answer Plato's sally, arguing in turns that poetry--and art & literature generally--is indeed useful for moral instruction (which argument still colors our discussions today on whether certain art should be banned or censored), or that literature is beneficial towards stimulating the imagination, and thereby engendering empathy (Percy Shelley's defense, still in use by most literary scholars I know today).  All of these attacks against and defenses of literature, of course, presuppose that art and literature have some sort of definable influence upon people and society.

Which by the end of the 20th century is no longer a given.  Kurt Vonnegut once noted that the totality of American writers during the '60s focused like laser beam on stopping the Vietnam War, and didn't make one iota of difference.  Art may perhaps make a good coping mechanism, goes this argument, to make one feel less alone in this sordid world of ours, but its actual influence is vastly overrated.

In fact, by the 21st century, many artists and critics have begun to glory in art's pointlessness--since it all has no real influence, questions of censoring and banishment are silly, because they are ultimately irrelevant.  We are hereby free to enjoy all the banned-books and "deviant" art we want--not to protect freedom of expression mind you, but simply because it's all so harmless.  We are likewise now liberated to enjoy all the trash we want--reality shows and the like--because what does any of it matter, anyways?  Real Housewives are no more likely to corrupt public morals than Hamlet was gonna save 'em.  So goes the argument.

But I've lately come full 360 on this argument (and yes, I'm using that term correctly) to consider that art really does matter after all, that maybe Plato was right all this time, that perhaps art--or, at least bad art poorly handled--can in fact have a genuine, traceable, tangible impact upon the political state.  Part of this comes from a paper I've worked on, about William Butler Yeats's very real influence upon the 1916 Revolutionaries in Ireland.

But, much more negatively, my other recent example is, well, Donald Trump.  Call it correlation if you must, but it's no accident that a Reality TV star became a Presidential candidate custom made for Reality TV audiences.

I remember when Reality TV first saturated the airwaves, 10-15 years ago.  There were all the standard, unoriginal jokes about how it was making us all actively dumber, a sign of the decadence of Western civilization...to which the viewers would simply respond, "Oh, lighten up!  It's just entertainment!  No one takes this seriously."

But oh my, how we have!  A Reality TV star, one who has honed his skills at playing to his audience's basest desires, continues to manipulate his supporters towards the nomination.  Is this for real??  Is there really such a thing as bad art after all, and can bad art have a verifiably bad influence on society?  Was Plato right all along?!  Of all the things for him to be right about!

On one hand this is terrifying--but on the other hand, it's weirdly encouraging.  Because if there is such a thing as bad art, that has a bad effect on society, this by corollary means there can also be good art too, that can have a good effect on society, as well!  Art matters again in this model! Or at least, maybe it can be used for good instead of evil.