Going it alone
I recently finished reading Pale Horse Coming, by Steven Hunter. (For those interested, the overall story starts out very strongly, but has a weak finish.)
There were a couple of interesting points made by the lead character, Earl Swagger. Early in the book he rescues his friend, but realizes that he personally will not be able evade capture. He tells his friend to promise he won't send help, no matter how tempted he might become. This caught my attention, since the reason for this request is that Earl feels that he must be forced to rely on his own wits to escape. Even the merest possbility of someone else coming in to solve his problems will weaken him, allowing him to give up being proactive (relying instead on the hope of the problems simply going away). There are several sections in the book where Earl remembers that no one is coming to help him, and so he reaches down deeper to stay alive.
Does this approach actually make one stronger?
People are conditioned to expect help from outside, ranging from government payouts to a moral strength derived from believing that God is watching over them. In many cases, this knowledge translates to the comfort of a safety net, allowing them to take risks which would otherwise be unthinkable.
Conversely, this approach weakens others. Knowing that the government won't let them go hungry allows segments of society to absolve themselves of worrying about the future. Why save for retirement when you can use the money to party now?!? Rather than controlling their destiny, they are actually subject to the whims of those who are expected to help them out.
At a higher level, the same observations can be made of countries. I don't think the US seriously expects other countries to come to our aid when a natural disaster strikes. Yet, other countries are quick to comment on the lack (or insufficient amount) of support from US. I think this makes the US stronger, and weakens others, for they do not actually control their fates.
In the end, I think being forced to rely on oneself strengthens the strong. For those not so strong, it limits what they can do, since they are unable to focus on what must be done.
There were a couple of interesting points made by the lead character, Earl Swagger. Early in the book he rescues his friend, but realizes that he personally will not be able evade capture. He tells his friend to promise he won't send help, no matter how tempted he might become. This caught my attention, since the reason for this request is that Earl feels that he must be forced to rely on his own wits to escape. Even the merest possbility of someone else coming in to solve his problems will weaken him, allowing him to give up being proactive (relying instead on the hope of the problems simply going away). There are several sections in the book where Earl remembers that no one is coming to help him, and so he reaches down deeper to stay alive.
Does this approach actually make one stronger?
People are conditioned to expect help from outside, ranging from government payouts to a moral strength derived from believing that God is watching over them. In many cases, this knowledge translates to the comfort of a safety net, allowing them to take risks which would otherwise be unthinkable.
Conversely, this approach weakens others. Knowing that the government won't let them go hungry allows segments of society to absolve themselves of worrying about the future. Why save for retirement when you can use the money to party now?!? Rather than controlling their destiny, they are actually subject to the whims of those who are expected to help them out.
At a higher level, the same observations can be made of countries. I don't think the US seriously expects other countries to come to our aid when a natural disaster strikes. Yet, other countries are quick to comment on the lack (or insufficient amount) of support from US. I think this makes the US stronger, and weakens others, for they do not actually control their fates.
In the end, I think being forced to rely on oneself strengthens the strong. For those not so strong, it limits what they can do, since they are unable to focus on what must be done.
posted by Aras at 3:52 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home