Proceeding according to precedent

by Andrea Elizabeth

Chancery, which knows no wisdom but in precedent, is very rich in such precedents; and why should one [victim] be different from ten thousand?

Charles Dickens, Bleak House

Dickens is known as a social reformer, in this case, of the legal system. In order to lead reform, you have to vilify the status quo. Contrarily, Orthodoxy exalts its precedents and believes that what is not broken does not need fixing. I think my problem here is with the seeming vilification of the word “precedent”. Some are bad and some aren’t.

finish what you started first

by Andrea Elizabeth

The Idiot is calling me, but I feel I should finish Bleak House first. Only 360ish pages to go. Should only take a month or so, unless I get more disciplined or I become unable to put it down, which usually happens only in the last part of a good book these days. I almost quit and read The Hunger Games, since my daughter couldn’t put all three books down for the three days it took her to read them, but I can’t get past the horrifying plot. I can probably stand it for the two hours the new movie should take.

The names, the names!

by Andrea Elizabeth

That old Mr. Turveydrop should ever, in the chances and changes of life, have come to the rescue of Mr. Jellyby from Borioboola-Gha, appeared to me to be one of the pleasantest of oddities.

- Charles Dickens, Bleak House, Penguin Classics, p. 613

Guaranteed happiness

by Andrea Elizabeth

In Bleak House by Charles Dickens, Esther is a young woman who was unloved in her younger life. It is natural that she would crave love as a result. Her character is such that she doesn’t solicit it, however. She focuses more on loving others. When love is expressed, though, this is her reaction, “Well! It was only their love for me, I know very well, and it is a long time ago. I must write it even if I rub it out again, because it gives me so much pleasure. They said there could be no east wind [John Jarndyce's term for bad feelings] where Somebody was; they said that wherever Dame Durden [their pet name for Esther] went, there was sunshine and summer air.”

What does love mean? That you will always be enough for someone and they will never need anything else? That you will save each other? The way the story plays out indicates that this is not the case. Only the characters who have consistently exhibited strength of character have happy endings. It is not their strength alone that saves them, but it seems a belief in cosmic karma guarantees that they will get the help they need eventually. I have read that Dickens was a universalist. I don’t know how that plays into his pattern of bad characters getting knocked off.

This is somewhat related in my mind to Whitney Houston’s funeral. I was impressed with T.D. Jakes’ sermon about universal resurrection. It is true that all the dead will be raised. But no one talked about Judgment Day. The last sermon, at the end of the 3 hours, given by an Atlanta pastor who was Whitney’s last, I believe, only addressed the prosperity doctrine. I cannot understand what it has to do with her death or the afterlife. I could stretch it into some universalist belief, I suppose, that God only wants everyone eternally happy and well-fed. This is true, but it takes something on our part. How much and when are the universal questions. The Sinner’s Prayer? Another chance after death of intellectual acceptance of Jesus as personal savior with a guaranteed result? Or only upon repentance and constant vigilance in this life, with some trials still to go though after death?

I was so hopeful for T.D. Jakes being on to something that I looked him up yesterday. Oh yes, he’s in nearby Dallas. Oh, he’s into the prosperity doctrine too. Nevermind.

the emptiness within

by Andrea Elizabeth

Mr. Tulkinghorn, private confidence man, peacefully steeped in the secrets that ruin.

He does not lament empty chairs at tables or empty houses. He profits from them.

But what if the houses were always beyond the occupant’s means?

What if too many out-of-reach houses were built?

Once something is built, we are loathe to tear it down. It means we are fallible. It bespeaks that there isn’t enough love. We do not want to step backwards. You can never go back. At least not to something smaller. If a plot of land hosts a grand house and no one buys it, it seems depressing to waste the materials and make a smaller one. We believe there will be a person with enough means to eventually occupy it. To redeem the mistakes of another. This isn’t what Dickens was talking about. He lamented debtor’s prisons. Now we have credit and bankruptcy to bail us out. They give an appearance of freedom, but the shackles are still there. Creditors have gotten nicer, collection agencies are less threatening. But no matter what, debt causes stress. One can deny it, but it still damages relationships. Relationships built on lies and denial may not be worthless, but I have trouble with them.

Read Dickens to hear complaints about the ones who lord it over others and profit from their weakness. At the same time, at least he doesn’t make debtors out to be saints. There’s a problem with them too.

by Andrea Elizabeth

Going back to Bleak House’s irresponsible characters, there’s also Mr. Skimpole, the perpetual child. Mr. Jarndyce seems to buy into the child schtick and humors and spoils him. Until Richard and Esther are asked for money, then he feels bad for their being begged. But if a person spoils another person, they are setting up everyone else that person comes into contact with to be expected to provide the same thing. People think they are so nice in spoiling people, but really they are being mean to set a precedent for others to be leached from.

Anyway, Mr. Jarndyce’s response to Mr. Skimpole is amusement. Esther’s response feels like anger and resentment over observing Mr. Skimpole breezing through life without lifting a finger for anyone else, including his family. Esther ends up becoming upset. Justifyably so when she sees Richard get sucked dry by him. I haven’t gotten to that part yet in the book. But before that happens, she is only upset on Mr. Skimpole’s family’s behalf whom she hasn’t met yet, so her criticism of him is silent. She does not ever confront him directly, just in her thoughts. This growing bitterness has no where to go. Silently observing perceived crimes can eat away at one. This is letting the person have a certain control over you. She has a good relationship with Richard so she feels she can share her concerns. Why the silence with Mr. Skimpole? Because he enjoys Mr. Jarndyce’s patronage? I suppose. Her silence is out of a feeling of obligation to Mr. Jarndyce. To criticize Mr. Skimpole is to criticize her guardian’s judgment. Perhaps this is why she ends up not returning Mr. Jarndyce’s deeper affections.

by Andrea Elizabeth

About 1/4 of the way into Bleak House, it seems to me that Charles Dickens is describing Ada as a codependent personality to Richard’s irresponsibility. She is determined to believe in him no matter what and to squelch any misgivings she may have about anything that bothers her. Mr. Jarndyce is continuously hopeful for the best, but is also forthright with Richard about his need to not disappoint those his irresponsibility affects. Esther seems the most worried and open about her concerns while maintaining a close, warm relationship with him and Ada. Since I’ve seen the Gillian Anderson made for TV version, I know that none of these treatments save Richard from himself. Esther probably is least affected by it because she is neither dependent upon Richard, as Ada is, nor responsible for him, as is Mr. Jarndyce. I think I mentioned in another post that Dickens blamed Richard’s shallow education. Mr. Jarndyce comes to blame himself for being too hard on Richard.

I wonder what would have happened though if Ada had exhibited a bit tougher love. I think there is a way to be too hard. Dickens criticizes the stern punishments that didn’t really deter debt. People seemed to have a fatalistic, self-destructive attitude towards it instead of being motivated to change their ways. Dickens probably favors Esther’s non-dependent, yet open and loving manner towards him. Perhaps Ada should have distanced herself until he made healthier choices too.

Enmeshment In Co-dependency

Enmeshment has come to be a popularly used term when speaking about co-dependence. Co-dependence is defined as, being psychologically influenced or controlled by, reliant upon, or needing another person to fulfill one’s own needs or to complete oneself. Originally being co-dependent originated from the recovery movement in Alcoholic Anon. Co-dependents, in that sense were defined as those who were dependent upon or in relationship to or with someone addicted to alcohol or drugs.

Now, generally, people are defined as being co-dependent if they are in a situation where they are psychologically mutally reliant on someone else to meet needs for them that they “should” be able to meet for themselves.

“A co-dependent person is one who has let another person’s behaviour affect him or her, ans who is obsessed with controlling that person’s behaviour” (Melody Beattie, in her book, “Codependent No More”.

What is enmeshment?

“We’re enmeshed when we use an individual for our identity, sense of value, worth, well-being, safety, purpose, and security. Instead of two people present, we become one identity. More simply, enmeshment is present when our sense of wholeness comes from another person.

We hear enmeshment phrases everyday such as, “I’d die without you,” “You’re my everything,” “Without you, I’m nothing,” “I need you,” or “You make me whole.” Many of us find our identity and self-worth by becoming the mate, parent, or friend of a successful and/or prestigious individual, or we find the need to fix and caretake individuals to give us a sense of purpose.

Enmeshment doesn’t allow for individuality, wholeness, personal empowerment, healthy relationships with ourselves or others, and, most importantly, a relationship with our Higher Power.”

 

The fact that I’m discouraged that even Esther’s treatment didn’t fix Richard, and wanting Ada to be tougher, perhaps that I am “obsessed with controlling that person’s behavior”. Hmmm….. But…. Even Charles Dickens has spent a lot of energy analyzing, diagnosing, and possibly alleging guilt in order to affect change. Is that so bad? I’ll admit a certain disillusionment about Mr. Dickens when I read that he ended up leaving his wife and multiple children for another woman in his mid life. So what did all that relationship analysis accomplish for him? Is it ok to leave people to themselves (not isolating, but learning to not try to control them) and just pray as Elder Zacharia says? Can we not possibly presume to know what’s good for others? At least our own kids? To some extent?

Pious women

by Andrea Elizabeth

Dickens and Tolstoy differ in their portrayal of women who forsake the world for a life of prayer. In War and Peace Natasha is very blessed to stay with her pious aunt who attends daily services. Dickens describes Esther’s aunt in Bleak House as pretty bitter and angry, and Arthur’s mother who constantly reads prayers holed up in her room in Little Dorrit as downright cruel.<

These negative characters are seen as greatly relishing the passages about God’s judgement and wrath. It fuels their indignation towards those who have personally wronged them. If there are such negative examples in real life, I believe it is because such people, in addition to not loving their enemies, misdirect those passages externally instead of internally. We are to take no pity on our own sins and to dash any part of ourselves that is unfaithful to God against the stones.

by Andrea Elizabeth

I look forward, my dear, to our meeting easily, and without constraint on either side. I therefore have to propose that we meet as old friends, and take the past for granted. It will be a relief to you possibly, and to me certainly, and so my love to you.

John Jarndyce (Bleak House, Penguin Classics, p. 80)

Lady Dedlock

by Andrea Elizabeth

Yes, every dim little star revolving about her, from her maid to the manager of the Italian Opera, knows her weaknesses, prejudices, follies, haughtinesses, and caprices, and lives upon as accurate a calculation and as nice a measure of her moral nature, as her dress-maker takes of her physical proportions. (Bleak House, Penguin Classics, page 24)

I’ve begun again with my hardcopy, finding it more engaging than the audible version. There is something to say about the oral tradition of story telling, but Dickens wrote in the age of cheap printing for private audiences, public readings aside. This is not to say that another voice couldn’t have been just as engaging as silent reading.

It’s been a while since I read Anna Karenina, one of the very few books I’ve read twice (Wuthering Heights and Jane Eyre being the only others I can remember right now), but I think comparing her to Lady Dedlock would be interesting. Emotional neediness and boredom, respectively, can be symptoms of the same thing. Boredom is resigned unfulfillment. A giving up, as it were. But if something stimulating happens, the boredom is quickly forgotten and new expectations spring up unbidden for hoped-for things so long deferred, as if they were always in the front of one’s mind and heart. But what is this neediness? It is for something we were created for but are unfit for. So horribly unfit for. The cure for unfitness? Exercise! Pray, work, study, repeat.