A reader recently recounted a debate he and a roommate had while reading Chronicle of Angels and Men.
As the story went, he had just taken a break from reading, setting the book down on the coffee table. Some time later his roommate picked up the novel and flipped through it. He began reading when he came across a certain phrase which gave him pause. He turned to his roommate and asked what the phrase meant, but upon hearing his roommate's attempted explanation, he immediately rejected it. The two-word phrase (which I'll reveal momentarily) then sparked an hour-long debate between the two as to just what the phrase meant and frankly, if it made any sense at all. And after going back and forth multiple times and even awaying to the internets for research, the two finally resolved the argument by agreeing to disagree.
So just what was it that triggered this hour-long back and forth rough and tumble? Well, it was two words: proofless existence.
When the reader revealed to me the words which had brought him and his roommate to such debate, my eyes lit up. I knew exactly the excerpt he was talking about (But I suppose I should have -- It is my book, after all. And I have read it now going on no-doubt 30+ times from the editing period.) But to give you the full context of phrase, here's the excerpt where it appears:
"And so naturally I knew of no better way to enrage him than to reject his teachings, vigorously and beginning with the concept of God. In truth, my rejection of his belief system was not just my repayment for his lack of parenting. Though it may have begun that way, very soon I had actually come to believe his credence to be little more than baseless theorem and superstitious conjecture. To me, God did not exist. Moreover, the more we butted heads over my refusal to accept his proofless existence, the more I lost respect not only for him but for anyone pledged to his same methods of thought."
 |
| You know -- this thing. |
As the story went, he had just taken a break from reading, setting the book down on the coffee table. Some time later his roommate picked up the novel and flipped through it. He began reading when he came across a certain phrase which gave him pause. He turned to his roommate and asked what the phrase meant, but upon hearing his roommate's attempted explanation, he immediately rejected it. The two-word phrase (which I'll reveal momentarily) then sparked an hour-long debate between the two as to just what the phrase meant and frankly, if it made any sense at all. And after going back and forth multiple times and even awaying to the internets for research, the two finally resolved the argument by agreeing to disagree.
So just what was it that triggered this hour-long back and forth rough and tumble? Well, it was two words: proofless existence.
When the reader revealed to me the words which had brought him and his roommate to such debate, my eyes lit up. I knew exactly the excerpt he was talking about (But I suppose I should have -- It is my book, after all. And I have read it now going on no-doubt 30+ times from the editing period.) But to give you the full context of phrase, here's the excerpt where it appears:
"And so naturally I knew of no better way to enrage him than to reject his teachings, vigorously and beginning with the concept of God. In truth, my rejection of his belief system was not just my repayment for his lack of parenting. Though it may have begun that way, very soon I had actually come to believe his credence to be little more than baseless theorem and superstitious conjecture. To me, God did not exist. Moreover, the more we butted heads over my refusal to accept his proofless existence, the more I lost respect not only for him but for anyone pledged to his same methods of thought."
Chapter One - Godless, Chronicle of Angels and Men (COAAM)
To me the phrase made perfect sense, as it did to the reader recounting the tale. (I might be just ever so biased...) Perhaps it makes perfect sense to you too. But then, if there's anything creating work for public consumption has taught me, it's that there are certain aspects of writing I take for granted. That seemed to be the case with the above passage anyways. And to be honest, I never really stopped to specifically deconstruct the meaning of just what "proofless existence" might mean to someone else.
To supply the counterpoint the reader's roommate was advocating, proofless existence as a phrase was an oxymoron. You know, one of those figures of speech which seem contradictory in nature, like cruel kindness or military intelligence...
For something to exist, there had to be proof of its existence. And if there was proof of something -- not just evidence, but actual proof -- then it had to exist, right? It didn't mean anything, he said.
Hmm. I hadn't thought about it that way. I mean, the phrase certainly meant something to me, but then anything we do is colored either consciously or subconsciously by our own experiences, our own perspectives, and our own biases, particularly when it comes to writing. In writing COAAM I in part sought to explore the meaning of what is God and how our definitions of religion and spirituality vary by culture, ethics, morality, etc. But in this phrase alone perhaps was built in an assumed baseline definition of God -- that any who would believe in a supernatural being such as God would not need proof, that is, that faith alone would be a sufficient substitute for proof.
Well, that was my thought behind it, but maybe the phrase does mean different things to different people. Or maybe just nothing at all! But I like to think there's room for debate. ~Tet
To supply the counterpoint the reader's roommate was advocating, proofless existence as a phrase was an oxymoron. You know, one of those figures of speech which seem contradictory in nature, like cruel kindness or military intelligence...
 |
| ...Or this guy. |
Hmm. I hadn't thought about it that way. I mean, the phrase certainly meant something to me, but then anything we do is colored either consciously or subconsciously by our own experiences, our own perspectives, and our own biases, particularly when it comes to writing. In writing COAAM I in part sought to explore the meaning of what is God and how our definitions of religion and spirituality vary by culture, ethics, morality, etc. But in this phrase alone perhaps was built in an assumed baseline definition of God -- that any who would believe in a supernatural being such as God would not need proof, that is, that faith alone would be a sufficient substitute for proof.
Well, that was my thought behind it, but maybe the phrase does mean different things to different people. Or maybe just nothing at all! But I like to think there's room for debate. ~Tet
