Thursday, March 1, 2007

Douglas Coupland & Cynicism

A classfellow asked me in Office Hours why I am claiming in the lectures on Hey Nostradamus! that Coupland is strongly critical of cynicism. My answer was to quote from novel, for example Reg's remark: "Is that cynical? I hope not...." This did not seem to entirely convince, so I offer this 2000 interview with Douglas Coupland here on the blog, in the event that others share the questioning.
"I am the most uncynical person on Earth," he says, earnestly. "I'm ironic. I admit that. I'm Joe Irony. But people confuse irony with cynicism, which is like battery acid. It just wrecks everything."
The acid effect of cynicism was my configuration in lecture, as you recall. As stated Wednesday, I will lecture on Coupland and irony this coming week.

The article also gives a good presentation of Coupland's views on God.

14 comments:

Sam said...

This comment isn't directly addressing cynicism in Hey Nostradamus, but this is the first Hey Nostradamus post down the list, and I have to get this off my chest: the four levels analysis, in my humble opinion, is utter hogwash. Jason as Jesus, absolutely. Where I get stuck is the Roman Catholicism. Reg is obviously some virulent breed of Protestantism, and I certainly haven't been able to find any references to Catholic doctrine in the novel, nor have you mentioned any in lecture. Your "deep readings" read like a conspiracy theory. Consider the "hell is Jason" aspect. You claimed that the letter's from Cheryl's family were all horrible. Her mother's was ostensibly awful because she didn't ask forgiveness,just understanding. Sure, you could read that as her being too proud to ask forgiveness, but the more realistic reading is that she doesn't feel she deserves forgiveness. The father's was admittedly awful, but although the brother's may have been cynical, cynicism is antithetical to Coupland, not necessarily to his characters. Furthermore, the brother was right, and just because he isn't certain about his parent's letters doesn't mean that he's being cynical. You could just as easily read it as another example of the deleterious effects of parental fanaticism.

I could go on, but I want to hear what you all have to say about these few points.

Dr. Stephen Ogden said...

Dear Sam: thanks for the stimulatingly direct comment. I'll pull it up into its own main post later today to give it a higher visibility.
For now though I will just ask: what Roman Catholicism?!

Sam said...

The four stages are a Roman Catholic invention - they have no biblical precedent. So how can they be so central to a novel that doesn't mention Roman Catholicism, directly or otherwise?

Dr. Stephen Ogden said...

Dear Stan:

Aha! The source of the problem becomes clear! I'll address myself to this specifically in the main post, but for now let me just say that the assertion that the "four stages" are Roman Catholic is (a.) false and (b.) not relevant to their imaginative use by Douglas Coupland. Many non-Catholic -- indeed, outright anti-Christian -- artists use Roman Catholic ontology & symbology!

Dr. Stephen Ogden said...

ps: and the statement "they have no biblical precedent" is a perfect petitio principii

Sam said...

"Many non-Catholic -- indeed, outright anti-Christian -- artists use Roman Catholic ontology & symbology!"
Heaven-hell, I'll buy. Even heaven-purgatory-hell. But not this ridiculous fourpart theological construct. Maybe in a critique of Catholicism, but in a work with no mention of Catholics - you still haven't rebutted that point - it seems an enormous stretch.
And your conspiracy-esque explanations? I'm not convinced.

Dr. Stephen Ogden said...

Dear Sam: Hmm...
It seems like you are swallowing a camel but straining at a gnat: accepting a three-fold ontology but not a forth ;--)
My immediate 'rebuttal,' remember, is that, as a point of historical fact, the construct is not Roman Catholic (not, that is, in the sense that you mean it, i.e. non-Protestant.) Your task now is to research and provide evidence to support your strong feelings.
The question of whether the interpretation presented in lecture is a 'stretch' requires a rebuttal of the strong and multi-layered textual evidence given in support of it. (Not that it can't be done: indeed in my experience there is no position -- literary, philosophical or scientific -- that can not be vigourously rebutted. That's what we at University are here for ;--)
Regarding 'conspiracy theory,' I'm afraid I don't know what you are meaning.

Andrew said...

I also do not see much evidence for the four layers of the afterlife we have been discussing encoded in this book. If Coupland wanted us to make that kind of connection, why present Reg and Cheryl's faith as some kind of Protestantism, most of which reject this more commonly Catholic view? If Coupland wanted us to make that connection, why not make Reg a Catholic?

As for Jason as "hell," this is also difficult for me to see. Cheryl describes him as "innocent" and says that his brother is like him but without the "glow." Jason is selfless, caring, and virtuous, although resentful of his father and scheptical. Furthermore, Reg's reference to the Prodigal Son at the end of the book does not tell the story of a son who is beyond redemption (hell), but absent. Reg's letter, I think, is meant to shift our perspective of belief towards God (the father in the story). What does God choose to believe about Jasons, his estranged children, presumed dead in the woods?

Dr. Stephen Ogden said...

Dear Andrew: I'll respond to these comments shortly in a main post, as I mentioned, but just for now, reading your comment, you seem to have missed what was presented in lecture on Monday about why Jason is in Hell.... (i.e. there is perfect harmony between your configuration of Jason and the fact that Jason is represented as being in Hell....

Andrew said...

*sheepishly* um yes... monday's lectore. sorry to have missed it.

Dr. Stephen Ogden said...

Dear Andrew: an honest man -- my respects, sir! So, could you take an educated attempt at reconciling the Jason you see with his presence in Hell?

Andrew said...

umm... Jason is unable to receive his father's love. His hate/bitterness towards his father seems to have warped his vision, at least about his father. He is becoming the thing he despises most--his dad. All of these are not much fun, but I don't see Jason in a place of unredeemable judgement. I still see Jason as a prodigal son.

Dr. Stephen Ogden said...

Oh dear. How about the eighth line of the Creed? Or the harrowing of Hell? (My 17th Century specialisation comes in handy ;--)

Dr. Stephen Ogden said...

An "Anonymous" contributer sent the following comment, which I accidently rejected instead of publishing under the Moderator function. Fortunately, I was able to back the browser into the following text:

I agree with Sam and Andrew. The four levels analysis is hogwash. The story is full holes. If Jason is going to hell do you think it's because he accepts Barb's murder w/o any reaction to it being a random act of violence? As for Reg's redemption, it's akin to the gunman's repentence after moving down dozens in the cafeteria. Words are easy...how about actions?