Cynics and Cynics
I was asked recently which I liked better – fiction or non-fiction. When I was young, I liked non-fiction as it had more information in it that was relevant to the real world. Today, though, fiction wins out as I have become cynical of non-fiction. I constantly question the author’s motives. What is he trying to get me to believe and why? I question the author’s perspective. Is he exaggerating to make it a good story? And I question the sources. How does he know that?
It’s not just non-fiction, though. As a cynic, I distrust the motives of so many in society and find myself deconstructing everything from news stories to advertisements. While fun for me, it is also crippling as I no longer accept any information at its face value. The analysis creates conflict where there is a seeming calm. It’s not just an innocuous Heineken ad with people passing off beers, but a calculated ad campaign where every demographic they wish to market to is represented- white male urbanites, blacks, bourgeois females, blue collars workers, cultural minorities, Hispanics…(you have to see the commercial). And nobody likes a cynic, but, alas, I don’t think there is any going back to blind acceptance.
Most recently, I saw Into the Wild, the story of Chris McCandless who goes out into the Alaskan wilderness, camps in an abandoned bus, gets trapped behind the rising level of a river and starves to death. At first I liked the movie, but later little pieces of the movie started eating away at me. Abandoned bus? He must have been fairly close to civilization. Wide river? I’ve been camping before. How many miles until the river thins out and calms down a little? One mile, two? At most it’s an hour detour. Also, how did those hunters find his dead body if there was a river blocking him? What’s really going on?
Sure enough, I found his bus coordinates online, checked Google Maps and found out that his camp was only 2 miles from the main hiking trail. Also, he was only about 25 miles from civilization. A day’s hike. More than likely, for whatever reason, McCandless didn’t want to reenter society and allowed himself to die.
The author of the book and the creator of the movie, though, hid these facts, probably to make the guy look better or push some other theme. It once again proves that the cynic is right and non-fiction is not to be trusted.
Cynicism was not always associated with a critical distrust of human motivation. The first cynics believed in rejecting wealth and power in favor of a simple, self-reliant life in agreement with nature. Antisthenes wrote “I have enough to eat till my hunger is stayed, to drink till my thirst is sated; to clothe myself as well; and out of doors not [even] Callias there, with all his riches, is more safe than I from shivering; and when I find myself indoors, what warmer shirting do I need than my bare walls?”
Somehow, over the years, questioning society’s accumulation of wealth became a questioning of society in general. The cynic became something negative. The cynic must be angry at society. Why else would the cynic isolate himself from the whole? He is bitter, untrusting and lonely. McCandless is portrayed as a modern cynic who is blinded with rage at his parents. It is this rage that leads him to reject society. In reality, though, there is little evidence that McCandless’ parents drove him to this. He may have simply been an ancient cynic who, albeit foolishly, hoped for a simple self-reliant life in nature. Or, probably, he just a depressed guy.
But that’s not such a good story.
It’s not just non-fiction, though. As a cynic, I distrust the motives of so many in society and find myself deconstructing everything from news stories to advertisements. While fun for me, it is also crippling as I no longer accept any information at its face value. The analysis creates conflict where there is a seeming calm. It’s not just an innocuous Heineken ad with people passing off beers, but a calculated ad campaign where every demographic they wish to market to is represented- white male urbanites, blacks, bourgeois females, blue collars workers, cultural minorities, Hispanics…(you have to see the commercial). And nobody likes a cynic, but, alas, I don’t think there is any going back to blind acceptance.
Most recently, I saw Into the Wild, the story of Chris McCandless who goes out into the Alaskan wilderness, camps in an abandoned bus, gets trapped behind the rising level of a river and starves to death. At first I liked the movie, but later little pieces of the movie started eating away at me. Abandoned bus? He must have been fairly close to civilization. Wide river? I’ve been camping before. How many miles until the river thins out and calms down a little? One mile, two? At most it’s an hour detour. Also, how did those hunters find his dead body if there was a river blocking him? What’s really going on?
Sure enough, I found his bus coordinates online, checked Google Maps and found out that his camp was only 2 miles from the main hiking trail. Also, he was only about 25 miles from civilization. A day’s hike. More than likely, for whatever reason, McCandless didn’t want to reenter society and allowed himself to die.
The author of the book and the creator of the movie, though, hid these facts, probably to make the guy look better or push some other theme. It once again proves that the cynic is right and non-fiction is not to be trusted.
Cynicism was not always associated with a critical distrust of human motivation. The first cynics believed in rejecting wealth and power in favor of a simple, self-reliant life in agreement with nature. Antisthenes wrote “I have enough to eat till my hunger is stayed, to drink till my thirst is sated; to clothe myself as well; and out of doors not [even] Callias there, with all his riches, is more safe than I from shivering; and when I find myself indoors, what warmer shirting do I need than my bare walls?”
Somehow, over the years, questioning society’s accumulation of wealth became a questioning of society in general. The cynic became something negative. The cynic must be angry at society. Why else would the cynic isolate himself from the whole? He is bitter, untrusting and lonely. McCandless is portrayed as a modern cynic who is blinded with rage at his parents. It is this rage that leads him to reject society. In reality, though, there is little evidence that McCandless’ parents drove him to this. He may have simply been an ancient cynic who, albeit foolishly, hoped for a simple self-reliant life in nature. Or, probably, he just a depressed guy.
But that’s not such a good story.
posted by American Dilettante at
5:04 PM
1 Comments:
Very interesting post. The Into the Wild example is very intriguing, and why McCandless was unable to find a way back to civilization is quite a mystery.
I don't think it would have been the author or director's intents to hide facts in order to make McCandless look better, as I thnk they only had a little bit of evidence as to what he was thinking - his journal. In his journal it seems that he had discovered the importance of being with others and wanted to rejoin society but was unable to figure out how to return.
To me, this seems plausible since he had been alone for a long time and was in terrible physical shape, which could have led him to make bad decisions and not think through the ways that he could find a route back to civilization.
Or it also seems possible that he did want to stay there removed from society but also wanted to be remembered fondly, and so wrote those things with that purpose.
Given that there's no way of knowing all his thoughts, it seems people will never know, but I'd say you got to go with what he wrote as the best evidence available, and try to avoid judgement positive or negative as much as possible.
And the big problem I have with cynicism in general is I think there's a good deal of self-righteousness to it, in that the cynic always feels that they're going to be proven right, and then when they are right they feel justified in their cynical beliefs. But they've started from a biased point of view where they're naturally going to be looking for confirmation of their beliefs, all the while missing other purely positive acts all around them.
For cynicism to work, I think cynics would have to be thoroughly cynical of their own beliefs as well. And to do this would just be too much of a drag.
Best to try to take things at face value as much as possible and base opinions just on the evidence one has.
Thanks for the great post AD, it's very thought provoking!
By
shoffy22, at 12:27 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home