Mister God, This is Anna (1974) by Flynn

🧍🏻‍♀️ Flynn is a pseudonym for Sidney Hopkins, the author of Mister God, This is Anna. It is a spiritual and philosophy novel centered on the character of five-year-old Anna, who has a very intimate relationship with God - or Mister God, as she always calls Him. The story is told from the POV of Flynn, a young man of about nineteen to twenty who lives in London in the end of 1930s. Anna's background was unknown throughout the story. She was found by Flynn one foggy night, as he was wandering near London's Dockland, sat still and alone; apparently having been neglected - and most certainly been badly abused - by her parents or family. Anna never told Flynn about her past, and he never insisted.

🧍🏻‍♀️ Anna instantly clang to Flynn from their first meeting, so Flynn brought her home. His mother used to brought runaway children to their house, so she instantly took care of Anna without question. From then on Anna and Flynn were inseparable. Anna is "as busy as a bee, as inquisitive as a kitten, and as playful as a puppy." and has an uncanny way to analyze new things in out-of-the ordinary view. And, as she has a firm love to God, she somehow always manages to apply either mathematic or scientific formulas into the characteristics of God, or into the way human being perceive God and religion. Flynn's love of mathematic and science help nurturing Anna's obsession of investigation and experiments.

🧍🏻‍♀️ And so, the whole book consists of these observations on philosophy or religion or spirituality, from Anna's point of view.

"...Mister God is different. You see, Flynn, people can only love outside and can only kiss outside, but Mister God can love you right inside, and Mister God can kiss you inside, so it's different. Mister God ain't like us; we are a little bit like Mister God, but not much yet."

"...You see, everybody has got a point of view, but Mister God hasn't. Mister God has only points to view."

🧍🏻‍♀️ During the three years of her stay with Flynn, Anna is able to learn more about God and God's way better, perhaps, than an adult who's been to church every week since childhood. 

"Anna searched for Mister God and her desire was for a better understanding of him. Anna's search for Mister God was serious but gay, earnest but light-hearted, reverent but impudent, and single-minded and multi-tracked."

🧍🏻‍♀️ I loved how the story ends. World War II was looming, and Anna was beginning to distressed over the impeding war. Although her stay with Flynn was short, she had managed to wrought a beautiful friendship with him. Not only that, she had changed many lives too, touched many souls with her beautiful soul and firm devotion to God. Even her Mister God would have been touched deeply by her simple love. In short, this is a beautiful book about finding God through everything you could come across - a pure reminder for our battered souls. Though it feels rather redundant sometimes, just continue on, you'll get gems every now and then.

Rating: ⭐⭐⭐1/2

East of Eden by John Steinbeck

While reading East of Eden last month, my caption on an Instagram post was: "Sometimes a novel can explain the Bible better than a priest." And that was true. Seldom before this, have I ever been questioning why Cain was evil, while Abel was all good, in the Book of Genesis.

If you have not been familiar with the story, East of Eden is following the lives of two families in Salinas Valley: the Trasks and the Hamiltons; though along the way I felt that the Trasks were the center of this book, while the Hamiltons only its satellite. It was within the Trask dynasty that Steinbeck imitated the Book of Genesis, by naming its member (and drawing their destinies) following the symbol of good versus evil: Cain and Abel (C & A). The first generation siblings were Charles and Adam. Like Cain, Charles envied his brother Adam because, loving his father so much as he was, the father preferred Adam's birthday gift than his. Ironically, Adam did not love his father, even almost hated him for forcing him to be a soldier; while Charles loved his father silently, and longed for his affection, but never got it. At one point Charles tried to kill Adam, but failed. And from then on he grew sour in life.

Fast forward. Adam had two sons—twins—who he christened as Caleb and Aron (again, C & A). I don't have to mention which was the symbol of evil and which the good! The envious relationship between brothers was repeated here. Aron was a lovely child, and since birth has effortlessly won everyone's affection, including his father, which made him a spoiled child. While Caleb was a brooding and sinister child. But luckily, this new generation has had a loyal servant in their houshold; an intelligent Chinese man called Lee. It was Lee who first brought up the famous "Timshel" issue onto the surface.

Timshel is a Hebrew word for "thou mayest" in Genesis 4:12: "When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth." (KJV) There were many discussions among Lee and several scholars concerning this particular verse. Different English translations had their own interpretations of this word. But the scholars offered different point of view. The more perfect translation should have been "thou mayest", which could be interpreted as choice, instead of order ("do thou" in other versons) or promise ("thou shalt" in King James Version). This threw a different perspective concerning the original sin we inherited from Adam and Eve. It meant that being good or evil was not rooted from our ancestors, but was all in our OWN choice. We may be good if we choose to.

Back to the story, like Cain, Charles and Caleb were both tainted with the same evil mark. Unfortunately, Charles didn't have a "Lee", who in Caleb's case has totally changed him and, I believe, many lives around him, by giving Caleb a second chance to be better.

Speaking about inherited sin, I have not mentioned the "Eve" aspect. Like in the Book of Genesis, here we have Cathy—Adam’s wife and Caleb and Aron's mother—a woman who seems—if it is possible—to be born with neither heart nor conscience. At first I thought Steinbeck might have used her only as a symbol of evil; for how could a human being be such heartless? But after following her until the end—and reflecting on the “timshel”, I think Cathy was as normal as you and me. She could have chosen the good path, but she took the evil. One thing still puzzled me though. I wonder, do you think the balance between good and evil in us is the same for each person? And is it only love (and the absence of love) that makes the difference? I see the proof in Cathy, Charles, and Caleb (the “C” club), and perhaps Aron too. Adam, however, is an interesting case for me. He did not feel his father’s love; he actually loathed Trask senior. Then how could he grow up an honest, forgiving, incorruptible man? Well…. I guess this is the part where we should say: “It’s God’s mystery…” So, I will end this post by granting 5 of 5 stars for this magnificent book—the magnum opus of Mr. Steinbeck! There were actually more layers of the story to dig out, but this post is already too long, and I think I’d prefer to save them for my future reread, anyway. :)

The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoyevsky

If God does not exist, then everything is permitted—this seemed to be the central point of argument Fyodor Dostoyevsky brought up in The Brothers Karamazov. Originally intended to be a trilogy, he wrote this amazing book to follow the life of a notorious family, the Karamazovs; from the father: Fyodor Pavlovich, to the three (legitimate) sons: Dmitri, Ivan, Alyosha, and (most probably) illegitimate son: Smerdyakov. They are entangled into an intricate love-suspicion-jealousy-hatred relationship throughout the story, which lead to destruction both to (most of) themselves and to people around them.

So, how did Dostoyevsky put the above argument into this nicely-woven story? From the beginning the doubt and rejection of God and immortality scattered throughout the chapters. But the most serious one is in these two famous chapters: “Rebellion” and “The Grand Inquisitor”. In “Rebellion” Ivan poured out his disappointment of God for letting injustice and suffering happened to innocent people, apparently, for nothing. While “The Grand Inquisitor” is a poem Ivan wrote to question about free will God had imposed upon man. He believed that free will is impossible burden for mankind, because we will always have to answer to our consciences; that we will never be happy whichever path of life we choose, good or evil. If that was the case, then why wasting your energy by doing good? Is that true? Dostoyevsky let us readers judge the case by following the faith of the Karamazov brothers.

Of the three (plus one—the illegitimate) sons, Alyosha was the only one who chose “good” from the beginning. However, he too had doubt—albeit small—when his beloved Father Zosima’s corpse decomposed shortly after his death, while everyone was almost sure a miracle would happen to the saintly monk. But Alyosha soon got through his doubt. Dmitri, on the other hand, started as a scoundrel and sensualist; have plunge to the lowest, but finally managed to crawl up to the light. In the crucial moment, “something inside” ripped him from the fatal act—that is conscience.

But the most interesting case is Ivan. His “conversation” with the Devils shows how strenuous the battle of his conscience was; how bad his soul has been contaminated by evil power. Ivan was not atheist; he just did not accept God’s “interference” in human life; hence his belief of if God does not exist, then everything is permitted. That way, so he believed, man could do whatever he likes without weighing his conscience, and that would make him happy. This ideology eventually provoked a murder, and Ivan did suffer from his conscience. I’m glad though that in the end his good conscience won the battle at the end.

Moral value of this book is, that man must try first to understand God’s plan for humankind; and this must not be done with mind only, but much more with reflective soul. To logical mind, conscience did make one suffer; either when he tries to be good or, even more, when he does evil. And to be good is arduous, especially when one is born from a bad family like Karamazovs. What then? Dostoyevsky answered this by writing quite lengthy passages of Father Zosima’s speeches in the early chapters—which, I confess, seemed not to be related to the story when I read it, but made sense in the end. These passages contain some aspects that were missing from Ivan’s ideology: humility, and “all responsible for one another”—the later applied not only in evil, but also in love or good deeds. Young Zosima’s turning point moment was marked by his humility to his servant whom he has beaten the night before his planned duel. The same worked for Alyosha. Remember how Alyosha, when he was disappointed at Father Zosima’s humiliation, went to Grushenka’s, and what has made him turning toward “light” again then? Is it not after Grushenka pitied him; that Alyosha was astonished that she had pity on him—he who was nobody? Is it not a remark of humility too? Lastly, the remark of all responsible for one another appeared in Ilusha and the children story. Ilusha’s sorrow was caused by Dmitri is an example of how one evil deed to one person might cause suffer to a lot of people. The same also applies to love and good deeds.

So, Ivan’s ideology might partly be right; that free will could cause suffering. But on the other hand, it is also true that from freewill too love, charity, affection, and in the end happiness, was born.

5/5 stars for this great book; I would like to reread it someday!

Republic by Plato

I must take a mental note not to read any philosophical book during three of the last months of year! When reports and deadlines occupied most of my brain, I should have chosen some lighter books than Plato! Really… I almost put Republic down in the middle of 200s pages, but I know that if I didn’t finish now, I won’t probably pick it up again in the future. So, I kept on reading. And you know…it turned out to be rewarding in the end!

Republic is a conversation of some Ancient Greek men who were “on the threshold of old age”—one of them was Socrates. From common earthly matters, their conversation moved to a serious one: Does morality rewarding? Socrates thought so, but others disagreed. One of them said that “morality is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger party…” And that led to a discussion about governmental systems—the best and the worst types, as well as the same weighing at human’s characters. They even created from the scratch an ideal community in which happiness is in store for everyone—from the leaders (they call it “guardian”) to its citizen.

So, Republic is not a political book in the first place. First Socrates analyzed positive and negative points from several biggest governmental systems; then cross-referenced them with men’s character types. In the end, they all agreed that morality is, after all, rewarding. And actually, being the title of this book doesn’t mean that Republic is the best political system chosen by Plato. Here is the nomination according to Plato, and agreed by the rest (from best to worst):

- Aristocracy (complies with Plato’s ideal state)

- Timarchy or Timocracy

- Oligarchy

- Democracy

- Dictatorship

Like I said, I have chosen the wrong time to read Republic, so I didn’t have chance to make thorough analysis on the state models, and cannot decide which model is the most ideal.

The idea of one-person-one-occupation is good. That way everyone can work according to his passion and skill; that way he will produce his best, and in the end everyone will be satisfied. I also agree that the ruler (or guardian, using Plato’s term) must be provided with special education, on philosophy, in particular. But I strongly opposed to Plato’s way of exalting the guardian class, to the extent of restraining them from marrying other social classes, and even suggesting that children will be snatched from their parents and raised by the state. I agree that ruler of the state must have certain qualities, but that the kingship should be dominated by certain class… a big no!

To sum up, there are things in this book that are indeed relevant with our issues today; the idea about morality and philosophy really benefit us—and thus make Republic an important reading. But there are also other ideas that was really disgusting.

The Confessions of St. Augustine by St. Augustine Hyppo

Actually I have meant to work this book out for my WEM project; I have even started with the summary (book 1 – 9). However, after finishing it, I just realized that The Confessions is more philosophical and theological than autobiographical. The last four books (book 10 to 13) were so engaging, I have even forgotten what I’ve been through in the earlier nine books. It seems like the four last books are the real core of The Confessions. Thus I decided to not continuing the usual three levels inquiries, and to write a (hopefully) decent review for this inspiring book, instead. Oh, I don’t even know how to begin the review, but I’m trying….

In the autobiography part, Augustine analyzed his former life; from infant to adolescence; how he has sinned; and how he struggled to find the ‘Truth’—you can read the chronology in my summary post. One of the most interesting things from this part is that Augustine believed that man has sinned even from his infant, when he is only one day old. Infant is demanding; it strives to get what it wants by crying. Augustine thought that baby’s weakness is in its body, not (yet) in mind. That is an extreme thinking, but it’s not fully nonsense either. Children are egoist; they only think of their own needs. Isn’t that the early stint of human selfishness? Isn’t human an individual creature? And aren’t we still inheriting Adam’s sins before we are baptized?

About baptism, Augustine also blamed his parents for not baptizing him as early as possible; for he believed baptism would at least help him fighting his ‘wickedness’ as teenager. I agree with this; although baptism doesn’t always keep someone from falling to sin as it depends also on his education and the society where he grows up. But early baptism, when followed by strict guidance in moral and faith, increases the chance to fight against the evil influence.

Augustine’s biggest weakness, besides his thirst of knowledge, was in sexual desire. For twelve or fourteen years (I forgot the exact number) he lived with a mistress whom he loved very much. In Italy, it occurred to him that a marriage would save him from this carnal lust. His mother, Monica, also rejoiced in his decision, as she has been continually praying for his repentance. But for the marriage, the woman he loved must be torn from his embrace. And this caused him a severe broken heart; although in the end Augustine never married any other woman, as he gave his soul wholly to God and His Church. I have actually just browsed a novel by Jostein Gaarder, Vita Brevis: A Letter to St. Augustine right after finishing The Confessions. Gaarder claimed that he had found an old manuscript which was believed to be originally written by Augustine’s mistress, a woman called Floria Aemilia. This would be an interesting reading, as she questioned Augustine’s theology and philosophy, and her views could be taken as an early feminism. But I would review it separately later….

Back to The Confessions, starting from book 10 Augustine slightly switched his writing from autobiography to philosophy and theology, although they were still read as his confession. Book 10 contains his motives of writing The Confessions and the path he has taken to finally admit that only through the mediator of Jesus Christ can men find and have unison with God, as men are so weak they could not do it by their own power. In book 11 Augustine was philosophizes a lot about mode and time of creation as is in the book of Genesis 1:1. He ponders a lot (and quite tediously) on time: past, present, and future. Book 12 is the best part of all, as here he interprets God’s creation of ‘heaven and earth’. He uses many allegories which enable the readers to follow his thoughts. He admits that men have interpreted God’s creation of the universe in many opinions, and no one can know the truth except God grant him it, but this is his idea (if I understood him correctly):

When a singer sings a song,

• His body produces sound, while his soul forms it into tune.

• So sound is formed in order to become tune.

• But sound and tune exists at the same time.

That is an allegory of Creation ala Augustine. In order to understand it, let us replace sound with spiritual heaven and earth; tune with corporeal heaven and earth; and body with God.

St. Augustine at the moment of his religious conversion

by Jose Garcia Hidalgo

According to Augustine, heaven and earth in Gen 1:1—“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth”—speaks about two different existences. One is spiritual—the heaven of the angels etc., the other corporeal—that is our earth (heaven here could perhaps be taken as sky). So, the creation according to Augustine could be perceived like this: God created the spiritual heaven and earth at the same time as, and in order that, He created the corporeal sky and earth. If only God’s creation could be explained as simple as that…. Still in book 12, Augustine also discussed about the meaning of other creations: water vs dry land, fish, fowls, the dark abyss and the light. He has completely changed my view towards those verses; I was grateful to have read this book as I was preparing that verses for my lector task on Easter vigil mass.

One post would not be enough to share all my thoughts, but I must stop here at last. One thing is sure: this is a very important and intense reading; tough but beautiful. One can read this many times, and would perhaps form different opinions on each reading. This book would also provide many materials for interesting debates.

The Confessions was written in 397 – 400 AD, and St. Augustine’s thoughts have provided great influence over the medieval era, when Roman Catholic Church was the center of institution. In all aspects in which he analyzed his former life, Augustine always viewed his actions and thoughts from God’s view; whether He approved this or that, and how he has offended God by doing some sins. In one chapter he would lament over his wickedness and ask God’s forgiveness, while in the next chapter he would praise Him and rejoice because God has helped him to repent. The relationship of God and human was still intimate; it was time when intellectual people pondered much over religion and God’s existence.

Five stars for this outstanding piece!

~~~~~~~~~~~

I read the Dover Thrift paperback edition

This book is counted as:

1^st book for Literary Movement Reading Challenge 2015 (Medieval)

1^st book for 2015 TBR Pile Challenge

84^th book for The Classics Club Project

Terre des Hommes by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

Finally….the second five-stars reading of this year—thanks to Monsieur Saint Exupéry! Terre des Hommes is also known as Wind, Sand, and Stars (English translation), although I think the exact translation should have been ‘the earth or the land of mankind’. ‘Wind, sand, and stars’ makes it looks like a childish nature-philosophy book—almost like The Little Prince—but in fact Terre des Hommes is much more than that. This is a book which brings us back to our nature as human being. Living the routines makes us forget the true value of life itself. We tend to continue living because… well, because we are alive. But do you ever ponder, why are you living? For what purpose do we struggle to survive—apart from our instinct? Or, if you want to go deeper, why do we have the instinct to survive? We are going to die, sooner or later, aren’t we?

Terre des Hommes is Exupéry’s autobiographical book, or memoir is more suitable. In this book he tells us his experiences as a pioneer pilot for French airmail company: Aéropostale. In the days when aviator technology was far less sophisticated, and much more dangerous, only men with exceptional courage would have liked to flight an airplane, let alone the airmail carriers, because the risk was very high. Not only that the routes have not thoroughly mapped—it was often these pilots who did the first mapping—but the danger of being stranded on the Sahara; the risk of dying from thirsty, or of attack from the dessert rioters, were always facing them. But instead, Exupéry found an inspiring joy in his job.

It is in the tranquil solitary of the universe did he found the overwhelming peace whenever he was flying the airplane. The limited means of technology forced him to keep an intimate relationship with the sky, sun, moon, stars, sea, clouds, wind, and storm. But his real lesson came when his plane crashed on the Sahara, where Exupéry and his mechanic-navigator Prévot were stranded with almost no food and drink to survive. They were nearly died of thirst and had several mental delusions, before finally found and saved by a Bedouin. His near-death experience taught Exupéry of what must be the most important thing of being alive.

God created man as His image and bestowed him Life. Now, it is our duty to keep it sacred, because we live not for and by ourselves; we—the creation—are part of the universe. And so, our lives are valuable and meaningful. It is our duty to pass on our humanity to next generations. When Exupéry was nearly dying of thirst, it might have been much comforter for him to lie down and embrace death. But instead, he kept struggling and pushed his limit, because that is what a human being should be. And although someday our existence would be vanished from the earth, the legacy of our humanity will still exist through our descendants; through the spirit and the value we have inspired them.

I think I could never give enough credit to Exupéry and this book through this review alone. If you only knew how many dog-ears this book must bear, because almost in every pages I found treasures hidden beneath the beautiful poetic prose Monsieur Exupéry has woven into this memoir. I am more blessed because Forum Jakarta-Paris through French Embassy in Indonesia has decided to translate this book directly from the original French edition! Thanks for bringing this magnificent piece to our reading atmosphere; what an inspiring experience to read it!

Five stars for Terre des Hommes, Monsieur Exupéry, and Forum Jakarta-Paris!

~~~~~~~~~

I read Indonesian translation from Gramedia (GPU) Publisher

This book is counted as:

1^st book for 2014 TBR Pile Challenge

68^th book for The Classics Club Project

Notes From Underground

Although it is a very short book, Notes From Underground is far from light reading. I have started it last year, but had to stop at first chapter as I did not get what it is about. This year my friend enticed me to read it together, as it should be a good book. I took her challenge, and braced myself to read from the beginning, to get through the point where I have stuck last year, and to keep on reading—whether I understand it or not—as I believe I will get on it eventually after some chapters. Although I could not say I like it after finishing the book, I still feel grateful that I have at least tried it. It is my first encounter with Dostoyevsky anyway, and although I didn’t enjoy Notes From Underground, I like the way he writes, and would certainly read his other novels (I have Crime and Punishment in my TBR pile already).

Notes From Underground is told from first person point of view, and written as a kind of diary of the male narrator (I will call him ‘the narrator’). The narrator is a man of forties, lives in a wretched house which he calls the underground. He is a spiteful man, and from the beginning he has been bursting spiteful expressions about everything. He does not hate someone or something in particular, but he hates the world he is living. Odd as it was, I kept reading, and only after reaching the middle part, that I began to have a clearer image about this narrator.

He feels different from others because he is more intelligent and more superior to others. I think it is because he put himself above others, that others see him strange, anti social, and expel him for good. He despises the way they live, yet he yearns to be part of them; there is a paradox and self-denying here! The narrator often pictures it as tooth-ache; you hate the pain, yet you enjoy people’s attention; you want the ache stop, yet you regret it when it stops because you’ll lose people’s attention when you are recovered.

At first I thought this book is about a political criticism, but apparently it is more psychological (and philosophical?). I think it criticizes how men always want to be independent—which he calls freedom—while in reality, he also likes to be controlled; to be in orderliness. They despise law, but at certain point they demand to be regulated by it. Men are too tied to rules and are afraid to be free. They see people who don’t live by the same rule as weird. This is what the narrator feels; just because he doesn’t agree with others’ way of life, they see him as a fly. He longs to be free but couldn’t, and that makes him a despiteful man.

The narrator knows he is at an equal level with his friends but he always resentfully surrenders to their power. He does once an experiment by not yielding when passing a gentleman, shoulder to shoulder on the street; it is very difficult for him because in the end he always involuntarily yields. The narrator also talks much about consciousness. Here are several interesting quotes that makes you think more about human and society.

"To be too conscious is an illness.”

“Man has preferred to act as he chose and not in the least as his reason and advantage dictated.”

“What man wants is simply independent choice, whatever that independence may cost and wherever it may lead.”

“Man lives to make roads and to create, but why has he such a passionate love for destruction and chaos also?”

“He loves the process of attaining, but does not quite like to have attained.”

“Through civilization mankind becomes softer.” ~ Buckle

“You boast of consciousness, but you are not sure of your ground, for though your mind works, yet your heart is darkened and corrupt, and you cannot have a full, genuine consciousness without a pure heart.”

Can you guess what all these are about? I have a vague idea, but still could not grab the whole idea. I might not reread this book, but I would certainly love to read more from Dostoyevsky.

Three stars for Notes From Underground.

~~~~~~~~

*I read ebook from Feedbooks dot com*

*This book is counted as:*

63^rd book for The Classics Club Project

Candide by Voltaire

Candide is a philosophical story set around the world in 18^th century. It depicted a young man who lived in a paradise-like country of Westphalia. He was brought up by a Baron, and fell in love with the Baron’s daughter, the fair Cunégonde. Candide was educated by a philosopher called Pangloss. Pangloss believed that all in the world is created for the best, so even if there are evil and catatstrophe, they are meant to lead mankind to something better at the end. With this philosophy stick on his brain, Candide took his journey around the world after being kicked out by the Baron for seducing Cunégonde.

Having been experiencing real life, the innocent Candide was confronted with so many unfortunate events, evil, corrupt men, greed, and deception. All those times he was bewildered at the evils and injustices, and started questioning whether Pangloss had taught him wrong. Candide even held to his believe in “pure nature is good” principle, although he had just escaped of being eaten by the Oreillons, thanks to Pangloss’ principle.

As a novella, Candide is very uniquely written by Voltaire. If you have ever read Baudolino by Umberto Eco, you will see a style similarity with Candide. Both Candide and Baudolino involved in not only one historical event, but hopping to many of them through some comical and absurd incidents. Like Baudolino, Candide also sailed to many countries, met historical important persons, and presented with many cultures and religions during his journey to unite with Cunégonde. But only at El Dorado that Candide found only happiness and beauty. He was even be made richer than any Kings on earth because all soil and pebbles in El Dorado were made from gold and other precious stones (for outsider) but were treated as just soil and pebbles.

I think it is clear that Voltaire wanted to criticize Leibniz’ theory of “all is for the best”. This German philosopher believed that all is for the best because God is perfect, so everything He created must be perfect. I thought about this long after I finished this novella—and am still thinking about it when I am writing this post. My thought is split in two reasoning. In one way I agree with Voltaire that men should not take his life for granted by expecting that at the end everything should turn to good; we must work hard for it. But on the other hand, I agree at some points—at some points only—with Leibniz’ theory too, that God always provides the best for us, He wants to give us only the best, but only if we truly believe in Him and want it.

So what is best is, I think, if we do our best, and let God do the rest. In a way Candide (or Voltaire) was right, we must work to gain happiness. But we must also realize that we do not know what is best for ourselves, and in that case, we must trust God that He will give us what is best.

And before I end this review, here is one passage that has intrigued me, it’s a discussion between Martin (one of Candide’s philosopher and friend) and Candide, of course at the same topic of the optimistic. Candide was asking Martin whether he believed that men have always done evils.

M: “Do you believe that hawks have always eaten pigeons when they have found them?”

C: “Yes, without doubt.”

M: “Well, then, if hawks have always had the same character, why should you imagine that men may have changed theirs?”

C: “Oh! There is a vast deal of difference, for free will—“

There Voltaire ended the discussion abruptly, but I disagree with Martin. He believed that evil was men’s character, and that was—just like in hawks—their nature; and that the world has been created to ‘plague us to death’. I believe that since God is good and perfect, He created us good, and meant us for the best. However, God grants us the free will—as Candide was about to mention in that discussion—to make the choice ourselves, to be good or evil. Men do have both good and evil in them, but we also have the free will to make choices.

I granted three stars for Candide as a story with all the funny comical adventures, and a half star for making me drown to a deep reflection about life. Thank you Voltaire!

~~~~~

*I read ebook from Gutenberg Project*

*This book is counted for*

 34^th book for The Classics Club Project

2^nd book for New Authors Reading Challenge 2013

5^th book for What's In a Name Reading Challenge2013

Courrier Sud / Southern Mail (Pesawat Pos Selatan)

[conclusion in English is at the bottom of this post]

Ini adalah buku kedua karya Antoine de Saint-Exupery yang kubaca setelah The Little Prince. Courrier Sud (judul aslinya) ini merupakan karya fiksi pertama Exupery, bertutur tentang pilot pesawat pos bernama Jacques Bernis. Seperti semua novel-novelnya, Courrier Sud ini juga mewakili pengalaman Exupery sendiri sebagai pilot pesawat pos yang tugasnya mengirimkan surat-surat antara Paris – Dakar agar cepat tiba di tujuan, lebih cepat daripada lewat kereta api yang lebih lazim saat itu. Pesawat terbang jaman itu belumlah secanggih sekarang, sehingga pilot harus lebih banyak menggunakan instingnya ketika cuaca buruk, apalagi ketika berada di sekitar gurun pasir Sahara yang sangat luas. Menjadi pilot pesawat saat itu adalah pekerjaan yang penuh bahaya, dan suka duka menjadi pilot ini dituangkan ke dalam novel ini beserta—kemungkinan besar—curahan hati Exupery sendiri tentang hidupnya dan kisah cintanya.

Courrier Sud ini dituturkan oleh sahabat Bernis. Aku melihat Bernis sebagai manusia yang tidak cocok berada di manapun (doesn’t belong anywhere). Semenjak kecil Bernis dan si sahabat merasa bahwa hidup mereka sangat membosankan, selalu dibatasi banyak aturan, selalu dapat diduga, tak menarik sama sekali. Hal ini berlanjut, khususnya bagi Bernis yang—di sepanjang buku ini, lewat ungkapan-ungkapan puitis—merasa orang-orang dan dunia di sekitarnya tak pernah bergerak atau berubah.

“Ternyata, semuanya tetap sama….”

 Sebaliknya, Bernis merasakan kebebasan ketika ia berada di udara, sendirian dalam kokpit pesawat yang dikendarainya. Rasa kebebasan ini terungkap lewat kilasan-kilasan alam sekitarnya yang ia saksikan dari ketinggian, yang banyak menghiasi buku ini.

“Masing-masing (orang-orang yang dulu dikenalnya) terpenjara oleh diri sendiri, dibatasi oleh rem samar-samar, dan tidak seperti dia, si anak yang bebas, si anak malang, si penyihir.”

Apakah itu berarti bahwa Bernis lantas bahagia karena menjadi pilot? Ternyata tidak, orang-orang saat itu memandang aktivitas ‘berkendara di udara’ adalah sesuatu yang aneh. Bahkan lewat kutipan di atas kita melihat bahwa Bernis disebut sebagai ‘si penyihir’ (yang bisa terbang, menyalahi kodrat manusia). Bernis yang malang, Bernis yang kesepian, yang ditolak, namun juga tak kerasan berada di dunianya. Ia mencintai seorang wanita yang adalah sahabatnya semenjak kecil: Geneviève. Setelah keduanya dewasa, Bernis mendapati jurang yang amat lebar yang memisahkan dirinya dengan Geneviève, karena si wanita adalah orang yang amat terikat pada kehidupannya, pada semua miliknya, sementara Bernis adalah orang yang bebas lepas dari segala keterikatan dunia.

“Kebiasaan-kebiasaan, peraturan-peraturan, hukum-hukum, semua yang tidak kau (Bernis) rasakan kegunaannya, semua yang telah kau hindari… Hal itulah yang telah memberi-nya (Geneviève) sebuah bingkai. Untuk tetap ada, kita membutuhkan kenyataan-kenyataan yang mempunyai keberlangsungan di sekeliling kita. Meski dianggap tak masuk akal atau tak adil, semua itu hanyalah suatu bahasa. Dan Geneviève, jika dia kau bawa pergi, akan kehilangan dirinya.”

Membaca ini aku agak tersentak. Bukankah nasihat sahabat Bernis ini seolah menampar kita semua yang terbiasa hidup nyaman dalam ‘bingkai-bingkai’ yang kita pasang disekeliling kita, sehingga kita lupa pada hakikat hidup ini yang sesungguhnya? Lagipula kutipan itu justru lebih relevan bagi kita yang hidup di jaman internet dan teknologi maju ini, yang begitu terikat pada gadget, teknologi dsb. hingga bila kita harus meninggalkan semua itu sebentar saja, kita merasa seolah lumpuh? Bukankah ini absurd?

Menurutku Bernis mengalami kesepian, bukan saat berada di pesawat sendirian, melainkan justru saat ada di dunia. Karena ia tak seperti manusia lainnya, mereka semua hanya melihat lingkup terbatas dunia mereka sendiri, sementara Bernis—dan seharusnya kita semua—memandang hidup ini jauh lebih luas, lebih agung daripada sekedar rutinitas dan benda-benda mati yang mampu kita indrai. Membaca kotbah seorang pastor saat Bernis berada di Gereja Notre-Dame ini mengingatkanku pada Jostein Gaarder, seorang penulis fiksi-filosofis yang lewat Dunia Sophie juga mengingatkan kita akan hakikat alam semesta dan kehidupan yang sesungguhnya:

“Anda sekalian telah menyatukan perjalanan bintang, wahai generasi baru peneliti, dan Anda sekalian tidak mengenalinya lagi. Dia adalah sebuah tanda dalam buku Anda, tetapi bukan lagi cahaya; seorang anak kecil lebih tahu mengenai hal itu daripada Anda.

Anda sekalian telah menemukan semua hal sampai kaidah-kaidah yang mengatur cinta kasih manusia, tetapi cinta kasih itu sendiri terlepas dari tanda-tanda Anda; seorang gadis muda lebih mengetahuinya daripada Anda.”

Di jaman modern ini kita semua sudah kehilangan makna banyak hal dalam hidup. ‘Terbanglah’ seperti Bernis, jangan menutup diri seperti Geneviève; **spoiler** yang karena tak mau kehilangan hal-hal yang nyata namun sebenarnya fana, malah kehilangan kesempatan merasakan keagungan cinta yang tak nampak namun sebenarnya nyata. **spoiler ends**

Ah ternyata….kisah yang awalnya hanya tampak sebagai curhat seorang pilot belaka, ternyata menyimpan filosofi yang mengagumkan. Tak heran bila sebuah label ‘novel agung dunia’ tersemat di sampul buku ini, yang tadinya kukira hanyalah akal-akalan promosi saja, namun kini kusadari, itulah yang telah kudapat dari buku ini.

Empat bintang untuk Courrier Sud, sebuah novel bermakna indah, dibalut kalimat-kalimat puitis yang seringkali tak mampu aku pahami, mungkin karena itu aku tak sanggup memberinya nilai mutlak (satu bintang kusimpan untukku sendiri, mungkin suatu hari nanti aku akan mampu menyibak seluruh artinya…atau…seperti halnya alam semesta, selalu akan ada hal-hal yang tak mampu kita pahami hingga kapanpun, dan itu yang membuat alam semesta atau buku ini begitu agung? Mungkin…)

Judul: Courrier Sud (terjemahan: Pesawat Pos Selatan)

Penulis: Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

Penerjemah: Prof. Dr. Apsanti Djokosujatno (guru besar sastra & kritikus)

Penerbit: Komodo books

Terbit: Februari 2012

Tebal: 190 hlm.

Conclusion:

At first I thought Courrier Sud (or Southern Mail) was just a story about a pilot, maybe a kind of Exupéry’s autobiographical story, but I was completely wrong! Like The Little Prince, this is a philosophical thinking which Exupéry has wrapped in a simple story about the life and love of a pilot named Jacques Bernis. Bernis’s job is to carry express mail from Paris to Dakkar (this is a new innovation because at that time mail were delivered by train). Plane and navigation were new at that time, and it needed a big courage for a man to drive a plane. Ordinary people even mocked Bernis as ‘ghost’ or ‘wizard’. Travelling on air was beyond many people’s common sense.

On the other hand, Bernis felt that ordinary life was unbearable; life which was limited by orders and routines. Exupéry emphasized the different way of thinking by creating a love story of Bernis and a girl from his childhood named Geneviève. Unlike Bernis, Geneviève loved orders and formalities; that when Bernis asked her to runaway with him from her previous unhappy life, Geneviève found it too difficult because she has already bound to her home and everything she possessed, that she could not live freely as Bernis wanted.

I saw Bernis as a lonely person, he did belong to the world he supposed to live, and only when he was alone in his cockpit that he felt quiet and absorbed in the beauty of nature. I believe that in those occasions, Bernis actually felt the presence of God through His creation. Bernis also felt that everything in ordinary life was stagnant, never changed.

From Courrier Sud I learned—not only about the unreliability of the planes at that time, the dangers of being a pilot, and the beautiful scenes from above—but also a divine knowledge of living our life. Instead of limited ourselves with everything that modern life offers us, we should provide more time to contemplate the true meaning of it; to be more like Bernis than like Geneviève. And all of these were beautifully crafted by Exupéry in poetic sentences, makes me love this book more!

I give four stars for Courrier Sud, for although I know this is a remarkable work, there are still several parts of the story that I could not get into the exact meaning. Maybe that's why I love it, because I know I can go back to this book some day and maybe next time I’ll be able to extract new meanings from it. Maybe…