The Burden of Original Sin

Great observations, Grace! The word I noted throughout this passage was "guilt"-- there's an extended gloss on the question of whether anyone is guilty or everyone is guilty, and Fred is technically guilty of theft even as he will never be found out. As you not, he also signed a confession that he was guilty of the double murder, even though he apparently was not. To your questions:

The concept that we will all die, as a punishment for existing, is a hard concept to understand. What exactly are we guilty of? Why do we feel the need to live and fill our lives with things when there really isn't a reason for anything beyond what you've been told by someone else?

For Fred Daniels, specifically, it seems that being Black is what he's guilty of--- being a young Black male in America means you're guilty from birth. So I do think that's a big part of it. But there is the also the religious notion of original sin that you're referring to, I think--- the idea that humans are innately guilty of being sinful and are therefore condemned from birth. That's a pretty existentialist idea, too...

Renee, relating to the topic of Christianity, there are two song that encompasses my feelings called "Dear God" and "Book of Revelations" by Dax. He asks God, "why's there only one of you but multiple religions?" "What if the books they said to read had never been your words?" and "What if the place we grew up forgot to teach it?" Everything I know about Christianity was passed down and the only option is to take a leap of faith and believe that despite my doubt in humanity (specifically the honesty of humanity) that God exists. Christians HAVE to believe that the bible is God's word, otherwise there is little else to back up the claims of his existence as everything else is just circumstantial. Others who have not heard of God still live meaningful lives filled with other things. My argument is that everything we understand about life, what is good and what is bad, is a taught experience. The issue with this is consistency. Someone can learn that fire is good, and he/she lives his/her life worshiping fire, while another can be taught fire is bad and live his/her life running from it. Both live their lives based off the things they are taught. I don't think that their lives are false because they choose to believe what they've been told; I think there's been an emphasis placed on one specific thing (fire) that has influenced their lives and on a grander scheme both can experience a life of content regardless. If you grew up in a community that didn't worship God and instead worshipped another god or deity, do you think that you would find happiness in Christianity or would you be happy with the religion of your family and friends, the religion you know and understand? If God didn't exist (I believe that he does for the record) would you not find happiness in other things like your family, friends, etc. And (if you think about it) would you only find happiness in those things because society tells you that family makes you happy, friends make you happy, etc. What if you were capable of living a life without any opinions from anyone? As a family-less child in a home alone you would fear water because you'd turn the tap too hot or cold, you would fear the stove because it burns, you would fear the stairs because maybe you fell down them, OR you'd enjoy water because you learned to turn both taps, you'd enjoy the stove because it gives you warmth, and you'd enjoy the stairs because it brings you satisfaction to climb them. The things that bring us happiness and hurt are nearly always one and the same. We choose the burdens we carry, but why?

Sorry for the long post, existentialism makes me think too much, lol.

Some great stuff here, Grace! I'll let your post on Christianity speak for itself, but to follow up on the lowest point, I'm glad you remarked upon how audiences (especially white audiences) often neglect to consider the racial dimensions of novels. That's one thing I'm trying to introduce, in this class and in my book, is to consider the racial/ ethnic dimensions of existentialism, which is something that isn't often done. But if you look at the time period, we see this all across the world, and we'll see this with many of our novels.

In an American context, Black men were often assumed guilty until proven innocent. The same thing happened with other minorities during the mid-century--- we'll be reading from Chicano, Native American, and Japanese perspectives in weeks to come. In Germany (and elsewhere in Europe), Jewish people were scapegoated and collectively held as guilty for... well, whatever they could be blamed for. And yes, we just don't see this with regard to white characters, except perhaps Southerners when it comes to slavery? Or perhaps the worm has turned now, as some people feel that white Americans are inherently guilty...

Regarding the air raid at the end: Initially I thought it was just a drill, but you're right that there are airplanes that do show up in Fred's vision. Do we think these planes are from an enemy force, or property of the U. S. government? There's ample evidence from WW II about the U. S. Air force dropping bombs on civilian populations (Dresden, Hiroshima, etc.) but this occurred as early as 1937 and the Nazi bombing of Guernica in the Spanish Civil War. I wouldn't think that the U. S. government would bomb its own citizens, but it's also pretty improbable to think that some foreign force would be so far inland as to bomb Chicago (I think that's where this is set...). Regardless, it does speak to the terror that the civilian populace had even before the Atomic Age-- the fear that at any time, you could be killed by a bomb falling on your head. Maybe another good reason to live underground??

Here's another modernist/ existentialist artwork: Pablo Picasso's "Guernica"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guernica_(Picasso)