Thus, we are first introduced to Harold's parents, and as they meet one another, and their attraction develops, we are told what "studies have shown" (the book's most frequent phrase) is going on beneath the surface, in the brain, the psyche, the personality, of each of Harold's parents, which causes them to react to each other the way they do. As Harold is born and develops, we are told what various studies have shown is going on in his cognitive and character development, and how his genes and his environment are affecting that development, etc. We meet Erica a little later in life, and follow her and Harold through adolescence, adulthood, and old-age. Along the way, we are introduced to various personality and psychological studies and theories helping us to understand their lives.
Harold and Erica don't live in real time. Rather, it is roughly 2010 when Harold's parents meet, 2010 when Harold and Erica go to High School, 2010 when Harold and Erica marry each other, and still 2010 when Harold dies. Putting Harold and Erica in real history would apparently distract from the purpose of the book, which is not interested in how people's lives have been affected by the actual events of real history, living through the Korean war or the Carter-era recession, say, but is interested in how people's lives are affected by their own psychological and personality traits.
It's a little hard to figure out where Brooks is going with all this, or what larger point he is trying to make. Apparently it's something about the need to better understand what modern science is telling us about the psyche if we want to make better political choices. Or perhaps the need to understand the "social" nature of man in order to make better personal choices. Despite initial headings on Brooks' "Purpose" the overall point is never made very explicit.
But that's not the real problem. The real problem is that introductory idea that Harold and Erica's lives are "the happiest story you've ever read." The thing is, Harold and Erica's lives don't actually seem that happy, and Brooks' insistence that we see their lives as an example of what we should strive for to live a happy life rings awfully hollow: Harold and Erica have no children. They belong to no church. They seem to have no real moral code. They (and their author) use vulgar and crude language. Harold's high school years are promiscuous, and after their marriage Erica cheats on her husband so Brooks can talk about the psychology of shame. Although Erica becomes involved in a Presidential administration, and Harold takes up his creator's Hamiltonian political ideas, you never get the sense that either have become adherents of some larger social or political cause that gives their lives great meaning. It is true that Harold and Erica both become extremely successful and prominent, but one never gets the feeling that their lives have been lived for some purpose beyond their own success and prominence. For "social animals" Harold and Erica have ultimately led pretty lonely lives. When they die, their existence doesn't seem to have meant anything for anyone but themselves.
The subject matter of this book, what we believe we've learned about the unconscious mind in the last 30 years, was fascinating, and I had a hard time putting it down. Some of Brooks' satirical social observations about modern life are hilarious and spot-on. But in the end the book left me with a bad taste in my mouth. This is not the happiest story I've ever read. It's not even a particularly happy story at all. And the claim that I should see it as such left me cold.
No comments:
Post a Comment