April 7, 2008
I was thinking about the idea of Redemption as it regards my novel, and I realized that "redemption" is not the right word for the idea I'm trying to convey.
Redemption can be defined (in a theological sense) as "the act of delivering from sin or saving from evil." Of course I mean it in this sense rather than the idea of redeeming coupons or recovering property. The Redemption Saga is not about an epic quest to get good deals on groceries. Although....never mind.
I am willing to bet that our modern idea of redemption arose out of Christianity (if anyone has information to the contrary, please contact me!). Therefore, the idea of redemption is wound up in Christian doctrine. What is Redemption to a Christian? Well, if it is "the act of delivering from sin", and "to redeem" means "to deliver from sin," then we have a word for which only one person in all history can be the nominative subject! According to Christianity, Jesus Christ delivered mankind from sin with his sacrifice. Anyone else in all the world can only "be redeemed" by Jesus. Notice the passive mood!
Our culture has influenced our language in this case by creating a word that only exists with a passive meaning and has no active counterpart. But when would we ever need such a word? Usually we say things like "He redeemed himself", a reflexive construct that gives agency to the person who achieved redemption, although the word is still fundamentally semantically passive. This phrasing is not usually intended for spiritual situations. Think of it in use like this: "The neighborhood curmudgeon redeemed himself in the eyes of his neighbors by escorting old Miss Henshaw across the busy street." Similarly, it would be unusual for anyone to say that "Mr Smith redeemed Mr Jones."
That last example brings up another interesting idea relating to the idea of redemption. The sentence was "redeemed...in the eyes of his neighbors." Basic Christian redemption refers to Jesus interceding on behalf of men in the eyes of God. So our basic idea of "redemption" requires an audience. Someone whose opinion or point of view of the redeemed person has changed because of that redemption.
Given these ideas, I considered my own story of the Redemption Saga to be about various characters redeeming themselves with their choices. Despite a dark or nefarious past, characters make choices which enlighten them, redeem them, and bring them from wickedness to good. I do not intend it as passive. They do not enthrall themselves to some other creature, to some paragon of Good. They find it within themselves, without prompting. This possibility arises out of things I have already discussed in this series. In the end, what they find inside themselves is an expression of Aya (God). So in that way, it is Aya who is the point of view by which redemption is judged.
I began this essay by stating that "redemption" may not be the most apt word to describe what the saga is about. I do not know of another in English that fits better. "Salvation" or "Absolution," which follow similar theological tracts, seem to have the same lack of agency, the same passive meaning, but carry their own weight of connotation. "Appeasement" speaks more to an offering or sacrifice, like "Propitiation," than Redemption, at least a more overt sacrifice than the Christian ideal of self-abasement. In the end, "Redemption" will have to stand, and I hope that the story itself serves the meaning more clearly than its title.
I should mention the Buddhist idea of Enlightenment as counter-point to Redemption. While it seems to be on the surface similar to redemption, as a means to rid oneself of evil, Buddhism is in fact more active and self-reliant than Christianity, as I have purposed my story's "redemption" to be. I am far too unlearned in Buddhism to really speak to it, but I think my own Mythology, speaking to an initial creation of evil outside of God, comes closer to Christianity than Buddhism. A personification of "rebellion" (or in the case of my own mythology, "renunciation") in the figure of Satan (Dellithis) is not Buddhist.
While Buddhism hinges on reincarnation and rebirth, and the rising and lowering from worlds between death and birth, my own mythology, while there is an element of reincarnation, does not allow changes like that. A Shayatsi who dies is always born a Shayatsi. They cannot be reborn as Inaya or as Orinye, nor olseya. Thus the Buddhist idea of "Enlightenment" could not stand in the place of the theme of redemption. In any case, the mythology I am trying to create is something that (to my knowledge) is not reflected in the real world. Thus real-world language and ideas will always fall short in terms of labeling.