““I’ll say one thing about the world today, it really keeps the pounds off,” she said.
“Starvation will do that.”
“I think it was all running. I haven’t been in this kind of shape since college.”. She brought up Buffalo. Mim still believed in Buffalo.
“By the time you hear about a place, it’s gone,” Mark Spitz said. “I think the very act of hearing about a place seems to will its disappearance.”
“This place is different. Someplace has to be.” His head was on her stomach. Her fingertips drew letters on his scalp. Words? A name? Her kids’ names? “Or else we should just end it now.”
“If there’s nothing out there, what’s the point?”
“Have to keep on moving, honey. You stay in one spot, you’re just another straggler.”” (Zone One, p.198).
In this case I am very on side of Mark Spitz, especially when he says by the time you hear about a place, it’s gone. How can such a place be possible or if it is possible then why apocalypse ? In Children Of Men we have same issue looking for a different, safe, hope, usual place in an apocalypse. Although in the movie the tomorrow ship came, we all know that most of the apocalyptic movies ends with a religious message or happily end. For this movie the issue was different, the message given by the minister (the man that Theo wanted help) “don’t think about that.” is the answer of why some of us still believe an utopia and straggling and why some of us just live the moment. Utopia or reality, the question should be why we believe presence of such a place for an apocalypse. We might be in the denial stage, if we really believe it is an apocalypse, we also know that there would not be such a place. But the human beings still need such a hope or we stay in one spot as stragglers.
“But there is in practice this difference between the novelist and the young man as Sartre sees him: the young man will always be free in just this degree; whether he stays with his mother or not, his decision will not be relevant to his next decision. But the novelist is not like that; he is more Thomist than Sartrean, and every choice will limit the next he has to collaborate with his novel; he grows in bad faith.”(Kermode, p.141)
I can see his point but I cannot see any difference between a novelist and myself in terms of a decision making process. Of course, I am free while I am making my decisions but the novelist may change his mind and write the story from the beginning which I can never do. But it is very true for both that every decision affects the one comes after it; the life is just made out by decisions and choices. I might say the world is a novel of the god and we have our own novels, both of us write some fate. The difference is we do not know the end but the novel consists of contribution, we have free will and a fate which the very end is in the beginning (in this case I talk about my personal ideas, since I believe in fate). The question is; would anything change if we know our ends?
“Some die too young, some die too old; the precept sounds strange, but die at the right age.” Nietzsche