Charles Dickens and Greatness: Smug + Stupid = Foolish

There is a fun bit in Chapter 39 of The Pickwick Papers by Charles Dickens.  Samuel Pickwick and some of his friends are doing some spying.  They themselves are spied, by a great scientist and his servant.  When the scientist sees Pickwick and company’s torches, he thinks that the lights are coming from far off in space and that he has just discovered some new comets or other celestial bodies moving into orbit.  He calls in his servant, who speculates that what they are seeing is the light of torches carried by thieves.  The scientist calls his servant a fool and sends him on his way.  He dozes off, dreaming about his future greatness.  Alas, Dickens only provides us with one fool in this passage – the scientist.

This essay is best read after reading the novel and will reveal significant plot points.

The passage of the great scientist and his discovery made me chuckle at Starbucks, which of course led to uncomfortable glances from fellow coffee drinkers.  It also made me wonder whether the Victorian Charles Dickens can still teach our contemporary culture.  Before I get too far into my thoughts about the great scientist (who is actually inconsequential to the novel – I don’t recall a second appearance), I need to be clear about what I think of science. Readers of this blog no doubt realize that I am an evangelical Christian.  The (unfair) stereotype is that we aren’t open-minded about science.

I’m for science.

Life is confusing.  Despite this, I believe that there is one Truth and it is found in God. This is my starting point. I believe in a creator God, the God of Abraham.  I endorse the creeds.  I have degrees from two evangelical schools, etc. etc. etc.  I disagree with the claim that there are multiple truths or that there is a Biblical truth and a scientific truth.  This means that I cannot understand why some Christians conclude that science threatens the Gospel.  If something is correct, it is true.  If it is true, it cannot help but reflect YHWH.  Nor do I understand what some people mean when they conclude that because a scientific idea is true, that God must not exist and that belief in God is therefore foolish.  I do not understand how science can be used to disprove God and vice versa.

I laughed at the great scientist in Chapter 39 not because I think science is evil or blasphemous, not because I enjoy watching “the enemy” fall, and not because I distrust scientists (as if a quip from a 150-year-old piece of literature could triumphantly prove this distrust correct). I laughed at the scientist because he made his servant out to be a fool, but the scientist was actually the fool.  My regret is that only we, the readers, know who the fool is.  It would have been delightful if the scientist was humbled.  Instead, he enjoyed his smugness without reprimand. Smug and stupid is a funny combination. 

I love politics and there is always plenty to feed my armchair world ruling.  For someone who so enjoyed the foolishness of the scientist’s arrogance, politics seems like an odd interest.  Politics, it seems, is all about self-exaltation.

The scientist is the funniest example of self-exaltation, but certainly not the first or most blatant illustration in the The Pickwick Papers. Samuel Pickwick is no doubt kind-hearted, but he is quite arrogant at times.  He seems to have his nose in everything, makes suggestions to address very personal problems of people he is just meeting, and refuses to acknowledge the possibility of mistake. Dickens gives us Pickwick, a man who does his best to help people, but who often sees himself being embarrassed or worse because of his bumbling character.  He actually ends up in debtors’ prison at one point because of the verdict of a lawsuit over a confusion where a woman believed he was proposing marriage to her.  While Pickwick’s embarrassments are either minor or unjust, they are frequent. 

The other Samuel, Mr. Sam Weller, also makes an impression.  He is the servant of Pickwick, both in title and lifestyle.  His responsibilities continue to grow and he often takes the role of confidant of Pickwick.  Sometimes Pickwick even ignores his friends in favour of Weller’s advice.  Perhaps we are seeing the exaltation of the humble Weller.

Where does this leave me with my politics, then?  In spite of its flaws, I believe in the system.  If nothing else, we are in a democracy and can therefore theoretically vote people out of parliaments, legislatures, and councils every few years.  I believe that society needs a structure and a starting point and that good government provides such structure.  I’m at a loss, however, with how people can offer themselves as our leaders without exalting themselves. 

All I can suggest is the hope that that self-exaltation is a significant risk – a temptation, even – but not a given in public life.  This is true in politics, church, schools, or The Pickwick Club.  It’s probably a danger anywhere that has a structure.  A person explaining why she or he is qualified to hold a leadership position may not be guilty of self-exaltation, however. What identifies self-exaltation is the attitude of the leader rather than whether he or she talks about personal qualifications.  Does the leader stop at the belief that their qualifications best equip her or him to serve?  If so, self-exaltation is not a worry.  Does she or he go further, however, and believe that being the best equipped to serve somehow makes him or her more equal than others (to borrow a phrase from George Orwell)?  At that point, there is arrogance. 

I may be too hard on Pickwick.  I may be too hard on Prime Ministers and Premiers (or too easy on them, if I happen to like them).  I’m not being too hard on the scientist, though, who looked a truth teller in the eye, called him a fool, and continued to imagine the glory that he would receive when his mistaken belief became obvious to everyone.

I'm introducing a new section to my blog: Reflections on Literature.  The section will replace an older blog that I had started titled Dickens Year.  That blog, and my goal of reading all of Dickens' completed novels in one year, proved large enough to encapsulate all of my reading and writing time.  I scaled back on both goals to allow me time for other reading and writing.  Reflections on Literature begins with an essay adapted from the earlier blog and will serve as a place for me to think about literature and what it can teach us about social justice.  To this point, I have no specific plan for frequency of posts.

I made a small ammendment after my original post and after the comment from Wendy.  I added a reference to George Orwell to the sentence ending "more equal than others."