|
What Does Redemption Really Mean? by Elizabeth Hanft
Redemption, a word often implied as something it isn't. Everyone seems to
think that redemption is the same thing as forgiveness when in fact the two
belong to a circuit of order. Some people's opinion would state that
redemption is the proportionally larger word for forgiveness. In the
dictionary, forgiveness means to stop being angry at or blaming someone or
something, and redemption, in the dictionary, means to be freed of something.
Before one can be redeemed they have to be forgiven since you can't be freed
until you are "no longer to blame." With this in mind, there is no way that
in the story, Jack is redeemed since he was not forgiven at any time by his
family, and didn't until the end begin to forgive himself. So instead of the
story being called "Redemption", shouldn't it be called "Forgiveness?" Also,
one must recognize the fact that the different states of redemption and
forgiveness are a complete state of mind in the fact of how they are viewed.
The act of being redeemed or forgiven depends on one's outlook and definition
of forgiveness and redemption.
All right, before getting into the heart and soul of this paper, let's recap.
"Redemption" is about a boy named Jack whom one day, accidentally runs over
and kills his brother David with a tractor. Any reader can immediately
recognize the story's abnormal way of expressing the display of family
obstacles and situations when a death of a loved one occurs. However, in
this case, one family member accidentally murders another. In the story,
Jack is the killer and his brother is the victim. Thinking from the point of
view of the author, maybe his main objective of the story was to express the
classification and narrow mindedness of the human mind. We all see things in
our own perspective. We can all agree that we view some situations more
open-mindedly than we do with other situations. However, maybe this story is
not just showing the tearing apart of a family as well as the act of
forgiving, but maybe the story in a way mocks society, by saying that society
views things not equally but under the "circumstances." So, with that in
mind couldn't there be more than one type of murder if there is more than one
perspective of murder? Sure, we say that there are different types of murder
and there are different ways to kill. For example, if the murder is
accidental how can it be considered murder, if murder, by society definition
is, to purposely kill? Therefore, Jack doesn't kill his brother he kills his
family. As one can see, if there are different ways to murder, than murder
doesn't necessarily mean death. Murder can mean the breaking of a heart, or
the taking away of something from someone, thus providing pain to his or her
life. This is why Jack struggles with being forgiven; he is trying to be
forgiven by his family members for indirectly murdering them, not for
accidentally killing his brother.
The way the story, "Redemption" is written is strange. The story is strange
in the event that the words and emotions not described are more important
than those words written. The author Ernest Hemingway has a similar style.
He writes in a format where each part of the story has importance and hidden
meaning that must be found to fully understand the foundation of the story.
To me, the entire story seemed to be a preview for the beginning of the real
story. You know, the kind of preview at the movie theatre, where there are a
series of upcoming movies displayed for twenty-minutes before the audience
finally gets to see the feature presentation. During one class discussion, a
different point of view was suggested. The suggestion, that maybe the ending
of the story is really the beginning. The ending sentence is written like an
opening sentence in a story. The last sentence reads, "Then the crowd opened
for him (Jack) and, with the horn cradled under his right arm, his music
under his left, he plunged in, starting home." So why can't the end really
be the beginning? If one thinks about any story, there really is no end.
For example, all fairy tale stories end with, " And they lived happily ever
after." Then is large capitalized letters at the bottom of the page the
words, The End, are written. But, the children's fantasy tail doesn't give
all the details of how the couple lived happily ever after or how long for
that matter. For this very reason, no story has a final ending, much like
"Redemption."
So, if redemption truly means what's stated in the dictionary, than
forgiveness must be received before redemption can take place. The two acts
of forgiving and being redeemed are like baking a cake; one can't ice the
cake until the cake is baked. Whether this story seems strange to the reader
or not, is a personal opinion. Supposedly, the fact of a reader
understanding a story's true meanings or not, depends on how in depth one
goes into a story. "Redemption," is tricky to the reader, in the fact that
one would assume that if the title were "Redemption" than someone must be
redeemed. Also, that an ending doesn't necessarily mean the complete end but
that the end can be a beginning. For example, when two people get married,
it's the end of their child hood, and the beginning of adulthood (depending
on how old they are, but you get the point). When one goes in depth with the
story, and really digs down deep, oil can be struck. Oil can be struck, by
the act of knowing that forgiveness comes before redeeming and that
redemption and forgiveness are a complete perspective, and state of mind.
|
