Empire Falls

After completing 3 books in about 10 days, and 4 in 3 weeks, it became clear that I was not reading the most intellectually stimulating books. (That said, Dean Koontz's Relentless was gripping.) So, Lindley decided to find a good, challenging book for my next read. I'll admit that after 4 pages of not changing chapters in Richard Russo's Empire Falls, I considered calling it quits. Thank you, James Patterson. But pride kept me from actually closing the book, and now I'm beginning to see the novel's purpose.

Yes, it turns out that my lovely wife tricked this Big Brother / How I Met Your Mother television watcher into reading a 2002 pulitzer prize winner (distinguished fiction by an American author). So the author portrays American life through the eyes of a town that is falling apart as much due to the poor management of those with money as it is to the blue collar workers stuck in a static life without power or influence.

So, this conflict brings to mind what amazing and distinct paradigms people can have. For example, the family that used to run Empire Falls (the town set as a background to the novel) seems to believe that it is the less-educated townspeople that are the reason the town is in economic decline. The author appears to disagree with his antagoists' theory, and instead faults that same wealthy family as well as corporations that, thusfar, are embodied by undeveloped characters stepping in and out of limousines who could just as well be seen as unnamed minions of the evil corporation. This begs to my never-ending theory that success is a difficult definition. Okay, so no one ever gave me marks for brilliant, profound theories.

Our protagonist, Miles Roby, appears both despised for his mediocrity and respected for his morality and convictions. Well, which of these perspectives is correct? Russo is currently indicating that the latter view is his. But what do you think?

That's my question today. What do we believe defines success in a person? Is it material wealth? Is it influence? Is it power? Is success not being any of the above 3? It's funny how the 1980's and early 90's movies thrived by the rags to riches (or in the "Arthur" movies riches to rags to riches) theme. Anyone could achieve wealth! How great is America for giving everyone opportunities at material wealth! Today, though, conventional wisdom seems to be moving toward the idea that financial success (influence, power, etc.) must make you a bad person.

Well, potentially both paradigms, or in the same respect neither of the paradigms, are correct. I wish that we could look across socioeconomic statuses to see that people are not bad solely because they are different. Unfortunately, it is difficult to get to know someone because they speak differently, or because they have different ways to entertain themselves, or because they don't have easily defined commonalities for discussion.

So, it turns out that I've posed a question I can't answer. I'd like to say success for me will be serving the Lord, having his light shine through me, loving my family (and them knowing it), raising Godly children, and being content in the life God has given me. But, unfortunately, there are times when I will continue to define myself by my job, or by how many friends I have, or what my wife and children think about me. I guess this may be why my favorite verses elude to the fact that I will not ever achieve full success, but that it doesn't matter in Christ:

Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do, forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus. Phil. 3: 12-14