Moral Agency: A Literary Discussion

So Shiree's cousin is a literary genuis and I've recently taken to blog-stalking and commenting occassionally on his posts (which are really more like essays). Anyway, about a month ago, he posted about "free will versus fate" in literature, particularly the Twilight series. Having never read them, I based my comments on Harry Potter, that wonderful wizard from Little Whinging. Here is the original topic from Twilight and Here is the first installment in his posts about moral agency in literature.

Here is the second part of this series and is an opposing viewpoint to the first post post on the subject. The following is my response, which was intended as just a comment, but kept getting longer and longer so I decided to post it here. I hope that Tyler doesn't mind me citing his blog, which is really a well-written collection of literary genius.

“One certainly can’t live in the
past and ‘be one traveler,’ for by so striving their present will be out of
harmony: they’ll live in opposition to themselves and to nature, falling into
cross-purposes with fate’s indifferent design, resulting in a diverse array of
psychological incongruities.”

Similarly, one cannot serve God and Mammon. If one tries to serve both, he is fragmented or incomplete. Thus John’s description (Revelation 3:16) of those who are lukewarm being “spe[wed]” forth. Inevitably, a choice must be made. In the view presented here, it is not a choice between two roads but a choice between letting go of the past while forging into the future and clinging to the past, as those dependent wanderers seen by Lehi in his vision of another path (1 Nephi 8:24)

"This establishes the idea that the
past, the present, and the future, rather than laying down different paths, are
fixed in a continuous chain, ordered, to employ a Biblical term, 'from the
beginning' by an unseen, irrational force characterized in the poem by nature,
whose influence, as the falling leaves, covers all. In this light, the only
clear 'choice' for Frost’s wanderer is to move forward on the one road before
him, his past irrevocably leading to his present, forever leading to his
future."

Can we not all look to our past and try to relive it? How many people dream of yesteryears with longing for “the good ole’ days” when times were “easier.” (Helaman 7:7-8) But in reality, the reason times were easier in the past is because they are over. Hindsight is always 20/20. Frosts’ traveler views the road with the bent undergrowth with longing to return (“Oh, I kept the first for another day!”) as do we all. But the supreme point in all of this is that no matter if there is 1 road, 2 roads, or 50 roads, one option that will always be before any traveler is to do nothing. The traveler had the capacity to sit and do nothing. Once he makes that choice, of course, there are consequences. Doing nothing may bring the possibility of facing the oncoming winter storm and possibly death, but that is the consequence of the choice of doing nothing.

Coming from the past, the traveler sees the road behind him as “bent in the undergrowth” and sees the path before him as “just as fair.” But through it all, the traveler retains the ability to choose which direction to go. Once he makes that choice, the consequence is assigned (or you might even say “destined”). By following the path to which that choice and consequence lead will ultimately lead to another choice; but the latter choice is wholly dependent upon the initial choice. Consider the example of a girl and a boy becoming sexually active prematurely. That is a choice which they have every ability to make. Then, as a result of that choice, comes another set of choices which may include pregnancy, adoption, abortion, marriage, STD’s, etc. However, what if the two young people had never made the choice to become sexually active prematurely? Their consequences (or “destinies”) would be vastly different. Thus our path is not an “unseen, irrational force” but a necessary byproduct of the choices we have made in the past. Even if we can see no further back than the “ben[d] in the undergrowth,” the path still exists beyond it and still affects (or affected depending on your temporal understanding) the current path. From an LDS perspective, the condition of those who “kept not their first estate” is vastly different than those who did keep their first estate.

Perhaps my limited exposure to intellectualized literature hampers my understanding because it seems that the author can create any kind of a literary world s/he wants. But I cannot understand a world in which choice is removed from even a made-up character’s ability. To be destined is merely the passive acceptance (or choice) to allow someone or something else to rule you. Permitting destiny to rule you is to be acted upon and not to act. How can a character (made-up or real) achieve the measure of their creation (or even imagination) while sitting in the proverbial back seat on their journey towards self-actualization/completeness/perfection?