An Eye for an Eye?

Fantasy Land is my novel of revenge, or more precisely, of a revenge that is planned but not carried out. And this seems to be the chief objection of some of my readers, as expressed to me in person or by mail. They claim that they were not emotionally justified by the result. Reader I know that when someone slaps you in the face you want to slap them right back. But let me explain to you why this is not the wisest course to follow.

Revenge or retaliation is the infliction of deliberate harm on somebody in response to a harm they have done to you. Revenge is basically an emotional response to being hurt, and being an emotional response, it goes way back to primitive man. It was, and is, common to most societies emerging from savagery and tribalism toward some sort of civilization.

Two important documents of the ancient world (both about 700 BC) show us that retaliation was a justifiable as well as an advisable course of action back then. In the Hebrew Book of Exodus, (21:23-25) we read that “And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.” This line, often quoted, in essence justifies revenge.
Hesiod's Greek poem Works and Days, was not as influential as the Old Testament but it was an important moral work of the time whose aim was to show men how best to live in a difficult world. Line 710 says: “But if he wrongs you first, offending either in word or in deed, remember to repay him double.” If Hesiod used the words in Exodus this would come out as two lives for a life, two eyes for an eye, two teeth for a tooth... Greek retaliation was twice as austere.

Then along came Socrates (469-399 BC), perhaps the world's most influential philosopher. In Plato's Crito, Socrates sets down his five principles: A man should never do or return an injustice. A man should never do or return an evil to another man. To do evil to a human being whether in retaliation or not, he claimed, is no different from acting unjustly. Furthermore, if you don't retaliate, there is a chance to make a friend out of your enemy. Socrates' rejection to retaliation was the most important practical event of his philosophical life. It was also one of the most important events in the history of philosophy. Western ethics would never be the same. In the New Testament, written more than four centuries later, and in particular in the Gospel according to St Matthew we read: (5:38,39) “Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

There are many practical examples of how effective the “no retaliation” principle is compared to an eye for eye. I shall not recall the first time it was practised by the Athenian assembly in 427 BC, but give you two examples from our own age. At the end of the First World War, the allies forced Germany to pay for the entire cost of the war. The result was a horrible German inflation, the rise of Adolph Hitler and a new war. At the end of the Second World War, the Americans not only didn't ask Germany to pay for the cost of the war but inaugurated aid through the Marshall Plan. To this day, almost seventy years later, both the German and Japanese nations are still on friendly terms with the nations that won the war. An example of the contrary is Israel's conflict with the Arab nations: all strict believers of the “eye for an eye” principle. They match each other's horrible deed with horrible deed and as a result they have no hope of ever becoming friends.

In Fantasy Land the protagonist (Burt Curtis) had been treated very badly for no reason. He was emotionally driven to revenge and planned it meticulously. But at the last moment he was asked by his lover to let it go. Here was my dilemma. What would I have him do? He could carry out his revenge, and satisfy most readers' retaliation instincts. My homage to Homer's Iliad and Edgar Allan Poe's The Cask of Amontillado, two great tales of revenge had already enticed the reader for “the eye for an eye” principle so this would have been the most emotionally satisfying course to follow. But it would have been wrong. Not because I am cold or unemotional. I too can appreciate Sulla's epitaph (“No friend has ever done me a favour and no enemy a wrong without being fully repaid”). But a good author should achieve more than just entertain the reader. Through the protagonist, the author should help the reader develop, make him a better person. Man's philosophical quest and history have shown that it is far smarter to forgo the brief emotional satisfaction of “an eye for an eye” for the long term enjoyment of “turning the other cheek”.

Forgoing retaliation is not only smart. It is mature and civilized thinking.

I am sorry that I wasn't able to drive home this important point to all of my readers. I hope that my intentions are now clear enough.