We live. We search. We constantly strive to become something more, something new, or simply just something better than what we may be at the time. It’s human nature to wish for change, let alone to justly understand that change is an inevitable thing that comes to all human beings, much like death.
The character of Lauren in Parable of the Sower is a believer and a follower of the School of Change. She even disproves the theory of God to herself in the belief that change is the only constant, the only paramount thing to consider in the putrid world she has lived to know.
Lauren came to this conclusion through the comparative scientific precept of Occam’s Razor, which in laymen’s terms states that to any quandary or theory resulting in more than one distinct conclusion or result, the most logical and simplest answer tends to be the most correct. This is clearly how Lauren came to her conclusion that God isn’t real. She observed her surroundings and acknowledged the sheer fact that everything around her was constantly changing and not for the better. The conditions she was forced to endure are what made her aware that these changes she was facing would eventually kill her if she didn’t take action immediately to better protect herself in the future. Coupled with her hyperempathy and this fear from the changes in her life, she began to prepare, reading all the books she could in order to learn every little last bit of information about everything. She began making ideas that would be beneficial to her and her family in case her theories about the walls of her community eventually falling, like creating “earthquake packs” with supplies in case they needed to leave town in a hurry.
This leads to Lauren telling her friend about her fears and worries in the hopes of reaching another person who may not be so innately drawn to the all-encompassing scientific question of “What if”. Lauren learns two important lessons here when she tells Joanne about here expectations for the future. The first lesson was that there are certain people that cannot be trusted, no matter how close they may be to you so it may just be better to keep certain things to yourself. The second lesson was that not all people are so willingly accepting of change, let alone observant to it. These two lessons are evident in Joanne’s reaction after Lauren told her about her worries. She immediately went and told her parents because she was scared. She couldn’t even embrace the possibility that such a change could occur. Some people just aren’t capable of accepting such a large truth, and don’t come to terms with such truths until later in life and they have been more influenced by their own personal experiences. Lauren is smarter than that though, she has had less life experience than most, but still has more knowledge and understanding than the adults that run her life, like little Amy—the little girl under Lauren’s tutelage whom was shot by heathens outside of the gate—whose parents held little compassion and care for their own child.
One could assume that from being raised by a pastor of a church that a child would follow the same thought process and belief systems of their parents. Laruen was different though, she saw through the fallacies and misshapen concepts related to an “all powerful being”, living in the skies and watching over his people—which if he was real, Lauren would most likely agree that he was failing at his job.
Lauren understands more, she questions more and follows through to learn the answers to the questions she asks. It seems to be that she was born with the supreme thought of curiousity and from that, has learned much more for herself in case things do go badly, and thus, giving the reader more reassurance that in case these events do take place and will take place in the new future of the novel she will have a better chance of survival than the rest of those around her—besides she’s the main protagonist, and who the hell kills their main protagonist in a novel?
It sounds like you’re arguing that Butler’s arguing (via the character of Lauren) that anybody who is as observant as Lauren would inevitably reach the same conclusions about the nature of god. If this is true, I still wonder what it was about Lauren that led her to see through the veil of lies and half-truths about the world. In other words, her new faith was borne out of her skepticism, but what gave birth to her skepticism? Was she just naturally more doubtful than others in her community? Did her hyperempathy play a role? How does one impart these beliefs to others who aren’t as observant or skeptical?
I think that her skepticism was certainly sired from her problems, or rather “delusions” of Hyperempathy, and from an early age, made her aware of the travesties and problems that everyone has come so quickly to ignore because of their protected communities. Despite all of this, Lauren still fears the worst, which could be a great burden or a useful tool for her and her loved ones, as we will later discover in the progression of the novel. Also, I can’t quite answer the question of how to impart these beliefs to those who are less observant or skeptical than Lauren, but clearly, her original approach that I mentioned clearly wasn’t the best method. I would say maybe use such evidence as little Amy being murdered, and the bulletproof walls penetration as modes of evidence for defense in Lauren’s case. I’m sure even that may be disregarded by most of the community though.
This will be one of the blog assignments that I will be editing and revising for the blog audit, hopefully by then I will have some more complex answers and questions about this progressing issue in the novel!