Monthly Archives

January 2025

In Blog Posts on
January 15, 2025

The Heroism of Futility

We have found it so hard to believe, so easy to disbelieve. Every good thing has suffered. –Don Welch, “An Interview with Don Welch,” Mark Sanders, On Common Ground

As I was loading photos into the new digital picture frame I received from my daughter and her family for Christmas, I came upon a photo of my grandson, Griffin, as he worked valiantly to rescue minnows that were being flushed through the culvert under our pond dam after a recent downpour. I remember the day well, how he scooped as though his life depended on it, carrying coffee can after can full of minnows from the river raging through his yard to the pond where he dumped them, returning quickly to bail again. This was Sisypean labor. For every minnow he saved, a dozen more were swept down the torrent that gushed through his yard into a ditch of cattails where they would die. This was a lesson in futility, as we worked, shoulder to shoulder, to save the same minnows that steamed through the culvert again almost as quickly as we rescued them.

But what do you say to a child-hero whose resolve is so pure, whose heart is so full? Oh, I could’ve schooled him on futility, all our scooping and living and loving slipping through our fingers–literally and metaphorically–too soon. I could’ve encouraged him to give up the fight and retreat to the yard for a game of wiffle ball. I could’ve, but I didn’t. Let him believe, I thought. If just for a time as this, let him fight the good fight. For too soon, the bright fry of these days will be swept away into the hard truth of moments during which he’ll see–with clear and grownup eyes–the futility of such acts.

In his philosophical essay, “The Myth of Sispyphus,” French writer and philosopher Albert Camus wrote that “[t]he gods had condemned Sisyphus to ceaselessly rolling a rock to the top of a mountain, whence the stone would fall back of its own weight. They had thought with some reason that there is no more dreadful punishment than futile and hopeless labor.” Immortalized in mythology for the punishment he received from the gods, Sisyphus has become the poster child for futility, endlessly pushing a boulder up a mountainside, only to have it roll to the bottom, where he’d begin the act again. In his essay, however, Camus ultimately concludes that “one must imagine Sisyphus happy,” that perhaps, like Sisyphus, we might find a kind of joy and purpose in the struggle.

It’s one thing to be a child who isn’t aware that his minnow rescue mission is futile, but it’s quite another to be a man who sees the futility of the labor to which he’s condemned. Some regard Sisyphus’ fate as an apt metaphor for postmodern life. You work, you pour your life into some venture, people and place–and to what end? For an exceptional few, there are monuments, written records, and legacies marking their labor. For most us, however, poet W. H. Auden says it best in his poem, “Musee des Beaux Arts,” when he concludes with these lines regarding Dutch painter, Pieter Bruegel’s “The Fall of Icarus”:

In Brueghel's Icarus, for instance: how everything turns away
Quite leisurely from the disaster; the ploughman may
Have heard the splash, the forsaken cry,
But for him it was not an important failure; the sun shone
As it had to on the white legs disappearing into the green
Water; and the expensive delicate ship that must have seen
Something amazing, a boy falling out of the sky,
Had somewhere to get to and sailed calmly on.

Yes, for most of us, our lives and deaths aren’t important failures (or successes), and others have places to get to and sail calmly on. This has been the predominant postmodern sentiment, one grounded in a belief that our actions are largely futile and our lives largely unremmarkable.

In going through my father’s files and papers, I’ve been reminded again and again of how he championed a worldview founded on turning defeat into victory by refusing to be defeated. In poetry, he advocated “writing up,” even in the midst of stylistic trends that celebrated “writing down,” rejecting more traditional virtues of beauty, truth, and goodness and replacing them with irony, futility, and utility. In life, he celebrated the lives of those like his grandmother who struggled to keep her farm afloat during the Dust Bowl years and my mother’s grandmother who immigrated from Germany to Nebraska as a teen and ultimately worked as a housekeeper, raising two sons alone when her husband abandoned her. In love, he looked to my mother’s unflagging optimism and courage in the face of cancer, economic and family challenges. He lived his words: There is no more heroic charge than to begin again.

In the first few years after my retirement, I thought a lot about my life’s work. Professionally, this work culminated in my last position in which I was able to use what I’d learned over decades to affect change in one school district. I was–and am–proud of this work, for at the end of my career, I’d learned much from my successes and failures as an educator and was given an opportunity to share this with other educators as a professional development provider. Still, I was scooping minnows–passionately and with purpose–that would quickly be swept away. Within a year of my retirement, there were few remnants of my work alive. There was little to suggest I’d ever worked there, save for the memories of a few teachers. Some could argue that I was rolling the stone of my convictions up the education mountain of fickle preferences and trends, to no real avail. Some could argue that the best work of my life came to naught.

And yet, I’ve also thought about what I’d change now if, when I began my work there, I knew what I now know. And I’d have to say nothing. I’d change nothing. As my sister says (wisely), that was your work to do then. Indeed. There is a kind of heroism in work that some may call futile. After all, what’s the alternative? To regard every task, every word or deed as pointless? To never begin for fear of having to face those for whom your work will neither be an important success or failure? To sit at the bottom of the mountain in the shade, scoffing at those who roll their stones up each day? To sail calmly on as others strive for ends they may or may not achieve?

For years, I faced classrooms of students who quickly decided that the work of American literature or composition was futile because they’d never need such work in the “real world.” Having decided this, they often resolved to get through these courses by refusing to begin at all. That is, they committed to completing only what was absolutely required–without engaging in the work–and resigned themselves to enduring the required semester(s). But there were also those who believed they could benefit from the best thinking and writing of the best authors and speakers, who willingly pushed this challenging work up the mountains of the course, and who suffered every good thing they read and discussed. Most of these students wouldn’t go on to become English majors or to use what they’d learned in literal, practical ways in their careers. Still, they refused to see the work as futile, and instead, regarded it as heroic. This work, they argued, was necessary for those who wished to become better humans.

We’ve all known exceptional individuals like these students. We’ve witnessed the heroic futility of our children and grandchildren as they eagerly take on tasks most adults would regard as futile. We’ve lived and worked among such individuals who often quietly go about the business of beginning again, putting their metaphorical backs into the work of each day. We know these people, and we know futility. But perhaps we don’t recognize the impact of our responses often enough. I’ve tried to imagine what my life would’ve been like if I hadn’t grown up in a family that saw many of my labors–some more futile than others–as heroic. Clearly, there are times to pack it in, to acknowledge that to continue in the same way hoping for different results is futillity (or insanity). But there are other times when we should celebrate the conviction that drives us, even as we fail (especially as we fail).

Like my father, I fear that we may be losing the heart for such celebration. Driven by our well-intended (but often damaging) desires to protect ourselves and others from futility, we may discourage those who would begin again. We may find it increasingly hard to believe in heroes like Vallie Welch and Minnie Zorn. And we may fail to understand Camus’ claim that we can imagine Sisyphus–and others who find purpose in apparently hopeless labor–happy.

In Blog Posts on
January 2, 2025

On Their Behalf

  Photo Courtesy of Nebraska Tourism

I would therefore write a kind of elemental poetry that doesn’t just avoid the indoors but doesn’t even see the doors that lead inward—to laboratories, to textbooks, to knowledge. I would not talk about the wind, and the oak tree, and the leaf on the oak tree, but on their behalf. –from “Winter Hours,” Upstream: Selected Essays, Mary Oliver, 2016

In her essay, “Winter Hours,” Mary Oliver declares that she couldn’t be a poet without the natural world, that, for her, “the door to the woods is the door to the temple.” She’s not alone. Over the centuries, there have been many writers, artists, naturalists, and pioneers for whom the door to the natural world was the door to the temple. Like Oliver, they respected the natural world, revered its beauty and power, and were keenly aware that their destinies were irrevocably linked to it. And like Oliver, they strove to represent the wind, and the oak tree, and the leaf on the oak tree on their behalf.

I couldn’t help but think of artists like Oliver, of William Wordsworth and Henry David Thoreau, of Aldo Leopold and Annie Dillard–to name just a few–as I watched the finale of the popular Paramount Plus series, Yellowstone, which aired just before Christmas. Inspired by the 2,500 acre Chief Joseph Ranch in Darby, Montana, the series’ fictional Yellowstone Dutton Ranch is portrayed to be the size of Rhode Island, a whopping 1,034 square miles. Although Yellowstone offers a variety of colorful and unforgettable characters (some who will reportedly star in their own spinoff series), the land itself is the protagonist. The struggle to keep and preserve it is central to the plot in every episode. Throughout the series, the family strives to keep the ranch for their heirs, honoring ancestor and pioneer James Dutton’s legacy profiled in the series’ prequel, 1883. In spite of their commitment and hard work, however, a host of developers and leaders of the Broken Rock Indian Reservation continue to threaten this legacy, throwing roadblocks and creating chaos in each season. When the family finally comes to the painful but inevitable realization that they can no longer cover the ranch’s enormous tax burden, they sell it to the Broken Rock Reservation for a price tag that ensures the Reservation will be able to pay the taxes ($1.25 an acre) and with an agreement to preserve the land for all time.

Yellowstone’s creator, Taylor Sheridan, profiles ranchers and indigenous people in their complex fight to preserve a way of life. And the preservation of this way of life is wholly dependent upon the preservation of the land. Sheridan is not the first, nor will he be the last, to chronicle this fight. Certainly, his series and its prequels have ignited a renewed interest in and passion for the West and its remaining undeveloped spaces.

To those who argue that that this theme has been done–perhaps overdone–and that there’s little more to be gained by plumbing it further, I offer these words from Oliver’s “Winter Hours”: “The pine tree, the leopard, the Platte River, and ourselves—we are at risk together, or we are on our way to a sustainable world together. We are each other’s destiny.” Next to my father, Oliver is my favorite poet, and her mention of the Platte River here solidifies this standing. For years, my parents routinely hosted visiting poets, and when Oliver visited the University of Nebraska-Kearney, she actually slept in my childhood bedroom (be still my heart!) I don’t know this for fact, but I like to think that she and my father discussed their shared love of the natural world over coffee at the dining room table where so many other poets sat and visited. As they talked, I know that my father would’ve shared his love for the Platte River, for the Nebraska Flyway that attracts as many as a million sandhill cranes, geese, ducks, and other shorebirds annually. I like to think that when Oliver wrote these words, she remembered her visit to Kearney. And I like to think that she remembered my father, who, too, spent his life writing the kind of elemental poetry on behalf of the Platte River, the sandhill cranes, the roadside ditches lined with coneflowers, the acres of buffalo grass, the wonderful and terrible natural world.

Oliver claimed that “[t]he farthest star and the mud at our feet are a family; and there is no decency or sense in honoring one thing, or a few things, then closing the list.” And why should we close the list? Why should we forget the family to which we belong? Why should we refuse to see that we are at risk together, or we are on our way to a sustainable world together? Yes, the theme of land preservation has been done and redone; still, we seem to need and welcome the reminder, the renewed awareness, and the wonder of even the smallest and meanest thing in the natural world. We need and want the Mary Olivers and Taylor Sheridans, the Wendell Berrys and Don Welches. Each, in his or her own right, brings new eyes to the natural world that too many take for granted.

A few months ago, I heard someone remark that a new poet was just another in a long line of “nature poets, the likes of Mary Oliver.” And he wondered aloud if Oliver was really as good a poet as people thought she was, or if she just rode out her illustrious career on the laurels of some early–and perhaps lucky–success. Undoubtedly, he would identify me as just another nature poet, too, and certainly not one of Oliver’s caliber. For awhile, I thought seriously about my own writing and about the journals that had rejected it. Could it be that they found my work derivative of nature writers like Oliver and Berry whose themes they’d thrown over for newer social themes? Perhaps so.

I suspect Taylor Sheridan will continue to make television series regarding land preservation. If Mary Oliver and my father were still alive, I know they’d continue to write on behalf of the land they loved so dearly. If they were both alive, I’d invite them to walk the trails with me each morning. And in those moments before dawn, we wouldn’t talk about the muskrat in the north pond and the cedar trees and the berries on the cedar trees–but on their behalf.