Turritopsis Nutricula

The theme of morality is prevalent through Catherynee M. Valente’s In the Night Garden. It is a common motif in mythological literature and fairy tales, to subjectively portray characters as either inherently evil or inherently good in relation to the culture of the story’s origin. Valente transcends such a motif and privies the reader with personal histories, circumstances, and thoughts of the story’s antagonists, “‘You stole her from us!” Imogen cried out miserably, like an infant bird falling from the nest. “She is our mother, not yours, and you took her away! We were happy before we came to this awful place! And now she has another baby- she will forget us completely!”’ (In the Night Garden 131). Iolanthe’s two daughters, Isaura and Imogen, are upset with Magadin, because their mother spends more time with her stepdaughter than her biological daughters. Isaura and Imgoen are not inherently evil for betraying Magadin to the wizard; inflicted with irrationality resulting from their feeling of abandonment, they do what is necessary to omit the source of pain in their lives. Whether or not morality is innate or relative, is a problem philosophers have attempted to answer since the formulation of the question within the human mind. And I believe it can be said with certainty every human being, at some moment in their life, has pondered the question.

The idea of eternal return is an idea which Nietzsche calls “the heaviest of burdens” for it states that, “‘All that is straight lies,”… "All truth is crooked; time itself is a circle…. "Behold," I continued, "this moment! From this gateway, Moment, along, eternal lane leads backward: behind us lies an eternity. Must not whatever can walk have walked on this lane before? Must not whatever can happen have happened, have been done, have passed by before? And if everything has been there before – what do you think, dwarf, of this moment? Must not this gateway too have been there before? And are not all things knotted together so firmly that this moment draws after it all that is to come? Therefore – itself too? For whatever can walk – in this long lane out there too, it must walk once more,’” (Nietzsche, Zarathustra).

The idea of eternal return is indeed burdensome as it excludes morality. According to such a philosophy we cannot condemn any action as all things are momentarily in transit and will return; however, if every action we make is bound to reoccur, it inflicts upon us a responsibility of extreme weight. If circumstances within Valente’s In the Night Garden are addressed with the idea of eternal return, in what manners do our opinions on them differ as opposed to an initial reading with no premeditated goal of action?

Valence addresses morality within a monarchy, “‘Oh, my son, my son. How do you think I became King? I, too, cut out my father’s heart while he slept…”… And so we all begin, determined to better our father’s performances, knowing we can change the very nature of humanity, make it better, cleaner. But then daggers strike in the night, and peasants revolt, and all manner of atrocities become as necessary as breakfast. Only Princes believe in the greater good. Kings know there is only the Reign, all things may be committed in its holy name, “(In the Night Garden 205, 222). The king cares not for morality and is in allegiance to Machiavelli’s quote, “‘It is much safer to be feared than loved because ...love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails.”(The Prince).The King acknowledges he too sought to change the world for the better but in the position of a ruler it is necessary to disregard morality for the sake of one’s ruling territory. What would occur if the King or the Prince accepted the doctrine of eternal return?

Nietzsche asks, "Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus? Or have you once experienced a tremendous moment when you would have answered him: "You are a god and never have I heard anything more divine." If this thought gained possession of you, it would change you as you are or perhaps crush you. The question in each and every thing, "Do you desire this once more and innumerable times more?" would lie upon your actions as the greatest weight. Or how well disposed would you have to become to yourself and to life to crave nothing more fervently than this ultimate eternal confirmation and seal?"

The King and the Prince could be changed or crushed; hence the idea of free will is irrelevant within the idea of eternal return. I don’t believe the King would be changed drastically, as it seems he already has a loose understanding (unarticulated) of the idea of eternal return. It is the Prince who would be changed or crushed. In his action of attempting to murder his father for evil committed, it can be inferred he acts upon a sense of morality. But if free will does not exist, morality is dead, and time is a loop, would his actions differ? I don’t believe so. Not only is his sense of morality thoroughly ingrained in him, it is logical to argue although theoretically morality may not exist, it exists within our world and one cannot escape it as one cannot escape aging.

How does our opinion on their actions change within the idea of eternal return? In my opinion, in relation to the idea of eternal return, neither of the characters are inherently good or evil and neither of their actions are good or evil; their actions are ephemeral and pre-prescribed. The idea of eternal return allows us to transcend morality and focus on other issues often eclipsed by thoughts of morality. I would personally focus on a searching for identical actions previously committed in history, if the idea of eternal return is true and the world has existed long enough for its implications to be seen.

The idea of eternal return cannot be proven, but it is a fascinating one to ponder within any piece of literature whether it be a typical or queer text; any circumstance whereby action is committed, is capable of being looked at in relation to morality.

What do you all think? How does your opinion change of the characters in relation to the idea of eternal return? And if it doesn’t change, why is it? Would you live a different life, if every action you commit has been committed and will continue to be committed throughout time? Or would apathy grow? Is it possible the world can accept such an idea? What might the world look like? Would it be changed or crushed? Would it change at all?