Sep 29 2009
Apocalypse, one community at a time
Before reading Angels in America, the apocalypses we read about and discussed in class seemed to have at least one thing in common – the whole world was affected. From nuclear destruction to environmental degradation, there was always a sense that come what may, we’re all in this together. (Except, of course, Fundamentalist Christians. And the 144,000 virgins.)
In Angels in America, however, we’re treated to a view of the apocalypse (in the form of the AIDS epidemic) as it affects only one community, in only one place – the gay, male community of New York City. I don’t mean to downplay the severity or the horrific consequences of the AIDS epidemic, but does it really constitute an apocalypse?
According to Professor Quinby, there are five essential elements of an apocalyptic story.
- God, or divine authority (the Angel)
- Receiver of the message (Prior)
- End of the world (AIDS diagnosis)
- Judgment day (Prior refusing the mission to stop humanity’s progress)
- Eternal life in new Jerusalem, or some other form of transcendence (scene at the Bethesda Fountain)
None of these points (taking a less than literal view of the word “world” in #3) demands participation from a large group of people, and I would say that Angels in America hits all of the five points. My question, however, is whether the idea of a localized apocalypse is inherently oxymoronic.
Obviously the AIDS epidemic was devastating to gay communities around the country during the 1980’s and 90’s. But if we can consider Angels in America a local or niche apocalypse story, what’s to prevent us from labeling stories about 20 people, or 10 people, or two people, or even one person “apocalyptic”? (Great, now I feel like Abraham.) Can such personal stories be considered apocalyptic?
I would argue no, they shouldn’t be included in the genre. Apocalypse, for me, always connotes something that affects a large group of people. But what do I know? As it says in the Talmud, “Whoever destroys a soul, it is considered as if he destroyed an entire world. And whoever saves a life, it is considered as if he saved an entire world.”
I was mostly joking with the Abraham reference – my count-down litany reminded me of the story.
By local apocalypse, I mean one community, not even one whole city. Maybe a better term to illustrate my oxymoron question would have been “limited apocalypse”
Hmmm. I’ve been watching the movie version of Angels in America since reading the play, and I have to admit that helped make it clearer to me that the play is about a lot more than the AIDS crisis. But what do you mean by “the apocalypse that is to come?” In my reading, at least, it seemed to me that the “apocalypse,” as it was, came and went by the end of Part 2, with New Jerusalem embodied by the characters in the epilogue scene at the fountain.
I’m not sure I understand your reference to Abraham and Sodom. He was praying to save the entire city from destruction in the merit of the few. This was not a destruction of the few. Can you please clarify in terms of “local apocalypse”? Do you mean that the destruction of one city as opposed to the whole world is what makes it local?
Another, more general point: I think that Kushner uses the AIDS crisis as a metaphor for the whole of American society. He criticizes many aspects of cultural, moral, religious, and political life and these are not all framed within the AIDS crisis, but the epidemic is a starting point for a larger discussion. Therefore, the apocalypse that is to come should affect all Americans, not only gays. What do think about that?
Agreed, and as you can see, I found your breakdown of Quinby’s 5 requirements for an Apocalypse to be quite helpful. Much thanks,
D