In the March 2010 Sunstone Magazine, Stephen R. Carter provides a wonderful synopsis/review of the a Nick Hornby book:
“The story is about Katie (How to Be Good ), a general practitioner married with two children. Her husband, David has an ill-paying job writing a column called “The Angriest Man in Holloway.” Their marriage is falling apart and on the verge of ending when David meets a spiritual healer named DJ GoodNews. The encounter turns David completely around, and he becomes the most ineptly philanthropic man in Holloway.
GoodNews moves into their home and, with David, concocts one grandiose humanitarian scheme after another. David gives away the family’s computers, makes the kids donate the toys they like, and convinces his neighbors to take in homeless kids.
Being a family practice doctor, Katie has always considered herself a good person, but she has a hard time dealing with these changes. David and GoodNews throw the household and Katie’s life and beliefs into chaos.”
“. . . Though the reader is meant to side with Katie–the normal, sane, rational person–and look askance at David and GoodNews–real goodness seems up for grabs.
For example, the reader completely agrees with Katie that housing a faith healer and homeless boy named Monkey are terrible ideas. And, indeed, some neighbors get burned during the course of the project. But, by golly, as a result, three homeless kids find their way into a better life.
A battle is certainly raging here, but the book is not about who wins and who loses, or who’s right and who’s wrong. Instead, it tracks the intricacies of the fray. It shows how the people caught in this tension grow.”
“In the end, David becomes less reliant on utopian visions, and Katie, a little less reliant on rationality. They both become more fluid. In other words, in this novel, we don’t have the triumph of an idea or principle. Neither David nor Katie is right. Instead, we get some character development.
It seems to me that eternal progression is exactly what How to Be Good is all about. People don’t progress because they get righter and righter. They progress because in all its idiosyncrasy, their humanity becomes larger, more robust, and more diverse in response to their circumstances.”
Is it easier to become “less reliant on utopian visions” than “a little less reliant on rationality”? I’m not sure of the answer. I have a friend who is constantly chasing his dreams and trying to “build a better mousetrap”. His utopian visions are global. He truly feels that what he is doing is of worth, and it is. Many people’s lives have improved for the better because of his willingness to go outside the box, to do what he can to “save the world”. However, it’s that darned rationality of others that kicks in and occasionally puts a damper on his efforts. His global thoughts at times have turned into what others would classify as obsessions. He sees the forest, but misses some of the trees that are right in front of him. Okay, now I’m sounding a bit too rational. It’s easier to chase utopian visions.
I’m not totally sure that “utopian dreams” and “rationality” need necessarily be mutually exclusive. If there is a big problem, management consultants frequently suggest that it be broken into smaller more manageable parts. Perhaps the solution to global problems is for individuals to find their own small niche and work toward resolution. The key, I suggest, is for the individual to not overextend . . . a problem I frequently have. So to your analogy of the the forest and the trees, maybe your friend looks at too many trees. Also, their is obviously more to life than “tilting at windmills,” friendship and relationships are important.