English 211 Thoughts

Marlow's presentation

2006-12-06T09:35:00.000-08:00

First of -- all the presentations have been really interesting to listen to.

But Marlow's on the book of Revelation (with a connection to The Invisible Man, which I would have been interested in hearing since I've read the book) and the number 666 was very intriguing.

I've always thought of Revelation has the cryptic, never-to-be-translated book of the Bible. In fact, I've never read the entire thing because I like some mysteries never to be explained. And for some strange reason, I think that if I read the book, I'll suddenly figure out the ages-old mystery. I don't want that.

But Marlow's explaination about 666 and the beast regarding Caesar Nero was awesome. Instead of resolving any mystery about Revelation, it opened my mind up to deeper mysteries. The beast in Revelation and the grotesque beastiality of Caesar's made a lot of sense. Add in the fact that St. John, the author, was banished (if I remember correctly) under Caesar's rule and I can see a possibility of why the book was written.

However, would a Christian, after so many of the books of the NT talk about "turning the other cheek" and doing good to your neighbor, write an angry book placing the ruler as the antigonist?

That part didn't quite jibe for me.

Jesus had no historical existence outside NT

2006-12-06T09:26:00.000-08:00

"There is no evidence worth anything that Jesus had any historical existence outside the New Testament; and it's obvious that the writers of the New Testament preferred it that way, because they could easily have collected such evidence if they had wanted it. They didn't want it" -- Frye p247, Ch24

That's so strange to think about. That Jesus didn't have any historical existence outside the NT. And that the writers of the NT wanted it that way. So it all boils down to faith on whether Jesus really did exist.

Are there other writings from that time that back up the fact of Jesus living? The way Frye says that the writers could have gotten evidence, had they wanted it, suggest that there was evidence. But was it evidence from sane people or twisted evidence from crazies?

It makes me wonder why the writers preferred the NT not having historical evidence for Jesus' existence. Maybe it just reinforced the concept of taking it on faith. Coming from an English Literature major's point of view, it seems absurd to write a research paper on someone without any research to back it up -- it's spouting empty words and crossing your fingers for belief.

Or is that the entire message of the NT? That you have to take it all on faith and simple belief? If so, wow. To base one's life on a religion where the writers didn't even provide evidence beyond their own that the center figure exists. That, my friends, it some serious faith.

Bathsheba

2006-11-20T09:44:00.000-08:00

Innocently bathing on a roof
the king sees me, wants me I can tell
there's a spark from his eyes, a fire burns
then a fire fulfilled and what can I do?
my husband is away at war
and everyone knows women cannot get pregnant
on their own

tricks and schemes follow
my self-appointed lover stalks my husband
and he dies
dies in battle, but I believe the king...
there's something more involving the king

after my mourning, the king brought me to him
and I was made his wife
unwilling, yes, but no one cares
I am a woman, slightly more than a sheep
bargained and borrowed and used

my son is sick, my son is sick!
my now-husband, always-king is crazy
fasting for the Lord to heal our son

too late

but the line continues and I continue
my womb never my own
always invaded like those countries
with his armies,
conquering, conquering, conquering

The Secret Book of Revelation

2006-11-16T13:40:00.001-08:00

Frye, p240:

"There are references in Old Testament prophecy to a book which is sealed, laid up to be read and used when the time comes to read it. And a great deal of the vision of the Book of Revelation has to do with the removal of the seals of revelation, that is, the powers of repression or whatever it is that keeps you from seeing what is going on. The conception is of a book which is secret, not so much because it is kept secret as because the mind of the reader insists on making it secret."

Wow.

What secrets is my mind blinding me to when I read the Bible? A few of those layers have been removed through this class and the realization of metaphoric language. But Revelation is so cryptic -- the way it was, according to Frye, meant to be written.

The idea of a secret sealed book in the most widely read book of our time is jarring. It reminds of me of The Da Vinci Code -- what have I been "reading" or glossing over all this time, thinking I understand but not actually knowing the first word of this foreign language?

How can we get at this secret that "the mind of the reader insists on making" secret? What key do we need to find? What spell should we recite? What initiation should we undertake? Will the Book of Revelation ever surrender its secrets? Or, perhaps more rightly, will our minds ever lose their stubbornness in keeping the secret secret from us? And how do you ever go about losing that repression?

Job's Wife and Love

2006-11-16T13:25:00.000-08:00

Frye: "While it is true that for Job not to have even the support of his wife during this trial is tough enough, it is more important that this is the only place where an image of love would naturally emerge" (195).

How strange that a love story could develop from this little interlude in Job. Yet a love story would blossom and ruin the entire test of Job. Is that why it dies and rots away? Or is it because love and marriage were not synonmus then as they are thought of now? It's weird to me to think that an image of love could come in the midst of his troubles. That image would add an element of hope to this pointless and bleak book. It seems like the testing of Job was just for kicks and giggles between God and Satan -- just to prove Satan wrong that Job would still love God after all that garbage.

"Likewise, he has dismissed his friends as 'miserable comforters' [16:2], and yet we are told that the Lord 'turned the captivity of Job, when he prayed for his friends' [42:10]. So that perhaps the love which is based on the love of these three blundering and blinkered and yet utterly well-meaning old buffers is perhaps closer to genuine love than any other image that would be available to the poet" (195).

Also weird that his friends are held up as symbols of love. They totter in ripe with well-meaning; they don't actually help but Job prays for his friends. His wife, who, as a woman, is usually held up as an ornament of love, turns away from him. Is this lack of love between husband and wife on both sides? Or maybe they had a horrendous argument the day before and she hasn't yet forgiven him. What's the backstory?

Job -- good man?

2006-11-01T20:19:00.000-08:00

Ironic: after finishing talking about Job in class, I go read this magazine, which has an article, which has an excerpt that goes like this:

"Job could bear appalling tragedy with undaunted faith, but the daily assualt on his body (specifically his skin -- perhaps the devil's idea of a jobe) wore him down. The swift blows that struck his children and livestock could be absorbed and dealt with, but sitting on an ash heap day after day with a pottery shard to scrape the lesions finally wrung a cry of protest from him. If the wise men of India were sitting among Job's comforters, they would have advised him to break his physical bonds and seek a realm of detachment: Matter was evil, or at the very least, irrelevant." -- Janie B. Cheaney, from World, October 28, 2006

If I were Job, I would have cried out a lot sooner. And his questioning God brings up echoes of Abraham bargaining with God over Sodom and Gomorrah -- Abraham is held up as an example of a good man, yet he blatantly questions God. Is questioning God a sign of a good man? If so, (I'm reading II Samuel for my group presentation) then David would be a good man by the same logic. And so the entire world would be "good men" by questioning God with why Kitrina happened and New Orleans' population was exposed to drowning.

Questioning = doubt. And doubt is a crucial part of faith, says Frye. Questions with no answers lead to finer developed questions. Doubt plays directly into those questions with no answers. It forces me to think about the other side, the what-ifs, the silences to my question. And to try and fill those lacunae with my answers that are constantly in limbo.

The Slave - origins

2006-10-25T21:14:00.000-07:00

Isaac Bachevis Singer – The Slave

Why is this book titled The Slave?

I think there are many different reasons why Singer titled his book such. Firstly, there is the love story between Wanda/Sarah and Jacob. Jacob is, in many ways, a slave to his lust and love for Wanda. She, likewise, is a slave to Jacob and her love for him. They will do anything for each other. Sarah goes to the extreme of adopting Judaism for Jacob – one of the most hated religions.

The second reference to a slave is found at the beginning of the book. Jacob is literally a slave in a foreign country. He is not a free man. His life is decided by his owners; his daily life governed by them.

The third reference to being a slave is regarding Jacob’s religion. I think this reference is the deciding reason why Singer named his book The Slave. Jacob says “We are all slaves. God’s slaves” (90). But even before that, he is immersed in rituals: “three times he washed his hands, the left hand first and then the right, alternating, according to the law. He had murmured even before washing, ‘I thank Thee,’ a prayer not mentioning God’s name and therefore utterable before cleaning oneself” (4). Directly from the start of the book, the readers see how Jacob’s religion shapes his life. I would argue, governs and enslaves him in its rituals. He is not allowed to do x, y, and z, because they would be against his religion.

By Singer titling his book The Slave, he is asking the reader to realize the levels of which people are slaves. Some are slaves to their love: Wanda/Sarah. Some are slaves literally: Jacob. Some are slaves to their religion: Jews. And some are slaves to their wives: Pilitzky.

(Note: I have read this book before. Loved it then. Still love it. It was so intruging -- an in-depth look into the Jewish world of "it's tradition" [Fiddler on the Roof]. And I also think that I didn't do this book justice on this blog. It deserves much more time and effort. Maybe along the lines of a term paper?)

Dinah and The Red Tent

2006-09-28T13:16:00.000-07:00

Today in class we touched briefly (I would have liked a longer discussion) on Dinah and her supposed rape. Did she get raped or was the writer of this particular story conflicted? Dr. Sexson talked about how it sounds like there are two different writers of this story -- one writer favors Hamar and his love for Dinah whereas the other writer views him as violent, defiler of Jacob's beautiful daughter.

What I didn't know is that there is a book, The Red Tent by Anita Diamant, that expands Dinah's story, filling in the lacune. (http://www.amazon.com/Red-Tent-Anita-Diamant/dp/0312195516 has the book for $9.72 and under -- I just might buy it).

Why am I so interested in this story?

Simply because it is so short, violent, conflicting (one writer vs. another writer), and concerns love. (Hey, I am a girl after all.) It intrigues me that the prince "lay with her by force" but then he professes "love" for Dinah. In my world, those two things don't coexist. Also, this story reminds me strongly of the debate surrounding Leda and The Swan. Did she welcome the amorous attentions of the Swan/Prince? Did she resist? Was this really a rape: sex without consent? Or was it a deceived rape, meaning "let's pretend I don't want this, but I really really do"?

The second way this story captured me was that Jacob is portrayed as weak next to his sons. At the end of the story, his sons snap, "will our sister be made a whore?" And that's the end of the story. In a patriarchal society, I would have thought that Jacob would have yelled, "Now, you listen to me you $$##@@# sons of mine! You have almost started a war because you're so rash. Here's what I'm going to do to you..."

Why didn't he do that? Why didn't he exert his authority as the Father? And what did Dinah think of all this? Was she "defiled" or ... not?

Circles and Lines

2006-09-13T21:47:00.000-07:00

What strikes me as intriguing is that Frye speaks of symbolism in the Bible as cyclical whereas in class Dr. Sexson spoke of the Bible's time as linear. Frye says in chapter 3 that the New Testament is thick with allusions to the Old Testament. That suggests a repeating circle within the structure of the Bible. Events, slight mentions, and stories that are in the Old Testament reappear in the New Testament as a reference. Frye's example was a tree ("shall grow all trees for meat") in Ezekiel that was referenced or "picked up" as Frye says by the author in Revelation.

Yet Dr. Sexson talked about Biblical time as being linear, always moving from point A to point B, always reaching forward to events. It boggles my mind to think of an internal cyclical structure to the Bible as it marches forward in a line. How does that happen and how does it work so well?

I always thought of the Bible as linear - looking forward to Jesus in the prophecies in the Old Testament and the New Testament as a springboard for the future. But I never considered the fact that there is a cyclical structure within this collection of books.

Why does it matter?

My thought is: the Bible is like a wheel - circular with an internal structure that holds its essence yet is simultanously rolling down a hill in a linear motion.

Is that the reason why the Bible has been the most widely read book because it is our favorite object: a wheel?

A Start

2006-09-01T17:54:00.000-07:00

Hello! Blogs will be starting here soon.