This item represents the first of this year's entries from Ward's Lifetime of Reading, and also an important item on the list of books I pretended to have read in college. I remember giving up at the end of part one, partly out of moral discomfort, partly out of boredom. The book bothered me, even then; if there is one key descriptor that I would apply to Emma Bovary as a character, it is "uncomfortable". This is not only to say that she is perpetually ill-at-ease, but also that I shared her discomfort while reading it. I became maudlin and self-absorbed. I began to mentally revise my version of my last relationship. In this new version I was Emma, troublesome, aloof, unfair. I even wrote a needy email to . . . someone--that probably would have been better off unsent. Some drunk-text. I send Flaubert-mail.
I was similarly affected by Flaubert's A Sentimental Education, though not so deeply. When affected effectively, the reader cannot help but wonder how the author did it. What tricks did Flaubert use to get into my mind? Flaubert is traditionally treated as one of the first and foremost Realist writers. Although it is not clear whether he would have agreed with this appellation, looking at him in this light is helpful to decoding his tactics. It is an easy matter to observe his selection of common characters and common events, his aversion to anything epic. What interested me more in this novel, however, were stylistic elements that I perceived.
For one thing, I was reminded of Mark Twain's quote: "When you catch an adjective, kill it." Although Flaubert may not have had the same conscious aversion to Adjectives, one can see how it would fit in nicely with a Realist philosophy. Adjectives can easily become editorials. The "crystal clear sky" imparts a judgment, as opposed to the adjectiveless "there are no clouds in the sky", a subtle, but stylistically significant distinction. I am now going to open up to a random passage, and try to find a decent example . . .
"The countryside was deserted; he heard nothing around him but the regular swishing of the grass against his shoes and the chirping of crickets hidden in the distant oatfields. He thought of Emma in the parlor, dressed as he had seen her, and he undressed her" (127).
It is clear that this remarkable passage draws much of its power from its frankness. The one adjective in the paragraph, "distant", does not editorialize, and gives relevant information. A grammarian might call it a identifying adjective, rather than a descriptive one. This pattern is noticeable throughout Bovary. Although Flaubert does not entirely eschew descriptive adjectives, their presence is muted--even Twain did not recommend killing them entirely.
Related to this restraint is Flaubert's limited employment of figurative language. Metaphor also can stray into editorial if not checked, and Flaubert stops well short of that line. Let's examine another random passage, shall we?
"At dawn he saw three black hens asleep in a tree; he shuddered, terrified at this omen. He promised the Holy Virign he would donate three chasubles to the church and walk barefoot from the cemetery at Les Bertaux to the Chapel in Vassonville" (330).
That this short passage is free from anything resembling figurative language is not terribly surprising. It would be a simple matter to add a bit of it here, but it does not take a genius to recognize that the image of the hens is powerful enough without poetic embellishment. Further examination reveals, however, that the entire page is just as matter-of-fact, no, two pages, three, one has two read four pages to find a solid example of figurative language, and even then it is the rather tame " . . . their voices floated out over the countryside, rising and falling in waves" (333). One might be tempted to call this writing prosaic, so free from embellishment is it, but the effect is not prosaic; it is profound. The strength of Flaubert's writing stems not from his facility with a phrase or his gift for painting a scene. No, it comes from the very real, very plain things that people do, say and think.
For this reason it should come as no surprise that Flaubert does not indulge in that fatal poetic flaw, apostrophe. He presents the story, and leaves it to the reader to decide what it means. On occasion, he cannot restrain himself from being epigrammatic, but the reader forgives him, both due to the rarity of his intrusions and their quality. Only two examples come to mind, both of them welcome: "It is better not to touch our idols; the gilt comes off on our hands" and "Speech is a rolling mill that always stretches out the feelings that go into it" (278, 230).
Such observations do not necessarily answer the question, "How does Flaubert creep into the mind of the reader so surgically?". The answer might well be his keen and honest observations of the human thought process, as I observed in my notes on A Sentimental Education. What I comment on here might merely be stylistic choices on Flaubert's part, rather than real strategic genius. At any rate, it is clear that I did him a disservice in college by reading only one section, and I am glad to have revisited him now, with a little more insight under my belt.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Monday, March 08, 2010
Acts III
15:1 Luke is making a consciously politic effort to not embarrass anybody here.
15:5 You can't teach an old dog new trick. I wonder if Nicodemus was one of these.
15:7-11 I can find no fault with this speech of Peter's. His reasoning is not only sound, but loving, and outside of the box. It goes beyond what was necessary for the moment.
15:14 When did Peter take the name "Simeon" as opposed to "Simon"? Is this a nuance of translation?
15:19 "I have reached the decision"? What role does James have here, exactly? Is he the chairman of this board? A John Hancock?
15:20 Here's an interesting question: why these 4 things? Fornication seems pretty obvious, as does the idol proscription. So what was the big deal with blood? Was it a nod to the Jews, for whom that would simply be beyond the pale? Alternately, is there some theological significance that was invented for this occasion?
15:21 This is a seeming non sequitir. I can think of two ways to take it: firstly, James could mean that Moses is no longer a source unique to the Jews. Contrariwise, he could mean that The Jewish Law has had its chance (and, as mentioned by Peter, no one could keep it anyway).
15:24 This letter is very carefully written. It indicates that the elders in Jerusalem did not agree with those who made Gentiles get circumcised (without saying it), but this is manifestly misleading.
15:36 This has often been cited in my experience as an example of the candor of the Bible, as a way of strengthening its authority. I'm not so sure of that. It's not a particularly candid account, neither is it neutral. He in whom authority was vested came away looking rather like the more high-minded of the two.
16:1 This is a nice moment to introduce Timothy from a literary perspective. We just finished reconciling the Jews and the Greeks, and voila! Ecce Homo!
16:3 Whatwhatwhat? I thought we resolved that question! This reflects rather ill on Paul. Yes, I perceive this to be a cowardly move.
16:6-7 Is there a difference between the Holy Spirit in v6 and the Spirit of Jesus in v7?
16:10 Wait, who is "we"? Is Timothy narrating now? I though Luke wrote this. I've looked four times and not found a skipped quotation mark . . . it definitely seems that Luke is traveling with them now.
16:15 How could she be judged faithful to the Lord? She just heard about him. Faith is momentary, but faithfulness requires a bit more time.
16:18 this account certainly refutes any idea that the source of a vision can be told by its fruitage. This was clearly the work of what Luke considers a demon, and yet it offered two beneficial fruits: wealth, and, more to the point, a direct witness to Paul's party.
16:28 Paul's behavior here is different than Peter's in a similar situation. Why did he linger?
16:37 This explains the former. Paul very astutely set the magistrates up. Why the earthquake, then, becomes the question. A bit extreme if it was only for the salvation of one guard and his household.
17:12 This is the second passage that makes special mention of the women. It is less remarkable that Greek women were persuaded, but Jewish women were definitely not used to making such decision for themselves, or acting as their own agents.
17:16 I know a little how he feels here. To this day, the sight of a cross still give me metaphorical mono.
17:18 This might have been a refreshing change of pace for Paul, to argue with a new set of people and develop a new set of arguments.
17:23 Possibly the most brilliant piece of rhetoric in the Bible.
17:25 This might touch on the source of Paul's rather strong reaction to the idols in the city: not that they were irreligious, but that they were insulting.
18:2 It's tempting to conflate these two with Aquila and Prisca from earlier. Is it possible that the timeline is just a little revised, and that they are the same?
18:4 What kind of Greeks would he find in a synagogue? Is he still catering to the Jews?
18:6 If so, it would appear that he has changed his mind here.
18:9 Perhaps it was necessary to give Paul this message because of his itinerant tendencies. He certainly seemed to leave Athens in a hurry.
18:17 Why, I wonder. What was the transgression of the Sosthenes?
18:23 Paul was terribly peripatetic during this period, and it was only in Corinth that he was told to linger. What was it about the Corinthian Character that merited a such a long stay from Paul, and more written communication too?
18:24 Now this Apollos is an interesting character. What did his role end up being in the congregation? Although this passage is filled with praise for him, no mention is made of his being divinely inspired.
19:3 This embellishes the character of Apollo. What were his motivations? Was he one of John's original disciples? Did the baptism of John really have no access to the Holy Spirit?
19:9 This is the first mention in Acts of The Way, I think. I forget which of the Gospels it was that refers to it. Clearly, it was about this time in the story that the term came into use, so the Gospel in question was written during Paul's travels, which makes me think it was probably Luke.
19:12 Belief in holy relics is not so silly after all, by this account--the fingers of the saints, the sarirae of monks, may actually have some power. This begs questions such as how long did the power of Paul's kleenex last? Did it require some conscious blessing on his part? Are there any around today? Are they still powerful? Why is there no mention of Jesus' kleenex curing the sick?
19:15 which event certainly mythbusts a certain flavor of Christian who claim the Jesus' name alone is good for something.
19:20 In a way, it was not only the word of the Lord that grew mighty, but also The Word of the Lord.
19:37 This doesn't seem entirely true. They clearly proclaimed that Artemis--or her image at lest--had not power. wouldn't that make them blasphemers in their eyes?
20:3 Dang, that's a long trip, presumably through the Hellespont and Anatolia. He had been protected up until this point, why waste so much time? Did he receive another warning?
20:5 His retinue is growing. Will he end up with 12?
20:6 this is eight, counting Luke who is now speaking in the first person again.
20:7 Here's another parallel with Jesus' narrative. I think there's something to this line of reasoning.
20:11 Three parallels in this verse alone: the upper room, the resurrection, and the breaking of bread. none of them significant enough on their own to make the point, but together?
20:18, so Paul did not go through Anatolia after all. I'm confused about his actual route.
20:22 A fascinating turn of phrase: captive to the Spirit. I don't recall its use anywhere else. Is this not altogether pleasant for him?
20:17 Did the Apostles come up, or was this just the local elders?
20:36 A moving and believable speech. I wonder why he chose Ephesus to deliver it. Did he just happen to be here when he received the testimony of his imminent death?
21:8 As mentioned earlier, Philip is one of those interesting characters about whom only enough is revealed to pique the interest. What is meant here by calling him "one of the seven"?
21:13 Wow the echoes of Jesus' last days are super loud here.
21:20 I wonder whose decision it is here not to capitalize the word "law". Is this reflective of the original Greek, or is it an arbitrary distinction made by the publishers. Which question gives rise to the even larger one of why "The Lord" is capitalized elsewhere.
21:26 This purification ritual does not ring any bells. It is especially weird that Paul is asked specifically to go through the rite with four other men, and to "pay for the shaving of their heads." What does this ritual mean to the Jews? Should it be considered a cowardly concession to those who will clearly not be appeased?
21:37 I like how much power language carries through this passage. It is Paul's use of Greek that gets the tribune's attention, and his use of Hebrew that shushes the crowd.
15:5 You can't teach an old dog new trick. I wonder if Nicodemus was one of these.
15:7-11 I can find no fault with this speech of Peter's. His reasoning is not only sound, but loving, and outside of the box. It goes beyond what was necessary for the moment.
15:14 When did Peter take the name "Simeon" as opposed to "Simon"? Is this a nuance of translation?
15:19 "I have reached the decision"? What role does James have here, exactly? Is he the chairman of this board? A John Hancock?
15:20 Here's an interesting question: why these 4 things? Fornication seems pretty obvious, as does the idol proscription. So what was the big deal with blood? Was it a nod to the Jews, for whom that would simply be beyond the pale? Alternately, is there some theological significance that was invented for this occasion?
15:21 This is a seeming non sequitir. I can think of two ways to take it: firstly, James could mean that Moses is no longer a source unique to the Jews. Contrariwise, he could mean that The Jewish Law has had its chance (and, as mentioned by Peter, no one could keep it anyway).
15:24 This letter is very carefully written. It indicates that the elders in Jerusalem did not agree with those who made Gentiles get circumcised (without saying it), but this is manifestly misleading.
15:36 This has often been cited in my experience as an example of the candor of the Bible, as a way of strengthening its authority. I'm not so sure of that. It's not a particularly candid account, neither is it neutral. He in whom authority was vested came away looking rather like the more high-minded of the two.
16:1 This is a nice moment to introduce Timothy from a literary perspective. We just finished reconciling the Jews and the Greeks, and voila! Ecce Homo!
16:3 Whatwhatwhat? I thought we resolved that question! This reflects rather ill on Paul. Yes, I perceive this to be a cowardly move.
16:6-7 Is there a difference between the Holy Spirit in v6 and the Spirit of Jesus in v7?
16:10 Wait, who is "we"? Is Timothy narrating now? I though Luke wrote this. I've looked four times and not found a skipped quotation mark . . . it definitely seems that Luke is traveling with them now.
16:15 How could she be judged faithful to the Lord? She just heard about him. Faith is momentary, but faithfulness requires a bit more time.
16:18 this account certainly refutes any idea that the source of a vision can be told by its fruitage. This was clearly the work of what Luke considers a demon, and yet it offered two beneficial fruits: wealth, and, more to the point, a direct witness to Paul's party.
16:28 Paul's behavior here is different than Peter's in a similar situation. Why did he linger?
16:37 This explains the former. Paul very astutely set the magistrates up. Why the earthquake, then, becomes the question. A bit extreme if it was only for the salvation of one guard and his household.
17:12 This is the second passage that makes special mention of the women. It is less remarkable that Greek women were persuaded, but Jewish women were definitely not used to making such decision for themselves, or acting as their own agents.
17:16 I know a little how he feels here. To this day, the sight of a cross still give me metaphorical mono.
17:18 This might have been a refreshing change of pace for Paul, to argue with a new set of people and develop a new set of arguments.
17:23 Possibly the most brilliant piece of rhetoric in the Bible.
17:25 This might touch on the source of Paul's rather strong reaction to the idols in the city: not that they were irreligious, but that they were insulting.
18:2 It's tempting to conflate these two with Aquila and Prisca from earlier. Is it possible that the timeline is just a little revised, and that they are the same?
18:4 What kind of Greeks would he find in a synagogue? Is he still catering to the Jews?
18:6 If so, it would appear that he has changed his mind here.
18:9 Perhaps it was necessary to give Paul this message because of his itinerant tendencies. He certainly seemed to leave Athens in a hurry.
18:17 Why, I wonder. What was the transgression of the Sosthenes?
18:23 Paul was terribly peripatetic during this period, and it was only in Corinth that he was told to linger. What was it about the Corinthian Character that merited a such a long stay from Paul, and more written communication too?
18:24 Now this Apollos is an interesting character. What did his role end up being in the congregation? Although this passage is filled with praise for him, no mention is made of his being divinely inspired.
19:3 This embellishes the character of Apollo. What were his motivations? Was he one of John's original disciples? Did the baptism of John really have no access to the Holy Spirit?
19:9 This is the first mention in Acts of The Way, I think. I forget which of the Gospels it was that refers to it. Clearly, it was about this time in the story that the term came into use, so the Gospel in question was written during Paul's travels, which makes me think it was probably Luke.
19:12 Belief in holy relics is not so silly after all, by this account--the fingers of the saints, the sarirae of monks, may actually have some power. This begs questions such as how long did the power of Paul's kleenex last? Did it require some conscious blessing on his part? Are there any around today? Are they still powerful? Why is there no mention of Jesus' kleenex curing the sick?
19:15 which event certainly mythbusts a certain flavor of Christian who claim the Jesus' name alone is good for something.
19:20 In a way, it was not only the word of the Lord that grew mighty, but also The Word of the Lord.
19:37 This doesn't seem entirely true. They clearly proclaimed that Artemis--or her image at lest--had not power. wouldn't that make them blasphemers in their eyes?
20:3 Dang, that's a long trip, presumably through the Hellespont and Anatolia. He had been protected up until this point, why waste so much time? Did he receive another warning?
20:5 His retinue is growing. Will he end up with 12?
20:6 this is eight, counting Luke who is now speaking in the first person again.
20:7 Here's another parallel with Jesus' narrative. I think there's something to this line of reasoning.
20:11 Three parallels in this verse alone: the upper room, the resurrection, and the breaking of bread. none of them significant enough on their own to make the point, but together?
20:18, so Paul did not go through Anatolia after all. I'm confused about his actual route.
20:22 A fascinating turn of phrase: captive to the Spirit. I don't recall its use anywhere else. Is this not altogether pleasant for him?
20:17 Did the Apostles come up, or was this just the local elders?
20:36 A moving and believable speech. I wonder why he chose Ephesus to deliver it. Did he just happen to be here when he received the testimony of his imminent death?
21:8 As mentioned earlier, Philip is one of those interesting characters about whom only enough is revealed to pique the interest. What is meant here by calling him "one of the seven"?
21:13 Wow the echoes of Jesus' last days are super loud here.
21:20 I wonder whose decision it is here not to capitalize the word "law". Is this reflective of the original Greek, or is it an arbitrary distinction made by the publishers. Which question gives rise to the even larger one of why "The Lord" is capitalized elsewhere.
21:26 This purification ritual does not ring any bells. It is especially weird that Paul is asked specifically to go through the rite with four other men, and to "pay for the shaving of their heads." What does this ritual mean to the Jews? Should it be considered a cowardly concession to those who will clearly not be appeased?
21:37 I like how much power language carries through this passage. It is Paul's use of Greek that gets the tribune's attention, and his use of Hebrew that shushes the crowd.
Namdaemun (남 대문) Gate
On this most recent trip to Seoul, I was determined to see Korean National Wonder #1. Although there doesn't seem to be any particular order to the numbering, the number 1 has a special appeal to the American competitive spirit in me, and I wanted to cross it off the list (in fact, it is tempting to see all of the KNT in order, but that's simply unworkable). My obliging cotravelers and I assumed it would be easy to find this historical building, expecting to find a crowd of tourists, or at least some helpful signs.
After searching for a half an hour, we stopped into a coffee shop and reconnoitered. Surely it was around here somewhere! Perhaps behind that enormous scaffoldlike structure. In fact, that scaffoldlike structure is exactly where it is supposed to be! This is what we were expecting to see:
Instead, this is what was there:
You can't really tell from the plexiglass barrier that surrounds it, but Namdaemun is now covered by an enormous scaffold. Underneath, it looks something like this:
Namdaemun was all but destroyed in 2008 by an arsonist. It is currently undergoing restoration in a fashion that bears testament to what I believe is the Korean national specialty: storing information. Mercifully, there are 182 pages of blueprints on file for Namdaemun, and the restoration will not significantly differ from the 600 year old original. What an astonishing mania the Koreans have for information, and in this case, what a miracle. If Monticello was burnt down, do the Americans have diagrams of every last shingle? Likely not.
After searching for a half an hour, we stopped into a coffee shop and reconnoitered. Surely it was around here somewhere! Perhaps behind that enormous scaffoldlike structure. In fact, that scaffoldlike structure is exactly where it is supposed to be! This is what we were expecting to see:
Instead, this is what was there:
You can't really tell from the plexiglass barrier that surrounds it, but Namdaemun is now covered by an enormous scaffold. Underneath, it looks something like this:
Namdaemun was all but destroyed in 2008 by an arsonist. It is currently undergoing restoration in a fashion that bears testament to what I believe is the Korean national specialty: storing information. Mercifully, there are 182 pages of blueprints on file for Namdaemun, and the restoration will not significantly differ from the 600 year old original. What an astonishing mania the Koreans have for information, and in this case, what a miracle. If Monticello was burnt down, do the Americans have diagrams of every last shingle? Likely not.
Friday, March 05, 2010
Seokkuram (석굴암) Grotto
I used to be quite a happy person, especially as a child. I developed a reputation for wearing a shit-eating grin everywhere I went, always whistling cheerfully. In my recent adulthood, I was not perceived that same way, and rightfully so. Happy was not on my list of key descriptors, and I had forgotten that is ever was.
I have remembered that now. People have started asking, "Why are you always so happy?" the way they once did. I whistle in the hallways. I sing in the shower. Every day, I exaggerate not, I am visited by the thought, "This is the most beautiful moment there has ever been, and tomorrow there will be even another."
So it is without hyperbole or surprise that I tell you, yesterday's visit to the Seokkuram Grotto was the most beautiful moment there has ever been (hereafter MBMTHEB). This picture was not taken by me, but it is better than the one I took:
The first MBMTHEB I had on the trip struck on the path to the grotto. The fog hung low on the bamboo, and the city of Kyeongju was completely obscured. It was as though we walked from the parking lot into a Korean Brigadoon, an ancient Silla stronghold that reappeared every hundred years, accessible only through this foggy portal. Ascending the mountain, looking down into the ridges brimming with dense, creamy fog, I was transported inwardly into a tearful state of bliss. Had there ever in history been something so lovely, so celestial? It was as though we were at the edge of a painting, with only blank canvas in front of us, waiting for Bob Ross to come back and paint in the rest of the trees.
But, as has been the case with every moment since arriving in Korea, this was promptly outshined by the interior of the grotto itself. Even taken from a purely artistic standpoint, the lines of this manmade cave are sublime. The statue itself is only one element in an artistically unified structure. One could discourse for hours upon the many symmetries of the grotto, the engineering feat that it represents, but the experience transcends explanation.
Exiting the grotto, there is a little stall where one can purchase a broad, curved roofing tile. On it one can write a prayer (or in the case of one boorish coworker "Mox Wuz Here!!!), and it will then be used to reroof a temple. I subscribed to this sentiment, and here is a picture of my prayer:
It was then that I had my second MBMTHEB of the day. This one had no particular words or ideas attached to it, but I retired to a hidden corner and wept while I heard in the background people searching for me, wanting to take a group picture. I stayed hidden, for this was a solitary time.
The third MBMTHEB happened on the path back, leaving Brigadoon, planning to return with my family in a few months. An old broad of whom I have grown quite fond, walked with me, and we talked about how happy we are here. I related to her my experience of transcendence, and it returned, as though its ears were burning, and it wanted to hear what was being said about it. The very mention of the MBMTHEB precipitated a metamoment, a moment about moments. Has there ever been anything so beautiful?
This reverie has been brought to you courtesy of Korean National Treasure #24.
I have remembered that now. People have started asking, "Why are you always so happy?" the way they once did. I whistle in the hallways. I sing in the shower. Every day, I exaggerate not, I am visited by the thought, "This is the most beautiful moment there has ever been, and tomorrow there will be even another."
So it is without hyperbole or surprise that I tell you, yesterday's visit to the Seokkuram Grotto was the most beautiful moment there has ever been (hereafter MBMTHEB). This picture was not taken by me, but it is better than the one I took:
The first MBMTHEB I had on the trip struck on the path to the grotto. The fog hung low on the bamboo, and the city of Kyeongju was completely obscured. It was as though we walked from the parking lot into a Korean Brigadoon, an ancient Silla stronghold that reappeared every hundred years, accessible only through this foggy portal. Ascending the mountain, looking down into the ridges brimming with dense, creamy fog, I was transported inwardly into a tearful state of bliss. Had there ever in history been something so lovely, so celestial? It was as though we were at the edge of a painting, with only blank canvas in front of us, waiting for Bob Ross to come back and paint in the rest of the trees.But, as has been the case with every moment since arriving in Korea, this was promptly outshined by the interior of the grotto itself. Even taken from a purely artistic standpoint, the lines of this manmade cave are sublime. The statue itself is only one element in an artistically unified structure. One could discourse for hours upon the many symmetries of the grotto, the engineering feat that it represents, but the experience transcends explanation.
Exiting the grotto, there is a little stall where one can purchase a broad, curved roofing tile. On it one can write a prayer (or in the case of one boorish coworker "Mox Wuz Here!!!), and it will then be used to reroof a temple. I subscribed to this sentiment, and here is a picture of my prayer:
It was then that I had my second MBMTHEB of the day. This one had no particular words or ideas attached to it, but I retired to a hidden corner and wept while I heard in the background people searching for me, wanting to take a group picture. I stayed hidden, for this was a solitary time.The third MBMTHEB happened on the path back, leaving Brigadoon, planning to return with my family in a few months. An old broad of whom I have grown quite fond, walked with me, and we talked about how happy we are here. I related to her my experience of transcendence, and it returned, as though its ears were burning, and it wanted to hear what was being said about it. The very mention of the MBMTHEB precipitated a metamoment, a moment about moments. Has there ever been anything so beautiful?
This reverie has been brought to you courtesy of Korean National Treasure #24.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)