난 서울에 거슬러오르기전에 노동현에게서 이 책을 선물로 받았다. 소중한, 순진한, 나를 사랑했던 동현. 그가 아마 우리 은빛연어와 눈맑은연어로 여겼다. 그가 우리 그 물고기처럼 거침을 넘어가고 위험을 맞서고 마침네 같이 죽겠다는 소원을 가지고 있었는 지 이 책을 우리 일음들로 도장 찍었가. 사실은, 난 그런 생각이 완전히 없다.
난 로멘틱한 남자 아니다. 어떤 남자가 우리 평생을 같이 보내자고 하는 무섭게 내가 바로 도망친다. 그래도 난 은빛연어와 비슷하게 삶의 의미를 찾으려고 헤매오고 있다. 그 의미가 세상에 있는 지 모르지만 알게 된 것 한 가지 있다. "바다는 지구 위의 모든 대륙과 손을 맞잡고 완전한 하나가 되어 있다. 땅을 물을 떠받쳐주고, 물은 땅을 저셔주면서 이 세상을 이루고 있는 것이다" (121). 지구와 물은 순을 맞잡고 나를 떠받쳐주기도 바란다.
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Monday, March 18, 2013
2nd Timothy
1:1 Not sure what to make, if anything, of the shift from "loyal child" in 1st Timothy to "beloved child" here.
1:3 And even more so now that I perceive real emotion coming through here. I am especially touched by the relation of Timothy's matriarchal lineage, and find myself constructing a narrative of his life based on this one simple sentence. I recall that in reading 1st Timothy I was confused by Paul's instructions that Timothy remain chaste, even in the same breath as he said that such a thing was not generally necessary for those serving in positions of responsibility in the congregation. What was it about Timothy's case that called for heigthened restrictions? Specifically, of all the sins that Timothy might have been in danger of, why did Paul single this one out for him, seemingly in front of the entire congregation?
The easy answer is, of course, that Timothy's responsibilities were of such monumental import that he could afford the distraction of an Earthly family even less than the bishops or elders of the congregation could. That argument would indeed close the book on the question, but I am not in the habit of settling for the easy answer. I am reminded of the persistent hints, both textual and historical, that Paul may have been fighting against his own homosexuality. The evidence for such a supposition is embarassingly circumstantial, but let us wonder what it would mean were it true. It certainly does not seem much of a stretch to suppose that Timothy was in a similar struggle, and the their mutual war against the flesh is responsible, not only for their close bond, but also for Paul's rather pointed and public admonition.
1:7 And this reading would dovetail nicely with Paul's emphasis on self-discipline here.
1:12 Referent malfunction. What is "that day"? there is no day mentioned here. I am going to make an educated guess and suppose that Paul is referring to the imminent day of his own death.
1:18 Well, so much for that interpretation. this usage of "that day" is clearly not with any reference to Paul's death. I guess we will have to assume that Paul is referring to the so-called Judgement day in a way for which Timothy would need no explanation.
2:4-7 Paul seems to be talking in code here. What would be the "first share" to which he refers here, seemingly indicating that Timothy's reward will be greater than that given to others. And why does Paul then cryptically tell Timothy to let the Lord tell him what this means?
2:11-13 I am always interested to know from where Paul is quoting whenever he says something like this. It's not from the gospels anywhere that I recognize. I am especially curious in this case, because of the interesting turn at the end. Following the parallel structure that Paul so often enjoys, we might expect the last stanza to read "If we are faithless, he will be faithless toward us", but it does not. In which case, Paul seems to be using "faith" in the rather narrow sense of "belief in a god". If that interpretation holds, then this verse is merely a cute aphorism. But if faithfulness is being used in the more broad sense of "acting with good intent", then this becomes a piece of interesting theology--although it would then contradict the preceding verse, so I don't know that I can really support such a view. Never mind. This is a liveblog, so my ramblings don't always lead anywhere . . .
2:14 Paul, you seem to be reading my mind! I was just now "wrangling over words" as you say.
2:17 Okay, so here is a quandary. This resurrection has not been a central part of Paul's teaching, at least in the portions of it that have been preserved by history. So the fact that Hymenaeus and Philetus are censured for contradicting what is treated as an established doctrine makes one wonder what exactly the doctrine was. Even today, most religions have very different ideas about what resurrection means. What was Paul's exact take? Whatever it was, it was evidently established enough that he could disown specific individuals for contradicting it.
2:25 I don't know that Paul has followed his own admonition to correct opponents with gentleness here . . .
3:5 This has always been an interesting verse to me. What exactly does it mean to deny the power of godliness, or, in the translation I grew up with, to have a form of godly devotion, but to prove false to its power. I suppose one interpretation could be offered to the effect that such people don't allow the power of the gospel to transform them from the inside out, and I suppose that's as good as any.
3:6 "captivating silly women" is certainly a nice turn of phrase here, if emblematic of Paul's underlying misogyny
3:16 One of my favorite circular arguments. All scripture is inspired of God, and benefical for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight," in the translation I grew up with, not much different from the NISV here. But is this book included in the appelation "scripture"? If so, it's hardly a credible witness. . .
4:6 again, I find this verse unaccountably touching and poetic.
4:13 What could possibly be important about this cloak such that it needs to be brought to Rome from Ephesus. Even with the conveniences of modern travel, such a trip wouldn't be worth it . . .
In all, I enjoyed this book far more than its prequel. Thematically consistent, by turns poetic and strident, and genuinely touching. Timothy and Paul were lucky to have each other, whatever their relationship.
1:3 And even more so now that I perceive real emotion coming through here. I am especially touched by the relation of Timothy's matriarchal lineage, and find myself constructing a narrative of his life based on this one simple sentence. I recall that in reading 1st Timothy I was confused by Paul's instructions that Timothy remain chaste, even in the same breath as he said that such a thing was not generally necessary for those serving in positions of responsibility in the congregation. What was it about Timothy's case that called for heigthened restrictions? Specifically, of all the sins that Timothy might have been in danger of, why did Paul single this one out for him, seemingly in front of the entire congregation?
The easy answer is, of course, that Timothy's responsibilities were of such monumental import that he could afford the distraction of an Earthly family even less than the bishops or elders of the congregation could. That argument would indeed close the book on the question, but I am not in the habit of settling for the easy answer. I am reminded of the persistent hints, both textual and historical, that Paul may have been fighting against his own homosexuality. The evidence for such a supposition is embarassingly circumstantial, but let us wonder what it would mean were it true. It certainly does not seem much of a stretch to suppose that Timothy was in a similar struggle, and the their mutual war against the flesh is responsible, not only for their close bond, but also for Paul's rather pointed and public admonition.
1:7 And this reading would dovetail nicely with Paul's emphasis on self-discipline here.
1:12 Referent malfunction. What is "that day"? there is no day mentioned here. I am going to make an educated guess and suppose that Paul is referring to the imminent day of his own death.
1:18 Well, so much for that interpretation. this usage of "that day" is clearly not with any reference to Paul's death. I guess we will have to assume that Paul is referring to the so-called Judgement day in a way for which Timothy would need no explanation.
2:4-7 Paul seems to be talking in code here. What would be the "first share" to which he refers here, seemingly indicating that Timothy's reward will be greater than that given to others. And why does Paul then cryptically tell Timothy to let the Lord tell him what this means?
2:11-13 I am always interested to know from where Paul is quoting whenever he says something like this. It's not from the gospels anywhere that I recognize. I am especially curious in this case, because of the interesting turn at the end. Following the parallel structure that Paul so often enjoys, we might expect the last stanza to read "If we are faithless, he will be faithless toward us", but it does not. In which case, Paul seems to be using "faith" in the rather narrow sense of "belief in a god". If that interpretation holds, then this verse is merely a cute aphorism. But if faithfulness is being used in the more broad sense of "acting with good intent", then this becomes a piece of interesting theology--although it would then contradict the preceding verse, so I don't know that I can really support such a view. Never mind. This is a liveblog, so my ramblings don't always lead anywhere . . .
2:14 Paul, you seem to be reading my mind! I was just now "wrangling over words" as you say.
2:17 Okay, so here is a quandary. This resurrection has not been a central part of Paul's teaching, at least in the portions of it that have been preserved by history. So the fact that Hymenaeus and Philetus are censured for contradicting what is treated as an established doctrine makes one wonder what exactly the doctrine was. Even today, most religions have very different ideas about what resurrection means. What was Paul's exact take? Whatever it was, it was evidently established enough that he could disown specific individuals for contradicting it.
2:25 I don't know that Paul has followed his own admonition to correct opponents with gentleness here . . .
3:5 This has always been an interesting verse to me. What exactly does it mean to deny the power of godliness, or, in the translation I grew up with, to have a form of godly devotion, but to prove false to its power. I suppose one interpretation could be offered to the effect that such people don't allow the power of the gospel to transform them from the inside out, and I suppose that's as good as any.
3:6 "captivating silly women" is certainly a nice turn of phrase here, if emblematic of Paul's underlying misogyny
3:16 One of my favorite circular arguments. All scripture is inspired of God, and benefical for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight," in the translation I grew up with, not much different from the NISV here. But is this book included in the appelation "scripture"? If so, it's hardly a credible witness. . .
4:6 again, I find this verse unaccountably touching and poetic.
4:13 What could possibly be important about this cloak such that it needs to be brought to Rome from Ephesus. Even with the conveniences of modern travel, such a trip wouldn't be worth it . . .
In all, I enjoyed this book far more than its prequel. Thematically consistent, by turns poetic and strident, and genuinely touching. Timothy and Paul were lucky to have each other, whatever their relationship.
Friday, March 08, 2013
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington
Ok, I'm beginning to realize that the AFI really only has one criterion when it comes to selection. It doesn't really matter whether the film is characterized by a brilliant script, visionary direction and riveting performances. The only thing that really matters is the title.
To be more specific, what seems to matter is what the title evokes in people. This is a combination of the film's reputation and the niche it fills in film history. For example, The General, while not a great film on the whole, instantly brings to mind groundbreaking camerawork and silent film slapstick. Important from both a technical and a historical viewpoint, onto the list it goes.
In the case of Mr. Smith, the title evokes, especially in people who may have never seen the movie, a sense of national pride, of belief in the political system, and especially the knowledge of what a filibuster is for. In short, it has to some degree affected the political consciousness of the country, and so onto the list it goes. It's too bad, though, because it is terrible. From the blunt soundtrack to the flimsy script to the positively incompetent editing, this movie is from beginning to end a stinker. The first five minutes are all you need to see what I mean, as the entire movie can be deduced from those painfully recited scenes.
However, if I seem to resent AFI's choice of such terrible material to represent American film, I take solace in the fact that such prisms of unimpeachable quality as City Lights and Apocalypse Now remain on the list. I'm still stunned by the quality of those films, so best to end on that note . . .
To be more specific, what seems to matter is what the title evokes in people. This is a combination of the film's reputation and the niche it fills in film history. For example, The General, while not a great film on the whole, instantly brings to mind groundbreaking camerawork and silent film slapstick. Important from both a technical and a historical viewpoint, onto the list it goes.
In the case of Mr. Smith, the title evokes, especially in people who may have never seen the movie, a sense of national pride, of belief in the political system, and especially the knowledge of what a filibuster is for. In short, it has to some degree affected the political consciousness of the country, and so onto the list it goes. It's too bad, though, because it is terrible. From the blunt soundtrack to the flimsy script to the positively incompetent editing, this movie is from beginning to end a stinker. The first five minutes are all you need to see what I mean, as the entire movie can be deduced from those painfully recited scenes.
However, if I seem to resent AFI's choice of such terrible material to represent American film, I take solace in the fact that such prisms of unimpeachable quality as City Lights and Apocalypse Now remain on the list. I'm still stunned by the quality of those films, so best to end on that note . . .
Saturday, March 02, 2013
Apocalypse Now
I don't like war films. There always seems to be a lot of "Hoohah!" and "Fuck yeah!" and nonsense about glory and honor and bravery, none of which means very much to me in that context. To me, there's more bravery and glory in the simple act of getting out of bed in the morning than in taking a machine gun and blowing shit up. For that reason such favorites as Rambo and Top Gun don't just leave me cold, I actively hate them. Is there really anything enjoyable in that sort of macho nonsense? Not for me.
Which is why I am surprised to be writing that Apocalypse Now may very well be the greatest movie I've ever seen. Nothing about it felt affected or pretentious, and that sort of epic often deteriorates into a masturbatory spectacle. The performances were impeccable, every last one, to the extent that I often wondered if there was even a script at all. Certain of the soldiers' monologues especially struck me as uncommonly honest. Of course, Coppola's camerawork and vision were also spot on, and the overall result was an immensely satisfying ambiguity that kept it far away from anything didactic.
It is a bonus to my marginally literary mindset that it was not only flawless as a movie, but also literate, weaving in elements of Conrad and Eliot without making those things the centerpiece of the film. I am pressing my mind to think of a "however", some point that was less than perfect, but I have nothing. It was a masterpiece of film, and of literature.
Which is why I am surprised to be writing that Apocalypse Now may very well be the greatest movie I've ever seen. Nothing about it felt affected or pretentious, and that sort of epic often deteriorates into a masturbatory spectacle. The performances were impeccable, every last one, to the extent that I often wondered if there was even a script at all. Certain of the soldiers' monologues especially struck me as uncommonly honest. Of course, Coppola's camerawork and vision were also spot on, and the overall result was an immensely satisfying ambiguity that kept it far away from anything didactic.
It is a bonus to my marginally literary mindset that it was not only flawless as a movie, but also literate, weaving in elements of Conrad and Eliot without making those things the centerpiece of the film. I am pressing my mind to think of a "however", some point that was less than perfect, but I have nothing. It was a masterpiece of film, and of literature.
Friday, March 01, 2013
이문열: 우리들의 일그러진 영웅
미국에서는 Huckleberry Finn이나 Lord of the Flies이란 책 시민의 80% 이상이 읽었으니까 그 책들을 읽어야 미국을 이해할 수 있다. 그래서 제가 한국을 이해하기 위해 친구에게 "중하생들 모두다 읽어야 하는 책은 무엇이냐"고 물었다. 답은 "우리들의 일그러진영웅"이었다.
그 책을 읽기 시작했을 때는 벙역 없이 약 10%를 이해할 수 있었다. 한국어 실력이 노파질수록 이해하기가 더 쉬워졌지만 오늘 읽은 마지막 쪽을 50%밖에 이해 못 했다. 아쉽게도 중학생의 수준이 아닌 것 같는다.
그래도 번역 덕분에 이 첵은 한국 사회를 잘 표시하는 지를 알게 되었다. 다른 독자가 다르게 생각할 수 있지만 제 생각은 엄속대가 일본을 비유하며 문제를 해결한 담임선생님은 미국. 전 미국을 존경하기 때문 아니라 오하려 미국은 별로 좋지 않다고 생각하는 만큼 담임선생님의 해결 방법을 승인하지 않는다. 그래도 한극의 해방에 데한 비유로 이 책만 할 것이 없다고 생각한다.
그 책을 읽기 시작했을 때는 벙역 없이 약 10%를 이해할 수 있었다. 한국어 실력이 노파질수록 이해하기가 더 쉬워졌지만 오늘 읽은 마지막 쪽을 50%밖에 이해 못 했다. 아쉽게도 중학생의 수준이 아닌 것 같는다.
그래도 번역 덕분에 이 첵은 한국 사회를 잘 표시하는 지를 알게 되었다. 다른 독자가 다르게 생각할 수 있지만 제 생각은 엄속대가 일본을 비유하며 문제를 해결한 담임선생님은 미국. 전 미국을 존경하기 때문 아니라 오하려 미국은 별로 좋지 않다고 생각하는 만큼 담임선생님의 해결 방법을 승인하지 않는다. 그래도 한극의 해방에 데한 비유로 이 책만 할 것이 없다고 생각한다.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)