미국 친구들한테 "한국을 이해하려면 오발탄과 The Best Years of Our Lives을 비교해보"라고 하곤 한다. 같은 시절에서 나온 두가지 영상을 비교하면, 차이가 밝히게 된다는 말이다. 앞서 엉급한 두 영화를 보면, 50년대의 개념차이를 알 수가 있다.
마찬가지로, 바보들의 행진과 같은 시절에서 나온 Animal House와 같은 미국 영화를 보면 물론 70년대의 개념차이가 보인다. 미국 70년대의 번영과 낙관은 한국의 군사독재를 겪는 고통과 완전 반대한다는 게 당연하다. 근데 이 두게 영화의 비교는 또 다른 사실을 보인다. Animal House말고 The Graduate와 같은 품질이 높은 70년대 미국영화도 예술로서 바보들의 행진과 비교가 안 될 정도로 흥해 빠진다. 70년대에서 나온 영상, 시,미술 포함된 한국 작품은 같은 시절의 미국 작품을 주목할 피료없다.
Saturday, January 26, 2019
J.M.G. Le Clezio: Desert
Many years ago, the pastor Jim White quoted an art historian in an effort to explain religion. "The best thing about art," he quoted, "can't be spoken. The second best thing about art we can only point at. The third best thing about art isn't worth speaking about." For fifteen years, I have tried to find the source of this quote, but have come to the conclusion--one entirely consistent with what I know of Jim--that the original quote, if it ever existed, was in some entirely different form and Jim remembered, not the words, but his own thoughts upon hearing it. I feel safe in saying that the words, and even the sentiment, are his own without thought of plagiarism.
Le Clezio's book reminds me, not only of this truth, but of the way in which I received it. Desert is art. In fact, it is very nearly not a book at all, but a painting, the medium of which happens to be words. It envelops, hypnotizes, and digests the reader in the same way that a great painting does. And to ask "what does it mean?" is as insulting and ludicrous as asking that question of a painting. Who are the Blue Man, The Secret, Nour, Lalla Hawa? Is there some line of ancestry between the latter two? Or is Nour the same spirit which haunts her in the desert? How did Lalla's aunt get to Marseilles before her? And how did her story, which holds years worth of moments, take place in nine short months? All such questions are part of the painting, though the answers are decidedly not.
But the real story of art--the story of stories in fact--is not simply that they are experiences that leave one changed afterward. Just as Jim White inadvertently revealed all those years ago, the stories change for us as much as we change for them. I will hold onto my version of Desert just as he held onto his version of a quote by an obscure art historian, my story of puzzling over a curious spelling varation that turned out to be merely a typo, my story of living with Lalla in Marseilles as I lay on the beach the day before my sister's wedding, and my despair upon realizing I am not Lalla, but Nour: a shining light in the desert, destined to burn out without amounting to anything.
Le Clezio's book reminds me, not only of this truth, but of the way in which I received it. Desert is art. In fact, it is very nearly not a book at all, but a painting, the medium of which happens to be words. It envelops, hypnotizes, and digests the reader in the same way that a great painting does. And to ask "what does it mean?" is as insulting and ludicrous as asking that question of a painting. Who are the Blue Man, The Secret, Nour, Lalla Hawa? Is there some line of ancestry between the latter two? Or is Nour the same spirit which haunts her in the desert? How did Lalla's aunt get to Marseilles before her? And how did her story, which holds years worth of moments, take place in nine short months? All such questions are part of the painting, though the answers are decidedly not.
But the real story of art--the story of stories in fact--is not simply that they are experiences that leave one changed afterward. Just as Jim White inadvertently revealed all those years ago, the stories change for us as much as we change for them. I will hold onto my version of Desert just as he held onto his version of a quote by an obscure art historian, my story of puzzling over a curious spelling varation that turned out to be merely a typo, my story of living with Lalla in Marseilles as I lay on the beach the day before my sister's wedding, and my despair upon realizing I am not Lalla, but Nour: a shining light in the desert, destined to burn out without amounting to anything.
Saturday, January 12, 2019
Saving Private Ryan
If I were able to separate my opinions about this movie from my opinions about its topic, I would have to agree with the general consensus. On every technical level, it was a masterwork; the performances, direction, cinematography, score, even the sound editing was clearly the work of someone at the top of her or his game. And the screenplay was great, too I suppose. Its only real sin was a deus ex machina moment that robbed the film of its dramatic potential.
But even in spite of all of these flawless elements, my overall reaction is summed up with "What in hell was the point of that macho bullshit?" This is my problem with war movies in particular, and "Manly" genres--westerns, crime capers, police thrillers, and the like--in general: how tiny does a man's penis have to be to think that this is the way to behave? To believe that honor and virtue equal nationalism and violence? The truly great (by which I mean: those I enjoyed) representatives of these genres are those like Apocalypse Now (which mock the macho ideal) or High Noon (which turn it on its head). Saving Private Ryan was not one of these. In spite of its claim to deglamourize war itself, it beyond glamourized the attitudes and societal expectations that make war possible.
I am clearly living in a bubble. I acknowledge that. War is real, and is likely to remain a dominant force in human history for as long as our race can hold off exterminating ourselves. But to glamourize it, albeit artistically, has no particular appeal for me.
But even in spite of all of these flawless elements, my overall reaction is summed up with "What in hell was the point of that macho bullshit?" This is my problem with war movies in particular, and "Manly" genres--westerns, crime capers, police thrillers, and the like--in general: how tiny does a man's penis have to be to think that this is the way to behave? To believe that honor and virtue equal nationalism and violence? The truly great (by which I mean: those I enjoyed) representatives of these genres are those like Apocalypse Now (which mock the macho ideal) or High Noon (which turn it on its head). Saving Private Ryan was not one of these. In spite of its claim to deglamourize war itself, it beyond glamourized the attitudes and societal expectations that make war possible.
I am clearly living in a bubble. I acknowledge that. War is real, and is likely to remain a dominant force in human history for as long as our race can hold off exterminating ourselves. But to glamourize it, albeit artistically, has no particular appeal for me.
Thursday, January 10, 2019
David Sedaris: Dress Your Family in Corduroy and Denim
Often books that I read merely for pleasure leave with me with the thought, "I should read more of these." Not so with Sedaris. On the contrary, the thought this book left me with was, "I should write more of these." The allure of Sedaris for me is not his humor, his knack for creative storytelling, his insight, his seemingly endless supply of insane anecdotes--not in and of themselves at least. Rather, it is the fact that all of these overlap nearly perfectly with my own traits as a writer, and as a man who has lived through at least some of those experiences myself. When I read Sedaris, I hear, of course, his voice telling the stories as I have so often on various radio broadcasts. But I also hear my own voice, my own way of treating the most ghastly thoughts and images as offhandedly hilarious, my own coping mechanisms, clenched teeth, cocked eyebrow, and pursed lips.
Those anecdotes I've solidified into essays are filled with the same voice, and if the things that happened to this writer happened to me, I'm sure I would set them down in a very similar way. Were I to relate, for example, the very clear memory of hearing a review of Sedaris' book on NPR twenty years ago. Such a turbulent time in my life. A fundamentalist Christian, married to a beautiful woman, running a successful business and yet transfixed by the account of this other world that existed. A world in which a gay writer can rise above his pain, look at it with snarky condescension, and say to the world, "Well, isn't this is ridiculous and morbid?"
I committed the name of the book to memory, and pressed it to the back of my mind until a spare moment allowed me to seek it out at Barnes and Noble. Even looking at the book was dangerous, and purchasing it would have raised far too many questions--mostly to myself, so I slid it out of its niche on the shelf, and parked in one of the broadly striped forest green and maroon armchairs that were provided in bookstores for those glorious ten years between Waldenbooks and Amazon. I read the whole thing. It wasn't erotic by my current standards, but even the hint of such liasions as he described were titillating in the extreme to my mind then. A particular encounter in a Jeep stays with me to this day.
It's also entirely in character, and a detail that Sedaris himself would enjoy, that after reading this newer collection I revisted the one that had so influenced me twenty years ago. It wasn't Sedaris at all. It was another David. David Leavitt. Arkansas. Sedaris isn't channeling my voice after all. He isn't even, as some might argue, channeling the voice of every gay man of our generation. Rather, we all speak with one voice, one of shared pain and sarcasm, both Davids and I.
Those anecdotes I've solidified into essays are filled with the same voice, and if the things that happened to this writer happened to me, I'm sure I would set them down in a very similar way. Were I to relate, for example, the very clear memory of hearing a review of Sedaris' book on NPR twenty years ago. Such a turbulent time in my life. A fundamentalist Christian, married to a beautiful woman, running a successful business and yet transfixed by the account of this other world that existed. A world in which a gay writer can rise above his pain, look at it with snarky condescension, and say to the world, "Well, isn't this is ridiculous and morbid?"
I committed the name of the book to memory, and pressed it to the back of my mind until a spare moment allowed me to seek it out at Barnes and Noble. Even looking at the book was dangerous, and purchasing it would have raised far too many questions--mostly to myself, so I slid it out of its niche on the shelf, and parked in one of the broadly striped forest green and maroon armchairs that were provided in bookstores for those glorious ten years between Waldenbooks and Amazon. I read the whole thing. It wasn't erotic by my current standards, but even the hint of such liasions as he described were titillating in the extreme to my mind then. A particular encounter in a Jeep stays with me to this day.
It's also entirely in character, and a detail that Sedaris himself would enjoy, that after reading this newer collection I revisted the one that had so influenced me twenty years ago. It wasn't Sedaris at all. It was another David. David Leavitt. Arkansas. Sedaris isn't channeling my voice after all. He isn't even, as some might argue, channeling the voice of every gay man of our generation. Rather, we all speak with one voice, one of shared pain and sarcasm, both Davids and I.
Ali-Imran
1: So the beginning of Al-Baqarah was not a fluke, and the commentary on these letters is fascinating. They range from the pedestrian (it's an acronym meaning I am Allah, the all-knowing) to the ecumenical (due to a fluke of Arabic phonology, the letters together would be pronounced as the Hindu "Aum"), and I suppose it's appropriate that the official position is "We won't know until the afterlife".
2: I approve of Hulusi taking هُوَ as one of the Divine names, and leaving it untranslated for our contemplation--even though the more straightforward "him" is tempting.
3: And, according to a certain interpretation of verse 1, The Bhagavad Gita.
4: Some new vocabulary to parse here:
5: This exceedingly straightforward verse did not need a paragraph of explication by Hulusi. This exact verse can be found in every holy text.
6: We now have 5 attributes that have filled this slot so far, and there really should be a name for it. The postinvocation?
7: This is truer of theis book than other holy books that I know, and I'm glad it has acknowledged this about itself--Alif Lam Meem.
8-9: The first moment where Hulusi's interpretation of رَبَّنا fails to satisfy, insofar as it is clearly an external force here.
10: The Prophet seems to have a specific groups of "deniers" in mind here, which tracks historically.
11-12: And He addresses them predictably, though it is not clear which of the categories in v7 the Islamic "hell" falls under.
13: It is not clear from the text itself what battle this refers to, though it will likely be made more explicit.
14: Such a lovely verse, and tied in nicely with the ideas in Al-Baqarah.
15: This is one of Hulusi's better moments: the explication that the "pure spouses" here could denote the perfect complement to one's own consciousness, a perfect body. Hulusi also is consistent in his emphasis of such words as بَصيرٌ, leaving it untranslated as "Basir", where other versions force it into the English "all-seeing".
16-17: Fairly straightforward holy book content here, until one notices the wide variation between translations of وَالقانِتينَ variously "content (in Hulusi)" and "obedient (elsewhere)".
18: Hulusi makes an interesting conlfation of the divine names, which he has gone to great lengths to emphasize, and the angels themselves. From a metaphysical perspetive, it is no surprise that angelic beings are somply manifestations of the greater divine self to the Sufi scholar. And also to me.
19: As expected, this book begins to draw attention to the common origins of the three Abrahamic religions, and lay out its case for Islam.
20: There is a hint here that the root of the very word "Islam" is related to "submission", which would be revealing if I'm not imagining it.
21-22: Well, yeah. I'm pretty sure killing prophets is universally looked-down-upon.
23-25: difficult to comment on this situation without knowing to what it refers. Likely we will be informed within a few verses who exactly these people are and the exact nature of their delusions and divisions.
26-27: awfully convenient, as far as accountability goes. I wonder if modern Muslims have forgotten this point as modern Jews and Christians have.
28: So far this book is not offering anything new, and after I had such high expectations.
29: Nearly word for word reiteration of ideas in Al-Baqarah.
30: No doubt referring to the "Day" in 25.
31-32: Something about these verses make me think that they are the end of the introduction section,, and we are about to get into the narrative that I hope for in this book. Many religious texts simply can't seem to rely on their own credibility, and feel compelled to assert their authority in this circular manner.
33-34: And here we are, the eponymous family begins its tale.
35: I wonder about the source of this story. There is no correlate in the canonical Greek scriptures. Wouldn't it just be a hoot if the source of the story was one of those books that some regard as "apocryphal"?
36: Lots to parse here: The detail that Mary's birth was a surprise, the curious statement that "the female is not like the male", and the identification of Satan as "the expelled", rather than "the accuser" or "the rebel". This last point is indicative of a notion that the angel in question was cast out of heaven sometime between Job and Imran. If so, when?
37: All of this adds marvelous detail to the tradition of Mary and Elizabeth, who under this arrangement would have been something of a mother figure to the young child.
38: Hulusi's interpretation of the Rabb being one's own divine nature casts a very different flavor on these verses. It is also rather difficult to reconcile with the way Anne and Zacharaiah refer to it.
39: وَسَيِّدًا is evidently rather difficult to translate, being rendered "noble", "eminent", "masterful", and "honorable" in the various translations I'm referencing. Hulusi wisely leaves it untranslated as "sayyid". We also get introduced to the curious بِكَلِمَةٍ , a connection to the power of the letter ب.
40: It is less miracuous than one might think for Elizabeth to bear a child at a late age. My own grandmother was among those who never went through menopause, and continued menstruating up until her death.
41: One of my favorite bits from this account. Be careful what you ask for, you cheeky priest! this version is slightly different than the one I remember, sentencing Zacharaiah to a mrere three days of muteness.
42: Suspiciously close to Greek accounts of the annunciation, and by extention the Ave Maria.
43: One could interpret this to mean that Mary worshipped with the men, an extention of her exceptionality in v36.
44: The image of the angels casting lots in heaven to see who would deliver this news, and Gabriel winning, gives me great snickers.
45: All of this gives rise to a line of metaphysical questioning. Mary, John, and Jesus are all mentioned as being predestined for closeness to the Divinity, and therefore of special quality. This sort of determinism is rather discouraging, rather than the opposite. Is it possible for me to draw close to the Divine as well? Or am I a prisoner of my birth? And again we see بِكَلِمَةٍ from v39, which Hulusi emphasizes. Perhaps there is some solace in the fact that I am also a ب by birth.
46-48: the miracle of Jesus' birth is well publicized. What might deserve additional notice is the miracle of his being able to read and write. No doubt these were skills that Mary and Joseph did not have. Do we see Zachariah's hand here?
49: The admonition in v7 to not take everything in this book literally is well-remembered here. The clay bird would be a nice miracle indeed, but it's an even better allegory. The tagline "there is a sign in this for you, if you believe" (which all three translations seem to agree on) makes a metaphorical reading almost irresistible.
50: The narrative point of view of this book weakens it for me a little. Framing everything in terms of reminding the narrator to remind the listener of things they alraedy know leaves a lot of gaps for this reader.
51: Lest we forget, this is actually a third hand account, at least, removing us from the narrative by multiple steps:
from the Divine, to the speaking messenger
from the messenger to the writer
from the writer to intended audience
from the intended audience to their own existing knowledge of the narrative
From that existing knowledge to the modern reader
52-53: The concept of رَبَّنا (Rabb) begins to take shape here. It is not a title, as LORD is used in the Hebrew and Greek scriptures. Rather, it is a description of a relationship, one of submission that can be maintained in multiple directions simultaneously: from the messenger of this book to the divine, from the appostles to the prophet, and as so often pointed out in Al-Baqarah, from each of us to her or his own Divine nature.
54: Do I detect a sense of humor here?
55: Hulusi's explication here is eminently useful. The taking of Jesus to himself is a specific example of the Divine thwarting the plans of the "schemers" in 54. Of course, the subsequent resurrection is the punchline of the joke on them.
56-57: This threat is reminiscent of similar ones in other holy books, but the addition of "they will have no helpers" is an escalation, especially in communal societies.
58: On the surface, a filler verse. But in light of v7, it is also a reminder of the "signatory" and symbolic aspect of this narrative.
59-60: The book definitely came for me in this moment. Even as I was thinking that the account in v59 was rather dubious, v60 came behind to smack me in the face.
61: Which reality is not to be disputed though? The reality of the Divine conception? Or the entirety of reality? I prefer the latter.
62-63: I'm reminded of the old ladies in the marketplace who cajole you to come to their stall for your business. The more urgently they insist on their own credibility, the less I tend to believe it.
64: It's a well-taken point that, at some level, there is nothing for one to do but submit. The path of inquiry can only take us so far, and beyond that point remains only what some would call "faith", but is more usefully called "submission" here.
65-66: There is a hint of controversy from which the modern reader is excluded. The Quran is not the only holy book to have moments like this: specific to the time in which they were written, but consequently opaque today.
67: On reflection, this really is Abraham's striking point. His faith and sincerity are the points that we emulate today, but at that time his monotheism was altogether more remarkable.
68: More emphasis on "submission", which if one were looking for a narrative framework would serve nicely.
69-71: More period-specific admonition, but the emphasis on "people of the book" reveals a distinction between knowledge and submission that the Prophet is drawing at every chance.
72: difficult to parse without knowing exactly whom and for what the Prophet is accusing, but the context seems to imply, "you disregard revealed truth to suit your own preconceived notions," a sentiment perfectly applicable to the Jews in the time of Christ, as well as here. If new truth is revealed, perhaps through Sufi teaching, would the Shia clerics listen?
73-74: The most relevant perspective on this controversy so far. Truth is Truth, regardless of its source. It may be a bitter pill to swallow, but don't be one who lets that be a deterrent.
75: Undeniably reminiscent of Christ's parable of the talents, though it remains unclear if he who returns the sum "as is" (without increase) is as culpable here as in that parable.
76: This would seem to indicate that the above mentioned is rather praiseworthy-an important departure.
77: If (as we are encouraged to in v7) we take this section metaphorically, the implication is that Truth is entrusted to us for a time, and must be returned eventually.
78: Not a terribly helpful verse, though. These people exist. But how are they to be identified? What is to prevent us from numbering the Prophet of this book among them?
79-80: This is how. If any "prophet" draws people to himself, he is one of those "deliberately lying" in v78. By extension, to the extent that we venerate prophets and angels, as opposed to the Divine in all Its names, we have been misled.
81: Is this covenant recorded elsewhere? It is reffered to as though it were. At any rate, the Prophet is cleary here establishing his authority for practical, rather than spiritual purposes. One would hope he is careful not to draw followers to himself.
82-83: The corruption here is well in line with the Sufi idea that the only true heresy, the only real corruption is to live out of sync with one's Rabb. It is impossible to endure the friction of such resistance indefinitely, and all will eventually submit to the natural order of the Divine as it is expressed in each one's self.
84: The key phrase here seems to be, and it appears in all three translations, "we make no distinction between/among them," namely the manifestions of the Divine as they were revealed to all the prophets from Abraham down to "us", presumably the current writer. I find this difficult to reconcile with Islam as it is practiced today.
85: The principle in v83 is not limited to application in this life. The nature of existence is such that resistance to it is unsustainable, and submission is the only possible, let alone reasonable, course of action.
86: This is not entirely true, based on preceding verses. The very nature of the Divine is that it guides all; whether they submit to that guidance now or later is immaterial.
87: The curse being the aforementioned corruption, an unavoidable result of resistance to the Divine order.
88-89: and that curse will be in effect as the natural result of their resistance, for as long as such resistance continues.
90-91: This verse seems to go back on the verse immediately preceding it, and one would be tempted to level an accusation of pragmatism against it. Fortunately, both verses begin with our old friend إِنَّ, which I have come to see as a promise of immediate explication, rather than a reference to preceding ideas.
92: As promised, the explanation: the way of submission in summary. To give, and to give specifically of what is dear. The opposite course, that of attachment, is the course of friction and resistance. It is impossible indeed to retain anything; such is simply not the natural way of the universe. The only possible course, that of submission, is to accept with one hand, and to divest with the other.
93: Rather an indictment of Jacob, despite a promise to adhere to his words in v84.
94: Not entirely a useful verse, to be frank. The caveat "what is untrue" to the proscription against adding to the Torah leaves it entirely open.
95-96: Some further calculation is in order, but it is still unclear when Abraham and Ishmael could possibly have done this, if one puts any stock in the Torah.
97: this verse introduces a fabulous concept: to be غَنِيٌّ of somebody or something, which Hulusi wisely leaves transliterated as "ghani". Those who fail to operate in submission to the Divine order hurt only themselves. Allah is ghani of them. As are each of us ghani from such individuals. I have a particular individual in mind here, which is probably my own "resistance" in action.
98-99: I'm influenced by the fact that I'm concurrently reading Sartre to see a manifestion of his "bad faith" here. The reality as it is revealed is vertiginous. It is no wonder that some pretend not to see it.
100: To follow that path, denial of reality, though it is undeniably easier and simpler in the short run, leads nowhere.
101: It is really this simple, and this difficult. To submit to the Divine reality, be it ever so terrifying, is the straight path, but it is not the easy one.
102: The best protection from the wrath of the Divine, as it is manifested in friction as a response to resistance, is to reverse course. The Divine nature is a perpetual motion machine, and only in it can one experience contact between surfaces without resistance.
2: I approve of Hulusi taking هُوَ as one of the Divine names, and leaving it untranslated for our contemplation--even though the more straightforward "him" is tempting.
3: And, according to a certain interpretation of verse 1, The Bhagavad Gita.
4: Some new vocabulary to parse here:
- Is قَبلُ related etymologically to هُوَ or is it a false cognate? The former has plenty of semantic content, and the latter is merely a pronoun. If there is some connection between the two, Hulusi's emphasis in v2 becomes infinitely more meaningful.
- As usual, when there is some question about the proper translation of an important concept, Hulusi leaves it transliterated with a parenthetical explanation. In this case, الفُرقانَ ۗ is rendered in places as "Criterion" and elsewhere as referring to the Quran itself, so Hulusi's "Furqan" is entirely appropriate.
- A new dyad of attributes here, though عَزيزٌ is familiar from Al-Baqarah. Will it be paired with ذُو انتِقامٍ hereon? Or is this a one time team-up?
5: This exceedingly straightforward verse did not need a paragraph of explication by Hulusi. This exact verse can be found in every holy text.
6: We now have 5 attributes that have filled this slot so far, and there really should be a name for it. The postinvocation?
7: This is truer of theis book than other holy books that I know, and I'm glad it has acknowledged this about itself--Alif Lam Meem.
8-9: The first moment where Hulusi's interpretation of رَبَّنا fails to satisfy, insofar as it is clearly an external force here.
10: The Prophet seems to have a specific groups of "deniers" in mind here, which tracks historically.
11-12: And He addresses them predictably, though it is not clear which of the categories in v7 the Islamic "hell" falls under.
13: It is not clear from the text itself what battle this refers to, though it will likely be made more explicit.
14: Such a lovely verse, and tied in nicely with the ideas in Al-Baqarah.
15: This is one of Hulusi's better moments: the explication that the "pure spouses" here could denote the perfect complement to one's own consciousness, a perfect body. Hulusi also is consistent in his emphasis of such words as بَصيرٌ, leaving it untranslated as "Basir", where other versions force it into the English "all-seeing".
16-17: Fairly straightforward holy book content here, until one notices the wide variation between translations of وَالقانِتينَ variously "content (in Hulusi)" and "obedient (elsewhere)".
18: Hulusi makes an interesting conlfation of the divine names, which he has gone to great lengths to emphasize, and the angels themselves. From a metaphysical perspetive, it is no surprise that angelic beings are somply manifestations of the greater divine self to the Sufi scholar. And also to me.
19: As expected, this book begins to draw attention to the common origins of the three Abrahamic religions, and lay out its case for Islam.
20: There is a hint here that the root of the very word "Islam" is related to "submission", which would be revealing if I'm not imagining it.
21-22: Well, yeah. I'm pretty sure killing prophets is universally looked-down-upon.
23-25: difficult to comment on this situation without knowing to what it refers. Likely we will be informed within a few verses who exactly these people are and the exact nature of their delusions and divisions.
26-27: awfully convenient, as far as accountability goes. I wonder if modern Muslims have forgotten this point as modern Jews and Christians have.
28: So far this book is not offering anything new, and after I had such high expectations.
29: Nearly word for word reiteration of ideas in Al-Baqarah.
30: No doubt referring to the "Day" in 25.
31-32: Something about these verses make me think that they are the end of the introduction section,, and we are about to get into the narrative that I hope for in this book. Many religious texts simply can't seem to rely on their own credibility, and feel compelled to assert their authority in this circular manner.
33-34: And here we are, the eponymous family begins its tale.
35: I wonder about the source of this story. There is no correlate in the canonical Greek scriptures. Wouldn't it just be a hoot if the source of the story was one of those books that some regard as "apocryphal"?
36: Lots to parse here: The detail that Mary's birth was a surprise, the curious statement that "the female is not like the male", and the identification of Satan as "the expelled", rather than "the accuser" or "the rebel". This last point is indicative of a notion that the angel in question was cast out of heaven sometime between Job and Imran. If so, when?
37: All of this adds marvelous detail to the tradition of Mary and Elizabeth, who under this arrangement would have been something of a mother figure to the young child.
38: Hulusi's interpretation of the Rabb being one's own divine nature casts a very different flavor on these verses. It is also rather difficult to reconcile with the way Anne and Zacharaiah refer to it.
39: وَسَيِّدًا is evidently rather difficult to translate, being rendered "noble", "eminent", "masterful", and "honorable" in the various translations I'm referencing. Hulusi wisely leaves it untranslated as "sayyid". We also get introduced to the curious بِكَلِمَةٍ , a connection to the power of the letter ب.
40: It is less miracuous than one might think for Elizabeth to bear a child at a late age. My own grandmother was among those who never went through menopause, and continued menstruating up until her death.
41: One of my favorite bits from this account. Be careful what you ask for, you cheeky priest! this version is slightly different than the one I remember, sentencing Zacharaiah to a mrere three days of muteness.
42: Suspiciously close to Greek accounts of the annunciation, and by extention the Ave Maria.
43: One could interpret this to mean that Mary worshipped with the men, an extention of her exceptionality in v36.
44: The image of the angels casting lots in heaven to see who would deliver this news, and Gabriel winning, gives me great snickers.
45: All of this gives rise to a line of metaphysical questioning. Mary, John, and Jesus are all mentioned as being predestined for closeness to the Divinity, and therefore of special quality. This sort of determinism is rather discouraging, rather than the opposite. Is it possible for me to draw close to the Divine as well? Or am I a prisoner of my birth? And again we see بِكَلِمَةٍ from v39, which Hulusi emphasizes. Perhaps there is some solace in the fact that I am also a ب by birth.
46-48: the miracle of Jesus' birth is well publicized. What might deserve additional notice is the miracle of his being able to read and write. No doubt these were skills that Mary and Joseph did not have. Do we see Zachariah's hand here?
49: The admonition in v7 to not take everything in this book literally is well-remembered here. The clay bird would be a nice miracle indeed, but it's an even better allegory. The tagline "there is a sign in this for you, if you believe" (which all three translations seem to agree on) makes a metaphorical reading almost irresistible.
50: The narrative point of view of this book weakens it for me a little. Framing everything in terms of reminding the narrator to remind the listener of things they alraedy know leaves a lot of gaps for this reader.
51: Lest we forget, this is actually a third hand account, at least, removing us from the narrative by multiple steps:
from the Divine, to the speaking messenger
from the messenger to the writer
from the writer to intended audience
from the intended audience to their own existing knowledge of the narrative
From that existing knowledge to the modern reader
52-53: The concept of رَبَّنا (Rabb) begins to take shape here. It is not a title, as LORD is used in the Hebrew and Greek scriptures. Rather, it is a description of a relationship, one of submission that can be maintained in multiple directions simultaneously: from the messenger of this book to the divine, from the appostles to the prophet, and as so often pointed out in Al-Baqarah, from each of us to her or his own Divine nature.
54: Do I detect a sense of humor here?
55: Hulusi's explication here is eminently useful. The taking of Jesus to himself is a specific example of the Divine thwarting the plans of the "schemers" in 54. Of course, the subsequent resurrection is the punchline of the joke on them.
56-57: This threat is reminiscent of similar ones in other holy books, but the addition of "they will have no helpers" is an escalation, especially in communal societies.
58: On the surface, a filler verse. But in light of v7, it is also a reminder of the "signatory" and symbolic aspect of this narrative.
59-60: The book definitely came for me in this moment. Even as I was thinking that the account in v59 was rather dubious, v60 came behind to smack me in the face.
61: Which reality is not to be disputed though? The reality of the Divine conception? Or the entirety of reality? I prefer the latter.
62-63: I'm reminded of the old ladies in the marketplace who cajole you to come to their stall for your business. The more urgently they insist on their own credibility, the less I tend to believe it.
64: It's a well-taken point that, at some level, there is nothing for one to do but submit. The path of inquiry can only take us so far, and beyond that point remains only what some would call "faith", but is more usefully called "submission" here.
65-66: There is a hint of controversy from which the modern reader is excluded. The Quran is not the only holy book to have moments like this: specific to the time in which they were written, but consequently opaque today.
67: On reflection, this really is Abraham's striking point. His faith and sincerity are the points that we emulate today, but at that time his monotheism was altogether more remarkable.
68: More emphasis on "submission", which if one were looking for a narrative framework would serve nicely.
69-71: More period-specific admonition, but the emphasis on "people of the book" reveals a distinction between knowledge and submission that the Prophet is drawing at every chance.
72: difficult to parse without knowing exactly whom and for what the Prophet is accusing, but the context seems to imply, "you disregard revealed truth to suit your own preconceived notions," a sentiment perfectly applicable to the Jews in the time of Christ, as well as here. If new truth is revealed, perhaps through Sufi teaching, would the Shia clerics listen?
73-74: The most relevant perspective on this controversy so far. Truth is Truth, regardless of its source. It may be a bitter pill to swallow, but don't be one who lets that be a deterrent.
75: Undeniably reminiscent of Christ's parable of the talents, though it remains unclear if he who returns the sum "as is" (without increase) is as culpable here as in that parable.
76: This would seem to indicate that the above mentioned is rather praiseworthy-an important departure.
77: If (as we are encouraged to in v7) we take this section metaphorically, the implication is that Truth is entrusted to us for a time, and must be returned eventually.
78: Not a terribly helpful verse, though. These people exist. But how are they to be identified? What is to prevent us from numbering the Prophet of this book among them?
79-80: This is how. If any "prophet" draws people to himself, he is one of those "deliberately lying" in v78. By extension, to the extent that we venerate prophets and angels, as opposed to the Divine in all Its names, we have been misled.
81: Is this covenant recorded elsewhere? It is reffered to as though it were. At any rate, the Prophet is cleary here establishing his authority for practical, rather than spiritual purposes. One would hope he is careful not to draw followers to himself.
82-83: The corruption here is well in line with the Sufi idea that the only true heresy, the only real corruption is to live out of sync with one's Rabb. It is impossible to endure the friction of such resistance indefinitely, and all will eventually submit to the natural order of the Divine as it is expressed in each one's self.
84: The key phrase here seems to be, and it appears in all three translations, "we make no distinction between/among them," namely the manifestions of the Divine as they were revealed to all the prophets from Abraham down to "us", presumably the current writer. I find this difficult to reconcile with Islam as it is practiced today.
85: The principle in v83 is not limited to application in this life. The nature of existence is such that resistance to it is unsustainable, and submission is the only possible, let alone reasonable, course of action.
86: This is not entirely true, based on preceding verses. The very nature of the Divine is that it guides all; whether they submit to that guidance now or later is immaterial.
87: The curse being the aforementioned corruption, an unavoidable result of resistance to the Divine order.
88-89: and that curse will be in effect as the natural result of their resistance, for as long as such resistance continues.
90-91: This verse seems to go back on the verse immediately preceding it, and one would be tempted to level an accusation of pragmatism against it. Fortunately, both verses begin with our old friend إِنَّ, which I have come to see as a promise of immediate explication, rather than a reference to preceding ideas.
92: As promised, the explanation: the way of submission in summary. To give, and to give specifically of what is dear. The opposite course, that of attachment, is the course of friction and resistance. It is impossible indeed to retain anything; such is simply not the natural way of the universe. The only possible course, that of submission, is to accept with one hand, and to divest with the other.
93: Rather an indictment of Jacob, despite a promise to adhere to his words in v84.
94: Not entirely a useful verse, to be frank. The caveat "what is untrue" to the proscription against adding to the Torah leaves it entirely open.
95-96: Some further calculation is in order, but it is still unclear when Abraham and Ishmael could possibly have done this, if one puts any stock in the Torah.
97: this verse introduces a fabulous concept: to be غَنِيٌّ of somebody or something, which Hulusi wisely leaves transliterated as "ghani". Those who fail to operate in submission to the Divine order hurt only themselves. Allah is ghani of them. As are each of us ghani from such individuals. I have a particular individual in mind here, which is probably my own "resistance" in action.
98-99: I'm influenced by the fact that I'm concurrently reading Sartre to see a manifestion of his "bad faith" here. The reality as it is revealed is vertiginous. It is no wonder that some pretend not to see it.
100: To follow that path, denial of reality, though it is undeniably easier and simpler in the short run, leads nowhere.
101: It is really this simple, and this difficult. To submit to the Divine reality, be it ever so terrifying, is the straight path, but it is not the easy one.
102: The best protection from the wrath of the Divine, as it is manifested in friction as a response to resistance, is to reverse course. The Divine nature is a perpetual motion machine, and only in it can one experience contact between surfaces without resistance.
Tuesday, January 01, 2019
Stendahl: The Charterhouse of Parma
If I had read this book in a vaccum (which will never be the case), I might have been taken in by its claim to be based on real events. Such selfish, petty, foolhardy, and entitled fellows as the ostensible protagonist abound in the world today, after all. Privileged young men act today just as described here, and presumably throughout human history will continue to do so. As such, I might have forgiven Stendahl for his topic. He may not have been elevating the 19th century equivalent of a fuckboi to Romantic hero status after all, merely faithfully recording a tragic story as related to him by one of the participants.
But this is a habit for Stendahl. Fabrice del Dongo is cut from the same reckless, vicious cloth as Julien Sorel in The Red and the Black. To the author's eyes, their downfall was only the result of their excessive passion. An objective observer, however, can find myriad points where even the merest sliver of virtue would have forestalled tragedy. Stendahl's men reap the whirlwind, not of fate, but of their own worthlessness. The author dwells so heavily in both books on the various talents of these irredeemable characters that he seems to have fooled himself into thinking that wit is a virtue--when clearly it is no more so than being tall or handsome is.
And is it a surprise that a white male of some wit and ability built entire worlds where such a fellow as himself was universally lauded, allowed to do as he pleased, and nearly suffocated with the attention of beautiful women? Or that such a man was so dissatisfied with the failure of the real world to deliver him such a life that he passed from penname to penname as though changing hats? Or that his "supreme happiness would be to change into a lanky, blonde German and to walk about like that in Paris" [Memoirs]? Do I dare insult the reader by answering those questions?
But this is a habit for Stendahl. Fabrice del Dongo is cut from the same reckless, vicious cloth as Julien Sorel in The Red and the Black. To the author's eyes, their downfall was only the result of their excessive passion. An objective observer, however, can find myriad points where even the merest sliver of virtue would have forestalled tragedy. Stendahl's men reap the whirlwind, not of fate, but of their own worthlessness. The author dwells so heavily in both books on the various talents of these irredeemable characters that he seems to have fooled himself into thinking that wit is a virtue--when clearly it is no more so than being tall or handsome is.
And is it a surprise that a white male of some wit and ability built entire worlds where such a fellow as himself was universally lauded, allowed to do as he pleased, and nearly suffocated with the attention of beautiful women? Or that such a man was so dissatisfied with the failure of the real world to deliver him such a life that he passed from penname to penname as though changing hats? Or that his "supreme happiness would be to change into a lanky, blonde German and to walk about like that in Paris" [Memoirs]? Do I dare insult the reader by answering those questions?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)