22:1 This shapes up to be less of a defense, and more of a testimony. Paul's tacit admission of the need for a defense is very shrewd on his part, as is his address of the crowd as "brothers and fathers".
22:12 A very nice spin of Ananias' role in all this: to portray him as a devout Jew, rather than a Christian.
22:21 His only misstep seems to be bringing the Gentiles into it; they were no doubt eating out of his hand up until that point. The Jews' misplaced racial pride trumps their reason again.
22:29 This opens an interesting question. I never really questioned the idea of Paul's Roman citizenship before, but having read a little bit more Tacitus and Plutarch since I last visited the Bible, I remember that actual citizenship was far more rare than one would think of, given the word's modern usage. To be a Roman citizen was something that not even all the residents of Rome were granted, let alone those in the outer provinces. What is it about Paul's background that allows him to make this claim?
23:3 Paul seems emboldened by intimations of his impending death
23:5 So, obviously Paul knew who Ananias was. This lends credence to theories that his eyesight was not the best
23:6 I never noticed this rather brilliant maneuver before. Paul is not going down without a fight!
23:12 Which Jews? The lack of specificity is a bit maddening at times.
23:16 Paul's sister? Never heard of her before this.
23:35 I wonder if the would be assassins are still fasting at this point . . .
24:2 Tertullus' flattery is clearly going to be no match for Paul's superior powers of rhetoric
24:9 I suppose which Jews are meant is clear enough here.
24:21 Paul does not even seem to be making an effort here. He just blandly recounts the facts--although he does make a smooth semantic cover-up in v. 23.
24:27 Is this two years that Paul was in prison, or two years that Felix was governor?
25:6 prudent to delay, in this case. It gives the Jews time to cool down and reflect on their hotheaded plan.
25:8 I'm not sure this was strictly true. Paul, with his semantic skill, could have argued the case, but it would have been disingenuous to do so.
25:12 and of course Paul's motives were more complex than he lets on. He seems resigned to his death at this point, and determined, not to live, but to go out with a bang.
26:2 This is not the first time that Paul begins with something resembling flattery
26:10 I question the translation of the word "saints" here. It seems a bit revisionist. What is the etymology of that word anyway? Was Paul really taking the liberty of calling his peers consecrated before their bodies were even cold?
26:14 This is not what the voice said, according to the earlier account. Which account is correct? One of two things seems likely: that Paul engaged in a rhetorical liberty here, or that Luke's source of this story was something other than first hand.
26:23 By no stretch of the imagination was Jesus the first to rise from the dead.
26:29, 32 Two things here give support to the idea that Paul has resigned himself to his death. He entreats Agrippa, not for his life, but for his belief. Secondly, his appeal to the Emperor is counter to the goal of escaping death.
27:1 Back to first person, indicating Luke's presence on this part of the journey. Was he with Paul under arrest in Judea? Or did he join the party just in time to travel to Rome, and the final curtain?
27:3 In what way did Paul need to be cared for? Is his health also failing as the end draws close? That would explain some of his resignation. Or are they caring for him in the sense of ministering to him?
27:6 So they even have a Roman escort after this point?
27:23 This verse is downright weird. Firstly, Paul says that he belongs to a particular angel. The metaphysical implications of this are significant, somewhat along the lines of a Guardian Angel--for one person, at least. Elsewhere, certain nations are also said to have particular angels. What is the arrangement here? Also, Paul says that he worships the angel. The implications here are even more profound. Is worhip really offered to individual angels? If so, that's a pretty Catholic theology.
27:34 Did the crew refrain from eating because of anxiety, or nausea, or some other reason? Clearly there was food available.
27:42 I guess this answers the question of Paul's escort.
28:6 Paul clearly possesses some power of his own at this point--it is no longer necessary to pray or concentrate for miracles to be performed.
28:8 In some cases, that is.
28:28 Except that they have proven no better.
28:30 what funds did Paul have that allowed him to live thus?
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Bruce Cumings: Korea's Place in the Sun
I tend not to remember anything from non-fiction books that I read, let alone have anything to say about them, but this might be the exception. Cumings' book is on the surface an objective history, but his extensive personal experience has seemingly kept him too close to the facts for that to be strictly true. While the book gives the facts of the matters considered, the level of editorializing is heavy and undisguised. He includes personal opinions and even personal experiences liberally, something that would lessen the book's value in some eyes, as the value of a historical account seems to be tied to its objectivity.
In my eyes, however, strict objectivity is no measure of a book's value. Never mind the arguable opinion that there is no such thing; if it did exist, it would bore me. See my earlier post on Michael J. Seth's comparable Korean history to see just how little I can retain of books that prize their impartiality. In that very post, I complain of my own ability to follow a non-fiction book, but it is apparent that the real culprit is not the lack of fiction, but the lack of a narrative. Cumings' version of Korean history rectifies that situation nicely, making throughout a convincing case that the traditional way of looking at Korea is misguided, or at least that "What all men speak well of, look critically into; what all men condemn, examine first before you decide" (Confucius, epigraph to chapter 8).
Among the counter intuitive stances Cumings takes are that Japan's occupation of Korea in the early 20th century had certain benefits, that the ROK's early years were just as fascist as the DPRK's were communist, and that the United States intervention after WWII is to blame for the current standoff between the two Koreas. For each of these he makes a convincing argument, though I probably will not be repeating such things in conversation on this side of the DMZ. At any rate, I find that I like my history with a little personal investment. It makes it more memorable, even if nothing else. Such a thing might be frowned upon, especially if one was not expecting an addenda, but I shall take a note from Confucius and "examine first before [I] decide".
In my eyes, however, strict objectivity is no measure of a book's value. Never mind the arguable opinion that there is no such thing; if it did exist, it would bore me. See my earlier post on Michael J. Seth's comparable Korean history to see just how little I can retain of books that prize their impartiality. In that very post, I complain of my own ability to follow a non-fiction book, but it is apparent that the real culprit is not the lack of fiction, but the lack of a narrative. Cumings' version of Korean history rectifies that situation nicely, making throughout a convincing case that the traditional way of looking at Korea is misguided, or at least that "What all men speak well of, look critically into; what all men condemn, examine first before you decide" (Confucius, epigraph to chapter 8).
Among the counter intuitive stances Cumings takes are that Japan's occupation of Korea in the early 20th century had certain benefits, that the ROK's early years were just as fascist as the DPRK's were communist, and that the United States intervention after WWII is to blame for the current standoff between the two Koreas. For each of these he makes a convincing argument, though I probably will not be repeating such things in conversation on this side of the DMZ. At any rate, I find that I like my history with a little personal investment. It makes it more memorable, even if nothing else. Such a thing might be frowned upon, especially if one was not expecting an addenda, but I shall take a note from Confucius and "examine first before [I] decide".
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Gustave Flaubert: Madame Bovary
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Donghwasa Temple
While not as huge and elaborate as Bulgoksa, and while not home to as many or as iconic National Treasures, Donghwasa was in some ways even more impressive. For one thing, it is actually functioning as a temple; monks are everywhere, seemingly heedless of the tourism, going about the business of monking. As I crossed the path of one, he stopped and pressed something into my hand. It was a little rice cake, brown in color, with nuts in it. He didn't say anything; he gave me the gift and walked briskly on. At least I hope it was a rice cake. What a beautiful experience. The feeling of serenity and power that I felt at Bulgoksa was more potent here, possibly due, not to the location, but to my frame of mind. At one point on a simple stone bridge, I was moved to tears.
Which emotion is in contrast to the awe I felt at turning the corner and seeing this:
The Tongil Daegu is one of the largest Buddhas in the world: 33 meters tall. It is not of particular historical import (it was only built in 1992), but is possible more significant for that reason. This Buddha is not an historical artefact; it is a tool in daily use by the monks of the Donghwasa area to focus their peaceful energies and spread them throughout the country. This particular Buddha represents unification, and the prayers that are constantly being focused through it are specifically for reunification with North Korea-not only a beautiful statue, but a beautiful sentiment. This speaks to what in general made Donghwasa more meaningful for me than Bulgoksa: it is real, active Buddhism, not Disneyland.
The tourist in me was altogher forgotten, though. Here's a picture of what the placard claims is Korean National Treasure no. 253, although it does not appear to be on the official list, which would make me irrationally irritated, if true.
That's right, a pair of stone flagpoles.
Which emotion is in contrast to the awe I felt at turning the corner and seeing this:
The Tongil Daegu is one of the largest Buddhas in the world: 33 meters tall. It is not of particular historical import (it was only built in 1992), but is possible more significant for that reason. This Buddha is not an historical artefact; it is a tool in daily use by the monks of the Donghwasa area to focus their peaceful energies and spread them throughout the country. This particular Buddha represents unification, and the prayers that are constantly being focused through it are specifically for reunification with North Korea-not only a beautiful statue, but a beautiful sentiment. This speaks to what in general made Donghwasa more meaningful for me than Bulgoksa: it is real, active Buddhism, not Disneyland.
The tourist in me was altogher forgotten, though. Here's a picture of what the placard claims is Korean National Treasure no. 253, although it does not appear to be on the official list, which would make me irrationally irritated, if true.
That's right, a pair of stone flagpoles.
Monday, February 08, 2010
KSCPP: Fifty Wonders of Korea
Given that the source of this book is The Korean Spirit and Culture Promotion Project, I suppose I should not be surprised that it is entirely lacking in objectivity. The title itself should serve as a caveat emptor. The the volume is so effusive in its praise that it almost feels like it came out of the DPRK, not the ROK. In spite of this, I found the descriptions of certain Korean achievements not only interesting, but breathtaking. I shall no doubt have more to say as I see them in person, but suffice it to say that the slightly less than glorious wonders from my previous post are not on the list in this book. Rather, such things as the Korean alphabet (a wonder indeed, and one of my reasons in choosing Korea as a destination), and the invention of movable metal type--200 years before Gutenberg--deserve the praise, overboard though it goes.
For, while the Korean are good at nearly everything, they are only the best at one thing: recording information. Even the flagship of the Korean economy, Samsung, is only the best at creating memory chips. Their laptops, including and expecially the one on which I am now writing, are brokeass pieces of horseshit. But I digress. The Korean tradition of record-keeping goes back for millennia, at least as far as the Silla dynasty, but it is three elements from the Choson period (1392-1910) that propel them into the lead. The first, and in my mind most impressive item, is the Sillok, the Royal Annals of the Choson dynasty. Get a load of this: the official historian followed the King around everywhere, and recorded his every word, his every move. For five hundred years. Not only were these records meticulous--a total of 1,893 volumes--but they were completely forthright. The king wasn't even allowed to look at the records; nobody but the historians ever even saw them during the dynasty. They were there purely for the sake of posterity. Think how marvelous such a tool would be in any modern government. Every move that the President or Premier or whatever made recorded, every conversation transcribed. How much better than any ethics committee or judicial review. A veritable panacaea. My admiration for this achievement surpasses my admiration for all the architecture in the world put together.
In conjunction with this work are the Diaries of the Royal Secretariat and the Uigwe. The former is a more public, and more comprehensive version of the Sillok. It was kept by the King's staff, so it was not truly objective, but it covered far more than just the King's activities: weather, the goings-on of other officials, etc. The latter, the Uigwe, was a record of all the ceremonies and ceremonial buildings of the Dynasty, from the number of flute players to the stitching on the ceremonial garb. Every brick was documented, which made the reconstruction of certain iconic buildings destroyed during the various Japanese invasions a simple matter. Taken together, these three chronicles constitute by far the most comprehensive, objective, and congruous historical catalog anywhere in the world. Think of the questions surrounding American history, even as recent as fifty years ago. By way of contrast, there is enough information to keep Korean scholars busy for generations upon generations. It would be mathematically impossible to even read a significant portion of this body of work in a lifetime, let alone give it any sort of scholarly treatment.
If I rave a bit about these achievements, it is only because they play to my personal taste for language and information. While art and music are lovely, no single work or body of work has ever blown my mind the way the existence of these works have, and I haven't even seen them yet. It is a pity for the Japanese that the Korean memory is so powerful, for there are plenty of things which they would rather were forgotten . . .
For, while the Korean are good at nearly everything, they are only the best at one thing: recording information. Even the flagship of the Korean economy, Samsung, is only the best at creating memory chips. Their laptops, including and expecially the one on which I am now writing, are brokeass pieces of horseshit. But I digress. The Korean tradition of record-keeping goes back for millennia, at least as far as the Silla dynasty, but it is three elements from the Choson period (1392-1910) that propel them into the lead. The first, and in my mind most impressive item, is the Sillok, the Royal Annals of the Choson dynasty. Get a load of this: the official historian followed the King around everywhere, and recorded his every word, his every move. For five hundred years. Not only were these records meticulous--a total of 1,893 volumes--but they were completely forthright. The king wasn't even allowed to look at the records; nobody but the historians ever even saw them during the dynasty. They were there purely for the sake of posterity. Think how marvelous such a tool would be in any modern government. Every move that the President or Premier or whatever made recorded, every conversation transcribed. How much better than any ethics committee or judicial review. A veritable panacaea. My admiration for this achievement surpasses my admiration for all the architecture in the world put together.
In conjunction with this work are the Diaries of the Royal Secretariat and the Uigwe. The former is a more public, and more comprehensive version of the Sillok. It was kept by the King's staff, so it was not truly objective, but it covered far more than just the King's activities: weather, the goings-on of other officials, etc. The latter, the Uigwe, was a record of all the ceremonies and ceremonial buildings of the Dynasty, from the number of flute players to the stitching on the ceremonial garb. Every brick was documented, which made the reconstruction of certain iconic buildings destroyed during the various Japanese invasions a simple matter. Taken together, these three chronicles constitute by far the most comprehensive, objective, and congruous historical catalog anywhere in the world. Think of the questions surrounding American history, even as recent as fifty years ago. By way of contrast, there is enough information to keep Korean scholars busy for generations upon generations. It would be mathematically impossible to even read a significant portion of this body of work in a lifetime, let alone give it any sort of scholarly treatment.
If I rave a bit about these achievements, it is only because they play to my personal taste for language and information. While art and music are lovely, no single work or body of work has ever blown my mind the way the existence of these works have, and I haven't even seen them yet. It is a pity for the Japanese that the Korean memory is so powerful, for there are plenty of things which they would rather were forgotten . . .
Saturday, February 06, 2010
Cheomseongdae and Bulguksa Temple
Korean culture is obsessed with the idea of kibun, often translated "dignity" or "face". This is true for individuals, but especially with the Country as a whole. Koreans are determined to be seen by the rest of the world as the greates, oldest, most advanced, or otherwise best civilization on the planet. Notice that they are not actually interested in being the greatest civilization; they are primarily interested in being seen thusly. Part of this is reflected in their near propagandizing of national features, works of art, or even native traditions. We were treated yesterday to a presentation by a Korean cultural organization about how marvelous Korea is. Of course, they are right to be proud of such things as the Sokkuram grotto, and other marvelous feats of the Silla empire. They go overboard, however. We watched a very slick, professional, ten-minute video, detailed how every stone of the grotto was placed, and how great an achievement this was: making a not-so-subtle point of how superior it is to similar grottos in India or China. It was prefectly convincing, and everyone was left awestruck. After the fifth such video, though, it began to feel a bit too earnest, almost like advertising. The zenith of their hubris came with a video about how Samsung electronics are the best in the world. This was laughable, because each of us was given a Samsung laptop to use, and they are the shittiest shit that ever shat shit.
In the same spirit of Kibun, the Korean government has compiled a list of National Treasures, architectural or artistic wonders that make Korea the best ever at everything. At first I felt like this was hugely convenient to the tourist. I could simply look at the list and start working my way through it. What I didn't realize was that, in the Korean mind, every pebble in Korea is the best pebble in the world.
So the wonders that I crossed off my list are not as impressive as I thought they would be. To begin with, I went to Choemseongdae, a 7th century observatory from the Silla empireand Korean National Treasure #31.
What is impressive about Cheomseongdae is not it's appearance or architectual majesty. It looks rather like an inflated kiln, and is not beautiful. Rather, what is most impressive about the ancient observatory is the stories behind it. Queen Seondeok, the first Korean Queen and the force behind the observatory, is a fascinating figure. She is the Solomon of Korean history, scientifically minded, analytical, and naturally curious. There is a story about her discerning from a picture of Peonies that it was a pity they had no smell. When the seeds were planted and the flowers indeed had no smell, she was asked by her advisors how she knew. She answered that there were no butterflies in the picture. A flawed answer, to be sure, but a marvelous story.
After Cheosongdae, I went to Bulguksa temple. Here the aroma of Kibun was even stronger. There are at least eight here, including these four:
In the same spirit of Kibun, the Korean government has compiled a list of National Treasures, architectural or artistic wonders that make Korea the best ever at everything. At first I felt like this was hugely convenient to the tourist. I could simply look at the list and start working my way through it. What I didn't realize was that, in the Korean mind, every pebble in Korea is the best pebble in the world.
So the wonders that I crossed off my list are not as impressive as I thought they would be. To begin with, I went to Choemseongdae, a 7th century observatory from the Silla empireand Korean National Treasure #31.
What is impressive about Cheomseongdae is not it's appearance or architectual majesty. It looks rather like an inflated kiln, and is not beautiful. Rather, what is most impressive about the ancient observatory is the stories behind it. Queen Seondeok, the first Korean Queen and the force behind the observatory, is a fascinating figure. She is the Solomon of Korean history, scientifically minded, analytical, and naturally curious. There is a story about her discerning from a picture of Peonies that it was a pity they had no smell. When the seeds were planted and the flowers indeed had no smell, she was asked by her advisors how she knew. She answered that there were no butterflies in the picture. A flawed answer, to be sure, but a marvelous story.
After Cheosongdae, I went to Bulguksa temple. Here the aroma of Kibun was even stronger. There are at least eight here, including these four:
That's right, there are four National Treasures in this picture, not counting me. The beautiful pagodas? No the pagodas are not even authentic. They were rebuilt on the foundation of the old temple in 1966 in an obvious act of Kibun. No, the steps are the National Treasure. Each flight of stairs is a separate entity: The two in the background are Cheongungyo and Baegungyo (national treasure #23), and those in the foreground are Yeonhwagyo and Chilbogyo (#24). What makes these staircases so special? I have no idea. They are unremarkable, but clearly quite old and symbolic. If the United States had designated some old stone steps a National Treasure, Americans would go into fits of laughter.
That said, there is one treasure at Bulgoksa that I found interesting:
This is Dabotap Pagoda (#20). What is interesting about this pagoda is not only that it is made out of granite, a notoriously uncarveable stone, especially this intricately. Rather, its interest lies in the fact that it is utterly unlike any other pagoda in Korea (That I know of, at least). The flatness and angularity of it seemingly lack the grace of other pagodas, and the four stone pillars especially seem to detract from the overall effect, but this is beautifully reflective of a story in the Lotus Sutra, of two different Buddhas facing each other: daeboyeorae and seokgayeorae. Dabotap faces Seoktap (of which I did not get a good picture due to lighting, but is KNT #21), to reflect the story, and nothing could be clearer. Dabotap is as different from the more traditional Seoktap as could be. Yet they face each other silently and without arguing for eternity.
Of the other two National Treasures I saw on this trip it was not permitted to take pictures, but it is just as well. They are two seated Buddhas, Vairocana and Amitabha, KNT #26 and 27, but as the temple was only recently reconstructed, the statues could not possible be very old, and are probably duplicates. There is no mention of it, even on the internet, but I find it difficult to believe that the statues are actually the original ones from the 9th century, since the entire thing was burned down in the 16th century. By way of contrast, I find it easy to believe that the Korean government created replicas and simply does not mention their inauthenticity. Who builds a statue and immediately declares it a national treasure, of great cultural import? Who does that? A little fellow named Kibun.
Friday, February 05, 2010
Michael J. Seth: A Concise History of Korea: From the Neolithic Period through the Nineteenth Century
Allow me to just say that my Aunt Nell is one of the most thoughtful gift-givers I know.
This book was delivered at the perfect time for it (as you may not know, I moved to South Korea this week). Sadly, although well written, it reminded me why I so rarely read non-fiction books. Invariably, I read and promptly forget all but the basic information, information I could just have easily gotten in thirty seconds on Wikipedia. What hadn't occured to me before this, however, was what cognitive processes are behind my preference for fiction.
As a teacher, I am well attuned to the symptoms of cognitive style in students, but I had never bothered to apply that knowledge to myself. I knew on a cognitive level that I was a kinisthetic learner, but that information did me little good, limited as it was to the cognitive sphere. While reading this book, I finally put two and two together. Me reading non-fiction is a fish out of water. Non-fiction is a very auditory experience, words and only words. It must be, therefore, that this is why Robert only reads non-fiction. From a pedagogical standpoint, this is an amazing discovery. I had never read anywhere of a distinction for genre by cognitive style.
The bad news is that I didn't get a lot out of the book itself--certainly not the hours I invested in it. The good news is that I have had a pedagogical epiphany: I could easily assign a fiction story to visual/kinesthetic students, and a non-fiction one to auditory ones as part of an assignment. It sounds too simple to be true, yet I'm sure there's something to it.
This book was delivered at the perfect time for it (as you may not know, I moved to South Korea this week). Sadly, although well written, it reminded me why I so rarely read non-fiction books. Invariably, I read and promptly forget all but the basic information, information I could just have easily gotten in thirty seconds on Wikipedia. What hadn't occured to me before this, however, was what cognitive processes are behind my preference for fiction.
As a teacher, I am well attuned to the symptoms of cognitive style in students, but I had never bothered to apply that knowledge to myself. I knew on a cognitive level that I was a kinisthetic learner, but that information did me little good, limited as it was to the cognitive sphere. While reading this book, I finally put two and two together. Me reading non-fiction is a fish out of water. Non-fiction is a very auditory experience, words and only words. It must be, therefore, that this is why Robert only reads non-fiction. From a pedagogical standpoint, this is an amazing discovery. I had never read anywhere of a distinction for genre by cognitive style.
The bad news is that I didn't get a lot out of the book itself--certainly not the hours I invested in it. The good news is that I have had a pedagogical epiphany: I could easily assign a fiction story to visual/kinesthetic students, and a non-fiction one to auditory ones as part of an assignment. It sounds too simple to be true, yet I'm sure there's something to it.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle: The Valley of Fear
It is a sad thing indeed that this, easily the most interesting of Doyle's four Holmes novels, is the one least remembered and adapted. Now, it is possible that I have simply grown used to the more fluffy elements of his writing by now, but this one seems by far the most tidy, both in terms of pacing and plot.
I do have one complaint, and that is the baldly revisionist insertion of Moriarty into the text. Doyle was prescient in his realization that Moriarty was far too interesting a character to die in his debut appearance. To hear modern Holmes enthusiasts speak, it would seem that Moriarty is a central figure in the canon, when he is plainly not. I wonder how many laypeople labor under that misconception in fact. This appearance, while serving to add to Moriarty's mythos, is clubfooted at best. Other than this brief stumble, Doyle is at his best in The Valley of Fear.
The real star of this New Annotated Norton edition is, however, editor Leslie Klinger. The "gentle fiction", as he puts it, of Holmes' reality, is a charming approach to the scholarship, which has the double virtue of winnowing down the available scholarship--which appears to be vast indeed--and contributing a narrative to what would otherwise be a sterile recitation of facts. Well played, Sir.
Acts II
8:5 so why is Peter the one with the metaphorical keys? It seems from this that Philip is the one to whom that honor should go.
8:13 Now here's an interesting metaphysical question. It is not said that Simon's power came from demonic sources, nor is it thought thusly or he would be painted differently. From what source, then?
8:17 So Philip does the work, and Peter and John rush in and get the glory.
8:29 In what sense did the spirit speak to Philip? Literally? Or in the sense that he simply knew what he had to do?
8:34 A good question, one that should be more seriously asked of many so-called prophecies.
8:39 WTF? This miracle is not often discussed, possibly because it seems to serve no obvious purpose. Was it teleportation? Or was Philip taken elsewhere in a trance, with no memory of it? Even more curious, what if Philip was only present in a vision in the first place?
9:1 This is an uncommon bit of figurative language from Luke.
9:2 Is the the first instance of this appellation, The Way?
9:8 Again with the light trope. So far we have in Acts: the tongues of fire, the glowing face of Stephen, and the blinding light from heaven.
9:10 A different Ananias, of course . . . or is it?
9:31 A nice contrast: the fear of the lord, and the comfort of the holy spirit--yet another argument for the femininity of the spirit. A little yin-yang action going on here.
9:35 Surely hyperbolic. I refuse to believe that every last resident of these two cities was convinced by this miracle.
9:40 A rather meaningless miracle in one way. What did it profit her to be resurrected? She had a beautiful life, clearly. Why release Dorcas version 1.2?
10:2 In what way was this man devout? More specifically, to what God did he give prayers?
10:5 It seems unlikely that he was a Christian, if he didn't know who Peter was.
10:26 Good thing he said this! He wouldn't want to end up like Moses and Aaron!
10:31 It is so far not clear what Cornelius prayed for. It is implied that he prayed for understanding, which makes him the second (after the Ethiopian) to have his prayers answered in this way.
10:35 I wonder if Peter was really this quick to learn the lesson, or if the process was edited down for sake of readability. If so, Peter has grown quite a bit since we last saw him.
11:3 This didn't take long. This is the first whiff of taint on the new religion. As William James observes, that which is necessary for the genesis of religion, namely authentic religious experience, is deadly to it once established. It took mere years for the first Christians to go from embracing the gift of the spirit to being afraid of it.
11:22 Thankfully, at this point it is only a whiff of conservatism. They are still quick to adapt.
12:2 It feels like a shame that we didn't get to know James better. He was clearly influential, and Jesus looked at him as closely as he did John or Peter.
12:7 I remain fascinated by every instance of this light.
12:15 And by "angel" here they clearly mean "ghost".
12:17 Waaaaaaaitaminnit. I thought James was dead. Which James is this then?
12:23 the only instance I can recall of this type of punishment--a fitting one to be sure. There is a Biblical pattern of hubris being punished immediately, rather than in the more roundabout, Greek style.
13:3 I wonder what purpose the laying on of hands did in this case. THey were already filled with the Holy Spirit.
13:5 Here, as throughout the book, John is an afterthought.
13:11 A rather poetic reversal of Saul's own experience. ALso interesting that it is at this point that Saul becomes referred to as Paul
13:15 Did they not know who Paul and Barnabas were? Or was this some kind of endorsement?
13:22 An interesting characterization, now that I think of it. In what way was David a "man after [god's] heart? In his love for music? In his humility? In his lust?
13:43 This is certainly no populist religion, as one might expect. In this chapter alone, there are Manaen, a member of Herod's court, Sergius Paulus, a frickin' proconsul, and now the entire synagogue of Antioch.
13:45 and it is not until it becomes popular with the Gentiles that this shifts among the Jews.
14:2 This time it is the Gentiles who are stirred up against them.
14:5 So, what is it that makes GEntiles and Jews alike plot against them? It just occured to me that when John was with Paul and Barnabas, they were PB&J.
14:15 I can't imagine a way to fit this into their paradigm. The Greek perspective of god was just so alien to what is being presented to them here.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Camelot
Although I have written dutifully about every book I have read for five years now, it is rare that a movie is either so perfect or so terrible that I feel compelled to write about it. Camelot is, sadly, one of the latter. From Richard Harris' blue eyeshadow to Vanessa Redgrave's warbling, flat singing, it is inferior to the stage production. Whose idea was it for Lancelot, the consummate Frenchman, to have a Scottish accent? Mon Dieu! It is all the more sad to think of the obscene amounts of money that must have been spent on the film. Everything about it speaks of excess--the sets may as well have been made of gold. Holy Mother Julie Andrews, what a shame that I feel compelled to finish it.
Jean de La Fontaine: Complete Fables
I don't know that it was really necessary to read the comprehensive version of this. Not only are many of the fables mere retellings of Ovid or Aesop, they pale in comparison to the originals, largely by vice of explication. De La Fontaine's work is not entirely free from entertainment value, however. He declares his intent to write "a drama in a hundred acts . . . Whose setting is the universe. Gods, men / Beasts play their parts, time and again, / And Jove as well" (V, 1). He falls just short of this lofty goal, but forgives himself when he writes, "I present a model flawed, / At least have I opened a path untrod / For others to perfect" (XI, 10).
And others have indeed played a part in the perfection of his work. I do not mean by any stretch to indicate that De La Fontaine's work is perfected, but translator Norman Shapiro's very nearly is. Verse translations are tricky, but Shapiro not only manages to create a rhyming version that feels natural, but also seems to capture the tone of the French: playful and winking. The translation is well suited to Fonatine's instruction: "Rather than plumb [these fables] through / unto their depth, best we but pluck the flowers" (VI, epilogue).
Friday, January 01, 2010
Acts of Apostles
1:1 Is it possible that Theophilus is not a real person, and that the book is really addressed to Those who love God?
1:4 Not so. By at least one account, Jesus told them to watch out for the moment to leave Jerusalem.
1:11 This is certainly unambiguous. No wonder many today expect a literal and visual descent from heaven, as opposed to the metaphorical interpretation of the Witnesses.
11:23 This reminds me of a cute anecdote from my childhood. I was probably 8 or 9, and even at that age a devout Witness. My Dad was conducting the congregation Watchtower study, a meaningless exercise wherein somebody read the paragraph, the conductor asked the question, and somebody from the audience of about 100 people to read the answer to the question from the paragraph. It was the lowest level of bloom's taxonomy--in fact, it wouldn't even measure on Bloom's taxonomy, that's how little learning or thinking was going on. Precocious little thing that I was, I took the liberty of making a comment that was not word-for-word from the paragraph. The comment was to the effect that Judas' sin was especially grievous since he forsook the immeasurable privilege of being called an Apostle, one of only thirteen that ever got that privilege.
My Dad thought that I had made a factual error, and felt obligated to correct me in front of the entire congregation. "Actually," he reprimanded into the microphone, "Paul wasn't officially considered an Apostle," thinking that Paul was the thirteenth apostle to whom I referred. I was not about to be humbled! I replied into my microphone, "Actually, I was thinking of Matthias." I was right, my dad was wrong, and a hundred people bore witness to the fact that a smartassed nine-year-old was smarter than his father.
I had a discussion yesterday with my father, and I wish I had remembered this episode to add to the conversation. My position is that it was frowned upon in the Witnesses to be too good at somethings. It was impossible to be too humble, of course, or to memorize too many scriptures, but most other types of excellence were inadvisable. I was looked upon as a showoff, for example, because I was a good singer and made no attempt to hide the fact. I even (gasp) harmonized during the hymns! By the same token, I was also seen as too smart for my own good, a trait of which the above vignette is a good example. True intelligence, it was thought, was the ability to accept whatever The Society said, and find some intellectual contortion to make it seem true. Lord, what a mess of mental lasagna that religion is.
1:25 It seems that Paul's proscription against divination was rather sudden news to the early Christians.
2:2 This reminds me of moments in Job and David's part of the Psalms wherein also God is seen as a divine wind. Perhaps this is less of a metaphor, and more literal.
2:5-11 A reverse Babylon. Pentecostals speak in gibberish, which has no resemblance to the experience at Pentecost.
2:17-21 This is a surprisingly accurate quote. So many times, "As it was written" refers to something that does not seem to be written anywhere. Of course, Luke does have a reputation as one of the more scholarly Bible writers.
2:25-28 This is more like the revisionist prophecy that I have come to expect from the Greek Scriptures. It is quite evident that David was referring to himself when he wrote this, not some future figure.
2:31-35 This is a little more unclear. I don't know where exactly these verses are, so I can't tell from context whether David was indeed prophesying, or merely reflecting.
2:36 At any rate, this is a first rate speech by Peter, and I'm sure I would have been convinced, were I in the audience.
2:45 Communism! Dios Mio!
3:6 This may be an act of faith even more impressive than walking to meet the aquambulatory Christ. How could Peter have been sure that he had this ability? And there was no Jesus there to save his bacon.
3:12 Thereby avoiding Moses' and Aaron's mistake.
3:15 Here's an interesting sobriquet to which I have not given much attention before: the Author of life. Interesting too that only the word Author is capitalized. The Greek here is ἀρχηγὸν, which is more properly translated "prince" or "leader". It certainly seems that the NRSV is taking a liberty here, not only with translation, but with punctuation. The word is clearly being used as a title, not as a name.
3:21 Peter's newfound confidence here is invigorating. He demonstrates a scholarly grasp of prophecy, and a politic use of rhetoric. Where did he get this piece of metaphysical knowledge? From The Comforter, no doubt . . .
4:3 On what charges? With Jesus' trial, they at least pretended to follow legal guidelines. The religious leaders are likely getting fed up with this so-called cult, to which they thought they had put an end.
4:13 How is John considered bold? He has yet to say anything.
4:19 So which is speaking? Is is unlikely that they shared these words. I propose that Peter was speaking here. This sidekick role complicates John's role in the scriptures.
4:22 The implication being that is the man were a minor, they would have committed some offense?
4:24-30 Again, words clearly spoken by one person are attributed to more than one, as though they had uttered them in unison--unlikely. Is this a nod to the communality of the early church?
4:32 . . . even their words.
5:1-6 This account is a bit terrifying. It does not say explicitly that Ananias' death was a divine punishment, but it is certainly implied, and I know that if I were a first century Christian, I would certainly have taken it that way. It's a bit Maoist to be killed for secretly holding onto some personal property. Of course, it is the lie, not the withholding that is the sin here, but is lying a deadly sin?
5:8 And knowing what happened, Peter sets the wife up. This is borderline evil.
5:11 This is not the good kind of fear that is seizing the congregation. Peter (as a divine agent) acts rather terrifyingly in this account.
5:15 And he develops a following of his own.
5:25 This more lighthearted miracle is a relief.
5:33 Gamaliel certainly comes out of this account much fresher than Peter does.
6:5 A nice mix of Hebrews and Greeks
6:15 Speaking of Moses . . . this glow is an interesting subject. It is too persistent, in many religious traditions, to be discounted as metaphorical. Even the Buddha was spoken of similarly. What is this glow? Energy of some sort? A partial transfiguration? Fascinating shit.
7:2 Of all God's homonyms, The God of Glory seems a very appropriate choice for Stephen to use.
7:30 This makes Moses quite a bit older than I had always picture him at the time of the Exodus, at least sixty.
7:30 This part would be especially moving if Stephen's face was still shining with the holy light that is described in v. 15
7:35 Although the resistance to Moses was rather incidental, it is relevant to the argument Stephen is trying to make.
7:60 If I were rewriting early christian History, I would make Stephen a more central figure--not Peter, at least not the way he has behaved so far.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Kay Ryan: Elephant Rocks
My opinion of our current Poet Laureate went through the quickest evolution I have ever experienced. It was contempt at first sight. The first few poems I read--not necessarily the first in the book, but a preliminary flip-through--were bland and unremarkable. They weren't bad, just sub-laureate.
Beth swore they were good, so I persevered. How long does it take to read a book of poetry, after all? As I progressed on, the poems developed a sort of charm for me. My opinion went from "She's trying to be Dickinson" to "She's reminiscent of Dickinson". Indeed, although the topics are. . . odder than Dickinson would choose, the tone and rhythms are right on the money. As with the Belle of Amherst, the poems feel like interior monologues, as though they are being wondered aloud. The rhymes are always surprising, occurring where one doesn't expect them. Sometimes a word hit the end of a line, and I would go back looking for the word it rhymed with--only to find that there wasn't one. Words such as "Delightful" and "Whimsical" started coming to my mind.
As I read on, it got old. The slant rhyming especially ceased to feel whimsical, and began to feel lazy. It reminded me of The Sugar Hill Gang or some other seminal R&B group, so taken with their innovation that the fact a word almost rhymed was enough, and they would slow down and emphasize it. Lame. I thought my irritation was a factor of my mood, so put it down for a few days. Nope. Still lame.
Which is not to say that her ideas are not cute, and even profound on occasion, just that they get old. I can even picture taking a few of them and teaching them in a lesson on line breaks or fancy rhyming. A whole book though? Bleah. And a laurel? Please.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Kurt Vonnegut: Player Piano and God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater
I am sad that I gave my copy of Player Piano away to Belinda before writing this, because there is a passage in it that I would love to quote verbatim. It was to the effect that the protagonist was transfixed by the mechanism of a machine, one he compared to the action of a maypole. Over, then under, and again. I love this, because it gives me the opportunity to do my favorite literary criticism trick: to show how a single passage is a microcosm of the entire book.
In Player Piano, the characters twist over and under each other in a manner that exactly resembles that of a maypole. In fact, he even opens one chapter with . . . dammit, I can't do this without the book in front of me. I'm going to facebook Belinda and ask her for some page numbers . . . never mind. The whole thing is available online, although it would be easier to see the dogeared page. The quote is:
"Out of the corner of his eye, a crazy, spinning movement caught his fancy, and he turned in delight to watch a cluster of miniature maypoles braid bright cloth insulation about a snake of black cable. A thousand little dancers whirled about one another at incredible speeds, pirouetting, dodging one another, unerringly building their snug snare about the cable" (18).
Her Vonnegut gives--perhaps inadvertently--a perfect metaphor for the structure of this and his other books. The characters are little ribbons, wrapped around each other, some never actually meeting, as a pleasing shawl for the information, "the cable", as it were. As the characters are introduced, it is in a way that fits the metaphor nicely: in their first appearances, The Shah of Bratpuhr is "encrusted with gold brocade. . . On the other side of the limousine's rear seat sat Doctor Ewing J. Halyard [a name that even means 'rope'] . . . He wore a flowing sandy mustache, a colored shirt, a boutonniere, and a waistcoat contrasting with his dark suit" (24). Both descriptions are perfectly in keeping with the "bright cloth insulation". Of course between them is the cable, the interpreter, who is appropriately unadorned. The metaphor continues as far as the end of chapter 3, where Paul "twisted free [of the other characters] and hurried out to his car" (35). After this point, Vonnegut wisely lets the idea speak for itself. Aside from a few mentions later in the book, the reader is left to see for her or himself the tangled web that is woven, and perhaps even to become one of the ribbons in the mess.
This structure is seen in later books, and evolves into the eponymous metaphor of Cat's Cradle, but it is not Vonnegut's structure alone which is seen in seminal form in Player Piano. The themes of an absent father to whom one can not measure up, and the question of human purpose--especially in modern idleness--are also seen throughout his oeuvre. One example is, of course, God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater. As good as Player Piano was, it was at heart unimaginative. In Rosewater, Vonnegut has found his legs and treats the same things, but in the singular way I have come to expect of him. I feel like Rosewater, Slaughterhouse Five and Breakfast of Champions (and possibly others which I have not read) should be compiled in to one large, Tralfamadorian novel. Vonnegut, Kilgore Trout and--in this novel--Garvey Ulm together have written the perfect treatise on life, meaning, and love. Insofar as it is truly Tralfamadorian, it is not possible to analyze it here, but it is possible to pick out a few nice quotes:
"He had eyes that were standard equipment for rich American fairies--junk jewelry eyes, synthetic star sapphires with winking Christmas-tree lights behind them" (176).
"All persons, living and dead,
Are purely coincidental,
And should not be construed" (epigraph)
"It's dead, it's dead. And that part of that man's life where he had to be a certain crazy way, that's done!" (237).
BTD:44
Sunday, December 20, 2009
John IV
18:4 This is not the deepest thought, but isn't it odd to let a sentence end in a preposition in The Bible?
18:5 This is interesting. In John's account, Judas' kiss does not occur. Surely John was there to see, and is a rather more reliable source than Mark or Luke, at least. . .
18:10 How did John know the slave's name? Did he become a believer later? Or did John do some research?
18:13 Always interesting to wonder how the office of High Priest, originally a lifetime appointment, became a n annual office.
18:17 I wonder a bout the inclusion of this moment. Was John taking a dig at Peter? How reliable a narrator is he, considering that he himself is a character--assuming his authorship, of course, which is contested.
18:23 Furthermore, Annas is not even high priest at this point, is he? So why address him thusly?
18:26 Again, Malchus has an unusually prominent role in this gospel. What was John's connection to him?
18:39 In my opinion, Pilate behaved reasonably throughout this. Not only his politic approach to the problem (giving them a way out with their pride intact), but his philosophy. To a dogmatic person, the best answer is always, "What is truth?"
19:8 As well he should be, after the way he allowed him to be treated.
19:11 Waitaminnit. These two statements are clear enough separately, but together open up to an interesting interpretation. In the first part, the one above who granted Pilate power is clearly God, but in the second part the one who gives the power is held at fault by Jesus. Is he blaming God? Or is it a trick of proximity?
19:13 A real dilemma. Clearly to Pilate, Jesus is something divine. At the same time, the Jews have a point. In the right context, his claim is a threat to the Emperor and that divinity.
19:16 What else could he do at this point?
19:22 Other than take a cheap dig, that is.
19:24 This is not the first time that John seems to be playing Matthew's game of reverse prophecy. One wonders where JEsus got such a garment.
19:28 By the same token, Jesus seems to be playing the game here as well. The parenthetical could be taken to mean that Jesus was acting consciously in behalf of prophecy.
19:35 This might be a response to my reaction. John sees that his account might seem revisionist, and he offers himself up to questioning. This is rather a forceful, if not soundproof, argument for his authorship.
20:2 Who is they? Who would benefit from taking him? The Romans? The Sanhedrin? His own disciples?
20:14 This opens one of the most fascinating theological disputes in the Bible. Why did she not recognize him? Was he obscured, did her grief blind her, or was he resurrected in some unrecognizable form?
20:16 Perhaps her back was to him, and that is why she had to turn around to greet him.
20:17 Why not hold on to him? Is he incorporeal?
20:24 How convenient that the one who looked most like him was not there when he appeared. A clever trick?
21:4 This interesting question rears its head again. Perhaps the confusion about his identity is here attributable to his distance on the shore.
21:19 John here reveals a touching affection for Simon Peter, perhaps a wistful reflection of events that had happened long before their writing, and of a man now dead. Fitting, then, that he end with a reflection on his own death.
Virginia Woolf: Flush
There is not much to say about this book, for reasons of length as well as content. It was neither innovative or profound. It is unlike any other of her books--or any book, really. It is a rare intersection of scholarship and affection. The love Woolf bears for her topic is evident in every page, and in the fact that she bothered to write the book at all. I can relate to this, for certain. Elizabeth Barrett Browning was my first favorite among writers. Although I have grown apart from her in many ways, reading Flush brought back much of my old warmth, and that was well worth my time.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Gustave Flaubert: A Sentimental Education
I read this more out of obligation and stubbornness than anything else. I read half of Madame Bovary in College, and was not impressed, so I grumbled a bit when my muse, Philip Ward over at http://www.interleaves.org/~rteeter/grtward.html sent me in Flaubert's direction again. Perhaps my taste has matured since undergrad, though, because I was cured of my ambivalence by the second chapter.
Flaubert does nothing particularly eye-catching or unique in this novel, other than his overflowing sentence structure--often the clauses build up on each other like banks of snow, and hang precipitously over the next paragraph. It would be easy, in view of this seeming conventionality, to view the book as unoriginal. I easily forget that his scrupulous focus on the concrete, in addition to making the title a bit ironic, is itself an innovation. A Sentimental Education was written in a decidedly sentimental literary world, and Flaubert's abhorrence of sentimentality is, in fact, rather brave.
It is not for its literary significance that I recommend this book, however. I was thunderstruck by Flaubert's keen insight into the human mind, and especially into human pettiness. To take one sterling example, after he relents to his mistress,"Frederic didn't enjoy hearing her take for granted an action which he considered noble" (418). What a marvelous observation on Flaubert's part. He precisely identifies a thought of the sort that lives in all minds, but rarely makes it onto the page. In short, Flaubert paints a chillingly unsatisfying picture of "society's almost unlimited capacity for indifference", beginning from within the mind of one young man (261).
Farah Ahmedi: The Other Side of the Sky
This is in the "Do I want to teach this book?" category, and the answer is yes, in three out of four categories.
It would be easiest to start with the only way in which this is not a good book to teach my students: the length. They have taken seven weeks (more or less) to read a book that is half the length. The payoff of teaching this book would simply not be worth the instructional time it would eat up. A teacher at a school where the students would read so much as a page a night on their own might come to a different conclusion.
One way this book is eminently suitable is its readability. SMOG (http://www.harrymclaughlin.com/SMOG.htm) calculates the level at 11th grade, which is too high for my students technically, but the thorough and helpful footnotes figure nowhere in that calculation, and I only typed half a page into the calculator, so it may well be skewed. My assessment is more like 9th.
Both of the above criteria are a bit sterile, but the book is anything but. It is delightfully idiomatic, thoughtfully written, and filled with emotion and imagery. The students will especially appreciate the author/narrator's nearness to their own age, and my Latino students will relate well to the immigration and ELL themes in the book.
As a teacher, what I am most interested in is the books pedagogical possibilities. There is so much that can be done with this highly topical book--relating it to the war in Afghanistan, 9/11, family conflict, culture shock, any numerous other themes, both in language arts and social studies. If I were staying at my current job, I would co-teach it with my Social Studies compatriot across the hall in a heartbeat.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Liveblogging the Bible: John III
15:2 This is rather a different verse than I remember. I had been trained to think of this pruning as the removal of wicked people, but here it feels more like the refinement of one's self. I, for one, have definitely had some parts pruned away.
15:5 Of course, this verse contradicts what I just wrote.
15:13 Of course, Jesus' laid down his life for more than just his friends, according to traditional theology.
15:15 this is a nice moment that had escaped me before. He relents a little from the harsher rhetoric earlier in the chapter, and reaches out to the apostles on something deeper than a doctrinal level.
15:27 According to John's first chapter, though, they were nowhere near with him in "the beginning".
16:5 This is something of an enigmatic verse. I can think of no other time that Jesus fished for a statement from the disciples like this. Was it important that they know where he was going? Is it other than the obvious answer?
16:7 Metaphysically speaking, why is this? What balance must be struck between Jesus and The Advocate? Why does he have to request for it to be sent, and why must that request be in person? Is The Advocate more powerful or useful at this point than he is? So many questions come from this verse, and no way at all to answer them it seems.
16:8-11 and these verses are even worse! Let us take just 9, and see if we can piece together the mechanics of it. For them to be proven wrong about sin is to prove them wrong about their belief in him. What then is the belief in him that must be reversed, as it relates to sin? I can think of nothing but their belief that he has no power to forgive sin, but it does not seem correct to call this a belief about sin; it is rather a belief about him. Although this is a tenuous answer, it at least makes some sort of sense. I can think of no way to stretch the next two proofs, about righteousness and judgement, into something lucid.
16:13 an interesting metaphysical rule, if it is to be taken as such: the Spirit has no agency, it is merely a medium, inconsistent with much mainstream Christian teaching, but thoroughly consistent with both Witness teaching and Science of Mind.
16:14-15 Here is a possible answer to the quandary of verse 7, namely, "What is the connection between Jesus' departure and the arrival of The Advocate?" Jesus twice declares here that "He", whoever that is, will take something from Jesus and give it to the disciples. If we infer from 13 that the spirit is more a force than a person, then it could be wondered if Jesus' presence on Earth was simply using up too much spirit, and he had to depart to make it accessible for them. This is the wildest--and most recreational--of conjectures, but it at least does not contradict anything said here so far.
16:24 The only possible conclusion from this interchange is that Jesus will only be shedding his mortal body, and will appear to them in some other form. Is it possible then that The Advocate is Jesus himself, in another form?
16:33 This conversation ends up rather more inspirational than it began.
17:5 Only a few things are possible to think about John at this point: he either is making some of this shit up to aggrandize the memory of Jesus, or he is the only one of the four gospel writers who understands what's going on.
17:6 This feels like the climax of the book, rather than Jesus' death. That death is just resolution of this speech.
17:25 Wow. This is an aria moment, to be sure. In this past few chapters, Jesus concern has been chiefly with his disciples knowing where he comes from, which is to say from the Father. It is most surprising that this is his focus, because one would assume that they accepted that all along. Did he mean something more than we understand here, or were the Apostles up to this point still skeptical of his divine source, if not outright divinity? And he seems so relieved once assured of their belief. Was there really doubt?
Thursday, October 29, 2009
3 Quickies
Alcyone: "At the Feet of the Master"
This item, more of a booklet than a book, I received as a gift from the Denver Theosophical Society. I was intrigued by an advertisement on their website to the effect of "Always wanted special insight and awareness, but never figured out how to do it? Here we are!" Which I interpreted as "Come get special mental powers!" This is something I have wanted, of course, for a long time.
The answers offered in the group, and in this booklet, were not satisfying, but merely repeated what I already knew from reading The Buddha's work: "Have no desire for psychic powers; they will come when the master knows it is best for you to have them" (17). Rats. I already knew, of course, that there is no trick to enlightenment, and that it is a lot of hard work. How many times do I need to be told this?
Tom Stoppard: "The Dissolution of Dominic Boot" and "'M' is for Moon Among Other Things"
Yes, I really did read two Stoppard plays in one night, but volume two of his collected works is a collection of his radio dramas, not stage plays, and they are correspondingly shorter. I'm not sure if my confusion over the first would be cured by hearing it as it was performed, or just by a better understanding of the British Monetary system. Either way, I didn't get it. The second was more comprehendible, but the ten minutes or so was not long enough for the full Stoppardness of it to shine. It was amusing, but not really thought-provoking.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Ovid: Metamorphoses
One of my favorite things--and a sure fire mark of mind-blowing literature--is when the form of a book mirrors the function. by this measure, Metamorphoses should be the best book ever written. Within the scope of one book, Ovid flows seamlessly from one scene, one metamorphosis to another, stories taking place within stories within stories, and stories--sometimes roughly--altered to queue up the next in the series. The result is an endlessly flowing expression of Ovid's central idea, that all life is change and that nothing stays itself for long. This theme reaches a touching and convincing climax in the voice of Pythagoras :
Everything changes; nothing dies; the soul
Roams to and fro, now here, now there, and takes
what frame it will (XV.166-169)
Sadly, to my ears the book was no more inspiring than a summary of Bullfinch's Mythology. Even though Ovid is reputed to be the most witty, most agile of all the Latin writers ( though not necessarily the best), none of that came through in this translation. This is not the first bad experience I've had with the Oxford World Classics editions (see previous post on Beaumarchais). Even could I overlook the typos--and I cannot--I feel the thick and forced meter of the translation imply that the thickness of the language comes from the translation as well. It is suggested that I read the Ted Hughes version. I would have earlier balked, as I suspect that Hughes' ego would lead him to take liberties. Now that I have read a prosaic version, I welcome what will no doubt be a soggy one.
Interesting note on appellation: I was thoroughly surprised to meet Lucifer in book XI. I felt a thesis rising in my blood as thought about the connections that could be made to Hebrew Mythology, though as I thought about it, I wondered if the translator had inserted something unseemly. Research reveals that the name Lucifer does not appear in the Hebrew text of the Bible, and especially not as a reference to Satan. His first appearance in that capacity is in the Latin Vulgate, four centuries after Ovid. To sum up, Lucifer was the evening star in 400 years before he was Satan.
BTD: 34. Falling behind rather embarrassingly.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Two for the Show
Kurt Vonnegut: Cat's Cradle
Halfway through this book, I was ready to officially convert to Bokononism. All of the central tenets make a certain perverse sense, including and especially the paradoxical exhortation that Bokononism itself is foma (lies). Aside from being great fun to consider, it actually explains something that has intruiged me for years: why do certain people keep appearing in my life in wildly different contexts? Bokonon's answer: they are part of my Karass, meant to accomplish something jointly with me during our lives. Kelly Palmblad, even though we barely know each other, is clearly a member of my Karass, and probably Kim Templin as well.
By the end of the book, however, I feel that Vonnegut had emasculated my support for Bokononism. Others of his masterpieces, Slaughterhouse Five and Breakfast of Champions, to name a few, are hopelessly convoluted, but are framed as non-fiction in that they could conceivably have taken place in our own universe. This is not necessarily what makes them great, but it is what makes them wonderful; the reader walks away saying to him or herself, "I can picture this happening." Cat's Cradle, as it ends with the ersatz end of the world, does not evoke that response. As much as I wanted to be a Bokononist, by the end of the book it was impossible. Bokononism didn't exist in this universe.
This is neither a mistake or an accident on Vonnegut's part, of course. Even the epigraph should have preapred me for such a thing: "Nothing in this book is true." It evens serves to add a level to the allegorical religion: just like all other religions, it is fictional and ultimately disappointing. If the book had inspired a generation of nerds running around declaring themselves Bokononists, as I no doubt would have, they no doubt would have missed the point. I may do it anyway, just out of rebellion . . .
Francisco Jimenez: Breaking Through
I read this to see if it was suitable for my students, rather than for pleasure. I decided it would be a good choice for the classroom for a few reasons:
The Latino backdrop of the book would be familiar to them
The coming of age story matches their current path
The conflict with the Dad and friction with traditional values might be especially relevant
It's written at an appropriate and accessible level
I therefore proceeded to teach it to them, and found that they didn't agree with me at all. they especially hated the ending. In their minds, going to college was a dumb ending for the story, one they couldn't wrap their brains around. It didn't make sense to them at all that the protagonist would end up that way. They loved it, up until the last chapter. I see their point, not from a social perspective, but from a literary one. The end did feel a bit sudden and arbitrary somehow, even though it was clearly set up from very early in the book. Still, their reaction surprised me.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
John II
8:1 I had never before thought of this as an example of Jesus "Having nowhere to lay his head," but it seems pretty clear from this reading. The question then arises, why did nobody offer to take him in? Did they assume he was okay? Did they feel intimidated? Did they ask, and he refused?
8:3 To ask his opinion on a judicial matter, and not to take her directly to the Sanhedrin, would seem to undercut the Pharisees here.
8:8 was this offhanded? Or did he write something else that is not recorded. This is the only example that I can think of of Jesus writing anything. Of course, his attitude here appears affected, but I can imagine the Buddha really remaining aloof from the situation. Traditionally, this is thought to have been Mary Magdalene, but I have never noticed any proof for that claim.
8:12 Later, or in other accounts, he compares his disciples to the light of the world. Which is it?
8:13 This is a purely legalistic argument, but Jesus turns it into a philosophical one. It was inadmissible for a Jew to testify in his or her own behalf in the Sanhedrin, like a sort of reverse fifth amendment. Jesus does not always recognize their laws however, and answers a higher call.
8:18 But just for kicks, he blows apart their legal argument as well.
8:22 Yes, in a way he is.
8:25 This is a bit rude on his part. He just got done castigating the Pharisees for not knowing where he came from. Then seemingly honest hearted seekers ask the very question, and he rejects, not only their question, but themselves.
8:39 Perhaps this explains a bit. They are not honest-hearted at all. In which case his, "why do I even talk to you," becomes meaningless, for he goes ont o exlain in depth--completely out of character with the Jesus of vss 1-11. This makes a bit of sense, for 1-11 are not universally regarded as canonical. For my part, I rather prefer them to the rest of the chapter.
Jesus speaks very differently in this chapter to the Pharisees in private than in public. His speech to them--seemingly not directed at the am ha'arets (people of the Earth in Hebrew) at all--has a different tone, of course, for he is chastising them. But his tactics are also different, more didactic, more religious, less parabolic--if that word can be used in that way, and I hope it can :)
9:1 Thanks to Robert for helping me remember the word "peripatetic" to describe this verse.
9:3 This seems to be just as unsatisfactory an answer as either of the other two--perhaps more so. As tragic as it would be to be stricken with blindness as a punishment, it is downright cruel for it to be done arbitrarily.
9:6-10 Is the clay a remedy or a metaphor? I would love to know how either one works.
9:15 perhaps it was a taunt, for if he had not made the mud, it would not have counted as work, and no controversy would have been stirred.
9:24, 30 I think this man would make an interesting character study. Two nice little zingers, and then he disappears from the canon forever. Time for some Midrashim!
9:35 This "Son of Man" business is becoming rather a delicate point. Firstly, it is capitalized, indicating some untranslated significance in the Jewish. secondly, the words have the power to convert here, as though Jesus had identified himself as the Messiah. Are the two phrases comparable, at least in gravitas?
9:38 And what might this involve?
9:41 Here's another delicate item. The two statements require some logical acrobatics to reconcile. The extension one would expect from "If you were blind, you would not have sin" is 'you see sin, so you must be blind." Instead we get "now that you say 'We see,' your sin remains." The somersault is obvious upon scrutiny: in the first statement, Jesus refers to the perceived sin--his own. In the second, he refers to the sin of perception--theirs (a nice little antimetabole on my part, if I do say so :). The claim--and even as I'm writing it down, I'm reconsidering, so don't judge too harshly--then turns their condemnation of him into condemnation of themselves. Nicely, and subtly, done!
10:6 They must be obtuse indeed not to understand this one, especially considering the context of the preceding conversation.
10:7 This is unexpected. I expected him, quite naturally I think, to be the shepherd, not the gate.
10:11 Oh, now he's the Shepherd. Is this free associating, or post facto revision?
10:16 I feel like the latter is more likely, as though vss. 7-10 were part of another conversation entirely, added here for convenience.
10:17 The Witness interpretation of this is, of course, that there are two tiers of Jesus' followers. i do not think it implies any such thing--more like a Jew/Gentile distinction.
10:19 Which would explain why the Jews were so upset at an otherwise innocuous statement.
10:24 And he has said it by now, just not to them. For when I read "The Jews", especially in John, I think "The Pharisees".
10:28 Here's a little non-sequitur for you. He seems to spill the beans a bit here, perhaps even going too far. Are they really one? What does he mean? Is he just antagonizing them?
10:36 Ah, but that's not what you said!
10:38 Why not just say it this way to begin with? Thanks to that earlier verse, now we have to deal with millennia of nonsense from the council of Nicaea.
10:40 Rather a poetic place to end the chapter.
11:1-6 So, Jesus is more concerned with his own glory than his friends? Since when?
11:16 One of the rare glimpses into the character of one of the Apostles. Thomas is a small, but well defined character in this narrative.
11:20 A contrast between the two that matches up with the other account of their different approaches to Jesus. Both of them are clearly mad at Jesus, but they express it in different ways. Martha comes out looking better in this account, and she may be the only one at this point who really believes in Jesus power to raise the dead.
11:32 Or was she simply to grief-stricken? She says the same thing that her sister does.
11:51 I don't think this counts as a prophecy when he himself arranges for it to come true . . .
This whole chapter irks me. It just seems so arbitrary for him to have consciously allowed his friend to die just to have another chance to perform a miracle. Were there no other dead people available? Was it somehow important that the victim of his sacrifice be a friend? Does it have something to do with his declaration in vs. 42 that even his words were choreographed? Was the faith of the disciples faltering as things got very dangerous for them in Jerusalem, and he felt the need to perform a miiiiiighty theatrical lesson to shore them up? The whole thing feels muddy.
12:1 It feels from this verse that the thing was not written all at once, or together. Why remind us of something that happened less than a page ago?
12:3-5 I had neglected to remember that this event was after the resurrection of LAzarus. This makes Judas even more of a douche; of course she would do this. He raised her brother from the frickin' dead!
12:7 This is cryptic. Obviously, she was not keeping it at all. On a side note, this sort of oil was purchased mainly for investment. To use it like this seems a bit like purchasing a rare stamp, and then mailing something with it, negating its value.
12:10-11 I see a major flaw with this plan. To kill someone who won't stay dead seems like a losing enterprise.
12:23 What does this have to do with the Greeks?
12:42 This feels a bit like the Mormon's submitting for fear of losing their Temple Recommend
12:44-46 This fits nicely with my Christology, which I would not call Christian. To me, Jesus was simply transparent to the light of God. We are as humans mostly opaque to that light, and at best we can reflect it. In Jesus case, the light passes through him unimpaired. That is why he could say these things here.
12:47 This verse pulls apart many of the ideas of mainstream Christianity. I like it. Jesus judges no one. Special note to The Witnesses: this includes any perceived appearances in the Revelation to John, who wrote these words also.
This verse is a nice return to the reflective, calm and loving Jesus that was absent in Ch. 11
13:3 I like this verse for some reason. It's very matter of fact and almost Zen: a trait John doesn't exhibit very often. " . . . he had come from God and was going to God."
13:7 How did Peter not get it, even as Jesus was explaining? Is there something deepere here than "Be least to be first"?
13:10 I smell a double meaning. "Not all of you" here means both "Not all of your body" and "Not all of you present".
13:18 "I know whom I have chosen" here seems to indicate that Jesus had at least some agency in Judas' betrayal, giving a bit of leverage to Flannery O'Connor.
13:24 A nice bit of characterization here. John comes across as not only Peter's sidekick, but closely in tune with what the other is thinking.
13:26 Another indication of Jesus' agency in this choice. The bread may have been just a symbol, or it may have had some sort of effect on Judas; it seems as if the bread was a catalyst for Satan's entry.
14:6 This doesn't exactly answer the question, but it certainly does give people something to put on bumper stickers for the next 2,000 years.
14:10-11 This may very well be true, but put this way it feels self-aggrandizing. It does not seem that someone who is the very image of the father would feel the need to make such a big deal out of it.
14:15 Capitalizing Advocate begs the question "who?" It has been taken for granted that it is the Holy Spirit, but I am not convinced.
14:22 We have heard from three so-called lesser apostles in this chapter, but all of them are MacGuffins, only serving to pose the questions so that Jesus can answer them.
14:25 Oh. Never mind.
This chapter feels muddled, as though John doesn't quite succeed in making his point. Jesus says the same thing four times: I am going to the Father; keep my commandments. It still feels like some bigger truth fails to be imparted here.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Fyodor Dostoevsky: Crime and Punishment
Not mind-blowing, but good and, no doubt, important to have read. It feels so much more sophisticated than other books that were being written at that time. Take Dickens, for instance, since I also just finished The Pickwick Papers, and it is still fresh in my mind. Compared to the effort Dostoevsky puts into characterization, even the most sophisticated of Dickens' characters seem cheap and flat. By the end of Crime and Punishment, we know more about Raskolnikov than his own mother, whereas the workings of Pickwick's or Sam's mind by the end of their adventures are still a bit of a mystery.
The question remains whether this is a virtue or not. Is Dickens primitive compared to Dostoevsky? Or elegant? Our relative unfamiliarity with Dickens' characters does not make them less memorable or less literary. I think it is a matter of what each was trying to do. Dickens was trying to sell books; Dostoevsky to uncover the mysteries of the human mind. I think it safe to say that each succeeded, though neither perhaps to his ultimate satisfaction.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Mario Vargas Llosa: The Time of the Hero
I'm not sure if it is Llosa's subtlety as a writer, or my carelessness as a reader, but I labored through almost the entire book under a misconception. So gently does he blur the lines between the characters of the book, that it wasn't until the epilogue that I realized I had been fooled--or been foolish. I will need to revisit the book to answer this question for sure. Maybe he was perfectly clear that the first person narrated sections were about the Jaguar all along. He was clear enough that the third person-omniscient sections were about the Poet. I think it more likely that I was suckered in by some early references, and at the end, my mind was blown almost as violently as it was at the end of The Life of Pi. Underneath all that authorial magic, Llosa crafts a engaging narrative with likeable, memorable characters, and wraps it up satisfyingly, but not too satisfyingly. what more can one ask for in a novel?
BTD:30
Pierre Augustin Caron de Beaumarchais: The Marriage of Figaro and The Guilty Mother
Very little caught my attention about the former of these two plays, largely because I have been in the opera version--one of my favorites. There are playwrights--Stoppard, Shakespeare--that must be read to be fully appreciated, and there are those--Beaumarchais, Moliere--that must be seen. The Marriage of Figaro was cute enough, but I couldn't help but wish I were watching instead of reading it. With the exception of the truly touching scene between Figaro and Suzanna in IV.1, everything in Beaumarchais' version is improved upon by Mozart--although the librettist Lorenzo DaPonte does not seem to have improved upon it at all.
The Guilty Mother is a different story. It is more or less agreed that the opera version by Milhaud is wildly inferior both to Mozart's Marriage of Figaro and Rossini's Barber of Seville (the first of Beaumarchais' trilogy). I didn't expect it, therefore, to be my favorite of the three plays. I'm sure I would not have enjoyed it so much if I had not first read the other two; so much history and characterization is necessary to truly understand The Guilty Mother. Figaro's wit and resourcefulness in the first two plays make for good comic theatre, but little more than that. In The Guilty Mother, Figaro's skills fail him, and he finds himself at the mercy of a wilier, younger foe. An audience familiar with Figaro as a character is naturally on the edge of their seats, anticipating how Figaro will trick his way out of this one, and becomes increasingly anxious as Figaro is outwitted at every turn. This tension is heightened by the affection that familiar readers/viewers no doubt have for Almaviva and Rosine by the time of the third play. Beaumarchais elevates The Guilty Mother above the other two when it is not Figaro's wiles that saves the day, but the fierce love that The Count and Countess still have for each other--and maybe a touch of Divine intervention. All Figaro needs to do by the end is tidy up and do damage control. Thus the Guilty Mother is elevated beyond a comic play to a deeply genuine and human experience, and a rare example of believable love on stage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)