삶은 쓸쓸하다. 또한 쓸쓸하지않다. 한국 작가는 이렇게 바로 분명히 시작하기 마련인지 모르겠지만 확실히 분석
쉽게 하는 시작이다. 이문열은
황홀하고 놀랄만큼 퉁명스러운 산문으로 사랑의 사실 또한 광계의 사실을 정확히 포착한다. 다른 사람이랑 아무리 친한다고 생각해도 광계는 욕구와 간격의 무서운 조합인 말이다. 이런 환경에서는 마음이 어떻게 살아남을 수 있을까?
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Sunday, June 24, 2012
Brian Rappatta: To Sift the Sacred and other Fantasy Stories
It's always a bit strange approaching a book written by an acquaintance in this manner. On the one hand, I am inclined to cut a lot of slack to the book because it doesn't seem to be putting on any airs. A professionally published, mainstream book has a certain obligation to the reader, to be well written, thoroughly edited, and in general not a waste of time. A book written by a friend just doesn't seem to make the same demands.
Nonetheless, as an English major one develops the habit of reading critically, in the quite literal sense of noticing things that are wrong. In this case, I suppose I could sum up by saying that the author's ideas are quite astounding and creative, but I'm not quite taken in by the writing itself, which seems a bit pedestrian.
But the larger issue at stake here is that each of the stories contains a thoroughly thought out and engaging miniature world, and the short story format doesn't come close to doing any of them justice. I feel like, with the exception of "Goddamned", every one of the stories could bear the weight of a longer narrative. So much thought has gone into each of the stories that the world feels fully formed within only a few paragraphs. It almost seems like a waste to let such a vision live for only 20 pages or so.
Nonetheless, as an English major one develops the habit of reading critically, in the quite literal sense of noticing things that are wrong. In this case, I suppose I could sum up by saying that the author's ideas are quite astounding and creative, but I'm not quite taken in by the writing itself, which seems a bit pedestrian.
But the larger issue at stake here is that each of the stories contains a thoroughly thought out and engaging miniature world, and the short story format doesn't come close to doing any of them justice. I feel like, with the exception of "Goddamned", every one of the stories could bear the weight of a longer narrative. So much thought has gone into each of the stories that the world feels fully formed within only a few paragraphs. It almost seems like a waste to let such a vision live for only 20 pages or so.
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
City Lights
Here's a rare example of a time I agree with the AFI's revisions to its list. In the original 1998 list, this charming number was ranked 76th, but in the 2007 revisions it was, I think rightly, moved up to number 11. I had never watched a silent feature length film before, so my expectations were low, but I was captivated throughout. City Lights is everything a romantic comedy should be: by turns hilarious, suspenseful, socially astute and deeply moving. While Chaplin's comedic chops are the obvious star here, I think he deserves even more credit as writer and director for accomplishing without words (without spoken words at least) what all the Matthew McConaugheys and Cameron Diazes and Nicholas Sparkses in all of modern cinema can't do with scores of well-paid writers and technicians.
Sometimes, out of habit, I judge a piece of media by its "teachableness", by which I mean whether I could show it to a class of low socioeconomic status students (I am thinking of a specific class from my fourth year of teaching), and have them learn something from it without being bored to tears. I would love to show this movie (or part of it) to such a class, and watch their minds expand a little. At first they would roll their eyes and groan at the prospect of watching a black and white movie--let alone a silent one. I can hear it now "What the fuck, Payne? Do you hate us or something?" Then they would self-consciously repress a giggle when Chaplin's pants get caught on a statue. After about five minutes, one of them would break the ice and give a full belly laugh, probably when the blind girl throws water in his face. It would be all smiles from there, and at the end of the class, one of them would begrudgingly say, "I didn't think old shit could be that funny . . ." Although I enjoyed City Lights immensely, especially the ending, I'm aware that my enjoyment alone does not make a great movie. To have soften the hearts and open the minds of a group of juvenile delinquents is a much better measure.
Sometimes, out of habit, I judge a piece of media by its "teachableness", by which I mean whether I could show it to a class of low socioeconomic status students (I am thinking of a specific class from my fourth year of teaching), and have them learn something from it without being bored to tears. I would love to show this movie (or part of it) to such a class, and watch their minds expand a little. At first they would roll their eyes and groan at the prospect of watching a black and white movie--let alone a silent one. I can hear it now "What the fuck, Payne? Do you hate us or something?" Then they would self-consciously repress a giggle when Chaplin's pants get caught on a statue. After about five minutes, one of them would break the ice and give a full belly laugh, probably when the blind girl throws water in his face. It would be all smiles from there, and at the end of the class, one of them would begrudgingly say, "I didn't think old shit could be that funny . . ." Although I enjoyed City Lights immensely, especially the ending, I'm aware that my enjoyment alone does not make a great movie. To have soften the hearts and open the minds of a group of juvenile delinquents is a much better measure.
Monday, May 14, 2012
Liveblogging the Bible: Colossians
1:1 One can't help but wonder what exactly Timothy's role was in the composition of this letter. Was he simply an amanuensis? An editor? A co-contributor? Or simply a comrade who wished to add his greetings to Paul's?
1:3 The use of the plural here seems to suggest that Timothy's role was more substantial than one might think, which raises theological questions. Paul has yet to indicate that this letter is directly inspired (as he does elsewhere), an omission which does not stop some from taking this as the literal, word-for-word transmission of a divine message. If one chooses to take it thus, is Timothy also inspired of God?
1:7 Was Epaphras, therefore, the originator of the congregation in Colossae, if it was from him that they first heard the message?
1:9-14 Paul's wishes here are interesting, more for what is not included than for what is. He wishes them to have gifts of wisdom/knowledge/understanding, and strength/endurance patience. His mention of forgiveness and good works are results of these other two elements, not independent of them.
1:15 Appositive referent problem. Is "the firstborn of all creation" meant to refer to Christ, or God?
1:20 In what way are those things in heaven in need of Christ's redemption?
1:23 This is a quid pro quo that is incompatible with common understandings of salvation. The audience here is saved "provided that [they] continue securely established and steadfast . . ." And if they don't, what becomes of that salvation? Some would argue that those who do not continue were never saved, but that would render Paul's argument invalid.
1:24 And what could possibly have been lacking in Christ's afflictions, such that Paul has to suffer them for him. Seems like a bit of poetic license, rather than a point of doctrine.
2:1 This confirms the suspicion in 1:7
2:3,4 Again this focus on knowledge. Paul is far to canny and conscious of his audience to have done this offhandedly. He is clearly writing for the purpose of purifying their doctrine, and specifically to root out some unknown "plausible arguments" that are not in sync with the party line.
2:6 One could try to infer then, what exactly he is trying to correct about their doctrine, by seeing what gets the bulk of his time. In this case, it seems to be the idea of the ransom, and of Christ's headship of the congregation.
2:11-15 This is Pauline rhetoric at its very best. He appeals to the Colossians on multiple emotional fronts, all while giving his case a sound logical underpinning.
2:18 and this confirms that Paul's goal is primarily to focus their attention on Christ, and deter them from developing a sort of pantheon, or an independent order that subscribes to harsher standards as an expression of piety. Both of these are things that Catholics are guilty of in abundance, naturally.
3:5 This is a lovely job of wrapping worship of lesser deities and self-abasement in the same cloth as fornication and wrath, in that all of them are of earthly concern. A nice taxonomy, that brooks no argument, especially as nice as Paul has set it up in the preceding chapters.
3:17 And if he stopped right here, I would have no argument with him . . .
3:18-25 But he didn't. After all of the beautiful and sound rhetoric of the preceding chapters, he loses his way here. He has just convinced his audience to focus only on spiritual things, that everything physical has no real meaning. Yet here he brings it back to the physical realm again, and loses some of his credibility.
4:1 And of course, I see no way to justify this by Paul's own logic. It has no place in a treatise on distancing oneself from the physical realm. Not to mention the fact that it is morally repulsive.
4:12 Evidently their own founder, Epaphras, was with him at the time of the writing, no doubt mentioned tactically.
4:16 And is this letter to the Laodiceans less inspired, such that it has been lost?
4:18 Well, that lets Timothy off the hook as an amanuensis. And he could scarcely have been mentioned just as a way to tender his regards, insofar as somehow Timothy's contribution to this letter deserved greater mention than these others named here. Which leaves the other two possibilities . . . I can't help but wonder if that section that seems so out of place with the rest bears his mark somehow.
1:3 The use of the plural here seems to suggest that Timothy's role was more substantial than one might think, which raises theological questions. Paul has yet to indicate that this letter is directly inspired (as he does elsewhere), an omission which does not stop some from taking this as the literal, word-for-word transmission of a divine message. If one chooses to take it thus, is Timothy also inspired of God?
1:7 Was Epaphras, therefore, the originator of the congregation in Colossae, if it was from him that they first heard the message?
1:9-14 Paul's wishes here are interesting, more for what is not included than for what is. He wishes them to have gifts of wisdom/knowledge/understanding, and strength/endurance patience. His mention of forgiveness and good works are results of these other two elements, not independent of them.
1:15 Appositive referent problem. Is "the firstborn of all creation" meant to refer to Christ, or God?
1:20 In what way are those things in heaven in need of Christ's redemption?
1:23 This is a quid pro quo that is incompatible with common understandings of salvation. The audience here is saved "provided that [they] continue securely established and steadfast . . ." And if they don't, what becomes of that salvation? Some would argue that those who do not continue were never saved, but that would render Paul's argument invalid.
1:24 And what could possibly have been lacking in Christ's afflictions, such that Paul has to suffer them for him. Seems like a bit of poetic license, rather than a point of doctrine.
2:1 This confirms the suspicion in 1:7
2:3,4 Again this focus on knowledge. Paul is far to canny and conscious of his audience to have done this offhandedly. He is clearly writing for the purpose of purifying their doctrine, and specifically to root out some unknown "plausible arguments" that are not in sync with the party line.
2:6 One could try to infer then, what exactly he is trying to correct about their doctrine, by seeing what gets the bulk of his time. In this case, it seems to be the idea of the ransom, and of Christ's headship of the congregation.
2:11-15 This is Pauline rhetoric at its very best. He appeals to the Colossians on multiple emotional fronts, all while giving his case a sound logical underpinning.
2:18 and this confirms that Paul's goal is primarily to focus their attention on Christ, and deter them from developing a sort of pantheon, or an independent order that subscribes to harsher standards as an expression of piety. Both of these are things that Catholics are guilty of in abundance, naturally.
3:5 This is a lovely job of wrapping worship of lesser deities and self-abasement in the same cloth as fornication and wrath, in that all of them are of earthly concern. A nice taxonomy, that brooks no argument, especially as nice as Paul has set it up in the preceding chapters.
3:17 And if he stopped right here, I would have no argument with him . . .
3:18-25 But he didn't. After all of the beautiful and sound rhetoric of the preceding chapters, he loses his way here. He has just convinced his audience to focus only on spiritual things, that everything physical has no real meaning. Yet here he brings it back to the physical realm again, and loses some of his credibility.
4:1 And of course, I see no way to justify this by Paul's own logic. It has no place in a treatise on distancing oneself from the physical realm. Not to mention the fact that it is morally repulsive.
4:12 Evidently their own founder, Epaphras, was with him at the time of the writing, no doubt mentioned tactically.
4:16 And is this letter to the Laodiceans less inspired, such that it has been lost?
4:18 Well, that lets Timothy off the hook as an amanuensis. And he could scarcely have been mentioned just as a way to tender his regards, insofar as somehow Timothy's contribution to this letter deserved greater mention than these others named here. Which leaves the other two possibilities . . . I can't help but wonder if that section that seems so out of place with the rest bears his mark somehow.
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Edgar Allan Poe: Complete Tales and Stories with Selected Essays
This incredibly dense volume has taken me a year to muddle through, partly due to my own easily distracted nature, and partly due to the fact that every time I tried to get through a chunk I fell asleep after a few pages. In fact, after this happened a few times, I took to reading a bit of Poe whenever I was having trouble falling asleep. My mind often races, causing me to lie awake, but this has proven to be the easiest over-the-counter cure for that I have found.
There are those who will be incensed by this declaration, but I mean it in earnest. No other author can put me to sleep the way Poe can. He just tries so hard to prove himself--that he's smart, or avant-garde, or of a poetical nature. His word choice and condescending tone consistently leave a bad taste in my mouth. It is no wonder that he met with but little recognition in his own time.
What is a mystery is that he has such devout followers in modern times. What is usually familiar of his body of work is often limited to the three or four stories that are not tediously self-conscious. One that I was pleasantly surprised by was The Mask of the Red Death, which I had read before, but the lovely symmetry and well-crafted structure of which I had not fully appreciated at the time.
And if his prose is unbearable, his poetry is even more so, containing, as he admitted, "Nothing of much value to the public, or very creditable to [my]self" (Poe, 1845). This is, of course, an exaggeration. Certain of his poems have become deservedly famous, but the vast majority are clumsy, unfinished, and boring. To use his own words again,
...the writer of these lines
in the mad pride of intellectuality
maintained "the power of words"--denied that ever
a thought arose within the human brain
beyond the utterance of the human tongue ("To Marie Louise" 1-5)
It is exactly this mad pride of intellectuality that infects all of Poe's work, including the few examples from his essays included in this collection. This is a terrible shame because that cloying frosting of pseudo-intellectualism covers up the ideas behind Poe's work, which, when they peek through, are visionary and poetic in the highest degree. I just wish he had an editorial-minded friend who could have sat down with him and extracted those things. I wish some of the truly lovely passages and turns of phrase were not nestled in such glutinous dishes as Poe served. Some of my favorite examples:
Ours is a world of words: Quiet we call
"Silence"--which is the merest word of all.
All nature speaks, and ev'n ideal things
Flap shadowy sounds from visionary wings
and
Up!--shake from your wing
Each hindering thing:
The dew of the night--
It would weigh down your flight;
And true love caresses--
O! leave them apart!
They are light on the tresses,
But lead on the heart.
Both of these sections are from "Al Aaraaf", which, with a little direction, could have been one of the greatest poems ever written. Instead, it's a bit of a mess with some lovely pieces poking through, and Poe is definitely remembered for the tidier "Annabel Lee" and "The Raven".
Of course, perhaps is it because of all this, and not in spite of it, that he has found such an audience. Perhaps it is not even Poe's work that people are drawn to, but his spirit, that of one with deep, even visionary things to say, who couldn't quite seem to get them across--certainly not in his own time. Who would bother to pick through the work of a living writer to find out what he means, after all? More's the pity, because many indeed are they who can relate to his sentiment, summed up perhaps best here:
From childhood's hour I have not been
As others were--I have not seen
as others saw--I could not bring
my passions from a common spring--("Alone")
There are those who will be incensed by this declaration, but I mean it in earnest. No other author can put me to sleep the way Poe can. He just tries so hard to prove himself--that he's smart, or avant-garde, or of a poetical nature. His word choice and condescending tone consistently leave a bad taste in my mouth. It is no wonder that he met with but little recognition in his own time.
What is a mystery is that he has such devout followers in modern times. What is usually familiar of his body of work is often limited to the three or four stories that are not tediously self-conscious. One that I was pleasantly surprised by was The Mask of the Red Death, which I had read before, but the lovely symmetry and well-crafted structure of which I had not fully appreciated at the time.
And if his prose is unbearable, his poetry is even more so, containing, as he admitted, "Nothing of much value to the public, or very creditable to [my]self" (Poe, 1845). This is, of course, an exaggeration. Certain of his poems have become deservedly famous, but the vast majority are clumsy, unfinished, and boring. To use his own words again,
...the writer of these lines
in the mad pride of intellectuality
maintained "the power of words"--denied that ever
a thought arose within the human brain
beyond the utterance of the human tongue ("To Marie Louise" 1-5)
It is exactly this mad pride of intellectuality that infects all of Poe's work, including the few examples from his essays included in this collection. This is a terrible shame because that cloying frosting of pseudo-intellectualism covers up the ideas behind Poe's work, which, when they peek through, are visionary and poetic in the highest degree. I just wish he had an editorial-minded friend who could have sat down with him and extracted those things. I wish some of the truly lovely passages and turns of phrase were not nestled in such glutinous dishes as Poe served. Some of my favorite examples:
Ours is a world of words: Quiet we call
"Silence"--which is the merest word of all.
All nature speaks, and ev'n ideal things
Flap shadowy sounds from visionary wings
and
Up!--shake from your wing
Each hindering thing:
The dew of the night--
It would weigh down your flight;
And true love caresses--
O! leave them apart!
They are light on the tresses,
But lead on the heart.
Both of these sections are from "Al Aaraaf", which, with a little direction, could have been one of the greatest poems ever written. Instead, it's a bit of a mess with some lovely pieces poking through, and Poe is definitely remembered for the tidier "Annabel Lee" and "The Raven".
Of course, perhaps is it because of all this, and not in spite of it, that he has found such an audience. Perhaps it is not even Poe's work that people are drawn to, but his spirit, that of one with deep, even visionary things to say, who couldn't quite seem to get them across--certainly not in his own time. Who would bother to pick through the work of a living writer to find out what he means, after all? More's the pity, because many indeed are they who can relate to his sentiment, summed up perhaps best here:
From childhood's hour I have not been
As others were--I have not seen
as others saw--I could not bring
my passions from a common spring--("Alone")
Tuesday, April 03, 2012
Vertigo
I feel that everything that went right with Raging Bull went wrong here: In the former, Scorsese took a turd of a script, and reworked it completely into something brilliant. In the latter, Hitchcock took an equally stinky sample, and decided to leave poor enough alone. Scorsese resisted the temptation to cast known quantities in the leading roles, and not only pulled masterpiece performances seemingly out of thin air, but cemented the careers and reputations of some of our finest actors. Hitchcock almost lazily cast the obviously over the hill Stewart in the lead, and couldn't pull so much as a simmer out of him.
Vertigo is admittedly lovely. Hitchcock is, as always, a master of mood, but shows here that he can create more than suspense. Perhaps it was out of necessity that he managed to show Stewart falling in love with Kim Novak entirely through camera angle. And of course the dream sequence and visual effects are all of the sort that have since become so common that one needs context to appreciate how artistically they are done.
Nonetheless, it is clear that a great director is not enough to make a great movie, and with the other two necessary elements missing--a great script and great performances--I consider this the first time that the AFI has really missed the mark in identifying a great film--let alone ranking it 9th.
Vertigo is admittedly lovely. Hitchcock is, as always, a master of mood, but shows here that he can create more than suspense. Perhaps it was out of necessity that he managed to show Stewart falling in love with Kim Novak entirely through camera angle. And of course the dream sequence and visual effects are all of the sort that have since become so common that one needs context to appreciate how artistically they are done.
Nonetheless, it is clear that a great director is not enough to make a great movie, and with the other two necessary elements missing--a great script and great performances--I consider this the first time that the AFI has really missed the mark in identifying a great film--let alone ranking it 9th.
Monday, March 26, 2012
Liveblogging the Bible: Ephesians
The end of this undertaking is in sight, which means, if I approach it the way I usually do things, I will probably begin taking it seriously again.
1:3 I already like this book; Paul alerts us early that it's not about Christ at all, except tangentially.
1:4 Of course, if it treats this topic, namely predestination, it's bound for a sticky theological undertaking . . .
1:9 I can't help but think that Paul is using the royal "we" here, that when he says ". . . has made known to us" he is referring to his own personal revelations.
1:18 again, seemingly referring to a vision that he alone has witnessed, and hoping it for those he considers his brothers and sisters.
2:1 I'm feeling unaccountably moved by Paul's words here, by the tone of hope and charity that he is adopting. Really a contrast to some of his other letters.
2:5 a nice echo of 1:20, and a continuation of that as a metaphor
2:15 there is a definite pronoun blurring here, and I am a little reminiscent for the capitalization of "he" when it refers to God. That would clear up when Paul is talking about God, as opposed to Christ, although Paul himself seems to pass liquidly from one referent to the next. Does Paul really mean to say that Christ himself has broken down the walls, or that God has done it through Christ? If the former, it brings in an interesting question of agency.
3:3 Of course, there is little hope of the exact nature of this vision being made known. If it is at all as revelatory as Paul indicates, it is likely to be impossible to put into words. It occurs to me that John and Paul saw the same thing, but either John foolishly put it into words where Paul knew it could not be done, or John was able to put something into words that Paul couldn't quite grasp.
3:6 Or is it really just a simple truth that was revealed, as it was to Peter: that Gentiles and Jews are now one body in the eyes of God?
3:9 He certainly seems to indicate that there is more to it: a future plan, a mystery . . .
4:1 This is a much better framework for the works/faith question than we have seen elsewhere. The salvation of the Spirit is a done deal. Just try to be worthy of it.
4:16 If only Paul knew how disappointingly unable humans are of fulfilling his wish here, at least for any length of time.
4:25 Paul is hitting on what may the only universal truth here: that what is good for you is good for me, not because you are my brother, but because you are me.
4:30 and this ties nicely with what is said in 4:1. Rather than "do not sin", he tells them not to make the Holy Spirit sorry for its gift. . .
5:10 I love that he urges them to "try to find out what is pleasing in the Lord," rather than commanding them. He knows that sin is unavoidable.
5:21 before any mention of subjection to husbands, he instructs the Ephesians to be subject to one another. How is it possible for both people in a relationship to be the slave, and for both to be the master? That is the very definition of love.
5:22 which makes it difficult to reconcile this verse.
5:32 " great mystery" indeed, one that many spend a lifetime puzzling out.
5:33 He does seem to present a subtle double standard here. What is the difference between loving one as one's own body, as husbands are instructed to do, and respecting that person, as wives are directed?
6:2 not sure that what he says here holds water: Surely there are other commandments with promises, and compared to the weight Christ gave "love one another" et al.
6:4 although, reading further, this whole chapter just seems to one long "for example;"
6:13 What evil day? This is his first mention of it here, but he acts as if they will know what he is talking about.
6:13-17 I love this translation of a passage that was familiar to me in my youth. He makes it more clear here that he is speaking, not of a laundry list of qualities, but of focusing one's energy on what will make the Spirit proud.
6:22 Who are "we"? Paul in the royal here again, or is somebody with him?
1:3 I already like this book; Paul alerts us early that it's not about Christ at all, except tangentially.
1:4 Of course, if it treats this topic, namely predestination, it's bound for a sticky theological undertaking . . .
1:9 I can't help but think that Paul is using the royal "we" here, that when he says ". . . has made known to us" he is referring to his own personal revelations.
1:18 again, seemingly referring to a vision that he alone has witnessed, and hoping it for those he considers his brothers and sisters.
2:1 I'm feeling unaccountably moved by Paul's words here, by the tone of hope and charity that he is adopting. Really a contrast to some of his other letters.
2:5 a nice echo of 1:20, and a continuation of that as a metaphor
2:15 there is a definite pronoun blurring here, and I am a little reminiscent for the capitalization of "he" when it refers to God. That would clear up when Paul is talking about God, as opposed to Christ, although Paul himself seems to pass liquidly from one referent to the next. Does Paul really mean to say that Christ himself has broken down the walls, or that God has done it through Christ? If the former, it brings in an interesting question of agency.
3:3 Of course, there is little hope of the exact nature of this vision being made known. If it is at all as revelatory as Paul indicates, it is likely to be impossible to put into words. It occurs to me that John and Paul saw the same thing, but either John foolishly put it into words where Paul knew it could not be done, or John was able to put something into words that Paul couldn't quite grasp.
3:6 Or is it really just a simple truth that was revealed, as it was to Peter: that Gentiles and Jews are now one body in the eyes of God?
3:9 He certainly seems to indicate that there is more to it: a future plan, a mystery . . .
4:1 This is a much better framework for the works/faith question than we have seen elsewhere. The salvation of the Spirit is a done deal. Just try to be worthy of it.
4:16 If only Paul knew how disappointingly unable humans are of fulfilling his wish here, at least for any length of time.
4:25 Paul is hitting on what may the only universal truth here: that what is good for you is good for me, not because you are my brother, but because you are me.
4:30 and this ties nicely with what is said in 4:1. Rather than "do not sin", he tells them not to make the Holy Spirit sorry for its gift. . .
5:10 I love that he urges them to "try to find out what is pleasing in the Lord," rather than commanding them. He knows that sin is unavoidable.
5:21 before any mention of subjection to husbands, he instructs the Ephesians to be subject to one another. How is it possible for both people in a relationship to be the slave, and for both to be the master? That is the very definition of love.
5:22 which makes it difficult to reconcile this verse.
5:32 " great mystery" indeed, one that many spend a lifetime puzzling out.
5:33 He does seem to present a subtle double standard here. What is the difference between loving one as one's own body, as husbands are instructed to do, and respecting that person, as wives are directed?
6:2 not sure that what he says here holds water: Surely there are other commandments with promises, and compared to the weight Christ gave "love one another" et al.
6:4 although, reading further, this whole chapter just seems to one long "for example;"
6:13 What evil day? This is his first mention of it here, but he acts as if they will know what he is talking about.
6:13-17 I love this translation of a passage that was familiar to me in my youth. He makes it more clear here that he is speaking, not of a laundry list of qualities, but of focusing one's energy on what will make the Spirit proud.
6:22 Who are "we"? Paul in the royal here again, or is somebody with him?
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Zadie Smith: White Teeth
My darling sister Bethy has a weakness for anything that speaks disparagingly of our former religion, and so naturally recommended this book. Sadly, I feel like what is (possibly) the chief reason for her recommendation is also one of the weaker points. The description of Irie's Witness upbringing captures the flavor of the thing, but is packed with inaccuracies that having a real former Witness read the manuscript would have made evident. One wonders if Smith didn't bother, or if capturing the gist was more important to her than the details. Further, one wonders if the descriptions of Bangladeshi or Jamaican expat culture suffer similarly from a lack of verisimilitude.
Nonetheless, the book was great. I recommend it in spite of the very reasons for which Bethy may have recommended it. All the things I look for in a book: indelible characters, recurring thematic elements that sneak up on you, an ending that simultaneously leaves the reader unsatisfied and makes perfect sense, believable dialogue, in short, the whole package. I really should read more of this sort of book, but one must read so many terrible ones before finding a good one . . .
Nonetheless, the book was great. I recommend it in spite of the very reasons for which Bethy may have recommended it. All the things I look for in a book: indelible characters, recurring thematic elements that sneak up on you, an ending that simultaneously leaves the reader unsatisfied and makes perfect sense, believable dialogue, in short, the whole package. I really should read more of this sort of book, but one must read so many terrible ones before finding a good one . . .
Max Frisch: Andorra
Ugh, I hate message theater. Tom Lindblade, one of the better directors I know, would always ask before a musical number would begin something to the effect of "Why are you singing this? What is it about this that it can't be simply spoken?" The same sentiment applies to all theater in my mind. What is it about this that can't be conveyed in a novel or short story? Why must it be seen, performed, to be adequately conveyed? I don't feel like Andorra manages to justify its existence by this standard. There is nothing new, no compelling image, no line so striking that it simply must be read aloud. I'm sure the idea is a worthy one, that we are all victims of our identities, our labels, but I am not convinced that it would not be adequately--even better- served in a story or essay. In that form, it would probably be powerful, but as a play, all I can manage is an eyeroll.
AFI's 100 Films: Raging Bull
I suppose, in addition to the issue of whether a movie is great, there is another, equally significant question: Did I like it? With regard to Raging Bull, the answer to the former question is doubtlessly "yes," but to the former I give a guarded "not particularly . . ." The script is brilliant, almost Chekovian in the marvelous details it gives the actors to work with. I was not surprised to find out that Scorsese and DeNiro had reworked the script considerably themselves, and I attribute its greatness to them, more than to the credited writer, Mardik Martin. My favorite example is La Motta beating his championship belt with a hammer to remove the jewels . . . at first thought, it's just a tragic plot device, but from a character/actor's perspective it makes perfect sense. Such a epically proud man would never allow his belt to be seen on the open market.
The problem with Scorsese's direction is, as elsewhere, that it is so flawless, others could just as easily receive the credit for greatness that he no doubt was responsible for. The script is a perfect example, but De Niro's and Cathy Moriarty's performances are credits to Scorsese almost as much as to themselves. He certainly struck gold casting such unknowns, and that is the sort of thing that they don't give academy awards for. The same is true of his cinematography; one really doesn't notice it, partly because the clever things he does have become standard in modern movies--especially the slowdown of certain actions--but also because they seem so natural, and fit so seamlessly into the overall work. One exception is the choice of music, for which Scorses no doubt deserves the bulk of the credit. Cavelierra Rusticana is a perfect choice, both for its thematic and ironic aspects.
And then there is the matter of the acting, which is incredible. De Niro is brilliant, of course, and the parallel with Brando's in On the Waterfront is not lost on Scorsese, but De Niro is a known quality, so I was naturally far more taken with Cathy Moriarty. She had relatively little to say, but every look was filled with a meaning that, again, reminded me of Chekov. Under each "ok" lay the knowledge that she controlled this animal of a man, and saw right through him. Never was she a pathetic figure--even when being beaten. Not once did I feel sorry for her. Her face seemed to say, "whatever . . ." with each blow, a marvelous parallel to De Niro in the ring. I'm completely taken with her, but I wonder if the fact that so many of her subsequent movies were terrible is just another reminder that Scorsese is really responsible for all of it . . .
The problem with Scorsese's direction is, as elsewhere, that it is so flawless, others could just as easily receive the credit for greatness that he no doubt was responsible for. The script is a perfect example, but De Niro's and Cathy Moriarty's performances are credits to Scorsese almost as much as to themselves. He certainly struck gold casting such unknowns, and that is the sort of thing that they don't give academy awards for. The same is true of his cinematography; one really doesn't notice it, partly because the clever things he does have become standard in modern movies--especially the slowdown of certain actions--but also because they seem so natural, and fit so seamlessly into the overall work. One exception is the choice of music, for which Scorses no doubt deserves the bulk of the credit. Cavelierra Rusticana is a perfect choice, both for its thematic and ironic aspects.
And then there is the matter of the acting, which is incredible. De Niro is brilliant, of course, and the parallel with Brando's in On the Waterfront is not lost on Scorsese, but De Niro is a known quality, so I was naturally far more taken with Cathy Moriarty. She had relatively little to say, but every look was filled with a meaning that, again, reminded me of Chekov. Under each "ok" lay the knowledge that she controlled this animal of a man, and saw right through him. Never was she a pathetic figure--even when being beaten. Not once did I feel sorry for her. Her face seemed to say, "whatever . . ." with each blow, a marvelous parallel to De Niro in the ring. I'm completely taken with her, but I wonder if the fact that so many of her subsequent movies were terrible is just another reminder that Scorsese is really responsible for all of it . . .
Saturday, March 24, 2012
AFI's 100 films: Sunset Boulevard
It's been so long since I visited this thread of my blog--which ideally is about all media, and not just books--that I went back and read previous entries. In my discussion of On the Waterfront, I touched on what I think makes a nice framework for this sort of discussion, namely the question of what makes a film great. Waterfront certainly has great elements, especially Brando's performance, but also Kazan's direction. Nonetheless, I left that movie without the feeling that it was great--that there were great elements, but that the finished product did not live up to the adjective.
The same is not true of Sunset Boulevard. Like Waterfront, it featured an unmistakably great performance. Swanson was masterful, and her performance has become a metaphor as much as the character herself has. Unlike Waterfront, I didn't find anything extraordinary about Wilder's direction. So if not direction or acting, what other element is present in the one but not the other that results in, to me at least, a truly great movie?
Assuming that such relatively minor elements as costumes and sets have little to do with the matter, I think it safe to say that the key difference between the two movies is the script. Waterfront was successful in spite of it's maudlin, pandering script, thanks to the presence of other greatness. Sunset may well have succeeded on the strength of its acting, even if the script were not so good--but the script is brilliant, rightfully claiming the Academy Award that year. Wilder et al. tread the line between melodrama and touching believability deftly, which gives Swanson free reign to take her character as far as she can. If the script were less human, she would have had to walk that dangerous line herself. Such over-the-top moments as Norma's tango are cunningly offset by such real ones as Betty's nose job, and the whole thing deserves the honor of being read, as well as watched.
I suppose it's no surprise that, to such a vetted English major as I am, the script is the non plus ultra of a movie. The real test, if one were being scientific about it, would be to find a movie that a great script, but terrible direction and acting. Would such a movie have a chance at release even?
The same is not true of Sunset Boulevard. Like Waterfront, it featured an unmistakably great performance. Swanson was masterful, and her performance has become a metaphor as much as the character herself has. Unlike Waterfront, I didn't find anything extraordinary about Wilder's direction. So if not direction or acting, what other element is present in the one but not the other that results in, to me at least, a truly great movie?
Assuming that such relatively minor elements as costumes and sets have little to do with the matter, I think it safe to say that the key difference between the two movies is the script. Waterfront was successful in spite of it's maudlin, pandering script, thanks to the presence of other greatness. Sunset may well have succeeded on the strength of its acting, even if the script were not so good--but the script is brilliant, rightfully claiming the Academy Award that year. Wilder et al. tread the line between melodrama and touching believability deftly, which gives Swanson free reign to take her character as far as she can. If the script were less human, she would have had to walk that dangerous line herself. Such over-the-top moments as Norma's tango are cunningly offset by such real ones as Betty's nose job, and the whole thing deserves the honor of being read, as well as watched.
I suppose it's no surprise that, to such a vetted English major as I am, the script is the non plus ultra of a movie. The real test, if one were being scientific about it, would be to find a movie that a great script, but terrible direction and acting. Would such a movie have a chance at release even?
Tuesday, February 07, 2012
한국어로 해볼게 . . .
앞으로, 한국책 끝낼때 한국어로 논평 하기로 했어요. 많이 틀릴 것 같아도 노력 할게 ㅋㅋㅋ
문계주 (Antoine de Saint-Exupéry덕분에 ): 어린 왕자
이 책 2년전에 받았는데 이제야 비로소 이해 할수 있었어요. 왜냐하면 전에 수준이 낮아서 그래. 지금도, 완벽하게 이해 못 했어요. 여어로 읽은 적도 없어서 내용이나 줄거리도 몰랐어. 아무튼, 어느 쯕 알지 않은 단어 많고 이상한 문법도 많았어요. 앞으로 공부 더윽 열심히 해야 할 텐데 . . .
김자환: 엄마가 보고 있다
이책도 어려웠어요. 약 80% 이해 했어요. 그래도, 길고 진짜 책여서 성취감을 느껴요. 처음 읽기 시작했을때 Beverly Cleary가 쓴 책 같았어. 중학생 한 여자가 짜증스러운 남자 만났고 마침네 친구 됐어요. 대표 중학생 도서이잖아? 그렇지만 한국 새상을 배경으로 예상보다 조금 스프다. 여자는 고아여서 언니가 키워야 돼요. 그리고 언니가 잘리고 옵바가 가출을 했다. 정말 슬픈 이야기인데, 한국에서는 흔한 상태 같다.
문계주 (Antoine de Saint-Exupéry덕분에 ): 어린 왕자
이 책 2년전에 받았는데 이제야 비로소 이해 할수 있었어요. 왜냐하면 전에 수준이 낮아서 그래. 지금도, 완벽하게 이해 못 했어요. 여어로 읽은 적도 없어서 내용이나 줄거리도 몰랐어. 아무튼, 어느 쯕 알지 않은 단어 많고 이상한 문법도 많았어요. 앞으로 공부 더윽 열심히 해야 할 텐데 . . .
김자환: 엄마가 보고 있다
이책도 어려웠어요. 약 80% 이해 했어요. 그래도, 길고 진짜 책여서 성취감을 느껴요. 처음 읽기 시작했을때 Beverly Cleary가 쓴 책 같았어. 중학생 한 여자가 짜증스러운 남자 만났고 마침네 친구 됐어요. 대표 중학생 도서이잖아? 그렇지만 한국 새상을 배경으로 예상보다 조금 스프다. 여자는 고아여서 언니가 키워야 돼요. 그리고 언니가 잘리고 옵바가 가출을 했다. 정말 슬픈 이야기인데, 한국에서는 흔한 상태 같다.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
I have been lax, I know
Not sure how to explain away the fact that I have not been reading much. Maybe it's merely a symptom of a general numbness and malaise that has overtaken me. It also occurs to me (and this is heresy, I know) that I perhaps I never enjoyed reading as much as I thought I did, and that I only convinced myself that I enjoyed it because it was the best way to do what I really do enoy, namely to acquire thought. At any rate, I have been pathetic, but what little reading I have done lately shall not go undocumented.
George R.R. Martin: A Game of Thrones
Yes yes, a good book, the reading of which only makes me wonder further about the above assertion. If I truly enjoyed the act of reading, I would have a book like this on hand at all times. Instead, I read them only rarely, those books that offer only enjoyment, and instead focus on books that one "should" read, crossing them off my list like little merit badges. As for the book itself, it left no real impression, unlike the TV series which bears its name, which I contend is the most perfect piece of television ever made.
Thomas Pynchon: The Crying of Lot 49
And on the other hand, we have this item, which is indisputably in the "should read" category, not merely because Pynchon is borderline canonical, but also because I can't bear my ex having an opinion about something which I do not. So I read this, and it was, as expected, very Robert, very postmodernist, blah blah blah. Wake me when somebody tops Tropic of Cancer
(never going to happen).
Various: Korea As Viewed by 12 Creators
This volume, an anthology of 12 manga shorts by a mixture of Korean and French writers, had a lot of potential, but I found it disappointing. This was partly due to the speed with which I consumed it, but also due to the general unoriginality of the individual pieces. The French writers were especially guilty of banality here, choosing mostly fluffy, if not downright cute, cultural asides for their topic matter. The exception was Igort, whose piece Letters from Korea was touching, but limited by the short format. The Korean writers fared a little better, and I am especially fond of both the art and the thought of 최규석 and 변기휸. They are colleagues, and have formed a collective called "Metamorphosis in Three Stages", into which I simply must look. Nevertheless, I found all of the work limited by the short form, and was unsatisfied on the whole.
George R.R. Martin: A Game of Thrones
Yes yes, a good book, the reading of which only makes me wonder further about the above assertion. If I truly enjoyed the act of reading, I would have a book like this on hand at all times. Instead, I read them only rarely, those books that offer only enjoyment, and instead focus on books that one "should" read, crossing them off my list like little merit badges. As for the book itself, it left no real impression, unlike the TV series which bears its name, which I contend is the most perfect piece of television ever made.
Thomas Pynchon: The Crying of Lot 49
And on the other hand, we have this item, which is indisputably in the "should read" category, not merely because Pynchon is borderline canonical, but also because I can't bear my ex having an opinion about something which I do not. So I read this, and it was, as expected, very Robert, very postmodernist, blah blah blah. Wake me when somebody tops Tropic of Cancer
(never going to happen).
Various: Korea As Viewed by 12 Creators
This volume, an anthology of 12 manga shorts by a mixture of Korean and French writers, had a lot of potential, but I found it disappointing. This was partly due to the speed with which I consumed it, but also due to the general unoriginality of the individual pieces. The French writers were especially guilty of banality here, choosing mostly fluffy, if not downright cute, cultural asides for their topic matter. The exception was Igort, whose piece Letters from Korea was touching, but limited by the short format. The Korean writers fared a little better, and I am especially fond of both the art and the thought of 최규석 and 변기휸. They are colleagues, and have formed a collective called "Metamorphosis in Three Stages", into which I simply must look. Nevertheless, I found all of the work limited by the short form, and was unsatisfied on the whole.
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Liveblogging the Bible: Galatians
1:3 Grace, when used by Paul, is more than a customary greeting. It is loaded with theological implications.
1:15 For example, here it clearly carries hints of predestination. If others, like Paul, were set apart before birth, I ask again what good it is to proselytize.
2:1 Quite a jump in the timeline here. The fact that he skips directly to his visits to Jerusalem is surely no accident, and must relate to his message to the Galatians.
2:2 And I think we get a hint of it here, in his repeated reference to the other Apostles. On the surface he is bolstering his own credentials, but in light of the context, he may well be trying to bolster theirs. He even claims to have compared his version of the gospel with theirs, just to verify what he received by inspiration.
2:6 This verse has grave implications. Does he mean to indicate that those who questioned his fitness in Acts were false apostles?
2:10 Didn't he earlier claim not to have met any of the other apostles beside James and Peter? Shall we add John here to the list, or was this not a direct meeting? And of all the things to ask him for, they only were concerned with money?
2:11 Oh, Peter. You're just a mess sometimes.
2:16 He hits this so briefly, it takes on the flavor of established theology. Certainly not a new argument to his audience.
3:2 Neither option seems very convincing . . .
3:10 Although Paul is clearly leaning toward the latter choice. This is a nice interpretation, of the Law as well. Any law, by extension, that includes a curse to those who do not follow it perfectly, by Paul's reasoning here curses those who accept it as well.
3:17 Quite a lovely argument. Paul establishes God's promise to bless the nations through Abraham as a sort of legal precedent after which the Mosaic Law was invalid, in a way.
3:25 To what extent is this true? The central hole in the argument for faith is that then no line is ever drawn.
4:1 A nice continuation of the metaphor. The Mosaic Law in this framework is just the executor of the Abrahamic Covenant, until the beneficiaries are of age.
4:10 How do the Witnesses not fixate on this scripture in their argument against the celebration of holidays? It seems that it would give more strength to their argument than all the other justifications they use combined.
4:13 Is he referring to his eyesight here? If so, in what way did it put the Galatians to the test?
4:17 although the referent of "They" here is no doubt clear to the Galatians, it is a mystery to the modern reader.
4:21 It is clear exactly what the nature of their mistake is. Will the specter of the Mosaic Law never leave?
5:3 Another convincing argument. Who would want to be held to the entire Law? Then why be held to a part of it?
5:12 A strong and fitting curse.
5:22 I am more accustomed to the translation "faith" than "faithfulness", but the NRSV usage here makes sense. After all, according to Paul, faith is a source of spirit, rather than a result of it.
6:8 And here is Paul's other quibble with the Galatians: that they are behaving physically, which is not independent of their silly subscription to circumcision.
6:12 a connection that does not escape Paul, of course.
6:15 The Witness' proscription of blood transfusions really has no solid Biblical basis, as far as I can tell, but I have always considered it rather a good idea from their perspective. It serves to separate them from others, to distinguish them in a way that reminds them of their identity. From a organizational, if not from a theological standpoint, it's a good idea. But Paul here is cautioning against such physical determinations. It is indeed a fleshly concern, whether one receives blood or not, and as such should be beneath those whose spirits are sufficiently advanced.
1:15 For example, here it clearly carries hints of predestination. If others, like Paul, were set apart before birth, I ask again what good it is to proselytize.
2:1 Quite a jump in the timeline here. The fact that he skips directly to his visits to Jerusalem is surely no accident, and must relate to his message to the Galatians.
2:2 And I think we get a hint of it here, in his repeated reference to the other Apostles. On the surface he is bolstering his own credentials, but in light of the context, he may well be trying to bolster theirs. He even claims to have compared his version of the gospel with theirs, just to verify what he received by inspiration.
2:6 This verse has grave implications. Does he mean to indicate that those who questioned his fitness in Acts were false apostles?
2:10 Didn't he earlier claim not to have met any of the other apostles beside James and Peter? Shall we add John here to the list, or was this not a direct meeting? And of all the things to ask him for, they only were concerned with money?
2:11 Oh, Peter. You're just a mess sometimes.
2:16 He hits this so briefly, it takes on the flavor of established theology. Certainly not a new argument to his audience.
3:2 Neither option seems very convincing . . .
3:10 Although Paul is clearly leaning toward the latter choice. This is a nice interpretation, of the Law as well. Any law, by extension, that includes a curse to those who do not follow it perfectly, by Paul's reasoning here curses those who accept it as well.
3:17 Quite a lovely argument. Paul establishes God's promise to bless the nations through Abraham as a sort of legal precedent after which the Mosaic Law was invalid, in a way.
3:25 To what extent is this true? The central hole in the argument for faith is that then no line is ever drawn.
4:1 A nice continuation of the metaphor. The Mosaic Law in this framework is just the executor of the Abrahamic Covenant, until the beneficiaries are of age.
4:10 How do the Witnesses not fixate on this scripture in their argument against the celebration of holidays? It seems that it would give more strength to their argument than all the other justifications they use combined.
4:13 Is he referring to his eyesight here? If so, in what way did it put the Galatians to the test?
4:17 although the referent of "They" here is no doubt clear to the Galatians, it is a mystery to the modern reader.
4:21 It is clear exactly what the nature of their mistake is. Will the specter of the Mosaic Law never leave?
5:3 Another convincing argument. Who would want to be held to the entire Law? Then why be held to a part of it?
5:12 A strong and fitting curse.
5:22 I am more accustomed to the translation "faith" than "faithfulness", but the NRSV usage here makes sense. After all, according to Paul, faith is a source of spirit, rather than a result of it.
6:8 And here is Paul's other quibble with the Galatians: that they are behaving physically, which is not independent of their silly subscription to circumcision.
6:12 a connection that does not escape Paul, of course.
6:15 The Witness' proscription of blood transfusions really has no solid Biblical basis, as far as I can tell, but I have always considered it rather a good idea from their perspective. It serves to separate them from others, to distinguish them in a way that reminds them of their identity. From a organizational, if not from a theological standpoint, it's a good idea. But Paul here is cautioning against such physical determinations. It is indeed a fleshly concern, whether one receives blood or not, and as such should be beneath those whose spirits are sufficiently advanced.
Saturday, June 04, 2011
Liveblogging the Bible: 2nd Corinthians
In my convalescence, I wonder if it possible to finish the project I began years ago . . .
1:1 I wonder what part Timothy played in the composition of this epistle. I would say he was an amanuensis, except that Sosthenes in 1 Cor. had the same mention, and was not the scribe.
1:10 Except that He will manifestly not rescue Paul indefinitely . . .
1:12 a suitable boast--rather than boast of his gifts of wisdom, prophecy, tongues, Apostlehood, and the like, he boasts merely of his frankness.
2:1 In what way would his visit have been painful?
2:5 Evidently there was some antagonism toward Paul on his last visit . . .
2:7 I feel left out of the import here, but the principle is clear: as in his previous letter, he insists that the virtuous path os to let oneself be wronged rather than to insist on one's rights
3:5 Yet he did indeed claim his own authority for certain suggestions in his first letter.
3:7, 12 Paul would probably not write this way to the Hebrews. "The Ministry of Death" is certainly a harsh word for the Mosaic Law.
3:18 But is this mirror darkened, as in 1 Cor 13? So far Paul has struck an entirely different tone and message from his first letter.
4:4 Paul opens a dangerous line of reasoning here. In his first letter 8:2 he proclaims that if one claims to understand, he does not really. Here he says that one who does not understand is being pruposefully prevented from such understanding. Damned if you do, so to speak . . .
4:18 This lends weight to the argument that Paul's affliction was related to his sight.
5:13 Perhaps this rather confusing chapter falls into the former category--being in an ecstatic state, so to speak, while his first letter was firmly in the latter, more scrutable category.
5:16 Yes, this letter certainly has the flavor of a transformation of Paul's perspective. When he knew Christ from a human point of view, he believed a certain way, that understanding was the goal. Now, in his age and blindness, he is considerably more metaphysical--almost visionary.
6:11 Again Paul falls back on his frankness, which endears me to him. Frankness is among my favorite virtues, and among the most underappreciated I think..
6:14 This also seems to represent an evolution of Paul's belief as found in 1 Cor 7:12, although the two are reconcilable in a way.
6:16-18 It's times like this that I miss the New World Translation's habit of glossing all seeming quotations, for I would love to know Paul's source here. Often it is not to be found anywhere in the Bible as received.
7:8 Ah, here seems to be the crux of this letter: they do not seem to have responded well to his first one--which I loved.
7:11 Funny, I don't remember his rebukes being quite so sound as to warrant this gnaching of the teeth.
8:7 Haha a classic guilt trip. . .
8:16 I am beginning to be intrigued by this Titus fellow. I look forward to reading the book named for him.
9:1 A code word for what nowadays goes by "stewardship", but which might as well be called "finances".
10:1 Is he still going on about this?
10:10 I find this ill at odds with my conception of Paul, whom I imagine to have been a powerful public speaker, as well as a writer. How else could he have accomplished all he did? Is it possible that he faded later in life, and it is this physically unimposing Paul that writes now?
11:6 This is a terribly disingenuous statement of Paul to make. He was surely well-trained in speech at the Sanhedrin.
11:14 Again, this is at odds with 1 Cor 8:2. Is it possible that Paul has been by this point disabused of an earlier notion, and realizes that things are not as flowery as he imagined?
11:33 Paul may be excused for getting a bit carried away here, for his anxiety over the Corinthian congregation is palpable. There must have been somebody quite charismatic undercutting him for him to react this way.
12:2 Hold on a minute: what is the world does he mean by this? The third heaven? Is there a hierarchy? Was there an unrecorded assumption of some sort? Is he referring to Christ? The timing doesn't match up for that. This hints at a Metaphysical goldmine . . .
12:7 A goldmine that Paul is content merely to hint at though . . .
And he leaves it at that. I would love to be a fly on the wall when he did arrive--no doubt he diffused a tense meeting with that delightful blend of humility and frankness that I would so love to imitate.
1:1 I wonder what part Timothy played in the composition of this epistle. I would say he was an amanuensis, except that Sosthenes in 1 Cor. had the same mention, and was not the scribe.
1:10 Except that He will manifestly not rescue Paul indefinitely . . .
1:12 a suitable boast--rather than boast of his gifts of wisdom, prophecy, tongues, Apostlehood, and the like, he boasts merely of his frankness.
2:1 In what way would his visit have been painful?
2:5 Evidently there was some antagonism toward Paul on his last visit . . .
2:7 I feel left out of the import here, but the principle is clear: as in his previous letter, he insists that the virtuous path os to let oneself be wronged rather than to insist on one's rights
3:5 Yet he did indeed claim his own authority for certain suggestions in his first letter.
3:7, 12 Paul would probably not write this way to the Hebrews. "The Ministry of Death" is certainly a harsh word for the Mosaic Law.
3:18 But is this mirror darkened, as in 1 Cor 13? So far Paul has struck an entirely different tone and message from his first letter.
4:4 Paul opens a dangerous line of reasoning here. In his first letter 8:2 he proclaims that if one claims to understand, he does not really. Here he says that one who does not understand is being pruposefully prevented from such understanding. Damned if you do, so to speak . . .
4:18 This lends weight to the argument that Paul's affliction was related to his sight.
5:13 Perhaps this rather confusing chapter falls into the former category--being in an ecstatic state, so to speak, while his first letter was firmly in the latter, more scrutable category.
5:16 Yes, this letter certainly has the flavor of a transformation of Paul's perspective. When he knew Christ from a human point of view, he believed a certain way, that understanding was the goal. Now, in his age and blindness, he is considerably more metaphysical--almost visionary.
6:11 Again Paul falls back on his frankness, which endears me to him. Frankness is among my favorite virtues, and among the most underappreciated I think..
6:14 This also seems to represent an evolution of Paul's belief as found in 1 Cor 7:12, although the two are reconcilable in a way.
6:16-18 It's times like this that I miss the New World Translation's habit of glossing all seeming quotations, for I would love to know Paul's source here. Often it is not to be found anywhere in the Bible as received.
7:8 Ah, here seems to be the crux of this letter: they do not seem to have responded well to his first one--which I loved.
7:11 Funny, I don't remember his rebukes being quite so sound as to warrant this gnaching of the teeth.
8:7 Haha a classic guilt trip. . .
8:16 I am beginning to be intrigued by this Titus fellow. I look forward to reading the book named for him.
9:1 A code word for what nowadays goes by "stewardship", but which might as well be called "finances".
10:1 Is he still going on about this?
10:10 I find this ill at odds with my conception of Paul, whom I imagine to have been a powerful public speaker, as well as a writer. How else could he have accomplished all he did? Is it possible that he faded later in life, and it is this physically unimposing Paul that writes now?
11:6 This is a terribly disingenuous statement of Paul to make. He was surely well-trained in speech at the Sanhedrin.
11:14 Again, this is at odds with 1 Cor 8:2. Is it possible that Paul has been by this point disabused of an earlier notion, and realizes that things are not as flowery as he imagined?
11:33 Paul may be excused for getting a bit carried away here, for his anxiety over the Corinthian congregation is palpable. There must have been somebody quite charismatic undercutting him for him to react this way.
12:2 Hold on a minute: what is the world does he mean by this? The third heaven? Is there a hierarchy? Was there an unrecorded assumption of some sort? Is he referring to Christ? The timing doesn't match up for that. This hints at a Metaphysical goldmine . . .
12:7 A goldmine that Paul is content merely to hint at though . . .
And he leaves it at that. I would love to be a fly on the wall when he did arrive--no doubt he diffused a tense meeting with that delightful blend of humility and frankness that I would so love to imitate.
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Liveblogging The Bible: 1st Corinthians
1:1 It's no doubt fruitless to wonder about such men as Sosthenes--here presumably Paul's amanuensis--but wonder I do.
1:4 a couple of troubling thoughts about translation and petty modifiers:
I don't have much to say on any particular verse in this chapter, because I find the whole thing quite brilliant. Paul masterfully transforms a question of sectarianism among the Corinthians into a soaring discourse on the relationship between power and wisdom. In v. 17 he (perhaps disingenuously) decries his own wisdom, and leverages this bit of self-deprecation into a unavoidable focus on the message of Christ. By the end of the chapter, the writer has disappeared completely, and the reader has forgotten everything but the message. Brilliant.
2:6 Paul cannot deny for long, of course, that there is real wisdom to be had in the message of Christ. His distinction is the means by which is it gained: by revelation, and not by reason.
2:11 I'm not sure what to make of this verse, but I love it.
3:2 and he then uses this to bait his audience a bit, reminding them that as long as they are arguing over fleshly things, the real wisdom of God will not be revealed to them.
3:12-15 I consider this to be a misstep, a bit. It feels like Paul got carried away with his metaphor, and took it down a path that doesn't really relate to his subject. Mercifully, he catches himself quickly.
4:5 He seems to be setting up his next step, namely a rebuke of certain behaviors.
4:14 Yes, this whole chapter is definitely ground work for what comes next.
5:3 This seems to contradict his caution against judgement in 4:3-5, and he also seems to be making a rather striking claim of prescience. Is he claiming some sort of astral travel, or merely speaking metaphorically?
5:12 It is probably fair for Paul to claim the right of judgement here, it just seems to go against his own theology.
6:2 This verse is commonly used as justification for the despicable practice of handling such matters as pedophilia internally without informing secular authorities. I think the presence of the word "trivial" in the description should take the power out of that argument though.
6:7 This is the natural extension of Paul's argument in ch.1, that the highest virtue is to allow oneself to be wronged in the service of the higher good. One has to wonder where the line is drawn, though. At murder? Pedophilia? Petty theft? Purely civil matters?
6:9 In this context, the implication is that sin is its own punishment, rather than all such ones should be judged by the congregation.
6:12 an elegant transition into a larger point, one that I can get on board with--as weighty as it is.
7:4 This may be the only authority Paul grants to a woman in his entire ouvre.
7:7 And what gift may it be that Paul has? Extraordinary self-control? That seems unlikely, in light of other statements he makes. What could it be, other than that certain things do not tempt him? And considering the context, what could that be but certain sexual temptations?
7:10 does this represent a typo on Paul's part, one that without the benefit of an eraser he had to amend? Furthermore, what does the slip represent? Does the command come by divine inspiration, or by virtue of his apostolic authority?
7:12 Aah, perhaps not a typo after all, but a setup for the next statement. Nicely done, Paul.
7:14 In what sense are they made holy? In that they are converted, or in that they are grandfathered in, so to speak?
7:17 Leading the life to which God has called you could take many forms. Paul has already allowed concessions for certain personal defects, such as the lack of self-control. What if one was born with a natural attraction for members fo the same sex?
7:21 As tempting as it is to rebuke Paul for his endorsement of slavery, it is a consistent and natural extension of his command to let yourself be wronged. In the broader scheme, what difference does it make, slave or free?
7:25 again, Paul inserts his own opinion, a bald admission that all of the Bible is not inspired by God.
7:29 Is this inconsistent with v.3? Or is it more metaphorical?
Paul spends quite a bit of time on the question of whether or not to have sex. Is this a preoccupation on his part, or a response to a preoccupation on the part of his audience?
8:2 Beautifully consistent with more Eastern thought.
8:9 A running theme in this book. I really like it. Really.
9:4,5 Now wait a minute. Is Paul willing to follow his own counsel here, and allow himself to be wronged?
9:12 Evidently so. Still, he seems to leave certain loopholes for the other Apostles.
9:15 Though for dubious reasons--surely this is not his real motivation.
10:1 Certainly not "under a cloud" in the sense that we would expect.
10:6-13 These verses change the tone of the book, from one of gentle and reasonable suggestion, to intense and urgent command.
10:29 This question, which seems to contradict his point, is promptly answered by the most utilitarian of arguments, "For the Lord," AKA "Cuz I said so."
11:2-15 This seems out of place to me. He has spent so much time dealing with weighty matters, why does he now devote an entire chapter to what he admits are mere customs? Especially one so seemingly trivial as how long one's hair should be? I wonder what the background situation was such that he felt it of such import?
11:20 I don't see how to reconcile this with the Witness' insistence that the Lord's Supper take place only annually. "When you come together" certainly seems to apply to more than an annual occurrence.
11:27 And what would constitute and " an unworthy manner"? To excess? In a morally unclean state?
11:34 This seems to argue for the former.
12:3 This is a rather convenient way for "false" prophets to establish some credibility.
12:11 The Spirit here certainly has agency, as though an individual, rather than a mute force.
12:24 In what way? Paul may be belaboring the metaphor here. To pick it apart:
CH 13 Perhaps one of the most famous and widely memorized of chapters in the entire Bible, and for good reason. I can't think of much to add--other than that he has what amounts to a pronoun referent problem: What is it that will signify the end of these things? "The Complete" is certainly an intriguing appellation. I see no clue here even.
14: Now, how exactly is one supposed to strive for gifts of prophesy when the assignation of such things is purely arbitrary, as determined by spirit?
14:2 The Witnesses often claim that The Complete that Paul references in ch.13 has already come, and that correspondingly all such gifts have disappeared, and that all who seem to exhibit such gifts are either fraudulent or influenced by Demons. They say that the early Christians' gifts of tongues were in actual tongues, known languages, and modern speaking in tongues is mere babble--not from spirit. This verse contradicts that claim--clearly at least some speaking in tongues was incoherent. Furthermore, their assertion does not seem possible under Paul's theology in 12:3.
14:13 The power to speak in tongues is lower in the hierarchy than the gift of prophesy or interpretation for a very good reason.
14:18 If Paul's gift is one of tongues, does that mean that he is lower in authority? Does he ever actually claim the gift of Prophecy? It is convenient that he has put the gift of Apostlehood first in 12:28.
14:26 I love this model of worship. I have often wanted to have a group of friends that I could do this with--void of pedagogy or dogma, free from instruction of all sorts--a simple sharing of love and inspiration.
14:34 Is a woman not permitted the gifts of prophecy then? Or tongues? This is manifestly untrue. So where are these gifts to be shared, if not in the church?
15:1 So it's time for a little pure theology, rather than applied . . .
15:10 Paul doesn't ever shy away from truths--pleasant or un.
15:29 People often laughingly criticize the LDS for this very practice, but there seems to be a clear precedent.
15:32 My sentiments exactly, at one poiont in life. Nowadays, however, I feel that if the dead are not raised, let us be all the more virtuous--for its own sake, not that of a reward.
15:52 Not a common justification for the doctrine of the Rapture, but certainly in support of that belief.
16:21 Not true of every letter of his--worthy of note. What part did Sosthenes play in this letter then?
1:4 a couple of troubling thoughts about translation and petty modifiers:
- "my God" in stead of "God" is a superficially petty distinction, but the theological implications are profound. The original text no doubt makes it difficult, if not impossible, to choose from these two potential translations. "My God" makes the text a personal affirmation, but also leaves open the possibility of other gods beside this one. An unmodified "God" is more authoritative, but correspondingly offhanded. The worst thing about questions like this is that there can be no answer.
- giving thanks "for you", in common usage, signifies "because of you", but here seems to mean "in your behalf", acceptable grammatically, but a strange usage--and one with theological ramifications. Is it possible to act as a thanksgiving proxy? If so, what would be the point? It is possible, that the original meaning is closer to a combination of the two denotations, something like "I give thanks that you are so blessed".
I don't have much to say on any particular verse in this chapter, because I find the whole thing quite brilliant. Paul masterfully transforms a question of sectarianism among the Corinthians into a soaring discourse on the relationship between power and wisdom. In v. 17 he (perhaps disingenuously) decries his own wisdom, and leverages this bit of self-deprecation into a unavoidable focus on the message of Christ. By the end of the chapter, the writer has disappeared completely, and the reader has forgotten everything but the message. Brilliant.
2:6 Paul cannot deny for long, of course, that there is real wisdom to be had in the message of Christ. His distinction is the means by which is it gained: by revelation, and not by reason.
2:11 I'm not sure what to make of this verse, but I love it.
3:2 and he then uses this to bait his audience a bit, reminding them that as long as they are arguing over fleshly things, the real wisdom of God will not be revealed to them.
3:12-15 I consider this to be a misstep, a bit. It feels like Paul got carried away with his metaphor, and took it down a path that doesn't really relate to his subject. Mercifully, he catches himself quickly.
4:5 He seems to be setting up his next step, namely a rebuke of certain behaviors.
4:14 Yes, this whole chapter is definitely ground work for what comes next.
5:3 This seems to contradict his caution against judgement in 4:3-5, and he also seems to be making a rather striking claim of prescience. Is he claiming some sort of astral travel, or merely speaking metaphorically?
5:12 It is probably fair for Paul to claim the right of judgement here, it just seems to go against his own theology.
6:2 This verse is commonly used as justification for the despicable practice of handling such matters as pedophilia internally without informing secular authorities. I think the presence of the word "trivial" in the description should take the power out of that argument though.
6:7 This is the natural extension of Paul's argument in ch.1, that the highest virtue is to allow oneself to be wronged in the service of the higher good. One has to wonder where the line is drawn, though. At murder? Pedophilia? Petty theft? Purely civil matters?
6:9 In this context, the implication is that sin is its own punishment, rather than all such ones should be judged by the congregation.
6:12 an elegant transition into a larger point, one that I can get on board with--as weighty as it is.
7:4 This may be the only authority Paul grants to a woman in his entire ouvre.
7:7 And what gift may it be that Paul has? Extraordinary self-control? That seems unlikely, in light of other statements he makes. What could it be, other than that certain things do not tempt him? And considering the context, what could that be but certain sexual temptations?
7:10 does this represent a typo on Paul's part, one that without the benefit of an eraser he had to amend? Furthermore, what does the slip represent? Does the command come by divine inspiration, or by virtue of his apostolic authority?
7:12 Aah, perhaps not a typo after all, but a setup for the next statement. Nicely done, Paul.
7:14 In what sense are they made holy? In that they are converted, or in that they are grandfathered in, so to speak?
7:17 Leading the life to which God has called you could take many forms. Paul has already allowed concessions for certain personal defects, such as the lack of self-control. What if one was born with a natural attraction for members fo the same sex?
7:21 As tempting as it is to rebuke Paul for his endorsement of slavery, it is a consistent and natural extension of his command to let yourself be wronged. In the broader scheme, what difference does it make, slave or free?
7:25 again, Paul inserts his own opinion, a bald admission that all of the Bible is not inspired by God.
7:29 Is this inconsistent with v.3? Or is it more metaphorical?
Paul spends quite a bit of time on the question of whether or not to have sex. Is this a preoccupation on his part, or a response to a preoccupation on the part of his audience?
8:2 Beautifully consistent with more Eastern thought.
8:9 A running theme in this book. I really like it. Really.
9:4,5 Now wait a minute. Is Paul willing to follow his own counsel here, and allow himself to be wronged?
9:12 Evidently so. Still, he seems to leave certain loopholes for the other Apostles.
9:15 Though for dubious reasons--surely this is not his real motivation.
10:1 Certainly not "under a cloud" in the sense that we would expect.
10:6-13 These verses change the tone of the book, from one of gentle and reasonable suggestion, to intense and urgent command.
10:29 This question, which seems to contradict his point, is promptly answered by the most utilitarian of arguments, "For the Lord," AKA "Cuz I said so."
11:2-15 This seems out of place to me. He has spent so much time dealing with weighty matters, why does he now devote an entire chapter to what he admits are mere customs? Especially one so seemingly trivial as how long one's hair should be? I wonder what the background situation was such that he felt it of such import?
11:20 I don't see how to reconcile this with the Witness' insistence that the Lord's Supper take place only annually. "When you come together" certainly seems to apply to more than an annual occurrence.
11:27 And what would constitute and " an unworthy manner"? To excess? In a morally unclean state?
11:34 This seems to argue for the former.
12:3 This is a rather convenient way for "false" prophets to establish some credibility.
12:11 The Spirit here certainly has agency, as though an individual, rather than a mute force.
12:24 In what way? Paul may be belaboring the metaphor here. To pick it apart:
- What are the more honorable members of the literal body? One would imagine the head and the heart, while the more dishonorable members are the feet or the pudendum.
- In what way to the feet get more honor than the head? In that they are clothed?
- In what way does the pudendum get more honor than the heart? In that it is secreted?
- This seems to connect to his discussion of hair in ch.11: That the head recieves its own glorious apparel, and it is shameful to cover it.
CH 13 Perhaps one of the most famous and widely memorized of chapters in the entire Bible, and for good reason. I can't think of much to add--other than that he has what amounts to a pronoun referent problem: What is it that will signify the end of these things? "The Complete" is certainly an intriguing appellation. I see no clue here even.
14: Now, how exactly is one supposed to strive for gifts of prophesy when the assignation of such things is purely arbitrary, as determined by spirit?
14:2 The Witnesses often claim that The Complete that Paul references in ch.13 has already come, and that correspondingly all such gifts have disappeared, and that all who seem to exhibit such gifts are either fraudulent or influenced by Demons. They say that the early Christians' gifts of tongues were in actual tongues, known languages, and modern speaking in tongues is mere babble--not from spirit. This verse contradicts that claim--clearly at least some speaking in tongues was incoherent. Furthermore, their assertion does not seem possible under Paul's theology in 12:3.
14:13 The power to speak in tongues is lower in the hierarchy than the gift of prophesy or interpretation for a very good reason.
14:18 If Paul's gift is one of tongues, does that mean that he is lower in authority? Does he ever actually claim the gift of Prophecy? It is convenient that he has put the gift of Apostlehood first in 12:28.
14:26 I love this model of worship. I have often wanted to have a group of friends that I could do this with--void of pedagogy or dogma, free from instruction of all sorts--a simple sharing of love and inspiration.
14:34 Is a woman not permitted the gifts of prophecy then? Or tongues? This is manifestly untrue. So where are these gifts to be shared, if not in the church?
15:1 So it's time for a little pure theology, rather than applied . . .
15:10 Paul doesn't ever shy away from truths--pleasant or un.
15:29 People often laughingly criticize the LDS for this very practice, but there seems to be a clear precedent.
15:32 My sentiments exactly, at one poiont in life. Nowadays, however, I feel that if the dead are not raised, let us be all the more virtuous--for its own sake, not that of a reward.
15:52 Not a common justification for the doctrine of the Rapture, but certainly in support of that belief.
16:21 Not true of every letter of his--worthy of note. What part did Sosthenes play in this letter then?
Friday, May 27, 2011
Umberto Eco: The Name of The Rose
This book was not what I expected. I expected something more meta-literate from the hands of Eco, a noted semiotician. Which is not to say it was illiterate--some of my favorite moments came from his references to Boethius or Apuleius, and I confess to a little pride in having read the referenced works. In spite of its pleasures, the book never really seemed to reach beyond its own pages. It made gestures in the direction of certain worthy themes, the interreliance of books upon each other, etc. But I was dissapointed to realize at the close that Eco had written only what he had set out to write: a novel.
Monday, March 21, 2011
G.K. Chesterton: The Man Who Was Thursday and Seven Suspects
I have already said much that I have to say about Chesterton in general upon reading Selected Father Brown Stories, to wit: That he is a much better philospher than detective writer. The books are filled with little errors in judgement, of the sort that one sees in amateurish Hollywood blockbusters---nothing terrible, just occassionally forgetting to tell us something, or omitting some detail that would have made the scene easier to track. Jarring at most, as if the cinematographer had mistaken the line of sight and confused the audience about who was speaking to whom for a moment.
As I have mentioned elsewhere, it is just as well that his prose is not airtight, for his stories are never really detective stories at all. They are always philisophical, almost religious, in bent, and the crime is mere bait or frosting, depending on his intent. I had forgotten this as I began to read The Man Who Was Thursday, so it was only natural that his implausible dialogue, his seeming misrememberance of earlier established facts, were vexing at first. It was only after I remembered that it is folly to read Chesterton as fiction that I began to truly enjoy this remarkable novella. What he offers is not a detective story at all, but an allegory that offers all the pleasures of allegory--the fine, confluent detail, the overlapping and interlocking symbolism--without much of its didacticism. I can't help but feel that it would have been better undisguised.
The stories in Seven Suspects are a little more passable, and one could almost overlook the mysticism if careless. After reading Thursday, however, my pump was primed, and I sought it everywhere. Nor was I dissapointed. A passage that still brings chills, even upon multiple readings:
Do you remember when we last met at that theatre and I told you that I always liked the picture on the curtain as much as the scenes of the play. . . from any other angle I should see that it was only a painted rag. That is how I feel about this world, as i see it from this mountain. Not that it is not beautiful, for after all a curtain can be beautiful. Not even that it is unreal, for after all a curtain is real. But only that it is thin, and that the things behind it are the real drama" (The Tower of Treason).
How perfectly this parallels my own thinking lately. Taken literally, all that we seem to perceive is but a trick of light. The space between particles of matter is so much exponentially bigger than the matter itself, we may as well be looking at an image projected onto a cloud or water vapor. And if we allow it to, the light is constantly altering what we seem to see, as a shadow falls across it, or as our eyes change their focus, or as the light itself changes. Every visual image we have is quite literally a trick of the light, an optical illusion. It has no reality, and is rather more like Chesterton's theater curtain than anything else. Better yet, perhaps it is more like a scrim, that peculiar sort of theater screen that is opaque when lit from the front, but translucent lit from behind. If the light hits it just right, all that we seem to perceive could instantly disappear to reveal something else, something that may or may not be more real, but would at least be different.
As I have mentioned elsewhere, it is just as well that his prose is not airtight, for his stories are never really detective stories at all. They are always philisophical, almost religious, in bent, and the crime is mere bait or frosting, depending on his intent. I had forgotten this as I began to read The Man Who Was Thursday, so it was only natural that his implausible dialogue, his seeming misrememberance of earlier established facts, were vexing at first. It was only after I remembered that it is folly to read Chesterton as fiction that I began to truly enjoy this remarkable novella. What he offers is not a detective story at all, but an allegory that offers all the pleasures of allegory--the fine, confluent detail, the overlapping and interlocking symbolism--without much of its didacticism. I can't help but feel that it would have been better undisguised.
The stories in Seven Suspects are a little more passable, and one could almost overlook the mysticism if careless. After reading Thursday, however, my pump was primed, and I sought it everywhere. Nor was I dissapointed. A passage that still brings chills, even upon multiple readings:
Do you remember when we last met at that theatre and I told you that I always liked the picture on the curtain as much as the scenes of the play. . . from any other angle I should see that it was only a painted rag. That is how I feel about this world, as i see it from this mountain. Not that it is not beautiful, for after all a curtain can be beautiful. Not even that it is unreal, for after all a curtain is real. But only that it is thin, and that the things behind it are the real drama" (The Tower of Treason).
How perfectly this parallels my own thinking lately. Taken literally, all that we seem to perceive is but a trick of light. The space between particles of matter is so much exponentially bigger than the matter itself, we may as well be looking at an image projected onto a cloud or water vapor. And if we allow it to, the light is constantly altering what we seem to see, as a shadow falls across it, or as our eyes change their focus, or as the light itself changes. Every visual image we have is quite literally a trick of the light, an optical illusion. It has no reality, and is rather more like Chesterton's theater curtain than anything else. Better yet, perhaps it is more like a scrim, that peculiar sort of theater screen that is opaque when lit from the front, but translucent lit from behind. If the light hits it just right, all that we seem to perceive could instantly disappear to reveal something else, something that may or may not be more real, but would at least be different.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Catching up . . .
Margaret Atwood: The Handmaid's Tale
It has been so long since I updated this blog, due to a combination of computer failure and motivation failure, that I have forgotten most of what I meant to say about this book. To remind myself what I thought, I went back to see what pages were dogeared, and found only one. Not surprisingly, it was the most meta passage in the book:
"This is a reconsctruction. All of it is a reconstruction. It's a reconstruction now, in my head, as I lie flat on my single bed rehearsing what I should or shouldn't have said, what I should or shouldn't have done, how I should have played it."
Atwood's narrator further bemoans the difficulty of ever communicating events as they really happened. No matter what, our stories are always many times removed from reality--and perhaps removed the furthest by our own capacity to edit.
I myself am fascinated by this phenomenon, though unlike Atwood's narrator, I don't regret the fact. I relish my editorial post in this life--the trick is not to believe your own story, to be cognizant of its inherent falsehood. The future is a lie. It will never happen. It is fine to lie alone in our beds and write stories about it, but we must never make the mistake of believing those stories, building expectations or anxieties. The past, too, may well have never happened. It most certainly did not happen the way we remember it. We lay in our solitude and return, replay, regret, but it is never more than an illusion projected onto a cloud.
Which brings me to:
Robert Schwartz: Courageous Souls
Recommended to me by my dear friend 주협, this book did not disappoint. The above reminders inspired by Atwood, are an especially appropriate framework in which to discuss it for two reasons: firstly, the central idea is that our stories are one step further removed from reality than Atwood implied: that every event upon which our stories were based is in fact an expression of something unseen, something that happened before we were born even. The way in which the author outlines that idea is rather involved, and I will not go into it here. He does a good job of outlining it, but it is important to remember that this too, is just a story. It is a story about stories, in fact, about how we construct and conceal them. It is helpful, and even healing to read, but it would be a mistake to take it as reality.
C.S. Forester: Mr. Midshipman Hornblower
I can't find a single dogeared page in this book, so I guess there was no particular passage that I wanted to remember or quote verbatim. Instead, I want to read every other volume in the series. It was fresh and engaging, serious without being ponderous, exactly the sort of thing I should read more of.
It has been so long since I updated this blog, due to a combination of computer failure and motivation failure, that I have forgotten most of what I meant to say about this book. To remind myself what I thought, I went back to see what pages were dogeared, and found only one. Not surprisingly, it was the most meta passage in the book:
"This is a reconsctruction. All of it is a reconstruction. It's a reconstruction now, in my head, as I lie flat on my single bed rehearsing what I should or shouldn't have said, what I should or shouldn't have done, how I should have played it."
Atwood's narrator further bemoans the difficulty of ever communicating events as they really happened. No matter what, our stories are always many times removed from reality--and perhaps removed the furthest by our own capacity to edit.
I myself am fascinated by this phenomenon, though unlike Atwood's narrator, I don't regret the fact. I relish my editorial post in this life--the trick is not to believe your own story, to be cognizant of its inherent falsehood. The future is a lie. It will never happen. It is fine to lie alone in our beds and write stories about it, but we must never make the mistake of believing those stories, building expectations or anxieties. The past, too, may well have never happened. It most certainly did not happen the way we remember it. We lay in our solitude and return, replay, regret, but it is never more than an illusion projected onto a cloud.
Which brings me to:
Robert Schwartz: Courageous Souls
Recommended to me by my dear friend 주협, this book did not disappoint. The above reminders inspired by Atwood, are an especially appropriate framework in which to discuss it for two reasons: firstly, the central idea is that our stories are one step further removed from reality than Atwood implied: that every event upon which our stories were based is in fact an expression of something unseen, something that happened before we were born even. The way in which the author outlines that idea is rather involved, and I will not go into it here. He does a good job of outlining it, but it is important to remember that this too, is just a story. It is a story about stories, in fact, about how we construct and conceal them. It is helpful, and even healing to read, but it would be a mistake to take it as reality.
C.S. Forester: Mr. Midshipman Hornblower
I can't find a single dogeared page in this book, so I guess there was no particular passage that I wanted to remember or quote verbatim. Instead, I want to read every other volume in the series. It was fresh and engaging, serious without being ponderous, exactly the sort of thing I should read more of.
Friday, December 31, 2010
Mathieu Ricard: Why Meditate?
It seems enough to say that my Dad gave me this book. As could be inferred from that statement, it has little to recommend it.
Useless though the book is, however, reading it served to remind me that January is an excellent time to give my personal meditation practice a shot in the arm. In 2010, I have been meditating along the lines of Ernest Holmes' model, but I cannot say that I have put much effort into it or been very consistent.
Since reading Ricard's book, on the other hand, I have managed to meditate--fruitfully, I might add--every day. I guess it did its job after all.
Useless though the book is, however, reading it served to remind me that January is an excellent time to give my personal meditation practice a shot in the arm. In 2010, I have been meditating along the lines of Ernest Holmes' model, but I cannot say that I have put much effort into it or been very consistent.
Since reading Ricard's book, on the other hand, I have managed to meditate--fruitfully, I might add--every day. I guess it did its job after all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)