What's up, I'm back, and with the reading of these three books, I'm officially more than halfway done with the Bible! Impressed yet? Well, you should be. Psalms and Proverbs are not fun books to read in one (per book) fell swoop. Fortunately for you, nothing entered my ocular tissue by my own hand, so you get to read about them. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing grossly boring or terrible about them, but after a while you want to hear stories again. On the plus side, I really really liked Ecclesiastes and might have been even more receptive to it thanks to the fact that it was not written in verse. (It doesn't hurt that Ecclesiastes is next to Leviticus on the 'fun to say' scale.) So, I can assure you that these won't be the most in-depth responses, critiques or reactions I've ever written, but like I said, wanting to drive a pencil in your eye and refraining from doing so has this way of diverting attention.
Psalms! If you've ever been to a church you know at least Psalm 23, and even if you've never stepped into a church you probably still know Psalm 23 (at least one stanza of it). I guess it's not really correct to say the psalms are in verse, but they're not prose. Well, they're little sections that are prayers to God, praises to God, complaints to God, and some advice for fellow mortals.
"When you are disturbed, do not sin; ponder it on your beds, and be silent. Offer right sacrifices, and put your trust in the Lord" Psalms 4:4-5. That is, don't act rashly, ruminate on it and how to fix it and how you can learn from the issue!
"For there is no truth in [my enemies'] mouths; their hearts are destruction; their throats are open graves; they flatter with their tongues" Psalms 5:9. The imagery here (specifically that of the throat being an open grave) is awesome.
"When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars that you have established; what are human beings that you are mindful of them, mortals that you care for them? Yet you have... crowned them with glory and honor. You have given them dominion over the works of your hands; you have put all things under their feet" Psalms 8:3-6.
"Put them in fear, O Lord; let the nations know that they are only human" Psalms 9:20.
"Fools say in their hearts, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds; there is no one who does good" Psalms 14:1. This one has a bit of ambiguity (or maybe none at all) that I do not like one bit. It says there is no-one who does good--but does it mean no-one of the fools do good, or no-one in general, even those who are righteous, do not do good? I certainly hope it was just poor wording and it is the former, because if even the good actions come to naught (or worse than naught!)... Well, the thought of it certainly disheartens me.
Okay, so Psalm 22 is the "Plea for Deliverance from Suffering and Hostility". Back in the day I blogged about the Collected Poems of Oscar Wilde--one of the poems I wrote about was 'On the Sale by Auction of Keats' Love Letters'. He talks about how the letters were being auctioned by a man who didn't understand the greatness of the letters and compares it to Roman soldiers throwing dice for Jesus's clothing after he was crucified or while he was being whipped. Well, I bring it up because believe it or not, I think I may have been incorrect in that take on it. Psalm 22 is written from the point of view from a starved and tortured man, and in one stanza he implies that he has been jumped. Being so frail thanks to starvation, he cannot fight back and can only watch as "They stare and gloat over me; they divide my clothes among themselves, and for my clothing they cast lots" Psalms 22:17-18. I'd say it works pretty well. I'm still tempted to stick with it being more about Jesus just because of how much Wilde loved Keats, but it's likely that this is it too. Or both! It can be both.
Ah, Psalm 23! It begins with this: "The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want. He makes me lie down in green pastures; he leads me beside still waters; he restores my soul" Psalms 23:1-3. (Or, "The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want. He maketh me to lie down in green pastures, he leadeth me beside still waters..." et cetera.) No? Doesn't sound familiar quite yet? Well, let's move on to stanza two: "Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I shall fear no evil; for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff--they comfort me". Ahaaaa. (By the way, this isn't the version used within this copy of the Bible, it's the King James version. But the King James version is the way I've always heard it, so I'm going to be terribly biased for a moment, okay?)
"Let lying lips be stilled that speak insolently against the righteous with pride and contempt" Psalms 31:18. Though it isn't about exactly the same thing, I believe the connection drawn is still pretty obvious: "'Never speak disrespectfully of Society, Algernon. Only people who can't get into it do that'"--Oscar Wilde (The Importance of Being Earnest).
"Depart from evil, and do good; seek peace, and pursue it" Psalms 34:14.
A Man Without A Country, he writes about how that quote makes Marx look like he was putting religion in a negative light. Opiates are bad, they make you lazy, shiftless whatever--so people assume that that's what Marx is saying about religion. But at the same time, opiates make you feel calm, peaceful, relaxed, comforted--that's what Vonnegut believes Marx meant about religion. And you know what? After reading that, I agree. It's often a source of hope for those in less than hopeful situations. I like that. I like the people who can still find hope in that if nothing else. I can respect that. As for the second bit with the afflictions and God rescuing the righteous from them, obviously it doesn't mean literally, it means... Well, after, I suppose. Though heaven hasn't been expressly mentioned as an alternative to Sheol, I think we're getting there...
"Do not fret because of the wicked; do not be envious of wrongdoers, for they will soon fade like grass, and whither like the green herb" Psalms 37:1-2.
"Mortals cannot abide in their pomp; they are like the animals that perish. Such is the fate of the foolhardy, the end of those who are pleased with their lot. Like sheep they are appointed for Sheol; Death shall be their shepherd; straight to the grave they descend, and their form shall waste away, Sheol shall be their home. But God will ransom my soul from the power of Sheol, for he will receive me" Psalms 49:13-15. This section when I first read it made me start thinking, and what I wrote about above (that of Vonnegut and Marx) made me think some more. Maybe those who don't believe in God just aren't good at deferring pleasure... Does that sound strange? I'm not quite sure how to word this. They want it now instead of later, they don't rely on optimism and constant improvement, they're willing to... to settle? To be "pleased with their lot". They choose to ignore possible improvement because they haven't the faith to...? Auuuugh. I don't know if I'm speaking well. Let it be known that I did try, however...
"You desire truth in the inward being; therefore teach me wisdom in my secret heart" Psalms 51:6.
"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; all those who practice it have a good understanding. His praise endures forever" Psalms 111:10. Okay, so I bring this up because of the fear thing. I really like the fact that this does not beat around the bush--in every other version of the Bible I've perused and even in Sunday school and church itself, mostly everybody does things out of love. I think fear is a way more appropriate (and real!) driving factor for doing most anything in the Bible. So, thank you for not beating around the bush, New Revised Standard version of the Bible!
"The desire of the wicked comes to nothing" Psalms 112:10.
And we've made it to Proverbs! Proverbs contains exactly what you think it does. Therefore, I haven't got a lot to put down, but hey, stuff does exist...
There's a lot of warning against prostitutes in this book, I have to say. And women are always the villains; they're always doing the seducing and convincing... Which I bring up because of Lysistrata. It's clear that perception of women is still pretty much the same between when Proverbs was written and when that play was written... (They were probably written very proximally in time, now that I think about it...) Buuuut, my point was that women were thought to be completely ruled by 'natural' impulses--and by 'natural', of course, I mean the sexual ones. So... Yeah, just thought I'd bring that up.
"Hatred stirs up strife, but love covers all offenses" Proverbs 10:12. / "Love means never having to say you're sorry"--Love Story (A movie from the seventies, though Kurt Vonnegut puts his own spin on this in I believe Galapagos).
"Do not desire a ruler's delicacies, for they are deceptive food" Proverbs 23:3.
"Do not speak in the hearing of the fool, who will only despise the wisdom of your words" Proverbs 23:9. Being a nasty stubborn fool myself, I can say for sure that yes they will.
"Do not boast about tomorrow, for you do not know what a day may bring" Proverbs 27:1. This is one I need to keep in mind constantly from now on.
Like I said, I didn't mark many of the Proverbs. It'd be like taking my book of Aesop's fables and giving you every moral twice (at least the bread wasn't mentioned!). So here we are in Ecclesiastes. This one is about, well, essentially, whistling while you work. Your life may be spent working, but you have to work to live and because your life is so short, you may as well enjoy your work. That's tough to swallow, but it's a good point, there. Realistically, though, I'm not sure how many can follow it adequately, much less completely subscribe themselves to it.
"All human toil is for the mouth, yet the appetite is not satisfied. For what advantage have the wise over fools?" Ecclesiastes 6:7. The main purpose of work is, at its core, for sustenance, but everybody is equally bound by the pains of hunger and thus the need for work. Brain power doesn't mean a thing if you can't get food and survive... And, sort of in the same vein, "...the same fate comes to all, to the righteous and the wicked, to the good and the evil, to the clean and the unclean, to those who sacrifice and those who do not sacrifice" Ecclesiastes 9:2. (Might I add that this section is entitled 'Take Life as it Comes'.)
"Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of countenance the heart is made glad" Ecclesiastes 2:3. / "Laughter and tears are both responses to frustration and exhaustion. I myself prefer to laugh, since there is less cleaning up to do afterward"--Kurt Vonnegut
"The living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no more reward, and even the memory of them is lost. Their love and their envy have already perished; never again will they have any share in all that happens under the sun" Ecclesiastes 9:5-6.
"You do not know the work of God" Ecclesiastes 11:5.
Alright, here we are. Next post will be Song of Solomon-Jeremiah, so... Try not to fall off the edge of your seats...? Of these three, I kind of dug Ecclesiastes, though you probably cannot tell... Hm. Well, not much of a general reaction this time, I guess. All I will say is that from now the old testament appears to be 90% in verse, which means my posts will either get meatier by tenfold, or will start to look a little small.
MLA citation information: Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Edition. American Bible Society: New York, 1989.
Yeah, nothing really new in my life other than that Book Worm is making my blood pressure go places where it has never gone before.
Answer to last post's cryptic song lyrics: First it Giveth by Queens of the Stone Age
This post's cryptic song lyrics: Life it rents us, and yeah I hope it put plenty on you--Well, I hope mine did too
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
The Bible: Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, and Job
Ugh, look at all those days that passed! Man! Well, merry Christmas to you all/happy Kwanzaa! I had a good Christmas, hope you did too, and... I don't celebrate Kwanzaa. But I hope those of you that are are enjoying it too! Oh, also, there was a crazy blizzard last night/this morning so I HAVE BEEN PLAYING IN SO MUCH SNOW! It's good times, even if my snow fort will never be as awesome as that kid's in Snow Day.
Let's see, is that it? Pretty much, yeah. I got addicted to a game I got for Christmas (Book Worm Adventures), which is no surprise because it's so radical! You fight enemies with words. The bigger the word, or depending on what letters are used, you do more damage. I love it. It's turned me into a sorry laptop junky. I NEED ME SOME BOOK WORM!
I guess if I'm going to mention Book Worm, I'm going to mention the two books I got, A Single Man by Christopher Isherwood and Steal This Book by Abbie Hoffman. It's hard to stick to the Bible with those two at the foot of my bed, I can promise you that right now. Especially Steal This Book--I've been idly flipping through it and I love the sarcastic bastardness of it. (That's right, it gets its own adjective set up and word synthesis.) I was debating on taking a break from this to sate myself, but I feel like that would be too weird of a transition... Kind of like when I read some of Lord of the Rings and The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test... Didn't really work that well.... So, let's get a move on then, before I remove my eyes with a writing utensil out of sheer desire to read Hoffman's book.
I have no notes on Ezra, but to be fair, it's about five pages altogether. Ezra restores adherence to rules set down in the Torah. (Do I italicize Torah?) Next is Nehemiah, in which Nehemiah, the King's servant, goes to rebuild the walls of Judah and attempts to repopulate Judah and again, make sure those repopulating the city are adhering to laws set down in the Torah.
First of all, this is the first time (at least in this edition) that Jewish people are referred to as 'Jews', and not Israelites or anything like that. I just thought that that was worth noting...
So, there's a chronicle of the wall's rebuilding, and who rebuilt which wall. Now, this edition of the Bible has whatever translation they deem right, but occasionally there are alternate translations for sections as well, or sections whose wording has been changed or what have you. In the actual paragraph, a sentence reads as follows: "Next to them the Tekoites made repairs; but their nobles would not put their shoulders to the work of their Lord" Nehemiah 3:5. The alternate text from the footnote would make this read as "Next to them the Tekoites made repairs; but their nobles would not put their shoulders to the work of their lords". There's a whole lot of difference between those two statements, I must say!
A little later on, there's the "Festival of Booths" to celebrate the success of the rebuilding and repopulation and the reinstitution of the laws. People who have returned to the city and are at the celebration have made "booths" or tabernacles. The Hebrew however (every so often the book will include the Hebrew for a word or phrase) for these things is "Succoth". I can't help but find this interesting, considering--if you remember--Succoth-beneth is one of the false gods who were worshiped. I just find that curious I've been led to believe that tabernacles are holy, and Succoth-beneth clearly is not, yet the word... Of course, beneth would then be some modifier that made the word villainous (most likely), but I don't know.
I'd also like to mention that in the 'National Confession' (9) chapter of Nehemiah, pretty much every book preceding it is summarized. Helpful, but at the same time it makes me pull at my hair in frustration.
A man named Malluch signed the Covenant. Now, he can't help his name, but it certainly sounds familiar. Not to judge, but I'm just saying, if his ears start resembling tombs and begin to smoke, well, let's just say I won't be too surprised.
Nehemiah is pretty short too... My next notes are in the next book, the book of Esther. Esther's story teaches us of the origins of the celebration of Purim, and... Well, I guess Jewish Treats covers the basics, there. The reason why Jewish people had to defend themselves is because Mordecai maddened and thus is targeted for murder by Haman, the prime minister. Haman figures out that Mordecai is Jewish and decides to cook up a plot to murder not just Mordecai but all the Jews of the city. Haman is eventually killed thanks to Esther (though it is sort of inadvertently that she seals his fate), though tension and hate has already been aroused, hence the need for defense.
There is an interesting difference between the translation this publication has chosen to use and the Hebrew that it includes for a particular passage: "In those days, while Mordecai was sitting at the king's gate, Bigthan and Teresh, two of the king's eunuchs, who guarded the threshold, became angry and conspired to assassinate King AhasuerusJesus's healing powers are referred to as. I don't know, like everything else I've been writing about, I include it because I find it kind of interesting and odd. (Of course, if Jesus's healing powers are referred to as that, that means the meaning came later, but still, if it grew from a root like that...)
I also marked a tad bit about the festival itself, but I guess that got covered with the two links I've given you. Okay, so that's not a complete in-depth description of Purim, but it's probably better to rely on people who actually celebrate it for information rather than someone who only knows it exists thanks to Jewish Tweets (I'm doing a lot of plugging tonight, aren't I? This is unintentional, but really, you must see that I have a valid point)! It's on Wikipedia too, like everything else, so....
Ah, and next is the book of Job! Job was an upstanding, righteous fellow. Satan, making his first real appearance in the Bible (as himself at least--though the serpent is traditionally rendered as Satan I must make note that he is never actually referred to as such) challenges God. God points Job out as being such a great fellow who fears God and so on, and Satan is like, well, what's the point of his fear of you if he's got nothing to fear? If you gave him something to fear he would curse you. And God says all right, will do, let's see what happens. Go mess with him. Job is upset because he is plagued, his children are killed, his livestock is killed, he is struck with boils and sores--and he has not sinned or done anything wrong. In fact, he even sacrifices for his children*. His friends berate him because they're convinced that he must have sinned and to not confess of course doubles his punishment (most of this book is dialog, might I mention). Job, suffering, regrets his birth and his life, but remarkably never once curses God**--he just wants an answer as to why he is being punished. God Himself eventually joins in the dialog and speaks to Job and his cohorts as well.
*"And when the feast days had run their course, Job would send and sanctify [his sons and daughters], and he would rise early in the morning and offer burnt offerings according to the number of them all; for Job said, 'It may be that my children have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts'. This is what Job always did" Job 1:5.
First of all, in the Hebrew, Satan is ha-satan--and the meaning of that is the Accuser. I am curious if he had any precedents in any other separate religious texts before this point... In those separate texts, if they exist, his origin might to be some extent be explained (Milton had to have gotten the backbone for Paradise Lost somewhere, right?), if not, this is a rather curious introduction for him. "One day the heavenly beings came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them. The Lord said to Satan, 'Where have you come from?' Satan answered the Lord, 'From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it'" Job 1:6-7. Curious.
While reading the challenge Satan makes to God, that whole little section ('Attack on Job's Character'), a passage from Everything is Illuminated was evoked: "THE PROBLEM OF EVIL: WHY UNCONDITIONALLY BAD THINGS HAPPEN TO UNCONDITIONALLY GOOD PEOPLE They never do" (Everything is Illuminated, 199). I couldn't stop thinking of it, picturing it in my head.
**After his property and children are destroyed: "Then Job arose, tore his robe, shaved his head, and fell on the ground and worshiped. He said, 'Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked shall I return there; the Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord'" Job 1:20-21.
The argument between Satan and God actually seems to be a pessimistic versus optimistic view of human nature, which I guess makes sense. But it makes me question whether the events that occur are even slightly based on any real events at all--or just a struggle with how exactly a man would react to such a situation. You know?
Job's wife suggests he "Curse God, and die" Job 2:9. Or, in the Hebrew, "Bless God, and die". This is after all the events regarding his property and children and livestock have occurred and Satan has stricken Job with terrible boils and sores. I imagine that his wife suggests he do this just to end his suffering once and for all (the release of death). As for the "Bless God"... Perhaps because despite his blessing and veneration for his Lord, he is still being punished to incredible extents, so he might as well bless God and again, end his suffering, because all of his blessings have led him this far...
Actually, Job rather impresses me. he responds to this with, "'Shall we receive the good at the hand of God, and not the bad?'" Job 2:10. This impressive for anyone to say and truly feel, much less a man who is is being tormented endlessly, and in such ways! I rather respect Job. I like him.
This whole section is incredibly interesting in Job speaking of his vexations and his friends assertions (even if they are deemed incorrect or foolish by God at the end) and God's statement at the end... Oh, and I should mention that the first concept of the afterlife (in the Bible) appears in this book; it is known as Sheol. Sheol is (from what I understand) just a dark... Well, pit. Regardless of your actions in life you are sent there. I guess it would be most similar to purgatory, then, just kind of... waiting. (That is what purgatory is, right? Great, now I've gone completely to the other end of the "I don't really understand this religious concept" spectrum...)
"'My days are swifter than a weaver's shuttle, and come to their end without hope. Remember that my life is a breath'" Job 7:6-7.
"'I loathe my life; I would not live it forever'" Job 7:16.
"'What are human beings, that you make so much of them, that you set your mind on them, visit them every morning, test them every moment?'" Job 7:17-18. Possibly my favourite desperate statement from Job. I can honestly say that I spent a lot of time in Sunday school wondering exactly that (kids were given paper and crayons during the services, so I didn't really wonder about any theology while actually in church). I have to imagine that mostly everybody who has been brought up with a religious upbringing must wonder that (well, at least anyone with a Judeo-Christian upbringing), and even atheists and agnostics must wonder about it, at least the good ones must.
Job's friend Bildad explains to Job that those of the godless have hope and faith that dies very quickly because without God involved, it is like a spider's web. I just want to point out the irony here because although there's no way the writer of this book could have know, spider's silk is one of the strongest materials around.
"'Do you [God] have eyes of flesh? Do you see as humans see? Are your days like the days of mortals, or your years like human years'" Job 10:4-5. Well... Not yet.
"'For there is hope for a tree, if it is cut down, that it will sprout again, and that its shoots will not cease. Though its root grows old in the earth, and its stump dies in the ground, yet at the scent of water it will bud and put forth branches like a young plant. But mortals die, and are laid low; humans expire, and where are they?'" Job 14:7-10. But is it the same tree? And question number two, are we tentatively poking at the question of rebirth? I'd say so...
So, to ruin any respect I may have garnered from a semi-intelligent and for once semi-coherent post, I just want to mention that "grind" is used as a euphemism. So sue me, I'm only human, it cracked me up.
Another friend of Job, Elihu, makes an interesting point... I apologize for overusing interesting, by the way. It's getting to the point where every time I write it I just hear Bugs Bunny saying it and I want to hide my face out of shame. But, anyways, he says: "'Of a truth, God will not do wickedly, and the Almighty will not pervert justice, Who gave him charge over the earth and who laid on him the whole world?'" Job 34:12-13. That is, God can't act unjustly because he invented just and unjust.
"'Anyone who argues with God must respond'" Job 40:2.
Well, there we are... The next four books of the Bible. I guess as retrospect, it's pretty easy to tell which books I find the most interesting (cough cough Job). If you're going to blindly pick a book from the Bible to read, I'd certainly suggest Job over most of what else I've read. (If you're going to blindly pick more than one, how about Exodus and Leviticus too?) The books are slowly getting to be more story-like, not that they sound false or anything, but they read better, like a story. So that's good. Of course, next is Psalms, so that trend won't really continue... But hey, that could be the interlude for more! There's only one way to find out, now isn't there?
MLA citation information: Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Edition. American Bible Society: New York, 1989.
Hmm... That's about it for today, no more real updates on my life, other than that I got straight A's in my first semester of college! HOORAY! I haven't failed out! (At least not yet...)
Answer to last post's cryptic song lyrics: Bohemian Rhapsody by Queen
This post's cryptic song lyrics: First it giveth, then it taketh away
Let's see, is that it? Pretty much, yeah. I got addicted to a game I got for Christmas (Book Worm Adventures), which is no surprise because it's so radical! You fight enemies with words. The bigger the word, or depending on what letters are used, you do more damage. I love it. It's turned me into a sorry laptop junky. I NEED ME SOME BOOK WORM!
I guess if I'm going to mention Book Worm, I'm going to mention the two books I got, A Single Man by Christopher Isherwood and Steal This Book by Abbie Hoffman. It's hard to stick to the Bible with those two at the foot of my bed, I can promise you that right now. Especially Steal This Book--I've been idly flipping through it and I love the sarcastic bastardness of it. (That's right, it gets its own adjective set up and word synthesis.) I was debating on taking a break from this to sate myself, but I feel like that would be too weird of a transition... Kind of like when I read some of Lord of the Rings and The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test... Didn't really work that well.... So, let's get a move on then, before I remove my eyes with a writing utensil out of sheer desire to read Hoffman's book.
I have no notes on Ezra, but to be fair, it's about five pages altogether. Ezra restores adherence to rules set down in the Torah. (Do I italicize Torah?) Next is Nehemiah, in which Nehemiah, the King's servant, goes to rebuild the walls of Judah and attempts to repopulate Judah and again, make sure those repopulating the city are adhering to laws set down in the Torah.
First of all, this is the first time (at least in this edition) that Jewish people are referred to as 'Jews', and not Israelites or anything like that. I just thought that that was worth noting...
So, there's a chronicle of the wall's rebuilding, and who rebuilt which wall. Now, this edition of the Bible has whatever translation they deem right, but occasionally there are alternate translations for sections as well, or sections whose wording has been changed or what have you. In the actual paragraph, a sentence reads as follows: "Next to them the Tekoites made repairs; but their nobles would not put their shoulders to the work of their Lord" Nehemiah 3:5. The alternate text from the footnote would make this read as "Next to them the Tekoites made repairs; but their nobles would not put their shoulders to the work of their lords". There's a whole lot of difference between those two statements, I must say!
A little later on, there's the "Festival of Booths" to celebrate the success of the rebuilding and repopulation and the reinstitution of the laws. People who have returned to the city and are at the celebration have made "booths" or tabernacles. The Hebrew however (every so often the book will include the Hebrew for a word or phrase) for these things is "Succoth". I can't help but find this interesting, considering--if you remember--Succoth-beneth is one of the false gods who were worshiped. I just find that curious I've been led to believe that tabernacles are holy, and Succoth-beneth clearly is not, yet the word... Of course, beneth would then be some modifier that made the word villainous (most likely), but I don't know.
I'd also like to mention that in the 'National Confession' (9) chapter of Nehemiah, pretty much every book preceding it is summarized. Helpful, but at the same time it makes me pull at my hair in frustration.
A man named Malluch signed the Covenant. Now, he can't help his name, but it certainly sounds familiar. Not to judge, but I'm just saying, if his ears start resembling tombs and begin to smoke, well, let's just say I won't be too surprised.
Nehemiah is pretty short too... My next notes are in the next book, the book of Esther. Esther's story teaches us of the origins of the celebration of Purim, and... Well, I guess Jewish Treats covers the basics, there. The reason why Jewish people had to defend themselves is because Mordecai maddened and thus is targeted for murder by Haman, the prime minister. Haman figures out that Mordecai is Jewish and decides to cook up a plot to murder not just Mordecai but all the Jews of the city. Haman is eventually killed thanks to Esther (though it is sort of inadvertently that she seals his fate), though tension and hate has already been aroused, hence the need for defense.
There is an interesting difference between the translation this publication has chosen to use and the Hebrew that it includes for a particular passage: "In those days, while Mordecai was sitting at the king's gate, Bigthan and Teresh, two of the king's eunuchs, who guarded the threshold, became angry and conspired to assassinate King AhasuerusJesus's healing powers are referred to as. I don't know, like everything else I've been writing about, I include it because I find it kind of interesting and odd. (Of course, if Jesus's healing powers are referred to as that, that means the meaning came later, but still, if it grew from a root like that...)
I also marked a tad bit about the festival itself, but I guess that got covered with the two links I've given you. Okay, so that's not a complete in-depth description of Purim, but it's probably better to rely on people who actually celebrate it for information rather than someone who only knows it exists thanks to Jewish Tweets (I'm doing a lot of plugging tonight, aren't I? This is unintentional, but really, you must see that I have a valid point)! It's on Wikipedia too, like everything else, so....
Ah, and next is the book of Job! Job was an upstanding, righteous fellow. Satan, making his first real appearance in the Bible (as himself at least--though the serpent is traditionally rendered as Satan I must make note that he is never actually referred to as such) challenges God. God points Job out as being such a great fellow who fears God and so on, and Satan is like, well, what's the point of his fear of you if he's got nothing to fear? If you gave him something to fear he would curse you. And God says all right, will do, let's see what happens. Go mess with him. Job is upset because he is plagued, his children are killed, his livestock is killed, he is struck with boils and sores--and he has not sinned or done anything wrong. In fact, he even sacrifices for his children*. His friends berate him because they're convinced that he must have sinned and to not confess of course doubles his punishment (most of this book is dialog, might I mention). Job, suffering, regrets his birth and his life, but remarkably never once curses God**--he just wants an answer as to why he is being punished. God Himself eventually joins in the dialog and speaks to Job and his cohorts as well.
*"And when the feast days had run their course, Job would send and sanctify [his sons and daughters], and he would rise early in the morning and offer burnt offerings according to the number of them all; for Job said, 'It may be that my children have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts'. This is what Job always did" Job 1:5.
First of all, in the Hebrew, Satan is ha-satan--and the meaning of that is the Accuser. I am curious if he had any precedents in any other separate religious texts before this point... In those separate texts, if they exist, his origin might to be some extent be explained (Milton had to have gotten the backbone for Paradise Lost somewhere, right?), if not, this is a rather curious introduction for him. "One day the heavenly beings came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them. The Lord said to Satan, 'Where have you come from?' Satan answered the Lord, 'From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it'" Job 1:6-7. Curious.
While reading the challenge Satan makes to God, that whole little section ('Attack on Job's Character'), a passage from Everything is Illuminated was evoked: "THE PROBLEM OF EVIL: WHY UNCONDITIONALLY BAD THINGS HAPPEN TO UNCONDITIONALLY GOOD PEOPLE They never do" (Everything is Illuminated, 199). I couldn't stop thinking of it, picturing it in my head.
**After his property and children are destroyed: "Then Job arose, tore his robe, shaved his head, and fell on the ground and worshiped. He said, 'Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked shall I return there; the Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord'" Job 1:20-21.
The argument between Satan and God actually seems to be a pessimistic versus optimistic view of human nature, which I guess makes sense. But it makes me question whether the events that occur are even slightly based on any real events at all--or just a struggle with how exactly a man would react to such a situation. You know?
Job's wife suggests he "Curse God, and die" Job 2:9. Or, in the Hebrew, "Bless God, and die". This is after all the events regarding his property and children and livestock have occurred and Satan has stricken Job with terrible boils and sores. I imagine that his wife suggests he do this just to end his suffering once and for all (the release of death). As for the "Bless God"... Perhaps because despite his blessing and veneration for his Lord, he is still being punished to incredible extents, so he might as well bless God and again, end his suffering, because all of his blessings have led him this far...
Actually, Job rather impresses me. he responds to this with, "'Shall we receive the good at the hand of God, and not the bad?'" Job 2:10. This impressive for anyone to say and truly feel, much less a man who is is being tormented endlessly, and in such ways! I rather respect Job. I like him.
This whole section is incredibly interesting in Job speaking of his vexations and his friends assertions (even if they are deemed incorrect or foolish by God at the end) and God's statement at the end... Oh, and I should mention that the first concept of the afterlife (in the Bible) appears in this book; it is known as Sheol. Sheol is (from what I understand) just a dark... Well, pit. Regardless of your actions in life you are sent there. I guess it would be most similar to purgatory, then, just kind of... waiting. (That is what purgatory is, right? Great, now I've gone completely to the other end of the "I don't really understand this religious concept" spectrum...)
"'My days are swifter than a weaver's shuttle, and come to their end without hope. Remember that my life is a breath'" Job 7:6-7.
"'I loathe my life; I would not live it forever'" Job 7:16.
"'What are human beings, that you make so much of them, that you set your mind on them, visit them every morning, test them every moment?'" Job 7:17-18. Possibly my favourite desperate statement from Job. I can honestly say that I spent a lot of time in Sunday school wondering exactly that (kids were given paper and crayons during the services, so I didn't really wonder about any theology while actually in church). I have to imagine that mostly everybody who has been brought up with a religious upbringing must wonder that (well, at least anyone with a Judeo-Christian upbringing), and even atheists and agnostics must wonder about it, at least the good ones must.
Job's friend Bildad explains to Job that those of the godless have hope and faith that dies very quickly because without God involved, it is like a spider's web. I just want to point out the irony here because although there's no way the writer of this book could have know, spider's silk is one of the strongest materials around.
"'Do you [God] have eyes of flesh? Do you see as humans see? Are your days like the days of mortals, or your years like human years'" Job 10:4-5. Well... Not yet.
"'For there is hope for a tree, if it is cut down, that it will sprout again, and that its shoots will not cease. Though its root grows old in the earth, and its stump dies in the ground, yet at the scent of water it will bud and put forth branches like a young plant. But mortals die, and are laid low; humans expire, and where are they?'" Job 14:7-10. But is it the same tree? And question number two, are we tentatively poking at the question of rebirth? I'd say so...
So, to ruin any respect I may have garnered from a semi-intelligent and for once semi-coherent post, I just want to mention that "grind" is used as a euphemism. So sue me, I'm only human, it cracked me up.
Another friend of Job, Elihu, makes an interesting point... I apologize for overusing interesting, by the way. It's getting to the point where every time I write it I just hear Bugs Bunny saying it and I want to hide my face out of shame. But, anyways, he says: "'Of a truth, God will not do wickedly, and the Almighty will not pervert justice, Who gave him charge over the earth and who laid on him the whole world?'" Job 34:12-13. That is, God can't act unjustly because he invented just and unjust.
"'Anyone who argues with God must respond'" Job 40:2.
Well, there we are... The next four books of the Bible. I guess as retrospect, it's pretty easy to tell which books I find the most interesting (cough cough Job). If you're going to blindly pick a book from the Bible to read, I'd certainly suggest Job over most of what else I've read. (If you're going to blindly pick more than one, how about Exodus and Leviticus too?) The books are slowly getting to be more story-like, not that they sound false or anything, but they read better, like a story. So that's good. Of course, next is Psalms, so that trend won't really continue... But hey, that could be the interlude for more! There's only one way to find out, now isn't there?
MLA citation information: Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Edition. American Bible Society: New York, 1989.
Hmm... That's about it for today, no more real updates on my life, other than that I got straight A's in my first semester of college! HOORAY! I haven't failed out! (At least not yet...)
Answer to last post's cryptic song lyrics: Bohemian Rhapsody by Queen
This post's cryptic song lyrics: First it giveth, then it taketh away
Friday, December 24, 2010
The Bible: 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, and 2 Chronicles
Yeah, there's no way I'm getting to the new testament before Christmas, though I made a somewhat-valiant effort... I'm on page 415, which is sort of halfway there? I'd say I'm already halfway there--halfway there--halfway there...! But yeah, I'd say the schedule I've been keeping up is fairly impressive!
The four books are the same basic story (with a few more details in the Chronicles) twice. 1 Kings ends the story of Solomon and surprise, surprise, discusses various kings that come and go. Within this are the stories of the prophets Elijah and Elisha, and wars and disasters because no-one seemed to be able to remember that they were supposed to be worshiping God as in Yahweh, even though every time they turned to Nergal, Baal, and others God punished them. Eventually (at the end of 2 Chronicles) all are exiled from Jerusalem because God, after about 300 some-odd years of this, finally gets fed up.
My first note is simply a call to the fact that Solomon is the famous king who is approached by the two mothers fighting over a baby. You must have heard this story at least once before--Solomon says he'll slice the baby in half so they each can have a half, and one woman is content with this, and the other woman panics (as who wouldn't!?). The woman who panicked is of course the real mother, because she was scared for her child's wellbeing. In The Cartoon History of the Universe:Volumes 1-7 by Larry Gonick, he explains it as a political parable rather than an actual truthful story (it is much more believable as a political parable!). Solomon was an illegitimate son, and this story is supposed to signify that he would be willing to split the kingdom with war, whereas the true heirs to the throne would prefer to give up the kingdom rather than see it split by war. I'd also like to mention that when I opened Gonick's book, I flipped open exactly to the page dealing with this. No biggie, I'm just kind of awesome like that.
Oh, the prophet Elijah? I was unaware of this, or perhaps I forgot, but he brings a boy back from the dead. I did not remember at all that people other than Jesus could do this. (It makes sense that others could. But I still had a "Woah!" moment.)
And now we're skipping ahead forever, but at the very end of 1 Kings Elijah judges King Ahab of Israel, who has been condemned by God. Ahab fasts and puts on a sackcloth and "humbled himself" (1 Kings 21:29) before God. God reacts to this as follows: "Because he has humbled himself before me, I will not bring the disaster in his days; but in his son's days I will bring the disaster on his home" 1 Kings 21:29. This really, really, really bothers me. Why? "Parents shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their parents; only for their own crimes may persons be put to death" Deuteronomy 24:16. Well, Ahab is killed anyways... "The dogs licked up [Ahab's] blood, and the prostitutes washed themselves in it" 1 Kings 22:38. ....Wow. Talk about imagery. Dang...
In 2 Kings a God named Baal-zebub is discussed. Hmm, looks like a poor translation of the lord of the flies's name, no? (Beelzebub.) Of course, there are no pig heads on sticks or epileptic seers, so I guess I can't say for sure that's who it is. It may (not) just be coincidence...
There is also a terrible famine in Samaria that just to get a head of a donkey you'd have to pay eighty silver shekels, and a quarter of a kab of dove's dung was worth five silver shekels. Wait... What? Dove's dung!? You've got to be hurting pretty badly to be wanting to eat that... Right!?
A woman during this famine also goes to the king of Israel with a complaint. Her complaint? Another woman suggested that they kill the first lady's son and eat him. The next day, they can have her son. The first lady must be absolutely ravenous, because she agrees, and they kill, cook, and eat her son. The next day, woman number one goes to woman number two so they can have her son for dinner. Surprise, surprise! Woman number two hid her son. Granted, woman number one was probably blinded by hunger and had addled wits, but still, she didn't even have an inkling that this may happen? Nuh-uh. For future reference, readers: you're starving and a lady wants to make a deal with you like this? Eat her kid first. You should be good and make true on your promise, but have her kid first so she won't try to double-cross you. That is all.
Later, God orders Jehu to slaughter all the worshipers of Baal. This Jehu does, and God rewards him: "'Because you have done well in carrying out what I consider right, and in accordance with all that was in my heart have dealt with the house of Ahab, your sons of the fourth generation shall sit on the throne of Israel'" 2 Kings 10:30. On one hand, I think it's kind of cool that God has that little admission and says "what I consider right"... On the other hand, admitting there could be other rights may kind of throw off a follower or cast doubt into his heart. Jehu did not "follow the law of the Lord the God of Israel with all his heart" 2 Kings 10:31... And perhaps that is why? Just speculation.
Other various false gods are mentioned, and I include them and brief definitions of them mostly for myself: Succoth-benoth, Nergal, Ashima, Nibbaz, Tartak, Adrammelech, and Anammelech. Little is known about Succoth-benoth... Ashima appears to be a goddess of fate... Nergal appears to be the god of pestilence, war, and the underworld. He also is Billy's Uncle. Nibbaz doesn't even garner results, the only information of Tartak is that he's supposed to resemble a donkey, Andrammelech was a sun god who was associated with Molech (and was also honoured with child sacrifice) and Anammelech is Andrammelech's lunar half.
(Now that I think about it, Succoth-benoth... Shoggoth... Perhaps here is HP Lovecraft's inspiration namewise, at least a little bit...?)
I've got no more notes... Sorry. (I know, I know, you're heartbroken.) I probably won't post until after Christmas... Or at seven AM Christmas morning because IT IS CHRISTMAS and I need to get up at least three hours before everyone else in the house to snoop around the presents and futilely try to retain consciousness for no real good reason... These things are important to do!
MLA citation information: Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Edition. American Bible Society: New York, 1989.
Let's see, what else... What's new and somewhat literary in my life...? For one thing, I officially own four copies of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. My neighbours were getting rid of some books and they had two copies and they know how I feel about Narnia, so there we go... (I already had two because of the copy I read as a kid and the leatherbound collection.)
Oh, and thanks to the books my neighbours gave me (there were a few others, like How to Eat Fried Worms! That book is rad, and probably why I ate quite a few insects out of curiosity at a young age) and books I kept from college, my bookshelf is full. ...Uh. What do I do now...? Um. Crud.
Let's see, I also visited the school... well, yesterday now. Apparently Fabrizzles does still brag about me to his classes doing Nanowrimo--"It can be done twice, and all with one hand too!" (Aw, he remembered the fact that I don't have the coordination to type with both hands! No, don't laugh; I really don't.) But I thought that was cool. For better or for worse, I've left an indelible mark on NBHS! (Of course, I've hardly been gone for a full year. There really hasn't been enough time to forget me...) But yeah, a little ego boost I needed. (I forgot to tell him about the four copies of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe! Though I feel like his reaction would pretty much be "You would. You really would." No, I wouldn't! It's not even my favourite in the series!)
I darkened Robby D's doorway too, of course. It was pretty good times, though I forgot to try and steal a copy of The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test again. I saw it in Borders the other day and almost bought it and then I just thought, Why not wait till I go back to visit in like a week? I can just steal it from Robby D. And then I forget! Gosh, I really don't know about me sometimes.
I also asked him if he ever bragged about the Kerouac painting because 1) I have a huge ego and 2) I think I have every right to be overly proud of that painting. He said yes, but also that "sometimes I want to take a paintball gun to it." I can assure you that I died laughing a little. Like, I only laughed when he actually said it, but when I was at home and happened to think of it, I straight-up guffawed. So yeah, good times visiting the old stomping grounds. Better when I'm not actually required to do things there...
Answer to last post's cryptic song lyrics: Hallelujah by Rufus Wainwright
This post's cryptic song lyrics: Beelzebub, has the devil put aside for me, for me, for me--!
The four books are the same basic story (with a few more details in the Chronicles) twice. 1 Kings ends the story of Solomon and surprise, surprise, discusses various kings that come and go. Within this are the stories of the prophets Elijah and Elisha, and wars and disasters because no-one seemed to be able to remember that they were supposed to be worshiping God as in Yahweh, even though every time they turned to Nergal, Baal, and others God punished them. Eventually (at the end of 2 Chronicles) all are exiled from Jerusalem because God, after about 300 some-odd years of this, finally gets fed up.
My first note is simply a call to the fact that Solomon is the famous king who is approached by the two mothers fighting over a baby. You must have heard this story at least once before--Solomon says he'll slice the baby in half so they each can have a half, and one woman is content with this, and the other woman panics (as who wouldn't!?). The woman who panicked is of course the real mother, because she was scared for her child's wellbeing. In The Cartoon History of the Universe:Volumes 1-7 by Larry Gonick, he explains it as a political parable rather than an actual truthful story (it is much more believable as a political parable!). Solomon was an illegitimate son, and this story is supposed to signify that he would be willing to split the kingdom with war, whereas the true heirs to the throne would prefer to give up the kingdom rather than see it split by war. I'd also like to mention that when I opened Gonick's book, I flipped open exactly to the page dealing with this. No biggie, I'm just kind of awesome like that.
Oh, the prophet Elijah? I was unaware of this, or perhaps I forgot, but he brings a boy back from the dead. I did not remember at all that people other than Jesus could do this. (It makes sense that others could. But I still had a "Woah!" moment.)
And now we're skipping ahead forever, but at the very end of 1 Kings Elijah judges King Ahab of Israel, who has been condemned by God. Ahab fasts and puts on a sackcloth and "humbled himself" (1 Kings 21:29) before God. God reacts to this as follows: "Because he has humbled himself before me, I will not bring the disaster in his days; but in his son's days I will bring the disaster on his home" 1 Kings 21:29. This really, really, really bothers me. Why? "Parents shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their parents; only for their own crimes may persons be put to death" Deuteronomy 24:16. Well, Ahab is killed anyways... "The dogs licked up [Ahab's] blood, and the prostitutes washed themselves in it" 1 Kings 22:38. ....Wow. Talk about imagery. Dang...
In 2 Kings a God named Baal-zebub is discussed. Hmm, looks like a poor translation of the lord of the flies's name, no? (Beelzebub.) Of course, there are no pig heads on sticks or epileptic seers, so I guess I can't say for sure that's who it is. It may (not) just be coincidence...
There is also a terrible famine in Samaria that just to get a head of a donkey you'd have to pay eighty silver shekels, and a quarter of a kab of dove's dung was worth five silver shekels. Wait... What? Dove's dung!? You've got to be hurting pretty badly to be wanting to eat that... Right!?
A woman during this famine also goes to the king of Israel with a complaint. Her complaint? Another woman suggested that they kill the first lady's son and eat him. The next day, they can have her son. The first lady must be absolutely ravenous, because she agrees, and they kill, cook, and eat her son. The next day, woman number one goes to woman number two so they can have her son for dinner. Surprise, surprise! Woman number two hid her son. Granted, woman number one was probably blinded by hunger and had addled wits, but still, she didn't even have an inkling that this may happen? Nuh-uh. For future reference, readers: you're starving and a lady wants to make a deal with you like this? Eat her kid first. You should be good and make true on your promise, but have her kid first so she won't try to double-cross you. That is all.
Later, God orders Jehu to slaughter all the worshipers of Baal. This Jehu does, and God rewards him: "'Because you have done well in carrying out what I consider right, and in accordance with all that was in my heart have dealt with the house of Ahab, your sons of the fourth generation shall sit on the throne of Israel'" 2 Kings 10:30. On one hand, I think it's kind of cool that God has that little admission and says "what I consider right"... On the other hand, admitting there could be other rights may kind of throw off a follower or cast doubt into his heart. Jehu did not "follow the law of the Lord the God of Israel with all his heart" 2 Kings 10:31... And perhaps that is why? Just speculation.
Other various false gods are mentioned, and I include them and brief definitions of them mostly for myself: Succoth-benoth, Nergal, Ashima, Nibbaz, Tartak, Adrammelech, and Anammelech. Little is known about Succoth-benoth... Ashima appears to be a goddess of fate... Nergal appears to be the god of pestilence, war, and the underworld. He also is Billy's Uncle. Nibbaz doesn't even garner results, the only information of Tartak is that he's supposed to resemble a donkey, Andrammelech was a sun god who was associated with Molech (and was also honoured with child sacrifice) and Anammelech is Andrammelech's lunar half.
(Now that I think about it, Succoth-benoth... Shoggoth... Perhaps here is HP Lovecraft's inspiration namewise, at least a little bit...?)
I've got no more notes... Sorry. (I know, I know, you're heartbroken.) I probably won't post until after Christmas... Or at seven AM Christmas morning because IT IS CHRISTMAS and I need to get up at least three hours before everyone else in the house to snoop around the presents and futilely try to retain consciousness for no real good reason... These things are important to do!
MLA citation information: Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Edition. American Bible Society: New York, 1989.
Let's see, what else... What's new and somewhat literary in my life...? For one thing, I officially own four copies of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. My neighbours were getting rid of some books and they had two copies and they know how I feel about Narnia, so there we go... (I already had two because of the copy I read as a kid and the leatherbound collection.)
Oh, and thanks to the books my neighbours gave me (there were a few others, like How to Eat Fried Worms! That book is rad, and probably why I ate quite a few insects out of curiosity at a young age) and books I kept from college, my bookshelf is full. ...Uh. What do I do now...? Um. Crud.
Let's see, I also visited the school... well, yesterday now. Apparently Fabrizzles does still brag about me to his classes doing Nanowrimo--"It can be done twice, and all with one hand too!" (Aw, he remembered the fact that I don't have the coordination to type with both hands! No, don't laugh; I really don't.) But I thought that was cool. For better or for worse, I've left an indelible mark on NBHS! (Of course, I've hardly been gone for a full year. There really hasn't been enough time to forget me...) But yeah, a little ego boost I needed. (I forgot to tell him about the four copies of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe! Though I feel like his reaction would pretty much be "You would. You really would." No, I wouldn't! It's not even my favourite in the series!)
I darkened Robby D's doorway too, of course. It was pretty good times, though I forgot to try and steal a copy of The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test again. I saw it in Borders the other day and almost bought it and then I just thought, Why not wait till I go back to visit in like a week? I can just steal it from Robby D. And then I forget! Gosh, I really don't know about me sometimes.
I also asked him if he ever bragged about the Kerouac painting because 1) I have a huge ego and 2) I think I have every right to be overly proud of that painting. He said yes, but also that "sometimes I want to take a paintball gun to it." I can assure you that I died laughing a little. Like, I only laughed when he actually said it, but when I was at home and happened to think of it, I straight-up guffawed. So yeah, good times visiting the old stomping grounds. Better when I'm not actually required to do things there...
Answer to last post's cryptic song lyrics: Hallelujah by Rufus Wainwright
This post's cryptic song lyrics: Beelzebub, has the devil put aside for me, for me, for me--!
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
The Bible: Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, and 2 Samuel
WHY AM I READING SO MUCH? Probably because I'm so fantastic? And now that I've accidentally set a challenge for myself, I'm determined to try and meet it, or die trying... Maybe not die trying. But heck, I'm on page 299, and the new testament starts on 877, so if between now and Saturday I read about 192 and 4/6ths pages a day... Uh. Well, I'll try.
So! We have Judges first. The book is named for the fact that it chronicles the doings of the judges, though it is prone to a huge tangent or two.
So, first of all, after a while, the Israelites stop worshiping God and they start worshiping other gods, like Baal and Astartes. What interests me is that later, when they repeat who is being worshiped, Baal is mentioned again but instead of Astartes Asherahs is named. A fumble in translation? A minor detail overlooked? I'm pretty sure Astartes is the root of Astaroth, and Asherahs appears to be some sort of mother goddess... Two different figures completely. It's inconsequential, I guess, to everything but my insatiable curiosity.
What I find interesting too is when Samson's mother (before she conceives) is visited by an angel to warn her of the conception and greatness of her son. The angel warns her against drinking wine or other "strong drink" (Judges 13:4) because she will be having a son. Okay, the son thing aside, I find it interesting that apparently it was common knowledge that alcohol was bad for developing babies when it took the modern world pretty much until the 1960's/70's to figure it out. Apparently nobody got the memo? Or read their Bibles/Tanakhs?
Another thing I like about that section is the angel himself. Manoah (the father of Samson) does not realize the angel is an angel and offers to cook him a meal. The angel politely declines, but suggests Manoah sacrifices the kid to God instead. Manoah then asks if he can at least know the angel's name so that he may honour the angel when his promise comes to fruition--and the angel responds with: "'Why do you ask my name? It is too wonderful'" Judges 13:18. I don't know why that line should strike me so, but I love it, I really do. It sounds very right.
Okay, cool. We're onto 2 Samuel now! (Ruth is only four pages and I guess I didn't have much to say about 1 Samuel, probably because that's what I know best out of the Bible, other than all of the parables. I daresay that I could probably recite all the parables in my sleep, no matter how long that it's been since I've actually heard them or stepped inside a church.)
Bathsheba, as you may or may not be aware, was a lady who David (David of David and Goliath fame, after he was crowned king) saw bathing on her roof. David was, uh, enamoured with the lady and summoned her to his bedchambers. Now as if adultery wasn't bad enough, it turns out that Bathsheba was bathing to purify herself after her period. There is a certain amount of time you're supposed to wait before 'uncovering' a woman who has just had her period, and clearly David didn't wait. Just to throw a little bit of salt on the wound there... I actually didn't even know David was married before this. I knew Bathsheba was (David has her husband killed by 'accident' in war), but not David...
...Okay, this really was short. I apologize again. It's like that month where I read pretty much every book from my childhood... I guess I also shouldn't assume that the reader, whoever it may be, just knows stories of the Bible... in which case, Samuel is the story of Saul, Samuel, and David. So... Yeah. I'll work harder next time! The next four books are a little over 100 pages, so hopefully I'll be able to stop looking like a slacker in the very, very near future....
MLA citation information: Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Edition. American Bible Society: New York, 1989.
Answer to last post's cryptic song lyrics: 3rd Planet by Modest Mouse
This post's cryptic song lyrics: Now I've heard there was a secret chord that David played and it pleased the lord, but you don't really care for music do you?
So! We have Judges first. The book is named for the fact that it chronicles the doings of the judges, though it is prone to a huge tangent or two.
So, first of all, after a while, the Israelites stop worshiping God and they start worshiping other gods, like Baal and Astartes. What interests me is that later, when they repeat who is being worshiped, Baal is mentioned again but instead of Astartes Asherahs is named. A fumble in translation? A minor detail overlooked? I'm pretty sure Astartes is the root of Astaroth, and Asherahs appears to be some sort of mother goddess... Two different figures completely. It's inconsequential, I guess, to everything but my insatiable curiosity.
What I find interesting too is when Samson's mother (before she conceives) is visited by an angel to warn her of the conception and greatness of her son. The angel warns her against drinking wine or other "strong drink" (Judges 13:4) because she will be having a son. Okay, the son thing aside, I find it interesting that apparently it was common knowledge that alcohol was bad for developing babies when it took the modern world pretty much until the 1960's/70's to figure it out. Apparently nobody got the memo? Or read their Bibles/Tanakhs?
Another thing I like about that section is the angel himself. Manoah (the father of Samson) does not realize the angel is an angel and offers to cook him a meal. The angel politely declines, but suggests Manoah sacrifices the kid to God instead. Manoah then asks if he can at least know the angel's name so that he may honour the angel when his promise comes to fruition--and the angel responds with: "'Why do you ask my name? It is too wonderful'" Judges 13:18. I don't know why that line should strike me so, but I love it, I really do. It sounds very right.
Okay, cool. We're onto 2 Samuel now! (Ruth is only four pages and I guess I didn't have much to say about 1 Samuel, probably because that's what I know best out of the Bible, other than all of the parables. I daresay that I could probably recite all the parables in my sleep, no matter how long that it's been since I've actually heard them or stepped inside a church.)
Bathsheba, as you may or may not be aware, was a lady who David (David of David and Goliath fame, after he was crowned king) saw bathing on her roof. David was, uh, enamoured with the lady and summoned her to his bedchambers. Now as if adultery wasn't bad enough, it turns out that Bathsheba was bathing to purify herself after her period. There is a certain amount of time you're supposed to wait before 'uncovering' a woman who has just had her period, and clearly David didn't wait. Just to throw a little bit of salt on the wound there... I actually didn't even know David was married before this. I knew Bathsheba was (David has her husband killed by 'accident' in war), but not David...
...Okay, this really was short. I apologize again. It's like that month where I read pretty much every book from my childhood... I guess I also shouldn't assume that the reader, whoever it may be, just knows stories of the Bible... in which case, Samuel is the story of Saul, Samuel, and David. So... Yeah. I'll work harder next time! The next four books are a little over 100 pages, so hopefully I'll be able to stop looking like a slacker in the very, very near future....
MLA citation information: Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Edition. American Bible Society: New York, 1989.
Answer to last post's cryptic song lyrics: 3rd Planet by Modest Mouse
This post's cryptic song lyrics: Now I've heard there was a secret chord that David played and it pleased the lord, but you don't really care for music do you?
The Bible: Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Joshua
Bet you weren't expecting this post to be so quick, either! Well, it turns out that when you're home from college and no-one else in your house is on their break yet, there's not much to do. Either you sleep, you play that Back to the Future game on Facebook, you watch Nick JR, or you read the Bible. So, I read these three books of the Bible yesterday into today. Maybe my goal should be to finish them all by Christmas, or try at least to get to Jesus's birth by Christmas!? (That's not happening. I just hardly broke the 200s. Is Christmas really only three days away?)
Okay, so I haven't got as much to say about these three books, but at this point I'm pretty set in my ways (oh really?) so I stuck to the three book format regardless of the fact that this will be the first post in a while that if printed could be used as wallpaper for a hallway closet.
First of all, then, we've got Numbers. Numbers is a continuation of the story of Moses. Some censuses are taken of the wandering group and spies are sent to check out the land God has promised to the people. There are a few more regulations at the very end of the book, too.
My first note on Numbers comes with the spies. The spies go into the lands and they see how great it is, but also how powerful those already there are. So instead of talking about how great the land actually was, they say that the land "devours its inhabitants" (Numbers 13:32) and that those inhabitants are so big that the spies appeared to be like grasshoppers. Why bother mentioning this? Well, in some translations of the Bible, the names of these inhabitants is translated to giants. In this edition, however, the Hebrew is kept the same, and they are the Nephilim. Just thought it was worth mentioning, because they're kind of an important piece in Madeleine L'Engle's book Many Waters. Her book is set during the story of Noah, however, and in hers it is implied that all the Nephilim are killed in the flood. Granted, the people seen weren't actually Nephilim, but still...
My second note regards the bronze serpent. Those following Moses were upset about God and Moses for taking them from Egypt where there was sustenance into the desert where there was none. God punished the people by sending an onslaught of venomous snakes to their campground and the snakes killed many. The people asked for forgiveness and so Moses smelted a serpent out of bronze and put it on a pole--if you were snakebit and you looked upon it, it would cure you. This I bring up because Asclepius, the Greek god of medicine, carried a rod with a snake wrapped around it. Interesting connection, yes?
"You shall not defile the land in which you live, in which I also dwell; for I the Lord dwell among the Israelites" Numbers 35:34.
Deuteronomy is largely a summary of everything regarding Moses that just happened. There's a little more, such as Moses's death, but for the most part, it's like, "The bread! Again with the bread!" Oh well. It expands on some things; it's not like reading a bunch of Sarah Dessen books (OH! Burn!).
"When a man is newly married, he shall not go out with the army or be charged with any related duty. He shall be free at home one year, to be happy with the wife whom he has married" Deuteronomy 24:5.
Hmm, I just noticed this: in Trachimbrod (in Everything is Illuminated) there is a mill. Once a year, without fail, a worker of the mill is killed. The "Miscellaneous Law" after Deuteronomy 24:5 reads as follows: "No one shall take a mill or an upper millstone in pledge, for that would be taking a life in pledge" Deuteronomy 24:6. So maybe I'm reading this wrong, but maybe that's why...?
"You shall pay [poor labourers] their wages daily before sunset, because they are poor and their livelihood depends on them" Deuteronomy 24:15.
"Parents shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their parents; only for their own crimes may persons be put to death" Deuteronomy 24:16.
And... Uh, I guess I don't have any notes for Joshua. Sorry about that. (Wow, this was a ridiculously short post.) So... See you soon? I don't really have any general comments to make about the three books I just read. They were a little dry. Hmm... Do you think I can read about 85 pages of this by tomorrow? We'll see, I guess. Have a good day!
MLA citation information: Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Edition. American Bible Society: New York, 1989.
Answer to last post's cryptic song lyrics for Emma: Wine Red by the Hush Sound
This post's cryptic song lyrics for Emma: The third planet is sure that they're being watched by an eye in the sky that can't be stopped--when you get to the promised land, you're gonna shake that eye's hand
Okay, so I haven't got as much to say about these three books, but at this point I'm pretty set in my ways (oh really?) so I stuck to the three book format regardless of the fact that this will be the first post in a while that if printed could be used as wallpaper for a hallway closet.
First of all, then, we've got Numbers. Numbers is a continuation of the story of Moses. Some censuses are taken of the wandering group and spies are sent to check out the land God has promised to the people. There are a few more regulations at the very end of the book, too.
My first note on Numbers comes with the spies. The spies go into the lands and they see how great it is, but also how powerful those already there are. So instead of talking about how great the land actually was, they say that the land "devours its inhabitants" (Numbers 13:32) and that those inhabitants are so big that the spies appeared to be like grasshoppers. Why bother mentioning this? Well, in some translations of the Bible, the names of these inhabitants is translated to giants. In this edition, however, the Hebrew is kept the same, and they are the Nephilim. Just thought it was worth mentioning, because they're kind of an important piece in Madeleine L'Engle's book Many Waters. Her book is set during the story of Noah, however, and in hers it is implied that all the Nephilim are killed in the flood. Granted, the people seen weren't actually Nephilim, but still...
My second note regards the bronze serpent. Those following Moses were upset about God and Moses for taking them from Egypt where there was sustenance into the desert where there was none. God punished the people by sending an onslaught of venomous snakes to their campground and the snakes killed many. The people asked for forgiveness and so Moses smelted a serpent out of bronze and put it on a pole--if you were snakebit and you looked upon it, it would cure you. This I bring up because Asclepius, the Greek god of medicine, carried a rod with a snake wrapped around it. Interesting connection, yes?
"You shall not defile the land in which you live, in which I also dwell; for I the Lord dwell among the Israelites" Numbers 35:34.
Deuteronomy is largely a summary of everything regarding Moses that just happened. There's a little more, such as Moses's death, but for the most part, it's like, "The bread! Again with the bread!" Oh well. It expands on some things; it's not like reading a bunch of Sarah Dessen books (OH! Burn!).
"When a man is newly married, he shall not go out with the army or be charged with any related duty. He shall be free at home one year, to be happy with the wife whom he has married" Deuteronomy 24:5.
Hmm, I just noticed this: in Trachimbrod (in Everything is Illuminated) there is a mill. Once a year, without fail, a worker of the mill is killed. The "Miscellaneous Law" after Deuteronomy 24:5 reads as follows: "No one shall take a mill or an upper millstone in pledge, for that would be taking a life in pledge" Deuteronomy 24:6. So maybe I'm reading this wrong, but maybe that's why...?
"You shall pay [poor labourers] their wages daily before sunset, because they are poor and their livelihood depends on them" Deuteronomy 24:15.
"Parents shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their parents; only for their own crimes may persons be put to death" Deuteronomy 24:16.
And... Uh, I guess I don't have any notes for Joshua. Sorry about that. (Wow, this was a ridiculously short post.) So... See you soon? I don't really have any general comments to make about the three books I just read. They were a little dry. Hmm... Do you think I can read about 85 pages of this by tomorrow? We'll see, I guess. Have a good day!
MLA citation information: Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Edition. American Bible Society: New York, 1989.
Answer to last post's cryptic song lyrics for Emma: Wine Red by the Hush Sound
This post's cryptic song lyrics for Emma: The third planet is sure that they're being watched by an eye in the sky that can't be stopped--when you get to the promised land, you're gonna shake that eye's hand
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
The Bible: Genesis, Exodus, and Leviticus
Bet you weren't expecting the next post this fast! Anyways, here we are, first three books of the Bible. Still not clear on the italicizing thing, but I feel like everybody will know what I'm writing about and I won't have to worry about getting sued... So, I feel like I should give some background here--I have read the Bible before, though it was sort of the in-between version. What I mean is, in between The Beginner's Bible and the legit (?) Holy Bible, which is the "new revised standard edition". Like when you get kid's versions of classic books but there are still more words than pictures. (Not that there's anything wrong with The Beginner's Bible. I can honestly say that even in just these three books there's a lot I wouldn't have understood without having read that about a million times when I was a kid. I mean, the story of Esau? What the hell is going on, seriously?) But that was a while ago, and now I'm braving what is considered to be one of the most important literary works in existence. So let's go into dangerous waters, then!
So obviously the book we're starting out with is Genesis (how does one treat books of the Bible?).
First of all, here's this: "Then God said, 'Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth'" Genesis 1:26. (I'm going to do my best with the citing, too.) I just think it's interesting that God pluralized Himself. I mean, if this wasn't the old testament, I'd say it works into the whole 'Father, son and holy ghost' thing, we're all three that are different, but still the same...
An interesting note is that there is a second account of the seven days that mentions how there are four rivers that branch off of the main river that comes from Eden, two of which are the Tigris and the Euphrates. Just thought it was interesting to mention because it makes sense that these two rivers would be given this credit--some of the earliest major civilizations rose up around the rivers because of how fertile the area was, and undoubtedly still is. So... that's cool....
Fun fact: Adam and Eve aren't given names until after they are cast out--Adam names her. Actually, Adam isn't named at all. He is never once referred to by that name (apparently in Hebrew, Adam is just a generic word meaning 'mankind'....)
Well, let's see. The purpose of all mythology is really to explain nature and things we can't control, right? Not to be rude, but this would be a sort of mythology too. It's explaining the world's creation, where why who what when where, et cetera... The origin of man, the origin of traditions, and so on... In this case, when God reprimands Eve, we learn why childbirth hurts, yet still Eve would desire her husband despite that pain. Adam learns that he must work to live from henceforth. Again, just thought it was worth throwing that out there...
So, we'll skip a little to the end of the story of Noah. Noah is pretty happy that the flood has ended, obviously, and he builds an altar and sacrifices to God. God is pleased and reacts as follows: "And when the Lord smelled the pleasing odor, the Lord said in his heart, 'I will never again curse the ground because of humankind, for the inclination of the human heart is evil from youth'" Genesis 8:21. This kind of bothers me. Okay, believe that if you like, and I know there are people that do. But for the creator of the being to think that!? I do not like that, not one bit. I mean, I guess you could say people started out good, but of course that lasted up to the temptation of Eve... And I guess to make people villainous from the start would be a good way to see who is worth saving (the people who would work to overcome their inherent villainous nature)... But still, I feel like that should have been done a little better. Just saying.
And later on there's the story of Abraham. Abraham, as you may or may know, was commanded by God to sacrifice his son Isaac. The way I've heard it is that Abraham so loved God and wanted to honour him and not displease him that he goes to do it. This Bible cuts out all of that and just gives it to us straight: he goes to sacrifice his son out fear of God. (Which pleases God.)
And these first few books are repetitive as hell. In Genesis alone--only on page 21, mind you--we repeat this scenario where a man goes into Egypt with his beautiful wife and says she's his sister for fear that they'll kill him (so they can get to her). And when we get to Exodus? I don't know what leaven versus unleavened bread is exactly, but if I ever hear about it again, heads are going to roll. I am so annoyed that I am purposely not looking up these things out of spite! (I think it means that there's no yeast in it.)
Oh, and Joseph and his amazing technicolour dreamcoat? How about a "long robe with sleeves" Genesis 37:3? I feel like that's a misconstrued translation for the better. I guess I'd be jealous enough to beat someone up for their amazing technicolour dreamcoat?)
...Well, that's all I've got for Genesis, looks like.
...So now onto Exodus! I daresay it's one of the best-known books of the Bible, it's the story of Moses! Moses's beginnings through the first tabernacle erection, at least. It looks like everything pertaining Moses goes through to Deuteronomy...
First of all, Zipporah's (Moses's wife) father is named Reuel. This made me chuckle, as there is a certain author whose second middle name is this....
The first thing that really interested me were the plagues. There are several involving bugs (gnats, flies, and locusts) that seem to get melded into one. I thought that it was just locusts that also attacked people? I'm no expert on locusts... But, one of these various bug plagues aren't translated correctly. In the original Hebrew, one plague of bugs are actually scarab beetles. So what, you may ask. Scarab beetles (dung beetles) were actually sacred creatures to the Egyptians. The plague of the beetles literally covered everything in them. The people wouldn't have been able to walk without squashing a few and thus insulting their gods and humiliating them. Way to kick them when they're down, I guess. God is actually pretty cruel during all of this. I mean, I never thought the plagues were nice, good acts, but from this perspective, I never really realized how flat-out cruel they were (except for that first-born son thing. That's pretty darned bad no matter how/when you learn about it).
What I mean is, thanks to however you've learned the story of Moses, it's always the Pharaoh who acted stubborn, right? He just wouldn't believe, while you're reading/watching and you're just like, Ramses, is your real name Tommy? (Tommy 'Ramses II' Pharaoh?) Are you seriously not aware of what is going on here and figuring out the cause-and-effects? Well, for plagues 1-5, the Pharaoh "hardens" his heart. However, come plague six, the sentence structure changes a bit: "But the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he would not listen to them" Exodus 9:12. Wait wait wait, WHAT? "Then the Lord said to Moses, 'Go to Pharaoh; for I have hardened his heart and the heart of his officials, in order that I may show these signs of mine among them, and that you may tell your children and grandchildren how I have made fools of the Egyptians and what signs I have done among them--so that you may know that I am the Lord'" Exodus 10:1-2. Uh, okay. I get the fact that He'd be trying to punish the Egyptians. The way I've always pictured it is He was retaliating for the fact that Ramses was continually being a jerk and super indecisive. But this seems excessive. A point is trying to be proved, yes, and I guess we have to remember that God--Yahweh--is still an 'ancient' God at this point, but wow. That's really kicking them while they're down. Kicking them while they're down about ten or eleven times. Almost to the point of making me uncomfortable...
Speaking of uncomfortable, a few chapters (chapters?) later: "'I will harden Pharaoh's heart and he will pursue them, so that I will gain glory for myself over Pharaoh and all his army, and the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord'" Exodus 14:4. Um... No? I get that being God, He'd like other people to acknowledge that fact--but that stills seems like a lot. "Gain glory"? Sounds suspiciously similar to a certain character of Paradise Lost... Maybe God just has sharing issues and too huge an ego, and that's why Satan was punished... Or He didn't like the fact that He saw that aspect of himself in Satan still (though it would make sense)... I think I just made theology into a soap opera. Uhhh, sorry about this.
Oh, funny story, never realized this, but you know passover? It's to celebrate that the plagues passed over Moses's people. I feel stupid for never making that connection... Though to be completely fair, I was never aware that that was where it came from. Or... I didn't think I was aware? (If I was, I feel like it was a Sunday school sort of thing, and it's been a looooong time since I've darkened the doorway of a Sunday school room...)
"'For I the Lord your God am a jealous God'" Exodus 20:5. Well, at least He knows it.
Oh, and the ten commandments--turns out some of them are a lot longer than a sentence or two. For example, "honour thy father and mother..." goes on to say why exactly you should do this: "so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you" Exodus 20:12. This kind of intrigues me. Is it implying that if you do that, so shall you be honoured by your children, thus you will live long because they will care for you as you have cared for your parents, and so on? Also, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife"? "You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or male or female, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor" Exodus 20:17.
Exodus ends in a lot of laws, and the norms continue into Leviticus. However, a lot of these laws are pretty damned harsh. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, hand for a hand, et cetera--fine, I can accept those wholeheartedly, believe it or not. But to be put to death for cursing your parents!? (Imagine how many teenagers we would have to kill!) And then there's laws concerning slaves: interesting, because like I said, the basic law appears to be an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, and so on. But with slaves, if you damage their eye(s) or knock out a tooth, they just get set free to compensate. Why? Well, they're still a lower order so even the law is modified for them. They can't strike back because technically, they're still below their masters (they haven't been set free till their master sets them free)--well, they could strike back, but they'd be put to death, most likely. Or hurt again. And since they're slaves they can't be avenged...
One law that's randomly thrown in and gets randomly repeated a few times is "You shall not permit a female sorcerer to live" Exodus 22:18. I apologize, it made me chuckle every time I read it. (Though you should keep it in mind, it'll be important in a later book....)
Bestiality is also one of the sins that you can be put to death for. Now trust me, I'm not going to defend that. But if you'll recall, in Chuck Palahniuk's Rant, there is a rabies epidemic thanks to Rant. There's a section where they discuss what a problem rabies must have been in the early days--and that's why bestiality was banned really, simply to prevent the disease from spreading, no more, no less. Which is an interesting thing to keep in mind when you read some of the laws, especially regarding that which you can and cannot eat. For example, if you come across something mangled in the field, leave it for the dogs. This seems fairly logical nowadays, but I feel like there was a point in human history where someone would see it and say "FOOD!" and just eat it, and invariably got incredibly sick and most likely died thanks to what had already found the rotting meat. So there we go, the law was a convenient prevention method. Other things too--shellfish is not kosher because it does not have fins or scales and it resides in the water. Well, why? I'd imagine because even if you miscook shellfish even a little, you're bound to get violently ill. Hell, there are certain parts of lobster that can kill you if you eat enough of it. Plus, trying to figure out the edible parts? It's a mess. Of course, the most famous food to be avoided is pork, but that... trichinosis? The fact that pigs are gross? The Hebrews had really weak stomachs and couldn't handle pork? I've got nothing, but I'm down with considering pork 'unclean'.
"You shall not wrong or oppress a resident alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt" Exodus 22:21. This is my favourite of the laws of restitution.
The second to last law of restitution is that all first-born males are given to God. As I said earlier, God was still an 'ancient' god at this point, so human sacrifice was completely natural and accepted--though I find it strange because the Canaanites who sacrifice their children to Molech (insatiable devourer of brains and imagination) are abused for it. Maybe God just isn't pleased that their babies aren't being sacrificed in His name?
"You shall not pervert the justice due to your poor in their lawsuits. Keep far from a false charge, and do not kill the innocent and those in the right, for I will not acquit the guilty. You shall take no bribe, for a bribe blinds the officials, and subverts the cause of those who are in the right" Exodus 23:6-8.
Ah, and one thing that bothers me are the Sabbath regulations. Now, I know I've got to keep in mind that there's a LOT of time in between Moses and Jesus--a lot of things changed, indubitably, but man. In the book of Exodus, you get put to death for doing any work on the Sabbath. You're not even allowed to kindle a fire. In one of the books of the new testament (won't know which one it is till I get there, but I remember the pictures of the story from The Beginner's Bible pretty well), a man (possibly one of the disciples) is doing work and a city official gets mad and says that he must be put to death/punished harshly. Jesus steps up and says something like, "Well, you did work today too, didn't you?" And the city official gets mad, denies it. Jesus asks him if he walked his donkey to the water hole/trough today. The official did of course, and Jesus said, "Well now, isn't that work?" And of course, it was. So... yeah, the death thing seems like a little much. Of course, this parable could have been written in an effort to change it purposely because people realized how impossible it was to follow that order of absolutely no work on the sabbath.
The rest of this book is pretty much how to construct a tabernacle, altar, how a priest should dress, et cetera.
Next up is the book of Leviticus! It's quite possibly the best-named book of the Bible. Seriously, I'd name a kid that. Or a chameleon! Or one of those lizards that get up on their hind legs and run across the water with those big flaps? Those look like Leviticuses. ....Um. Leviticus is more of an outline of acceptable offerings and sacrifices, rites, purification laws, penalties and festivals. That said, I've not much to say about this chapter.
Eating blood is prohibited! I did not know that that was actually in the Bible. I figured eating blood was just a more because, well, it's gross. But okay. (It also adversely affects health. Too much and your stomach ruptures. Good times?) It actually kind of makes Dracula and other earlier vampire tales much more interesting. I mean, you figure he/they are damned because they traded their soul away, or because again, that sort of thing is just plain gross. Nope, drinking blood actually renders you "unclean" and you're actually sinning against God to do so. So it's just the icing on the cake to the expulsion of your soul, I guess. You're already damned, so why not? (By the way, Dracula's famous saying--"the blood is the life"--actually comes from this chapter of the Bible. It's Leviticus 17:14.)
There's also all the taboos about incest and any other sexual relation that gets you in trouble still nowadays that are discussed. Might I mention that both of the famous anti-gay quotes from the Bible occur in this chapter: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" Leviticus 18:22. "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them" Leviticus 20:13. These quotes are preceded with God warning the people not to do as they do in Egypt or Canaan... Naturally I'm skeptical in this case, and I'm willing to say that this was a bit of human intervention in the text. Somebody got grossed out by homosexuality and decided it was not okay (all the fleshpots of Egypt, you know)... I feel like I should mention that everybody (else) slept with men for pretty much all of what we'd call the ancient days. Greeks--Spartans, especially--and Romans are the ones that at least everyone knows. I also feel that I should say that I have no problem with homosexuality (wait, there's nothing about women, is there?), I just thought it was worth mentioning. Those two simple quotes are why homosexuality is looked down upon.
It is also said that anyone who provides the Canaanites with sacrifices to Molech shall be punished by death and deserted by God--anyone who turns to follow Molech will effectively cut their whole family off from God. Hm... That name sounds and looks suspiciously familiar... (I hear his love is endless oil and stone and his mind is pure machinery.)
MLA citation information: Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Edition. American Bible Society: New York, 1989.
Ooookay! There we go, first three books of the Bible. So far... Well, Genesis is kind of boring. Exodus gets better, and Leviticus is thus far the most interesting. So hopefully it will continue to improve! The books actually read more like a summary of epics rather than actual in-depth epics, it's almost a little disappointing. It's kind of like reading Sparknotes as opposed to the real text, except this is the real text... (I wonder what the actual Sparknotes for it looks like.) So, we'll see where it goes from here. I am rather intrigued. Hope I didn't offend anybody.
Answer to last post's cryptic song lyrics for Emma: So Hi So Lo by Matisyahu (That's how it's spelled on the album, so I'm going to stick with that)
This post's cryptic song lyrics for Emma: Who shot that arrow in your throat, who missed that crimson apple? It hung heavy in the tree above your head. This chaos, this calamity, this garden once was perfect--Give your immortality to me; I'll set you up against the stars
So obviously the book we're starting out with is Genesis (how does one treat books of the Bible?).
First of all, here's this: "Then God said, 'Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth'" Genesis 1:26. (I'm going to do my best with the citing, too.) I just think it's interesting that God pluralized Himself. I mean, if this wasn't the old testament, I'd say it works into the whole 'Father, son and holy ghost' thing, we're all three that are different, but still the same...
An interesting note is that there is a second account of the seven days that mentions how there are four rivers that branch off of the main river that comes from Eden, two of which are the Tigris and the Euphrates. Just thought it was interesting to mention because it makes sense that these two rivers would be given this credit--some of the earliest major civilizations rose up around the rivers because of how fertile the area was, and undoubtedly still is. So... that's cool....
Fun fact: Adam and Eve aren't given names until after they are cast out--Adam names her. Actually, Adam isn't named at all. He is never once referred to by that name (apparently in Hebrew, Adam is just a generic word meaning 'mankind'....)
Well, let's see. The purpose of all mythology is really to explain nature and things we can't control, right? Not to be rude, but this would be a sort of mythology too. It's explaining the world's creation, where why who what when where, et cetera... The origin of man, the origin of traditions, and so on... In this case, when God reprimands Eve, we learn why childbirth hurts, yet still Eve would desire her husband despite that pain. Adam learns that he must work to live from henceforth. Again, just thought it was worth throwing that out there...
So, we'll skip a little to the end of the story of Noah. Noah is pretty happy that the flood has ended, obviously, and he builds an altar and sacrifices to God. God is pleased and reacts as follows: "And when the Lord smelled the pleasing odor, the Lord said in his heart, 'I will never again curse the ground because of humankind, for the inclination of the human heart is evil from youth'" Genesis 8:21. This kind of bothers me. Okay, believe that if you like, and I know there are people that do. But for the creator of the being to think that!? I do not like that, not one bit. I mean, I guess you could say people started out good, but of course that lasted up to the temptation of Eve... And I guess to make people villainous from the start would be a good way to see who is worth saving (the people who would work to overcome their inherent villainous nature)... But still, I feel like that should have been done a little better. Just saying.
And later on there's the story of Abraham. Abraham, as you may or may know, was commanded by God to sacrifice his son Isaac. The way I've heard it is that Abraham so loved God and wanted to honour him and not displease him that he goes to do it. This Bible cuts out all of that and just gives it to us straight: he goes to sacrifice his son out fear of God. (Which pleases God.)
And these first few books are repetitive as hell. In Genesis alone--only on page 21, mind you--we repeat this scenario where a man goes into Egypt with his beautiful wife and says she's his sister for fear that they'll kill him (so they can get to her). And when we get to Exodus? I don't know what leaven versus unleavened bread is exactly, but if I ever hear about it again, heads are going to roll. I am so annoyed that I am purposely not looking up these things out of spite! (I think it means that there's no yeast in it.)
Oh, and Joseph and his amazing technicolour dreamcoat? How about a "long robe with sleeves" Genesis 37:3? I feel like that's a misconstrued translation for the better. I guess I'd be jealous enough to beat someone up for their amazing technicolour dreamcoat?)
...Well, that's all I've got for Genesis, looks like.
...So now onto Exodus! I daresay it's one of the best-known books of the Bible, it's the story of Moses! Moses's beginnings through the first tabernacle erection, at least. It looks like everything pertaining Moses goes through to Deuteronomy...
First of all, Zipporah's (Moses's wife) father is named Reuel. This made me chuckle, as there is a certain author whose second middle name is this....
The first thing that really interested me were the plagues. There are several involving bugs (gnats, flies, and locusts) that seem to get melded into one. I thought that it was just locusts that also attacked people? I'm no expert on locusts... But, one of these various bug plagues aren't translated correctly. In the original Hebrew, one plague of bugs are actually scarab beetles. So what, you may ask. Scarab beetles (dung beetles) were actually sacred creatures to the Egyptians. The plague of the beetles literally covered everything in them. The people wouldn't have been able to walk without squashing a few and thus insulting their gods and humiliating them. Way to kick them when they're down, I guess. God is actually pretty cruel during all of this. I mean, I never thought the plagues were nice, good acts, but from this perspective, I never really realized how flat-out cruel they were (except for that first-born son thing. That's pretty darned bad no matter how/when you learn about it).
What I mean is, thanks to however you've learned the story of Moses, it's always the Pharaoh who acted stubborn, right? He just wouldn't believe, while you're reading/watching and you're just like, Ramses, is your real name Tommy? (Tommy 'Ramses II' Pharaoh?) Are you seriously not aware of what is going on here and figuring out the cause-and-effects? Well, for plagues 1-5, the Pharaoh "hardens" his heart. However, come plague six, the sentence structure changes a bit: "But the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he would not listen to them" Exodus 9:12. Wait wait wait, WHAT? "Then the Lord said to Moses, 'Go to Pharaoh; for I have hardened his heart and the heart of his officials, in order that I may show these signs of mine among them, and that you may tell your children and grandchildren how I have made fools of the Egyptians and what signs I have done among them--so that you may know that I am the Lord'" Exodus 10:1-2. Uh, okay. I get the fact that He'd be trying to punish the Egyptians. The way I've always pictured it is He was retaliating for the fact that Ramses was continually being a jerk and super indecisive. But this seems excessive. A point is trying to be proved, yes, and I guess we have to remember that God--Yahweh--is still an 'ancient' God at this point, but wow. That's really kicking them while they're down. Kicking them while they're down about ten or eleven times. Almost to the point of making me uncomfortable...
Speaking of uncomfortable, a few chapters (chapters?) later: "'I will harden Pharaoh's heart and he will pursue them, so that I will gain glory for myself over Pharaoh and all his army, and the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord'" Exodus 14:4. Um... No? I get that being God, He'd like other people to acknowledge that fact--but that stills seems like a lot. "Gain glory"? Sounds suspiciously similar to a certain character of Paradise Lost... Maybe God just has sharing issues and too huge an ego, and that's why Satan was punished... Or He didn't like the fact that He saw that aspect of himself in Satan still (though it would make sense)... I think I just made theology into a soap opera. Uhhh, sorry about this.
Oh, funny story, never realized this, but you know passover? It's to celebrate that the plagues passed over Moses's people. I feel stupid for never making that connection... Though to be completely fair, I was never aware that that was where it came from. Or... I didn't think I was aware? (If I was, I feel like it was a Sunday school sort of thing, and it's been a looooong time since I've darkened the doorway of a Sunday school room...)
"'For I the Lord your God am a jealous God'" Exodus 20:5. Well, at least He knows it.
Oh, and the ten commandments--turns out some of them are a lot longer than a sentence or two. For example, "honour thy father and mother..." goes on to say why exactly you should do this: "so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you" Exodus 20:12. This kind of intrigues me. Is it implying that if you do that, so shall you be honoured by your children, thus you will live long because they will care for you as you have cared for your parents, and so on? Also, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife"? "You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or male or female, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor" Exodus 20:17.
Exodus ends in a lot of laws, and the norms continue into Leviticus. However, a lot of these laws are pretty damned harsh. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, hand for a hand, et cetera--fine, I can accept those wholeheartedly, believe it or not. But to be put to death for cursing your parents!? (Imagine how many teenagers we would have to kill!) And then there's laws concerning slaves: interesting, because like I said, the basic law appears to be an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, and so on. But with slaves, if you damage their eye(s) or knock out a tooth, they just get set free to compensate. Why? Well, they're still a lower order so even the law is modified for them. They can't strike back because technically, they're still below their masters (they haven't been set free till their master sets them free)--well, they could strike back, but they'd be put to death, most likely. Or hurt again. And since they're slaves they can't be avenged...
One law that's randomly thrown in and gets randomly repeated a few times is "You shall not permit a female sorcerer to live" Exodus 22:18. I apologize, it made me chuckle every time I read it. (Though you should keep it in mind, it'll be important in a later book....)
Bestiality is also one of the sins that you can be put to death for. Now trust me, I'm not going to defend that. But if you'll recall, in Chuck Palahniuk's Rant, there is a rabies epidemic thanks to Rant. There's a section where they discuss what a problem rabies must have been in the early days--and that's why bestiality was banned really, simply to prevent the disease from spreading, no more, no less. Which is an interesting thing to keep in mind when you read some of the laws, especially regarding that which you can and cannot eat. For example, if you come across something mangled in the field, leave it for the dogs. This seems fairly logical nowadays, but I feel like there was a point in human history where someone would see it and say "FOOD!" and just eat it, and invariably got incredibly sick and most likely died thanks to what had already found the rotting meat. So there we go, the law was a convenient prevention method. Other things too--shellfish is not kosher because it does not have fins or scales and it resides in the water. Well, why? I'd imagine because even if you miscook shellfish even a little, you're bound to get violently ill. Hell, there are certain parts of lobster that can kill you if you eat enough of it. Plus, trying to figure out the edible parts? It's a mess. Of course, the most famous food to be avoided is pork, but that... trichinosis? The fact that pigs are gross? The Hebrews had really weak stomachs and couldn't handle pork? I've got nothing, but I'm down with considering pork 'unclean'.
"You shall not wrong or oppress a resident alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt" Exodus 22:21. This is my favourite of the laws of restitution.
The second to last law of restitution is that all first-born males are given to God. As I said earlier, God was still an 'ancient' god at this point, so human sacrifice was completely natural and accepted--though I find it strange because the Canaanites who sacrifice their children to Molech (insatiable devourer of brains and imagination) are abused for it. Maybe God just isn't pleased that their babies aren't being sacrificed in His name?
"You shall not pervert the justice due to your poor in their lawsuits. Keep far from a false charge, and do not kill the innocent and those in the right, for I will not acquit the guilty. You shall take no bribe, for a bribe blinds the officials, and subverts the cause of those who are in the right" Exodus 23:6-8.
Ah, and one thing that bothers me are the Sabbath regulations. Now, I know I've got to keep in mind that there's a LOT of time in between Moses and Jesus--a lot of things changed, indubitably, but man. In the book of Exodus, you get put to death for doing any work on the Sabbath. You're not even allowed to kindle a fire. In one of the books of the new testament (won't know which one it is till I get there, but I remember the pictures of the story from The Beginner's Bible pretty well), a man (possibly one of the disciples) is doing work and a city official gets mad and says that he must be put to death/punished harshly. Jesus steps up and says something like, "Well, you did work today too, didn't you?" And the city official gets mad, denies it. Jesus asks him if he walked his donkey to the water hole/trough today. The official did of course, and Jesus said, "Well now, isn't that work?" And of course, it was. So... yeah, the death thing seems like a little much. Of course, this parable could have been written in an effort to change it purposely because people realized how impossible it was to follow that order of absolutely no work on the sabbath.
The rest of this book is pretty much how to construct a tabernacle, altar, how a priest should dress, et cetera.
Next up is the book of Leviticus! It's quite possibly the best-named book of the Bible. Seriously, I'd name a kid that. Or a chameleon! Or one of those lizards that get up on their hind legs and run across the water with those big flaps? Those look like Leviticuses. ....Um. Leviticus is more of an outline of acceptable offerings and sacrifices, rites, purification laws, penalties and festivals. That said, I've not much to say about this chapter.
Eating blood is prohibited! I did not know that that was actually in the Bible. I figured eating blood was just a more because, well, it's gross. But okay. (It also adversely affects health. Too much and your stomach ruptures. Good times?) It actually kind of makes Dracula and other earlier vampire tales much more interesting. I mean, you figure he/they are damned because they traded their soul away, or because again, that sort of thing is just plain gross. Nope, drinking blood actually renders you "unclean" and you're actually sinning against God to do so. So it's just the icing on the cake to the expulsion of your soul, I guess. You're already damned, so why not? (By the way, Dracula's famous saying--"the blood is the life"--actually comes from this chapter of the Bible. It's Leviticus 17:14.)
There's also all the taboos about incest and any other sexual relation that gets you in trouble still nowadays that are discussed. Might I mention that both of the famous anti-gay quotes from the Bible occur in this chapter: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" Leviticus 18:22. "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them" Leviticus 20:13. These quotes are preceded with God warning the people not to do as they do in Egypt or Canaan... Naturally I'm skeptical in this case, and I'm willing to say that this was a bit of human intervention in the text. Somebody got grossed out by homosexuality and decided it was not okay (all the fleshpots of Egypt, you know)... I feel like I should mention that everybody (else) slept with men for pretty much all of what we'd call the ancient days. Greeks--Spartans, especially--and Romans are the ones that at least everyone knows. I also feel that I should say that I have no problem with homosexuality (wait, there's nothing about women, is there?), I just thought it was worth mentioning. Those two simple quotes are why homosexuality is looked down upon.
It is also said that anyone who provides the Canaanites with sacrifices to Molech shall be punished by death and deserted by God--anyone who turns to follow Molech will effectively cut their whole family off from God. Hm... That name sounds and looks suspiciously familiar... (I hear his love is endless oil and stone and his mind is pure machinery.)
MLA citation information: Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Edition. American Bible Society: New York, 1989.
Ooookay! There we go, first three books of the Bible. So far... Well, Genesis is kind of boring. Exodus gets better, and Leviticus is thus far the most interesting. So hopefully it will continue to improve! The books actually read more like a summary of epics rather than actual in-depth epics, it's almost a little disappointing. It's kind of like reading Sparknotes as opposed to the real text, except this is the real text... (I wonder what the actual Sparknotes for it looks like.) So, we'll see where it goes from here. I am rather intrigued. Hope I didn't offend anybody.
Answer to last post's cryptic song lyrics for Emma: So Hi So Lo by Matisyahu (That's how it's spelled on the album, so I'm going to stick with that)
This post's cryptic song lyrics for Emma: Who shot that arrow in your throat, who missed that crimson apple? It hung heavy in the tree above your head. This chaos, this calamity, this garden once was perfect--Give your immortality to me; I'll set you up against the stars
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Everything is Illuminated by Jonathan Safran Foer
After describing my favourite book to a few of my cohorts from college, I decided it was necessary to reread it because really, when is it not necessary to read what is one of the best books of all time? (And also to make it clear that this will be a biased post. Just look at my top books section! Also, remember how the more I like something, the less coherent I get? Brace yourselves.)
So! This book is awesome. There are three completely intertwined plots, though it may be hard to see from the get-go. The three plots are: the search for Trachimbrod, in which Jonathan partakes whilst being guided by Alex and his grandfather and Sammy Davis Junior, Junior, the officious seeing eye bitch. Trachimbrod was his family's ancestral home, till the Nazis destroyed it. Plot number two is a telling of the colourful history of the town which turn tells us the colourful history of Jonathan's forebears. Plot three consists of letters from Alex to Jonathan something like six months to a year after the search has taken place. The narrator for everything but the history is Alex. (Maybe it's my Clockwork Orange poster right in my line of sight, but every time I type Alex I feel compelled to add 'de Large' afterwards. It may also be because they compare this Alex's butchering of English to A Clockwork Orange's Alex's butchering of the language. While I'm thinking of it, was that why Jonathan named Alex Alex?)
Also, on the front of the (blue and yellow) edition, there is a reviewer's quote (Joyce Carol Oates, to be specific): "[Jonathan Safran Foer] will win your admiration, and he will break your heart". This is in fact the most appropriate description of the book that you will find.
So. We enter the book guided by Alex, who starts off by describing his family and giving a pretty cursory introduction. At this point I guess I should warn you that this post shall be mainly quotes. Sorry, I know you hanker for my insight and this is breaking your heart, but it's going to be okay, I promise.
"He would manufacture funnies with Grandmother before she died about how he was in love with other women who were not her. She knew it was only funnies because she would laugh in great volumes. 'Anna,' he would say, 'I am going to marry that one with the pink hat.' And she would say, 'To whom are you going to marry her?' And he would say, 'To me.' ...and she would say to him, 'But you are no priest.' And he would say, 'I am today.' And she would say, 'Today you believe in God?' And he would say, 'Today I believe in love'" (6).
The next chapter is "The Beginning of the World Often Comes" (8), which I always liked as a title, it sounds cool, but I guess I never really thought about it until now. I mean, it really is the beginning of Jonathan's world, isn't it? Or the beginning for what has the chance to eventually begin his world. (It's like in Donny Darko, when Frank makes a point to say your world, not the world, the physical world.) And it would often come because all the time this is happening--potential grandparents and parents and great-great-great-great grandparents are being born at every second.
But, this beginning of the world has come in the form of a wagon that was moving too fast and flipped into the river Brod. Trachim fell in and drowned (as did the horse and his wife), but his baby floated to the surface.
"The only thing worse than to be late to your own wedding is to be late to the wedding of the girl who should have been your wife" (9).
"An angel with grave-stone-feathered wings descended from heaven to take Trachim back with him, for Trachim was too good for this world. Of course, who isn't? We are all too good for each other" (9).
"There were those who suspected he was not pinned under his wagon but swept out to see, with the secrets of his life kept forever inside him, like a love note in a bottle... Or perhaps a widow found him and took him in: bought him an easy chair, changed his sweater every morning... cried with him over yellowing pictures... left him everything in her will, thought of only him as she died, always knew he was a fiction but believed in him anyway. Some argued that there was never a body at all. Trachim wanted to be dead without being dead, the con artist. He packed a wagon with all of his possessions... and spurred it into the undertow. Was he escaping debt? An unfavorable arranged marriage? Lies that had caught up with him? Was his death an essential stage in the continuation of his life?" (15).
Alex's following letter: "There are parts I did not understand, but I conjecture that this is because they were very Jewish, and only a Jewish person could understand something so Jewish. Is this why you think you are chosen by God, because only you can understand the funnies that you make about yourself?" (25).
So, eventually Jonathan meets Alex and Alex's grandfather and, of course, Sammy Davis Junior, Junior. Jonathan is scared of dogs (at the time written, this was the truth about the actual Jonathan Safran Foer) but Alex comforts him: "'She is deranged,' I said, 'but so so playful'" (34). Because of Jonathan's cologne she also attempts to have sex with him. The dialogue is hilarious, but I'll leave some of the book unquoted, I suppose.
Actually, there's something opposite of page 35, while I'm looking at it. The page is bent. I'm not OCD about my books, but for some reason this lone bent page bothers me. It's the only page in the book that's bent, but I know I didn't do it, and I'm sure it was fairly recent. It's like a mystery, but I'm possibly the only one who cares...
The "Book of Recurrent Dreams" chapter may be my favourite chapter (you're going to hear that word a lot in this)--it's a record of dreams, pretty much. The first dream is of feeling completely full of the world and life and utter completeness--"the feeling of not being empty" (37). I like this one because it ends ironically, right after that sentence is this one: "This dream ended when I felt my husband enter me" (37).
"The dream of angels dreaming of men. It was during an afternoon nap that I dreamt of a ladder. Angels were sleepwalking up and down the rungs, their eyes closed, their breath heavy and dull, their wings hanging limp at the sides. I bumped into an old angel as I passed him, waking and startling him... Oh, the angel said to me, I was just dreaming of you" (37-38).
The next dream isn't truly a dream, but a memory: a bird crashes through the window and it dies on the floor. But it continues: "But who among you was the first to notice the negative bird it left in the window? Who first saw the shadow that the bird left behind, the shadow that drew blood from any finger that dared to trace it, the shadow that was better proof of the bird's existence than the bird ever was?" (38).
"We burned with love for ourselves, all of us, starters of the fire we suffered--our love was the affliction for which only our love was the cure" (41).
"Could she be dreaming? he wondered. And if so, what would a baby dream of? She must be dreaming of the before-life, just as I dream of the afterlife" (43).
"'The Eskimos have four hundred words for snow, and the Jews have four hundred for schmuck'" (60). Things I love: this book.
"I can't believe I never found it strange before. It's like your name, how you don't notice it for so long, but when you finally do, you can't help but say it over and over, and wonder why you never thought it was strange that you should have that name, and that everyone has been calling you that name for your own life" (77). This drives me crazy! I hate when I think about this, because then I can't help but spend hours not unthinking about this. It blows my mind, for real.
"Brod's life was a slow realization that the world was not for her, and that for whatever reason, she would never be happy and honest at the same time. She felt as if she were brimming, always producing and hoarding more love inside of her. But there was no release. Table, ivory elephant charm, rainbow, onion, hairdo, mollusk, Shabbos, violence, cuticle, melodrama, ditch, honey, doily... None of it moved her. She addressed her world honestly, searching for something deserving of the volumes of love she knew she had within her, but to each she would have to say, I don't love you. Bark-brown fence post: I don't love you. Poem too long: I don't love you. Lunch in a bowl: I don't love you. Physics, the ideas of you, the laws of you: I don't love you. Nothing felt like anything more than what it actually was. Everything was just a thing, mired completely in its thingness" (79-80).
"So she had to satisfy herself with the idea of love--loving the loving of things whose existence she didn't care at all about. Love itself became the object of her love. She loved herself in love, she loved loving love, as love loves loving, and was able, in that way, to reconcile herself with a world that fell short of what she would have hoped for" (80).
Yankel, in his care for Brod: "They made themselves a sanctuary from Trachimbrod, a habitat completely unlike the rest of the world. No hateful words were ever spoken, and no hands raised. More than that, no angry words were ever spoken, and nothing was denied. But more than that, no unloving words were ever spoken, and everything was held up as another small piece of proof that it can be this way, it doesn't have to be that way; if there is no love in the world, we will make a new world, and we will give it heavy walls, and we will furnish it with soft red interiors, from the inside out, and give it a knocker that resonates like a diamond falling to a jeweller's felt so that we would never have to hear it. Love me, because love doesn't exist, and I have tried everything else that does" (82). This is my favourite for-real favourite quote from the book. Dear Jonathan Safran Foer, you make my life. Love, Angela D.
"Am I such a bad person for dreaming of a world that ends when I do? I don't mean the world ending with respect to me, but every set of eyes closing with mine" (84). I feel him. In a weird way, it's the same as knowing you have to work or perform some sort of drudgery when you know your friends are out having fun. You're jealous, or at least sting a little. With no-one left, there's no-one to wish you were, to wish you could see, to fear you'll miss.
"How did she end up here, like this? How could there have been so much--so many moments, so many people and things, so many razors and pillows, timepieces and subtle coffins--without her being aware? How did her life live itself without her?" (132).
Okay, so. I've been bad at explaining what's going on, but I can't help. I have trouble explaining things when I'm in the face of greatness. But. Brod marries the Kolker. The Kolker works in the mill and due to a freak accident, gets a gear embedded in his face. It doesn't kill him, but it makes him severely bipolar, to the point where he must be confined so he doesn't kill Brod. During the last months of his life, he is trapped, and he and Brod can only communicate through a hole in the wall. "She cut around the hole that had separated her from the Kolker for those last months, and put the pine loop on her necklace, next to the abacus bead that Yankel had given her so long ago. This new bead would remind her of the second man she had lost in her eighteen years, and of the hole that she was learning is not the exception in life, but the rule. The hole is no void; the void exists around it" (139). / "People who look through keyholes are apt to get the idea that most things are keyhole shaped"--Unknown. But I understand where Foer is going too. In fact, he and the unknown author may be getting to the same point.
Alex's letter, after Alex reads about this: "If I could utter a proposal, please allow Brod to be happy. Please. Is this such an impossible thing?" (143).
"Your grandmother will find some manner to be content with what you did when you went to Ukraine. I am certain that she will forgive you if you inform her. But if you never inform her, she will never be able to forgive you. And this what you desire, yes? For her to forgive you? Is not that why you did everything?" (144).
"With writing, we have second chances" (144).
Jonathan, at one point, tells Alex about his grandmother: he talks about how he used to hide under his dress when he was very young, and how he used to yell Yiddish words with her off the porch, and how when he would stay at his grandma's she would pick him up at the beginning of the weekend and again at the end. She was weighing him, she wanted him always to be full and fat and healthy. I don't know if the first two anecdotes are true (though I believe deeply that they are), but I know for a fact that the last one is. He talks about it in Eating Animals and an article he wrote for the New York Times in anticipation of Eating Animals that was pretty much the introduction to Eating Animals with minor changes here and there. Just thought I'd mention the tale.
And regarding the murder of the Jews before the death camps even happen, what decimated Trachimbrod for all but a few: "'It is said that the Messiah will come at the end of the world.' 'But it was not the end of the world,' Grandfather said. 'It was. He just did not come.' 'Why did he not come?' 'This was the lesson we learned from everything that happened--there is no God. It took all of the hidden faces for Him to prove this to us.' 'What if it was a challenge of your faith?' I asked. 'I could not believe in a God that would challenge faith like this.' 'What if it was not in His power?' 'I could not believe in a God that could not stop what happened.' 'What if it was man and not God that did all of this?' 'I do not believe in man, either'" (189). I think an interesting tidbit is the "Him to prove this to us". If He is nothing then He cannot prove, but even if He really is nothing as she believes, she still bothers to personify Him, if you will. I just think that's sort of intriguing.
"I do not think that there are any limits to how excellent we could make life seem" (180). Alex says this, of course.
"'But the ring could be a reminder,' he said. 'Every time you see it, you think of her'... 'No,' she said. 'I think it was in case of this. In case someone should come searching one day'... 'So that we would have something to find,' I said. 'No,' she said. 'The ring does not exist for you. You exist for the ring. The ring is not in case of you. You are in case of the ring'" (192).
"AND IF WE ARE TO STRIVE FOR A BETTER FUTURE, MUSTN'T WE BE FAMILIAR AND RECONCILED WITH OUR PAST?" (196).
"The boy raised his hand to smash [the fly], knowing that an example must be made, but as his fist began its descent, the fly twitched its wing without flight. The boy, the sensitive boy, was overcome by the fragility of life and released the fly. The fly, also overcome, died of gratefulness. An example was made" (197).
I love "The Time of Dyed Hands" section (199), and "The Novel, When Everyone Was Convinced He Had One in Him", "Objects That Don't Exist" (207), "The 120 Marriages of Joseph and Sarah L" (207-209), and "The Book of Revelations" (210) from Trachimbrod's Book of Antecedents--
"When the Lord our God breathed on the universe, was that a genesis or revelation? Should we count those seven days forward or backward? How did the apple taste, Adam? And the half a worm you discovered in that sweet and bitter pulp: was that the head or the tail?" (210).
"Do you know that I am the Gypsy girl and you are Safran, and that I am Kolker and you are Brod, and that I am your grandmother and you are Grandfather, and that I am Alex and you are you, and that I am you and you are me?" (214).
"'You do not have to present not-truths to me, Sasha. I am not a child.' (But I do. That is what you always fail to understand. I present not-truths in order to protect you. That is also why I try so inflexibly to be a funny person. Everything is to protect you. I exist in case you need to be protected)" (227).
"The more you love someone, he came to think, the harder it is to tell them. It surprised him that strangers didn't stop each other on the street to say I love you" (234).
"It had been such an evening already. Volumes had happened, just as volumes now happen, just as volumes will happen" (242).
"I loved him so much that I madeloveimpossible" (251).
Okay, I know I've been bad and not letting you know what's been up in the story. I can't help it. But here's a huge spoiler alert so perhaps you don't want me finally getting my act together. Aha! You weren't expecting that, were you? But, we learn that in Trachimbrod, as in many other place, the townspeople were all lined up and were commanded to point out the Jewish people so the Nazis could shoot them, and the pointers would avoid being shot themselves. Alex's grandfather pointed to his best friend because he was the only one left. This goes back to The Boy in the Striped Pajamas--people would say they wouldn't do the same thing, but would they not, really? Alex has a superb struggle with himself, admitting that he couldn't do anything but the same. That he would have pointed to anyone to avoid death--he says--writes--"hewouldhavebeenafooltodoanythingelse but is it forgivable what he did canheeverbeforgiven for his finger for whathisfingerdid whathepointedto and didnotpointto for whathetouchedinhislife and whathedidnottouch he is stillguilty I am I am Iam IamI?" (252).
"...His head settled into the pillow damp with Zosha's tears and... he understood that he was not dead, but in love" (257).
There's really only one part of the book I hate, and we've gotten to it. As the book winds down, we meet Jonathan's grandfather. Now, after the Kolker died, he was bronzed and people prayed to him and made wishes on him. Safran, the grandfather, goes to the Kolker and speaks with it in the same manner that I imagine Simon spoke with the pig's head. The bronzed Kolker tells his however-many-times grandson of Brod's love through her lack of it: how even though they had to be separated, she would go into his room at night to sleep with him, and in the mornings she would clean and care for him. I hate that, I absolutely hate it. It feels like an over-sentimental admission, like even Foer couldn't bear to keep it wonderfully bittersweet and had to change it. It is awkward and sits badly in the stomach. And it makes me so mad, ughhhhh.
One more thing that bothers me is Alex. I would like nothing more than to believe that this is one hundred percent the truth. But, in Trachimbrod, Alex takes Jonathan's journal and finds a passage about himself: Alex tells his father to leave, makes like to fight him, and tells him: "You are not my father". This scene actually happens within Alex's narrative, almost completely word-for-word. Yes, I know Alex is false--but this makes me question his degree of falseness. Is he like Kilgore Trout? He is fake, but he appears to be very real? It would explain why he can exist very well on his own, and also why Jonathan can still dictate his life. If that's the case, the scene where Alex reads the journal wouldn't be dissimilar to the final scene in Breakfast of Champions, would it? Alex is recognizing the man who is essentially his god and becomes angry, sad, grateful, and then all of those things again--distraught, but never as distraught as Kilgore when he realizes that's not how his life had to have been, it could have been good, great, fantastic, instead of what it was--hard, not entirely pleasant, penniless--and angry because he realized his life is not his own, and misfortune was planned, sad that Jonathan would to that to him, but grateful... Grateful because of what he does have, perhaps, like Little Igor and Grandfather and even Jonathan himself, maybe grateful because he knows he can break from his father...
Then the other degree of falseness would be that, in the same manner that Jonathan may or may not have written his own history of Trachimbrod, by reading that Alex realizes his story must be dictated in falseness as well. It is not necessarily he who is false, but he is obliged to be false for the sake of the story... I don't know. Every time I read this book, this is always the one thing that I constantly grapple with and it constantly drives me mad.
Well, there it is then. I mostly just quoted the book instead of explaining the book, but really, nothing I can say about the book will add to the book. It is amazing. It is illuminated. If you haven't read this book yet, might I ask what you're waiting for? Go now. (As for the movie, I haven't watched it in a few years, but I'm staring at it right now. If I don't do anything tonight, there's a good chance I shall be watching it.) I'm not kidding you...
MLA citation information: Foer, Jonathan Safran. Everything is Illuminated. Perennial: United States of America, 2003.
Okay, let's see, what else? I'm back from school for break (I can hardly believe that it's less than a week to Christmas!) so perhaps my reading pace will quicken. Though I don't usually give a preview to what my next book will be/is, in this case, I shall: The Bible. (Do you italicize the Bible? It looks weird to, but since it's a book....) I'm not sure how I'm going to do it... Probably not book by book, but I'm thinking I'll merge a few together that equal about 200/250 pages. I'm only on Exodus thus far, so I guess I won't have to worry for a while, then... I might take a break between the two testaments as well, but I guess we'll see when I get there...
Answer to last post's cryptic song lyrics for Emma: Time by David Bowie
This post's cryptic song lyrics for Emma: All I know is I must find a road that leads where nobody goes, so lo, I can roll down all the windows where the wind blows down those fears and foes, so hi
PS. This definitely one of those posts where spell check is going to peace out well before the end, so forgive my slipping fingers.
So! This book is awesome. There are three completely intertwined plots, though it may be hard to see from the get-go. The three plots are: the search for Trachimbrod, in which Jonathan partakes whilst being guided by Alex and his grandfather and Sammy Davis Junior, Junior, the officious seeing eye bitch. Trachimbrod was his family's ancestral home, till the Nazis destroyed it. Plot number two is a telling of the colourful history of the town which turn tells us the colourful history of Jonathan's forebears. Plot three consists of letters from Alex to Jonathan something like six months to a year after the search has taken place. The narrator for everything but the history is Alex. (Maybe it's my Clockwork Orange poster right in my line of sight, but every time I type Alex I feel compelled to add 'de Large' afterwards. It may also be because they compare this Alex's butchering of English to A Clockwork Orange's Alex's butchering of the language. While I'm thinking of it, was that why Jonathan named Alex Alex?)
Also, on the front of the (blue and yellow) edition, there is a reviewer's quote (Joyce Carol Oates, to be specific): "[Jonathan Safran Foer] will win your admiration, and he will break your heart". This is in fact the most appropriate description of the book that you will find.
So. We enter the book guided by Alex, who starts off by describing his family and giving a pretty cursory introduction. At this point I guess I should warn you that this post shall be mainly quotes. Sorry, I know you hanker for my insight and this is breaking your heart, but it's going to be okay, I promise.
"He would manufacture funnies with Grandmother before she died about how he was in love with other women who were not her. She knew it was only funnies because she would laugh in great volumes. 'Anna,' he would say, 'I am going to marry that one with the pink hat.' And she would say, 'To whom are you going to marry her?' And he would say, 'To me.' ...and she would say to him, 'But you are no priest.' And he would say, 'I am today.' And she would say, 'Today you believe in God?' And he would say, 'Today I believe in love'" (6).
The next chapter is "The Beginning of the World Often Comes" (8), which I always liked as a title, it sounds cool, but I guess I never really thought about it until now. I mean, it really is the beginning of Jonathan's world, isn't it? Or the beginning for what has the chance to eventually begin his world. (It's like in Donny Darko, when Frank makes a point to say your world, not the world, the physical world.) And it would often come because all the time this is happening--potential grandparents and parents and great-great-great-great grandparents are being born at every second.
But, this beginning of the world has come in the form of a wagon that was moving too fast and flipped into the river Brod. Trachim fell in and drowned (as did the horse and his wife), but his baby floated to the surface.
"The only thing worse than to be late to your own wedding is to be late to the wedding of the girl who should have been your wife" (9).
"An angel with grave-stone-feathered wings descended from heaven to take Trachim back with him, for Trachim was too good for this world. Of course, who isn't? We are all too good for each other" (9).
"There were those who suspected he was not pinned under his wagon but swept out to see, with the secrets of his life kept forever inside him, like a love note in a bottle... Or perhaps a widow found him and took him in: bought him an easy chair, changed his sweater every morning... cried with him over yellowing pictures... left him everything in her will, thought of only him as she died, always knew he was a fiction but believed in him anyway. Some argued that there was never a body at all. Trachim wanted to be dead without being dead, the con artist. He packed a wagon with all of his possessions... and spurred it into the undertow. Was he escaping debt? An unfavorable arranged marriage? Lies that had caught up with him? Was his death an essential stage in the continuation of his life?" (15).
Alex's following letter: "There are parts I did not understand, but I conjecture that this is because they were very Jewish, and only a Jewish person could understand something so Jewish. Is this why you think you are chosen by God, because only you can understand the funnies that you make about yourself?" (25).
So, eventually Jonathan meets Alex and Alex's grandfather and, of course, Sammy Davis Junior, Junior. Jonathan is scared of dogs (at the time written, this was the truth about the actual Jonathan Safran Foer) but Alex comforts him: "'She is deranged,' I said, 'but so so playful'" (34). Because of Jonathan's cologne she also attempts to have sex with him. The dialogue is hilarious, but I'll leave some of the book unquoted, I suppose.
Actually, there's something opposite of page 35, while I'm looking at it. The page is bent. I'm not OCD about my books, but for some reason this lone bent page bothers me. It's the only page in the book that's bent, but I know I didn't do it, and I'm sure it was fairly recent. It's like a mystery, but I'm possibly the only one who cares...
The "Book of Recurrent Dreams" chapter may be my favourite chapter (you're going to hear that word a lot in this)--it's a record of dreams, pretty much. The first dream is of feeling completely full of the world and life and utter completeness--"the feeling of not being empty" (37). I like this one because it ends ironically, right after that sentence is this one: "This dream ended when I felt my husband enter me" (37).
"The dream of angels dreaming of men. It was during an afternoon nap that I dreamt of a ladder. Angels were sleepwalking up and down the rungs, their eyes closed, their breath heavy and dull, their wings hanging limp at the sides. I bumped into an old angel as I passed him, waking and startling him... Oh, the angel said to me, I was just dreaming of you" (37-38).
The next dream isn't truly a dream, but a memory: a bird crashes through the window and it dies on the floor. But it continues: "But who among you was the first to notice the negative bird it left in the window? Who first saw the shadow that the bird left behind, the shadow that drew blood from any finger that dared to trace it, the shadow that was better proof of the bird's existence than the bird ever was?" (38).
"We burned with love for ourselves, all of us, starters of the fire we suffered--our love was the affliction for which only our love was the cure" (41).
"Could she be dreaming? he wondered. And if so, what would a baby dream of? She must be dreaming of the before-life, just as I dream of the afterlife" (43).
"'The Eskimos have four hundred words for snow, and the Jews have four hundred for schmuck'" (60). Things I love: this book.
"I can't believe I never found it strange before. It's like your name, how you don't notice it for so long, but when you finally do, you can't help but say it over and over, and wonder why you never thought it was strange that you should have that name, and that everyone has been calling you that name for your own life" (77). This drives me crazy! I hate when I think about this, because then I can't help but spend hours not unthinking about this. It blows my mind, for real.
"Brod's life was a slow realization that the world was not for her, and that for whatever reason, she would never be happy and honest at the same time. She felt as if she were brimming, always producing and hoarding more love inside of her. But there was no release. Table, ivory elephant charm, rainbow, onion, hairdo, mollusk, Shabbos, violence, cuticle, melodrama, ditch, honey, doily... None of it moved her. She addressed her world honestly, searching for something deserving of the volumes of love she knew she had within her, but to each she would have to say, I don't love you. Bark-brown fence post: I don't love you. Poem too long: I don't love you. Lunch in a bowl: I don't love you. Physics, the ideas of you, the laws of you: I don't love you. Nothing felt like anything more than what it actually was. Everything was just a thing, mired completely in its thingness" (79-80).
"So she had to satisfy herself with the idea of love--loving the loving of things whose existence she didn't care at all about. Love itself became the object of her love. She loved herself in love, she loved loving love, as love loves loving, and was able, in that way, to reconcile herself with a world that fell short of what she would have hoped for" (80).
Yankel, in his care for Brod: "They made themselves a sanctuary from Trachimbrod, a habitat completely unlike the rest of the world. No hateful words were ever spoken, and no hands raised. More than that, no angry words were ever spoken, and nothing was denied. But more than that, no unloving words were ever spoken, and everything was held up as another small piece of proof that it can be this way, it doesn't have to be that way; if there is no love in the world, we will make a new world, and we will give it heavy walls, and we will furnish it with soft red interiors, from the inside out, and give it a knocker that resonates like a diamond falling to a jeweller's felt so that we would never have to hear it. Love me, because love doesn't exist, and I have tried everything else that does" (82). This is my favourite for-real favourite quote from the book. Dear Jonathan Safran Foer, you make my life. Love, Angela D.
"Am I such a bad person for dreaming of a world that ends when I do? I don't mean the world ending with respect to me, but every set of eyes closing with mine" (84). I feel him. In a weird way, it's the same as knowing you have to work or perform some sort of drudgery when you know your friends are out having fun. You're jealous, or at least sting a little. With no-one left, there's no-one to wish you were, to wish you could see, to fear you'll miss.
"How did she end up here, like this? How could there have been so much--so many moments, so many people and things, so many razors and pillows, timepieces and subtle coffins--without her being aware? How did her life live itself without her?" (132).
Okay, so. I've been bad at explaining what's going on, but I can't help. I have trouble explaining things when I'm in the face of greatness. But. Brod marries the Kolker. The Kolker works in the mill and due to a freak accident, gets a gear embedded in his face. It doesn't kill him, but it makes him severely bipolar, to the point where he must be confined so he doesn't kill Brod. During the last months of his life, he is trapped, and he and Brod can only communicate through a hole in the wall. "She cut around the hole that had separated her from the Kolker for those last months, and put the pine loop on her necklace, next to the abacus bead that Yankel had given her so long ago. This new bead would remind her of the second man she had lost in her eighteen years, and of the hole that she was learning is not the exception in life, but the rule. The hole is no void; the void exists around it" (139). / "People who look through keyholes are apt to get the idea that most things are keyhole shaped"--Unknown. But I understand where Foer is going too. In fact, he and the unknown author may be getting to the same point.
Alex's letter, after Alex reads about this: "If I could utter a proposal, please allow Brod to be happy. Please. Is this such an impossible thing?" (143).
"Your grandmother will find some manner to be content with what you did when you went to Ukraine. I am certain that she will forgive you if you inform her. But if you never inform her, she will never be able to forgive you. And this what you desire, yes? For her to forgive you? Is not that why you did everything?" (144).
"With writing, we have second chances" (144).
Jonathan, at one point, tells Alex about his grandmother: he talks about how he used to hide under his dress when he was very young, and how he used to yell Yiddish words with her off the porch, and how when he would stay at his grandma's she would pick him up at the beginning of the weekend and again at the end. She was weighing him, she wanted him always to be full and fat and healthy. I don't know if the first two anecdotes are true (though I believe deeply that they are), but I know for a fact that the last one is. He talks about it in Eating Animals and an article he wrote for the New York Times in anticipation of Eating Animals that was pretty much the introduction to Eating Animals with minor changes here and there. Just thought I'd mention the tale.
And regarding the murder of the Jews before the death camps even happen, what decimated Trachimbrod for all but a few: "'It is said that the Messiah will come at the end of the world.' 'But it was not the end of the world,' Grandfather said. 'It was. He just did not come.' 'Why did he not come?' 'This was the lesson we learned from everything that happened--there is no God. It took all of the hidden faces for Him to prove this to us.' 'What if it was a challenge of your faith?' I asked. 'I could not believe in a God that would challenge faith like this.' 'What if it was not in His power?' 'I could not believe in a God that could not stop what happened.' 'What if it was man and not God that did all of this?' 'I do not believe in man, either'" (189). I think an interesting tidbit is the "Him to prove this to us". If He is nothing then He cannot prove, but even if He really is nothing as she believes, she still bothers to personify Him, if you will. I just think that's sort of intriguing.
"I do not think that there are any limits to how excellent we could make life seem" (180). Alex says this, of course.
"'But the ring could be a reminder,' he said. 'Every time you see it, you think of her'... 'No,' she said. 'I think it was in case of this. In case someone should come searching one day'... 'So that we would have something to find,' I said. 'No,' she said. 'The ring does not exist for you. You exist for the ring. The ring is not in case of you. You are in case of the ring'" (192).
"AND IF WE ARE TO STRIVE FOR A BETTER FUTURE, MUSTN'T WE BE FAMILIAR AND RECONCILED WITH OUR PAST?" (196).
"The boy raised his hand to smash [the fly], knowing that an example must be made, but as his fist began its descent, the fly twitched its wing without flight. The boy, the sensitive boy, was overcome by the fragility of life and released the fly. The fly, also overcome, died of gratefulness. An example was made" (197).
I love "The Time of Dyed Hands" section (199), and "The Novel, When Everyone Was Convinced He Had One in Him", "Objects That Don't Exist" (207), "The 120 Marriages of Joseph and Sarah L" (207-209), and "The Book of Revelations" (210) from Trachimbrod's Book of Antecedents--
"When the Lord our God breathed on the universe, was that a genesis or revelation? Should we count those seven days forward or backward? How did the apple taste, Adam? And the half a worm you discovered in that sweet and bitter pulp: was that the head or the tail?" (210).
"Do you know that I am the Gypsy girl and you are Safran, and that I am Kolker and you are Brod, and that I am your grandmother and you are Grandfather, and that I am Alex and you are you, and that I am you and you are me?" (214).
"'You do not have to present not-truths to me, Sasha. I am not a child.' (But I do. That is what you always fail to understand. I present not-truths in order to protect you. That is also why I try so inflexibly to be a funny person. Everything is to protect you. I exist in case you need to be protected)" (227).
"The more you love someone, he came to think, the harder it is to tell them. It surprised him that strangers didn't stop each other on the street to say I love you" (234).
"It had been such an evening already. Volumes had happened, just as volumes now happen, just as volumes will happen" (242).
"I loved him so much that I madeloveimpossible" (251).
Okay, I know I've been bad and not letting you know what's been up in the story. I can't help it. But here's a huge spoiler alert so perhaps you don't want me finally getting my act together. Aha! You weren't expecting that, were you? But, we learn that in Trachimbrod, as in many other place, the townspeople were all lined up and were commanded to point out the Jewish people so the Nazis could shoot them, and the pointers would avoid being shot themselves. Alex's grandfather pointed to his best friend because he was the only one left. This goes back to The Boy in the Striped Pajamas--people would say they wouldn't do the same thing, but would they not, really? Alex has a superb struggle with himself, admitting that he couldn't do anything but the same. That he would have pointed to anyone to avoid death--he says--writes--"hewouldhavebeenafooltodoanythingelse but is it forgivable what he did canheeverbeforgiven for his finger for whathisfingerdid whathepointedto and didnotpointto for whathetouchedinhislife and whathedidnottouch he is stillguilty I am I am Iam IamI?" (252).
"...His head settled into the pillow damp with Zosha's tears and... he understood that he was not dead, but in love" (257).
There's really only one part of the book I hate, and we've gotten to it. As the book winds down, we meet Jonathan's grandfather. Now, after the Kolker died, he was bronzed and people prayed to him and made wishes on him. Safran, the grandfather, goes to the Kolker and speaks with it in the same manner that I imagine Simon spoke with the pig's head. The bronzed Kolker tells his however-many-times grandson of Brod's love through her lack of it: how even though they had to be separated, she would go into his room at night to sleep with him, and in the mornings she would clean and care for him. I hate that, I absolutely hate it. It feels like an over-sentimental admission, like even Foer couldn't bear to keep it wonderfully bittersweet and had to change it. It is awkward and sits badly in the stomach. And it makes me so mad, ughhhhh.
One more thing that bothers me is Alex. I would like nothing more than to believe that this is one hundred percent the truth. But, in Trachimbrod, Alex takes Jonathan's journal and finds a passage about himself: Alex tells his father to leave, makes like to fight him, and tells him: "You are not my father". This scene actually happens within Alex's narrative, almost completely word-for-word. Yes, I know Alex is false--but this makes me question his degree of falseness. Is he like Kilgore Trout? He is fake, but he appears to be very real? It would explain why he can exist very well on his own, and also why Jonathan can still dictate his life. If that's the case, the scene where Alex reads the journal wouldn't be dissimilar to the final scene in Breakfast of Champions, would it? Alex is recognizing the man who is essentially his god and becomes angry, sad, grateful, and then all of those things again--distraught, but never as distraught as Kilgore when he realizes that's not how his life had to have been, it could have been good, great, fantastic, instead of what it was--hard, not entirely pleasant, penniless--and angry because he realized his life is not his own, and misfortune was planned, sad that Jonathan would to that to him, but grateful... Grateful because of what he does have, perhaps, like Little Igor and Grandfather and even Jonathan himself, maybe grateful because he knows he can break from his father...
Then the other degree of falseness would be that, in the same manner that Jonathan may or may not have written his own history of Trachimbrod, by reading that Alex realizes his story must be dictated in falseness as well. It is not necessarily he who is false, but he is obliged to be false for the sake of the story... I don't know. Every time I read this book, this is always the one thing that I constantly grapple with and it constantly drives me mad.
Well, there it is then. I mostly just quoted the book instead of explaining the book, but really, nothing I can say about the book will add to the book. It is amazing. It is illuminated. If you haven't read this book yet, might I ask what you're waiting for? Go now. (As for the movie, I haven't watched it in a few years, but I'm staring at it right now. If I don't do anything tonight, there's a good chance I shall be watching it.) I'm not kidding you...
MLA citation information: Foer, Jonathan Safran. Everything is Illuminated. Perennial: United States of America, 2003.
Okay, let's see, what else? I'm back from school for break (I can hardly believe that it's less than a week to Christmas!) so perhaps my reading pace will quicken. Though I don't usually give a preview to what my next book will be/is, in this case, I shall: The Bible. (Do you italicize the Bible? It looks weird to, but since it's a book....) I'm not sure how I'm going to do it... Probably not book by book, but I'm thinking I'll merge a few together that equal about 200/250 pages. I'm only on Exodus thus far, so I guess I won't have to worry for a while, then... I might take a break between the two testaments as well, but I guess we'll see when I get there...
Answer to last post's cryptic song lyrics for Emma: Time by David Bowie
This post's cryptic song lyrics for Emma: All I know is I must find a road that leads where nobody goes, so lo, I can roll down all the windows where the wind blows down those fears and foes, so hi
PS. This definitely one of those posts where spell check is going to peace out well before the end, so forgive my slipping fingers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)