Coincidences abound!

Maybe nobody checks this blog anymore, but I am really excited about something. My sister gave me a book to read over the break called "A Life at Work" by Thomas Moore. There are inspirational quotes at the beginning of each chapter. I just got to Chapter 4 and read this:

"Leonardo advised aspiring artists to discover the pictures to be found in cracks in walls; Chinese sages were conceived as their mothers stepped into the footprints of unicorns; all of us make up our lives out of the cracks in the walls of our past memories and the unicorn footprints of our future."

Lynda Sexson

I gasped when I read this. A coincidence again! Is it too much of a stretch to think that this is the Lynda Sexson who was our guest speaker in Lit 240? I don't think so. Not many other people with a name like that would speak such wise words. Some Google-ing has revealed that the quote is from a book called "Ordinarily Sacred" by Sexson. And it is the same Sexson.

And I would recommend "A Life at Work," if you're looking for something to read and/or are lost in life.

I might check out "Ordinarily Sacred," too.

No more class?

I know most of us can agree that class today was ...sentimental? Emotional? Natalie's presentation, her dad's guitar music, and Ben's poem set quite a mood.

But that fact that we as a class "came together," as Shelby said in her blog, was pretty cool.

On the first day of class I wasn't sure what to expect. I was excited to learn more about the Bible, although my reason was something along the lines of "now I'll be able to have good arguments when I talk to crazy religious people." Then Dr. Sexson walked in with his shaky hands and white hair and I knew that could mean either a very good or a bad thing. I was slightly intimidated by his challenge of reading the entire Bible, but I had a feeling everything would work itself out, and it did.

I'm not sure I've ever written a "term paper" before I wrote one for this class, so that's probably why mine was not so exciting. After seeing everybody else present, hundreds of ideas ran through my head and I could have written about many things. But as I have previously stated, I was afraid attempting to tackle something else would have been hard to focus and turn into somewhat of a ramble, like my blogs.

It seems like a lot of people are fascinated by the topic of suffering. This makes sense considering Natalie and Lisette's recent tragedies, but why? In reality, nobody wants to suffer. So this fascination with suffering must be a way of justifying it and making it more bearable, so in the future it will be easier to cope with. I don't want to toot my own horn here, but all of this death discussion has made me think about my past. My dad died when I was about 18 months old of a brain tumor (I'm glad Jean survived hers), so I never knew him. I never went through a grieving process that I can remember because I was so young, and I grew up with it as a fact of life. This made for a lot of awkward conversations, because whenever I would be forced to state the fact people wouldn't know what to say, and sometimes they would comment that I didn't seem sad about it. But what was I supposed to do? I watched my mom struggle with the loss of her husband while raising two young children, and I never fully appreciated it until now. I think growing up with no father, and the fact that he died, kind of made me hide my emotions about everything. I tend to seem completely unemotional at times, but I have also come to realize one reason. My greatest fear is losing somebody that I love. I have already lost a close family member who I never got to know... I lost somebody that I love before I even knew him. So I definitely feel for Natalie because her and her dad seemed to have a great relationship, and that makes the loss so much worse. Then again, she was lucky enough to spend a lot of time with him before he died, so you always have to look on the bright side.

"Things happen for a reason they say, but I say there's a reason things happen."

-Blue Scholars

I'm not sure where I'm going with this other than the fact that it's turned into a ramble, again. My point is that there's no use dwelling on the past and it's best to be grateful for what you have. I like to keep the above quote in mind whenever bad things happen because it explains well that you have to accept life's events, good and bad, and move on.

And on that note, it's been a good semester. I have grown up, too. Life's only going to get better...enjoy.

How does the Bible find me boring?

It's the end of the semester and any hopes I had of making a sizable dent in the Bible were dashed long ago. I read Genesis and Exodus in entirety, as well as Esther, Acts, Susanna, and Job, and I read a few other excerpts here and there. But overall I have failed at the first and most daunting challenge of this class: to read the whole Bible, actually read it.

When it comes down to it, it's really hard for me to read the Bible and make substantial progress. I lose focus after half of a column, I have to go back and re-read, I try to stay focused for the next half of a column, the same thing happens, one of my roommates starts talking to me, I try to focus again, something pops into my mind, my mind wanders as I "read" another column, I realize I don't know what happened, and I eventually give up with another two pages of Biblical knowledge swimming around somewhere in my head.

Basically, I am a failure when it comes to reading the Bible. And of course, it's not because the Bible is boring. It's because I am boring, according to the Bible. So, how does the Bible find me boring?

I am not religious, not in any organized sense of the word. I haven't made the quest of figuring out what I believe in a significant part of my life. I was raised Catholic and that certainly didn't make me want to be Catholic. I took a religions class last year predominantly about Hinduism and Buddhism, and they turned out to be very complex and confusing and difficult to teach, much less understand as a student. I've believed in karma as a constant force in the world for years, but I learned the true definition of karma is action, which put a whole new spin on it for me. I still believe that every action is meaningful in the whole scheme of things, but I digress.

Perhaps the Bible finds me boring because I haven't done what it wants me to do: devote my life to religion. If I had, I would probably be very interested in what it had to say, as it would make a direct impact on how I live my life. Then again, reading what parts of it I have has certainly not persuaded me to become religious, and several religious people in our class have reported that reading the Bible has led to more questioning of their faith than they had anticipated.

Maybe the Bible finds me boring because I am not a true English major. I haven't dedicated my life to reading as much as possible and learning as much as possible as a result. I have instead selfishly spent my time doing fun things, like snowboarding, and frisbee golfing, and hanging out with my friends, and watching TV. But these things are necessary (not all, but the point of doing them) in order to be a well-balanced person and to be happy.

Basically, at this point in my life I am not ready to sit down for 500 hours (plus or minus) and read the entire Bible. But I assure you, I will at some point. It's another book on my reading list inspired by Dr. Sexson. And maybe that's what the challenge at the beginning of the semester was meant to accomplish. I have been inspired by the Bible and our discussion of it, and it will stay with me for the rest of my life.

Firefly

I am becoming accustomed to the seemingly large number of random coincidences related to this class, and in fact one such coincidence happened to me last night.

I was sitting at my friend's house (when I could have been reading the Bible, ha ha), and we had just finished watching a dramatic but amusing TV show called "Sex Rehab with Dr. Dave" when my friend turned to me and asked, "Have you ever seen Firefly?"

"No, but it's funny that you say that...." I replied, and went on to tell him about how Ashley had written her term paper about how Firefly is a perfect example of how the Bible tells stories that will happen forever, even in a futuristic world (or something like that, my apologies if I didn't get the thesis exactly right). And I definitely wanted to watch it, because my interest had been piqued.

My friend replied that he believes the Bible is "the ultimate story." In fact, he persuaded me to basically agree with the idea that the main gist of the stories in the Bible tell basically every story that happens in real life. I had been skeptical about this before, but I was being too realistic. Not every detail is written (lacuna!), but the main ideas are the same.

So, we proceeded to watch the beginning of Firefly. I don't think I watched enough of it to make any intelligent introspections about it, but it was pretty interesting. Actually, it kind of reminded me of Star Wars with no weird aliens and more sketchy activity in the absence of an actual war. I was also not really a fan of the captain of the ship, but he was a "mysterious" character. I'll leave it at that before I say something more stupid.

Term Paper and Reflection of sorts

Below is my term paper in full. Unlike many of the others, I'm pretty sure it's at the 200 level, no better. Regardless, I got pretty into my topic and I liked writing about The Slave, because we didn't talk about it much in class.

When I initially considered the options for what to write my paper on, I was certain I would write it about "What I know now that I didn't know before and the difference that it makes." But the more I thought about it, the more I realized it would be difficult to focus such a paper, and further, I feared it would come off as more informal than a term paper should be, since I would be writing about myself rather specifically. So many things I learned in this class weren't even about the Bible. They include life lessons, book and movie recommendations (which I plan to explore when I'm not mid-semester), new vocabulary, writing tips (like many others, I've been struggling to eliminate the word "just" from my vocabulary), and of course the Sexson quotes that seem to stick in my head. One of my favorites:

"Have you heard of these people? Seniors? If you see one, run the other direction."

This may not be word for word but it's amusing and also good advice. (Maybe not literally, it would probably offend my grandpa if I followed this practice. But it does encourage me to never be a "senior" in this sense of the word).

Anyway, I learned a lot of things about the Bible as well. I have not been able to really accept the idea that everything that has ever happened and will happen is already written in the Bible in some form. Frankly, I don't think this is possible and I know that a lot of events in my life were not written about in the Bible. Maybe in a more generalized form this point could be proved, but accepting it as truth is not a commitment I'm willing to make.

I found the discussion of "mythos" and "logos" to be especially interesting. The idea that the Bible is mythos was novel to me. Like many other people in this class (or hopefully, everybody), I entered with a preconceived notion of what the Bible is, even though I had only read a miniscule amount of if (and what I had read had been forgotten, so that didn't help me much). I thought the Bible was an account of the way life should be led and that meant that it contained many pious acts and lessons about how to be a good person. Consequently, I was shocked to find accounts of unjustified mass murder (or collective punishment, whatever you want to call it), incest (this was especially shocking, Lot's daughters are ridiculous), and a moody God who gets way too angry way too quickly and is easily persuaded to change his mind. All of these appalling stories made much more sense when I realized what the Bible actually is—a story; mythos. It doesn't have to be perfect (like in the clip from "Firefly" we watched today, the Bible isn't broken and it can't be fixed), it is telling a story for the purpose of the reader's enrichment. In Leviticus and Deuteronomy this doesn't really hold true, but most other places it does.

Anyway, this precursor to my actual paper is growing longer than I planned it to. Basically, our course title "Biblical Foundations of Literature" is fitting. The Bible has been integrated into so much literature it is impossible to escape, and any literature fanatic who is not familiar with the Bible is cheating him/herself. Further, the Bible is literature, quite possibly some of the earliest literature in existence (this claim has not been researched).

Maybe I took the easy way out by writing about The Slave, but I know what I have learned will make a difference. Finally, here's my term paper.

Faithful Slavery

            Isaac Bashevis Singer’s novel The Slave tells the story of a Jewish man named Jacob. At the beginning of the book, Jacob is a slave in a remote mountain village in Poland; he was captured when his own village was attacked and mostly massacred for being Jewish. He has been working for what he calls a “heathen” and “gentile” family for four years, and his master’s daughter, Wanda, is in love with him. Jacob repeatedly states that they cannot be together because of their religious differences, although it is clear that he also loves Wanda. This religious conflict is a major theme in the book, and Jacob’s religion controls every aspect of his life until his death. For this reason, the title “The Slave” describes Jacob perfectly—not only is he literally a slave, he is mentally a slave to his religion and God. Jacob’s religion dictates his every action and inaction, and because of this parallels can be made between Jacob and the most devout of Biblical characters.

Singer makes it clear from the beginning of the book that Jacob’s religion defines him as a person. Judaism has branded him with its mark, constantly reminding him of his faith: “Circumcision was the only sign on his body that he was a Jew” (6). This physical mark sets Jacob apart from non-Jews, even if it isn’t openly visible. Jacob meticulously performs every ritual and recites every prayer for every occasion, and in his free time he prays and recites as many verses as he can remember, in place of studying holy books he does not possess. Jacob’s devoutness borders on obsession: in the absence of books, writing utensils, and paper, he decides to scratch all of the holy verses he can remember into stone in his spare time. Jacob contrives this deed while attempting to rid himself of lustful thoughts, or as he calls it, “battling the Evil One” (38). Even Jacob’s thoughts are God’s property, and Jacob berates himself for these sinful thoughts; the verse-scratching is his punishment of sorts.

Jacob is convinced that everything that doesn’t assist him in his efforts to be an ideal Jew is “contrived by Satan” (11). When Jacob isn’t performing slave labor for humans (and even while he is), he’s performing slave labor for God, enacting his belief that “God looked down from heaven and rewarded and punished each man according to his deeds” (16). An example of Jacob’s obsessive Judaism is his refusal to eat non-kosher food, which results in him practically fasting while performing manual labor in the fields for weeks at a time, because “His sin was heinous enough merely eating the bread of the gentile; his soul could not tolerate further sullying” (42).

            Despite Jacob’s best efforts to the contrary, he eventually succumbs to his lust for Wanda, and they sleep together. Yet even in this sinful act he attempts to adhere to the rules of Judaism, requiring Wanda to immerse herself in the nearby stream, disregarding the fact that it is freezing cold and the middle of the night. Wanda complies, afterwards saying “I have done this for you” (67). Jacob replies, “No, not for me…for God;” (67) his statement describes his slave-like relationship with God. As God’s slave, Jacob must do everything according to God’s protocol, or risk punishment.

            Jacob’s devoutness in the face of suffering, including his hesitance to enjoy physical pleasures, is paralleled by Job of the Bible’s Book of Job in several ways. Job is discussed masterfully by Northrop Frye in his book The Great Code, who says that one main question addressed by the Book of Job is “How much can a man lose of what he has before the loss begins to affect what he is?” (195). In The Slave, Jacob loses everything—his freedom, his family, his home, everything he owns, and essentially everything he is familiar with. But what he is never changes—he is a Jew, and his Judaism continues to define his life. With that proven, Frye states the next step is figuring out God’s answer to why Job suffered so much. At first, it seems that there is no real answer, which Frye says would serve to “justify the ways of man’s superstition and slave morality to God” (196). This is certainly true for Jacob; he never asks “Why?” and he never gets an answer. His assumptions that God is mysterious but purposeful and that all of the answers are within the already-written holy books lend to his “slave morality.” Frye would agree with Jacob that “certainly there is no ‘answer’ to Job’s ‘problem’” (Frye 196). Ultimately, “how Job got into his position is less important than how he is to get out of it,” (Frye 196) and Jacob seems to believe that every trial and hardship he endures is a sign that he should be more devout. When he finally gives in to cohabiting with Wanda, he transfers his beliefs onto her and makes it his responsibility to ensure that she is as devout as he is—a task that hardly seems possible.

            Jacob is ransomed by fellow Jews from his hometown when he least expects it; his prompt, unannounced departure is especially tragic because Wanda’s father has recently died and she “has no one but [Jacob]” who is close to her (90). While riding back to his hometown with his fellow Jews, Jacob finds out that his entire family was killed in the massacre except for one sister. Although this is not especially surprising to him and it has been years since he saw any of his family, Jacob’s response is devoutly measured: “Should I rend my clothes? I have forgotten the law” (100). He seems to withdraw into his Judaism; after being a slave to Wanda’s family for so long, his hometown is basically foreign to him. Again, the only thing he has going for him is his Judaism, and he devotes his time to studying the holy books, reciting verses, and teaching. He notes the behavior of the Jews around him and its contrast with the silence of God: “Jacob saw that he must follow God’s example, seal his lips, and forget the fool within, with his fruitless questions” (107).

            Jacob’s struggles in returning to his Jewish community reflect a more restrained relationship with God—with the proper religious materials available, being a slave to his religion consumes his life. “He sat in the study house longing for the open air…The Jews had ransomed him, but he remained a slave” (113). It is during this time that Jacob makes a realization which truly defines him as a slave, when he reflects that “it is impossible for me to obey the commandment, Thou Shalt Love Thy God. No, I cannot, Father, not in this life” (108). It is extremely rare for a slave to love his master, and the fact that Jacob cannot love God yet remains a devout Jew speaks volumes about his slavery to religion. In fact, the reasons for Jacob’s devoutness are unclear; the best explanation is that he is very similar to the Biblical Job in patience and loyalty.

            Jacob becomes restless and decides to return to Wanda when he has a dream that she is pregnant with his child. When he finds her, she is in fact not pregnant, but they secretively leave the village anyway. What follows is both tragic and honorable; because Wanda is a gentile and cannot speak Yiddish, nor does she look Jewish, the couple decides to pretend she is mute while living among the Jews. They carefully select a new village to live in, where there is the least risk of Wanda’s true identity being revealed, and she changes her name to Sarah to seem more Jewish. Jacob meticulously teaches her the laws of Judaism and strives to enforce them upon her, but she does not follow the laws strictly, “and this caused Jacob sorrow” (158).

It is clear that Jacob still values his religion above his relationship with Wanda; in fact, he makes it a central element of their relationship. All of their free time is spent with Jacob teaching Wanda/Sarah about Judaism, and he begins to view their relationship as “a burden which became heavier with the passage of time” (159). This is not to say that Jacob does not love Sarah, but that his religion and culture are so inextricably intertwined that she cannot marry him without converting to Judaism, and if it is ever revealed that she is not a true Jew, things could get dangerous. Jacob reflects that because of this, his “years of enforced slavery had been succeeded by a slavery that would last as long as he lived,” (159) but in fact Jacob has been a slave to his religion the entire time; this only sheds his slavery in a different light, in which Jacob is more personally invested in the matter. He determines that continuing his life of deception is his only option, because “Sacred though the truth was, the law did not permit one to sacrifice oneself for it” (180). Again, Jacob thinks of everything in terms of God’s law.

As is expected, the book turns tragic but has a happy ending. Wanda/Sarah dies in childbirth, and Jacob raises their child in Jerusalem—truly an act of the best of God’s slaves. Jacob’s last voluntary act before dying is to pray in the study house of the town Wanda/Sarah died in. Due to miraculous events, Jacob is buried next to Wanda/Sarah—after all, he must have done something right before God, to receive such treatment after death.

The Slave is a complex narrative, of which Jacob’s religious slavery is a major aspect, although only one of many. However, his religion is truly what defines his life; every aspect of his life comes into contact with or is affected by his religion, and for this reason it is his main master. Everything Jacob does or decides not do to is determined by his religion; he performs the rituals and enacts the moral code. He makes mistakes from time to time, but that is the nature of humanity, and slaves aren’t perfect. It is the effort Jacob puts into being the best Jew he can be that makes him stand out so much among other Jews. From an outside perspective, his devoutness seems to border on obsession, and this is where his metaphorical slavery comes in. Jacob can’t be anything but Jewish until he dies, and it shows.

My part of the Acts script

This is the part of the Acts movie script that I wrote. I'm sure Erin will post the script in its entirety, but this way it looks like I did something.

Acts 7-8

Intro [narrator]: Stephen gives a speech to some Jews in which he tells the story of Exodus. Stephen condemns the Jews, which angers them.

Scene 1

Stephen: [to Jews] You stiff-necked people! You have failed to live righteously!

[Jews run at Stephen, take him down]

Stephen: Look! I see Jesus! [points towards the sky]

[Jews drag him away, stone him. Saul appears at the stoning, Jews lay their coats at his feet (or some other submissive behavior)]

Stephen: Lord Jesus, receive my spirit! [He dies.]

Saul: Well done, Jews! This man deserved to die.

Interlude

Narrator: Philip goes to Samaria to proclaim the coming of the Messiah. The people of Samaria had previously thought a magician named Simon was a holy man, but Philip proves him wrong by performing miraculous deeds and converts everybody, including Simon, to Christianity. Peter and John join him in Samaria to help baptize the new converts.

Scene 3 [involving a convert, Peter, John, and Simon]

[Peter splashes water over convert’s head and lays his hands on it while Simon watches intently]

Simon: I want to do that! [He pulls out a wad of cash] I’ll pay you all of this money if you give me the power to deliver the Holy Spirit through my hands, as you have done.

Peter: Fie on you! You and your money can go die! God’s gift cannot be bought! Repent! Repent! Pray for forgiveness, you wicked, wicked man!

Simon: Oh, woe is me! Please, pray for me so God will not hate me!

Peter: [to John] Our work here is done. Let us return to Jerusalem.

Acts 9

Scene 1

[Saul enters a synagogue to talk to the high priest]

Saul: Good father, can you help my cause? I ask of you letters to bear to the synagogues at Damascus, so I can capture any who have converted to this new devil religion and bring them back to Jerusalem for persecution.

High Priest: This is a good idea. I will help you in your efforts to preserve our most holy faith.

Saul: Thank you, good man! May the God of Abraham and Isaac bless you.

Scene 2

[Saul walks down a deserted path towards Damascus with two companions; suddenly, a light from heaven flashes down on him]

[Saul falls over dramatically]

Jesus: Saul…Saul! Why do you persecute me?

Saul: Who are you, Lord? I say Lord, yet I am confused.

Jesus: I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. But now you see I exist in all my glory, so go enter the city, and you will receive further directions. Your mission now is to praise me, and praise me you will.

Saul: I’m blind! The glory of Jesus has blinded me! I’M BLIND!!!

[Saul’s companions look on, confused]

Companion 1: Did you see anything?

Companion 2: Not I. He must be one of God’s chosen people!

Companion 1: It’s a miracle!

Saul: Help me! I’m blind!

[Saul’s companions lead him away. Soundtrack: Party to Damascus by Missy Elliott. Musical interlude – play music as Saul is shown being laid on a bed, looking pale and confused – fade to Ananias laying in bed, sleeping]

Scene 3

[Ananias is sleeping]

Jesus: Ananias.

[Ananias looks startled, wakes up]

Ananias: Here I am, Lord.

Jesus: Get out of bed! God to Judas’ house—it’s on Straight street. Do you know where that is?

[Ananias nods, still half asleep]

Jesus: Good. At Judas’ house, you will find a man named Saul. He is currently in shock because I temporarily blinded him while proving my majesty. He will be expecting you to give him his sight back; I showed you to him in a vision.

Ananias: But Lord, I can’t go to him! I have heard how evil he is, and he has permission from the High Priest to persecute people like me!

Jesus: Don’t make me look bad. Do you think yourself to be better than me? Do as I say! I need you to help prove my majesty to Saul. He is my instrument now. I will show him what real suffering is, and all people will bow down before me when they witness Saul’s plight!

Scene 4

[Ananias is standing over Saul in bed. He lays his hands on Saul.]

Ananias: Brother Saul, it is with the power of the Lord Jesus that I give you your sight back.

[Scale-like things fall from Saul’s eyes]

Ananias: Now be baptized.

[He splashes water on Saul’s head]

Saul: [Blinking, looking amazed] Praise Jesus! I feel better already.

Narraror: And Saul went on to proclaim the word of the Lord to all who would listen.

Acts 21-22 [prologue to 23]

Paul returns to Jerusalem from a crusade. He speaks with the elders there, who warn him that the Jews of Jerusalem hate him with a passion. They suggests he perform some rituals important to the Jews to improve his image. He performs the purification ritual, but the Jews try to kill him anyway. Soldiers come to Paul’s rescue, and Paul takes this opportunity to give a speech to the Jews. He announces he has been a Jew since he was born and tells the story of his encounter with Jesus. This does not impress the Jews, who get more angry with Paul. The soldiers try to beat Paul, but he uses his Roman citizenship to get out of it. The next day, Paul is sent to speak with the chief priests and town council.

Acts 23

Scene 1

[Paul stands before the council, looking at them intently. Soldiers stand next to him.]

Paul: Brothers, up to this day I have lived my life with a clear conscience before God.

High Priest Ananias: [to soldiers] Strike him on the mouth!

Paul: God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! You call me a criminal, but you’re breaking the law!

Soldiers: Do you dare to insult God’s high priest?

Paul: Oh, I didn’t know he was the high priest! Had I known I would not have spoken, for I know the law that says “You shall not speak evil of a leader of your people.”

[Paul’s thought bubble: Aha! Some of these men are Pharisees and some are Sadducees. I will use their conflicting beliefs to my advantage.]

Paul: Brothers, I am a Pharisee. I am on trial concerning the hope of the resurrection of the dead.

[The men start to bicker among themselves—Sadducees do not believe in resurrection/angel/spirit, but Pharisees do.]

A Pharisee: We find nothing wrong with this man. What if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him?

[The men become violent.]

Head Soldier: [talking about Paul] Take this man to the barracks! Use force if you must.

That evening the Lord spoke to Paul, saying “Keep up your courage! For just as you have testified for me in Jerusalem, so you must bear witness also in Rome.”

Scene 2

[at a gathering of Jews]

Jew 1: We must kill Paul!

Jew 2: We must! Let us agree to not eat or drink until we complete this task.

Jew 1: Good idea! Let’s go tell the chief priest and the elders.

Scene 3

[Jews stand before the elders]

Jew 1: We have vowed not to eat or drink until we kill Paul.

Jew 2: So, you should have the soldiers bring him here tomorrow.

Elder: But what will we say we need him for?

Jew 1: Say you need to question him more thoroughly.

Elder: Very well. We will do as you ask.

Paul’s sister’s son hears of this plot, and tells Paul. He then tells the head soldier (aka tribune) of the plot, who agrees not to bring Paul to the elders. The tribune then arranges for Paul to be brought to Caesarea, and writes a letter to the governor of Caesarea telling of Paul’s circumstances. Paul is brought to Caesarea and held captive there.

Organization of Thought

I have just painstakingly leafed through The Slave, page by page, taking notes on interesting and Slavery-related things. I did this in the hope that I would get inspiration and focus for my paper, as well as quotations and such.

It seems to me that Jacob faces two internal struggles throughout the book. One, with his religion. Two, with "lust;" also known as what is later his love for Wanda/Sarah. Basically, it's a battle between the two. Can it be described with one word? I'm trying to figure this out.

Jacob's religious struggle is fascinating to me. In my opinion, he is enslaved by religion more than anything else throughout the book. He practically starves himself when performing hard manual labor for the sake of eating kosher. He refuses to touch Wanda (most of the time) because she is not a Jew, nor are they married.  The fact that he is circumcised is like Judaism's brand on him (although I have nothing against this practice, trust me). One of my favorite quotes relating to this issue is from page 123, "No matter what one does, one stumbles into sin." Jacob thinks this as he is leaving town on a wagon to return to Wanda, because he is embarrassing the widow he is standing up by not marrying. This quote basically describes organized religion to me. It's impossible to not sin! Everybody knows it. That makes being religious even harder, because the religious are constantly feeling guilty for sinning, and going out of their way to attempt not to sin, all the while knowing they're going to sin anyway. It's a stressful way of living, and Jacob definitely makes it seem that way.

On a related note, there is also a religious conflict among the Jews—to follow the laws scrupulously, or to be a good person? Another of my favorite quotes is about this, on page 247:

But now [Jacob] at least understood his religion: its essence was the relation between man and his fellows. Man's obligations toward God were easy to perform ... Rather than troubling himself to induce a Jew to eat pork or kindle a fire on the Sabbath, Satan did easier and more important work, advocating those sins deeply rooted in human nature.

 I like this passage because although I thought Jacob was devout to the point of craziness a lot of the time, this shows he was actually a good person. So many Jews in the book (Gershon is a prime example) picked and chose which laws they would follow scrupulously while completely disregarding others, which of course is disgustingly hypocritical.

Next, about Jacob's internal struggle with his lust/love. This basically ties in to his religious struggle because his religion is what dictates his every action and inaction. If that's not slavery, what is? I think I'm on to something here. In fact, Jacob even tells his cattle one time (page 90) "We are all slaves...God's slaves."

Anyway, Jacob initially denies Wanda because it's a sin for them to have sex or be involved in general. But when he does eventually give in, he makes Wanda immerse herself completely in a freezing cold stream so she'll be cleansed properly before they have sex. Preposterous! I admire her for putting up with this treatment, but then it actually sounded like it made things more exciting when they got down to it. Later, after Jacob is ransomed, his perpetual slavery is again addressed on page 113, "The Jews had ransomed him but he remained a slave. Passion held him like a dog on a leash." When I read the first sentence, I initially thought this was talking about how he is a slave to his religion, but apparently it's more about how he is a slave to passion/Wanda. I would argue that it could go either way. He is pretty passionate about his religion, more passionate than he is about Wanda. He loves Wanda, for sure, but he puts his religion above her in every situation. This, to me, is Jacob's worst downfall. Then again, I am not religious...I'm selfish. If I was Wanda, I would tell Jacob what's up, and I would not stand for that.

I fear that if I continue to write this will turn into more and more of a ramble, so I'll leave it with this. I think it's helped me figure things out a little.

Esau in The Slave

As I scan The Slave looking for points to use in my paper, I'm noticing things that I skipped over when I first read it, which I should have questioned more.

First, references to Esau. Jacob calls Wanda a "daughter of Esau" on page 111. Then, on page 133 when Jacob is traveling back to Wanda's town, he reasons with himself that trying to save his unborn child is a virtuous act because "his seed would not be mingled with that of Esau." Then, on the next page, a random man shows Jacob the path he must take, and Jacob likens him to the prophet Elijah but then considers he might be "an emissary of Esau, sent by those powers who wished Jews and gentiles to mate."

I don't know about everybody else, but from what I remember about Esau, he was Jacob's brother whom Jacob stole the birthright and blessing from, and he was a hunter who liked meat.

Having just gone back to re-read Esau's story, I realized that the "sin" Jacob in The Slave keeps referring too is intermarriage between Jews and, in Esau's case, Canaanite women. So, if Wanda is truly a "daughter of Esau," one of her parents must be a Jew, which is obviously not true. And, I highly doubt that Esau would have emissaries urging Jews and gentiles to mate, because when Esau realized that intermarriage was displeasing to his father, he went out and married a Jew (as if one Jew among 15 Cannaanites would set things right? Esau was a poor fool).

But, I do understand the part of "his seed mingling with Esau," because in this context any gentiles could be descendants of Esau. And actually, Wanda could be a "daughter of Esau," in a distant sort of way.

After reading into this I kind of feel bad for Esau. He tried, but things didn't work out for him. It's hard when Jacob is your brother, I suppose.

Which brings me to the question: How is Jacob in The Slave like the Biblical Jacob?

It could be a whole new term paper.

Term Paper (for real?)

I have been feeling the pressure of this term paper as the days drag on, and it is not a pleasant feeling. I keep thinking that an epiphany will come to me (what does that mean again?) but no such luck. I am going to have to commit myself to something and run with it. I now regret not reading at a faster pace throughout the semester, but nothing can be done but to continue.

I had originally thought I would for sure write about "What I know now that I didn't know before and the difference that it makes," but the more I thought about it the more I realized I had no idea how to focus my thesis. So many things I learned in this class were about life in general and perspectives for looking at it, and it would be very hard to focus a thesis on this and still make it relevant to the academic subjects of the class.

So, I have come to realize the best thing for me to do is write about The Slave. I went back and read the blog I wrote about it right after I finished it, and I decided the best thing to discuss would be Jacob's personal slavery, or lack thereof. I would argue that he is a slave throughout the book, whether it be to Wanda's family, to his religion, or to Wanda/Sarah herself. I know this is a boring and unoriginal subject, especially because Dr. Sexson suggested it if we were having difficulties focusing our papers, but frankly, I am having those difficulties, and I am not a graduating senior so I reserve the right to be average as far as this class is concerned.

The most difficult obstacle I expect to encounter when writing this paper is referencing Northrop Frye thrice times over. How am I going to do this? I can hardly understand him, much less relate him to The Slave.

Clearly, I have a lot of work to do.

Ezekiel 4:9

Today, I had the desire to make a grilled cheese. This pretty much happens every day. The difference about today is that I am at home in Alaska, which means I don't have to pay for groceries while I mooch from my mother.

When I picked up the bread and looked at it, I couldn't help but laugh. It was Ezekiel 4:9 bread! Apparently they make a whole line of products, not just bland and dry crunchy cereal. I had to sample the bread. It turns out it is kind of like the cereal; it doesn't have much flavor. But, as the package tells me, "This Biblical bread is truly the staff of life."

I feel healthier already.

term paper

I know I want to write my paper on what I know now that I didn't know before and the difference that it makes, but I have yet to come up with a good thesis. I've been unable to put enough thought into it, and I don't want to say something stupid because I would just change it later. Also, I think it would be interesting to write a paper on The Slave, but I have even less of an idea what that thesis would be.

What I do know is that I am going to be in Alaska for about 10 days and during that time I will work extensively on my term paper, when I actually have time to think without frantically getting things done. It's always in the back of my mind, but the back of my mind hasn't generated a thesis for me yet.

Test 2

I originally planned to read everything for the test over the weekend and spend a good amount of time Monday studying, but events never go as planned.

What actually happened was a read a little over the weekend, then Monday rolled around. I woke up at 3:30 am Monday morning with a splitting headache. I couldn't figure out why, so I drank some water and went back to sleep. When I woke up again at 7, the headache was still going strong. It was bad enough that it was distracting, so I rummaged around in my drawer for some Advil or Motrin. I couldn't find either, but I did have some Hydrocodone left over from previous ailments. It seemed like my best option, so I took one and went to work from 8-10, where I consumed copious amounts of water in hopes that it would stave off the headache. I came home after work and read Good Book, and things were going well. Around 11:30 the headache returned. I took another Hydrocodone. I don't want to sound like a pill-popper, but headaches like that rarely happen to me, and it was my best option.

I had class from 2-3, and I planned on spending a couple hours on campus after class and studying, but then I had to walk to Culbertson to turn in a Study Abroad application and I decided it would be easier to walk home and study there. Then when I got home, a friend from Alaska was visiting so I got distracted, and lo and behold the night slipped away and very little studying ensued. I went to my room to try to read, but laying in bed I closed my eyes and all productivity ceased. I became too tired and distracted by my still-lingering headache to get anything of value accomplished, so I gave up. It was a bad decision on my part, and something I rarely do. I always try to be as prepared as possible for tests, but it was not happening on Monday. Might I add that at this time "the way of women was upon me." It's an excuse. I'm using it. I'm not sure if it had anything to do with my headache but it probably had something to do with my general sluggishness.

Tuesday morning I had a group project presentation at 8 am. I was not on top of my game. I then skipped my 9:30 class to try to cram for the test at 11, but I knew I was already destined to fail. A feeling of impending doom loomed over my all morning, getting worse as 11:00 approached. By the time I was sitting in class, I was prepared to get a low score, and I wanted to get it over with.

Sure enough, my performance was less than stellar. I am pretty embarrassed about the whole situation because I knew it was a "stupid test" and I was worse than stupid. But considering the circumstances, I'm glad it's over.

Revelation!

Shelby inspired me to read Revelation, and it's probably the most riveting book I've read yet. It's intense. My favorite part is probably the sacrificial Lamb who gets to open the scroll with seven seals. I'm glad it wasn't sacrificed in vain.

The book of Revelation has a powerful message. Having read it, I'm surprised I don't remember more about it from my Catholic upbringing. It makes the strongest case to listen to everything else the book is saying. It's using the promise of "everlasting life" to make everybody buy into it. I'm a fan of the idea of everlasting life, but I'm still a skeptic on the truth of the Bible. It's an interesting argument.

The Slave

I just finished The Slave, and I've never read a book that details the life of a devout Jew so well. I've decided the Jews as a whole have had a pretty rough history. But along with the suffering and oppression the Jews underwent, the book details follies as well—swindling, bribery, trickery, thievery. The stereotype of a Jew who follows the laws about what to eat devoutly but ignores the laws about treating other people is definitely represented by people like Gershon, while Jacob is so devout it's almost sickening.

When I first started reading the book, Jacob's painstaking devotion to his religion was strange to me. I found it interesting that the "heathens" he lived among were actually Christians, but their primitive ways were pretty disturbing as well. When Wanda appeared and their love for each other was apparent, I was impressed that Jacob was so devoted to God he would not touch her, even when they talked about it openly. The fact that he had a wife in his hometown seemed like a legitimate reason to avoid Wanda, but when it was revealed that his wife was basically a spoiled whiny child, Jacob seemed almost too perfect a Jew to be real.

Then came Jacob's ransoming. It was timed almost perfectly to be most tumultuous for Jacob and Wanda. He seemed on the verge of leaving town with Wanda when he was taken away, and what he had wished for for years ironically came when he probably didn't even wish for it anymore. I was glad when he returned to Wanda, but of course as they had been separated for so long things were a little awkward between them.

The fact that Wanda changed her name to Sarah and pretended to be a mute was the ultimate sacrifice of love to Jacob. Honestly, although she always said she wanted to be a true Jew, I'm not sure if I buy it. She only said that because she knew how much Jacob cared about his religion. Personally, as somebody who is not religious, I thought this sudden devout interest in Judaism would never have happened if it hadn't been necessary for Wanda to be with Jacob. She obviously did not let the laws of religion hold her back—she kissed him during the "unclean days" of her period, for example. She tried, but only for Jacob.

When Wanda accidentally talked in front of Pilitzky, I thought for sure she and Jacob were doomed. But they somehow continued their charade. I never was a fan of this charade, because I felt like Wanda was being punished, basically sacrificing her life, because her husband loved his religion more than her. Maybe among Jews that is honorable, but I felt it was cruel. The fact that they kept it up for so long seems a worse sin than admitting the truth. Isn't lying a sin?

As expected, Sarah/Wanda's death was tragic, and I almost thought Jacob was going to fail entirely and forget about his son. Luckily, he remembered him and miraculously brought him to Jerusalem. I'd say the book is a comedy, because Jacob ended up buried next to Sarah/Wanda. What more can you ask for?

The title is a recurring theme throughout the book. Jacob starts as Wanda's slave. Wanda becomes Jacob's slave, or at least a slave to his religion. When she dies, she appears to him and calls him "Jacob, my slave," which I didn't quite understand but I felt it was powerful. After Sarah/Wanda's death, Jacob never remarries or is with another woman, so I suppose in that respect he is a slave to her memory.

Anyway, I liked the book. It's so full of Biblical allusions I'm not sure I'd be able to tackle a term paper on the subject and be able to focus it enough, but it was definitely an eye-opener about the Jewish faith.

Time

The idea that there is so much time and so little to do is novel, but anybody who believes that is boring. I definitely would not be able to keep up my grades if I did not somewhat plan out the way I spend my time (without a planner of course).

"Time is the master," [thanks to Pink Floyd], is a very true statement. It isn't that there are so little things to do, but that we have to choose what to do with our time. Technically, we are the masters of our own time, but we can't control how much time we have, so in the end, time is the master.

My mom always used to tell me, "You're burning the candle at both ends!" I go to sleep late and wake up early 90% of the time, even often on weekends, because I am always on the verge of being overcommitted.

I just found a Bob Marley & The Wailers version of "Go, Tell It on the Mountain" on my computer. I'm inspired.

As I have no commitments this weekend until Sunday at 4, I'm making it my goal to finish The Slave and half of The Good Book.

Everybody Loves Mythos.

As I sat in the Brick Breeden Fieldhouse tonight listening to Greg Mortenson talk, my train of thought kept lingering on the same idea. It began with my observation that Mortenson was mostly telling stories to convey his message, which reminded me of Nicholas Kristof's lecture about a month ago, in which he almost explicitly told stories to educate the audience.

"God loves mythos," the words of Dr. Sexson keep repeating in my mind for some reason. The more I think about it, the more I know it's not only God who loves mythos—everybody loves mythos.

If the most fun thing to do (as I've been told) is sit around and tell stories, that implies that everybody loves mythos. Personally, I think the most fun thing to do is create stories—in the sense of living what the story is about.

"We are all characters in literature,"which is another interesting Sexson quote, basically says that we create and live mythos every day. Whether this is for God's amusement or for our personal retellings is up for debate, but its truth cannot be denied. We are all characters in literature, regardless of whether somebody has written the book yet.

Our lives are mythos, the Bible is mythos. The Bible as mythos supposedly explains the fact that there is so much conflict in it. On a related note, the conflict of women's education vs. cultural expectations created Kristof and Mortenson's stories. Human lives certainly revolve around conflict—with the environment, each other, and ourselves. There would be no good without bad, there would be no conflict without bad, there would be no mythos without conflict. The best stories may have been terrible to live, but that doesn't make their retelling any less interesting.

All forms of modern entertainment revolve around mythos, however rudimentary. TV shows. Movies. Books. Plays. Songs. Art. Everything has a story. Everything is mythos.

Everybody loves mythos. What would the world be without it?

Milton's Universe

I know everyone in Brit Lit has seen this and I know it required no effort on my part to post this, but it's interesting.

Why?

I'm going to talk about the book of Acts, because that's what I've been reading most recently in preparation for my group presentation.

[caption: Stephen, a Christian, sees Jesus as he is getting stoned to death; Acts 7]

Acts is an interesting book. It's in the New Testament, so conflicts arise between Jews and Christians—often. The Jews are set in their ways, they don't believe Jesus is the Messiah, and they want to kill everyone who becomes Christian. The Christians are energetic about their faith, and want to convert everyone. It's actually not too different from the present day.

What I don't understand is how so many people convert to Christianity so quickly. All it takes is one speech, and suddenly 3,000 people convert and get baptized. They obviously are simple-minded. Why don't they ask "Why?" What makes Christianity better, or even very different, from Judaism? Miracles are being performed left and right, but this isn't enough for me. It's good some Jews held out; the Christians seem like mindless drones to me. About miracles; it seems like they are the only thing Jesus has going for him. Now that he is in Heaven, he wants to show off his power. Honestly, miracles are good when they involve healing people, but when they involve blinding people with "majestic light," they're just unnecessary shows of power. Jesus is unhappy that he didn't get enough credit, so now he's overdoing the miracles to make up for it.

I chose the above picture because first of all, it's an exciting part of Acts, and second of all, it's an example of why the Christian ways annoy me. Stephen is getting stoned to death because he is rude to the Jews. Like many preaching Christians, he condemns the Jews before they have a chance to think about what he is trying to tell them. He name-calls and is generally immature (although he is described as  "full of grace and power").

"You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you are forever opposing the Holy Spirit, just as your ancestors used to do. Which of the prophets did your ancestors not persecute? They killed those who foretold the coming of the Righteous One, and now you have become his betrayers and murderers. You are the ones that received the law as ordained by angels, and yet you have not kept it." (Acts 7:51-53)

Stephen blames the Jews he is talking to for their ancestors' deeds, which they obviously had nothing to do with. This quote is at the end of a long speech, and it seems as if Stephen is provoking the Jews on purpose. Would you want to listen to somebody who condemns you before you have a chance to answer? I wouldn't.

Reading Acts confirms my sentiments about religion. The Jews and Christians are constantly bickering like children—children who kill each other when they disagree. It's not a very loving situation, and it contradicts my idea of how a good person should live. They can never agree to disagree; they're always meddling in other people's affairs. It's not appealing to me at all, and it makes me glad I am neither a Christian nor a Jew.

The Power of Sleep

Today I almost had a bad day. I say almost because first of all, ever since I started working at the schwag (Miller Dining Hall for you proper people) as a dishwasher, every Tuesday and Thursday is a 13 hour day. I have five classes from 8 am to 3 pm nonstop (a 30 minute "lunch break" doesn't quite count), then I go to work from 4:25 until about 8:30 or 8:45. It's a horrible schedule and I'm not sure why I decided adding work in the evening would be a good idea, but I think my reasoning was if I did everything on Tuesday and Thursday the other days would be less busy (not true).

Anyway, last night I spent the night at my unofficial boyfriend of sorts house (I'll call him Patrick — I won't go into detail about the situation, ha ha) and I set my alarm for 6:30 so I would have time to go home and get ready for the day. I had a test in my 8:00 class this morning which was open note; I prepared for it last night.

This morning my alarm went off at 6:30; it was loud and obnoxious and I immediately turned it off (no snooze - off). I looked over at Patrick; he was somehow still sound asleep. I decided I didn't want to get up immediately and immediately fell into a deep sleep.

Time passed while I slept, completely unaware. Eventually I drifted into consciousness to Patrick saying "Do you have class?" I realized what had happened and noticed it was light outside. I looked at my phone and it said 8:13. I said a blasphemous word and immediately got up to go. After leaving Patrick's house I had to go home, get my academic materials, and bike to campus. This whole process took me approximately 30 minutes, and it was quite a stressful time.

Ironically, everything I have done for the class my test was in lately has been unimpressive. A couple weeks ago we were supposed to meet with our professor to talk about the assignments we have done so far. First, I made an appointment, forgot about it, and didn't go. Then, I made it to my appointment, but I didn't have the assignments with me, which were obviously the whole point of the meeting, so I had to embarrassingly re-schedule again. Then, we were split into groups for a project, and my group was scheduled to present on November 24, when I will be in Alaska (sound familiar? the same thing happened to me in Lit 240. Obviously, this is a sign I should not miss school for extended vacations), so I had to ask to be in a different group. Also, I had signed up to participate in an Indian Education for All seminar which my teacher was putting on last Friday, and when she asked to talk to the people who were going to it on Thursday I had to tell her I couldn't make it because I went out of town last weekend. This was a faux pas because she had reserved a spot for me - apparently it was popular. She was not pleased.

As I was frantically biking to class all of these things were running through my head. Today was the first day I have overslept all semester and it had to be when I had a test in a class I could normally skip under such circumstances. Luckily, the class is Multicultural Education and the teacher has to be a tolerant, understanding person, so she accepted my lame "I overslept. I have no other excuse," excuse and waited after class until I finished, about 20 minutes after the class officially ended.

This morning our "have a bad day assignment" was running through my head while these events unfolded. But, things worked out for me, I decided to skip my next class (my least favorite) in favor of going to International Coffee Traders and getting breakfast, and the rest of the day went smoothly enough. I agree with Jeanie, there should be no bad days if you have an optimistic view of the world. Bad events still happen, but if I had let my morning ruin my day I don't think I would be able to get through any Tuesday or Thursday of this semester.

An observation: a good day starts with sleeping in; a bad day starts with oversleeping.

why do people suffer?

Job says:

"Truly, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom;
and to depart from evil is understanding."

-Job 28:28

Elihu says:

"Your wickedness affects others like you, and your righteousness, other human beings."

-Job 35:8

God's response to Job is obscure. He speaks of the animals of the earth and their ways, which he says Job has no control over or even knowledge of; they are God's creatures. Then he mentions "the Leviathan" (41:1), which I take to be an example of something God protects humans from. The best answer I can fathom as to "why do people suffer?" is that people are selfish and don't deserve not to suffer. Even a righteous man like Job had a comfortable, good life for himself and he allowed his sons and daughters to partake in possibly sinful activity. But I think his worst sin was after God took everything away from him; he felt sorry for himself. He did not ask what more he could do for God at that point, but why God would do such things to him. Ultimately, he was more concerned about his well-being than his righteousness. He even said several times that he did not sin in his words—this suggests that the sin was within his mind, even if his words or actions never showed it.

This is a fascinating question, but I have to point out the reason this all started. In chapter 1 of Job, it says "One day the heavenly beings came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also was among them" (1:6). The Lord asks Satan where he came from; Satan replies "From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it" (1:7; I love this quote). Then, nonchalantly, God asks "Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man who fears God and turns away from evil" (1:8).

This is apparently the origin of Job's plight, and nowhere does it suggest that God considered Job to be a sinner. Rather, he is like God's champion to be tested by Satan and prove Satan wrong. I wonder why God brought Job up in the first place; Satan didn't ask for somebody to torture. The Harper-Collins Study Bible says this verse suggests an ongoing rivalry between God and Satan. God is proud of Job, and he's rubbing it in Satan's face because nobody loves Satan like Job loves God. This makes God seem rather petty, in my opinion.

With that in mind, it is hard for me to take the ending of Job seriously. God seems rather selfish himself. He points out everything he has control over that humans are only witnesses of, which apparently he hasn't gotten enough credit for so he has to bring up again. Job's apology to God basically says he is ignorant and unworthy, and God likes this. And then, without giving Job's friends a chance to repent, he praises Job and grudgingly orders them to sacrifice to him as punishment. God is fickle indeed.

Back to the question of why people suffer. Although Job has a strange plot line, I still think the idea of selfishness is a good answer. About a month ago, I had a revelation of sorts. I decided that all humans are primarily selfish beings and the ultimate fulfillment of life is to stimulate the senses (see, feel, taste, hear, smell). Through the senses comes the most pleasure, and each person wants to gain pleasure through their own senses. Everybody wants to take care of himself/herself before taking care of other people because that's how people are — selfish.

Why does God dislike selfishness? The answer is obvious; he wants people to put him first. This is why people are supposed to devote their lives to doing things for him, which apparently mainly consists of talking about him and getting others to do the same thing, as well as following all sorts of strange rituals and rules. This ties into the second quote at the top of my post — human actions can only impact other humans; God observes. As long as things are done in the name of God, they're acceptable.

One could argue that the central question of The Slave is, "Why do people suffer?" Jacob wonders why he is a slave as he recites verses saying the Lord will not make him a slave. The ironic thing is that through his attempted devoutness, he suffers even more. I'm not going to go into detail because I'm not done with the book, but it's definitely a theme I've noticed.

One justification for people suffering on earth is that they will have an amazing, suffer-free life after death in "heaven" or whatever it's called. This is also apparently why they should devote their lives to teaching others about God, so more people can have better lives after they die. It's a complete oxymoron.

I'll take karma any day. There's good and bad, and it is our actions. Why do people suffer? Because they would not know joy otherwise.

Susanna and Peter Quince at the Clavier

"Music is feeling, then, not sound;"

I like Wallace Stevens already, and I agree whole-heartedly. If feeling is music, music is love. But is music like the lust of the elders for Susanna? I hope not, because their lust was wholly impure. Or maybe different feelings are synonymous with different emotions. Let's say the elder's lust is like country music. That I can handle.

Green evening vs. red-eyed elders...who felt:

"The basses of their beings throb
In witching chords, and their thin blood
Pulse pizzicati of Hosanna."

I didn't know the meaning of "pizzicati" off the top of my head, but Merriam-Webster says it's the plural form of "a note or passage played by plucking strings." As for "Hosanna," it seems to be some sort of cry for salvation. These definitions actually obscure the passage even more for me. Then there's "witching chords," which perhaps suggest some sort of spell Susanna has put on the elders. The elders in the story of Susanna are full of lust, and somehow they think raping Susanna is their salvation?

"In the green water..."

Color again. Green is good. Susanna is in her bath. Stevens is filling in the lacuna here. Susanna is having a spiritual moment in her bath. She reflects upon past emotions (or "devotions"). And then, the music breaks down.

"A cymbal crashed,
Amid roaring horns."

This is the elders crashing Susanna's spiritual moment — ruining her perfect melody. "Roaring horns;" this must be a devilish metaphor for the elders.

"Soon, with a noise like tambourines,
Came her attendant Byzantines."

The tambourines add a lighter, perhaps salvational, mood to the melody. Her attendants are semi-coming to the rescue, but the events are still hectic. The attendants don't ask Susanna what's wrong; they whisper to one another.

"And as they whispered, the refrain
Was like a willow swept by rain."

I'm trying to figure out the willow metaphor, but maybe all it's referring to is the sound of rain falling on a willow tree. The attendants shine their lamps on Susanna and the elders...

"And then, the simpering Byzantines
Fled, with a noise like tambourines."

Now this is interesting. "With a noise like tambourines," is exactly how the attendants' arrival was described. Entrances and exits, they're like tambourines? The elders' exit is shameful, and they wish it was silent but it still causes a ruckus.

"Beauty is momentary in the mind —
The fitful tracing of a portal;
But in the flesh it is immortal.

The body dies; the body's beauty lives."

Interesting concept. Most people would say the concept of beauty is the other way around. Isn't everyone a judge of beauty as they perceive it in their minds? Apparently not. Maybe God is the ultimate judge, and we just guess.

"So evenings die, in their green going,"

Green again, and again green evenings. Good things don't last, and neither does beauty...in the mind.

"A wave, interminably flowing."

This makes me think of the flow of a musical wave.

"Susanna's music touched the bawdy strings
Of those white elders; but, escaping,
Left only Death's ironic scraping."

"White elders," a new color. Neutral, perhaps? They couldn't quite be saved and brought to the green side, but at least they aren't red anymore. I'm not sure what this could imply: that if the elders had their way with Susanna, they would be moved further to good? I somehow doubt it; I'm probably way off. Now that I think about it, Susanna's music is what escaped from the elders, so maybe this is referring more to Susanna's fate.

"Now, in its immortality, it plays
On the clear viol of her memory,
And makes a constant sacrament of praise."

The immortal thing referred to is Susanna's music, which lives on in the Biblical story if nothing else. She preserved the beauty of her flesh by not succumbing to the elders, so the beauty of her pure body lives on immortally. She's an example for all of us.

Consider this to be my rudimentary analysis. I like the poem a lot more now that I've read Susanna and looked at it more closely. I like the music and color metaphors especially; music and the color green are two of my favorite things. Going back to the first stanza of the poem, it seems to start as a love poem — or perhaps a lust poem. Stevens is possibly using Susanna's story as metaphorical praise. I would speculate further into the relationship of the title to the poem, but I don't know enough details about the character of Peter Quince. How this relates to our overall class discussion remains uncertain to me, but I enjoyed it nonetheless.

Leviticus, and the origin of Catholic guilt

Having tackled Leviticus, I'll say it's all it was built up to be. But I have found some points of interest in the first few chapters already, also known as things that make me laugh.

5:3 "Or when you touch human uncleanness—any uncleanness by which one can become unclean—and are unaware of it, when you come to know it, you shall be guilty."

This is amazing descriptive language, courtesy of P. And very ambiguous. If you don't know, you're fine, but if you find out 10 years down the road, you're screwed. Especially if you can't afford a sheep and you can't find any turtledoves or pigeons.

5:15 "When any of you commit a trespass and sin unintentionally in any of the holy things of the Lord, you shall bring, as your guilt offering to the Lord, a ram without blemish from the flock, convertible into silver by the sanctuary shekel; it is a guilt offering."

First of all, great alliteration! P truly impresses me. More importantly, this is the beginning of a whole section on "guilt offerings," which I can only assume to be the origin of Catholic guilt. I can't think of a better explanation, actually — something you don't intend to do and maybe don't know is a sin at the time can still create plenty of guilt later. I was raised Catholic, so I find this rather fascinating. Even though I'm not religious anymore, I know the feeling all too well. I suppose in lieu of animal sacrifices, people are supposed to give money to the church these days...another reason for me not to practice Catholicism.

With that, I will continue my spiritual journey.

the mysterious lacunae

It's been established that the Bible has a ridiculous amount of lacunae. Unless Abraham had some kind of mental disorder in which he lacked all emotions and silently obeyed everything he was told, there were a lot of things going on in Genesis 22 which are not explained or even addressed by the text. To the casual reader, this may be confusing or frustrating or otherwise unnatural. But think: if the Bible addressed every lingering question, it wouldn't even be a book. It would be about 100 volumes long, and with every volume would come more questions. Let's face it, even the Bible can't be perfect in itself (...we all know).

As Biblical scholars (I'm pretending to be one), we have to look at what we have available. None of it makes sense...why are some stories told twice with different details (why are Genesis 1 and 2 so blatantly contradictory?) whereas some stories aren't told at all when they seem to be extremely important? Again, the great Redactor had something to do with this. I'm fascinated by the Redactor(s). He/she/they had so much power! And his/her/their role(s) are shrouded in mystery, for the most part. Where's the material which was deemed unnecessary? Where did all the stories that made the cut originally come from? And why are certain stories juxtaposed?

I never get answers, only questions.

Having thought about the Bible's legitimacy a bit, I see how easy it is to explain away doubts and questions. Why didn't Abraham argue more with God, or at least show a little more emotion at the prospect of killing his only, painstakingly conceived, son? The easiest explanation is that he did, but if such petty details were included everywhere in the Bible it would never be contained in one book, it would be 100+ volumes. When I first started reading the Bible I came to terms with the fact that it's not perfect and not an account of perfection. Now I'm realizing that it is more of an overview than a fluid story of God's doings. If something isn't in there, that's not the Bible's fault. It can't be taken too seriously, even though I suppose religious people are required to take it seriously. Or maybe it's more of a guideline than a rule.

Lacunae. They're everywhere. They're necessary. They're mysterious. It's okay to use your imagination every once in a while...

langage?

I'm no Northrop Frye, and I don't claim to understand what he's talking about in The Great Code. But the Bible certainly uses language uniquely. From what I can tell, when people are speaking, their words are generally more powerful than present-day speech. Essentially, what is said happens, and that's that.

Then there is the narrative itself. I find it hard to analyze because what we are reading is an interpretation of a translation of an interpretation. Who is to say what it was "supposed to" be in the first place? Which brings me to one of my central questions about the Bible. Who decided when it was a "finished product?" The great Redactor, apparently. But was there one, or were there ten? Nobody knows. This is such a fundamental question that it leaves me wondering how the Bible gained all of its legitimacy.

I know the Bible is legit, but not in a cut-and-dry way. Wait...that's what this whole class is about.

Exodus: Post-deliverance

First of all, the Ten Commandments. If I understand correctly, everybody at the bottom of Mount Sinai listens to God speaking them. Right before the Ten Commandments begin, Moses is supposed to be bringing Aaron up the mountain after forbidding anybody else to climb Mount Sinai. But Moses just “went down to the people and told them,” (Exodus 19:25) and suddenly “God spoke all these words” (20:1). Then Moses goes “near to the thick darkness where God was” (20:21) and God repeats himself about not having any other gods (specifically, not gold or silver gods). Then he says “You need make for me only an altar of earth and sacrifice on it your burnt offerings and your offerings of well-being, your sheep and your oxen” (20:24). This is rather ironic, because just a few chapters later God dedicates all of chapters 25-30 explaining precisely how the altar is to be built and how the offering is going to be made, and that is not the “only” thing God requires. He needs the tabernacle in which the altar will be placed to be made in a precise manner. There needs to be a lampstand, a curtain, a certain kind of oil for the lamp, ornate vestments for priests, ephods and breastplates, all painstakingly described to the most minute detail. This must be the work of P. Maybe J wrote chapter 20, when God didn’t seem so picky, but P had to jump in and insist that God was very demanding in his specifications. Is this another scare tactic or just a way to keep devout worshipers busy? It’s hard to say. Why does God need all of these things to be so expensive? Everything is gold, gold, gold, silver, fine linen, expensive, the best. God is certainly greedy. He isn’t even on Earth, it’s not like he can use them. Just the thought of this is frustrating to me. I want to tell God, Stop being so demanding! Isn’t it good enough for people to acknowledge you and worship you and try to live the way you’d want them to? Why do you need all of these extraneous things???

Now, about the offerings themselves. Again, Exodus 20:24 just says “burnt offerings and your offerings of well-being, your sheep and your oxen.” But 29:38 says two lambs a year old need to be sacrificed every day. I don’t care how many lambs were on the earth at that time, that is way too much wasted life and meat. Plus, God also wants things which will provide “pleasing odors.” This comes back to the question of a “jealous God” or as Nick suggests, a “lonely God.” Now I’m pretty convinced he’s a greedy God, and maybe a little OCD (very OCD). What is he going to do with all of those lambs? He’s God, he doesn’t eat them. Does he really need reassurance twice a day that his followers are willing to perform such wasteful and ridiculous acts just because he told them? Now that I think about it, it’s like a power trip. Maybe even funny. Ha ha, look at those people killing their best livestock and the future of their flock just because I told them to. After they already used everything they own to build me an ornate tabernacle and are living in poverty. Now maybe they’ll starve to death. I’m so cool, I’m God.

The only reason people need God to provide is because he forces them to give him everything, at this point.

Maybe I took this a little too far, but it frustrates me.

Anyway, back to chapters 21-24. Does anybody else think it’s weird that one of the first things God specifies (after his first, brief altar “law”) is the slave law? God says, “When you buy a male Hebrew slave…” (21:2), which confuses me a little. Aren’t God’s followers Hebrews? I mean, they are referred to as Israelites, but Merriam-Webster says the two terms are basically synonyms. So is God condoning slavery of one’s own people? To be fair, what God then describes sounds more like indentured servitude (if I remember correctly, it is almost exactly like the indentured servitude of people trying to become American citizens back in the day). Then there are female slaves, and I can’t figure out if they are merely sex slaves or wives bought at a price, because 21:10 says “If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish the food, clothing, or marital rights of the first wife.” I’m not a fan of God at this point. He hardly thinks of women as people, which pisses me off, to say the least. From what I can tell, he thinks of them as sexual objects. This is not okay.

I can tell farming and herding were of extreme importance, because about half of the laws relate to them, and they are very specific.

I am no longer phased by the thought of people killing in the name of the Lord, because God just loves killing people, for a large number of reasons he is sure to specify. The most ridiculous incidence of mass murder occurs right after Moses comes down from Mt. Sinai and is pissed to find out about the golden calf.

Side note: The people have very recently heard the voice of God and feared him and refused to go near him or see him. Now they somehow forget this and want something they can see to worship. I guess this is just another incidence of how incredibly stupid people can be.

So Moses gathers the few people “on the Lord’s side” and tells them, specifically, “each of you kill your brother, your friend, and your neighbor.” HE DOESN’T EVEN SAY “THE PEOPLE WHO WORSHIPPED THE GOLDEN CALF.” HE WANTS THEM TO KILL THEIR BROTHER, FRIEND, AND NEIGHBOR. This is, to put it bluntly, fucked up. Then he praises them for it! “Today you have ordained yourselves for the service of the Lord, each one at the cost of a son or a brother, and so have brought a blessing on yourselves this day” (32:29).

Let me get this straight. If I kill my brother, friend, and/or neighbor (let’s just throw in, because they don’t worship God), then I will be blessed? I’m not sure about this whole idea.

THEN, to make things even better, Moses tells the surviving sinners, hey, maybe I can ask god to forgive you now. You’re lucky you didn’t know any of the holy men who just went on a killing spree! Now you can be redeemed. At least God doesn’t give in to Moses’ suggestion this time, and instead opts to send a plague on the calf-worshippers.

That's pretty much my rant on Exodus. Since I've been on such a blogging hiatus, maybe more will come tonight...there's still lacunae to be addressed about Abraham and Isaac, not to mention Northrop Frye.