Jan’s Comments (group member since May 23, 2015)

Jan’s comments from the On Paths Unknown group.

Now we're on the same page, I think. ...I even have a bookshelf called "us and them," although my shelf designations are not very precise and "scientific."

On another subject: What do you (anybody) think about Iris' frequently talking about her age--I mean her consciousness the ravages of age? I've been trying that on and trying to think if that's realistic. I don't think I go around with a double consciousness like that, comparing myself to my younger self, as though my past self was my "real" self--do I? still thinking.

Traveller wrote: "...Hmm, okay, I do see your point, but who knows what Atwood was thinking about? And yes, of course my personal association there is based on my own background which does include a few rea..."

Thanks for your very open response, Traveller. I appreciate it a lot! I can't remember exactly why I said exactly what, except that in my opinion religion and politics are impossible to separate. I think it's reasonable to say that in Christianity there is a tendency to project evil onto Jews (Hebrews, Israelites, etc.) and therefore if there's something that looks bad think "them," or if reminscent of them, think bad. I am not saying that's the essence of Christianity or that everyone does it all the time, but it is a tendency. That's what I was remarking on and why, when I was reading that part of the book, I predicted some people might think along those lines. I do think tendencies like that make it easier to speak about "them" instead of looking at oneself. And I believe that's why I put up the following quote:

“Each of the five tribes claims to have been the victorious attacker. Each recalls the slaughter with relish. Each believes it was ordained by their own god as righteous vengeance, because of the unholy practices carried on in the city. Evil must be cleansed with blood, they say. On that day the blood ran like water, so afterwards it must have been very clean.”

That is very powerful, speaking as it does to what all groups do, "OT," NT, every religion, conservatives, liberals/leftists, everybody. See the opponent in ever darkening terms to justify what we're doing to them because we know we're not supposed to, in a vicious circle. Not here in this group, you understand, but what humans get into toward each other. I thought that's what Atwood was getting at.

"Each," not "them!" That's the key.

Seeing that is easier said than done so the rules of discussion as you enumerated them sound good to me. :)

Busy right now, so if I'm slow to respond, that's why...

Michele wrote: "I am not seeing in Trav's post anything about what she believes in as far as religion or politics. I do see her making a literary reference (and a pretty genius one at that)."

We all need others to see into our own dark corners, so we talk. It's hard to be objective about oneself and one's own story, and to listen. Thanks for your response, Michele. Btw, about 100 pages into this book I began to wonder if the reason I'd pretty much forgotten it is that I hadn't liked it very much. Paradoxically, I finished it in part to find out.

Traveller wrote: "Hmm, reading your post again, Jan, I would like to caution you about jumping to conclusions based on stereotypes. This group is exactly the kind of environment where stereotypes are not indulged a..."

Yes--that's exactly my communication. When I read that section of the book it occurred to me that some darn Christian or post-Christian readers could jump to conclusions based on stereotypes, although wouldn't have really expected to see in this discussion. I don't think that's a major part of The Blind Assassin, though, so I am only addressing your assumptions about the science-fiction-story-within-a-story. That's why, as far as these particular comments go, I expect to stop with that.

Traveller wrote: "I was talking about this kind of thing from the Old Testament:

1 Samuel 15:3 ►
"Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'"
and
Numbers 31:17 ►
So kill all the Midi..."

Traveler, I would like you to be more careful about all this "OT" and "ancient Jews" stuff. You are going to think it is true, because you've been indoctrinated in it and you will select out what will support your views. I'm saying it's not that it's "the truth," but that it's your story (one that's shifted and changed over the past 100 years, in fact). You might just as well begin talking about Islam's being a religion of violence, or (more in past years) about certain races being people of violence. And they can assemble plenty of "evidence," too.

I'm not asking you to be "politically correct." Actually your views would represent political correctness; in other words, they represent your politics. Say what you want; just say it's your story and you're sticking to it!

Was in a Protestant church last Sun., and heard a Christian prof of OT theology confront this issue. He didn't mention Jews at all; just mentioned mainline Christians' habit of dissing the OT, talking about an "OT God," "OT justice," etc. And how this was false. How all these issues of judgment/mercy etc are continuous up through the NT.

I guess you're going to say you don't like any religion, Trav, if I remember correctly. That doesn't change my comment, though. The stuff in any people's scripture is a story. You can't find out so easy what they really did or what really happened--unless you yourself are a fundamentalist, which you're not.

I'd just as soon not argue about all this here, but just sayin'.

Magdelanye wrote: "Jan, its not that I don't like reptiles, per se. they play a significant role in mythology worldwide. I mean no disrespect.
but I was referring to her coldness, emotionally stingy, she is calculat..."

Oh, Magdelanye, reptiles aside, I don't see her that way. She was only a teenager! I see her father as marrying her off in the vain hope it would save the factories and the workers he was so loyal to. That part made total sense to me: even that her father would use her as a pawn and that she would feel obligated to "help." She had no idea what she was getting into! (the way I see it).

I don't experience Iris as having a reptilian personality. That would better fit how I see her eventual husband and sister-in-law. I see Iris' failure as her inability to extricate herself. I can't do much moralizing on what she should do. Her situation vis-à-vis sexual love/intimacy is not modern but seemingly more nearly medieval, and as such cannot be resolved in this world.

The problem I have with Iris is fitting all the aspects that eventually turn out to be her into one credible personality, and it's the author's job to make possible. I have to suspend belief and do it because the author wrote it the way she did.

The first part drew me in, and that was a good thing.

At first I was enticed, and also mystified about how I could have forgotten the book. And I'm still thinking about that. I read it previously, twelve or thirteen years ago.

June 13: my anniversary. That must have some deep significance in the whole scheme of things....