On Paths Unknown discussion
This topic is about
The Blind Assassin
ATWOOD-BLIND ASSASSIN
>
Blind Assassin thread 3: Parts VI - X
date
newest »
newest »
Not joking at all. The early parts of the Old Testament are a litany of ethnic cleansings by the Israelites.
Derek (Guilty of thoughtcrime) wrote: "Not joking at all. The early parts of the Old Testament are a litany of ethnic cleansings by the Israelites."It is a story, not history. Historically, there was war. In that time in the ancient near east, there was a lot of chest pounding by various tribes, claiming they had "destroyed the seed" of the other tribe, and so forth. But we cannot tell what happened from what is written in scripture. We can say the Israelites sometimes prevailed, but we cannot say they wiped out everybody. The last redactors of the Hebrew bible were the priests, and that was the idealization they wrote in as to what should happen, but still we cannot tell what part of what is written down has elements of history, and what part is cheer-leading. For example the Tel Dan stele: the 1st part of this rendition. I don't know if this is a particularly good rendition; it's just the first reasonable explanation I came across for this commonly known example. In a direct contradiction of a part of the Hebrew bible in which it's written the Israelites won and wiped out the seed, this other king(s?) is claiming his side won and "wiped out the seed (or house)" of David.
So for those who "choose to believe" this in such fundamentalist terms, we know about them than about what they are pointing to. Why is it so important to you to believe this? How is it different than white people who propped up their self esteem by the belief they were "better than" others?
In case you would like to say the new tradition brought a change in no longer following the old warlike ways, that would be a hard sell. It requires telling a story that makes the ongoing warlike ways "not you," and that's the hard sell part.
Better to start looking at the person in the mirror and not at "them."
It's NOT important to me to believe that—I "believe" very little of the Old Testament, and not much more of the new (I'm fairly confident in the Epistles). What's important is that that is what was written. I don't understand why you want to insist on some "true" history—it's not relevant to anything Traveller or I said. Traveller said the People of Joy reminded her of the ancient Hebrews of the bible. And they remind me of those people too. It's not any different from saying that Iris reminds me of the Dormouse from Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, the biggest difference being that Iris wakes up eventually.
Though, whether the ancient Hebrews are or are not anything like the ones described in the Bible is actually hugely relevant, since Alex's story is supposedly based on Hittite history—and the Hittites of history may or may not be the ones of the Bible, either!
What we have here is a "moralization gap:" I'm saying you've done something to me, and you're saying you've done nothing worth caring about and btw get over it. We are each seeing the situation in our own interests. If the situation was reversed, I might be the one denying while you wanted to be heard.I think you're evading, but, OK, have it your own way, story. The bible is after all a big Rorschach blot, and you see something ugly in (that part of) it. There's a name for that. (Not what you're thinking.)
I already talked with Traveller, and this time I'm talking with you, Derek.
The tale within a tale is fiction.
Mod
Jan, please tell me something: If I had said that the Lizard men remind me of the Greek Gods who occupied Mount Olympus, would you have had a similar reaction as to the remark made that referred to books that make up part of the Judaic scriptures?
Mod
Iris tells us: "It was spring. The spring of 1936.
[...] What was March known for? Something. Richard rattling his paper at the breakfast table, and saying, So he’s done it.
Could Iris really be that dozy, or is it old age making her forgetful? ...and if old age is really making her this forgetful, then how much of the rest of her narrative can we trust?
Ooh. That's a fascinating question, Trav. I'm afraid when you say "As we all know", it's not strictly true! However, someone who was alive at the time would surely be less likely to forget the particular date.
Traveller wrote: "I wanted to comment on something completely different here, but I see there is air to be cleared first.Jan, please tell me something: If I had said that the Lizard men remind me of the Greek God..."
Oh, here's my comeuppance: I must stand and talk... But I am kidding. Thank you for asking.
First of all, I consider the air to have been considerably cleared. That's up to me. I can either stuff it, or I can speak. If the former, then that means I won't be interacting, since it's not possible to both speak, and not speak about something that's important. (So, some could be thinking, "Oh, darn! We missed out on not having to bother!")
I'll try to address your concern, although in somewhat simplified and condensed form--not the full treatment.
Let's say that when Jews were emancipated and allowed into society (in those European countries in which they were), which was around the time of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Napoleon, I think of them having agreed never to question the Western, i.e., Christianity-based story, on pain of disloyalty, so whenever the issue arose they would just have to suck it up. But, unfortunately, that story periodically flares up on a grass-roots level when politically beneficial for some (which has been most of the time, except for an interlude which just happens to have encompassed most of my lifetime but is ending or has ended).
I decided that speaking up was important.
It's like the guy I think I cited in my The Meursault Investigation review: stuff happens whether one is silent or speaks, and I decided on the latter. There is another writer who said the only worthwhile things to speak (write) about are the things that "can't" be spoken.
A key point is that the stories about the OT and Judaism and so forth that are prevalent in our culture and incline people to see it as violent, immature, and -ha!- unperfected, are not Jewish stories. They are Christian stories about Judaism, Israelites, OT etc., seen only through that lens, so that it looks solid, real, and immutable. And unquestionable. It seems ludicrous to bring it up, like questioning the sky is blue.
As I may have said before, much of the Christian story and foundations of conventional Western culture is "over-against" "Judaism"--that is, a story about Judaism for the purpose of making "ordinary" people feel better about themselves in comparison. (Thus, not different at bottom from white people feeling solid by looking down on people of color, or Europeans looking down on "native" populations as in past generations, etc.etc.)
Now, as to Greek gods: even today's Greeks wouldn't feel bad about negative comparison to Greek gods, much less I, nor (so I understand) do today's Egyptians or Arabs feel bad when "Pharaoh" is portrayed as the bad guy, because there is not that over-against dynamic. That is an ancient civilization which they are not seen as. It is the continued dynamic of degradation that is poisonous when it exists. With Greek gods or Pharaoh it doesn't.
On hearing this you may feel incredulity or feel unfairly accused etc., and it's not my purpose to go around making people uncomfortable, but when it comes up I'll still try to express as best I can. And I don't think the air can be cleared by shoring up the typical barriers against discussion. Maybe it can even be a source of learning from the other and can bring something new into the world. I hope so, Traveller. I have a book review coming up in not too long in which I'll be looking as some of these issues again, as I have in quite a few others.
Mod
So let's have at it then. Just btw, as I have mentioned before, I have a Jewess in my ancestry which, as I am sure you know, would count me as a Jew amongst Jews racially speaking since they trace parentage along matrilineal lines.
But, I confess, she must have given up her faith because most of my direct ancestors appear to be rather, agnostics with eccentric and intellectual bents some of who would, on the surface, like many many many Europeans and Americans pay "lip-service" to Christianity by pretending to believe the stories as gospel and go to church and the rest of it.
What I am saying by this is that I personally am probably in an as neutral position on this as it is possible to be from a circumstantial POV.
But now, -how do I personally feel about the Old Testament? Firstly, since the Jewish part is only a small part of my ancestry and most of my ancestry is European, I feel that it is a foreign religion foisted upon my European predecessors.
Judaism did not have its roots in Europe, so I find it a bit strange and uncomfortable that Europeans have syncretised it (into what we call "Christianity" today) much as Africans and South Americans have syncretised Catholicism to make up various religions such as Voodoo, Santeria and Candomblé.
The biggest difference for me in the cultures of the ancient Europeans as opposed to that of the ancient Semites, (and I stand to be corrected on this) is the Judaic focus on purity.
As far as the violence is concerned, sure, pretty much all the ancient peoples were warlike, including the Angles, Saxons, Vikings, Gauls and Francs, so yeah, you are right in that there is no "us" and "them" as far as that is concerned. They were all violent.
But talking of "us" and "them", if anybody did make us and them distinctions, it's the very followers of the Judaic religions who would see gentiles (and later, 'infidels' from the Muslim branch) as impure and most definitely not "one of us" from their point of view.
So when I made my comment, it had not been so much focused on the violent aspect of these mythologies, but on how much of the Israelite tradition seems to be focused on purity and taintedness. In the Judaic mythologies, in many instances beings had to be destroyed not because they had necessarily committed 'sin' themselves, but because they were 'tainted'.
(And here I will say in my very cynical voice that yet often it was not above the Judaic tribes to take slaves from amongst the fallen - maybe some were less tainted than others...)
Traveller wrote: "Jan, I'm not sure if I am understanding you correctly, but is this about anti-semitism? This is a book discussion of a specific book, of which a discussion like we're having, strictly speaking fall..."It feels so unfair...and so we weave such fantastical stories to prove how "we" are right and "they" are in the wrong...and deserve the way we look at them and treat them. What it is not is loving each other as ourselves. We know we should, but instead justify our attitudes and behaviors.
I gave you a long, thoughtful response to your original question, Traveller, even though from my point of view the air had been cleared. Now I am going to have to pause, since I have some upcoming distractions for the next few days and am short of time, so I am not going to be able to delve into the particular plot points you've raised above at this time.
No, it's not antisemitism. That is racial hatred. This is more along the lines of the history of ideas. I think it's worthwhile to talk about the ideas while they are still just ideas.
Also it's worth noting that I'm speaking for myself. My ideas are mine and not the Jews'. I have some biographical details that make me able to hear a wider range than some others of whatever background, so try to put that to good purpose. And as you've noticed previously, I am not parroting specific conventional patterns of thought. So, maybe some good will come of it after all, Traveller.
Mod
..but I am glad that you mentioned it is a question of ideas, because that is how I couched it in my original post on the issue.
I mentioned that the focus, and I'd even go as far as to say "obsession" with purity is the thing that stood out for me, and also the idea that a person or a thing can become "tainted" by being in the physical proximity of someone who is "Impure" "sinful" or "unclean" , which is where the horrible practice of killing girls who had been "sullied" even against their will comes from.
I had not been judgmental about this way of thinking in my comments up to now, but truth be told, if I were to become subjective about the whole matter, I would admit that I find this way of thinking personally abhorrent. It is definitely not a way of thinking that can be attributed only to the ancient Israelites, unfortunately; since as you know, it had reared it's ugly head in Western society for a long long time as well, and in other societies as well, and wherever it appears I find it abhorrent.
However, my initial comment had actually just been an idle comment and I had not at the time even thought about the fact that I find this way of thinking personally abhorrent, because at the time I did not have my "emotional hat" on. It is not a hat I wear comfortably, I find, in general discussions, but since we're really digging in by now, there it is.
Jan wrote: "A key point is that the stories about the OT and Judaism and so forth that are prevalent in our culture and incline people to see it as violent, immature, and -ha!- unperfected, are not Jewish stories."Except that that's not true. Some of those stories are right out of the Torah, and none of them are "Christian" stories, they existed long before Christianity. There's no doubt that the King James Version mistranslated a lot of the Old Testament, and has skewed opinions in the English-speaking world for 400+ years, but I have read the entire bible in much more careful translations.
Cecily wrote: " I'm afraid when you say "As we all know", it's not strictly true! "True. If you asked me (before this discussion, and probably again not long after now...) what happened in March 1936, I'd probably have asked if the Berlin Olympics started that early. I knew that Germany occupied the Rhineland sometime between 1933 & 1939, and if asked to say when that happened I might have guessed 1936, but mostly because it's in the middle of that time period!
But in this case, I thought Iris was being facetious.
Mod
True. If you asked me (before this discussion, and probably again not long after now...) what happened in March ..."
I was being magnanimous to y'all when I said that, and I myself didn't really know the exact date. But one of you -could- have.... :P
But it seemed as if Margaret Atwood was being very playful with the Iris character there - and later on Iris does say that indeed, it was naughty old Hitler's naughtiness (she doesn't use those words) that she had forgotten about. :)
I had an interlude that I used to read back through all the comments relating the in-power group of the story-within-a-story to the ancient Hebrews and my objections.Traveller said (back on Thread 2): "...Also, no text is the same thing for different people, because we all come to it from different contexts and backgrounds. :)"
I said (above, #55), "... The bible is after all a big Rorschach blot...."
In other words,
(One of those quotes you'll see in slightly different formats. It's variously attributed.)
With me so far?
That's my point.
You've made my point with about everything you've said, Trav and Derek.
The rest is commentary about my thinking what you're saying is problematical and immoral with implications beyond literary discussion, while you think it's perfectly justified and right on target.
Will check back later in the week, and who knows, maybe I can reply in verse or something. My preferred meter is...damn, I forget it every time...oh, yeah: anapestic tetrameter.
Mod
A bit like when you attacked a group of us who protested against Amazon's attempts towards turning us and our intellectual property into marketing fodder, with you apparently having no real background knowledge of what we were on about. You seemed to confuse us with the bunch of Young Adults who were having tiffs with authors, when in reality what we were concerned about had absolutely nothing to do with that literary Jerry Springer show.
If you want to call me immoral, please back those accusations up with well-argumented proof? I take exception to it.
And I still want to know how you can call those Old Testament writings "Christian stories." They manifestly are not.
Traveller wrote: "Jan, it feels to me as if you are making ad hominem accusations without backing up your claims. A bit like when you attacked a group of us who protested against Amazon's attempts towards turning..."
It isn't clear what will set someone off, and I was really surprised, Traveller, by your response.
I first remember meeting you on my The Evolution of God thread. If I remember right, you were eager to pin on me some view with which you disagreed (that there was no morality without religion, I think), even though that wasn't my position, and even though I repeatedly said I thought there were arguments for that position but that I didn't know them. If that was you, and in light of your responses now, perhaps you are too eager for a hounds and hare chase. Are you looking to set the "us" hounds on whomever disagrees with you? On that "censorship" issue I certainly did see things differently. I didn't like the hue and cry and the mob mentality of "Don't think; just condemn whom I condemn."
You said earlier, "...-how do I personally feel about the Old Testament? Firstly, since the Jewish part is only a small part of my ancestry and most of my ancestry is European, I feel that it is a foreign religion foisted upon my European predecessors.
Judaism did not have its roots in Europe, so I find it a bit strange and uncomfortable that Europeans have syncretis...."
None of it was native to Europe, was it? It all came from elsewhere.
And, "...The biggest difference for me in the cultures of the ancient Europeans as opposed to that of the ancient Semites, (and I stand to be corrected on this) is the Judaic focus on purity...."
These things are mixed in all of us. For example, when you talk about aspects and groups not native to Europe, that itself seems to reflect an emphasis on purity. It's easy to see parts you don't like as "them," but that's essentialism.
This is revealing. Here one does get pejorative (and wrongheaded) attitudes about the "Old Testament" vs. the New such as I 1st objected to--but not so much this thing you've brought out of Judaism as an impurity or contaminant of some native culture. I don't feel that's because Americans are so much better, but because of the differing history in Europe, and because, here, race issues tend to overwhelm any other such thinking.
And I have a brief response for Derek that ties in here, as well.
Derek (Guilty of thoughtcrime) wrote: "And I still want to know how you can call those Old Testament writings "Christian stories." They manifestly are not."You are in error. Talk to scholars and experts on your tradition. What you say has been tried, at least twice that I know of, and it just couldn't be done.
Mod
I first remember meeting you on my The Evolution of God thread. If I remember right, you were eager to pin on me some view with which you disagreed (that there was no morality without religion, I think), even though that wasn't my position,...."
Jan, what I was asking of you in my post 67, is to back up/prove/explain your claim that anything that I have been saying is "immoral". You speak of pejoratives, but as far as I can see, the term "immoral" is more judgment-laden and inflammatory than anything I have said thus far on this group.
I do not recall the conversation about morality that you refer to, but since you mention it, yes, I certainly do agree that morality is not a necessary adjunct to religion alone, also depending on how you define the term "morality" - a term that many people seem to define according to their own terms.
However, if we try our best to define the term objectively, taking the dictionary definition of:
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
synonyms: ethics, rights and wrongs, ethicality
morals, principles, honesty, integrity, propriety, honor, justice, decency;
ethics, standards/principles of behavior, mores, standards
- then we might come to a conclusion that in neutral, objective terms, the term would refer to having a set of principles regarding what is considered right and wrong, and the study of ethics would be establishing what should be considered right and wrong and what kind of behavior is just and correct. Having a religion define this for us, would seem to be subjecting ourselves to the 'revelations' given to certain individuals, instead of carefully considering these important matters via rational thought and democratic discussion. The former would most definitely ascribe to essentialism, and to absolutism, btw...
Now, now, Jan, you seem to keep attacking straw men. Example: "... perhaps you are too eager for a hounds and hare chase. Are you looking to set the "us" hounds on whomever disagrees with you?"
Interesting remark after I gave you every opportunity for debate, and at no point, as far as I can see, having set any "hounds" on you, even after you made some comments that attacked some members, including myself, on a personal level.
These things are mixed in all of us. For example, when you talk about aspects and groups not native to Europe, that itself seems to reflect an emphasis on purity. It's easy to see parts you don't like as "them," but that's essentialism.
A strong focus on laws regarding clothing, personal grooming,(how to wear your hair and facial hair) eating,(what not to eat and how to eat, etc) circumcision, etc. etc. and making these laws important enough to kill/badly hurt people as punitive measures for breaking them: these are the kinds of "purity traditions" that I am talking about, and there is not evidence that these laws existed in Europe before Christianity brought them there.
No, I am not saying that the absence of such purity laws made Europe "pure", Jan. The whole point is that "purity" seems a flawed concept unless we are talking about chemical essences in Chemistry, as opposed to about human beings. Europe has for as far as we know always consisted of syncretised cultures and religions, and the Roman empire made it even more so.
In the first instance, I had initially mentioned the "purity and contamination" mode of thinking more as a curiosity than anything else - that it seems to me a curious way of thinking that you have to kill a person's cattle and pets because that person was worshiping a different god than that of your own (where the clear implication is that "worshiping false gods" or "immoral behavior" where the morality of actions is judged on the accuser's terms, are impurities that contaminates everything within a certain physical radius of the person involved in these so-called "impure acts").
I had merely made a small observation about it, and you reacted so strongly to it that we never even got around to researching the Hittites as I had planned.
The thing is, we can have a pages and pages-long discussion about morality and the Old Testament that would not really fit in with a discussion of this book beyond the various barbs and witticisms that Margaret Atwood throws out about ironies within Christianity and the Christian protestant concept of God.
...but here in this discussion we need to remain calm and unemotional and academic, because this is a book discussion and not a political forum. If you like, we can always make a separate member's thread for Politics and Religion where you can air your grievances.
Jan wrote: "Derek (Guilty of thoughtcrime) wrote: "And I still want to know how you can call those Old Testament writings "Christian stories." They manifestly are not."
You are in error. Talk to scholars and experts on your tradition. What you say has been tried, at least twice that I know of, and it just couldn't be done.
"
Are you saying the Tanakh was some kind of Christian set-up? <_<
I'm not sure how that's possible since most of it was set centuries before the birth of Christ... why does current-day Judaism also still follow it then, and why do the Muslims accept the Torah?
Sadly we are derailing this specific discussion - I am going to create a Politics and Religion thread where we can continue with this.
Mod
Thanks.
Jan wrote: "You are in error. Talk to scholars and experts on your tradition. What you say has been tried, at least twice that I know of, and it just couldn't be done. "No, don't just tell me I'm "in error" (you might as well just call me an anti-semitic liar). Tell me why those books, included in the foundational literature for Judaism, are "Christian" stories. In the other thread...
Mod
Traveller wrote: "Yes, Richard feels to me to be one of those villians whom you want to take by the neck and squeeze until he goes purple."Those were my feelings about him exactly. At the part where they come back from their honeymoon and she finds out her father died, I had an image of myself in that position, screaming at Richard for not letting me know and trying to get at him to strangle him. That kind of situation will awaken a deep rage in me and I'm generally a very calm person. It's because of who he is and how he treats Iris that builds up and comes crashing down at this moment for me, where you feel like you can't take more of this character. ;p
So far I love this novel. I see the postmodern characteristics at play now and the effect it has of revealing the truth of events slowly and getting clearer as you go. For me this is what fuels me to keep reading, not being given everything at once, but like a puzzle, pieces are being shifted around until you unlock this family's secrets.
As for the different parts, I actually find all of them interesting. The sci-fi, Iris at present and all the flashbacks. I like the pondering on writing e.g. where the guy in Laura's story goes through a few possible settings, decides on one place and then as he writes changes it again. It gives you a sense of the writing process and what goes in and what gets taken out. Also Iris's thoughts on writing.
This is my first Atwood book and so far it would seem that I have found a new favourite author :)
Mod
Hi Yolande, I am so glad that you're enjoying the book! (I was wondering if you'd given up on it, so I'm extra glad!)
And yes! Nice comments about her thoughts on writing and her showing some of the writing process. That's part of the postmodernist metafictional angle that I had been talking about.
Also very po-mo is how the Sakiel-Norn story keeps being changed by both characters involved in the telling of it. (Not sure if you've come upon that part yet).
Traveller wrote: "Yolande wrote: "Those were my feelings about him exactly. At the part where they come back from their honeymoon and she finds out her father died, I had an image of myself in that position, scream..."I have read that part, I agree :)
I hadn't given up, I just had to finish a big assignment and after that I have been reading non-stop trying to catch up. I am so engulfed in this novel though that I will finish this one before starting on "Like Water for Chocolate" but I will still be participating in that one. I have a friend who can read two or more books of fiction at the same time but I find that I can't focus on two at once so I usually read one at a time.
Mod
Oh good about still seeing you later on the LW4C discussion. It should work out fine, because we as yet have nothing going during August so you should have quite enough time to catch up.
I understand about the only one fiction at a time (though I am very bad - I'm a true 'snacker' and often have about 10 reads from various genres going - most of them non-fiction) :P
Traveller wrote: "though I am very bad - I'm a true 'snacker' and often have about 10 reads from various genres going - most of them non-fiction"Wow. I think the 7 I had going while we were reading this was some kind of record for me. And I try never to have more than one non-fiction on the go at once (it's The Singularity is Near right now, but he manages to make a fascinating subject terribly dry...)
Mod
PS, I had been eyeing that book for a long time, Derek! Still haven't opened it...
What I find interesting to read in non-fiction is biographies/histories about people with usually tragic stories or just out of the ordinary or mysterious. For instance, the history of the Romanov family. I find it incredibly sad and unfair that all the children were executed just because they were heirs to the throne and yet fascinating to find out everything that played a role in this ending. There is a book: "The Romanov Sisters" that I would love to get.
Mod
Yolande, I went through a phase of reading up about facism, which led me to read about dictators, which led me to read about Stalin, Franco and Mussolini, which led me to read about the power relationships in Europe that led up to WW1, which led me to be more interested in Bismarck and Queen Victoria... you get my drift. Oh, and the Romanovs were also in there somewhere.
Some of it was dry and boring at the time of reading, but I'm glad I did it, and feel I need to do some more. Sadly I ran out of time with that but I'll get back to it sometime...
Of course the Kaiser, King George of England and Tzar Nicholas were all grandchildren of Queen Victoria, if you're interested in biography. You might find this book interesting. George, Nicholas and Wilhelm: Three Royal Cousins and the Road to World War I
But wait, what am I doing, you already don't have enough time... :P
Currently the philosophy of science is beckoning to me. Oh, for more hours in the day!
Oi, we're really going off-topic a lot in poor old Marge Atwood's book... :P
Ha, those are a lot of leads ;pSounds interesting, I'll look into it.
Traveller wrote: "Oi, we're really going off-topic a lot in poor old Marge Atwood's book.."Peggy, not Marge :-)
Hey, here's a reference to the Romanovs: "In a million cellars the bewildered royal family faces the firing squad; the gems sewn into their corsets will not save them" I remember they had to shoot one of the sisters a second time because the diamonds in her clothing kept her alive by stopping the bullet a bit. This is in the next section but I put it here because I'm not done and all the spoilers are in the last section.
Mod
Hey, nice catch, Yolande! ...and what an interesting way Atwood chose to put it - almost sounds like poetry, heh. Terrible about even the young Romanovs being killed...
On Paths Unknown
Books mentioned in this topic
George, Nicholas and Wilhelm: Three Royal Cousins and the Road to World War I (other topics)The Singularity is Near (other topics)
The Evolution of God (other topics)
Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland / Through the Looking-Glass (other topics)
That wasn't me... I'm 100% in agreement that the genocides of the Bible are on the Israelites' part. ..."
??? Are you joking, Derek? I thought we were through with that "us" and "them."