Interpretation

In class we discussed Dante’s preferential damned treatment of his enemies’. This forced me to ask myself the question: do we as readers obtain circumstantial lessons through past authors/text, or can we read a text while maintaining “reader’s virginity” against previous purpose? Look at the bible for instance, different versions of the book lead to different conclusions. I choose to pull out two passages from both the Harper Collins translation and the King James translation and see how the two compare.

 

KJV- In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judæa, And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

HCSB- In those days John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness of Judea, proclaiming, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.”

The first notable difference between the two bibles is the depiction of how John the Baptist comes to be in the wilderness of Judea. The KJV uses the word “preaching” which is directly linked to a sermon. This translation gives John the Baptist a “preaching” tone of voice and ultimately gives him more accountability in my mind. John the Baptist is almost more legitimate in the KJV rather than in the HCSB where he just “appears” in the wilderness of Judea. With John the Baptist simply appearing, I feel less authority and credibility given to him. Instead, it seems as if this guy, appeared in the wilderness and started ranting.

The second difference that I just want to point on is the linguistic use of “æ” in the KJV and how the HCSB seems to drop it to the “e” in translation. I looked the use of “æ” in bibles and it seems that æ is Latin. This makes sense to me considering many of the outdated Latin terms, phrases and symbols were dropped in the HCSB. The KJV left them as if to seem more rightful and genuine. In my opinion the “old language” does seem to read with more validity

The third difference is how John the Baptist vocalizes his message. In the KJV he simply “says” his message whereas in the HCSB he “proclaims.” Maybe the use of “proclaiming” in the HCSB makes up for John the Baptist “appearing.” Meaning, “proclaiming” seems more official or formal compared to John “saying” his message. 

The fourth notable difference is the very last phrase of the passage. In the KJV John the Baptist says the kingdom of heaven “is at hand,” whereas in the HCSB John the Baptist proclaims the kingdom of heaven “has come near.” To me, the KJV, “at hand”, seems much more present and immediate than the HCSB, “has come near.”

After finding notable differences between these bible passages, I can't help but wonder how we as readers assume Dante is any more or less preferential to his own experiances. Furthermore, how we as readers also use our experiances to manipulate our interpretation of Dante.

Trepidation

A=Trepidation

I realize after having gone over my notes from this week I have done a sort of deconstruction of Dante's Divine Comedy which  attempts to raise readers to transcendent heights and focus love on the love of God. Especially during Canto VI-XI, Dante's exile due to the black guelphs power modivates Dante to send all those who have betrayed him into the exile of hell. In this sense the poem is also an exposition of the value of the higher human faculties, which contrasts at times rather vividly with the apparently harsh autocratic fates that are assigned to some characters--who do not seem quite deserving of what is inflicted upon them. Here I find tention between absolute faith in the judgment of God and human reason and compassion which sometimes conventional theology throughout, it is clear Dante has difficulty in avoiding the depiction of characters for whom he has a secret sympathy. Virgil even disaproves of his compassion, arguing that God's justice is always correct and if God carries out his anger through punishment, so should Dante.

Dante offers such a perspective almost in spite of himself that his poem transcends the mind and becomes relevant to all ages and cultures. As a rule of thumb, when one finds one's instinctual convictions about how to proceed in conflict with one's theories and set of rules, something is wrong. It is with the greatest trepidation readers attempt to understand Dante's "myth."

Myth

I want to further explore the multiplicity behind the linguistic term “myth.” In class we discussed how Myth=story and also Myth=Lie. I want to dive deeper into these terms and flesh out the characteristics behind the duality of Myth. Of course my first stop is Google which reveals multiple definitions:

1.A traditional story, esp. one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events

2.Such stories collectively

3.A widely held but false belief or idea

4.A misrepresentation of the truth

5.A fictitious or imaginary person or thing

6.An exaggerated or idealized conception of a person or thing

While these are all altered versions of both story and lie, the first definition brought new information to light; specifically the idea of myth being a state of phenomenon. Greek mythology is perceived to exist or to have happened right? Not so much, Greek mythology and its origin are in question. A phenomenon is also something of grand magnitude that is perceived to exist yet questioned by some. But perhaps it is the mystery and skeptics that bequeath mythology with the untouchable beauty these stories posses. To go even further—I would go as far as to say the reader wants to be lied to; taken to an alternative universe, the universe of Greek mythology. A world in which Gods and Godesses have flaws and seem even more humanistic than humans themselves. A world in which love can conquer (or defeat) all.

I stumbled upon an interesting article from wired magazine. Jonah Lehrer wants scientists to bone up on the classics. A former neuroscience lab drone, the 26-year-old Rhodes scholar would devour pages of Marcel Proust's Swann's Way whenever he wasn't spinning down DNA. In the process, he made a discovery: Artists have something to teach researchers. In his new book, Proust Was a Neuroscientist, Lehrer argues that many artists have foretold the scientific future — Proust revealed the inaccuracy of memory, chef Auguste Escoffier anticipated the fifth taste sensation we now call umami, and post-impressionist Paul Cézanne proved that the brain fills in what a painting doesn't show. Wired asked Lehrer to explain why the white coats should go all black-beret.

The article is so facinating (and so English inclined) I want to include the question and answer session Jonah Lehrer participates in:

Wired: Do you really think that we'll find answers to science's Big Questions in the arts?

Lehrer: Virginia Woolf isn't going to help you finish your lab experiment. What she will do is help you ask your questions better. Proust focused on problems that neuroscience itself didn't grapple with until relatively recently — questions of memory that couldn't be crammed into Pavlovian reinforcement: Why are memories so unreliable? Why do they change so often? Why do we remember only certain aspects of the past?

Wired: Has the separation of the disciplines held them back?

Lehrer: It has affected both cultures adversely. You read the diary of Woolf and the letters of Cézanne and realize they thought they were discovering something true — in the same real way that science is true — but we don't think of artists that way anymore. The separation has also led science to neglect this other side of the mind. It's important to acknowledge that when you discuss the brain only in terms of proteins and enzymes, you're missing something.

Wired: Which artists are making the discoveries of tomorrow?

Lehrer: Maybe my next book will be Kanye West Was a Neuroscientist. He's making use of the same musical principles as Beethoven, the same idea of building toward a pattern but then denying the listener that pattern by injecting randomness, because that unexpectedness is what your auditory cortex really craves.

Wired: What scientific advances are affecting artists today?

Lehrer: Neuroscience has come up with some amazing things in the past couple of decades, like the idea that there is no you in the brain, no neuron that is you or that cares about you. You're just a massively distributed parallel network. And the idea that from the perspective of DNA we're all so incredibly similar. That feels very novelistic to me.

Wired: Which of today's artists and scientists would you pair up?

Lehrer: Sculptor Richard Serra should read about string theory and figure out a way to simulate what 11 dimensions might be like. I would love to put Serra and physicist Brian Greene together.

So while myth can have a duel sense, I think story and lie need not walk hand in hand, but rather separately, each owning the character role they play for the reader, society – and science. Dictionaries don’t define words; they define how we use them.

Mythical Love

This semester has taken me on a journey through worn pages of Ovid, a literature hungry for a love bursting at the seams; a devoted love in need of protection. Love, as I have discovered (and continue to discover) is not a feeling of fearlessness, selfishness or rationality like that of when you reach the top of a mountain. Rather, love is like climbing to the top of the mountain and deciding if reaching the top is worth the hike. Love is the afterwards, and climbing down the mountain. Love is what is left over after the madness, after the butterflies and the challenges fade away. As I write this I realize that this is the love I have justified. This is my own love; a love that I will define, and continue to define through my interpretations of English literature. No one else can unconditionally define love as I have. Thus, love is as unique as each individual.  Greek Mythology has taught me love cannot be universally defined, rather interpreted and carried out through friendship, courtship and stewardship (although not always justified or consensual as depicted in Ovid).   

Power

Power represents the unleashed, nonconsensual lust represented through Ovid in Book 6 Procne Philomela and Tereus. After being happily married for five years Tereus sees Philomela and an old flame reignites. The inborn tribal urge Tereus exudes represents traditional thrusting desire, a desire that will lead to ultimate sick recurrence of rape. This tale that makes the reader wants to cringe. We as the reader are meant to read this and look away from the mirror. This story made me think of those crimes on the news that evoke immediate channel change; we just don’t want to see it, or believe that man can be so cruel.  The character of Tereus is motivated by cruel power. Not only does he rule over land and a country, he has to rule over women, specifically, power over Philomela, which is why he rapes her and then cuts her tongue out. It’s all about power. Even his own death, in one account, can be seen as power over choosing when and how he dies. Personally, my favorite character is Philomela. She is driven by a sense of justice. She knows her imprisonment is wrong (as does the reader) and so actively seeks emancipation. She also agrees to go along with Procne’s plan to kill her son because she feels that it is justice served to Tereus. Philomela’s transformation into a bird is the ultimate form of justice for her because she can finally escape tyranny.