http://toosmallforsupernova.org/page032.htm
Baddad wrote something truly wonderful and memorable in the thread on "To Kill
A Mockingbird:"
Words are power. Fifty years after this book is released a poignant and
relative discussion continues on this very forum. Shock, dismay, confusion, and
in someways a sense of ugliness/evil, all stemming from the use of a single
word, still reverberate within those astute enough to strive for meaningful
social change. In an increasingly stubborn world I cheer to find thus-minded
souls. The author intended you to care, wanted to drag the ugliness into to the
light where it could be shamed and destroyed. This intent, and its success, is
one of the keys to this great piece of literature.
The phrase "to drag the ugliness into the light" reminded me of an interesting
passage in Plato's "Republic:"
Leontius, the son of Aglaion, was going up from the Piraeus under the outside
of the North Wall when he noticed corpses lying by the public executioner. He
desired to look, but at the same time he was disgusted and made himself turn
away; and for a while he struggled and covered his face. But finally,
overpowered by the desire, he opened his eyes wide, ran toward the corpses and
said (to his own eyes) 'LOOK, you damned wretches, take your fill of the fair
sight.'
This certainly indicates that anger sometimes makes war against the desires
(within us) as one thing against something else. Republic, 440a
Plato's comment about anger making war with other desires, within us, reminds
me of one verse from Psalm 4, which is more correctly translated from the Greek
Septuagint than from the King James:
Be angry, and sin not; feel compunction upon your beds (weep upon your beds)
for what you say in your heart
Ancient theologians point to such anger as a form of "righteous" anger which
has some positive moral value, as opposed to anger which is simply a character
flaw.
As a child, I carried to school a lunch box with a scene of a brave and noble
looking Davy Crockett confronting a sinister and evil looking Indian with a
knife. I still have that lunch box to this day, on my bookshelf. Only years
later, as and adult, did I understand that it was Davy Crockett who was evil
and sinister, a thief and murderer, and the Indian who was nobly defending his
home and family and livelyhood.
I have never read the novel "To Kill A Mockingbird", so I went to
www.sparknotes.com and reviewed their synopsis.
I was most curious about the meaning of the novel's title, "To Kill a
Mockingbird."
To quote sparknotes:
The title of To Kill a Mockingbird has very little literal connection to the
plot, but it carries a great deal of symbolic weight in the book. In this story
of innocents destroyed by evil, the “mockingbird” comes to represent the
idea of innocence. Thus, to kill a mockingbird is to destroy innocence.
Throughout the book, a number of characters (Jem, Tom Robinson, Dill, Boo
Radley, Mr. Raymond) can be identified as mockingbirds—innocents who have
been injured or destroyed through contact with evil. This connection between
the novel’s title and its main theme is made explicit several times in the
novel: after Tom Robinson is shot, Mr. Underwood compares his death to “the
senseless slaughter of songbirds,” and at the end of the book Scout thinks
that hurting Boo Radley would be like “shootin’ a mockingbird.” Most
important, Miss Maudie explains to Scout: “Mockingbirds don’t do one thing
but . . . sing their hearts out for us. That’s why it’s a sin to kill a
mockingbird.” That Jem and Scout’s last name is Finch (another type of
small bird) indicates that they are particularly vulnerable in the racist world
of Maycomb, which often treats the fragile innocence of childhood harshly.
As the novel progresses, the children’s changing attitude toward Boo Radley
is an important measurement of their development from innocence toward a
grown-up moral perspective. At the beginning of the book, Boo is merely a
source of childhood superstition. As he leaves Jem, and Scout presents and
mends Jem’s pants, he gradually becomes increasingly and intriguingly real to
them. At the end of the novel, he becomes fully human to Scout, illustrating
that she has developed into a sympathetic and understanding individual. Boo, an
intelligent child ruined by a cruel father, is one of the book’s most
important mockingbirds; he is also an important symbol of the good that exists
within people. Despite the pain that Boo has suffered, the purity of his heart
rules his interaction with the children. In saving Jem and Scout from Bob
Ewell, Boo proves the ultimate symbol of good.
I was stunned by a sudden, most curious thought:
"What if Boo is God?"
Woody Allen has one hilarious scene where he is standing in a long line outside
of a theatre, arguing with someone about a statement made by Marshall McLuhan.
Suddenly, Woody Allen says "Oh, yeah....well...." and he reaches over in the
crowd and grabs the arm of Marshall McLuhan, who steps up and defends Woody's
position in the argument.
Now, if I could grab hold of the arm of Harper Lee, and have her speak up and
say "Oh yes, why.... certainly, Boo IS God in my novel, and I am pleased that
someone has finally realized this and pointed it out!" that would certainly be
the end of any arguments about Boo.
But suppose Ms. Lee were to laugh at the notion that Boo is God? Well, one
might argue that it was her subconscious at work, or some Jungian archetype
expressing itself.
But what might lead me to suspect that Boo is God?
Well, no one ever sees Boo until the end of the book. The word "Boo" is
something which a ghost says. The Christian Trinity is comprised of Father, Son
and Holy Ghost. The children are fascinated by a house which they suspect is
haunted, but haunted is just the flipside of the coin we call numinous. They
speculate about the existence of "Boo." I am reminded of "Waiting For Godot."
But, here is one of three clinchers which I see. "Gifts" mysteriously appear
for the children in the hollow of a tree. There is a verse from the Epistle of
St. James which says: "Every GOOD gift and every PERFECT give is from above and
comes down from Thee, the Father of Lights." Ancient theologians questioned,
"what is the difference between a GOOD gift and a PERFECT gift." Well, those
ancient theologians conclude that the good gifts are things like air, water,
health, while the perfect gifts are things like the Eucharist (Communion of
bread and wine.) To this day, Greek and Russian Orthodox refer to the bread and
wine as "the gifts."
The second "clincher" for me how "Boo" suddenly appears or manifests in human
form and puts himself at risk to save the children and slay the evil one. This
is like Christ appearing in human form and suffering so that people may be
delivered from evil.
The third "clincher" for me is the statement that the children finally mature
in their understanding of good and evil in the world once they finally "know"
Boo as a person, in a personal relationship. Protestants are fond of speaking
about a "personal relationship" with Jesus.
It was actually the early Christians who contributed much to the "art" of
symbolic analysis, whether one chooses to call it "Eisagesis" (reading a
meaning into a passage which the author never meant to convey) or exagesis
(pointing out a concealed meaning which readers are intended to find.)
Obviously, during the first decades of the Christianity, it was considered by
both the Jews and the Pagans to be a "new" innovation. Even in those time
which, for us, are ancient times, people gave more value and credence to that
which they perceived as ancient than to something new. Therefore, it was to the
theologians' advantage to "analyze" the ancient scriptures and myths and
demonstrate that Christianity was really most ancient, and concealed and hidden
in ancient prophecy.
We may take as the following analysis of the story of Samson as a prime example
of early Christian analytical techniques:
Book of Judges Ch. 13
An angel appears to a barren woman and tells her she shall conceive a son,
Samson (Annunciation and Virgin Birth?).
The angel tells her that the child will be the deliverer of Israel (Messiah?).
Samson encounters a lion which he slays as easily as a lamb or kid (Lamb of
God?).
And a few days later (3 days?), he comes to find 'honey in the carcass of the
lion" (Eucharist?).
But it is a "secret" (Mystery?) so he gives it to his family to eat but does
not tell them where it is really from.
Then he is betrayed (with a kiss?).
Then he is taken prisoner and mocked.
Then he "destroys the temple" so to speak with "his arms outstretched"
(Crucifixion?).
There is an old seminary joke about a professor explaining the difference
between exegesis and eisegesis: Exegesis, she said is a careful analytical
study of scripture. Eisegesis is interpreting and applying the exegesis, as a
preacher would do in a sermon. While the class discussion was continuing
someone mumbled in the back of the room: “I don’t know nothin’ about
exegesis and I don’t understand eisegesis. I just want to learn about
Jesus!”
Well, what shall we say of my notion that "Boo is God?" One valid subjective
stance to take is that if Boo is God for me, then that is my subjective
experience, and it has a certain subjective validity.
When we read notions about Moby ***** being God for Melville, we find such
notions far more credible, since Melville seems to work very hard making many
allusions which would steer us in the direction of such a notion.
It is interesting to note that: Truman Capote published "In Cold Blood" with a
dedication to Jack Dunphy and Harper Lee.
.
|
