1. "This is Not a Real-Life Pokemon, Just the Poodle Moth." TechEBlog 23 September 2012. Web. 29 September 2012.
This article focuses on an image of the poodle moth in nature, and as a pokemon card. It's a brief article that includes no extra description of the animal or an external link.
Nonetheless, this link is included because of its weirdness and how it shows the world's wondrousness.
2.Marable, Eileen. "This Nazi Space Buddha isn't science fiction — it's real." DVICE 27 September 2012. Web. 29 September 2012.
According to this article, information on a Buddhist statue made from meteorite iron was recently released by researchers. This statue is from the 8th-10th centures, but the iron itself fell some 10,000 years ago, along the Siberia-Mongolia border. During the late 1930s it was brought to Nazi Germany, possibly because of the swastika on its chest. This article is written in a sensationalist, yet level-headed style.
This article is included because of its bizarreness.
3. Taylor, Kathleen. "The Brain Supremacy." Huff Post Science 24 September 2012. Web. 29 September 2012.
An article that proposes that the field of neuroscience is going to be a hot spot for future scientific development - as the brain is increasingly better understood, the more it will be treated directly, and the more it will be pleased directly (with things like artificial experiences or direct thought-editing). At the same time, this piece raises the ethical questions important to a world where neuroscience can do all of these things. Taylor writes in a lecture-style register but keeps things moving along smoothly.
This one is included because the matter of brain manipulation is a curious thing.
4. Adams, James. "Why reading more carefully is better." The Globe and Mail 21 September 2012. Web. 29 September 2012.
Adams explains the importance of reading slowly based on observations of reading brains and circulatory systems. According to this article, slow reading gives blood flow to all of the brain, whereas skimming something only gives a blood flow to certain parts of the brain. He writes in a casual but tidy style.
I had to include this one because any research into the body's reaction to reading needs to be shared. Especially when it proposes such positive benefits to slow reading.
5. Kooser, Amanda. "Nintendo zapper hacked to shoot high-powered laser." CBS News 26 September 2012. Web. 29 September 2012.
Over at North Street Labs in Portsmouth, VA, engineers have hacked an NES Zapper to fire a powerful laser. This laser can set things on fire, damage eye sight, or burn skin. A video demonstrating some of its applications is included with this article, and it's written in a direct, simple style.
Because this one is so amazing, it's included.
Back To Top
Closing
Tomorrow, watch for the next look-back/look-ahead entry!
Back To Top
Showing posts with label close reading. Show all posts
Showing posts with label close reading. Show all posts
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Friday, August 31, 2012
[Freya-dæg] All-Request August Pt. 5: This Means War
 |
Introduction
Plot Summary
The Good
The Bad
Judgment
Closing
Introduction
When I first saw the previews for This Means War I thought that Hollywood had finally moved onto something new in the rom-com genre. I thought that the usual romantic comedy formula had been done away with and things had begun to progress onto something more substantial. I thought, for a while, that we all had a bromedy (bromantic comedy) on our hands.
Of course, thoughts and reality aren't always in accord, I thought as I sat down to watch this movie to round off All-Request August. Let's see just how much my thoughts and the reality of this movie jive.
Back to Top
Plot Summary
Tuck (Tom Hardy) and FDR (Chris Pine) are two of the CIA's top agents. They're great in the field together, and back at the office they're some of the most popular guys in the agency. But there's something that can tear even the closest of friends apart, something that can be more heinous that a plot to destroy the world, more scheming than any mastermind looking to destroy the diamond market, or more maniacal than a mogul interested in assassinating the leader of the free world. A woman.
Lauren (Reese Witherspoon) is busy at being a product testing executive. Maybe a little too busy, or so her friend Trish (Chelsea Handler) thinks. So she creates a profile for Lauren on an internet dating site - and, seeing the same ad on television, so does Tuck!
But little do either of them know that this will lead to a three-way meeting that might just tear apart the two fastest of friends and put the whole of America at risk. In fact, if they can't resolve their differences it might be more than just these two rivals in love declaring: This Means War!
Back to Top
The Good
Full disclosure, I thought right. This Means War does actually do things a little bit differently from the standard modern romantic comedy. Rather than focusing on a couple who has lost their spark, this movie focuses on two friends and what happens when a woman comes between them. Plus, we do see a little bit of a bromance between Tuck and FDR.
It also sort of portrays some strong, independent women. In fact, all of what it says that's positive can be summed up in Lauren's friend's advice: "Don't choose the better guy, choose the guy that's gonna make you the better girl."
What's more, throughout the movie we actually see some real character growth in FDR. He starts off as a stereotypical American alpha male, but he winds up completely changed (more or less) but for the better. In essence, we actually see him grow up over the course of the film in a lot of ways.
Speaking much more broadly, the movie's premise of spies using their resources to woo the same girl could be interpreted as an evolution of Cyrano de Bergerac's romantic-helper sub-plot. However, instead of both friends working together, or in any otherwise strictly co-operative way, they act on a much more individual basis.
They both rely on teams to gather information on each other and on Lauren, but they use all of this information as individuals, subjecting the raw data to their own analysis, thoughts, and figurings. In that way, then, the premise of this movie lends itself well to a celebration of the power of the individual in the digital age (if say, we replace the teams of data miners with other people who provide people with information, like say, bloggers).
Add to all of this some frenetic action sequences that are intense but easily followed and all-around well done, and you've got yourself an incredible movie.
Back to Top
The Bad
However, in the case of This Means War you'll get all of that and about 30 minutes more. Or rather, too much.
The movie hums along nicely through its first act and most of its second act, with nary a care. There's some morally dark, privacy invasion issues raised by Tuck's and FDR's bugging Lauren's home (while she's in it, no less), but that sort of thing is built into the premise.
What's harder to get past is how the movie deteriorates as the third act comes into view and then crumbles entirely by the time it ends.
Up until the penultimate climactic scene where Lauren, Tuck, and FDR are all together for the first time the movie has, though slightly awkwardly, shown character growth, suggested that it's okay for women to be bold and independent, and made the wise-cracking friend role more of a wise-friend role. But, once the three meet all of this falls apart.
In this scene, Lauren becomes a hyperventilating mess, her friend goes back on everything she's said up to that point by saying "I told you you shouldn't have dated two guys at once," after towing the exact opposite line for the first 2/3 of the movie, and Tuck and FDR are broken up without any real threat to their relationship since the movie's big bad has been spotted and it's still their mission to take him down. What's more, the big bad kidnaps Lauren and Trish, as if they're perfectly helpless damsels in the face of gritty reality - contrary to what the rest of the movie has suggested.
What makes this reversal worse is that the movie telegraphs that it's coming almost from minute one.
The emphasis throughout the first two acts is firmly placed on the romantic stuff at the cost of the spy stuff - but the big bad that's out to get Tuck and FDR for what they did in the opening scene is still there, lurking just out of frame and begging to have his part of the plot resolved. This fulfilment comes in a rush of high-paced action. Up to this point the action's just been drizzled over the two agents' comic rivalry. So it's clear that he's going to be the focus of act three.
Between Tuck and FDR, FDR gets far more character development. We learn about his past, a little of what motivates him at present, and we actually see him change over the course of the movie.
However, Tuck remains largely the same as a character. Only his circumstances change, since after it's revealed that he's a secret agent his estranged wife and kid - whom he had formerly convinced that he was a travel agent - come right back to him, no questions asked whatsoever.
And as far as Lauren's character goes, she is portrayed as a successful career woman, but we also get glimpses of her being hung-up on an ex whom she followed to the city while they were still dating. This situation could be made to bolster her as the strong female figure that she more or less is, but at the same time this is clearly an illusion.
Without ever getting a reason for it, we're shown that she still has a thing for this ex in spite of his being engaged and, by the very rules of the movie, thus unattainable. You could argue that this unattainability makes her want him back all the more, but since it's not clear what made him so special in the first place Lauren's jealousy and desire aren't given enough motivation to take full advantage of the unattainability angle.
The negative transformation of Lauren's friend is a little less predictable. Yet, just before she turns into the "I told you so" character that rom-coms are well known for having, we see her in a setting that's more everyday than those in which we've seen her previously. This is also the scene where she gives Lauren her sage advice.
So what's the situation? Helping her son repair a baseball mitt, while sitting on the couch in her living room and talking about how she loves her husband because he's her own man, despite his faults. This is sweet and all, but it entirely contradicts the firebrand that we've seen her as before. This isn't to say that mothers can't simultaneously be firebrands and motherly (real people are complex, of course), but there's no build up to this scene.
Further, it suggests something curious about marriage that the rest of the movie works towards as well.
The motherly scene with Trish, Tuck's lack of development, FDR's full-on development, and Lauren's loosening up all suggest that marriage is some sort of solidifying ritual. That it somehow locks people into what's truly best for them and that this means, to varying degrees, that growth is no longer necessary for a person.
This is why I've taken this away from the movie: all of its unmarried characters change gradually, we see them grow, evolve, and become something different from what they were at the movie's beginning. Conversely, all of the characters who are married do not change (Trish's sudden change is out of character, but not unpredictable since the movie is constantly reminding us that she's married and has a kid).
It may not have been the movie's intent, but since we're given two main characters (Tuck and FDR) it's hard to not compare the two. And any comparison shows that while unmarried the one changes, and while married the other does not change.
Back to Top
Judgment
The story of two men competing for one woman is definitely nothing new.
Chaucer's Knight tells the story of Arcite, Palamon, and Emily in the Canterbury Tales - written in the latter half of the 14th century. And Chaucer didn't create the Knight's Tale from pure inspiration, it was a shortened version of a story by Giovanni Boccaccio, which itself probably has even deeper historical roots.
However, This Means War does show some character growth within its love-triangle.
Yet, at the same time, it's kind of surprising that this movie got made. Especially now, in a world of phone tapping and drone strikes, and all manner of privacy invasions being made possible by the internet and the degree to which we're all connected to it. It would've made much more sense had they explicitly addressed this in the movie rather than just calling it "immoral" right before an action sequence.
The movie also promotes some of the old curious romcom axioms: marriage saves, and women who are all about their career only mellow out once they meet a man.
There is potential in This Means War, but all of that potential, like an unsatisfying story draft, gets crumpled up by the end of the second act and intricately tossed into a decorative garbage can in the third.
So, Freya, this one may yet moan and move about on the littered ground of the Field of Fallen Films, but don't let yourself be fooled into raising it up. Ultimately, it's just muscle memory at work.
Back to Top
Closing
Next week, the blog update continues, but depending on how much of it gets done over the weekend, regular updates might just return to this blog. Regardless of my progress through that to do list, however, I'll be giving In The Name of the King a look next Friday, and am hoping to find something hospitable within it.
Back to Top
Monday, January 16, 2012
[Moon-dæg] Same-Sex Parents And the Idea of "Family"
By the time that this is posted Christmas will have come an gone yet again, but I still want to take a moment to write about an idea that many associate quite closely with the holiday, at least since the 19th century if not earlier. That idea is family. Simple, direct, easy to figure out. But complex, nuanced, and something tricky to really prove.
The first sort barely really needs any explanation. Blood relations are family for sheerly biological reasons at the least. It's our gene pool and we're swimming in it constantly. Even if you differ from your parents in some way or another, barring a negative paternity test, they are the ones who conceived, bore, and (probably) raised you. But this would be an uncharacteristically short entry if I just ended it here.
What about the families that are based on less concrete biological data? Couples that can't have children of their own or who prefer to adopt and do so? Very few would question their being a family in a sense that is on par with those who are joined by clear red or blue lines. There are things in common, the parents raise the children, the children teach the parents in one way or another. The two different sorts of families are very similar.
Now here's the beef in this issue of what a "family" is.
If it's pretty widely accepted that adopted children are as much, legally, morally, and socially, the children of their adoptive parents as biological children are of biological parents then why is there such a kerfuffle around same-sex couples adopting children?
Same sex couples are subjected to the same sort of tests and screenings to ensure that a hopeful adoptive couple must undergo to prove that they are stable and child-friendly. All of the same legal paperwork needs to be completed. And so I really don't see why there is still a societal stigma around same-sex couples adopting children. Or rather, around children raised by same sex couples.
The myth that having two fathers or two mothers will somehow twist a child's mind or morals is entirely unfounded. In fact, I would say that it's as true as thinking that "gay" is a thing that can be cured through prayer and religion. Mental contortion of the sort that covers over biological facts and natures is an amazing human feat, and if we are only using 10% of our brain most of the time it is even more so.
If you have your doubts about how having two same-sex parents take a look at this video.
Granted, the young man making the statement in that clip is one of his parent's biological children. But, speaking in terms of contrast to the traditional nuclear family, that still stands as stark proof that one parent of each gender is not needed to raise to a well-adjusted member of society.
So what's the point of all this? What am I getting at here?
In the end, what I'm working towards is the idea that, yes, the social construct known as the family is changing, but that change isn't a bad thing. Many moral philosophies and religions are based on the family as the microcosm of a society.
Confucianism, for example, teaches that if you want peace in the state you need peace in the family. At the center of Christianity (even if these parents are shunted aside in some sects) is the trio of Mary, Joseph, and Jesus.
There's no doubt that in civilization as it has been known throughout recorded history the family plays an important role. But I don't see the changes to the family (or "attacks on" depending on who you're talking to) as being particularly detrimental to the overall continuation/progress of humanity at large.
In a nuclear family if you strip away the blood ties you have a social system with two authority figures in varying capacities. Plus one or more civilian, if you will, who is to be educated in the ways of the world by those authority figures. And you have this unit in mundane situations through which all of those involved need to navigate and rely on each other in varying combinations to ensure the success of all involved.
Start up something similar, but don't bother with the blood ties, and the same thing remains true. Authority figures. Civilian(s). Situations and interdependence among the units of a society/family.
They aren't very frequent, but every now and then an article about the need to teach younger generations empathy through reading or other in-depth interactions comes in a newspaper or through email. This is really where people concerned with the crumbling of society or harmonious togetherness need to concentrate their efforts.
Families without blood ties between parents and children, or even without a male and a female parent aren't going to steer their children down any more blind alleys than tidy upright goodie ablewife and primington husband, Bible thumpers extraordinaire.
Leviticus doesn't just condemn gays, after all. If you've ever gotten a little trim or shaved your beard you'll also need to get used to searing temperatures and long-lasting torment (Leviticus 19:19 states "Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard").
So actually read the Bible, with all of its books and letters and stories, and characters. And really get in touch with narrative and with imagining the joys and suffering of others. After all, that same Confucian maxim about a peaceful family leading to a peaceful state goes further and says that a peaceful individual needs to have a peaceful mind. It's hard to war within your mind when you've read of bloodshed and felt the lines of anguish in a person's face through the lines of text in a book.
The first sort barely really needs any explanation. Blood relations are family for sheerly biological reasons at the least. It's our gene pool and we're swimming in it constantly. Even if you differ from your parents in some way or another, barring a negative paternity test, they are the ones who conceived, bore, and (probably) raised you. But this would be an uncharacteristically short entry if I just ended it here.
What about the families that are based on less concrete biological data? Couples that can't have children of their own or who prefer to adopt and do so? Very few would question their being a family in a sense that is on par with those who are joined by clear red or blue lines. There are things in common, the parents raise the children, the children teach the parents in one way or another. The two different sorts of families are very similar.
Now here's the beef in this issue of what a "family" is.
If it's pretty widely accepted that adopted children are as much, legally, morally, and socially, the children of their adoptive parents as biological children are of biological parents then why is there such a kerfuffle around same-sex couples adopting children?
Same sex couples are subjected to the same sort of tests and screenings to ensure that a hopeful adoptive couple must undergo to prove that they are stable and child-friendly. All of the same legal paperwork needs to be completed. And so I really don't see why there is still a societal stigma around same-sex couples adopting children. Or rather, around children raised by same sex couples.
The myth that having two fathers or two mothers will somehow twist a child's mind or morals is entirely unfounded. In fact, I would say that it's as true as thinking that "gay" is a thing that can be cured through prayer and religion. Mental contortion of the sort that covers over biological facts and natures is an amazing human feat, and if we are only using 10% of our brain most of the time it is even more so.
If you have your doubts about how having two same-sex parents take a look at this video.
Granted, the young man making the statement in that clip is one of his parent's biological children. But, speaking in terms of contrast to the traditional nuclear family, that still stands as stark proof that one parent of each gender is not needed to raise to a well-adjusted member of society.
So what's the point of all this? What am I getting at here?
In the end, what I'm working towards is the idea that, yes, the social construct known as the family is changing, but that change isn't a bad thing. Many moral philosophies and religions are based on the family as the microcosm of a society.
Confucianism, for example, teaches that if you want peace in the state you need peace in the family. At the center of Christianity (even if these parents are shunted aside in some sects) is the trio of Mary, Joseph, and Jesus.
There's no doubt that in civilization as it has been known throughout recorded history the family plays an important role. But I don't see the changes to the family (or "attacks on" depending on who you're talking to) as being particularly detrimental to the overall continuation/progress of humanity at large.
In a nuclear family if you strip away the blood ties you have a social system with two authority figures in varying capacities. Plus one or more civilian, if you will, who is to be educated in the ways of the world by those authority figures. And you have this unit in mundane situations through which all of those involved need to navigate and rely on each other in varying combinations to ensure the success of all involved.
Start up something similar, but don't bother with the blood ties, and the same thing remains true. Authority figures. Civilian(s). Situations and interdependence among the units of a society/family.
They aren't very frequent, but every now and then an article about the need to teach younger generations empathy through reading or other in-depth interactions comes in a newspaper or through email. This is really where people concerned with the crumbling of society or harmonious togetherness need to concentrate their efforts.
Families without blood ties between parents and children, or even without a male and a female parent aren't going to steer their children down any more blind alleys than tidy upright goodie ablewife and primington husband, Bible thumpers extraordinaire.
Leviticus doesn't just condemn gays, after all. If you've ever gotten a little trim or shaved your beard you'll also need to get used to searing temperatures and long-lasting torment (Leviticus 19:19 states "Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard").
So actually read the Bible, with all of its books and letters and stories, and characters. And really get in touch with narrative and with imagining the joys and suffering of others. After all, that same Confucian maxim about a peaceful family leading to a peaceful state goes further and says that a peaceful individual needs to have a peaceful mind. It's hard to war within your mind when you've read of bloodshed and felt the lines of anguish in a person's face through the lines of text in a book.
Friday, November 11, 2011
The Title Itself
Coming at the tail end of maybe one of the most quoted passages of the bible outside of the words of Jesus himself, the verse from which this blog's title comes has always fascinated me.
"For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face; now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." (1 Cor 13:12)
Maybe it's the concentration on knowledge, or maybe it's the simple explanation of the world we currently perceive and that which we could - of course with the Christian teleological worldview, will - see. For whatever reason this passage has always arrested my attention, and now I want to try to figure out why. So, following the general process of a close reading (looking at context, and then the passage itself), let's try to find out.
First, it comes after what I think is one of the most overly quoted passages of the bible: the list of what "love" (or, if you're reading the rockin' King James Version, "charity") is. I know that this passage is sweet at weddings and likely gone to by lovers in doubt, but it needs to be put to rest. The spirit of those words still seems true but their flesh is as worn as one who is forced to till by hand a 20 acre field everyday. So, to all of those looking for quotes about love for MC-ing duties or general talking into microphones at big gatherings, I implore you to look elsewhere. It's called "The Bible" because there was a time when it really was "The Book" - the only book in many people's libraries (possession, even). Don't let one worn passage be the scope of your wandering through it.
Anyway, looking at this passage a little more objectively, what can be said about it? At the base it begins as an indirect description of the power of charity, that even if you display all of these other virtues and knowledges but lack charity, your achievements are meaningless. Then it moves into a straight list with an easy lilting rhythm, the kind that can lull. And I think that this rhythm is important, because the opening may grab an audience's attention with its forceful "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal" (1 Cor 13:1), But then things grow more soothing after two verses of that indirect definition of charity. Verse 4 states clearly "Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up," (1 Cor 13:4) easing into a steady rhythm (here, of 10-7-12 syllabled statements). Then in verse 9, St. Paul breaks to explain knowledge and prophecy, and how they are only partial things. I think that it's significant that St. Paul does this in a markedly shorter statement than those that precede it. What this shortness lacks in a lumbering rhythm it makes up for with its spry repetition. And so we see a kind of return to the original firing up of the audience at hand, though in a much less confrontational way. Effectively then, before getting to what I consider the point of this passage, St. Paul has grabbed his readers' attention, lulled them along, and then reminded them of the seriousness of what he has to say.
Verse 10 gets into his prediction about when wholeness comes all things that are in part "shall be done away." A verse that I read as his vaunting upwards to where his point is. Running with this reading, the next verse, in which he uses an analogy of childhood and adulthood to describe the now and the then, is like his time in the air before landing at his point in verse 12. Transformation is emphasized here in verse 11, I think, because of the emphasis on the fuzzy present (a present that is grammatically the present, but as suggested by the analogy (and what follows) is more of a past) and a vague future as indicated by "when...then." The first indication of any temporal definitiveness comes at the beginning of verse 12 "For now...," when he lands firmly from the air, and has arrived at his point. What follows is a concluding verse which gives a clear indication that though faith, hope, and charity (interestingly the daughters of St. Sophia, which if, for some crackpot reason is translated from Greek would be St. Wisdom) "now abideth," charity is "the greatest of these" (1 Cor 13:13).
But to go back to verse 12. Along with the emphasis on knowledge and perception, this is also where things get stylistically cool.
"For now..." itself is very stylish, since instead of just being a terse "now," "For" gives it an added push; it gives it a kind of ramp by which the audience can climb aboard this "now," or if you like, can scrabble up the rock face on the opposite side of the precipice he just leapt. The statement that follows is sheer elegance, even in modern translations. There's just something really simply beautiful about shuffling an adverb to the end of a clause. "...we see through a glass, darkly." Not "we darkly see through a glass," or "we see darkly through a glass," but "we see through a glass, darkly." Almost like the Roman rhetoricians of Cicero's day, who advocated for the verb to be saved for the end of a sentence for the best effect, the full meaning of the statement isn't disclosed until the very end. I think that this helps to shed light on the whole passage's meaning since it does very little to diminish the knowledge and the prophecy which he has dismissed as being only partial. He isn't saying that it's a cracked glass, or a false one, but that it is simply "see[n] through...darkly." There are clouds in the knowledge, in the prophecies; there are things in there that cannot be clearly discerned. The comma which is used to separate "darkly" from the rest of the clause even imitates this statement's meaning on a prosodic level.
First within the statement "We see through a glass, darkly," the act of seeing through a glass is stated clearly without any punching up. But then, as if suggesting that the clouds are an after thought or something only noticed throught scrutiny, "darkly" is added in after the pause implied by the comma. Read aloud, and if assumed to be an as-it-happens narration, it sounds like the realization of the clouded state of perception dawns just as the glass is focused on.
Beyond its being an articulation of a failing of our current perception on some level there isn't a much grander meaning here, but this passage's delivery of the message is just so striking to me because of the way in which it is delivered. So calmly after the bluster and the listing. So placed that it seems like it is a moment, a statement, from when the glass is clear, but that moment is fleeting and so the author can only fall back on his meditations on charity for his conclusion. After, of course, pausing when realizing that the glass is seen through darkly. A moment of clarity so brief that it is obscured before it can even be exploited.
So in brief, the context in which the passage in question is found is that of a capstone, if you will. A kind of rhetorical high point climbed to first through somewhat violent pushing, and then gentle coaxing, and finally a clarifying climb to where things are sussed out and explained and where they plateau with the passage in question before gently sloping down to the conclusion about those three virtues and charity being their chief.
So what does that matter? Well, it matters because it's the point in the passage where the least effort really need be exerted. Already St. Paul has brought his audience up to where he wanted them, and so he just has to deliver the message. The directness of that message being offset by "For now...," a very direct opener in and of itself. The fact that the glass is seen through darkly should also be read back into the oh-so-precious list about charity/love as well. If we keep in mind that things as we see them are dim, then I think that there are some suggestions that charity or love do not have to be conscious acts or beliefs, but should be read as modes of acting, mindsets in a sense. A deed done from knowledge with or without charity is, on the face of it, the same act. But add charity to the mind of the person doing that act and something changes - a subtle gesture, an extra tone to a word - and that changes the perception of the act. Read as a whole, I would argue that this passage isn't so much about charity being patient, kind, etc, but that charity is a kind of way to get glimpses through a clear glass.
This verse is ecstatic and grammatical. And I love it. But, like a climb up a mountainside to see a sunrise or to drink from a spring, you've got to get dirty to really enjoy it.
"For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face; now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." (1 Cor 13:12)
Maybe it's the concentration on knowledge, or maybe it's the simple explanation of the world we currently perceive and that which we could - of course with the Christian teleological worldview, will - see. For whatever reason this passage has always arrested my attention, and now I want to try to figure out why. So, following the general process of a close reading (looking at context, and then the passage itself), let's try to find out.
First, it comes after what I think is one of the most overly quoted passages of the bible: the list of what "love" (or, if you're reading the rockin' King James Version, "charity") is. I know that this passage is sweet at weddings and likely gone to by lovers in doubt, but it needs to be put to rest. The spirit of those words still seems true but their flesh is as worn as one who is forced to till by hand a 20 acre field everyday. So, to all of those looking for quotes about love for MC-ing duties or general talking into microphones at big gatherings, I implore you to look elsewhere. It's called "The Bible" because there was a time when it really was "The Book" - the only book in many people's libraries (possession, even). Don't let one worn passage be the scope of your wandering through it.
Anyway, looking at this passage a little more objectively, what can be said about it? At the base it begins as an indirect description of the power of charity, that even if you display all of these other virtues and knowledges but lack charity, your achievements are meaningless. Then it moves into a straight list with an easy lilting rhythm, the kind that can lull. And I think that this rhythm is important, because the opening may grab an audience's attention with its forceful "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal" (1 Cor 13:1), But then things grow more soothing after two verses of that indirect definition of charity. Verse 4 states clearly "Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up," (1 Cor 13:4) easing into a steady rhythm (here, of 10-7-12 syllabled statements). Then in verse 9, St. Paul breaks to explain knowledge and prophecy, and how they are only partial things. I think that it's significant that St. Paul does this in a markedly shorter statement than those that precede it. What this shortness lacks in a lumbering rhythm it makes up for with its spry repetition. And so we see a kind of return to the original firing up of the audience at hand, though in a much less confrontational way. Effectively then, before getting to what I consider the point of this passage, St. Paul has grabbed his readers' attention, lulled them along, and then reminded them of the seriousness of what he has to say.
Verse 10 gets into his prediction about when wholeness comes all things that are in part "shall be done away." A verse that I read as his vaunting upwards to where his point is. Running with this reading, the next verse, in which he uses an analogy of childhood and adulthood to describe the now and the then, is like his time in the air before landing at his point in verse 12. Transformation is emphasized here in verse 11, I think, because of the emphasis on the fuzzy present (a present that is grammatically the present, but as suggested by the analogy (and what follows) is more of a past) and a vague future as indicated by "when...then." The first indication of any temporal definitiveness comes at the beginning of verse 12 "For now...," when he lands firmly from the air, and has arrived at his point. What follows is a concluding verse which gives a clear indication that though faith, hope, and charity (interestingly the daughters of St. Sophia, which if, for some crackpot reason is translated from Greek would be St. Wisdom) "now abideth," charity is "the greatest of these" (1 Cor 13:13).
But to go back to verse 12. Along with the emphasis on knowledge and perception, this is also where things get stylistically cool.
"For now..." itself is very stylish, since instead of just being a terse "now," "For" gives it an added push; it gives it a kind of ramp by which the audience can climb aboard this "now," or if you like, can scrabble up the rock face on the opposite side of the precipice he just leapt. The statement that follows is sheer elegance, even in modern translations. There's just something really simply beautiful about shuffling an adverb to the end of a clause. "...we see through a glass, darkly." Not "we darkly see through a glass," or "we see darkly through a glass," but "we see through a glass, darkly." Almost like the Roman rhetoricians of Cicero's day, who advocated for the verb to be saved for the end of a sentence for the best effect, the full meaning of the statement isn't disclosed until the very end. I think that this helps to shed light on the whole passage's meaning since it does very little to diminish the knowledge and the prophecy which he has dismissed as being only partial. He isn't saying that it's a cracked glass, or a false one, but that it is simply "see[n] through...darkly." There are clouds in the knowledge, in the prophecies; there are things in there that cannot be clearly discerned. The comma which is used to separate "darkly" from the rest of the clause even imitates this statement's meaning on a prosodic level.
First within the statement "We see through a glass, darkly," the act of seeing through a glass is stated clearly without any punching up. But then, as if suggesting that the clouds are an after thought or something only noticed throught scrutiny, "darkly" is added in after the pause implied by the comma. Read aloud, and if assumed to be an as-it-happens narration, it sounds like the realization of the clouded state of perception dawns just as the glass is focused on.
Beyond its being an articulation of a failing of our current perception on some level there isn't a much grander meaning here, but this passage's delivery of the message is just so striking to me because of the way in which it is delivered. So calmly after the bluster and the listing. So placed that it seems like it is a moment, a statement, from when the glass is clear, but that moment is fleeting and so the author can only fall back on his meditations on charity for his conclusion. After, of course, pausing when realizing that the glass is seen through darkly. A moment of clarity so brief that it is obscured before it can even be exploited.
So in brief, the context in which the passage in question is found is that of a capstone, if you will. A kind of rhetorical high point climbed to first through somewhat violent pushing, and then gentle coaxing, and finally a clarifying climb to where things are sussed out and explained and where they plateau with the passage in question before gently sloping down to the conclusion about those three virtues and charity being their chief.
So what does that matter? Well, it matters because it's the point in the passage where the least effort really need be exerted. Already St. Paul has brought his audience up to where he wanted them, and so he just has to deliver the message. The directness of that message being offset by "For now...," a very direct opener in and of itself. The fact that the glass is seen through darkly should also be read back into the oh-so-precious list about charity/love as well. If we keep in mind that things as we see them are dim, then I think that there are some suggestions that charity or love do not have to be conscious acts or beliefs, but should be read as modes of acting, mindsets in a sense. A deed done from knowledge with or without charity is, on the face of it, the same act. But add charity to the mind of the person doing that act and something changes - a subtle gesture, an extra tone to a word - and that changes the perception of the act. Read as a whole, I would argue that this passage isn't so much about charity being patient, kind, etc, but that charity is a kind of way to get glimpses through a clear glass.
This verse is ecstatic and grammatical. And I love it. But, like a climb up a mountainside to see a sunrise or to drink from a spring, you've got to get dirty to really enjoy it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)