Theater of the mind
Friday, May 11th, 2007 06:40 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
serai.
Ran across an interesting post over here: Jesus and the Gays.
In it, a guy posts an anecdote about a friend's encounter with a bible-thumping bigot. Said friend came up with a good sarcastic scripture-twisting to poke said obnoxious jerk with. Whether the jerk had the wit to understand that sarcasm is not revealed, however.
But the fun is farther down, in the comments. A discussion ensues (started by a particularly clueless person) on whether Jesus was nasty or humble or sanctimonious or whatever - it's a thread full of opinions on the guy. Watching the interactions in this thread, and reading the particular thoughts of each person, got me thinking about how we view history, and how we believe in things. (Not why, how.)
See, believing in a story is like making a movie. From a given text, you have to create a whole sensual world to clothe it in. You have to decide what the locations looked like, what the characters looked like, how they talked, how they dressed, what things felt like or smelt like, etc. Every detail that is not specifically described in the text is up to you to create for yourself. Of course, this is always true of any text you read, from Gilgamesh to the latest Stephen King. But it's particularly interesting, and important, when religious stories are being considered, because people put so much store in their personal version of things. (Hmm. Does this sound familiar?)
This can lead to some amazing creativity on the part of some people. Not always pleasant creativity (Jim Jones and Fred Phelps come to mind), but creativity nonetheless, since what they make of the Jesus tale is based so much upon their own ideas, and not what the texts actually say. But regardless of whether you're using the story to comfort or kill, the shape that you yourself give it can be extremely revealing. The old controversy about whether Jesus ever got it on with anyone will reveal a great deal about a person's views on sex, for example. If you see Jesus as a feminist, a pacifist, a violent agitator, a libertine, a class warrior - however you see him says a lot about how you view the world, and really...very little about Jesus himself.
See, here's the point I'm getting at. One of the things I learned in acting class, one of the most basic lessons, is that any line of dialogue can be said a hundred different ways. "I love you" can be spat with murderous fury, while "Fuck you!" can be yelled with affectionate laughter. The words themselves only tell you half the story, and sometimes not ever that much - Harold Pinter owes his success as a playwright to the fact that what his characters are saying is never, ever, the whole of their meaning, and often has nothing at all to do with what they're trying to say. Actors love very plain, unadorned language, because it allows so much space for creativity, for playing with motives and personality.
So since I learned that lesson, I've tried to apply it to many other situations, and I think religion is one of the most important and most fascinating places to apply it. And the bibles, both Hebrew and Christian, are especially interesting in this wise, because the descriptions are often so sparse (when they exist at all), and the dialogue doesn't really give you much to go on (when it exists at all). When considering these texts, it's often easy to know just how someone said something, but if you step back from your assumptions, when you look at the words nakedly, without any judgment about who and what and how, you'll come to see that very often, it's really really hard to know just how a person said a certain thing, let alone what he may have meant by it.
An example: In that thread I mentioned above, one poster talks about how Jesus clearly was an arrogant jerk because of how he treated his mother at Cana. Lots of people have wrestled with this question, pondered it, argued about it, and ultimately let their own personal interpretation of his words "Woman, it is not yet my time" rule their view of what he meant by it.
But what happens when we apply the "100 ways" rule? Something very interesting. It becomes very hard to know just what his mood was when he said that, and by extension, just what he meant when he said it. The story tells us very little: he was invited with his guys to a wedding, his mom was there, she noticed the wine was running out, and she told him about it. Nothing is mentioned about whether they were having fun, whether the food was sweet or salty (this would have an effect on the importance of lots of available drink, no small matter in a climate like theirs), how long the celebration had been going on, what the weather was like, etc. There's no external information to help us decide how that conversation came off, and how the moment felt or how the persons involved acted. The answer would have had different nuances depending on whether it was a nice day or not, whether people were behaving themselves, etc. It's all up to whoever is reading it.
What about the interactions Jesus and Mary had earlier in the day or before that day? Had they ever argued about him revealing himself? Was this an old point of contention, a new one sore spot, or was it never a problem at all, and Jesus just teasing his mom? Was it said sternly, in an irritated fashion (which is how most people seem to see it), or was Jesus just rolling his eyes at the way his mom kept nagging him, much the way any grown man would when his mother, thinking him still "her baby," needles him about something he'd rather she didn't meddle with? Did he think it presumptuous of her, or funny? If he was irritated, in what way? Was he made at her getting uppity, or perhaps frightened at her even implying that he should draw attention to himself? (His later followers were big on the rebellion thing, but there's no evidence that Jesus himself ever approved of confrontation with authority.)
There are so many ways to read just this one little incident, and so many possible colors in it. And yet so often people decide right away what they know it means, or what someone tells them who they know just has to be right, to the detriment of their own edification. They miss out on such a lot, those people.
So here's an interesting little experiment for you. If you're a person who reads either of the bibles, take your book down and open it to a story. Any story, doesn't matter which one, but I think it works best with one you know. (This goes for any holy book, not just those mentioned.) Read the story you picked and pay particular attention to how people say things, what emotions are involved. Listen carefully, and think about what effect the characters' state of mind (as you see it while reading) has upon the outcome, and especially the meaning, of the story. Think about that for a minute.
Now read it again. But this time, as you're reading it, consciously reverse every emotion in the story. If someone said something angrily the first time, make him laugh while he's saying it this time. If someone was crying out with joy, make her weep with despair. Everything, reverse it. Then see what happens to the story, to ts texture and especially its message. You'll be surprised at the things that can happen.
Ran across an interesting post over here: Jesus and the Gays.
In it, a guy posts an anecdote about a friend's encounter with a bible-thumping bigot. Said friend came up with a good sarcastic scripture-twisting to poke said obnoxious jerk with. Whether the jerk had the wit to understand that sarcasm is not revealed, however.
But the fun is farther down, in the comments. A discussion ensues (started by a particularly clueless person) on whether Jesus was nasty or humble or sanctimonious or whatever - it's a thread full of opinions on the guy. Watching the interactions in this thread, and reading the particular thoughts of each person, got me thinking about how we view history, and how we believe in things. (Not why, how.)
See, believing in a story is like making a movie. From a given text, you have to create a whole sensual world to clothe it in. You have to decide what the locations looked like, what the characters looked like, how they talked, how they dressed, what things felt like or smelt like, etc. Every detail that is not specifically described in the text is up to you to create for yourself. Of course, this is always true of any text you read, from Gilgamesh to the latest Stephen King. But it's particularly interesting, and important, when religious stories are being considered, because people put so much store in their personal version of things. (Hmm. Does this sound familiar?)
This can lead to some amazing creativity on the part of some people. Not always pleasant creativity (Jim Jones and Fred Phelps come to mind), but creativity nonetheless, since what they make of the Jesus tale is based so much upon their own ideas, and not what the texts actually say. But regardless of whether you're using the story to comfort or kill, the shape that you yourself give it can be extremely revealing. The old controversy about whether Jesus ever got it on with anyone will reveal a great deal about a person's views on sex, for example. If you see Jesus as a feminist, a pacifist, a violent agitator, a libertine, a class warrior - however you see him says a lot about how you view the world, and really...very little about Jesus himself.
See, here's the point I'm getting at. One of the things I learned in acting class, one of the most basic lessons, is that any line of dialogue can be said a hundred different ways. "I love you" can be spat with murderous fury, while "Fuck you!" can be yelled with affectionate laughter. The words themselves only tell you half the story, and sometimes not ever that much - Harold Pinter owes his success as a playwright to the fact that what his characters are saying is never, ever, the whole of their meaning, and often has nothing at all to do with what they're trying to say. Actors love very plain, unadorned language, because it allows so much space for creativity, for playing with motives and personality.
So since I learned that lesson, I've tried to apply it to many other situations, and I think religion is one of the most important and most fascinating places to apply it. And the bibles, both Hebrew and Christian, are especially interesting in this wise, because the descriptions are often so sparse (when they exist at all), and the dialogue doesn't really give you much to go on (when it exists at all). When considering these texts, it's often easy to know just how someone said something, but if you step back from your assumptions, when you look at the words nakedly, without any judgment about who and what and how, you'll come to see that very often, it's really really hard to know just how a person said a certain thing, let alone what he may have meant by it.
An example: In that thread I mentioned above, one poster talks about how Jesus clearly was an arrogant jerk because of how he treated his mother at Cana. Lots of people have wrestled with this question, pondered it, argued about it, and ultimately let their own personal interpretation of his words "Woman, it is not yet my time" rule their view of what he meant by it.
But what happens when we apply the "100 ways" rule? Something very interesting. It becomes very hard to know just what his mood was when he said that, and by extension, just what he meant when he said it. The story tells us very little: he was invited with his guys to a wedding, his mom was there, she noticed the wine was running out, and she told him about it. Nothing is mentioned about whether they were having fun, whether the food was sweet or salty (this would have an effect on the importance of lots of available drink, no small matter in a climate like theirs), how long the celebration had been going on, what the weather was like, etc. There's no external information to help us decide how that conversation came off, and how the moment felt or how the persons involved acted. The answer would have had different nuances depending on whether it was a nice day or not, whether people were behaving themselves, etc. It's all up to whoever is reading it.
What about the interactions Jesus and Mary had earlier in the day or before that day? Had they ever argued about him revealing himself? Was this an old point of contention, a new one sore spot, or was it never a problem at all, and Jesus just teasing his mom? Was it said sternly, in an irritated fashion (which is how most people seem to see it), or was Jesus just rolling his eyes at the way his mom kept nagging him, much the way any grown man would when his mother, thinking him still "her baby," needles him about something he'd rather she didn't meddle with? Did he think it presumptuous of her, or funny? If he was irritated, in what way? Was he made at her getting uppity, or perhaps frightened at her even implying that he should draw attention to himself? (His later followers were big on the rebellion thing, but there's no evidence that Jesus himself ever approved of confrontation with authority.)
There are so many ways to read just this one little incident, and so many possible colors in it. And yet so often people decide right away what they know it means, or what someone tells them who they know just has to be right, to the detriment of their own edification. They miss out on such a lot, those people.
So here's an interesting little experiment for you. If you're a person who reads either of the bibles, take your book down and open it to a story. Any story, doesn't matter which one, but I think it works best with one you know. (This goes for any holy book, not just those mentioned.) Read the story you picked and pay particular attention to how people say things, what emotions are involved. Listen carefully, and think about what effect the characters' state of mind (as you see it while reading) has upon the outcome, and especially the meaning, of the story. Think about that for a minute.
Now read it again. But this time, as you're reading it, consciously reverse every emotion in the story. If someone said something angrily the first time, make him laugh while he's saying it this time. If someone was crying out with joy, make her weep with despair. Everything, reverse it. Then see what happens to the story, to ts texture and especially its message. You'll be surprised at the things that can happen.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: Saturday, May 12th, 2007 06:41 am (UTC)You make a very good point about how much a person's intent is in how they say something, not just what they say. I guess if we look at the story of Jesus as a whole (or any other historical figure) and we look at how they behaved in their life and what they said then we can have some idea of what their intent might have been.
there's no evidence that Jesus himself ever approved of confrontation with authority
He went out of his way to confront the money counters in the church as a child.
no subject
Date: Sunday, May 13th, 2007 03:33 am (UTC)When his family found him at the temple as a child, he was discussing spiritual matters with several holy men, who were amazed at how learned he was. There's quite a difference between this and the later incident.
Those of us brought up as any kind of Christian tend to make assumptions about the stories and their meanings. Having read the gospels recently while in this frame of mind, I was quite surprised at how unfounded a lot of those assumptions are. There really is very little to base motivations on, in the way an actor would in order to understand a character. Very few physical descriptions, almost no detailed emotional analysis, incidents described very tersely in most cases. (Some extremely intense and complex stories, like the Bridegroom of Blood, are done in just a couple of paragraphs.) We've had layers and layers over the years of commentary and painting and songs and teaching, and it really pads this stuff out to an amazing degree, to where an incident told in 200 words seems to have the same breadth as something that takes up a whole chapter of an ordinary book.