A recent post by the superlative Twisty discusses, among other things, various aspects of religion & Famous Fighters of the Black Thing set forth in Madeline L’Engle’s A Wrinkle in Time. Reading her comments on the various religious allusions in the book reminded me of something I first noticed way back in college when taking a Survery of English Literature, which is that not having been raised in any religious tradition, the vast majority of religious allusions, metaphors and other literary devices went completely over my head.
This lack of cultural commonality meant that my tenure as an English major was short-lived. (Also, the professor of the survey course was uninspiring unlike my poli-sci profs). English lit, and a good portion of American lit is frequently suffused with religious allusions that, to those with understanding of those symbols, greatly shapes the way they interpret the book. To people such as myself with no religious background, I miss and have missed the significance of various metaphors and events.
For example, I have a vague memory of my 9th grade English teacher (who rocked) explaining that in the Old Man and Sea, the number of times the old man stumbles on his way home corresponds with the number of times Jesus, as described in the Bible, stumbled with the cross on the way to his crucifixion. When she described this, I remember being completely non-plussed. Was this supposed to make the old man more mythic? What was the point? Would students with a Christian upbringing have picked up on this, even subconciously?
The lack of such exposure or understanding on my part limited my understanding of certain material in that I didn’t “catch” the references. I’m sure in many ways I lost out on valuable understanding. On the other hand, I think it allowed me to view the material more independently, unfettered by assumptions of the significance of a metaphor. The logic of the metaphor, or the impact of the events (such as the old man falling) had to stand on their own without the support of religious allusion.
When I was in college there were rabid debates (I’m sure there still are) about the utility/necessity of Western Civ classes in ensuring that students were armed with enough understanding of the dominant culture to be able to appreciate/understand the various literary, philosophical, etc. canons. I am only beginning to understand the magnitude of connections, etc., I missed out on (and that other non-religious, or non-Christian raised students missed out on) because I simply had no background. I’m sure this is only one facet in how persons not raised in the dominant culture in this country (religion being only one aspect) fail to “catch” things that are assumed to be common knowledge.
At times, I have wanted to read the Bible (or at least read that series in Slate that summarizes it) just to have some better background for the vast majority of literature I read. But then I think that I should also read the Koran, and similar central tomes for the other literature I read and the project becomes too overwhelming. Which is why the only sections of the Bible I have actually read are a section of Genesis that was required in college, and the Book of Matthew, which I read in third grade because I had a crush on a boy named Matthew (no, I don’t get the logic either, but it made sense at the time).
But here is a question, how do readers/students who want to study literature or better appreciate it, but do not have knowledge of the dominant Christian paradigm that enfuses so much of Western lit learn this stuff? Are there primers out there that give enough background that these connections & metaphors can be appreciated? Are there similar things for people who want a better understanding of other cultures and religious backgrounds to better understand literature steeped in those traditions?
Also, how do we balance the need to convey this information with avoiding it making the dominant approach even more dominant?
February 26, 2007 at 11:15 pm
I am the wrong person to respond to this, since I think people should read the Bible. The main reasons why people seem not to have done so already are:
(1) They are Christians, and Christians don’t read if they don’t have to. They’ll memorize a few verses chosen for them by someone else, and they’ll read a little booklet entitled “Biblical Thoughts for Everyday Living” written by some prominent Christian thinker, but they won’t read the Bible. It’s far too interesting, and they’re afraid of digesting something not pre-masticated.
(2) They are not Christians, and therefore have a crisis like yours about not wanting to be culturally biased, and so make a plan to read every holy book the world has ever produced. This never happens, but at least they can’t be accused of Christocentrism!
I feel like most dominant American culture stuff is this way, though. The people who claim to embrace it (like Founding Fathers stories, etc.) don’t really read Hamilton, Jefferson, or Franklin, though they claim to love them, because they’re afraid of losing them, while those who reject America-centrism don’t read them either.
I guess I figure my decision to read all this stuff is because I don’t trust the Eurocentric, Christocentric, masculinist culture to tell me where “our” culture comes from, any more than I trust them to tell me where someone else’s culture comes from.
I think what one finds is that the Bible is very different from the Eurocentric history of manipulations of it, just as early American writings never say what the Founding Fathers myths say they do. Reading seventeenth- and eighteenth-century literature has shown me that plenty of people at the time really were aware of the evils of colonialism and the hubris of “missionary” work. That is, sure, it’s annoying that “white male” culture has been dominant so long, but it only has maintained its status because no one knows when its being misrepresented to us.
February 26, 2007 at 11:16 pm
its s/b it’s
February 27, 2007 at 10:20 am
I see your point. One does need to start somewhere. And some of my favorite fictional comeuppances, as it were, are those stories where some godhat is spouting hateful nonsense and the other side starts reciting all the Bible verses that support the non-hateful side and/or show why the godhat is such an asshole. How better to make that fiction a reality than read it for myself.
I still have the Oxford Annotated Bible left over from college. First Happy Feminist (who I hope is okay, somewhere) gave me a nudge with her plan to read the Bible many moons ago, and now you! Maybe I’ll finally get off my butt.
I haven’t read Jefferson, et al, although I’ve listened to some of those Great Courses lectures on tapes – those were an eye opener. (In a lot of ways they diminished my view of Jefferson, he comes across badly in many respects). I would love to find a copy of his Bible – the one where he x-ed out all the stuff he didn’t think actually happened.
February 27, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Rereading my overly strident comment, I think what I should add is that there are perfectly good reasons for not reading the Bible (or whatever other thing), like not being interested in it. I don’t think people who aren’t interested in something should ever have to read it. But I just feel the “sticking it to the man by not reading this thing I’m interested in” thing is empowering the wrong people, the ones who lie to us about the contents of various texts.
The Oxford Annotated is great. And I warn you that you probably won’t find too much in the way of “the Bible is all about love and kindness” stuff either. It’s mostly violence and rape, interspersed with really snarky humor, hallucinatory craziness, and freaky quasi-Stoic philosophy. It’s pretty incoherent, actually, and is therefore way more interesting than Republican Jesus vs. Democratic Jesus. It makes you realize that this is a very very old religion from a time that few of us can imagine in any real sense, a time that none of us would want to live in.
February 27, 2007 at 3:15 pm
I’m in agreement with white bear. I was raised non-Christian and most New Testament analogies go over my head, too. But I love literature too much to give up. Seeing as I’m a comparative literature major, I see studying the Bible as kind of an extension. I’m luckily enough to be in college now (going to a Jesuit university, natch) so I get to take classes like the one I’m taking this very semester: Intro to the New Testament. Very, very helpful.
You know what else is good? Perhaps surprisingly? The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Bible. It’s pretty thorough, all said and done, with lots of references.
February 27, 2007 at 5:09 pm
Thanks for the tip Edith.
I’m in the midst of finishing a three volume behemoth (Neal Stephenson’s Baroque Cycle – fabulous!) and need to read my book group book, but after that I may give the Bible a stab & maybe the Idiot’s Guide to the Bible if I get stuck.
June 11, 2012 at 5:17 pm
jewel bako…
[...]Literary Benefits & Hindrances of a Non-Religious Upbringing « Gangly Thoughts[...]…
June 11, 2012 at 5:23 pm
shanghai asian manor…
[...]Literary Benefits & Hindrances of a Non-Religious Upbringing « Gangly Thoughts[...]…