Paper Presentations Day 1

I was really impressed with everyone's paper who presented today. Since it was the first day I thought that maybe everybody's papers would be a little less than amazing but I was very wrong. Even people who seemed to think that their papers weren't as polished as they would have liked had good direction. It was easy to see potential with where they were going.

Probably the paper I identified the most with was Joan's paper. I really enjoyed her discussion of factors that effect duty. Perhaps the most interesting claim I thought she made was that time is the precursor of duty since duty involves acting within a space of time. I also thought it was a pretty interesting assertion she made that gods are outside of duty since they are outside of time... I wanted to ask her some more about that but we ran out of time. Perhaps I will ask her for a copy so I can consult it for some ideas in my paper.

Kevin's paper was also really fun to listen to. I enjoyed his discussion of being an English major. As much as I have told myself in the past that it's all going to work out and be ok I've wondered if that's really the case. I also enjoyed his discovery/epiphany that hanging out with the meth-head landscape crew wasn't really the life path he belonged on. Part of the process of finding what you do want to do involves ruling out the things you don't want to do.

Anyway, I'm excited for the papers to come!

Meeting With Kari-- Gnosticism

Yesterday Kari and I met at the library and discussed some of the characteristics of Gnosticism (as well as other things). It was really helpful to ground myself with some knowledge before I set out to write this paper as it's never very much fun to write about something you know nothing about. I guess that writing is also a process of discovery so I should be able to gather more knowledge about Gnosticism while I write this paper.

One of the most interesting things that we talked about was the existence of the demiurge creator God and the Supreme God. From what I understand the demiurge God is the "angry" creator God of the old testament and possibly even understood as a lesser god or non-deity. The Supreme God however is all powerful and . The demiurge reconcilles the existence of evil with the existence of a Supreme omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God because it is in fact the demiurge who propagates the evil forces rather than the Supreme God. Well, I guess the omnipotent Supreme God SHOULD be able to control the demiurge. Anway this demiurge is prone to fits of passion, jealousy, and the like. Basically, the corporeal world, the world one experiences without the inclusion of gnosis, is the world of the demiurge while when one attains gnosis one is experiencing the world of the Supreme God. In that way Jesus was actually bringing gnosis to the world and allowing the

Also I was highly intrigued by the Gnostic interpretation of corporeal matter as being base and somewhat of a distraction for the hidden gnosis behind it. I would like to talk about Docetism-- philosophy that Jesus was never really made man but truly a spirit with an illusory body-- and relate that to how the Bhagavad Gita dissuades Arjuna from doing his duty for corporeal rewards. It would be interesting to talk about how Jesus is transcending his earthly state through his increasing gnosis. I have a lot of other ideas such as theophanies, dreams, epiphanies of gnosis and other things that should make for a good paper.

To sum up my meeting with Kari was very helpful and will provide not only a good basic introduction to gnosticism but also ways to assimilate the topic into my paper. Hopefully I gave Kari some things to think about in her future studies as well!

Sherlock Holmes... the movie

So, last night I watched Sherlock Holmes with Jude Law and Robert Downey Jr. I thought the movie was... ok. I had to keep reminding myself that I shouldn't get mad about changes in plot, characters, or fabricated events that never happened (even though I will begrudgingly admit the books aren't "real" either).

First critique-- Watson. I will admit that Jude Law was a much more "true" visual depiction of Watson than the portly and bumbling Nigel Bruce. It was nice to see that the casting people had actually done some research and consideration to save Watson's reputation from the dungeon of ineffective sidekicks. However I was slightly surprised at the personality in which Law portrayed the doctor. To me, Watson seemed much more aggressive with Holmes than he ever did in the books. He repeatedly makes Holmes the butt of his jokes and seems to take everything in stride as if he has seen it all before. This really upset me because I felt that Watson NEVER took anything Sherlock did for granted. His utter amazement each time that Holmes is able to perform his deductions and disguises is what makes the relation to the reader so wonderful. While they did hint at Watson being Holmes' eventual biographer I thought they tried too hard to portray him almost as superior to Holmes'. To give them a final good remark it was pleasant how Watson was as bullheaded and direct as he was in the books.

Second critique-- Holmes. Downey Jr. was eccentric. He was cocky. He "solved" the crime. But he just wasn't Holmes. I don't blame him however I really blame the screenwriter and the director. They obviously approached the character of Holmes with some knowledge of Doyle's character but they seemed to only want to flash that knowledge in quick moments rather than have it define the character. Holmes is no doubt an extremely complex character. In the book Holmes is always trying to entertain himself with his theatrics and the reader just falls in awe of the man. In the movie Downey Jr. was trying to hard to entertain the audience. Holmes doesn't give a damn about the audience but only crafting the perfect puzzle so the crime is revealed as if by his own slight of hand. Holmes is proactive, Downey Jr. was reactive. Also, I was really annoyed by the mopey depiction of Holmes throughout the whole movie. Holmes does get extremely down and depressed when in need of case (this is when he seems to succumb to his cocaine addiction the most) but he does not ever seem to shed his dignity; he always commands the others respect. In the movie I felt he was like a character who had lost all his dignity and was to be pitied more than revered.

Third critique-- Irene Adler. Hollywood NEEDED love story. They pretended to have found one in Irene Adler so they exploited it exponentially. In the books she is not a perpetual thief but once got away from Holmes' trap and for that becomes known to Holmes as "the woman"-- a title denoting the utmost respect from a misogynistic man. I felt their treatment of Adler was largely off base and by far their most distasteful move of the whole movie.

Overall I would say that they took the focus off of the true anomaly of Holmes and placed the focus too much on his action figure side. Oh well... it is Hollywood after all and what is a good movie anymore without explosions, fights and the like. To sum up, it didn't ruin my perception of the books as much as I thought it would because it just wasn't Sherlock Holmes.

Magic Word-- Paper Thesis

Sometimes all it takes is the magic word. After class, mere minutes ago, I found the magic word to complete my paper thesis. Originally I had the overwhelming gut feeling that what I wanted to say was "The Last Temptation of Christ is an eastern interpretation of the Gospels". However, the word eastern just wasn't right. I felt like I was a shark circling around the idea/concept that I had the feeling for. It was close. Then, when I repeated my thesis to Dr. Sexson, the heavens opened and the magic term came tumbling down. He said something to the effect of 'I don't think you mean eastern but gnostic'. In that moment I knew that was the word I was looking for. Even with only a limited knowledge that gnosticism is concerned with the pursuit of knowledge through intellectual scholarship I could feel my paper begin to take shape.

Apparently Carrie is doing an independant study of gnosticism and I would love to see a blog post from her or talk one on one about some of its tenants that I will need to know before writing a paper on a subject I am mostly blind to.

As far as writing moves go I think I might open with a bit of a confessional statement about how I've been turned off from any religious belief because of the lack of intellectualism that I encountered and that how the Last Temptation of Christ has been surprisingly religious for me due to its focus on asking questions. It would be a personal anectodote that should segway into my more critical understanding of the novel without damning it to the dangerous waters of personal retellings.

The class discussion today also revealed a surprising amount of material that I plan on using in my paper. Katie's paper topic on the dark epiphany being a precursor for the 'light' (I think that was the word she used) epiphany will have a profound impact on some of the ways I pursue my paper. Also, Joan's questions surrounding sacred duty and right action will also be at the center of my exploration of this text.

One thing that I would like to discuss that I haven't heard or seen if anyone is talking about is the theophany. In this novel there are theophanies very frequently and I would love to explore there different natures and make some assertions in connection to sacred duty/right action and such. If anyone is writing on this subject please let me know and I would love to hear where you are going with it!

Anyway I think I'm getting the momentum going forward to composing a wonderful paper that should be something that I will consider a capstone on my career at this university.

Sherlock Holmes

Just a couple of days ago I finished The Complete Works of Sherlock Holmes by Conan Doyle. It was a fantastic experience to enjoy about 1800 pgs. of two of literature's most beloved and timeless characters. I never knew that the stories were framed as though actual publications of cases with Watson acting as Holmes biographer and after talking about Sanjaya and "English majors" I think that the role of Watson needs to be exalted. While Holmes' duty is to solve the problems and reveal them in theatrical and dramatic ways it is the duty of Watson to perform the duty of biographer and reveal the wonders to an anticipatory public.

For this class I think that the connection to epiphany comes through the revelations by Holmes to Watson and, in effect, the reader. While Holmes considers most of his amazing deductions to be simplistic and elementary (yes, he does say elementary although it never appears as the famous 'elementary my dear Watson' uttered by his celluloid phonies) the real joy in the cases come from the perspective of the narrator Watson. From this voice, that of a character who relishes a secret knowledge in these revelations, the reader is able to experience the mood of the stories in there truly sensational form. Also, I really enjoy the understanding that all those seemingly insignificant things in our everyday lives, those commonplace items, can pack so much meaning into them as to define a person; just see Holmes' astounding publication on tobacco ash.

On another note this last Christmas I know that they made a new Sherlock Holmes movie but I have yet to see it. Honestly I'm kind of scared to. I'm sure it is a decent production but it is just kind of scary to encounter more "real" interpretations of characters that you have partnered along on 60 adventures. My worry is that my image of Sherlock and Watson will have to grapple with Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law in an epic battle on the precipice of the Reichenbach Falls. Thank God my dear Holmes and my even more dear Watson will undoubtedly triumph!

!

Today I had a moment of epiphany. For the first time this semester, or even my 4 year college adventure, I felt like it all made sense. I can't really explain exactly what I felt like but it just seemed that I had a moment where I felt like everything was in sync and I was where I was supposed to be doing what I was supposed to do. It came at the library when I had finished reading a portion of The Last Temptation of Christ. Even though I had a lot more to go before I was finished it felt right to put it down then and there and go home. On the way out of the library everything I saw and everything I considered seemed to make sense like meaning was erupting from a hidden source. It was very cool and kind of scary. Kind of scary because I was at such a calm. It seemed like the eye of a hurricane or something where the calm can only be described as eerie. I don't have any idea where it came from or why it happened then but it was a very cool mental experience.

"The Last Temptation of Christ"

This weekend I've been reading The Last Temptation of Christ by author Nikos Kazantzakis. At it's most basic description the story is a retelling of the Gospels. However, the maneuvers Kazantzakis performs in the composition of this book makes it's complexity and relevancy excel. Jesus is wonderfully developed as not only a divine character but as a man subject to the passions and temptations of any young male. The poignant questions of the philosophies at the heart of the Gospels sparks the novel to be much more than a novelty. These things not only factor into a great novel but also one that has found much opposition and appears on banned book lists.

For a little background Kazantzakis was born in 1883 in Crete and attended a university in Athens-- he seems to draw on his experiences around the Mediterranean to really paint amazingly sensory settings. Kazantzakis was mostly writing during the mid 20th century with The Last Temptation of Christ published in 1960. He died in 1957 (I'm not sure whether the book was published posthumously or that is the date for the English translation). Another work by Kazantzakis that has permeated the broad cultural awareness is Zorba the Greek; so much so that the character even lends his name to the Greek food place in the SUB and, as we all know, if it's in the SUB it must be important!

Having read about half of the book thus far (~250 pages) I think that this book should be on the radar for the class as almost every page deals with epiphanies and theophanies. Also, the first 180 pages or so would make a great juxtaposition to the Gita. I imagine some readers might find the book too long. It really takes a great deal of focus because Kazantzakis really spends considerable time developing the story. Readers with considerable background dealing with the Gospels and other texts in the Bible will find pleasure in the ways that Kazantzakis draws on those themes and explores the philosophies behind them.

However unfortunate I feel the need to add two disclaimers/ opinions to my reading of the book... not for my own sake but to more accurately guide the reader what to expect. 1. This book would be equally effective to "non-believers" as "believers". Beliefs aren't important to appreciate this story and I wouldn't want the "religious" aspect to push people away. This is just a great story/intellectual treat. 2. Kazantzakis does work with some outdated understandings-- mainly Mary Magdalene as a prostitute. This might turn some readers away for various reasons but it really shouldn't color your decision to pursue this book. 3. Kazantzakis could be read as sexist-- I'm not really sure how to feel about this one. Kazantzakis tends to more fully develop his male characters. Women characters tend to be pigeonholed to various stereotypes and often driven by simplistic motives. However his portrayal of Jesus' mother Mary is a truly masterful depiction of the mater dolorosa. Again, this would be an awful reason to skip over this book.

I think that I'm going to mold my topic for my paper around this book-- perhaps focusing on the themes of sacred duty, distractions, theophanies, etc. I'll need to focus some more before I can really provide a thoughtful thesis but I'm sure that my topic is lurking somewhere in the pages!