RE: Excavating The Empty Tomb
June 4, 2013 at 11:04 am
(This post was last modified: June 4, 2013 at 11:28 am by The Grand Nudger.)
Sigh, Drich...just sigh, common themes and devices in common narrative styles......your lack of appreciation for literature never fails to leave me unimpressed. Perhaps you didn't realize this, but the contention is not that jesus-is-odysseus....or vv......
"But but but, my character has a different name, and the details of my story are different in minutae" No shit Sherlock, different authors different narratives.....
The contention, my uninterested friend, is that the author used a narrative style that would be familiar to his audience (and respected/admired/otherwise positively valued) - mimesis- to convey a dissimilar (in some regards...and not in others) message. That this narrative style is one that we would classify as fiction (intentionally so) leads one to surmise that the narratives message was most likely more important than it's contents - and that the author realized this full well...and never intended it to be anything other than-much like the feeding of the multitudes bit that you so casually shit on in our other thread. Get it now?
This is why you are in lala-land when you imagine yourself to be the triumphant christian warrior valiantly defending the gospel of christ. No one's attacking it. In fact, people are highlighting it's well developed literary style, the education of the author - and it's value as a vehicle for delivering a message that would be so readily available to it's readers. You can talk about the differences of beliefs espoused therein all day long - and you will -not- be discussing the narrative style, the narrative devices, or the common literary "culture" of the audience and their receptiveness to a narrative based on those factors. I get that this is not enough for you, your personal faith demands that this be a dry fucking historical document. Tough titties, because it isn't. Can anyone establish the intent of a long dead author with certainty? Absolutely not. We can, however, compare their styles and draw parallels and dissimilarities. We - of course- being those of us who are actually interested in these stories and their manufacture to begin with.
"But but but, my character has a different name, and the details of my story are different in minutae" No shit Sherlock, different authors different narratives.....
The contention, my uninterested friend, is that the author used a narrative style that would be familiar to his audience (and respected/admired/otherwise positively valued) - mimesis- to convey a dissimilar (in some regards...and not in others) message. That this narrative style is one that we would classify as fiction (intentionally so) leads one to surmise that the narratives message was most likely more important than it's contents - and that the author realized this full well...and never intended it to be anything other than-much like the feeding of the multitudes bit that you so casually shit on in our other thread. Get it now?
This is why you are in lala-land when you imagine yourself to be the triumphant christian warrior valiantly defending the gospel of christ. No one's attacking it. In fact, people are highlighting it's well developed literary style, the education of the author - and it's value as a vehicle for delivering a message that would be so readily available to it's readers. You can talk about the differences of beliefs espoused therein all day long - and you will -not- be discussing the narrative style, the narrative devices, or the common literary "culture" of the audience and their receptiveness to a narrative based on those factors. I get that this is not enough for you, your personal faith demands that this be a dry fucking historical document. Tough titties, because it isn't. Can anyone establish the intent of a long dead author with certainty? Absolutely not. We can, however, compare their styles and draw parallels and dissimilarities. We - of course- being those of us who are actually interested in these stories and their manufacture to begin with.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
