So apparently we can all be Jesus now?

First off, I feel extremely compelled to comment on how witty Foster is by opening this chapter with the quote: “This may surprise some of you, but we live in a Christian culture.” How thought invoking! As a Christian, this one was a no brainer to me, an automatic “duh” some might say. However, I thought about how much corruption and craziness is going on in the world that doesn’t line up with what the Bible teaches and literally laughed out loud when I realized that this is probably one of the most sinful countries in the world, if not the most sinful. Here we have America, the supposed model of a correct society, “land of the free and home of the brave” who is the exact opposite of what it is supposed to be. I found the statement horrendously funny. There was too much true irony encompassed in that small sentence for it to be ignored.

Refocusing, this chapter discusses the necessity of having some sort of background in Christian literature, the Bible, if you want to be able to successfully dissect American text. He discusses the way Christ and biblical references are a part of everyday interactions for Americans. It is a piece of the culture. For example, a character archetype taught in English classes is the scapegoat. The most famous scapegoat that I have heard of (or even know of) is Jesus Christ. If you ask any other person who even knows what a scapegoat is, that will probably be their answer as well. Christian tendencies and references are ingrained in Americans. Foster gives an example of a Christ-like figure being depicted in a novel. A woman who, at first glance, was nowhere near Christ in her endeavors. Because of what happened to her and her legacy, a connection can be drawn.

This chapter is a good example of how the prior encounters a person has had with literature can influence their interpretation of things they read later. Thinking back on readings that I have done, my religious background has helped me draw connections and get messages from books easier than a person less experienced with the Bible.

 He made an interesting connection with the woman who threw her life away. How do you compare a person who is nowhere near correct in their ways to Christ? Jesus is supposed to be the person who saves the world and redeems everyone in the world. Isn’t the main point of being Christ- like to be somewhat right in your ways? She died and was resurrected, but does that mean she was the “Jesus” of the story? I, personally, disagree with this example.

The rest of the chapter discusses the way other works of literature can reference the Bible. Much like the chapter discussing Shakespeare, the Bible is an influential text in writing. I have more questions that have sprung from this chapter. Does the indirect reference of Bible scriptures and lessons communicate biblical messages to people who are not Christian? Is everyone indirectly Christian because of the Bible’s heavy influence on American culture? With the type of reasoning shown in this chapter regarding a Christ- like figure, does that mean each individual person in their own life story is “Jesus” at some point in time? A lot of people have made it to 33 and a lot of people have made severe sacrifices. Foster might want to be careful with this Jesus list. Someone might start running around claiming they are the Son of God waving this chapter of the book in peoples’ faces.

               

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/25/books/review/the-book-of-books-what-literature-owes-the-bible.html?_r=0

Got Bit...Now the Questions Won't Quit

I find it interesting how Foster discusses how and why vampires were used in earlier centuries to subliminally convey a message that was too offensive to come right out and say. It’s interesting how even though we are more liberal when it comes to voicing opinions and thoughts now than in the 18^th and 19^th centuries, we still continue to use vampires and characters labelled as monsters in stories. It makes me question whether or not we still use them for the same purpose. If an author decides to subliminally write about a topic and use symbols to discuss their opinion, the responsibility of realizing the author’s original purpose is in the hands of the reader. After understanding the purpose, which is usually to convey a darker and unwelcome message, chills run up the reader’s spine. A more discrete message will sometimes have a more lasting impact on a reader.

I am an avid and (guilty) reader of the Twilight series. As I began to read this chapter, Twilight automatically popped in my head and, of course, he mentions it in this particular passage. After explaining the meaning behind vampires and other monsters alike, a light is shown on how dark humans truly are. It’s honestly extremely weird reflecting on every supernatural movie or book I have ever experienced and taking into account the true meaning behind a lot of the beings in the stories. Edward in Twilight is obsessed with “devirginizing” Bella, for example. Now the, seemingly, harmless love story runs even deeper, darker and creepier. (As if the fact that Edward is over 100 years old and “drawn” to a teenage girl isn’t creepy enough) Edward has a hard time controlling himself because he is a vampire and vampires compromised the purity of young females. My mind has involuntarily begun to analyze the intentions of Myers and other creators of supernatural media as well.

For example, in the “House of Night” vampire book series, when a vampire drinks from a human, or even another vampire, it creates a very pleasurable experience for both, and ultimately a bond. What does this symbolize? Is this just another form of acceptable sex? Or do the Cast sisters have a deeper meaning behind the bonds and interactions between the vampires and their blood supply. As well as creating (now frightening) bonds, vampires are seen as the victims and humans, the evil enemy. I am wondering if this means the Cast sisters are bluntly calling out the human population for being disgusting and terrible, or if the vampires symbolize certain types of oppressed, misunderstood humans and the actual humans, something else.

This then causes my thought pattern to shift to Caspar the friendly ghost. A character purposed for kids is a ghost who is supposed to be friendly. Is this early conditioning of children? Foster describes ghosts to be a reflection of things that need to be called out. What is Caspar calling out? Being that he is friendly, is he bringing to light a declining emphasis on politeness and pureness? A child is a symbol of something that has not been tainted and Caspar is a dead child. Could he represent a loss of dreams or self after one grows old? A lot of adults fail to accomplish all they dream as adolescents. Is Caspar a way of illustrating a mourning of youthful dreams? Or a call to action for the youth watching the ghost to do all they dream before they lose sight of it and it dies?

Is the whole point of supernatural beings to shine a light to something that was pure that has been destroyed? This book is already extremely interesting and has brought attention to several details and happenings I have never considered while reading. I am excited about reading this book because it has finally caused me to easily begin questioning things for myself, and look deeper into the meaning and purpose of works of literature. Among the things I failed to question above are: Do aliens count in this category? What about other mythical creatures? Aslan? Bilbo Baggins? Are all mythical characters created with the intent to expose so innate, dark, problem with humanity? So many questions have now been awakened within me!

More Vampire things that spark my interest:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/strange-creatures/vampire5.htm