Jan’s Comments (group member since May 23, 2015)

Jan’s comments from the On Paths Unknown group.

The Guy Fawkes image was all over the place a few of years ago here in the US, associated with the Occupy movement, I think. I looked him up and read about it then. Can't remember much without looking him up again but maybe it will come back to me when reading others' comments.

You are too fast for me, Traveller! No way I can keep up.

Traveller wrote: "...I feel that you telling me to stop uttering my own beliefs comes down to censorship; I wonder how you would feel if I asked you to stop talking about what you believe? I hope, in fact, that I have done the opposite, since I have invite..."

Of course you have the right of free speech, Traveller. I learn more, though, from the interactions where the speech is modulated by thoughtfulness, care, friendship, kindness, and treating others the way one is wanting for oneself.

We each credit our own sensitivity and vulnerability, but instead of recognizing the same in others, we authorize ourselves to take preemptive measures. To love the other as ourself would mean recognizing others as human beings with feelings like our own. Could this be a requisite step for the further evolution I mentioned in the other thread?


Perhaps you might have some thoughts on why the topic I originally brought up is such a sensitive one--above and beyond all the imperfections of the way you think I did bring it up.

Traveller wrote: "...I want to add something here: disapproving of behavior is not the same thing as disapproving of a person...."

Yes, yes, and yes. You have totally overlooked that in my original criticism. I never called you immoral. If you read back you will see that is the case.

I don't think you are going to gain traction in requesting one particular group of people to declare their membership in that group, Traveller.

Nor does segregating the thought of others with whom you disagree into a separate thread for their alleged harmfulness endear you to those others.

Nor can your words asking people to be calm and rational carry much weight when you are excoriating them in terms you would explode over if done to you (in fact for much less). One needs to look at oneself, not only at others.


I tried the group. I thought more about the book.
And I learned about some perspectives in other parts of the world. But the moderation style isn't my cup of tea.

Traveller wrote: "...I think your "talking over a gulf" assessment was corr..."

I appreciate your attitude of greater seeking and openness in the above, Traveller, particularly in reading the long pdf; I was going to suggest that the 1st 15 pages would do, as later he gets into example after example, but glad you took a look.

Your content, though, is a different matter. Re conversion: yes, during 2nd Temple times (Jesus' time, plus or minus a century on either side), Jews did proselytize (and, yes, by then they were Jews), it became a punishable offense after the Jewish wars or, anyway, after Christianity came into power, and after centuries we seem to have lost our taste for it; except for a few hyperreligious denominations, Jews don't even proselytize other Jews. Your scholar friend would explain that, too, so be not afraid! :)

As to the other term you used, apologetic, everybody knows it means "defense" not "apology," but in practice not all defense is apologetic, or, if it were, the same definition would apply to all you've been writing on this issue. Apologetic writings are those that defend by whitewashing. If you look among my book reviews at those of a religious or theological nature, you'll notice that number of stars doesn't depend on the tradition of the author, so perhaps you can take that as one indicator.

And also I'm very sensitive about treating others in ways I myself am protesting.

So, that's "conversion" and "apologetics."

There is something I had wanted you to stop, or at least to think about, as you know, but perhaps I can address that better in the context of future reviews.

Traveller wrote: "Let's endeavor to play nice against all odds. I think we just managed to hit on a nerve with Jan there. Let's give her some grace? I can see how each person is escalating the other one, and I am t..."

I appreciate the grace, and I look forward to a time when the raising of this issue could itself be viewed in a better light.

Traveller wrote: "...it is Iris's blindness that causes the deaths of both L..."

Maybe. Except that assassins do it deliberately. And Laura wasn't someone who deserved it. And remarks don't kill. If they did people would be dropping like flies and we wouldn't have to worry about gun control over here.

Derek (Guilty of thoughtcrime) wrote: "...Tea is a huge part of my life. I make a trek into the city every few months to buy my 2kg bag of loose Earl Grey...."

Tea and its proper brewing figured heavily in the Anne Tyler book I just completed, Digging to America, with its Iranian-American characters.

Magdelanye wrote: "Being one of those who could not bring much charity to poor old Iris, still find it a stretch to see her actually murdering Richard. Can you explaib?"

Short answer: It was Derek's comment #27 on p. 1 of this thread that originally gave me this idea. I responded to it in my comment #42. I haven't looked back at the relevant passages. Prior to that, I hadn't thought of it myself.

Longer answer: Whatever the story-within-a-story reminds you of--ancient Hebrews, Hittites, etc.--what does it have to do with the main story? Maybe this has been discussed and I missed it. Why is the book even named The Blind Assassins?

There has been a lot of discussion about the dysfunction in Laura and Iris' family of origin. But unless one is going to be like those early feminists who thought all families were hell, there's nothing in that alone that would automatically lead to the analogy to sneaking around assassinating people. Dysfunctional families and badly treated children are a dime a dozen, but blind assassins are rare. That's why I observed that, if she had murdered Richard, the title would make sense.

Richard's modus operandi including his treatment of Iris and spiked by his abuse of Laura raise the ante.

For me, unfortunate comments made by Iris aren't equivalent to murder. I don't think that makes the one who uttered them a "blind assassin."

Not all books have to make sense. Tartt's The Secret History didn't, and for me that added to the eerie spookiness. For most books, though, making sense helps. I thought the analogy in The Blind Assassin, if that's what it is, was disproportional and wish I understood it better.

My two most significant discoveries about this book are (1) the possibility Iris may have killed Richard, and (2) thinking of it in the sense of classical tragedy. I really didn't look down on or feel critical of Iris as some others of you seemed to. I didn't think she was bad or weak. She was one unfortunate lady, and I was sorry for her sad life--especially since I didn't get any sense of redemption or catharsis from it! I think that's just not Margaret Atwood's way.

I even learned something from the discussion that continued in the other thread.

I'm not planning to read the other proposed books with the group. I joined it just to discuss "The Blind Assassin." So somebody please let me know when there's another one you think I may want to get in on.

We are talking over a gulf. You all (in the American southern sense--not everybody, but Traveller, Derek, and Ian) think you're hearing me, but you aren't. In that connection, I've come across this article you may find applicable. You get the abstract by opening this link http://mosaicmagazine.com/picks/2015/... , and then you can click on the 40-page pdf, if you like. This is the kind of article (and/or book) I find helpful. I don't care about the tradition the author comes from, as long as he/she's oriented factually (as opposed to so immersed in his story he thinks it's actual historical reality or something).

The purpose of the article is not to determine which view is right. That will be influenced by what you bring with you. The purpose is to demonstrate there are two different sets of presuppositions.

Understanding the technical terms eisegesis and exegesis is useful.

I also think a pause for reflection before replying could be useful. Of course you don't have to. I only came to that conclusion because I don't have a bunch of people here backing me up. In other words, if you are in the position of relative power there's less need for care. We didn't personally choose our position with regard to power, so it's not like I can say my way of pausing to reflect is better.

I think this is about everything else I could contribute on this thread. Thanks for the discussion.

I have solved the mystery of why Derek keeps insisting that I claim that stories in the Hebrew scriptures are Christian stories. Since I didn't say that, I had been wondering where he's coming from.

Here's what I said: Traditional Christian stories (or narratives) as to what Judaism is don't align well with actual Judaism. In other words, what Christians traditionally consider to be Judaism is a construct of their own devising that meets their own needs.

Of course, that's not the case (or is less the case) for many of today's scholars and theologians with Christian backgrounds. Many pastors and priests know better, too. You can still read it in books or hear it at times from the pulpit, though, and it's endemic among ordinary people.

Also, post-Christians who don't like religion or Christianity will sometimes run down the Hebrew scriptures as a way of attacking Christianity and religion in general. I think that's been happening off and on since the Enlightenment. Upon reading the first little bit of Gibbons' Decline and Fall, I thought that could be what was going on.

It's occurred to me in the past that people of whatever religious persuasion who denigrate the religious traditions of others are doing the work of atheists for them.

Any religious scripture can be denigrated simply by cherry picking the problematic texts, since all scriptures have them. That, however, doesn't prove anything about the religion under attack but instead reflects back on the one or on those who are doing the denigrating.

Now let me mention a particular way of blaming another tradition or other outsiders for what one doesn't like about one's own tradition, since I think there's evidence of its going on in this and the prior discussion. One simply says that whatever they like was present at the origin (or conversely what they dislike was absent at the origin), and that the subsequent change is due to the outside corruption. If, for example, one's tradition used to like imperialism but now doesn't, just claim the origin was perfect in this regard and has been subsequently corrupted. Or if one's tradition used to value class distinctions but now deplores them, then they must have gotten into the tradition through corruption by "others." If the tradition used to disallow meditative practices but now wants them, then the perfect original practitioners must have meditated--prior to interference by the corrosive outsiders, that is.

I learned about this from Karen L. King. She's a Christian, and the tradition she's examining is Christianity.

One wonders why the tradition can't just say they want to quit whatever (or add whatever), but heaven forbid! That would be new, and everything must be said to go back to the perfect original state of things, with everything now liked said to have been there at the beginning, and everything now disapproved of said to have been absent at the beginning. This technique works for anything, as times change and values evolve. And it's very convincing. The problems come with the blaming.


Here are some other things I didn't do or say in this or the prior thread: I didn't call anyone immoral. I didn't make ad hominem attacks. And I didn't seek to delineate the evils of Christianity, either, Name Redacted/Ian. I am not interested in those activities. You won't find it in my reviews or writings, and if I find something is too negative, I revise it. Also I haven't called anyone a liar, much less an antisemitic liar. I'm talking about specific issues, not casting essentialist aspersions.

I thought those accusations may have been straw-man attacks: easier to refute than what I'm saying. And easier to build up a head of righteous indignation.

I criticized some particular speech: cherry picking the Christian OT to cast aspersions on the ancient Hebrews.

Somebody else questioned Traveller on her assertions. She cited a bunch of texts to show her assertions were "correct." That's when I came into the picture.

The problem is not that Traveller (and whoever else) was reminded of the ancient Hebrews, but the narrative into which she weaves her observations, its lack of context, and, really, what you would expect from an outsider looking in. I heard no cries against getting into "the evil of the Judaic tradition," Name Redacted/Ian.

It is as though I were a person of color criticizing an instance of racist language, with some of you here supporting your right to talk that way: that it's perfectly accurate, supported by writings and traditions, etc.--putting together your case.

Just to show how different the same books can be, depending on how they're being used, here's a prayer from modern-day Jewish liturgy:

For I have given you good instruction; do not abandon My Torah.

It is a tree of life for those who hold fast to it, and all its supporters are hkappy.
Its ways are ways of pleasantness and all its paths are peace....

(As Name Redacted/Ian must know, not everyone considers the Tanakh and the OT to be the same book despite the overlap in content because they're slightly different, put into a different order, and [often] used for different purposes.)

If what has gone before remains the pattern, what I've written here will be misconstrued in the most dramatic ways, and I'll be called some more names. I recognize that Name Redacted/Ian credited some of my points, but I'm not sure even those were accepted in any meaningful way in the ongoing discussion. So I'm not intending to continue here with such expenditures of energy without much expectation of positive returns. I've heard that the best remedy for bad religious talk is good talk, so have tried to reply to accusations with better words, but this discussion is too much of a free-for-all, a bull session with people going on their intuitions and mainly looking to justify and bolster their previously held beliefs. So barring my mind's being changed,I'm expecting that I'll cut my losses and quit this discussion at this point.

Nope. I wasn't saying they were Christian stories. You were denying they're Christian stories. But--if they are all part of the Christian scriptures, can you really pick and choose which ones are Christian?

As I think I've already written there is a trend or tendency within Christianity to blame Jews and see them and Judaism as evil. And, in ancient Israel, similarly, there was a tendency to outsource evil onto the Canaanites. Even long after the Canaanites were assimilated, there was a tendency to conflate evil with Canaanite ways. In Western society ongoing there is a tendency to conflate evil with Judaism, since the Christian tradition has been so dominant within the culture (even if people consider themselves post-Christian or whatever). So, looking with those eyes, one can easily look out on that story-within-a-story and see what has been built into one by the culture. (When it all started, the early church had no power to inflict anything on Jews. But, later, they did.) That's what I drew attention to.

[Name Redacted] wrote: "...I clearly missed the original discussion, but the Christian "Old Testament" IS the Hebrew TaNaKh. "Old Testament" is just the Christian name for it. We are hampered in our study of it today by t..."

Hello, Name Redacted. I see from Traveller's response that she knows you as Ian.

Your credentials are good. You and Traveller are apparently well known to each other. I, on the other hand, don't remember coming across you in any thread during my four years on this site. Once before, on another subject, I embarked on an uneven playing field. I would like to think your presence and your expertise would even this one out, but, credentials or no, that's not an automatic. I spent a little while looking for some of your reviews but didn't find any. I think if I read a few, I'd get a feel. Would you direct me to some of them? I'd be willing to give you a few as well, or you can choose them yourself.

Derek (Guilty of thoughtcrime) wrote: "And I still want to know how you can call those Old Testament writings "Christian stories." They manifestly are not."

I wrote, "You are in error. Talk to scholars and experts on your tradition. What you say has been tried, at least twice that I know of, and it just couldn't be done."

and then Derek wrote, "No, don't just tell me I'm "in error" (you might as well just call me an anti-semitic liar). Tell me why those books, included in the foundational literature for Judaism, are "Christian" stories. In the other thread..."

The themes are not separated into the Hebrew and Christian scriptures. They are interwoven. You can't get the "Jewish" themes out of the NT. There is a continuity of themes, not discontinuity. To come to the latter conclusion requires seeing Judaism through a biased eye. (At the dawn of Christianity, the only scripture was the OT. The early church needed it. Christianity couldn't exist without it.) I'm saying the ugliness and negativity you're seeing is in the eye of the beholder.

Things can look very different viewed from the inside vs. looking at them from the outside.

I'm not saying the Tanakh is without problems. No scriptures are that--without problems, that is. The problems we're having come with the polarization: exporting the evil all over to one side. That is a questionable method of self-cleaning.

I said that practice is morally questionable. I didn't call anyone immoral. I also know that you don't know when you are doing that. You don't see it. We can't see ourselves and tend to point at others. And those in power try and enforce it.

Derek (Guilty of thoughtcrime) wrote: "And I still want to know how you can call those Old Testament writings "Christian stories." They manifestly are not."

You are in error. Talk to scholars and experts on your tradition. What you say has been tried, at least twice that I know of, and it just couldn't be done.

Traveller wrote: "Jan, it feels to me as if you are making ad hominem accusations without backing up your claims.

A bit like when you attacked a group of us who protested against Amazon's attempts towards turning..."

It isn't clear what will set someone off, and I was really surprised, Traveller, by your response.

I first remember meeting you on my The Evolution of God thread. If I remember right, you were eager to pin on me some view with which you disagreed (that there was no morality without religion, I think), even though that wasn't my position, and even though I repeatedly said I thought there were arguments for that position but that I didn't know them. If that was you, and in light of your responses now, perhaps you are too eager for a hounds and hare chase. Are you looking to set the "us" hounds on whomever disagrees with you? On that "censorship" issue I certainly did see things differently. I didn't like the hue and cry and the mob mentality of "Don't think; just condemn whom I condemn."

You said earlier, "...-how do I personally feel about the Old Testament? Firstly, since the Jewish part is only a small part of my ancestry and most of my ancestry is European, I feel that it is a foreign religion foisted upon my European predecessors.

Judaism did not have its roots in Europe, so I find it a bit strange and uncomfortable that Europeans have syncretis...."

None of it was native to Europe, was it? It all came from elsewhere.

And, "...The biggest difference for me in the cultures of the ancient Europeans as opposed to that of the ancient Semites, (and I stand to be corrected on this) is the Judaic focus on purity...."

These things are mixed in all of us. For example, when you talk about aspects and groups not native to Europe, that itself seems to reflect an emphasis on purity. It's easy to see parts you don't like as "them," but that's essentialism.

This is revealing. Here one does get pejorative (and wrongheaded) attitudes about the "Old Testament" vs. the New such as I 1st objected to--but not so much this thing you've brought out of Judaism as an impurity or contaminant of some native culture. I don't feel that's because Americans are so much better, but because of the differing history in Europe, and because, here, race issues tend to overwhelm any other such thinking.

And I have a brief response for Derek that ties in here, as well.

I had an interlude that I used to read back through all the comments relating the in-power group of the story-within-a-story to the ancient Hebrews and my objections.

Traveller said (back on Thread 2): "...Also, no text is the same thing for different people, because we all come to it from different contexts and backgrounds. :)"

I said (above, #55), "... The bible is after all a big Rorschach blot...."

In other words,

(One of those quotes you'll see in slightly different formats. It's variously attributed.)

With me so far?

That's my point.

You've made my point with about everything you've said, Trav and Derek.

The rest is commentary about my thinking what you're saying is problematical and immoral with implications beyond literary discussion, while you think it's perfectly justified and right on target.

Will check back later in the week, and who knows, maybe I can reply in verse or something. My preferred meter is...damn, I forget it every time...oh, yeah: anapestic tetrameter.

Traveller wrote: "Jan, I'm not sure if I am understanding you correctly, but is this about anti-semitism? This is a book discussion of a specific book, of which a discussion like we're having, strictly speaking fall..."

It feels so unfair...and so we weave such fantastical stories to prove how "we" are right and "they" are in the wrong...and deserve the way we look at them and treat them. What it is not is loving each other as ourselves. We know we should, but instead justify our attitudes and behaviors.

I gave you a long, thoughtful response to your original question, Traveller, even though from my point of view the air had been cleared. Now I am going to have to pause, since I have some upcoming distractions for the next few days and am short of time, so I am not going to be able to delve into the particular plot points you've raised above at this time.

No, it's not antisemitism. That is racial hatred. This is more along the lines of the history of ideas. I think it's worthwhile to talk about the ideas while they are still just ideas.

Also it's worth noting that I'm speaking for myself. My ideas are mine and not the Jews'. I have some biographical details that make me able to hear a wider range than some others of whatever background, so try to put that to good purpose. And as you've noticed previously, I am not parroting specific conventional patterns of thought. So, maybe some good will come of it after all, Traveller.

Traveller wrote: "I wanted to comment on something completely different here, but I see there is air to be cleared first.

Jan, please tell me something: If I had said that the Lizard men remind me of the Greek God..."

Oh, here's my comeuppance: I must stand and talk... But I am kidding. Thank you for asking.

First of all, I consider the air to have been considerably cleared. That's up to me. I can either stuff it, or I can speak. If the former, then that means I won't be interacting, since it's not possible to both speak, and not speak about something that's important. (So, some could be thinking, "Oh, darn! We missed out on not having to bother!")

I'll try to address your concern, although in somewhat simplified and condensed form--not the full treatment.

Let's say that when Jews were emancipated and allowed into society (in those European countries in which they were), which was around the time of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Napoleon, I think of them having agreed never to question the Western, i.e., Christianity-based story, on pain of disloyalty, so whenever the issue arose they would just have to suck it up. But, unfortunately, that story periodically flares up on a grass-roots level when politically beneficial for some (which has been most of the time, except for an interlude which just happens to have encompassed most of my lifetime but is ending or has ended).

I decided that speaking up was important.

It's like the guy I think I cited in my The Meursault Investigation review: stuff happens whether one is silent or speaks, and I decided on the latter. There is another writer who said the only worthwhile things to speak (write) about are the things that "can't" be spoken.

A key point is that the stories about the OT and Judaism and so forth that are prevalent in our culture and incline people to see it as violent, immature, and -ha!- unperfected, are not Jewish stories. They are Christian stories about Judaism, Israelites, OT etc., seen only through that lens, so that it looks solid, real, and immutable. And unquestionable. It seems ludicrous to bring it up, like questioning the sky is blue.

As I may have said before, much of the Christian story and foundations of conventional Western culture is "over-against" "Judaism"--that is, a story about Judaism for the purpose of making "ordinary" people feel better about themselves in comparison. (Thus, not different at bottom from white people feeling solid by looking down on people of color, or Europeans looking down on "native" populations as in past generations, etc.etc.)

Now, as to Greek gods: even today's Greeks wouldn't feel bad about negative comparison to Greek gods, much less I, nor (so I understand) do today's Egyptians or Arabs feel bad when "Pharaoh" is portrayed as the bad guy, because there is not that over-against dynamic. That is an ancient civilization which they are not seen as. It is the continued dynamic of degradation that is poisonous when it exists. With Greek gods or Pharaoh it doesn't.

On hearing this you may feel incredulity or feel unfairly accused etc., and it's not my purpose to go around making people uncomfortable, but when it comes up I'll still try to express as best I can. And I don't think the air can be cleared by shoring up the typical barriers against discussion. Maybe it can even be a source of learning from the other and can bring something new into the world. I hope so, Traveller. I have a book review coming up in not too long in which I'll be looking as some of these issues again, as I have in quite a few others.