[PLUG-TALK] interesting book
Russell Senior
seniorr at aracnet.com
Sat Oct 2 16:39:16 UTC 2004
When I was in high school and perhaps even junior high (it seems like
a long time ago now, so bear with my failing memory), I recall immense
frustration in english class when I was asked by teachers to interpret
some work of literature. While I enjoyed reading, at that tender age
I had not the experience to see the archetypes that the author may
have intended. I couldn't see the pattern of meaning because I didn't
recognize the landmarks.
As a consequence of that early feeling of inadequacy, I have always
been kind of hungry for insight into that kind of pattern recognition.
It seems like, naturally, a lot of it has come with age and experience
(reading and otherwise). But when I happened across a book last night
that my wife had casually brought home from the library called _How to
Read Literature Like a Professor_, I couldn't help picking it up and
reading the first few chapters. In it, various archetypes are
described in a light, fun and accessible way. In Chapters 2 and 3,
though he doesn't mention politics or politicians at all, I discovered
the fundamental reason that I find Bush repulsive, and in contrast why
I find Kerry (as the only available agent of change) appealing. Here
it is:
The difference between Bush and Kerry is the difference between
'having you for dinner' and 'having you over for dinner'.
Bush as vampire; Kerry as priest. In chapter 2 of the book, the
author, a guy named Thomas C. Foster, describes the latter idea as:
"Whenever people eat or drink together, it's communion."
and goes on to say: "in the real world, breaking bread together is an
act of sharing and peace, since if you're breaking bread you're not
breaking heads." In foreign policy, I think this is what Kerry wants
to do. He wants everyone to eat together. That's what he means when
he wants to engage with the rest of the world, to get everyone on the
same page as much as possible through shared goals and shared rewards.
In contrast, Bush fundamentally, "wakes up [...] and says something
like, 'in order to remain undead, I must steal the life force of
someone whose fate matters less to me than my own'". He doesn't give
a damn about Old Europe or the rest of the world as long as America
(self) is getting a healthy share of the "life force". It is why he
doesn't care a whole lot about killing foreigners to get the life
force. It is why he doesn't care about a lot of things. Bush is
fundamentally about vampirism.
And once you see that archetypal pattern, the choice is rather clear,
isn't it?
--
Russell Senior ``I have nine fingers; you have ten.''
seniorr at aracnet.com
More information about the PLUG-talk
mailing list