So having begun our examination of biblical allusions, what is your overall impression of the biblical allusions in the novel The Poisonwood Bible? Why does Kingsolver include so many allusions?
So having begun our examination of biblical allusions, what is your overall impression of the biblical allusions in the novel The Poisonwood Bible? Why does Kingsolver include so many allusions?
man I need to read that book again . . .
I think that Kingsolver includes biblical allusions in her book for many different reasons. First of all, she uses refrences to the many translations and versions of the bible to support her message about how the intended meaning of a message can be warped or changed in translation. Sometimes mistranslation is an accident, but frequently, these translations are made for a specific political agenda. Kingsolver criticizes relying too heavily on a source that has been interpreted through the character of Brother Fowles.
Barbara Kingsolver also represents this theme with the subtle difficulties of the language spoken in Kilanga. For instance, Adah describes how simply placing emphasis on certain parts of the word can change the meaning entirely. The most obvious example of this is Nathan's insistance that Jesus is poisonwood. His mispronounciation changes his intended message from Jesus is great to Jesus is poisonwood.
By using the biblical allusions and the allusions to the language of the Kilanga natives, Kingsolver shows that miscommunication in its various forms can cause huge problems.
This shows that although language is a powerful tool of communication, it still has limits.
*****So having begun our examination of biblical allusions, what is your overall impression of the biblical allusions in the novel The Poisonwood Bible? Why does Kingsolver include so many allusions?
Well, I think the biblical allusions that Kingsolver makes are both interesting and wonderful. However, I must admit, the first time I read The Poisonwood Bible I completely overlooked them and read right past them. I find these allusions interesting because I’m really into series such as Artemis Fowl and Harry Potter. The usage of allusions to scripture is quite limited in such texts, and therefore it is a relatively new concept for me to analyze such allusions. The stories that I read mainly focus getting the story and the message affiliated with the story out to the world. Yet, Kingsolver seems to desire to do something much more. It's almost as if she wants people to analyze her "complex" book through these allusions in an attempt to deeply understand the characters and to deeply experience the changes that they go through.
As we read in How to Read Literature Like a Professor, the biblical allusions are meant to provide an in-depth analysis of a story, character, etc. For instance, towards the beginning of the novel, Leah states that her "father [was] as tall as Goliath and pure of heart as David" (Kingsolver 49). I had done some research to refresh my memory for I had read I “kid” version of the Bible years ago. I found out that David was from Bethlehem, and he was the eighth and youngest son of Jesse. Now this is definitely not a coincidence that Nathan is from Bethlehem, Georgia. Nathan has red hair just like David, and he was strong and healthy just like David was. David was a Shepherd while he was young. This relates to Nathan because Leah believes he is a “shepherd” as well specifically while he’s in the Congo. Leah mentions that Nathan “planned to make a demonstration garden, from which [they’d]…supply food and seeds to the villagers” (35-36). A Shepherd provides food one’s flock and Nathan is doing the in his attempts to feed the Africans (the wild savages that need to be tamed). The fact that Nathan feeds the “flock” is also seen with the bombardment and distribution of fish. Also, Leah feels that “the grace of [their] good intentions made [her] fell wise, blessed, and safe from the snakes” (36). This shows that Leah feels that her father is guardian for when he is around, they (including the Africans) are safe from the snakes. In comparison, David the Shepherd was too a guardian of his flock from the untamed animals.
In The Poisonwood Bible, the untamed animals in Nathan’s eyes represent those who adhere to their traditional religious beliefs such as Tata Kuvudundu. Also, I find it interesting that “Dundu is a kind of antelope” (173). This could be symbolic of his untamed status in Nathan’s eyes for antelopes are generally untamed animals. In addition, Tata Ndu could symbolize Goliath for he is Nathan’s (David’s) arch nemesis in the battle to gain people to their side of religion. The battlefield in which Nathan “kills” Tata Ndu is with Adah and lion incident: “[Tata Ndu’s] eldest son has seen the marks of the little girl who drags her foot, and the lion tracks,…and a smear of fresh blood trailing into the bush. And that is how they knew the little crooked white child,…had been eaten….Tata Ndu…raised [his head] proudly. Then I understood that he had won, and my father had lost” (140). However, Tata Ndu was proven wrong for Adah was still alive. This led to Nathan’s victory in getting people on his side of religious beliefs because “he’d preached the parable of Daniel and the lions’ den just a few days before, so naturally now they [the Congolese] are knocking each other over to get to church on Sunday” (150-151).
However, towards the end of the novel, Leah’s perspective changes and she conversely believes that her father was Goliath, the terrible man. In fact, she states that her “father came only once, with blue flames curling from his eyebrows and tongue” (395). The reference of the blue flames makes me think of Hell and Nathan as the Devil who’s vice is spread with his misleading words. It also makes me think of the Left Behind Series because Nathan is so similar to Nicolae Carpathia. Nicolae is the Antichrist in the series. He is supposedly handsome and he swoons many women, as does Nathan upon the first sight. Also, he makes false promises, as does Nathan when he tries to get people to believe that they will be protected when they “step into the light.” However, this is not true and it is demonstrated with the death of Ruth May. All in all, Nathan is personally for me the Antichrist in this novel.
What I missed on Wednesday and Thursday.
The Things We Carried starts on page 13 (11 if you want to get technical). As far as I can tell there isn't any biblical connection, is there?What does happen is the family arrives in the Congo with all the things they thought they would need to bring. Hence the title The Things We Carried
. Well needless to say they broght things that they might have needed in Georgia, but this is the Congo...
Nathan had tried to tell them although his reason was that God
would provide for them, not that it was just unreasonable and they could probably find what they need there. Revelation is book 66 of the bible Revelation is defined as an opening of the eyes. Or a revealing of a certain something to someone. The realizing of something... etc. So in this "book" of the book it is expected that the family will become more aware of what happens. That's basically what happens in the bible version. I don't have a bible in my house
so I can't directly quote anything, but basically the light shines apon a lost people kinda thing. Which is the Price family except the light isn't religion instead it is just normal average everyday life of the people in the village which Nathan is trying to convert, but to no avail and he's frustrated
that Tata Ndu informed him how all the people in the church were the rejects anyway.
No works need be cited for this mangled message.
When in class on Friday, I accidentally read from Rachel's part...I meant to read off of page 243. I had the page marked and opened to in my book as well! Gosh, silly me!! The quote is: "I was shocked and frightened to see her flout Father's authority, but truthfully, I could feel something similar moving around in my own heart. For the [first] time in my life I doubted his judgment. He'd made us stay here, when everybody from Nelson to the King of Belgium was saying white missionaries ought to go home. For us to be here now, each day, was Father's decision and his alone. Yet he wasn't providing for us, but only lashing out at us more and more. He wasn't able to [protect] Mother and Ruth May from getting sick. [If] it's all up to him to decide our fate, shouldn't [protection] be part of the bargain?" said Leah (Kingsolver 243). In my first post, I related Nathan to David, the Shepherd. One can see from this passage that Nathan (the Shepherd) has not been able to provide for his "flock" (The Price women), nor has Nathan been able to protect his" flock." Theoretically, when a sheep is unsatisfied with his/her condition, then that sheep is not able to change his circumstances for he/she is alone and powerless against the majority. However, if many sheep are unsatisfied, then they will have the ability to rebel towards the lone shepherd. This foreshadows that the unsatisfied "flock" (Rachel, Orleanna, and Adah) will gain one new member and strength: Leah. It is significant that Leah is the last one to join this group because she was her father's strongest follower, and Nathan's most dedicated follower (Leah) left her father alone. Now the "flock" has all the necessary attributes to revolt.
Also, Leah's question is quite significant: "[if] it's all up to [Nathan] to decide our fate, shouldn't [protection] be part of the bargain?" (243). Towards, the beginning, Leah would have never said "if", for she believed everything her father did was correct. Also, Leah too (like the villagers) vehemently followed Nathan's ways while the guarantee of protection lasted. Yet, when that guarantee of protection faltered, Leah like the villagers stepped out of the "light" for she did not know (this passage in the section; The Things We Didn't Know) that her father was incapable of being a dutiful shepherd. Also, after this crucial conclusion, Leah's perspective completely takes a different path. In fact, she begins to wonder "what else might he be wrong about" (244).
Genesis and The Things We Carried
Kingsolver has a strong message of irony in regard to religion that she uses from the beginning. She even uses it in the title, The Poisonwood Bible. She is comparing religion to the poisonwood tree. It can appear harmless or even good, but it is actually poison. Nathan is her example of this.When the Price family has to start over again in Kilanga it is symbolic of the creation of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. It is ironic because Nathan has come to tame what God has already created. He is playing God. It is also ironic because in Genesis, the first sin was when Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge, discovered that they were naked, and were ashamed.
Revelation
The quote at the beginning of book two is "And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up... If any man have an ear, let him hear" (Revelation 13;1,9). This is ironic because Orleanna realizes that the beast is actually Nathan, the man who believes that he is holier than the rest of them. She sees this when he throws Methuselah out of his cage to try and survive in the wild. She has had a revelation! There are two ways to view religion. Nathan's way= wrathful and vengeful god
Orleanna's way= appreciate nature and god, respect both
She says, "Yet we sang in church 'Tata Nzolo'! Which means Father in Heaven or Father of Fish Bait depending on just how you sing it, and that pretty well summed up my quandary. I could never work out whether we were to view religion as a life-insurance policy or a life sentence."
Orleanna is a very depressing character, because she must do whatever she can to get by, even if that means living with a monster and abandoning what she believes in. She has to stay to do what she can for her children. I feel sorry for her, but at the same time I am angry with her because I wanted her to get herself out of that situation. If she had acted sooner, even before they went to the Congo, Ruth May would not have died. But then there wouldn't have been a book!
Anyway, Orleanna's character is also ironic because she can appreciate nature (Okapi and Pygmies) and God's creation more than Nathan can, but he calls her the sinner. He fights nature, she loves it.
Is this kind of response okay, Mrs. Hamley? Do you want more textual examples?
Adding to my last post....
Also, the concept that Nathan in fact is Goliath instead of Jacob (in the sense that he harms those that surround him rather than protecting them) is also displayed by Orleanna's perspective. Orleanna states that "a wife may revile such a man [Nathan Price] with every silent curse she knows. But she can't throw stones. A stone would fly straight through him and strike the child made in his image, clipping out an eye or a tongue or an outstretched hand. It's no use. There are no weapons for this fight" (Kingsolver 192).
Once again, there is a reference to the story of David and Goliath (David used a stone to kill Goliath, the giant). However, no matter how hard Orleanna tries, her stones will not penetrate Nathan. This to me symbolizes that no matter how hard Orleanna explains the risks that Nathan is inflicting on the Price family, Nathan's goal and narrow-minded view cannot be killed. The most intriguing part of this passage is that part that discusses how the stone will fly through Nathan and harm the child within Nathan's mind. The stone will clip out an eye (the younger Nathan could symbolize the "child" aspect.....and Nathan is blind in one eye...hmm...coincidence...I highly doubt it), or a tongue (Adah does not speak....she essentially has no tongue unless she's in a rare situation where her tongue is absolutely necessary), or an outstretched hand (Ruth May broke her arm).
To expand on Nathan's blindness, the bullet fragment that harmed him is like part of stone that grazed his face. The stone did not result in Nathan's death, however, Nathan does become permanently damaged and burdened with his feelings of guilt. This happened first chronologically in the story and Orleanna's explanation. Secondly, as described above, Adah speaks to a limited extent. This could be due to the fact that from birth she was different from the Prices. It is as if Nathan cut her tongue off by never providing her any attention (he never sought to make her feel a part of the family even though he was a man and had the authority to do so). When Adah moves back to the U.S., she completely transforms: “Adah really doesn’t limp a bit anymore, like Mother said. Plus she talks…She’s exactly as tall as Leah now, too, which is simply unexplanatory,” said Rachel (481). Nathan is not there!!! This just shows that amidst Nathan's presence, the stone harms Adah, resulting in her silence. Also, this occurs second in both the passage and chronologically in terms of history. Ruth May breaks her arm while she's in the Congo. It's Nathan's fault that she is there, that just once again shows the damage he causes to those around. Lastly, this event occurs third both in the passage and chronologically in history.
One may wonder why this occurs....Well, I think it's because a form of Nathan dominating everyone for he (a male) has the power to do this!
Last edited by hp 4ever!; 09-12-2007 at 07:02 PM.
I was noticing as we were reading that Nathan seems to use contradictory bible stories to describe himself and his family. For instance, he refers to himself as Job at several points, making reference to the trials that Job faces to test his powerful faith. However, Nathan also preaches that the lord rewards those that do good. Nathan seems to use biblical references that contradict each other and this may be an attempt by Kingsolver to emphasize Nathan's misunderstanding of his own faith.
Random realization Time!!!!!!
I was flipping through my old copy of The Crucible (yes, that Arthur Miller play from last year), and I found a similarity between the two. Although Nathan Price calls himself a Southern Baptist, he really takes a more puritan perspective on Christianity. I think that this might explain a possible motive for Nathan's attempt to dominate the forest of the Congo. For the newly created Puritan society in the present day United States, the forest symbolized the land controlled by the devil, and the Puritans believed that the best way to beat the devil back was to convert the forest into pure farmland, which symbolized the land of God. Nathan might have been doing the same thing in the Congo when he tried to dominate the garden that he built. He believed that building hills would have been a compromise with the devil, something Nathan was definitely not willing to do.
PS: I started a thread on Arthur Miller's The Crucible. Search for it and try to respond. Thanks!!!!
Random realization complete
Notice starting on page 348 that Leah has a chapter then Rachel has one, then Leah, and then another Rachel. This emphasizes Adah's reflection on the events that have happened: the hunt, and then Ruth May's death. This reflection allows her to come to her conclusions about the circle of life and realize that Ruth May's death was inevitable.
By the way; notice the connection between my avatar and what I wear about 3 times a week
The Song of the Three Children
First of all on page 507(the title page of book six), the quote says: "All that you have brought upon us and all that you have done to us, You have done in justice... Deliver us in your wonderful way". This is from the Song of the Three Children, 7-19 in the Apocrypha. This passage shows the main concept throughout the book. The Price family women (some may argue except for Rachel) were each able to learn life changing things in the Congo. This was great for them but they had to learn it the hard way. They had to live in a place of famine and disease. They also lost Ruth May and everything they had believed in. They had to live in disaster and lose all the things they did in order to arrive at a greater good and understanding which changed their lives dramatically. This is like the quote because the it explains how God had put people through these things to eventually deliver them to his greater good.
Song of the Three Children
Page 511: "Mostly I kissed it for still being there, since I still expect every plank of this place to be carried off by my own help during my absence. But so far, so good" (Kingsolver 511).
This passage just shows how little Rachel had progressed since she had moved to Africa. She had spent such a long time in Kilanga, and even though she really didn't pay much attention to what was going on and stuck her nose up at everything, you think she would have at least noticed that not every native in Africa is a savage. During their time in Kilanga, the Price family had trouble with some of the natives, but what Rachel had ignored is all the good things the people had done for eachother and had done for her own family. Some had brought food for the family and had even thrown them a feast at their arrival, etc. I believe it would take a lot of virtue for these people to help the Price family after how Nathan had acted. They also were not truly savages they cared for their children, gathered and cooked food for their families, helped their neighbors out. All the women in the Price family understood that, all except for Rachel. She still regards the natives as savages. This just shows her ignorance and a strong similarity to her father.
The Song of the Three Children
p. 515: "You can't just sashay into the jungle aiming to change it all over to the Christian style, without expecting the jungle to change you right back" (Kingsolver 515).
I believe this his is the smartest thing Rachel has said throughout the entire book. What she states is entirely true, the jungle did change her family dramatically. Although her as an individual didn't change much.
Song of the Three Children
p. 520-521: "What did I see?' I always ask, thoug I already know. They saw Africans...The priests were dismayed to learn the Kongo already had their own Bible. They'd known it by heart for hundreds of years" (Kingsolver 520-521). ------------ I skipped a big chunk of the quote b/c it is too much to type so if you want to see it you'll have to look in the book
This passage is very interesting, b/c it shows the people of Africa as completely opposite of how most of the Europeans and Americans had seen them throughout the book.
Kingsolver addresses a lot of politics in PB. The arrest of Patrice Lumumba, the diamond mines, and the US's involvement in these issues.
Can someone explain them from a historical perspective? Is Kingsolver true in narrating these events, or are some of the parts possibly fictional?
When I first read PB, I didn't really notice the allusions. After discussing the book, I don't berate myself for not seeing them, even though there are SOO MANY ALLUSIONS! It's amazing how BK (not Baby Kochamma... haha) can masterfully cram so many references in this novel. But that's beside the point. It's up to the reader to read/interpret as deep as he/she wants to, and Kingsolver appreciates that. You can't fully recognize the author's skill or her message if you ignore the allusions, but you still understand the story.Originally Posted by mhamley
The Biblical allusions portray the fact that something with a pure intent can be twisted and melded so that it is no longer recognizable. People have brought up Nathan's butchery of the pronunciation of the native language. His intent is good, but the message he actually conveys makes people run away. If I had PB with me, I would quote a passage where Adah wittily captures the Africans' thoughts to Nathan's preachings. oh well.
So what I'm saying is this:
it's up to the individual to interpret however he wishes. While the allusions do characterize, they also show how something can be read in different ways, and different perspectives change everything. This is shown with the most clarity through Adah. She tells us of one Sunday school class. The one where she stopped believing in God. Her teacher said that those who didn't worship God went to Hell, and Adah asked her if God would be so cruel as to damn those people whose only mistake was to be born into a different religion. The teacher, instead of considering Adah's point of view, sentences her to kneel on rice or something.
Different people's perspectives lead them to view life differently and this can affect the rest of a person's life.
It seems this post is really delayed but I just read it over this past summer. We haven been discussing it in class for one or two weeks already.
When I first read through the novel, I did not see the allusions either. I think they are so well put in and describe the scence quite well.
Something that I noticed with Kingsolver's allusions and biblical symbols are how she uses them more to contrast than compare. In other words Kingsolver is uses these biblical allusions and symbols ironically. For example, Ruth May turns into a Mamba Snake after she dies. Snakes represent temptation, evil, and satan in the bible. Something also ironic, using Foster's piece, "How to Read Literature Like a Professor" (I don't know how to underline :/), there is a chapter which informs about marks/physical differences that show a character's personality. Typically, the mark will usually represent a bad/evil side of the character. Back to "The Poisonwood Bible", the people of Africa/Congo have unique physical deformities but their character is much more clean, kind, and open than when we first are introduced to the Prices. Which then directly contrats with Adah and her physical difference-her deformity represents evil which in turn, if you will, begins to compare and contrast culture and society of the West to other countries/cultures.
Back to solely biblical allusions again, I think Kingsolver uses the whole bible tone and references as a way of representing what people consider normal in their culture and how they are apt to see only from one perspective of what they are used to rather than being more open in new situations. Overall, the biblical references are very interesting, to say the least, and fit in the novel perfectly even though they are not completely similar are representing the same thing-duality is brought out on many symbols just like "The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde."
I would have probably enjoyed it if the author hadn't have pissed me off as much as she did.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote