Printable View
"Testament" is not published, or edited, by Bloom. He reviewed it. I'm reading through the RSC Complete Shakespeare at the moment, and even his most minor play (Merry Wives of Windor!) is at least readable. The same goes for the other authors you mention. I get much pleasure from reading selected parts of the Bible, but there's an awful lot of unpleasant stretches. Have you read all of the Bible and found it all readable?Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
Yeah, but I'm not sure how they came up with those statistics. They may not have taken it from source assumptions (as you seem to be implying) but estimated it through some evalutative method. But neonetheless, that's sort of what I meant to say that the majority considered literate probably wasn't beyond third grade level, which is roughly nine years old.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Absolutely that most probably could not have read the Bible on their own.
If it's so tedious and you're not a Christian, why do you even care? I'm not sure who is supposed to be getting a message to you, but frankly maybe they don't care about a message to you. Shakespeare and the Bible serve completely different functions, so the comparison is fallacious. And frankly i've heard the same argument (tedious and unreadable) made about Shakespeare.Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
Edited, reviwed, published, schinegans. You are getting Shakespeare, what was already selected about him, and comparing to a collection of books. My complete works of Shakespeare have his will and it no more interesting than any part of the bible.Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
I have read all the bible, I used to read encyclopedias and dictionaries just for fun. The problem is that you define readable as something you give pleasure and you forget that the bible is being read by thousand years and nobody would read them as much if it was boring, annoying, painful. Shakespeare wrote some crap stuff, even him. Without aesthetical merit. Unreadable, boring, annoying.
Now, I have no idea why you are focused in a book that does not please you. The scholars, who are wise enough to opt for a book they enjoy, will have their fun with the bible.
I love 'Windsor'. It is a bit un-PC to keep making 'cheese' jokes about Sir Hugh Evans though. In fact, if you knew anything about Welsh history you would know why it could be be construed to be offensive & bordering on the racist to make references to the Welsh & cheese!Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
It's still a funny play.
The Bible is a literary text, like Shakespeare, from which you can obtain aesthetic value. I've read parts of the Bible - Ecclesiastes, Job... - that have the highest aesthetic value (that is, generate the highest levels of literary pleasure.) So, naturally, I want to find all other parts of similar value. But I don't want to plough through the (estimated) 5/6 of little aesthetic value. I'd like a literary master to do the filleting for me :-) Now you are going to say "Do it yourself!" I might have to end up doing that, but first I thought I'd see if anyone has already done the job for me...Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Someone recommended "The Jefferson Bible", but it only covers the new testament -- and I don't trust the literary taste of politicians.
I'm not Welsh so it's not "Welsh touchiness" that makes me put the play at the bottom of the list. I agree it's still funny, even "bad" Shakespeare is still worthy of being read. I do not love it though, not like I love "The Tempest" or "Midsummer's Night Dream", and many other plays.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red-Headed
Maybe we should start a Shakespeare v. The Bible thread? Nah. The winner is too obvious. When you go post-Christian (like the Bard) you can't afford to produce 5/6 dross, you don't have the fanatical followers to put up with it...
I read this one some time back - http://books.google.co.in/books?id=O...age&q=&f=false (The Literary guide to the Bible By Robert Alter, Frank Kermode). It's a collection of essays by different people. There must be more out there. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
I read a few chapters of this a while back. I don't think it's what I want.Quote:
Originally Posted by mona amon
What i want is advice on what to skip, and someone who sees it the way I do :-) For example "the story of David" is spread across several books and is very heavy going. What can I skip? I'm looking at books to see how they would recommend tackling David. I like the advice from:
"Words of Delight: A Literary Introduction to the Bible" by Leland Ryken
He recommends skipping all but a few sections and says "what is wrong" with David - it's a fragmented historical account and reads more like a chronical than a literary text.
Well, of course the Bible doen't read like a well-concstructed novel. It is a jumble of stuff from the Israelite experience, including the Jews who spread the Jesus movement. It is mythology, semi-quasi-history, a little actual history, poems, predictions(though not as many as we've been asked to believe) and personal stories.
Reading it straight through like a novel is tedious, indeed. I did it, and it took most of the inspiration right out of it.
We are also led astray by various "Bible as Literature" efforts, which were often devices to get the Bible taught in tax supported and secular schools and colleges. The Bible is of great historical importance in world and American history, but it cannot be taught as a neutral or non-religious text.
It is as religious as they come, which is why I teach it and enjoy reading it. But I can't kid myself about it. If you read history, from Biblical times through the Crusades and into the conquests of peoples and the great wars, sorry tales cling to the Bible for justification.
Enjoy it or not. That's OK, but it can't be ignored. It is a part of us whether we hate it or love it.
Well if 5/6ths of the bible is not of aesthetic value then your first statement was pretty ignorant, it is NOT a literary text. Clearly the Bible was not meant as a literary work.Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
Actually all your carping seems pretty inane. The Bible is the most written about text. Any decent book store has shelves of books explaining the bible. Your criticism of Christians "do a very bad job getting their message acrtoss" is just prejudice.
What makes anything about bible not literary?
Bloom's quote on the back of "Testament" Is: "Everything of the highest *literary* interest has been preserved." So Bloom obviously thinks it is a literary text, to some extent. Even if the originators of the Bible did not want it to be a literary text it doesn't mean we can't treat it as such. Bloom also lists the Bible in his "the Western Canon", which is purely devoted to the *literary* canon. Fadiman also lists it. So the Bible, or part of it, is *surely* literature, if anything is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Could you recommend one?Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Sure, any written text can be considered literary. Some even claim the phone book. But, let me concede that an element of the Bible, not the primary one but a secondary element, is literary.Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
I just did a search. There are tons of books and I don't want to steer you toward a particularly religiously narrow one from the perspective of one Christian denomination. You can actually start on the internet. Wikipedia has excellent explications of each chapter of the bible. All you have to do is google a chapter, like this, "exudus wikipedia" and it will come up.Quote:
Could you recommend one?
It lacks a plot and is overcrowded with characters that the author has chosen not to develop. Perhaps it is a picaresque novel. :nod:Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Well, whether it's true that the Bard wrote 'Windsor' in less than a fortnight because Queen Elizabeth wanted to see a new play with the 'funny fat man' in it or not, you can't really compare it with the likes of the 'Tempest' or any of the great plays. I think that it is underestimated as a play & a comedy. It is always very popular in England. I think the English have just taken Falstaff to heart as a character. It probably tells you a lot about us as a race!Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
Shakespeare was definitely funnier...Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac