Thursday, February 02, 2006
Jacob and Joseph: Enacting Desire
I was relating to Silliman a bit ago my recent interest in - wait for it - mimetic theory and the writings of René Girard. Basically, I'm tired of this Mickey Mouse approach I've taken to learning. Anyway, I'm beginning to grasp it on a conceptual level. This is the manifest destiny I've come to; namely, being interested in all this shit you guys (Sill., Luke, etc.) talk about, and not remaining blissfully ignorant all the time. So yes, bandwagon - or call it copy-cat if it suits you. Regardless, this is good stuff.
So I've undertaken Sacrificing Commentary, by Sandor (Sandy) Goodhart. The first chapter dealing in the Bible is his treatment of Joseph, Jacob and his brothers. In the interest of not paining myself with the task of putting this in my own words, here are some exerpts:
"Joseph recognizes, in short, that his father sees him as aristocratic, as special. Wanting to please his father (he is, we recall, seventeen years old), he begins acting the way his father thinks of him. He puts on his father's 'coat of many colors' as it were, he thinks of himself as special just as his father thinks of him, he mimes or imitates his father's view of him.
Thus we come to understand his giving 'evil report' to Jacob about his brothers. It is less important that we determine precisely what the brothers may or may not have done to deserve such report than that we recognize that the action of giving it is a mimetic appropriation on Joseph's part of his father's view of the situation. For his father indirectly has already given evil report of the brothers by favoring Joseph to begin with, and Joseph is simply enacting Jacob's desire in return. (emphasis mine)"
More on this pending better understanding.
So I'm beginning to understand this stuff. Anyway, on a broader scale, my reading and treatment of literature, etc. has losened, changed, whathaveyou. The movie, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels revealed to me something interesting, for instance. You can look at that movie, and go "Gee, those guys are sweet. They got away with this in dumb luck." But consider that a comedy is only an inverted tragedy. Consider the real lesson in the movie: Don't screw around with high-stakes card-playing and crime lords with a penchant for terrible things, because you'll never get lucky enough in the end to survive it. The movie isn't (maybe isn't is too strong; how about, shouldn't be) a prescription for getting involved in the crime world. It's a prescription for staying out, because you'll likely wind up dead. And we aren't that cool. ¶ 11:39 PM
So I've undertaken Sacrificing Commentary, by Sandor (Sandy) Goodhart. The first chapter dealing in the Bible is his treatment of Joseph, Jacob and his brothers. In the interest of not paining myself with the task of putting this in my own words, here are some exerpts:
"Joseph recognizes, in short, that his father sees him as aristocratic, as special. Wanting to please his father (he is, we recall, seventeen years old), he begins acting the way his father thinks of him. He puts on his father's 'coat of many colors' as it were, he thinks of himself as special just as his father thinks of him, he mimes or imitates his father's view of him.
Thus we come to understand his giving 'evil report' to Jacob about his brothers. It is less important that we determine precisely what the brothers may or may not have done to deserve such report than that we recognize that the action of giving it is a mimetic appropriation on Joseph's part of his father's view of the situation. For his father indirectly has already given evil report of the brothers by favoring Joseph to begin with, and Joseph is simply enacting Jacob's desire in return. (emphasis mine)"
More on this pending better understanding.
So I'm beginning to understand this stuff. Anyway, on a broader scale, my reading and treatment of literature, etc. has losened, changed, whathaveyou. The movie, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels revealed to me something interesting, for instance. You can look at that movie, and go "Gee, those guys are sweet. They got away with this in dumb luck." But consider that a comedy is only an inverted tragedy. Consider the real lesson in the movie: Don't screw around with high-stakes card-playing and crime lords with a penchant for terrible things, because you'll never get lucky enough in the end to survive it. The movie isn't (maybe isn't is too strong; how about, shouldn't be) a prescription for getting involved in the crime world. It's a prescription for staying out, because you'll likely wind up dead. And we aren't that cool. ¶ 11:39 PM
