• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

Religion & Reading

ions

ions

New Member
I understand that religion is a touchy subject and I've seen posts alluding to the fact that it's not a favoured topic among moderation. I'm hoping I don't cross a line here. I don't think I will as religion itself is not specifically the purpose of my post just attached to it.

Many works have been written with religion as an entrenched theme. In fact it's arguably one of the most common themes in literature, it's just not as common in modern lit. At least not that I've noticed but I'm hardly qualified to make that judgement. Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Steinbeck etcetera ad nauseum all have used religion as a major theme. Many of these authors were educated in very religious settings, attended church or other places of worship regularly and were devoutly religious at some point. The audiences of these works originally were, I'm assuming, similarly educated. This is not as common today, or at least it wasn't for me and the majority of those around me, so the subtext of these works will pass me by.

Granted I'm not bright enough and unlikely to ever become well read enough to get everything I read but I don't like the idea of reading a book and not being coherent of a major theme. Problem is religion as a theme is more complicated than other themes to investigate. Especially if you're agnostic or even just disinterested. Somehow I doubt a quick scan of The Bible for Dummies is gonna cut it and I'm not sure I would make it through a real bible. How do you non-religious or uneducated religious readers tackle this theme?
 
Hi Ions,
I am not sure what you mean by tackle, but I have read some books dealing with religion. For instance Kierkegaard. (A Danish philosopher). I find it very interesting to read about religion both culturewise and philisophically.
Flower
 
A very interesting question! As a reader, I am aware that there are so many nuances that escape me: be they cultural, linguistic, religious and so on.

I myself am not Christian; I am not European... my approach to a text written by a European will possibly be different from someone of European origin, though I doubt that the difference would be significant, what with the narrowing of our world with all sorts of mass media.

It is true though that the context in which those writers you mention wrote must have influenced the content and nature of their writing. So many of the authors I have read or studied allude to religion. Some of their theories become quite elaborate and convoluted at times, but it is a challenge to understand where they stand, especially since their work have been so influential.

If I keep on thinking of what I'm missing, that will in the end spoil any pleasure I would derive from reading. I do make an effort, though, to try and situate the text I am reading, so that I may be ready for any allusions that might escape my notice.

It is true, though, that if I take your example of religion as theme or motif in a text, I am bound to miss out many things. I do have a general idea of the Bible; I am familiar with the basic tenets of the religion, so I am not that likely to be that bewildered by some of the references. As for the more obscure references (and woe betide if I'm reading an allegory!), I'd probably not be aware of them, so I'll blissfully carry on with my reading. As for the obvious ones I can't figure out, they would probably lead me to discard the book and take up a more accessible one. :) In any case, what would a reading experience be if we knew every allusion? It'd be a good thing to learn something knew about a different (or even our own) culture. Sometimes I see reading as a game between the reader and the author, with the author having left a series of clues and leading the reader on in a merry race to find them; it doesn't matter if I miss some of them out...

(sorry if I wander a bit off the track: I'm not sure I really answered your question there )
 
I suppose I'd have to start by wondering what you mean by religion as a major theme. Do you mean a book in which the characters ponder big questions like God and death? Do you mean a story with a church setting? I'm not clear on what aspects of such a book you wouldn't get? Maybe some examples would help.

The only religious books I reject are non-fiction books that depend on religion as a solution to some issue. I can't possibly read, for example, an autobiography that is basically resolved when the writer gets religion, and suggests the reader should too.
 
Ions, when you say religion as a major theme, are you referring to religion as subtext in literature or as Mari suggested a story with people talking about religion? I have a feeling you mean religion as subtext. i.e. There is a story going on, but the author inserts allusions to religion without actually talking about religion per se.

If that's the case, then you can 'tackle' it in different ways. You can do as Dyaus does and not let it bother you, get what you can out of the work, knowing full well that you may miss some of the deeper meaning intended by the author. However, if you want to get more out of your reading, do a bit of research on your own. Find out something about the author and his views, read about different religions and their basic tenets. I personally think it's not a bad idea to have a go at the Bible, the Koran, teachings of Buddha, etc. just to have a better grasp of what people are talking about. There are also lots of books out there that give you an overview of different religions. It would be a start. You don't have to be religious to read about religions.
 
I agree with Ell, I like reading about different religions, even though I'm not a religious person. I also like talking with people about their faith and have gone to different services with friends when asked. I find religions fascinating and if I'm reading a story that hints at something I don't know I read up on it or ask somebody of that religion if I can. I like hearing about what different people believe and how they worship.
 
Ell said:
I have a feeling you mean religion as subtext. i.e. There is a story going on, but the author inserts allusions to religion without actually talking about religion per se.
Click to expand...

That's the right feeling.
 
Ronny said:
I agree with Ell, I like reading about different religions, even though I'm not a religious person. I also like talking with people about their faith and have gone to different services with friends when asked. I find religions fascinating and if I'm reading a story that hints at something I don't know I read up on it or ask somebody of that religion if I can. I like hearing about what different people believe and how they worship.
Click to expand...
I feel this way also. Although I'm not a religious person myself, I always find it fascinating to hear about other people's religions ie who they worship, how they worship and what they believe in. I'll usually dicard a book if it is trying to not-so-subtley convert it's reader into a certain religion, but otherwise I don't mind books with religious themes at all.

~MonkeyCatcher~
 
The Canterbury Tales, one of the earliest great, long works in English (albeit Middle English) is an hilarious satire about all the "classes" of christianity in England in the Middle Ages. It's immersed in 'religion' if by religion you mean biblical orthodoxy and Christianity and how it melded with the other social classes of Europe.

Is that what you're looking for? Or are you looking for something more modern and American, along the lines of the New Christian Orthodoxy????
 
The problem with researching religion as opposed to any other subject used as context is that it's so complicated, well not complicated but dense. It's not like getting background on the Industrial Revolution to get more out of Dickens. And of course that depth is duplicated numerous times over across different religions and then further muddied by the different flavours in each sect. For the vast majority of reading I do the Christian religion is a major theme. The link posted by Occlith looks quite valuable and I will probably be spending considerable time there.

As has been mentioned one does not have to get every reference and bit of subtext in a novel. One of the things that makes these books so great is that they can be read on so many levels. It does bug me that I could be missing out on so much but I guess I should blissfully read by it if I'm not going to make a complete effort to understand. When an apparently brilliant book is pegged as being a retelling of Genesis and you're more familiar with Sega's version than the King James' you have to wonder if you may be missing the point author is trying to make altogether.

Personally I have no problem in reading the Koran or the Bible etc other than the fact that there are books I am more interested in reading ahead of these books and frankly I don't know if I'll ever catch up to all I want to read as it is.
 
From Occlith's link :

No one in the English-speaking world can be considered literate without a basic knowledge of the Bible. Literate people in India, whose religious traditions are not based on the Bible but whose common language is English, must know about the Bible in order to understand English within their own country. All educated speakers of American English need to understand what is meant when someone describes a contest as being between David and Goliath, or whether a person who has the “wisdom of Solomon” is wise or foolish, or whether saying “My cup runneth over” means the person feels fortunate or unfortunate.
Click to expand...

I bolded the text. Regardless if you believe all of this statement what must be asked in direct reference to our topic is what is considered "basic knowledge"?
 
The audiences of these works originally were, I'm assuming, similarly educated. This is not as common today, or at least it wasn't for me and the majority of those around me, so the subtext of these works will pass me by.

Granted I'm not bright enough and unlikely to ever become well read enough to get everything I read but I don't like the idea of reading a book and not being coherent of a major theme. Problem is religion as a theme is more complicated than other themes to investigate. Especially if you're agnostic or even just disinterested. Somehow I doubt a quick scan of The Bible for Dummies is gonna cut it and I'm not sure I would make it through a real bible. How do you non-religious or uneducated religious readers tackle this theme?
Click to expand...

I understand entirely what you mean. My experience is a bit different than yours in that I grew up experiencing three different christian sects before ultimately becoming agnostic. When I was in my early teen years, I encountered a book that kept making references to the "social gospel." I had never heard of this term before and found out that it was a religious movement that pushed for socialist principles in American society in the laste 19th century. A lot of the stuff you have to just learn on your own, but while I agree the "dummies" book won't cut it, Huston Smith's Religions of the World would come very darn close at identifying almost any question you might have regarding religion. I also tend to find that while I don't read histories of given churches or sects, I do like biographies about key church leaders. That is also a great way to learn more and to catch on to the more subtle references that authors use in their books.
 
ions, I think I misunderstood your original post, but am getting it now.

I think you are referring to the assumed knowledge that a lot of books require in order to fully understand them? For instance, reading Joyce without some knowledge of Catholicism, one would miss many many references to rituals and ecclesiastical language.

The same problem extends to all the arts, I think. I visited The Cloisters (a museum of medieval art) in upper Manhattan once with a guy who was raised without any religious teaching. Much of the art there has a religious context and he was at a total loss as to what the references were.

Wanting to solve this and similar problems is what separates close readers from cursory readers, I think. I'm constantly looking things up, like references to Greek mythological figures or Norse sagas or what different colors signify in different cultures. I think it's just a continual process of self-education. If the references happen to be Christian, I have a leg up, as I went to parochial schools as a kid.
 
My first post here

ions said:
I understand that religion is a touchy subject and I've seen posts alluding to the fact that it's not a favoured topic among moderation. I'm hoping I don't cross a line here. I don't think I will as religion itself is not specifically the purpose of my post just attached to it.

Many works have been written with religion as an entrenched theme. In fact it's arguably one of the most common themes in literature, it's just not as common in modern lit. At least not that I've noticed but I'm hardly qualified to make that judgement. Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Steinbeck etcetera ad nauseum all have used religion as a major theme. Many of these authors were educated in very religious settings, attended church or other places of worship regularly and were devoutly religious at some point. The audiences of these works originally were, I'm assuming, similarly educated. This is not as common today, or at least it wasn't for me and the majority of those around me, so the subtext of these works will pass me by.

Granted I'm not bright enough and unlikely to ever become well read enough to get everything I read but I don't like the idea of reading a book and not being coherent of a major theme. Problem is religion as a theme is more complicated than other themes to investigate. Especially if you're agnostic or even just disinterested. Somehow I doubt a quick scan of The Bible for Dummies is gonna cut it and I'm not sure I would make it through a real bible. How do you non-religious or uneducated religious readers tackle this theme?
Click to expand...


I just joined this forum. This religion thread caught my eye, because I have been writing about comparative religion on the Internet for the past seven years.

I have been in a different literary forum for the past six months. Many of the students are high school or college age. I am age 56.

One student from the United Arab Emirates posted to say that Joyce was difficult, "Portrait of an Artist" because of her lack of background in Christianity. She wanted to know if there were some kind of primer to help her.

I am very fond of Salman Rushdie's "The Satanic Verses" but I am quite familiar with Hinduism, Islam, as well as life in India. I feel that someone lacking in this familiarity would not enjoy the book as much.

I would like to write more here. I think I shall post this and then try out the "edit" feature.
 
Sitaram said:
I am very fond of Salman Rushdie's "The Satanic Verses" but I am quite familiar with Hinduism, Islam, as well as life in India. I feel that someone lacking in this familiarity would not enjoy the book as much.
Click to expand...

I have a few Rushdie books on my TBR list. Being unfamiliar with Hinduism, Islam, and life in India the books aren't at the top of my TBR list.
 
Sitaram said:
I would like to write more here. I think I shall post this and then try out the "edit" feature.
Click to expand...

Sitaram, please do write more here. From your post about East of Eden I feel I really do not have the religious knowledge to read that book yet. Same now goes for Life of Pi. Both I am, or maybe was, looking forward to reading soon but I don't want to if I'm going to be missing what the authors are trying to say.

My problem is really simple. I want to be reading great books not studying religions. Some might say religious books, the Bible, Koran, etc, are great books but I'm not one of them. I want the knowledge without the work. :eek:
 
Perhaps the thing for you to do is to just plunge into "East of Eden". I can try to reread my copy. We can post questions and footnotes in the Steinbeck thread. There is no magic bullet which will suddenly fill us with a deep background in the Old Testament, or any other scripture.

Yet, if we were totally ignorant of the Greek myth Daedalus, then how much would we miss out on in Joyce's novel with the character of that name?

I am pleased to attempt to help in whatever way I can, either through posts to threads in this forum, or in private correspondence.

I shall make every effort to respect the forum rules regarding discussions of religion.

I shall post an excerpt here from "If Boo is God" regarding the possiblity of a religious theme in "To Kill a Mockingbird". It is not at all clear that there IS such a religious them in the book, intentionally placed there by Harper Lee. But, the tread gives a taste of what it is like to bring theology to bear upon a literary work.

I can then, as time goes on, assemble in one place, excerpts and examples of of similar kinds of analysis and thinking. I am at work now, so time is limited for me, but I can give you a taste with this excerpt. I am not adverse to writing about this on the net. I am not adverse to private correspondence, whatever works best and does not step on anyone's toes.


Yesterday, I read with interest the thread at the literary forum, where one member posted something truly wonderful and memorable on "To Kill A Mockingbird:"

Words are power. Fifty years after this book is released a poignant
and relative discussion continues on this very forum. Shock, dismay,
confusion, and in someways a sense of ugliness/evil, all stemming
from the use of a single word, still reverberate within those astute
enough to strive for meaningful social change. In an increasingly
stubborn world I cheer to find thus-minded souls. The author intended
you to care, wanted to drag the ugliness into to the light where it
could be shamed and destroyed. This intent, and its success, is one
of the keys to this great piece of literature.
Click to expand...

(Sitaram continues)

The phrase "to drag the ugliness into the light" reminded me of an
interesting passage in Plato's "Republic:"

Leontius, the son of Aglaion, was going up from the Piraeus under the
outside of the North Wall when he noticed corpses lying by the public
executioner. He desired to look, but at the same time he was
disgusted and made himself turn away; and for a while he struggled
and covered his face. But finally, overpowered by the desire, he
opened his eyes wide, ran toward the corpses and said (to his own
eyes) 'LOOK, you damned wretches, take your fill of the fair sight.'
Click to expand...

This certainly indicates that anger sometimes makes war against the
desires (within us) as one thing against something else. Republic,
440a



Plato's comment about anger making war with other desires, within us,
reminds me of one verse from Psalm 4, which is more correctly
translated from the Greek Septuagint than from the King James:


Be angry, and sin not; feel compunction upon your beds (weep upon
your beds) for what you say in your heart
Ancient theologians point to such anger as a form of "righteous"
anger which has some positive moral value, as opposed to anger which
is simply a character flaw.
Click to expand...


As a child, I carried to school a lunch box with a scene of a brave
and noble looking Davy Crockett confronting a sinister and evil
looking Indian with a knife. I still have that lunch box to this day,
on my bookshelf. Only years later, as and adult, did I understand
that it was Davy Crockett who was evil and sinister, a thief and
murderer, and the Indian who was nobly defending his home and family
and livelyhood.




I was most curious about the meaning of the novel's title, "To Kill a
Mockingbird."


The title of To Kill a Mockingbird has very little literal connection
to the plot, but it carries a great deal of symbolic weight in the
book. In this story of innocents destroyed by evil, the "mockingbird"
comes to represent the idea of innocence. Thus, to kill a mockingbird
is to destroy innocence. Throughout the book, a number of characters
(Jem, Tom Robinson, Dill, Boo Radley, Mr. Raymond) can be identified
as mockingbirds—innocents who have been injured or destroyed through
contact with evil. This connection between the novel's title and its
main theme is made explicit several times in the novel: after Tom
Robinson is shot, Mr. Underwood compares his death to "the senseless
slaughter of songbirds," and at the end of the book Scout thinks that
hurting Boo Radley would be like "shootin' a mockingbird." Most
important, Miss Maudie explains to Scout: "Mockingbirds don't do one
thing but . . . sing their hearts out for us. That's why it's a sin
to kill a mockingbird." That Jem and Scout's last name is Finch
(another type of small bird) indicates that they are particularly
vulnerable in the racist world of Maycomb, which often treats the
fragile innocence of childhood harshly.


As the novel progresses, the children's changing attitude toward Boo
Radley is an important measurement of their development from
innocence toward a grown-up moral perspective. At the beginning of
the book, Boo is merely a source of childhood superstition. As he
leaves Jem, and Scout presents and mends Jem's pants, he gradually
becomes increasingly and intriguingly real to them. At the end of the
novel, he becomes fully human to Scout, illustrating that she has
developed into a sympathetic and understanding individual. Boo, an
intelligent child ruined by a cruel father, is one of the book's most
important mockingbirds; he is also an important symbol of the good
that exists within people. Despite the pain that Boo has suffered,
the purity of his heart rules his interaction with the children. In
saving Jem and Scout from Bob Ewell, Boo proves the ultimate symbol
of good.

(continued in next post)...
Click to expand...
 
Since these posts are limited to 10,100 characters, I must continue and conclude the excerpt from "If Boo is God" in this second post:


I was stunned by a sudden, most curious thought:


"What if Boo is God?"


Woody Allen has one hilarious scene where he is standing in a long
line outside of a theatre, arguing with someone about a statement
made by Marshall McLuhan. Suddenly, Woody Allen says "Oh,
yeah....well...." and he reaches over in the crowd and grabs the arm
of Marshall McLuhan, who steps up and defends Woody's position in the
argument.


Now, if I could grab hold of the arm of Harper Lee, and have her
speak up and say "Oh yes, why.... certainly, Boo IS God in my novel,
and I am pleased that someone has finally realized this and pointed
it out!" that would certainly be the end of any arguments about Boo.


But suppose Ms. Lee were to laugh at the notion that Boo is God?
Well, one might argue that it was her subconscious at work, or some
Jungian archetype expressing itself.


But what might lead me to suspect that Boo is God?


Well, no one ever sees Boo until the end of the book. The word "Boo"
is something which a ghost says. The Christian Trinity is comprised
of Father, Son and Holy Ghost. The children are fascinated by a house
which they suspect is haunted, but haunted is just the flipside of
the coin we call numinous. They speculate about the existence
of "Boo." I am reminded of "Waiting For Godot."


But, here is one of three clinchers which I see. "Gifts" mysteriously
appear for the children in the hollow of a tree. There is a verse
from the Epistle of St. James which says: "Every GOOD gift and every
PERFECT give is from above and comes down from Thee, the Father of
Lights." Ancient theologians questioned, "what is the difference
between a GOOD gift and a PERFECT gift." Well, those ancient
theologians conclude that the good gifts are things like air, water,
health, while the perfect gifts are things like the Eucharist
(Communion of bread and wine.) To this day, Greek and Russian
Orthodox refer to the bread and wine as "the gifts."


The second "clincher" for me how "Boo" suddenly appears or manifests
in human form and puts himself at risk to save the children and slay
the evil one. This is like Christ appearing in human form and
suffering so that people may be delivered from evil.


The third "clincher" for me is the statement that the children
finally mature in their understanding of good and evil in the world
once they finally "know" Boo as a person, in a personal relationship.
Protestants are fond of speaking about a "personal relationship" with
Jesus.


It was actually the early Christians who contributed much to
the "art" of symbolic analysis, whether one chooses to call
it "Eisagesis" (reading a meaning into a passage which the author
never meant to convey) or exagesis (pointing out a concealed meaning
which readers are intended to find.) Obviously, during the first
decades of the Christianity, it was considered by both the Jews and
the Pagans to be a "new" innovation. Even in those time which, for
us, are ancient times, people gave more value and credence to that
which they perceived as ancient than to something new. Therefore, it
was to the theologians' advantage to "analyze" the ancient scriptures
and myths and demonstrate that Christianity was really most ancient,
and concealed and hidden in ancient prophecy.



We may take as the following analysis of the story of Samson as a
prime example of early Christian analytical techniques:


Book of Judges Ch. 13


An angel appears to a barren woman and tells her she shall conceive a
son, Samson (Annunciation and Virgin Birth?).


The angel tells her that the child will be the deliverer of Israel
(Messiah?).


Samson encounters a lion which he slays as easily as a lamb or kid
(Lamb of God?).


And a few days later (3 days?), he comes to find 'honey in the
carcass of the lion" (Eucharist?).


But it is a "secret" (Mystery?) so he gives it to his family to eat
but does not tell them where it is really from.


Then he is betrayed (with a kiss?).


Then he is taken prisoner and mocked.


Then he "destroys the temple" so to speak with "his arms
outstretched" (Crucifixion?).


There is an old seminary joke about a professor explaining the
difference between exegesis and eisegesis: Exegesis, she said is a
careful analytical study of scripture. Eisegesis is interpreting and
applying the exegesis, as a preacher would do in a sermon. While the
class discussion was continuing someone mumbled in the back of the
room: "I don't know nothin' about exegesis and I don't understand
eisegesis. I just want to learn about Jesus!"


Well, what shall we say of my notion that "Boo is God?" One valid
subjective stance to take is that if Boo is God for me, then that is
my subjective experience, and it has a certain subjective validity.


When we read notions about Moby Dick being God for Melville, we find
such notions far more credible, since Melville seems to work very
hard making many allusions which would steer us in the direction of
such a notion.



It is interesting to note that: Truman Capote published "In Cold
Blood" with a dedication to Jack Dunphy and Harper Lee.
Click to expand...
(end of excerpt)
 
Readings on Religions

I think Readings on Religions is a catchy title (RON for short, or R&R).

I will try to list those reference books which might give someone a foundation in comparative religions in order to approach literature which has a religious dimension.


Jaroslav Pelikan 5 volumes (paperback) "The History and Development of Christian Doctrine" ... breathtaking, scholarly but for the layperson, no ideological axes to grind or hidden agendas.

"The History of Heresy" 1 vol paperback, by David Christie-Murray (on Christian sectarianism)

Huston Smith - "World Religions" (one volume, paperback)

Bill Moyers interview with Joseph Campbell - "The Power of Myth" (available in video and book form)

Carl Jung - "Man and His Symbols" (one volume, paperback)

"What the Buddha Taught" - Walpole Rahula

"Everyday Zen" - Charlotte Joko Beck

Klaus K. Klostermaier - Survey of Hinduism - SUNY Press

"Islamic Invasion" by Robert Morey ISBN 0-89081-983-1


(I am at work, so I will return to add books for Islam, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, et al)


A prince in ancient times once complained to his tutor about the terrible labor of learning Euclid. The tutor replied "There is no royal road to geometry."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top