tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4446682073857250843.post2708145523191134615..comments2024-03-27T23:42:36.619-05:00Comments on Mock Ramblings: Deconstruction: Night of the Living Dead Christian 12Michael Mockhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06233321050691782148noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4446682073857250843.post-79627945780157247882011-11-28T19:15:12.336-06:002011-11-28T19:15:12.336-06:00when one is writing farce, it's asking rather ...<i>when one is writing farce, it's asking rather a lot of the audience to be looking for subtlety in the same work.</i><br /><br />I'm not going to say it's impossible to combine farce and subtlety, but I will agree that it's really, really hard and probably extremely difficult to do well. Basically, it boils down to, "How do you do a subtle spit take?"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4446682073857250843.post-64799754408328012352011-11-28T17:55:42.543-06:002011-11-28T17:55:42.543-06:00I think one of the issues, too, is that some of th...I think one of the issues, too, is that some of this book was me exploring and poking at some of these questions personally, so some of the confusion is probably reflective of my own questions as I was writing.<br /><br />Certainly Luther's point of view on a number of topics are argued against by the book (at least on the "poetic justice" side of things), and some of what he says in this section certainly fits the bill. One of the complications I'm only realizing in retrospect, however, is that when Luther is given his more philosophical ramblings and there aren't strong counter-points presented in a similar way, it gives his words more weight. Without a direct argument against his positions, they can appear to be more or less approved of in the book.<br /><br />Which brings me to something else I've been thinking about (this was set off by thinking more about "Dr. van Pelt" as a clue to what was being said about psychology): when one is writing farce, it's asking rather a lot of the audience to be looking for subtlety in the same work. There are bullhorns and sirens going off, but as an author I'm expecting people to pay particular attention to whispers and hints along the way. Maybe such things don't belong in the same genre, or if so there's needs to be a little more help along the way for the reader to know to expect such things.Matt Mikalatoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13279070118483678882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4446682073857250843.post-37606057603648732132011-11-28T10:43:05.715-06:002011-11-28T10:43:05.715-06:00For me - and I suspect for Geds as well - Luther’s...<i>For me - and I suspect for Geds as well - Luther’s insistence that he is a mirror for the readers’ darker selves is precisely what brings to mind the idea that “all sins are equal in the eyes of God.” Because without the assumption that all sins are equivalent, or at least similar in some fairly specific way, the assertion makes no sense. </i><br /><br />Correct. One of the problems I kept bumping up against in this book is being still semi-fluent in Christianese, but also being completely intellectually against most of the ideas offered in Christian culture.<br /><br />I fully recognize that I might not have offered enough charity in my reading of the book, but that's because I was reading it as an outsider who totally understands what it's like to be an insider. As such, I can totally understand Matt saying, "No, Luther wasn't making the all-sins-are-equal argument. He was attempting to minimize his own sins." But that's not how it comes across, especially if you spent your first couple decades around people who were equally "convicted" of the sin of lying at work and stealing. Or people who argued that looking lustfully at a woman to whom you were not married was the exact same thing as having sex with a woman to whom you are not married.<br /><br />It was also especially odd for me, since Luther supposedly learned everything that he railed against from the teachings of Martin Luther, but he mostly seemed to fight against the god of Calvin in his monologues. But that's a totally different line of thought.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com