Tequila Freewrite (Warning: Stream of Consciousness)

A decade ago, or perhaps more, the words always came easy. There was so much to say and no voice strong enough with which to say it that the page presented the only proper receptacle. Slowly, but surely, as less needed to be said—or so I told myself—a distance grew between paper and pen that now, so many days between now and then, seems insurmountable.

At first, it was the result of happiness. All the words from before were rooted in sadness, despair, hatred, loathing (mostly of self). The vocabulary of joy was foreign, unknowable—as if a man with no knowledge of Aristotle or Plato were suddenly thrust into Athens circa 500 BCE and expected to know the noun declensions of ancient Greek. Yet, our capacity for language is such that a few weeks in a foreign culture should suffice to allow at the least basic utterances: this I expected after time spent in bliss, but still the words to express my jubilance existed only outside of experience.

And then came the despair unrealized, buried in the comforting embrace of a lover too good for one’s self. Though downtrodden in some ways as before, the words no longer existed, having been erased by the bliss of time preceding, however brief. Here, though, I found words vocalized, for the first time, in the absence of light found inside a dive of a pizza bar on a nearby street corner. Philosophy, as it was meant to be done, you could say. A meeting of minds, often in agreement, other times vehemently not, spiced by the sweet lubrication of beautifully ruby pints of Guinness. A new form of happiness, amid the destitute nature of earthly things, such as money and shelter.

Over time, paths parted, and the only semblance of what once brought sustenance existed in the chemical composition of alcohol, in many of its forms (but almost never vodka). With every sip, memories of the pleasant times of days lost forever but also a blessed numbing of the mind that served—only occasionally—to dull the pain of loss. Though they were needed then (and now) more than ever, the words were gone. Those vocal were first, as they were never natural, but with them soon went the written, fleeing as a shadow flees approaching light.

Still they elude, captured only with the impetus of liquor in quantities unacceptable for one of such anemic body mass. And they say nothing, as they do here and above, as though their mere existence is enough now that the castle has sunk into the swamp.

Far Right Religion and Poisoning Our Politics

Enough is enough: we have to stop letting poisonous theology infect our politics by voting for it. Fundamentalist viewpoints are too often anti-societal and anti-humanitarian, and we shouldn’t allow rotten religion to dictate our politics. Numerous examples of this abound, but what’s got me fired up is the issue of rape, since so many folks seem to be espousing religiously-motivated views on the subject that are both offensive and wrong.

The Bible is wrong on rape, and because of that, Christians that take the Good Book literally don’t know what to do with it. It comes down to this: fundamentalists believe that the Bible is inerrant and (usually) the word of God, and that means the Bible always has to be right. It has to have all the answers, but that presents a problem, both for the fundamentalist and for everyone else, too. I think I can say that, as a society, we have intelligently agreed that rape is wrong, and that it is a horrible crime, and that means that most evangelicals think the same thing, even when the Bible seems to suggest otherwise. That leaves the fundamentalist with three options: 1) admit that his or her moral compass is right and that the Bible must therefore be errant (even if only on some matters); 2) decide that because the Bible is inerrant, his or her moral compass must be incorrect; or 3) uncomfortably try to rationalize the Bible’s stance on rape. The problem for society is that we have elected or could elect far too many politicians that choose either option 2) or option 3), which in turn legitimizes the extreme and terrible positions on rape that they hold. We have to stop. We must no longer elect politicians who hold these beliefs (and other extreme fundamental positions like them) and seem unable to answer even some of the most basic moral questions properly.

Now before I begin, I hope you’ll allow a brief caveat. Christians that choose option 1) on this or in any other area where the Bible and morality come into conflict, often abandon or lack fundamental views on the Bible. Once the Bible is no longer inerrant, it becomes open to interpretation and selective reading, allowing for a so-called “liberal” Christian viewpoint on any number of issues. I’m not concerned with those Christians who are not so chained to the literal aspects of a two thousand year old religion that they cannot comfortably adapt it to suit modern sensibilities and advancements. My issue is only with those Christians who would tether us to the often incorrect morality of people that lived thousands of years ago.

When it comes down to it, the Bible does not have a great deal to say about rape, but everything that it does say about it is wrong. We can start from the beginning, with Genesis and the story of Lot, the only man deemed worthy enough of surviving the destruction of the wicked city of Sodom. This is the earliest point at which rape (or rather, the possibility of it) comes up, and we should expect that the virtuous Lot should know how to properly respond. What we find in Genesis, though, is that Lot has the wrong answer:[i]

9:4 Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house.

9:5 And they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally.”

9:6 So Lot went out to them through the doorway, shut the door behind him,

9:7 and said, “Please, my brethren, do not do so wickedly!

9:8 “See now, I have two daughters who have not known a man; please, let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you wish; only do nothing to these men, since this is the reason they have come under the shadow of my roof.”

We have here, in the very first book of the Bible, a man compromising with a gang of rapists by offering them his virgin daughters instead of his (admittedly angelic) houseguests. And, instead of admonishment for treating his daughters like tools meant to sate a bunch of drunks, Lot is allowed to escape Sodom’s destruction. So, almost right away, the Bible gives us a supposedly virtuous character who doesn’t seem concerned about protecting his own family from rape. A similar story, about an unnamed Levite, is recounted in Judges 19-22:27, which ends with the Levite’s concubine dead and her bones scattered across the Israel.

To modern eyes, this should seem reprehensible; however, from a Biblical perspective, Lot (or his Levite counterpart in Judges) may not have been that out of line. Quite frankly, the Bible doesn’t see rape as a particularly heinous crime, as demonstrated in the laws laid down regarding it in Deuteronomy: 

22:23 If a young woman who is a virgin is betrothed to a husband, and a man finds her in the city and lies with her,

22:24 “then you shall bring them both out to the gate of the city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry out in the city, and the man because he humbled his neighbor’s wife; so you shall put away the evil from among you.

22:25 “But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die.

22:26 “But you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death, for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter.

22:27 “For he found her in the countryside, and the betrothed young woman cried out, but there was no one to save her.

22:28 “If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out,

22:29 ”Then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; she shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.

There are almost too many problems to innumerate in these barbaric laws (from many perspectives), but here’s what we can take a few things away from them with regard to rape. If a woman is raped in in a city and does not cry out (perhaps because she is terrified into silence or gagged) for help, she should die along with her rapist.[ii] If the rape occurs instead in the countryside, where no one can hear her, she is fortunately absolved of any wrongdoing (whether she cries out or not). If the rapist is caught in the act, the man has to pay a fine to the girl’s father, and has to marry her, with no possibility of divorce. This is perhaps the vilest aspect of all that Deuteronomy has to say on the matter of rape, as it means the victim must spend the rest of her life married to her rapist.

The attitudes of Lot and the Levite toward rape are disturbingly dismissive. While rapes of houseguests seem impermissible, the rapes of family seem to be an acceptable compromise.

Meanwhile, in Deuteronomy, we learn the punishment for rape varies depending on whether the rape also results in adultery (willful or not)—with adultery apparently being the more serious crime, since the rape of a woman not engaged results in marriage for both parties, rather than death.

Now, these examples come from the Old Testament. One might expect that Jesus, the great moral teacher, would condemn rape more forcefully and more mercifully (in the case of the victim). Unfortunately, the New Testament has very little to say on the subject, mentioning it only once, and only indirectly on that occasion. This happens in the Gospel of Matthew, where Jesus refers to upholding the laws of the Prophets:

5:17 “Do not think that I come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.
5:18 “For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.
5:19 “Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does[iii] and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Once “all is fulfilled,” Jesus suggests that there may be changes to the laws of Moses; however, as of yet, all has not been fulfilled, so the laws of the Old Testament seem to stand. Beyond this indirect reference, Jesus offers no advice on the matter of rape to followers of the faith, and nor does the rest of the New Testament.

So, when the Bible mentions rape, it gets the matter barbarically wrong, and it is otherwise largely silent. Where does that leave us, today?  It leaves us with politicians, influenced strongly by fundamentalist Christian teachings, who don’t seem to understand the severity of rape as a crime. Not long ago, Todd Akin, Republican member of the House of Representatives and Senate candidate for Missouri made now infamous remarks regarding “legitimate rapes” and the apparent impossibility of pregnancy resulting from them. In the time following, numerous Republicans called for Akin to resign, but others have tried to stand with them or have offered views that are in many ways just as terrible.

One recent example is Tom Smith, a Republican candidate for Senate from Pennsylvania. Here’s an exchange between Smith and some reporters (source), regarding his stance on access to abortions:

Robert Vickers, Patriot News: In light of Congressman Akin’s comments, is there any situation that you think a woman should have access to an abortion?

Tom Smith: My stance is on record and it’s very simplistic: I’m pro-life, period. And what that Congressman said, I do not agree with at all. He should have never said anything like that.

Vickers: So in cases of incest or rape…

Laura Olson, Post-Gazette: No exceptions?

Smith: No exceptions.

Mark Scolforo, Associated Press: How would you tell a daughter or a granddaughter who, God forbid, would be the victim of a rape, to keep the child against her own will? Do you have a way to explain that?

Smith: I lived something similar to that with my own family. She chose life, and I commend her for that. She knew my views. But, fortunately for me, I didn’t have to… she chose the way I thought. No, don’t get me wrong, it wasn’t rape.

Scolforo: Similar how?

Smith: Uh, having a baby out of wedlock.

Scolforo: That’s similar to rape?

Smith: No, no, no, but… put yourself in a father’s situation, yes. It is similar. But, back to the original, I’m pro-life, period.

As a father, Smith apparently sees situations of rape and pre-marital sex as similar, which isn’t that different from the Bible equating adultery and rape in Deuteronomy.  In one instance, we have a woman who had consensual sex, became pregnant, and decided to carry the baby to term. In the other, we have a woman who was victimized and violated, became pregnant, and, according to Tom Smith, should do the same, without question. That he can even relate the two situations to one another suggests that either he views rape as a less serious crime than the rest of the population, or he views pre-marital sex as seriously as the rest of the population sees rape. Both positions are ridiculous and abhorrent.

Only within the last week during a political debate, another Republican Senate candidate, Richard Mourdock, offered his own cruel and unusual view of rape (source):

"The only exception I have to have an abortion is in the case of the life of the mother," said Mourdock, the Tea Party-backed state treasurer. "I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize life is that gift from God. I think that even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen."

The idea that pregnancies resulting from rape are a gift echoes sentiments of former Senator (and candidate for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination) Rick Santorum, who suggested that a woman could “make the best out of a bad situation” (source). Mourdock’s comments are even more callous, however, as they suggest that he believes the benevolent creator of the universe would deliberately allow or cause a rape to happen in order for it to result in a pregnancy. His remarks further suggest that the rape is ultimately justified because of the resulting pregnancy. But we all know that a good end shouldn’t justify terrible means to get there, and I can’t fathom how a rape could never be a terrible way for a benevolent God to arrange a pregnancy.

These politicians are undoubtedly not the first to espouse such positions, and unfortunately, they likely won’t be the last do so, either.  The truth is that they should never have arrived at the conclusion that any rape is trivial (in Smith’s case) or ultimately something positive because of a pregnancy (in the cases of Mourdock and Santorum), and nor should any other person, citizen or no. Such beliefs are poisonous and horrible, and were it not for the legitimacy of certain fundamentalist positions, rooted in ancient religion, people knowingly holding them would never even be considered for election to any government post in any civilized and humane society.

As citizens, we have to stand up and make sure that these beliefs are not legitimate. We may prefer a candidate’s views on fiscal matters (like taxes), but we should never sacrifice our moral fabric and endanger our sense of social justice over matters such as money.  The only responsible and moral thing a citizen can do is to vote against candidates with such views. That does not have to mean compromising your views on other, unrelated matters, as even a vote for a third-party candidate or a write-in vote is a vote against such ill-informed, fundamentalist moral ineptitude.

Get out and vote. You owe it to the country. Even if you’re in a state or district that will likely lean toward a candidate with such despicable views, vote against them. I truly believe that if we all voted, such terrible beliefs would find that they are truly in the minority. So, why don’t we prove that in November, and for every election in the future?

---

[i] All quotations are drawn from the New King James Version—any italics represent words that are absent from the original Hebrew or Greek but would have been understood. (This is why you’ll see the verb “to be” italicized in many translations of the New Testament, as the verb was understood to be the verb of most sentences otherwise lacking one.)

[ii] The idea that she otherwise enjoyed being “humbled” is implicit here, which is quite barbaric, too.

[iii] The Greek verb is ποιεω (poieo), which has connotations of “doing right,” not just acting.

What the Internet needs more off...

...is my poor attempts at eloquence. Mostly, I need an excuse to update this thing, so here's some bad poetry. It's like Christmas in August, right? And no, I don't really title these things. I'm not even sure I finished some of these, since I open this thing so infrequently.

Alpha
Speakers crooning
As they often do
Fragile glass
Filled with liver damage

Decadent confections
Corrupt a forgotten smile
Dopamine flutters
Like dandelions in the wind

Beta
Of two forms
In company, in laughter
Gears churning
Behind the curtain
Lying quiet
Fearful of falling bombs

Trigger hangs
Target in the center
Pull the switch

Shields crumble
Broken fortress exposed
Alarms sound
Defend the bulwark
Walls rebuilt
Only to fall again

Trigger hangs
Target in the center
Pull the switch

Gamma
Silence too often recurrent
And never blissful or profound
Punctuates discordian static
No more than bedlam devoid of succor

A friendship tranquil and empty
With allies welcome though bitter and dark
Dulls the quiet refrain of regret
To calm the wish to populate the silence

And thus comes not calm but complacence
With a journey ever downward
Along a path of no returns
And a silent ending of its own

Polutropos Odysseus

Most of us read ancient literature in translation these days, whether in school or for pleasure. These translations range from literal to flowery, but in general, all of them will be missing wonderful things that you can find in the original text. Words in one language don't always translate completely into another, which means that translators have to make choices about the particular meanings that they want to capture when rendering a passage in the target language. Here’s an example. These five lines begin one of the pillars of Western literature, the Odyssey:

ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ
πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν:
πολλῶν δ᾽ ἀνθρώπων ἴδεν ἄστεα καὶ νόον ἔγνω,
πολλὰ δ᾽ ὅ γ᾽ ἐν πόντῳ πάθεν ἄλγεα ὃν κατὰ θυμόν,
ἀρνύμενος ἥν τε ψυχὴν καὶ νόστον ἑταίρων.

Here’s my quick and mostly literal translation, though many of you are probably familiar with the lines in general:

Tell me of the man, oh muse, much-turned, who every way
was made to wander, after he destroyed the divine city of Troy:
he marveled at the cities of many men and knew their minds,
and many pains he suffered on the sea in his heart,
striving to save his life and the homecoming of his companions.

Nearly all of us first came into the contact with the Odyssey through some translation or another. Robert Fitzgerald’s translation has long been popular in schools, but you may have first read Richmond Lattimore’s classic translation, Stanley Lombardo’s modern verse rendering, or perhaps an older prose translation, such as Samuel Butler’s or that of W.H.D. Rouse.

All of these translations, and most others, render lines 3-5 in mostly the same way as I’ve done, though each of course exercises his or her poetic muscles in one way or another with word-choice and phrasing. Every translator, however, faces a challenge in the first two lines, largely coming from the word πολύτροπον (polutropon or polytropon). This is the word I’ve translated as “much-turned,” which is an entirely literal reading that gives no real sense of the word's broad range.

Here are some examples to demonstrate what I mean. Take Samuel Butler’s translation of the first two lines (emphasis is mine—the italics are the translator’s rendering of πολύτροπον):

Tell me, O Muse, of that ingenious hero, who traveled far and wide after he had sacked the famous town of Troy.

W.H.D. Rouse takes a different approach in his prose translation:

This is the story of a man, one who was never at a loss. He travelled far in the world, after the sack of Troy, the virgin fortress

Here’s Fitzgerald’s, which is probably the most well-known:

Sing in me, Muse, and through me tell the story
of that man skilled in all ways of contending,
the wanderer, harried for years on end,
after he plundered the stronghold
on the proud height of Troy.

Richmond Lattimore (whose translation was the first one I read), gives us the following:

Tell me, Muse, of the man of many ways, who was driven
far journeys, after he had sacked Troy’s sacred citadel.

And last, but not least of the translations I have on hand, Stanley Lombardo, translates these lines so:

Speak, Memory, of the cunning hero,
The wanderer, blown off course time and again
After he plundered Troy’s sacred heights.

Here, just from five examples (six, if you count my own attempt), we have Odysseus described as “cunning,” “ingenious,” “never at a loss,” “of many ways,”  “skilled in all ways of contending,” and the more opaque “much-turned.” Every one of these renderings brings with it a certain picture of the hero, but in the original Greek, polutropon carries all of them and more.

Polutropon is an object-form of πολύτροπος (polutropos), a compound of πολύς (polus), “many” or “much,” (which you’ll recognize from “polytheism," and) and τρόπος (tropos), “turn,” or “way.” Tropos also carries the sense of a “manner” or “habit” (which should feel familiar if you've ever spent time at TV Tropes). Taken together, the most sensible literal English rendering of polutropos is “many-turned” or “much-turned,” but neither one of those captures much of the word’s real meaning.

Lattimore’s translation, “of many ways,” is perhaps nearest to providing some sense of the word in English while staying as true to the Greek as is reasonable. Polutropos is also used of the god Hermes, metaphorically, to indicate a certain craftiness or versatility. Odysseus certainly fits that bill, as well, which gives us Butler’s “ingenious” or Lombardo’s ”cunning.”

But, even ”much-turned” describes something about Odysseus. After the sack of Troy, his νόστος (nostos) or “homecoming,” doesn’t come to fruition for ten years. Why does it take so long? The Cyclops Polyphemus, after his famous (and painful) encounter with Odysseus, calls upon his father Poseidon to curse the man “skilled in all ways of contending, ” such that he comes home long after he would otherwise (and to find his home a mess when he finally does). Much of Odysseus’ ten year wanderings are a direct result of this incident, as Poseidon answers his son’s prayer, leaving the hero “much-turned” away from his destination.

Polutropos is just one example of why it can be illuminating and altogether more rewarding to read literature in its original language. Though each translation of the word is in and of itself an accurate one, each is forced to sacrifice some aspect of its greater meaning. Odysseus in particular is exemplary of every shade of meaning polutropos possesses, and the best way to capture that is to go back to the original Homeric Greek.

If you’re interested in learning more about Homeric Greek and Ancient Greek in general, you can head here. This site contains a few texts in the original Greek (like Homer’s Iliad) enhanced with mouseover definitions, as well as some suggestions on how to start learning the language on your own.

I’m eternally grateful to Professor Keith Dickson of the Classics Department at Purdue University, who sparked my love for the classics. This piece is ultimately derived from his lectures on Greek literature, which I thoroughly enjoyed all the way back in 2003.

Historical Rhymes Galore

In two days, I'll be packing up and heading back to the mind-numbing quiet of my hometown, South Bend, Indiana. The last time I did this, I had just finished my last year at Purdue University, but there was largely one thing on my mind:

I had imported the latest Hooverphonic album, and there was a chance it wasn't going to arrive at campus before my final day there. As it happened, it arrived at the last possible moment. I picked it up from the mail room before leaving campus for the final time. I then forced my parents to listen to it for the entire ride home, and it was awesome. For me, anyway.

As someone (who may have not actually been Mark Twain) once said, "History doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes," and I hit the rhyme in stride with this upcoming move. Two years ago, Hooverphonic put out a new album--The Night Before--that came packaged with a new lead singer that never made it stateside. Having found it at an unbelievable-for-an-import price of $7.50, I ordered it and very nearly didn't get it prior to my actual move.

But it came in today, and it's got some of their best work since No More Sweet Music. Since I got the album in time to add it to my phone, I'll be able to listen to it privately for this trip back to South Bend, but I can't help but enjoy the coincidence. For your listening pleasure, here's my current favorite track:

Writer's Block

I often feel the urge to write even though I have nothing worth writing.

Most of the time, I call it writer's block--that's what it is, after all, isn't it? I want to write, to self-express (as Kevin Smith puts it, for instance), but the words are not forthcoming. I often wonder if others face these problems in their mediums of choice. Do artists sometimes not know what to draw? Do the lines just never feel right? The same could be said of musicians and their notes, or sculptures and the clay available to them.

Sometimes--nearly all of the time, in fact--it feels as though the words are there to write what I desire, but the structure is absent. Even now I'm writing largely off-the-cuff, having not known what would spill outward once I started typing into the posting interface on Blogger.  But what I'm writing now isn't what I want to write. It's just a misdirection, meant to trick my fingers and slightly alcohol addled brain into thinking the motions are in the proper place.

I do not, to be honest, understand writer's block. Most of often when I encounter it, the impetus to create is present: that desire inexplicable by any other means but to "self-express" in some fashion or another. For me, that fashion has always been one of words--I lack the talent to turn pencil strokes into recognition except by the arbitrary meanings of alphabet characters strung in still more arbitrary sequences. The words, indeed, are forthcoming, but that thing the words are necessary for: the scene, the character, the theme, the message...these are ephemeral, elusive.

A Recognition Scene

For context, you can listen to the following (or at least Google the lyrics):

More specifically, the recognition scene (or anagnorisis) in a Greek drama involves the sudden revelation to the main character of a critical fact. The most well-known example is probably the scene in Oedipos Tyrannos in which Oedipus learns that he is the murderer (of his own father) at the center of the play's central conflict (the plague) and the husband of his own mother (the queen). The recognition scene in the embedded Mountain Goats song is sweeter, in some ways (and not just because of the stolen candy), as it captures in time the moment in time when one of a pair of friends realizes not only that the other is crucial to his or her (though the singer is male, it's not specifically called out as such in the song's narrative) life, but that they will probably be separated someday. It's a bittersweet moment, and one that many people can probably relate to.

I do not often free-write, but I'm in the mood to, and recognition scenes are on my mind. So here's a recognition scene (post-writing comment: in verse, apparently, even if prose was my original intent). I make no apologies for the lack of literary quality, as the intent here is to put words to paper (haven't I done that already up above?), and there's Guinness and Jameson both at hand. Hopefully, the words that follow do not assault the senses violently, at the very least.

Ordered strips of gray concrete
Dividing patches of densely packed snow
So blinding in the early morning sun

 Mercury hovers in digits solitary
And the wind defies the numbers
Stinging skin, dying it painfully red

But it is that time appointed
A finger already numb from cold
Rings a doorbell in sweet anticipation

Yet harsh exposure continues
The programmed chime left unanswered
A meeting perhaps forgotten or forestalled

Minutes tick while the flow of blood slows
And dry eyes well with tears soon frozen
By the bitter truths of mid-December

Something masquerading as a finger
Strikes the doorbell thrice more
First in concern, then desperation, and finally anger

Morning crawls on, limping in the harsh chill
Time passes unmarked as higher thought declines
Such that departure is dismissed on principle

An age goes by and only then a door opens
Fury hardened in winter melts like ice in summer
Leaving only three words spoken from visitor to guest