Grape Hyacinths

It has been a week with no shortage of topics to blog about. I have always thought that half the work of writing was done in the head before fingers ever touch the keyboard or reach for the pen.
On Monday I thought about Presidents Day and the 50th anniversary of John Glenn's earth orbit.
On Fat Tuesday I thought about pancakes, colored beads, and the end to Mardi Gras, a holiday I have never celebrated.
On Ash Wednesday I thought about the Lenten countdown to Easter. And when I thought about it being George Washington's real birthday date, I started craving a cherry flavored dessert, but had to axe that idea.
By Thursday I was thinking that I really should have followed through with updating my blog. So I went in search of 'this date in history' and found that the siege of the Alamo began in 1836, the Tootsie Roll was introduced in 1896, the U.S. flag was raised on Iwo Jima in 1945, and the first school children received the Salk polio vaccine in 1954. Those events all seemed rather removed from life on this showery, windswept day. I will think of another topic.
It is Friday, February 24, 2012. I am celebrating the grape hyacinth that grows at the edge along the rabbit trail.

When I was a kid, we had grape hyacinths that were naturalized along the edge of our woods. I really believed that they were wildflowers; after all, in my memory they had always been there and always came back every year. It was the year that I was 12 that I learned their bulbs had first been planted on purpose. I actually felt a touch of betrayal in learning that they had been masquerading as natives all my life.

The grape hyacinth's flower spikes usually do not show up until mid-spring. Unlike the crocus and daffodils that would only tease that spring had come—it was not uncommon to see daffodils buried in snow—when the grape hyacinths bloomed, it was springtime for good. That is why I was so amazed to see them blooming now, with nearly a week of February left to go!

The picture was taken on my average iQphone. It looks Photoshopped for color, but it is not. As you can see, the grape hyacinth is blooming for all its worth.

Yes, it has been a mild winter. Yes, the jonquils began blooming a month ago, but really, that was barely three weeks ahead of an average year, surely unusual, but not unheard of. The grape hyacinths, by contrast, are nearly six weeks early. The bees are not out and about yet. Should I be worried about pollination?

²⁵ And which of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life's span? ²⁶ If then you cannot do even a very little thing, why do you worry about other matters?
Luke 12

No, I will delight that winter is not so harsh as it might be. I will enjoy the blooms of today.

The Search for Love

My adult life would have been very different if search engines had been around when I was a kid. I am not sure how it would have been different, but different it would have been.

With the approach of Valentine's Day, I decided to pop 'love' into a Bible search tool just to see what I would find. Today's blog is all about the results of my search for love.

♥ ♥ ♥

In the Authorized King James Version, the word love was matched 334 times. Then I wondered if love grows over time, so I tried the New King James Version. I expected a higher number because I knew that in Chapter 13 of 1 Corinthians, the new version used love, whereas the original used charity. That would account for about 9 more loves right there, but NO! Even with those extra nine, the New King James has a love loss of 13! The word love was found only 321 in the updated version. Where did the love go?

I don't know who made this "law," and I do not suppose that there is any agency around to enforce it, but I have been told that one of the laws of Bible interpretation is called the "Law of First Mention." According to the Law of First Mention, the first time a concept appears in scripture it is used in its foundational meaning. If there is any ambiguity in later scripture passages, the foundation laid at First Mention is supposedly the most reliable meaning for the interpretation.

This presents a bit of a problem.

First Mention of love in the New King James is in Genesis 22:2.

Then He said, "Take now your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you."

First Mention is literally sacrificial.

First Mention of love in the Authorized King James is in Genesis 27:4.

And make me savoury meat, such as I love, and bring it to me, that I may eat; that my soul may bless thee before I die.

First Mention is about sating the appetite.

I do not see any way to reconcile these—short of cannibalism, which I will rule out on both the basis of sketchy theology and for its Eww factor.

The translation that I usually prefer for study is the English Standard, so my next search for love was in that version. It produced a whopping tally of 503 mentions of love. I am not sure what that means, but it seems rather unloving to go around bragging that my preferred translation touts love 150% more often than yours! Besides, at the end of the day, love is work, commitment, self-surrender, and sacrifice.

Of course, Valentine's Day is not about love so much as it is about romance! So my next search was for the word "romance."

It would seem that the only times romance is found in the English translations are when it is embedded in the word necromancer. So there we have it: romance is a dead end.

Using an Archetypal Approach to Literary Criticism

In my Introduction to Literature classes, the students are asked to analyze a short story using their choice of one of the four following approaches: (a) reader response, (b) formalist, (c) historical/biographical, or (d) archetypal. Less than two percent of the students ever choose the archetypal analysis.

The first three analytical approaches have familiar root words: read & respond, formal, and history. Because those words are so common, it is fairly easy to correctly guess the gist of a reader-response, formalist, or historical approach without even studying. But archetype is heard less frequently. Months, perhaps years can pass without hearing archetype pop up in common conversation. Students tend to choose what they are most familiar with, and in a twist of irony, write an archetypical school essay.

An archetype is an original pattern from which copies are made. It comes from the Greek word arkhetypon that means pattern or model.

There are archetypal characters. I will give you a few to get you started:

The rugged individualist - Indiana Jones fits this one.

The knight in shining armor - Sir Lancelot

The mad scientist - Dr. Strangelove

The earth mother - Gaia

You can probably think of others— the ditzy blonde, the Boy Scout, the crone, the jock, the villain.

If someone tells you, "I will be the Woodstock to your Snoopy," and if you understood that to mean he/she will be the cute and faithful companion to your leadership, then you have understood an archetype.

There are archetypal settings: the Garden of Eden, the ice planet Hoth, Mt. Olympus, the River Styx, a deserted isle, also bridges, pathways, and doors. If someone told you that he was getting ready to sail from the Grey Havens, and if you understood what he meant, then you have used archetypal thought, (and you probably know a J.R.R. Tolkien fan as well, at least for a little while yet.)

There are archetypal themes: coming of age, struggle against nature, forbidden love, hope that endures, sacrifice, the phoenix (rising from ashes/dead), etc.

All of these are patterns for other characters, settings, plot devices and stories. It is no accident that the tarot cards used by psychics have archetypes on them; archetypes are common and recurring, so the fortune-teller is statistically bound to hit upon a match now and then. Many dream interpretation books are based on the premise that people dream in archetypes. Soap opera storylines are often archetypal, which makes it seem like the same stories keep repeating. Fairy tales are quintessential in the use of archetypal patterns, plots, and characters. Even though the label "archetype" is heard more in a classroom setting than on the street corner or at the home and hearth (more archetypes, by the way) archetypes are familiar concepts.

Analyzing a story using the archetypal approach is fairly easy. Start by asking what is wanted or needed. The pursuit of this goal often becomes a quest or a journey. It might also play out as a battle or war, often between good and evil. Look for big, universal concepts.

To illustrate how to use the archetypal approach, I used "The Story of an Hour" by Kate Chopin. It is a fascinating short story that was in the course textbook, but it is also out of copyright and easily found in a web search. If you don't want the ending spoiled, read it before continuing. Link to KateChopin.org The Clugston quote below is from the textbook.

Let's consider "The Story of an Hour."

Reader-response — the first response is the emotional connection. Many relate to feeling trapped in a relationship or job and might identify with the housewife. Some might relate to dealing with her chronic illness, while others may feel like they are living the sister's role and always walking on eggshells. It would be possible to identify with the husband or even to relate to the 19^th century two-story house, although I have never read a paper written from either of those angles. The reader-response analysis will investigate why that connection was felt.

Formalist — The reader looks at literary elements such as plot, characterization, setting, language style, literary devices, etc. When approached in this manner, sometimes patterns become apparent that are not easily seen when a different technique is used for evaluation.

Historical/Biographical — Consider the gender roles and societal expectations of that era. Learn more about Kate Chopin and read some of her other works for comparison. Many students who read Chopin for the first time in "The Story of an Hour" think the ending is very ambiguous. They are not sure if Mrs. Mallard died from her heart condition, from the shock of seeing her husband's "ghost," from the loss of her expectations of freedom, or if the doctors really were right and she died from joy. Readers who have read some of her other short stories first, such as "The Storm" or "Désirée's Baby" do not have as much doubt. Also, knowing that the story was originally published with the title "The Dream of an Hour" might make a difference in how one interprets the ending.

Archetypal — Clugston (§16.2) says that, "Every archetypal pattern illustrates how a particular human goal is commonly achieved or how a universal human dilemma is resolved." In "The Story of an Hour," there is an archetypal dilemma, the subjugation/liberation of the human spirit, and the human goal of freedom is achieved, although in an unexpected manner. Paragraph 6 reflects the freedom and hope of heaven. "There were patches of blue sky showing here and there through the clouds..." Paragraph 11 reveals that Mrs. Mallard had been confined to a personal hell with a "powerful will bending hers in that blind persistence..." Life and Death and Fate all play out in the story. Nowhere is an archetype more evident than in paragraph 18. "There was a feverish triumph in her eyes, and she carried herself unwittingly like a goddess of Victory." Led to believe that Mr. Mallard was dead, Mrs. Mallard had accepted his sacrifice and experienced a cathartic rebirth of her own spirit. Her deliverance was practically messianic.

So what could this archetypal approach reveal about "The Story of an Hour" that some of the other approaches may have missed? It could be argued that the archetypal approach puts more emphasis on the character of the husband than the other three do. Archetypal analysis circumvents knee-jerk conclusions more effectively than a reader-response. Archetypal critiquing highlights the enslavement of the soul more than a formalist approach. The archetypal approach removes the restrictions of the historical approach and allows an analysis that is larger than marital roles of the late 1800s—the human spirit has always been engaged in a struggle with whomever or whatever will ultimately control it.

Reader-response thinks personal. Archetypal thinks universal.

Formalist dissects and cuts apart. Archetypal does the big picture.

Historical looks at the point of origin. Archetypal patterns are timeless.

Groundhog Day

Did you know that Groundhog Day is in the Bible?

Okay, so it isn't really, but Elihu did explain why the woodchuck went into his burrow in the first place.
Let's revisit Job 37:

⁶ For to the snow he (God) says, ‘Fall on the earth,’
⁸ Then the beasts go into their lairs,
and remain in their dens.
⁹ From its chamber comes the whirlwind,
and cold from the scattering winds.
¹⁰ By the breath of God ice is given,
and the broad waters are frozen fast.
¹¹ He loads the thick cloud with moisture;
the clouds scatter his lightning.
¹² They turn around and around by his guidance,
to accomplish all that he commands them
on the face of the habitable world.
¹³ Whether for correction or for his land
or for love, he causes it to happen.

This passage shares both a purpose and a wildness about God. The snow, wind and cold had driven the animals into their burrows. Some hibernate, and even those that do not will still seek shelter from the elements.

Verse 7 was left out when the rest of the passage was quoted. Here it is:

⁷ He seals up the hand of every man,
that all men whom he made may know it.

This is a literal translation and some assistance with the terms might be helpful. The verb translated seals means to lock up or fasten with a seal. The noun hand can refer to the work of the hand or production. For most people living in the agrarian world of Job and Elihu, God has shut down the agriculture for a season. God stops men's work so that men may gain an understanding of His work.