This is probably going to be controversial.

I’ve been on a reading spree lately, largely due to a tiny shift in the way I organize my books. I now separate read books from unread books (after relegating fiction and non-fiction to separate bookshelves), and I put the unread books at eye level.

I initially made this change because I like to keep a running count of the number of unread books I have, and it was a pain in the ass to count when the unread novels were mixed within the read ones. I was not expecting it to triple my literary consumption, but there you go.

I imagine this change lowered the barrier to entry for reading a new book; instead of confronting hundreds of books at once and having to remember whether I’d read each one, I now have 83 [fiction] books to choose from and I already know I haven’t read any of them. I then use the Random Number Generator to pick the next book, which adds an element of suspense/surprise. (Also, I’ve been doing a ton of writing lately, and I find reading a good book—not blogs or other online reading—to be the best way to take a short break and pick up re-energized.)

So, the Random Number Generator’s latest pick was The Brothers Karamazov, a book which I’ve started reading three different times over the years but always ended up putting down (not because it wasn’t good, but because it was too thick to travel with, and I was on the road 90% of the time back then). I’m now about halfway in, but I feel as though I’d have a deeper appreciation for many of the themes if I actually understood more of the biblical references.

I have fought reading the Bible for a long time. I’m not remotely religious, and with the infinite number of other ways I could spend my time, reading a lengthy tome I knew I would hate just never appealed to me. I ended up buying the King James version a few years ago, though I don’t quite recall what led me to get it. (It literally may have been the last time I picked up Brothers Karamazov.)

When I finally picked it up a couple days ago, I was determined to have an open mind. After all, stories in the Bible have influenced many of my favorite books. Even if I don’t believe in god, there’s probably some literary value, right?

I made it about 20 pages in, frequently Googling things, like: Who was Cain’s wife? (Only possible answer: his sister. Gross.) But I just can’t make it past Genesis 9:20.

And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:

And he drank of the wine, and was drunken: and he was uncovered within his tent.

And Ham [Noah's son], the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.

And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness.

And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.

And he said, Cured be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

Huh? Noah’s sons saw him passed out drunk and naked, so his grandson should be cursed?

I look to the footnotes:

Ham…saw the nakedness of his father: While many suggestions have been suggested for this phrase, it is best to take it to mean merely what it says. There is no indication of any gross violation. The phrase indicates that this violation of privacy was merely the beginning of eventual sexual degradation.

So why not curse Noah for being naked? Or Ham for seeing him naked? What did poor Canaan do to deserve a curse?

I Google this section and learn that saw the nakedness of his father actually means Ham raped his mother, who gave birth to Canaan. Whoa there, tiger.

There is a BIG DIFFERENCE between seeing your dad naked and raping your mother. Really big. Really, really big. Although, in either case, poor Canaan still doesn’t deserve punishment. In fact, I don’t understand how anyone can remotely consider god to be just or fair or loving or kind or basically any positive adjective. If he existed (and he doesn’t), he’d be the perverted uncle who rapes toddlers. (And if you believe he is real, he already is raping toddlers, if you think about it. Or is he teaching them a loving lesson? *gag*)

This is just too silly to be worth a moment more of my time, and I now find it even harder to have any respect for religious people or for anyone who claims the Bible has literary value. The reason it’s referenced so often is that it came first, so references to its stories are more widely understood. That’s it.

{ 2 comments }