Män som hatar kvinnor [The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo] (2009 Extended Edition: Niels Arden Oplev) [Netflix: The extended edition of the trilogy contains more than two hours of additional footage not seen in the theatrical versions of the original Swedish films. Amassing a total of 9 hours of story content and presented in 6 parts, this complete version of the international hit series restores notable characters and subplots from Stieg Larsson's best-selling novels. In the first two parts, journalist Mikael Blomkvist (Michael Nyqvist) and computer hacker Lisbeth Salander (Noomi Rapace) team up to investigate the unsolved disappearance of wealthy Henrik Vanger's teenage niece, Harriet Vanger] [E] 5-15-2012Watching Dragon Tattoo again (my fourth time if you include the two viewings of the Swedish theatrical version and the English version) reminded me how crucial the Book of Leviticus is to the plot. Lisbeth Salander discovers its significance, and Mikael Blomkvist comments that it's the best clue they've discovered so far. The novel's way of using Leviticus underscores by connotation how pathological was the culture that produced Leviticus.
And it underscores in turn how pathetic it is to base one's "principled" objection to gay marriage today on a selection from ancient Leviticus.
When you say that the culture that produced Leviticus was "pathological," are you contrasting it to today's norms or to the norms of other ancient cultures?
ReplyDeleteI didn't mean to be contrasting it with anything, but characterizing non-comparatively the culture that produced Leviticus. Are you suggesting that if other ancient cultures might have produced similar writings, then it wouldn't be fair to say that any of them were pathological in that regard?
ReplyDeleteI wasn't thinking of writings, per se — writing was paltry in the ancient world — but of all the manifestations of culture. But yes, all ancient cultures might be judged "pathological" by modern Western standards. So your characterization of the ancient Hebrews isn't distinctive. However, there are characterizations that are distinctive.
ReplyDelete"Might be"? Do you mean that that's your own assessment from having examined all manifestations of ancient culture? (You do seem to be saying that "pathological" applies to ancient cultures generally.) I'd be interested in what your studies have uncovered. Sounds fascinating.
DeleteWhether a culture is pathological or not depends on your point of reference. Using modern Western culture as our point of reference, we would likely conclude that all ancient cultures are pathological. (They are commonly militaristic, hold slaves, take eyes for eyes and teeth for teeth, devalue women, practice torture, hold a tribal view of the world, etc.) However, using one ancient culture as a point of reference to evaluate another, we would likely conclude (well, I would) that none are pathological. So all are or none are. In either case, characterizing the ancient Hebrew culture as "pathological" tells us nothing about them.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the recent anti-gay marriage vote in NC: How ironic that people who pride themselves on not being racist like their parents and grandparents are now discriminating against those of different sexual orientation the same as their forebears did against those of different ethnic backgrounds.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the reported overwhelming support for the amendment in the black community: How bitterly ironic that the majority of today's black voters are now in league with those who took ax handles to their parents, lynched their grandparents and owned their great-grandparents.
Regarding the linkage between Leviticus and the Dragon Tattoo Trilogy: Maybe in 2000 years there will be a religion based on the Trilogy with beliefs such as "they who hath no piercings shall be regarded as unclean...and shall be cast from our midst for being impossibly unimaginative and boring." After all, Trilogy is so smartly written it is difficult to dismiss it as fiction, and Leviticus is so unfathomable a free-thinking person struggles not to dismiss it as fiction.
Motomynd, are you sure that blacks who supported the amendment were "in league with" whites ("being or joined with whites in a single entity or united front," according to thefreedictionary.com)? That implies a sort of collusion, doesn't it? Can you tell us more about your reasons for believing that black supporters of the amendment were in league with white supporters?
ReplyDeleteMoristotle, my guess is they were probably not "in league with" in a nit-picky technical definition of the expression. Yet possibly they were: I am not fully informed on what sort of get-out-the-vote campaigns were mounted by religious, social and business groups prior to the overwhelming passing of the amendment. When you think of the cost savings to same-sex couples if they could have family insurance policies instead of individual ones, if they could file taxes as married instead of single, to cite but a couple of examples, there certainly could have been enough shared financial concerns for disparate groups to back the amendment out of common greed, if not shared morality. Since I have not seen any research on the matter, I can't answer your technical question with a factually supported answer.
ReplyDeleteThey were however "in league with" in the logical, laymen usage of the term in that they shared the same goal - discrimination against a minority group. And yes in that they were collaborating in their shared ignorance, if not colluding or "being in cahoots with" by preplanned clever design. If someone is run over by a car and winds up mangled or dead, is the damage any less if they were run over by accident instead of on purpose?
Technical terms usually matter much more to those trying to justify or make excuses for their actions than they do to the victims of those actions.