I never had any interest in this book until you made this comment. I might have to force myself to read it.
I just don’t see any of that in the book, though. For most of the book, she’s trying to get away from him–saving money to try to escape and eventually leaving him. And she definitely hates him. Maybe initially when she kisses him, she thinks it’s fun. But her first night with him she ends up sobbing…I’m just not seeing where she’s complicit.
But maybe we should take this to another thread? I started one several months ago but maybe we can revive it.
ETA: Here’s the other thread.
Actually, the negative view of Nimrod and the subsequent use of his name as an insult predates Bugs Bunny. While Nimrod had a reputation as a great hunter, he also (according to legend and not explicitly the Bible) had the chutzpah to build the Tower of Babel so he could be on equal basis with God. Thus, “Nimrod” came to be used to describe someone who was a vain egotistical fool and then someone who was just a fool. Bugs Bunny was probably using both definitions of “Nimrod” (i.e., “great hunter” and “idiot”).
Incidentally, “Nimrod” has come back into use as a first name in Israel which likely causes problems when someone with that name visits the U.S. or anywhere else where it’s used as a term of derision.
I don’t mean to insult, but you are boith flat wrong.
First, Job doesn’t complain much. In fact, he loses damn near everything but his life, and is sick and miserable and poeple are saying he must be awful. Then, and only then, does he complain. Briefly. And God immediately comes and basically says, “Job, suck it up. You don’t know anything at all about what I’m doing and life’s not fair. Deal with it.”
If your historian interpreted it as saying God admitted he’s wrong, then he’s an idiot no matter what credentials he has behind him. God in the story (and this is a very unusual story in jewish history, much less historically based and very much a tall tale built to illustrate a point) is there to basically tell people that good people can suffer, too. It’s basically a giant middle finger to the common belief then and now of Karma. Likewise, the post-story where Job gets everything back was added much later, probably because people didn’t like the ending.
In fact, the entire point of the story is that it’s NOT about right or wrong. It’s saying that what you get in life doesn’t really have much to do with how good you are, and that it doesn’t make being good any less valuable or public opinion any more valuable.
The other thing about King Arthur is that people often refer to him as a great English King. This isn’t just incorrect in the way that people these days confuse English and British, but it’s untrue because there was no such thing as English at the time that all the stories have him living, and in them all he fought against the Anglo-Saxon invaders; he’d be rather annoyed at being called English.
I know a teenage boy in East London called Nimrod. He doesn’t really get teased for it, AFAIK.
Its an amazing book. Its like an onion, many many layered. I find the whole “Americana” portrayal far more interesting than the pedophilia.
Yeah, but how did God really win the argument? He didn’t as far as I can see. As a matter of fact, he started acting the exact same way folks act when they can’t make their case logically. He started getting all bragadocious, “Job, who put the sun in the sky? Huh? Who created the Leviathan? Huh? HUH?? That’s right. So how dare you question me! I’ll let you suffer because I SAID SO! That’s why!”
Paraphrasing of course. My only knowledge and understaning of the story comes from the KJV bible when I read it as a kid. Always loved that story.
In Melville’s Moby Dick, the whale wasn’t actually being a dick; rather, he was acting in self defense.
You’d love George Bernard Shaw’s The Adventures of the Black Girl in Search of God*. When she meets The God of the Book of Job, her response is “That isn’t an argument – It’s a sneer.”
Then she hits Him.
*possibly for more reasons than one.
This isn’t what the OP is asking for, i know, but, although Fu Manchu is Evil in the books and in pop culture*, he is invariably depicted in the movies with the long, thin spaghetti-like mustache that has come to be called a “Fu Manchu” because he is so associated with it,
But in the books, Fu Manchu was clean-shaven.
I did a Teemings piece on this – http://www.teemings.net/series_1/issue07/fu.html
*and not merely “I want my side to win and your side to lose”, but “I want your side to perish horribly” evil.
Considering especially that a lot of the stories and even characters from the Arthur myths have been lifted wholesale from older still Welsh and Irish myths, you have a good point. A lot of it isn’t just not “English”, but didn’t originate in what we’d now call England at all.
I didn’t say it was my position. I was REPORTING SOMEONE ELSE’S POSITION.
I can’t find the remote for the Der Trihs signal, so I’ll say it. The point of Job is that Yahweh is an evil fuckwit who rips the wings off baby birds for sport, only by proxy.
Consider me educated, thanks
Sean Thornton, the “quiet man” of the short story and movie The Quiet Man —
In the original written version, he was a former professional boxer (had boxed in the United States) before coming to Ireland. He had killed someone in a bout and was therefore very much uninclined to engage in physical aggression, even when the brother of his girlfriend treats him with contempt and others in the community find his lack of tendency to defend himself amusing. Finally he gets pushed too far and fells the stupid ox with one professional-calibre punch.
In the John Wayne movie, the theme has been radically altered; now it’s all about joining in in the great male tradition of having a knock-down drag-out brawl; Thornton is depicted as perhaps being the coward that Mary Kate’s brother thinks he is, is not holding back for any explained or discernable reason, and when he is finally goaded into a fight the thing lasts and sprawls across the whole village and everyone comes to watch including a guy who gets off his death bed. Rather than making his point and making fools of those who had thought him weak and cowardly for not throwing a punch in response to provocation, it is the tormentors whose point is proven in the movie: just be a man and stick up your (ahem) dukes and we can all fight and then we can be friends cuz you’re one of us.
Yeah, but she leaves him to be with the completely degenerate Claire Quilty. And she only leaves Quilty when he asks her to have sex with others on camera.
I agree with Exapno. She is much more complicated than “victim.”
Pedantic point: She is 12 when the book opens, not 11. I don’t think calling her “prepubescent” is accurate.
When I was a kid, my family took me to see John Huston’s movie The Bible, and I recall a scene in which Richard Harris is overseeing the construction of the Tower of Babel. I was too young to appreciate how cheesy it was (real MST3k fodder), but even as a 5 or 6 year old, I cracked up when Harris roared arrogantly to the crowd, “Obey me! Am I not Nimrod?”
But I don’t think she had much of a choice. She was just so desperate to be away from Humbert she’d do anything. I think people in general, victims or not, are all complicated. Saying that Lolita was complicated doesn’t take away from her being a victim. I think it’s a myth that there’s some idea of a completely virginal victim who was raped and done nothing wrong in her life. Lolita may made what people consider to be wrong or misguided moves, but I think most abuse victims are probably like that.
This thread has many examples of characters who are perceived VERY differently from the way they were originally portrayed by their creator.
But sometimes, that perception has changed because there have been numerous re-tellings of the story and multiple presentations of the character. I have never read O. Henry’s story of the Cisco Kid, and neither have most people. If people remember the Kid at all, it’s undoubtedly from the movie serials or the 1950s TV series, in which he was a good guy.
In the same way, long after people stopped reading Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin, Uncle Tom was a stock figure in minstrel shows in which he was portrayed as a jive talking yes man.
Many people have the 'wrong" idea about these characters because they learned about them somewhere BESIDES the original story.
In the case of “The Patience of Job” or “The Ugly American,” the problem is simply that most people have never read the source book, and are merely throwing around a phrase they’ve heard many times.
Sure and that is why the book is so disturbing. She is complacent in her own victimization. Not that she deserves it, or is old enough to understand it.
She wasn’t just doing anything to get away from Humbert. She was in love with Quilty.