Because personally, Lot's story represents to me the resolve to turn away from sin. Thus, I don't feel particular sympathy for his wife. Plus I'm not a fan of sentimentalizing each and every female character from ancient literature.
It's like how I feel about Orpheus - yes, I understand the desire to look back, but a god freakin' told you not to look. Listen to him.
That is true. the poem sort of humanizes lot's wife, in a sense, but it gets pretty divorced from the original story, i guess. But i agree - Carol Ann Duffy's The World's Wife was awesome but otherwise it gets pretty overdone.
I always thought Orpheus was stupid. It was my opinion that Eurydice had called out to him to make him turn back, so she could return to being dead, haha. ^^
Yep, that's my problem with it. I don't think the poet really understood Lot's story. Sometimes, you gotta do what God tells you, and yes his commands are absolute. Deal with it.
On a poetic level, I find something more to be said about God's lack of sentimentality than Lot's wife's humanization. Instead this poet has turned it into a generic 'omg look at how the patriarchy oppresses the poor womenz' piece.
This is a really interesting discussion; mind if I join in? :)the_jennySeptember 16 2009, 16:23:25 UTC
I'm thinking way too much about this in response to your comments, so I'm going to work out some thoughts here. This is not intended as a personal attack, but an extension of the discussion, and I hope it will be read that way
( ... )
Re: This is a really interesting discussion; mind if I join in? :)sangria_lilaSeptember 16 2009, 16:59:26 UTC
Oh, don't worry! The more people discussing poetry, the better!
No, Lot, his daughters and his wife were told by the angels not to look back. Genesis 19:15-17:
15 With the coming of dawn, the angels urged Lot, saying, "Hurry! Take your wife and your two daughters who are here, or you will be swept away when the city is punished."
16 When he hesitated, the men grasped his hand and the hands of his wife and of his two daughters and led them safely out of the city, for the LORD was merciful to them. 17 As soon as they had brought them out, one of them said, "Flee for your lives! Don't look back, and don't stop anywhere in the plain! Flee to the mountains or you will be swept away!"
And what the Bible says of Lot's wife's demise is in verse 26: But Lot's wife looked back, and she became a pillar of salt. And what I'm going to say next will seem odd because I'm really not the most ardent of Christians out there. But I think both interpretations of the story of Lot's wife just puts humanity needlessly on a pedestal. What was truly
( ... )
Re: This is a really interesting discussion; mind if I join in? :)murielleSeptember 16 2009, 19:20:33 UTC
It's funny, I've just begun to read the "old" Testement, and rather than seeing a vengeful God, I see a loving, patient, Father-God who forgave and protected His chosen.
Perhaps since the first time I was exponsed to Hal Lindsey's reflections on Biblical meaning and the idea that what God did to Sodom and Gomorrah was akin to a nuclear attack, I've thought of God's command not to look back to be for their protection. Once the destruction was instigated there was no "turning-back" the process would destroy everyone and everything.
I don't think Lot's wife turning back need have been for anything more than a reflex to a sound. Back in the day, when we had "nuclear attack drills" the we were taught to hide under our (tiny little wooden desks) and cover out eyes. It could be that simple.
But, I like what you wrote: we obey God just because He says we should.
Re: This is a really interesting discussion; mind if I join in? :)sangria_lilaSeptember 17 2009, 03:18:07 UTC
I've thought of God's command not to look back to be for their protection. Once the destruction was instigated there was no "turning-back" the process would destroy everyone and everything.
Yes, exactly. Too terrible to be seen.
we obey God just because He says we should.
Yes, and the difference between obeying God and any other authority figure, is because unlike other authority figures, He is always greater than us, and He will always have our best interests at heart. Besides, faith doesn't mean you don't question, but like all things, there are appropriate times to do so.
Re: This is a really interesting discussion; mind if I join in? :)sangria_lilaSeptember 18 2009, 03:08:55 UTC
No, they were definitely angels, because verse 12 refers to the angels as men when they ask Lot whether or not he has any other people he'd like to save. They're called angels in verse 15, and men again in verse 16.
I completely understand the impulse to look back. But I don't think that there was much left to celebrate about the place, which is exactly why God had to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. It's a terrible, terrible thing, but what I think is more important about Lot's story (discarding the fact that Lot's daughters then get him drunk and sleep with him, which I find too hilarious for words) is the emphasis that all of us, have to at some point, completely turn away from the material things. It's a sacrifice, and it's a cost, but in life there are sacrifices and costs.
It's like sometimes, when someone or some place you love has so self destructed that you can't recognize them anymore, and that the best thing you can do is walk away from it.
A different readingbuddhamonkeySeptember 16 2009, 17:15:57 UTC
I can't say I see this poem as really dealing with patriarchy, except in the inevitable ways that come from dealing with a story about a woman from a text like the Bible. It seems to me to be more about the pain of exile and the power of home, issues that must have had personal resonance for Akhmatova. And I also think it's absolutely about God's unsentimentality, which I think the poem (very reasonably) understands as the intractable difficulty of existence itself and (also very reasonably) mourns over.
Re: A different readingsangria_lilaSeptember 17 2009, 03:08:26 UTC
Yeah, on a second reading it's more like that, but as far as I can see it that idea is a bit cliche as well. At that point, the home Lot's wife had known had so descended into sin that it wasn't the home she should have recognized anymore. Anyway, I explain it a bit better in the post above.
And I think the line about it being a holocaust is a bit much.
Re: A different readingthe_jennySeptember 17 2009, 17:47:57 UTC
As to holocaust, when not capitalized, it means: 1 : a sacrifice consumed by fire 2 : a thorough destruction involving extensive loss of life especially through fire (a nuclear holocaust) (from www.m-w.com)
Which seems to be appropriate for the complete and total destruction of at least two large cities by a rain of fire & brimstone sent from God.
I guess I just think it's important to remember that although everyone living in those cities (with the possible exception of Lot & family - but the next few chapters kinda call that into question) may have been sinful and wicked, engaging in inappropriate sexual intercourse and not being kind to visitors, they were all human. As humans, we craft our lives one choice at a time, and many of the Sodomites probably made an effort to make the 'right' decisions, but fell into the prevalent bad habits. If we dismiss them as "sinful people", we risk slipping into that category ourselves (since we are all sinful people) and deserving of another holocaust.
Re: A different readingsangria_lilaSeptember 18 2009, 02:54:34 UTC
Yes, but the difference here is we didn't classify them as sinful people, God did. And whether you like it or not, the first association with the word holocaust is Hitler's holocaust, and I very much doubt that God is comparable to Hitler. Besides, I get the feeling that the poet is none too pleased with the concept of God herself.
I do feel there is a difference here. It's that the sin itself was so terrible that God himself was compelled to destroy the cities, so I don't think to label the Sodomites as incredibly sinful would be wrong or really put us on the slippery slope down to being sinful people, because there's nothing wrong with identifying what sin is in the first place. And yes, they were sinful people, but just because you don't look back on them doesn't mean you're dismissing them.
Reply
Reply
It's like how I feel about Orpheus - yes, I understand the desire to look back, but a god freakin' told you not to look. Listen to him.
Reply
I always thought Orpheus was stupid. It was my opinion that Eurydice had called out to him to make him turn back, so she could return to being dead, haha. ^^
Reply
Yep, that's my problem with it. I don't think the poet really understood Lot's story. Sometimes, you gotta do what God tells you, and yes his commands are absolute. Deal with it.
On a poetic level, I find something more to be said about God's lack of sentimentality than Lot's wife's humanization. Instead this poet has turned it into a generic 'omg look at how the patriarchy oppresses the poor womenz' piece.
Haha. If I married Orpheus I'd want to die too.
Reply
Reply
No, Lot, his daughters and his wife were told by the angels not to look back. Genesis 19:15-17:
15 With the coming of dawn, the angels urged Lot, saying, "Hurry! Take your wife and your two daughters who are here, or you will be swept away when the city is punished."
16 When he hesitated, the men grasped his hand and the hands of his wife and of his two daughters and led them safely out of the city, for the LORD was merciful to them. 17 As soon as they had brought them out, one of them said, "Flee for your lives! Don't look back, and don't stop anywhere in the plain! Flee to the mountains or you will be swept away!"
And what the Bible says of Lot's wife's demise is in verse 26: But Lot's wife looked back, and she became a pillar of salt. And what I'm going to say next will seem odd because I'm really not the most ardent of Christians out there. But I think both interpretations of the story of Lot's wife just puts humanity needlessly on a pedestal. What was truly ( ... )
Reply
Perhaps since the first time I was exponsed to Hal Lindsey's reflections on Biblical meaning and the idea that what God did to Sodom and Gomorrah was akin to a nuclear attack, I've thought of God's command not to look back to be for their protection. Once the destruction was instigated there was no "turning-back" the process would destroy everyone and everything.
I don't think Lot's wife turning back need have been for anything more than a reflex to a sound. Back in the day, when we had "nuclear attack drills" the we were taught to hide under our (tiny little wooden desks) and cover out eyes. It could be that simple.
But, I like what you wrote: we obey God just because He says we should.
Reply
Yes, exactly. Too terrible to be seen.
we obey God just because He says we should.
Yes, and the difference between obeying God and any other authority figure, is because unlike other authority figures, He is always greater than us, and He will always have our best interests at heart. Besides, faith doesn't mean you don't question, but like all things, there are appropriate times to do so.
Reply
Reply
I completely understand the impulse to look back. But I don't think that there was much left to celebrate about the place, which is exactly why God had to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. It's a terrible, terrible thing, but what I think is more important about Lot's story (discarding the fact that Lot's daughters then get him drunk and sleep with him, which I find too hilarious for words) is the emphasis that all of us, have to at some point, completely turn away from the material things. It's a sacrifice, and it's a cost, but in life there are sacrifices and costs.
It's like sometimes, when someone or some place you love has so self destructed that you can't recognize them anymore, and that the best thing you can do is walk away from it.
Reply
Reply
And I think the line about it being a holocaust is a bit much.
Reply
1 : a sacrifice consumed by fire
2 : a thorough destruction involving extensive loss of life especially through fire (a nuclear holocaust) (from www.m-w.com)
Which seems to be appropriate for the complete and total destruction of at least two large cities by a rain of fire & brimstone sent from God.
I guess I just think it's important to remember that although everyone living in those cities (with the possible exception of Lot & family - but the next few chapters kinda call that into question) may have been sinful and wicked, engaging in inappropriate sexual intercourse and not being kind to visitors, they were all human. As humans, we craft our lives one choice at a time, and many of the Sodomites probably made an effort to make the 'right' decisions, but fell into the prevalent bad habits. If we dismiss them as "sinful people", we risk slipping into that category ourselves (since we are all sinful people) and deserving of another holocaust.
Reply
I do feel there is a difference here. It's that the sin itself was so terrible that God himself was compelled to destroy the cities, so I don't think to label the Sodomites as incredibly sinful would be wrong or really put us on the slippery slope down to being sinful people, because there's nothing wrong with identifying what sin is in the first place. And yes, they were sinful people, but just because you don't look back on them doesn't mean you're dismissing them.
Reply
Leave a comment