Good Hunting

Oh how I love a good hunting story. The Bear reminds me of old hunting stories told by my grandfather in his many experiences. This story hit home to me. I hunt, and it was fun to read about the scenarios that went on throughout this part of The Bear. From the calling of the dogs to the rush that comes from hunting the game that has made a reputation of itself, not much has really changed between the 1800s and now as far as hunting goes. Sure, we have far advanced our arsenal, like scopes and cameras, but that only better captures the stories of "the big one". Stalk hunting, at its finest, can connect you with nature and with a untamed feel. This wild chase has been described by some as feeling like part of a nomadic tribe, where the hunter/gatherer philosophy was at an all time high. Needless to say, I enjoyed the Good hunting of Isaac and his companions...


p.s. I commented on jannah lyons post

    So I find myself, once again, remembering at the last minute that I have not posted my blog post. Anywho... I must confess I did not get to actually read much of 'The Bear".  However I did enjoy what little I got to read, and found the story very interesting to hear. I had some very nice classmates help me out :)

   "The Bear" seemed a bit confusing, but then again what Honor's Lit. Assignment isn't somewhat confusing? What I took from the story was that there was a man, Isaac, who did not want to take responsibility for his inheritance. That Isaac also wanted to live a life more imbedded in the natural ways, he wanted to learn to hunt and survive like the Native Americans did.  The is also this bear, Old Ben, who is like the oldest bear, the legend of the forest. Their is almost something human found in him, he's not some ordinary animal, a man must have a level of respect to even see Old Ben. There is Sam Fathers, Boon and Lion.  Through the whole story the author deals with issues of slavery, reconnecting with nature, ownership, and (from my view) responsibility.
     I think Faulkner wanted his readers to question ownership. Can humans really own anything? Can we own the land, animals, other humans, our spouses, or even our children? Why do humans feel comfort from owning things? I think through nature he wanted to show his readers, we don't have to own things, that we can live peaceably without titles or deeds. Also think that he felt we don't need modern technology to solve our problems, which is why he killed off "Old Ben" with a knife instead of a gun.
   I hope this doesn't confuse to many people myself. Does anyone else agree with me? Or offer different perspective?

P.S. commented on Rachel's post

Bear

Callie and I read and read Saturday night trying to understand the confusing work of Faulkner. Then while trying to link together Isaac's name with where it may have come from we had a small revelation. We discussed Abraham's promise land, and that as well as Isaac having an illegitimate brother and the other obvious similarities the BIG one is that Isaac's descendants receive the "Promise Land" after being slaves in Egypt for a little while (*only a couple of generations). And Ishmael does not receive the promised land. And just as quickly as the Israelites receive being to live in this new land flowing with milk and honey they find themselves being punished for neglecting to recognize who brought them to the land and who truly owns the land. This is exemplified as they are carted off to other places (Like Babylon) and then brought back to their original settlements, and today the land of Israel is still brutally fought over by the descendents of Ishmael and Isaac. What an interesting comparison between the middle east land and the land in the United States, however, it all really comes back to the question discussed in class. Can we really own land? Can we really own anything?

Sure, we can walk around with a computer believing that we own it, but how easy is it to lose the computer? Someone could steal it, it could break, but I think in a lot of ways it comforts us as humans to believe that things beyond ourselves can belong to us...

I am pretty sure that was a stream of consciousness rambling.

And I can't figure out how to spell descendents!!

Rabid Run-ons ;)

My opinion coming into class today was that I did not like Faulkner’s stream of consciousness writing because it was hard to follow, and the English language has rules about run-on sentences for a reason. However, the discussion we had in class about the reasons behind this writing style helped me to understand and appreciate it a little more. If you compare Faulkner’s style with poetry, you can see the unformed, uncontained beauty of his ideas. Poetry has some form whereas this style has none, capturing an essence of the wilderness of nature and the human brain on paper. Our brain works this way, but rarely do we write this way because it is so hard to follow. I believe that was Faulkner’s point. We aren’t supposed to know exactly what Ike thinks about all this. Faulkner doesn’t come out and tell us, he gives us the thought process behind it. We can’t follow his thought process but it definitely sparks a personal train of thought. I don’t know if you have ever written in stream of consciousness- I thought about doing it for the blog, but I knew it would be really random and incomprehensible- but it is fun. It captures an essence of humanity that otherwise goes unexplored: how the human brain doesn’t just think along one line of here and now but is constantly pulling from past experiences, senses, hearsay, knowledge, emotions, plans, dreams, to-do lists, worries, relationships, passions… all “talking” at once at any given moment about whatever topic is paramount. Some people organize their thoughts more easily than others, so they don’t notice the semi-chaos taking place in their brain. I, however, have trouble organizing my thoughts into orderly categories unless I write them down. So, the stream of consciousness method gave Faulkner a freedom to go places with his writing that would have been out of place or disjointed otherwise.
P.S. commented on Callie’s “So Much Allegory”

Language as Related to Sin and Our Sin Nature

So maybe this doesn’t exactly pertain to the discussion we had in class, but it kind of does. In class today, Dr. Mitchell made a comment about sin, and I can’t remember what that comment was at the moment, but it led to a discussion after class between Regis, Dr. Talmage, Dr. Mitchell, and I. Dr. Mitchell and Dr. Talmage are of the opinion that language is intrinsically linked to sin. I happen to agree with them.

So the question is, when does the sinful nature develop in a person? The answer, when language develops. Now this is where the theory gets interesting. When does the knowledge of language develop in a person? Is it the same time as we are held accountable for our sins? I believe that our knowledge of language develops before we held accountable for our sins. I could be VERY wrong here. But this is my opinion.

We have knowledge of language and the ability to sin long before we understand what it means to sin. I babysit a family back home with an 18 month old who, last time I was there, was not yet speaking in an understandable way. I observed her interactions with her siblings, mother, and me while I babysat her and was surprised to see that, while she couldn’t speak, she was able to sin. She could understand what we told her to do, but she chose to disobey us. Because she couldn’t speak yet, sometimes it seemed like she couldn’t understand what we told her to do, but after much observation, I saw that she could.

Children begin to understand what you are telling them much earlier than is apparent. It’s the reason babies are able to learn, and use, sign language from about the age of 6 months. So the question is: when does this knowledge of language, turn into a knowledge and awareness of our sin nature? This is a question I can’t necessarily answer. But it’s a question I shall definitely be pondering for a while.

I know this doesn’t necessarily relate to our readings or discussions in class, but I thought it posed some interesting questions. I also thought there were some interesting ideas brought up.

I will see you all in class Thursday and I hope everyone has an incredible Spring Break!

Until next time

~Meghan

P.S. Commented on Josh Spell's post Life is Beautiful

So Much Allegory

The bear is definately one of my favorite pieces of literature we have done in Honors. I love the poetic nature of Faulkner's prose.

I would like to comment on the rich allegorical nature of Faulkner's work. Every little detail with faulkner has a meaning, significance. There is no choice that is made without a reason behind it. Take for instance when Boon asked Ike for a dollar while they were in town. Ike initially was reluctant to give Boon the dollar, but then he decided to. Faulkner could have summed up the whole moment in this one sentence, but instead he goes into great length as to how Ike would not give him the dollar, but then is reminesing about some past event which changes his mind which results in him giving Boon the dollar. Everything in The Bear is like this, there is always a reason as to why something is done the way it is done, Faulkner always provides an expanation. Moreover, there is no part to the story that does not relate to Faulkner's true purpose. Even the bear's footprint fading away into the dirt is given an allegorical meaning. Faulkner speaks of this fading as a "healing," suggesting his belief that letting nature take its course is the best, the therapeudic remedy to all of the problems of the world. Moreover, this theme is continued throughout the whole work. When the Bear is killed Sam Fathers falls over and a few days later, just "quits." It is as if when Old Ben, the symbol of nature and his whole way of life dies, Sam Fathers no longer has any reason to live, or put another way, the death of the Bear sucked the life and purpose out of Sam Fathers. There is no end to the allegorical meaning that we can pull out of Go Down Moses.

PS. I commented on Joy's "Bad Title I know"

Bad title I know - Blog 6

So I finished reading the Bear and must say that it did not end the way I thought it would. The story had many details that can catch you up. I thought it was interesting though because I looked at the word healing like Dr. Abernathy said and it is not the same type of healing we would think of. The tree had decayed into the ground and the tin can had been covered with what was natural. The end of this story was a bit boring compared to the start. Not to mention everyone is dying and going slightly mental. I actually liked chapter 4 despite its tediousness. Overall it was an alright story. I just hope I am ready for this quiz! See you guys on Tuesday.

PS - Amanda G