Hadding has become a Jonah or reverse
Teela, carrying bad luck with him. Storms sink a fleet that he sails in and destroy a house that he sleeps in. A hamlet burns to the ground. Jonah's shipmates were annoyed when he admitted that he had a god against him. Hadding does not tell his overnight hosts that the elves are against him and at last resorts to sleeping out of doors. How will this be resolved? Despite reading this book at least twice before and even posting about it, I cannot remember. Much of the time it is like reading the book for the first time, which is good. The plot will be more firmly fixed in memory when I have posted about it yet again.
I like the contrast between Hadding and Larry Niven's genetically lucky sf character, Teela Brown, although I am sure that it was not intended.
9 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
It's only fair to say Jonah's shipmates did not want to throw him over board, despite him suggesting that. That was done only reluctantly and after declaring they did so only because God was commanding it.
Most commentators classify the Book of Jonah as a "midrash." That is, an edifying story teaching moral or theological truths. The book also shows God as having a sense of humor!
Sean
Sean,
Jonah, Job and Ruth are works of fiction incorporated into scripture. I like Jonah complaining when God does not after all destroy the sinful city.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I agree, with the caveat that the Book of Ruth may well incorporate some of the genuine family history of King David.
Ha! I remember Jonah's disgruntlement over how Nineveh was not destroyed, despite God sending him to preach the doom of the capital of the hated Assyrians. Jonah tried to flee from the mission assigned him by God because he knew full well that YHWH was a gracious and merciful God who would have compassion on the Assyrians if they repented.
All patriotic Jews of the 600's BC would have only furious hostility (or go to the other extreme and CRINGE to them) for the Assyrian, feared and hated for their skill in war and ruthless cruelty.
Sean
Did anyone read Asimov's essay "Lost in Non-Translation"?
In that he writes about the parable of the 'Good Samaritan' & the 'Book of Ruth'. He notes that Ruth was a Moabite woman & both Moabites & Samaritans were long standing enemies of Judea. A full translation of the stories would translate Moabite or Samaritan to the name of whatever group is the despised outsider of the audience reading or hearing the story. Not doing that means people miss the point of those stories.
Jim,
I have read Asimovian Biblical commentary where he made that point.
Paul.
Kaor, Jim!
I have not read that essay by Asimov. Moreover, I disagree with that "full translation" suggestion. A text should be translated as accurately as possible without inserting things the original does not have. The points you or Asimov made are best explained in footnotes.
Happy New Year! Sean
I agree about keeping translation and commentary distinct.
OK I see that it probably would be better to put Asimov's point as commentary.
Kaor, Jim!
I favor the "formal equivalence" mode for translations. Not the "dynamic" method.
Happy New Year! Sean
Post a Comment