 |

 |
naomichana | |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
I had an eloquent, well-researched, and long post about Joan of Arcadia finished last night. Then LJ ate it. Let me try to summarize: I like most of the characters on JoA. I like Joan's family, I get a kick out of her friends, I am relieved to note that her teachers are not universally evil, and the cop subplots are... um... well, moving on, I think it's uneven but has a lot of good potential. I enjoy reading fannish love about the show on my friendslist. There's only one tiny little problem standing in the way of my enjoyment. I can't stand God. (On the show, that is.)Let's take Joan's God at His/Her/Their word -- namely, that we are seeing a manifestation of the same God who turned up in the Tanakh, the New Testament, and the Qur'an. We know, then, that this God is manipulative, mysterious, periodically incomprehensible, frequently overcontrolling, occasionally mistaken, and, yes, snippy. (I view the post-Golden-Calf conversation Moses has with God in Exodus as classic black comedy. "I shall destroy the Israelites!" "Uh, God, you had this covenant with Abraham...." "Screw the covenant! I'll grind their bones to make my bread!" "All the other gods will point and laugh, you know." "Oh. Good point. Okay, just tell the Levites to slay their way through the camp, I'll send a quick plague, and we'll call it a day.") This God is not, however, ordinary. This God is the opposite of mundane (the word I'm looking for is actually "holy"). But Joan's God is so mundane S/He makes my teeth hurt. Joan's God only appears in non-threatening guises, only asks Joan to do safe and age-appropriate things, refuses to answer questions (leaving well enough alone isn't really a talent of the God I've read about), doesn't perform miracles for reasons that wouldn't pass muster with a bright six-year-old, won't offer proof of identity ditto, refuses to talk about sin, keeps mum about any afterlife, is entirely apolitical (especially ironic given the saint being referenced here), and has yet to do anything that a demon couldn't do according to mainstream Christian theology. In short, God is dumbed down to the point of being a below-average human with some seriously irritating tics. This God wouldn't know the mysterium tremendum et fascinans if it walked up and stuck its tongue down His/Her throat. Even worse, this God says things like "fulfill your nature" with a straight face. Now, I suspect that JoA's God is supposed to be sort of like the God in Julian of Norwich's theology, a God who brought the world into being and sustains it out of pure and focused and unceasing love. Unfortunately, Julian of Norwich's God also spent the last several millennia suffering horribly and dying for what Julian never quite comes out and says is universal salvation. Julian's God is way interesting, and that's before S/He goes all gender-bendy on us. JoA's God, as far as I can tell, must've spent the last several millennia -- existing out of time, naturally -- watching Dr. Phil. Bleah. I am also disappointed in Joan; I wish God had appeared to Joan's Mom, who seems less inclined to let God slide by with mealy-mouthed piety. Me, I'd have a list of questions ready, and I'd keep asking them. After all, JoA's God keeps flaunting His/Her omniscience -- although I notice S/He's been smart enough not to claim omnibenevolence. "God, where does evil come from?" "God, when You said You were 'friendly' in the New Testament and the Qur'an, were You speaking in tongues?" "God, would You like to offer some proof that You created that tree, and was it out of nothing or preexisting matter?" "God, if You're everywhere, are You in the toilet?" "God, I appreciate the attention and all, but couldn't You 'catalyze' a lot more effectively if You went to have a chat about birth control with the Pope?" "God, when You say 'have I ever made anybody burst into flames?', I think You're forgetting the entire population of Sodom and Gomorrah, Nadab and Abihu, several hundred Israelites at Taberah... hang on, did You also want me to count the people You told other people to set on fire?" There is a good reason they don't make shows about (and perhaps for) people like me. But I do wish I could like Joan of Arcadia, and I keep getting hung up on how completely un-God-like God is. Shoot. Where do they get this stuff? Current Mood: discontent
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |


 |

 |
|

 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
From: loligo |
Date: October 28th, 2003 07:21 am (UTC) |
| (Link) |
|
Honestly, I'd argue that she is preaching universal salvation (verging on apokatastasis), just doing so very carefully
Totally. I read Julian on my own and I went into it knowing nothing about her other than the hazelnut metaphor -- she rocked my world so completely when she got to the part about "well, the Holy Church teaches us that all these different sorts of people are going to be eternally damned, and that doesn't exactly seem like all things being well, does it?" and God tells her that he has a plan, something that she cannot comprehend, a deed that will take place at the end of time, that really will make all things well. I mean, I would have liked it better if God had said, "The Church is full of crap," but I don't think Julian would have been ready to hear that, anyway. So "Believe the Church for now, but know that there is something more to the story," makes a pretty good compromise.
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|  |
 |

 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
From: loligo |
Date: October 27th, 2003 04:56 pm (UTC) |
| (Link) |
|
Let's take Joan's God at His/Her/Their word -- namely, that we are seeing a manifestation of the same God who turned up in the Tanakh, the New Testament, and the Qur'an. Really? Did God actually say that?? (I missed the first two episodes.) Well, that's another thing I would have complained about in my Joan post of last week. Why, WHY are the show's writers creating these kinds of problems for themselves? Hey, I'm totally on-board with God being multi-faceted, and only a few of those facets being captured in any particular faith document. But if your show is going to go around directly contradicting the facets presented in particular documents, why would you draw attention to those, let alone explicitly claim continuity? Even worse, this God says things like "fulfill your nature" with a straight face.To be fair, some of God's pronouncements that sound kind of bland and New Agey on the surface are actually perfectly respectable Buddhist philosophy -- I remember their conversation over the chessboard was pretty good in that regard. I am also disappointed in Joan; I wish God had appeared to Joan's Mom, who seems less inclined to let God slide by with mealy-mouthed piety.I think it's a not-unrealistic bit of characterization, though. Joan hasn't had a very difficult life, she's not very intellectual, and she's sixteen -- I can definitely see her being more focused on the personal annoyances God creates in her life, than on the big issues. Two comments that have appeared in recent posts in my journal have helped me pin down what bugs me about this show. One was coffeeandink saying that suspending disbelief in a story about God is just like suspending disbelief in a story about fairies. The other was Maggie, in the discussion of suffering in genre fic vs. litfic, saying that she finds fantasy solutions to real problems to be hurtful, not comforting and escapist. So, I guess for me, regardless of whether I believe in the literal existence of a God (a question I will probably never answer), religion and the issues dealt with in religion are so real and so problematic, that I can't stand to see them treated as fodder for cheerfully shallow storytelling. I think that if this were a show about Joan listening to fairies, I wouldn't be having this reaction.
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|

|  |
 |


|
 |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
Name: she praised god for the creation of the heights
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
"Outside books" is the literal translation of a Hebrew phrase used in Mishnah Sanhedrin 10:1 to describe those religious writings which fall outside the accepted canon of divinely inspired scripture -- i.e., apocryphal literature.
In Mishnah Yadaim, however, apocryphal books are instead described as those which "do not defile the hands." This contrasted them with sacred texts, which were considered to be ritually impure in the second degree (probably in order to discourage anyone from touching them casually or storing them together with food).
I use this LJ to comment on various aspects of media fandom, especially those concerning the extension or subversion of TV, movie, or book "canon." I'm sure you all get the idea by now.
(And, yes, it would have been simpler to just say, "This is the journal of a confirmed humanities geek" and leave it at that, but this way is more fun.) |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 | |