"Carrying on with Plato's figure of a ladder, it seems as though with the imagination there is a journey upward into a world where subject and object are at one. This takes place, apparently, in literature, through an interchange of illusion and reality. Illusion, something created by human imagination, is what becomes real; reality, most of which in our experience is a fossilized former human creation from the past, becomes illusory."

So we find ourselves with the Bible. This concept conjured up by Northrop Frye suggests that, when it comes to text or stories, our illusory imagination must command the reader. Why? Because reading, say, The Bible with a realistic context (without the interchange) is exactly like taking the bible literally (not literarily). If the stories and intentions of the Bible are primarily allegorical then reality's applicability is less than that of illusion.

More importantly to Frye, reading literature is like meditating. It's a practice, it takes practice, and the more you practice the more you develop your illusory tactics. What I'm saying is that one may not experience that "interchange" if they're not a seasoned reader, though that "interchange" is what readers should develop, theoretically. So, if one's not a seasoned reader then they might use their fossilized memories as allegories for the story. This is not the purpose of literature; it's purpose is to have the story and its characters get caught up in your head of ideas. I suppose that the Bible is meant to be understood as a journey of the development of your imagination and ideas vicariously experienced through the characters and concepts of literature. Using your fossilized experience, reality, is almost utilizing close-mindedness. Interchangabilty allows open-mindedness, conceptual progression, and for you to live lives which aren't yours.

Playing logician

The theory of theodicy is a dicey divine discrepancy. As we've learned from Frye, "All literature is displaced myth." The concept of theodicy is, mythologically speaking, God's permittance of suffering. But is suffering a force of [Mother] nature or an act of the God(s)? Or is a "bad day" considered suffering? Let's say that a bad day is, yes in fact, a case of suffering; although, "bad day" is a restrictive variable. Consider the billions of people who use a vast variety of calendars to live by and around, and they probably have bad days, too. Whatever calender is in play, "bad day" may be interpreted as a period time experienced by one (or more) whom were smote by God. Realistically speaking, if [whoever] has a bad day then an act of theodicy should be considered a plausible cause? Yes. Over this relative increment of time a person is experiencing theodicy. Moreover, we must consider the alternative notion of bad luck.

Consider these variables and equalities thus far (warning: forgive all unbelievable equalities)

S=Suffering or Smite

M=force of [Mother] nature

G=act of the God(s) T=S&G if G then S G=~M

B=Bad Luck B=M B=~G if ~G then ~S

T=Theodicy D=T if ~G&~S then ~T ~T=~D

D=Bad Day

I see (many) flaws in my logic. Wouldn't you consider bad luck to be the potential cause of a bad day; that is, it is as plausible a theory as theodicy? Yes. Thus, B=D. But D=T. Therefore, bad luck is equal to theodicy. This can go anywhere if we change variables values. For example, if D=T then T=M. This is debatable. The only problem present is that I believe that luck doesn't have much to do with the divine. It's more a force of nature. Theodicy just seems to cover all of everything when we're regarding mythology as a pertinent source of societal value. The Bible is one of these pertinent sources, too. We believe in concepts such as theodicy because of Biblical stories such as Job. Ol' average-Job as Plotz would say. This guy is subject to Satan and the Lord's scheming, but was he a victim of bad luck or theodicy? It's a matter of subjective belief.

Peter & Susanna

Susanna has a sultry stature in the Daniel's time. So her subordinates feel they must dispose of her beauty. They are so because they have the same love for one woman, yet they know they cannot have equal lust, attraction, or possibly love for one woman less than preferred. This storytelling preference for one woman allows these garden elders to conspire a Law-and-Order type plan to fool the judicial board. Susanna is sentenced, and although her body is gone her beauty lives on.

Susanna's most valued attribute was the cause of her downfall. It's almost like the elders didn't want her lust-prone beauty to infect any others. Maybe she was one of those drop-dead gorgeous. Lust, I mean, love at first site. One of those girls that cause epidemics amongst local socialism.

Avast, Wallace Stevens' retort is a cry to Hosanna. The story of the destruction of Susanna and her beauty hurts his heart. His poem "Peter Quince at the Clavier" recounts, more or less, the main events of the apocryphal legend. Stevens' added poetic emotion is a parallelism of, potentially, how we're supposed to feel for Susanna. Stevens' semantics, stuttering style, and mythological approach show his affection for Susanna. Through this poem, I believe Wallace Stevens is retorting his feelings of ecstasy towards Susanna's conundrum and fate. Yet, if Susanna's beauty lives on then it might cause some lustful tendencies. Lust is a behind-the-scenes thing, and this is this can be correlated, if not the causation, of the valid biblical judicial system. Thus, the so-called justifiers are making the wrong calls which is why we remember Susanna. And her beauty.

How many heroes?

Plotz claims that very few characters of the Bible fit the archetype of the "Hero." But a Bible Hero is different than the typical, archetypal hero. The archetypal Biblical hero, according to Plotz, "speaks a modern language of faith." His brief list of Bible heroes includes Abraham, Joseph, Caleb, Samuel, and Gideon.

Plotz’s standards are stringent. As I read the Bible, I see myself agreeing with Plotz more than the sacred text. He and I both attempt to analyze the Bible in a literal, realistic, and witty fashion in order to step into the characters’ shoes. Call it allegorical application of the world.

One of the main interpretation issues I’m having is with all the violence. God has this rep for being a merciful fellow, but how are people supposed to use the brutality in the Bible to their advantage? Maybe the Bible is like Hollywood. It’s like a big action-comedy. Like we were taught in class, structurally speaking the Bible is technically a comedy. Another Divine Comedy. Like in Dante’s story, the grotesque stages in the Bible are meant to be humorous.

Additionally, there may be some sub-tragedies in the Bible, but not all of them are of the same gender. Also, this isn’t Hollywood so there are only two genre of story: comedy and tragedy. This holds true if, in fact, the Bible is being read in a literal sense. Thus, if there are many stories in the Bible then there is a different “hero” for every single story. And, each hero will have different traits, attributes, and tendencies given their comedic or tragic character development.

My question is, are Plotz’s heroes from comedies or tragedies? On the other hand, are there heroes which we should account more for although they may not fit a typical archetype? If they believe and trust and fear in God then their character might show some flex and substance. What I’m saying is that does Plotz have too stringent of standards? Are his (and thus, my) analytic methods for interpreting archetypes in a literal sense valid?

So I guess we’ve learned that even if we don’t agree with some of the barbarism and violence in the Bible then we can still try to learn something from the hero of the story.

We Are All Women

One of the most interesting points which was mentioned within the topical realm of the Bible entailing a patriarchal societal structure. But moreover, this structure doesn't mean that the human male is the top of the hierarchy. Also, there are only two levels; those being the "Father" and the "Mother." Of course according the Bible, everytime the Lord our God is the "Father." He's the man of the house, and we, the people of the world, are the "Mother(s)" inside His inconceivably huge house.

Now, unless there's three level to the hierarchy which might look like: 1.) "Divine" 2.) "Father" 3.) "Mother." If this is the case then the human women are biblical subordinates of the human men who are subordinates of God. It's a matter of chain-of-command. But, this wasn't the argument which struck me in class. This argument keeps everything more straightforward and less politically complex by having God as the "Father" and men and women as the "Mother." Think about it. What are two of the most important things in order to keep order. We need the earth and women. I'll end by making two hasty generalizations. "Mother Earth" came before anything in the Bible, except for maybe light and Heaven, but those don't pertain to this gander unless you want to argue that Heaven supports patriarchy (which it might). No matter. Lastly, linguistically "Eve" means the mother of all living. Hypothetically, if Eve hadn't have been created or present then her creation and presence filled the void for the first "Mother." She allowed procreation to proceed much alike of what "Mother Earth" has allowed.