Branch (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot) wrote2004-10-08 10:13 pm
branchandroot) wrote2004-10-08 10:13 pm
Entry tags:
The venerable roots of fanon
It's common for textual purists to disparage fanon, and I have certainly done that before. But it struck me, today, that fanon is, in it's own way, a venerable institution and deserves recognition for its tenacity, if not its precision.
Consider, for example, Gensis. Specifically, consider Eden, and the go-round with the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The serpent incites rebellion (by, I might note, telling nothing but the truth) and all parties get a really raw deal out of it, including labor pains, limblessness, and species enmity. There is not a scrap of textual indication that Satan or Lucifer, or any incarnation of the Devil at all, is present in any way.
The idea that the serpent was the Devil is fanon.
It's an extrapolation with no direct textual basis, running, I suspect, via Milton and the Romantics, and their various promethean reading of the Devil and a misconstrual of the name Lucifer (lightbringer being, as best I recall, a psalmic reference to Lucifer being as to Christ as Venus the Morning Star is to the Sun--herald or forerunner of light) whereby the fruit of knowledge is elided with the light of fire.
Not even going into the difference between the figures of Satan and Lucifer, though Satan's original role of Jehovah's Prosecutor General does connect to the idea of temptation and form another cross connection to the actions of the serpent.
The thing is, this is what people do. This is what people do with any text at all. They read it and take from it bits that make the most sense and extrapolate those bits into whatever form has the most meaning and accessibility to them. There's nothing heinously evil about this activity.
It's only when fanon becomes the basis for attempted textual explication that the perpetrator needs to be whacked one.
Consider, for example, Gensis. Specifically, consider Eden, and the go-round with the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The serpent incites rebellion (by, I might note, telling nothing but the truth) and all parties get a really raw deal out of it, including labor pains, limblessness, and species enmity. There is not a scrap of textual indication that Satan or Lucifer, or any incarnation of the Devil at all, is present in any way.
The idea that the serpent was the Devil is fanon.
It's an extrapolation with no direct textual basis, running, I suspect, via Milton and the Romantics, and their various promethean reading of the Devil and a misconstrual of the name Lucifer (lightbringer being, as best I recall, a psalmic reference to Lucifer being as to Christ as Venus the Morning Star is to the Sun--herald or forerunner of light) whereby the fruit of knowledge is elided with the light of fire.
Not even going into the difference between the figures of Satan and Lucifer, though Satan's original role of Jehovah's Prosecutor General does connect to the idea of temptation and form another cross connection to the actions of the serpent.
The thing is, this is what people do. This is what people do with any text at all. They read it and take from it bits that make the most sense and extrapolate those bits into whatever form has the most meaning and accessibility to them. There's nothing heinously evil about this activity.
It's only when fanon becomes the basis for attempted textual explication that the perpetrator needs to be whacked one.
no subject
Could you elaborate on that? I'm not sure I've ever seen a Jewish perspective on Lucifer? (Satan yes, Lucifer no) I'd love to see what they'd have to say.
no subject
So, yeah. Hope this helped ^^;;;
no subject
sort of ;) i do remember the Morning Star bit now, but I don't remember the whole situation. I should remind myself of some of this...
thanks!
k