tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6145686535514494437.post5338051354767744146..comments2023-12-14T14:59:13.175+01:00Comments on Shadows in Eden: Hawkeye, Moses and the Right StuffHawkwoodhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07993700120131916459noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6145686535514494437.post-51917856056137719452013-08-03T13:21:19.546+02:002013-08-03T13:21:19.546+02:00Part Two:
You say that the four names in scriptur...Part Two:<br /><br />You say that the four names in scripture which I cite are revealed in the stories as "nothing more or less human than the reader himself." I for one certainly hope not! I don't know if you're a family man, but I for one would not kill my own daughter, or be prepared to kill my own son, or offer up my daughter to a street mob to be gang-raped. Such actions are considerably more than what you describe as 'failings'. They are morally reprehensible under any circumstances. And yet in no instance in which these incidents are recorded in scripture is their moral standard (or lack of it) the point of the story. Such an aspect is not only not even touched upon, it is the opposite standard which is applied. We are instead asked, either directly or indirectly, to admire their virtue: the virtue of obedience to God's will, the virtue of protecting the sanctity of hospitality to guests, the virtue of not breaking an oath, even if that means killing one's only child. <br /><br />This is morality turned on its head. And yet this is what these incidents advocate, which is why they are included in scripture in the first place. It is the 'point' of them being there: as instructional lessons on the virtue of obedience to God's will, etc. These scriptural incidents are not about human failings, but about human atrocities, with those atrocities being presented to we the readers as virtues. If killing one's own child, or slaughtering innocent women and children who already had surrendered to the mercy of their captors, could truly be considered as mere human failings, then your point would have been made. But I have enough faith in humanity and in personal moral judgement to trust that you also consider these acts to be despicable and morally reprehensible, and certainly more than human failings. To describe these atrocities as the apparent "struggle that all men and women go through to try to discern and accomplish what is right" gives me considerably more faith in my own moral judgement - and, I believe, in your own as well - than in theirs!Hawkwoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07993700120131916459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6145686535514494437.post-8880390288867315712013-08-03T13:10:10.453+02:002013-08-03T13:10:10.453+02:00Antares, thank you for providing this information,...Antares, thank you for providing this information, and for your appreciative comments about my blogs. My own response will also necessarily be a two-parter!<br /><br />Yes, I am well aware of Robert Rogers of Rogers' Rangers fame, and also am very aware of what a bloody business the Frontier actually was. Frederick Drimmer's excellent (and shocking) compilation of first-hand accounts from that time 'Captured by the Indians', written by those who actually were there and experienced it for themselves, strips away any vestige of fictional romanticism. Such human darkness is certainly not forgotten by myself, I assure you, and I would recommend this title as an antidote for anyone who imagines that the expansion of the Frontier was a noble affair. But that (and any other ex-narrative historical sources) does not apply to my post, which addresses only what happens between the covers of Fenimore Cooper's story. <br /><br />Hawk-eye, however one-dimensional or complex he comes across to individual readers, nevertheless as a character possesses the moral fibre and judgement which guides his actions. Had he a lesser sense of moral worth, then the story would have unfolded differently. I would suggest that the book is more complex than you describe. Were it a mere boys-own adventure yarn, then in the end all those under threat would have been saved. That, despite Hawk-eye's and Chingachgook's herculean attempts at rescue, they are not, is what I consider lifts the narrative out of such a category and into the more confronting arena of tragic heroism.<br /><br />But even all this is somewhat irrelevant to the main point of my post: the comparison of Hawk-eye's moral stance (and other such worthy fictional characters) with that of the four names whose own moral stance I call into question when compared to Hawk-eye's own. My premise is: given the same sets of circumstances in the same scriptural incidents which I have cited, would Hawk-eye (the character of the narrative, which is how we must judge him, and not via any extra-narrative sources) have acted the same in those circumstances as Abraham, Moses, Lot and Jephthar?Hawkwoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07993700120131916459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6145686535514494437.post-78382404999259465672013-08-03T01:59:14.921+02:002013-08-03T01:59:14.921+02:00Part 2
There is another piece to this analysis th...Part 2<br /><br />There is another piece to this analysis though. You speak of how unthinkable it would be for Hawkeye to commit the acts of carnage, rape and murder the scriptural characters commit, for indeed JFC would risk his readership if he made his hero too unsavory, or perhaps in this case, too realistic. But the moment we bring Hawkeye down to earth and indeed into history, we find that he is indeed tarred with many of the same sins as Moses, Lot, and Abraham. <br /><br />Hawkeye is largely a fictional iteration of a certain Robert Rogers, a British-American partisan and guerilla-style fighter during the French and Indian War. I invite you read just once about the rape and the massacre of the Abenaki he partook in at St. Francis or the cannibalistic aftermath at Mempremagog to destroy any sense of how "inhuman" these actions are, for they are in fact all too human. Rogers was a thief, a killer, and a man responsible for the slaughter of villages full of women and children, whom he tomahawked to death in cold blood or burned along with their food supplies in their own corn cribs. And yet it is these actions that are forgotten while the sins and tragedies committed by the Moses and Abraham remain. The binding of Isaac, the sacrifice of the daughter of Jephthah, and the story of Lot and his daughters remain touchstones of these characters' lives to the point where they become almost synonmous with the characters themselves. No aura of virtue surrounds them, nor is any pass given them because they appear in scripture, but rather the opposite. Their lives and failings are laid bare to the sight or the reader, for they appear as nothing more or less human than the reader himself. It is Hawkeye however, as a fictionalized appearance of Robert Rogers, to whom the odour of sanctity clings much more strongly, for his failings have been ignored and forgotten for the sake of the narrative. Though he truly possesses the moral "right stuff," Hawkeye cannot exist past the pages of his own novel, for as soon as he does, he, like the scriptural fathers, becomes enfleshed in the same flaws that we all share as imperfect men and women.<br /><br />Sincerely,<br /><br />Antares<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6145686535514494437.post-37969442800406843822013-08-03T01:58:36.466+02:002013-08-03T01:58:36.466+02:00Mr. Hawkwood,
Antares here. This comment will come...Mr. Hawkwood,<br />Antares here. This comment will come in two parts.<br /><br />Excellent series of blogs you have going on here, my friend. I admit I've been following them for some time now and have always been drawn to the overall artistry and aesthetic sense you have pervading them. Keep up the good work.<br />However, I find your analysis here is a bit flawed. No doubt that JFC's Last of the Mohicans can be a great read, but it's much more a tale of high Americana adventure than it is a tale known for its complex, introspective characters. Inspiring though he can be, Hawkeye (Natty Bumppo) is really more of an archetype than a multidimensional character, designed to represent the rugged individualism and self-reliance that was so esteemed in Cooper's time. Much like Indiana Jones, Superman, Batman, or the heroes of later comic and TV serials, Hawkeye is the protagonist of an enjoyable adventure story, who doesn't need to come off as a complex moral actor because the story doesn't require it. His moral code is simple as he as a character is simple. We enjoy him for his adventures and what he represents, but we can't necessarily relate to him as a fleshed-out human, simply because he's not written that way.<br /><br />The scriptural characters on the other hand, are written that way. Abraham, Lot, Jephthah, and Moses aren't cartoons, but presented as human beings, with all the moral flaws that accompany them. Their job in their respective stories is not to stand as untouchable, almost superhuman examples of a particular moral code or way of life, but to illustrate the struggle that all men and women go through to try to discern and accomplish what is right, a process that at time ends in disastrous result. They struggle, they fail, they misunderstand the good, all too often to the jeopardization of themselves and those whom they love. Their lives are not sanitized for the sake of the mass-marketed serial, but are presented as raw, and oftentimes cruel examples of the drama of the struggle to live a moral life. Saying one prefers a character like Hawkeye to any one of these is like saying one prefers reading about 1930's Superman to someone like Dante, because Superman never does any wrong. We may be more driven to emulate characters like Superman and Hawkeye for their almost angelic simplicity, but I find we are even more often driven see reflections of ourselves in the lives of people like Dante, Abraham, and Moses, who likewise tried to live in concert with a demanding moral code, but were much less able to live up to it due to their all-too-human failing. Comparing Hawkeye to Abraham is like comparing the ideal to the real. No matter how hard we try, we can never hope to fully actualize the one, as it will forever remain in an imaginary world of forms, whereas we can always see the other around us constantly, and can in fact hope to find the grace and redemption in it.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com