For a large part of this reading, I was super confused. I didn’t see how it was relevant, and worse, I was not able to draw the connection between Dillard’s seemingly disjoint anecdotes. I got over this after the first twenty pages, and was able to grasp some general ideas. Both chapters spoke a lot about death, but also about how life may not life up to our expectations. On page 19, a dying hermit says, “I have acquired nothing from the world.” This seemed to be the opening to a theme of insufferable living.
An important part of the reading was the question of evil (Moses’ question). Why does God allow moral evil? The book brings up a lot of examples such as Stalin’s famine, Pol Pot’s tyranny, Mao’s Great Leap Forward, the Hutus genocide against the Tutsis. Dillard’s examples give people no reason to have faith in God, and proves her points through quasi sarcastic stories. There is a part in chapter two that I think sums up these observations well. Dillard asks to borrow a maul so she can hammer the sky, “crack it at one blow, split it at the next—and inquire, hollering at God the compassionate, the all-merciful, WHAT’S with the bird-headed dwarfs?” Essentially, she is wondering why I myself am not actively religious, so I wonder what connects people so strongly to their faith even when challenged by these questions. Besides a good after life, where do devout followers find solace in a storm of horrific human actions?
I related most to the words of Teilhard. On page 44, he says “If I should lose all faith in God I think that I should continue to believe invincibly in the world.” This reminds me of some of the discussion we had in class on Wednesday. Although I do not have faith in a god or in a specific ideology, I believe in the virtues and people of my experience—things that are tangible and empirical. Do you think that Dillard has given up on religion too quickly? Even though she says that there are not enough good things to weigh out the evil, do you think she is being unfair by not citing the beautiful and kind characteristics of human nature?
Annie Dillard has a unique style of writing. She jumps from story to story and continues the same pattern in the following chapter. Why do you think she chose this style of writing? What aspect of her writing style do you find most interesting? Dillard decides to start her novel talking about human birth defects. Why do you think she talks about this topic first? I found this quote quite interesting, “If you gave birth to two bird-headed dwarfs, as these children’s mother did—a boy and a girl—you could carry them both everywhere, all their lives, in your arms or in a basket, and they would never leave you, not even go to college.” Throughout the book, Dillard has a very interesting tone and says things with a great emphasis of sarcasm. Do you think she says things literally or with an underlying meaning?
ReplyDeleteI think Dillard has given up on religion too quickly. Her points are all valid and from an empathetic view, one can see exactly why she has given up on religion so quickly given all of the deaths and horrific human actions that have occurred (dead to living ratio 14:1). She is coming from an angle that is not necessarily attacking religion and calling it out for being wrong but rather questioning it as if she wants to understand and find the answer that can make her faithful as well in religion. The good in the world outmatches the evil but it is the good that is overlooked so only evil shines through. I think she also chose this disconcerted style of writing to kind of reflect how her thought process works on this topic. She too is confused and her thoughts jump around everywhere trying to grasp a solution to the issues she arises.
ReplyDeleteLike Anum, I too agree that Dillard is too quick to give up on religion. She seems to repeatedly point out the negative aspects of religion while conversely she fails to see any of the good. I also found the story about Moses questioning God interesting. I feel that many people today question God for similar reasons asking how could God ever let such terrible things happen to good people? In the story the explanation is that "God punishes the good, [he proposed,]in the short life, for their few sins, and rewards them eternally in the world to come." In terms of her writing style, I found it hard to figure out what she was trying to connect at times and felt that she was critical more than anything else.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI would disagree and say that Annie Dillard did not give up on religion too easily. I think that is most evident in her style of writing. She has done so much research and learned about so many different things that she uses to back up her beliefs. At one point in her life, Dillard actually lived at a creek, taking in everything she saw to try to find a connection with God or see if there was a God at all. Dillard claims to be spiritual, not religious, and she is constantly searching for her spirituality in nature. Many of the anecdotes that she alludes to have to do with nature and the environment. I thought this was evident when she was discussing her time in China and the chinese archaeology and I believe all of her stories allude to something about spirituality, religion and/or the environment. The writing she does seems to be for herself which is why at times it is hard to follow. She explores stories that are relevant to her life and help her answer questions about her own spirituality. She actually says, "I saw nothing resembling an archaeological dig. I saw what looked like human bodies coming out of the earth". The passage goes on to describe her deep connection with the scene, which I think illustrates that idea that she tries to connect and does not simply dismiss religion, but find herself to be a more spiritual being than a religious being.
ReplyDeleteI was a little thrown off by Dillard's style of writing. It was hard to follow at first, but once I got to the second chapter and realized that it was reflecting again on the same stories, then I was able to follow easier. I found her style very interesting as the stories were also. I especially like the story about the archeological dig. When they find the emperors tomb and his army of clay soldiers. She describes this event mentioning how it seems as if they are coming out of the ground. But most importantly this reminds me of the story of creation, because it says, "The soil, the same color as the horse, appeared to have contracted itself to form the horse in a miracle, and now was expelling it." I found that very interesting how even though this story was about death and burial, that it reminded me of creation.
ReplyDeleteI would agree with Helen in saying that I don't think that Annie Dillard gave up on religion too easily, personally I just think that Dillard is questioning religion a lot. She talks about many different tragedies that have happened to people, for example the birth defects of different babies, an 85 year old Rabbi being beaten and flayed and beaten and several other things. She seems to be focusing on a lot of different negative things. This is her way of questioning religion and thinking if God really existed, then why would he allow these things to happen? At this point I think she is just trying to understand why all these things would happen if religion and God were really truth. While it may seem as if Dillard is giving up, I think that this is only the beginning of her spiritual or religious journey. I also believe that since she is taking the time to look at all the bad things that happen in the world she will have a greater appreciation for her spirituality or religion because she will come to appreciate and cherish the good things in her life and see that she is blessed.
ReplyDeleteThis book brings into being a very interesting train of though. How do Birth, Sands, China, Clouds, Israel, Numbers, Encounters, Thinkers, Evil and Now play into the message she is trying to convey? Annie Dillard's text is riddled with the darkest parts of our humanity punctuated by the wonder of life and nature. On page 8 she writes, "For the world is as glorious as ever, and exalting, but for credibility's sake let's start with the bad news." She jumps from being astounded by the birth and survival of Anna MacRae to the tragedy of Akiva and the questions of faith. Annie Dillard does not appear to have any lack of faith or religion. Throughout her text she brings questions and comments of great religious thinkers to mind along with the tragedies of plague and genocide, the birth of man from clay and tragic deformities at birth. The sometimes unemotional, tone of the text belies a person yearning to break free and understand the divine. Annie Dillard is not lacking faith, spirituality or religion. Through this text she is abstracting her perceptions of the world ad her experiences through faith and spirituality and providing raw facts and thoughts almost totally unbiased. It is only through this new perception that painful questions can be assessed honestly by the individual. The first two chapters brought me to a few difficult questions. Why do I maintain belief in the face of so much suffering to which any God seems inattentive? Is it possible that with strong, unwavering faith and good deeds I may tip the scales in favor of good and relieve some suffering? What if my faith doesn’t matter and these turbulent bad times described by numerous spiritual thinkers demonstrates that any higher power there was is no longer invested in the human creation? For the time being is thought provoking and leaves a feeling of sadness for the human condition but may ultimately lead to a better understanding of faith and why we sometimes just believe.
ReplyDeleteDillard is a stronger witness than she is an analyst, so this book seems to really testify to the power of observation, not explanation. Through definitely an aimless, but addictive and interesting, mix of horrors and wonders such as the dwarfs, Chinese imperial burial practices, and the endlessness of clouds, she conveys one fundamental, paradoxical, and ecstatic insight: the world is unbearably humbling. What were people doing when the waves drowned 138,000 people in Bangladesh? I agree with both parts of Dillard's observation that people really are statistically inconsequential and yet of ultimate consequence. Putting this all together, she asks, "How can an individual count?" It seems as if the book denies that God is responsible for the cruel caprice of nature, and yet, leaves a strange inexplicable sense of hope. She brings about the view that the good may suffer in this life, but be eternally blissful and blessed, while the evil face the opposite.
ReplyDeleteDamn this was confusing. Dillard brings up so many points that I had trouble finding the point she was really trying to make. I was able to take a few things away from this. One of which was the point that several people have already raised of her take on why God would allow horrific things in the world. Do we need suffering to enjoy life? Is God playing the watch maker? IS there a God? Mind boggling as it is, Dillard's style of sporadic writing makes you feel as though you are wizzing all over the planet and through time. From Israel to China to staring at a child to staring at the sky, Dillard keeps a few broad questions about religion and society in the back of the reader's head.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Dillard has indeed given up on religion too quickly. Although the text is at first somewhat difficult to follow, the style of writing enables the reader to see through the eyes of Dillard. This stream-of-consciousness style of writing gives the reader a description of where Dillard sees the fallacies in religion through a wide range of time all around the world.
ReplyDeleteTo me, it actually seems like Dillard is confused with herself as she attempts to reason with faith. Through many anecdotes, it almost appears as if Dillard is arguing with herself as she struggles to find some truth to believe in. However, I think the book offers little to no hope because Dillard is too focused on evil in the world. She explains that God is not as merciful as he is portrayed, which furthermore makes me question my own values as an individual. Does God turn his head away from the evil in this world? Are all my "good deeds" accounted for in the after life? Dillard is truly a fascinating author because of her ability to provoke the reader's mind.
Although Dillard's text is structured in a confusing, non-linear fashion, I began to pick up the main points of her argument as the pages kept turning. Something that strikes me as really important is the fact Dillard seems to know what she is talking about. She is well-traveled, well-versed, and educated about a broad spectrum of religions, cultural norms, and societal values. Case in point, she knows what she's talking about. To answer Sarah's question above, I do not believe that Dillard is trying to throw religion out the window. She becomes increasingly cynical as her argument progresses, but she does so in a way as to tie the reader in emotionally. One of the things that I really enjoyed was the fact that she employs the use of various religious figures and scholars, who span from Christian saints to Harvard professors. One can tell that she is attacking the problem of evil, and doing so from all angles (she has good research!). While reading the first two chapters of Dillard's text, I was reminded about a topic we spoke about extensively during a philosophy course I took last year: the Irenaean theodicy. A theodicy, long story short, is an exploration into the problem of evil. Irenaeus believed that evil was edifying. Irenaeus thought that the primary purpose of evil was to demonstrate, to human beings, the difference between what is good and what is bad. He believed that without evil, human beings wouldn't be able to differentiate between good and bad, thus preventing them from achieveing perfection. Obviously, Irenaeus' explanation sounds a lot better on paper than it does in the real world, but it was a humble attempt at explaining a mysterious, powerful, and oftentimes traumatic force such as evil. What do you guys think about his theodicy?
ReplyDeleteI too found this text extremely confusing at first. She jumps from birth defect, to Chinese soldiers, to clouds in a very disjointed way. However once I read the second chapter, I began to pick up on some of the ideas that she is trying to convey. I disagree that Dillard has given up entirely on religion. However, she does question it a great deal. She cites many historical examples of evil (the Holocaust, Emperor Qin, etc.) and questions why they happened. Dillard is very focused on evil, and seems to have a very negative view of God's plan. She says,"God punishes the good...in this short life, for their few sins, and rewards them eternally in the world to come...God rewards the evil-doers in this short life for their few good deeds, and punished them eternally in the world to come." I agree with Dillard when she says that this does not make sense. Dillard's problem is that she knows she cannot understand God's plan. I also think she wrote in a very disjointed way on purpose. She writes, "If you do understand, then it is not God." The confusion readers of her text feel is parallel to the confusion Dillard feels about religion. For her, religion is kind of a chaotic mess, with occasional moments of clarity.
ReplyDeleteDuring the first two chapters of Annie Dillard’s novel For the Time Being, I was struck by how many different controversial topics were being introduced via stories in the first few pages. We read about children who were born with deformations and mental disabilities, and Dillard mentions – almost casually – different religious ideas and theories such as the Buddhist note that “It is always a mistake to think your soul can go it alone” (8). It is interesting to me how her writing starts off without much cohesiveness and hints at so many different topics. As I continued to read, though, I noticed that some of the ideas began to reappear more often. I thought it was intriguing how Dillard brings God into the equation. She seems to be raising the question about why God allows horrible things to happen in the world and to the Earth, and there is an underlying question about whether or not humans really have any control over any of that. She does not seem to be giving any definitive answers, though, and she certainly does not seem to be denying the existence of God. I also picked up on her involvement of people and their ideas as they relate to religion, faith, and God. On pages twenty and twenty-one Dillard mentions how people put the most emphasis on live rather than death, and comments on the human population and diverse rumors about it. Although this book is quite confusing so far, I think that the further we dive in the more we will be able to grasp at a very deep level.
ReplyDeleteThis discussion of whether Dillard gave up on religion to quickly is really interesting. Some of you who believed this to be true derived this from her style of writing, a somewhat random and stream-of consciousness manner in conveying her story. Why do you think she wrote the book like this? How might this reflect/parallel on our own struggles in understanding religion and questioning God?
ReplyDeleteDillard mentions that there are more people that have died than are living today. She brings up all the massive genocides that have taken place and all the evil that human kind has inflicted on others. She mentions that the dead outnumber the living by almost 20 to 1. She says, "Half of all dead are babies and children. So we could console ourselves with the distinction that once we adults die, we will be among the longest-boned dead, and among the dead who grew the most teeth, too--for what those distinctions might be worth among beings notoriously indifferent to appearance and all else." Why do you think Dillard makes this comment if she is mentioning all the evil that the humankind has inflicted on others?
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed Dillard’s writing style. It’s sporadic, but not so confusing that the reader can’t follow it. I think it’s really interesting that she’s somehow finding a way to tie all of the different topics together when normally I don’t think they would have a connection. I enjoyed the structure of each section: how there was either a story or historical description in the beginning and Dillard ended it by tying it in with a quote from a religious figure. I also liked Dillard’s contrast between elements of evil throughout history and the focus on life through the stories about the newborn babies.
ReplyDeleteI was really confused the first couple "topics," however after catching onto what Dillard was trying to accomplish, I really appreciated her style. I loved the stream of consciousness element that Dillard displayed within the work. I disagree with the statement that she gave up on religion, instead I think she was attempting to figure out life and the idea of a soul. Consequently, some examples or "topics" had religious elements or themes. The transition from birth to death within the chapters is a very interesting avenue of construction, as most traditional life to death works progress through chapter, not within the chapter itself. I think this process parallels with our own lives because we tend to go off topic and loop through different theories. Also, this may be an expression of several different perspectives on the same topics. Overall I look forward to discussing this work as its complexity is extremely compelling and interesting to me.
ReplyDeleteAnnie Dillard has a very unique way of writing. Not only does she write in a form of stream of consciousness, but her thought jump around so quickly it takes a moment to process the change. I would also like to admit that while first reading this, every time I came across something I did not understand, I google imaged it. For example, I google imaged a child with bird-headed dwarfs. I also found that this help with understanding her train of thought and how some of the topics connected. I also enjoyed her discussion of death in the book. She discussed death more as a right of passage than a "death sentence" (for lack of a better term). When I first started reading, I was unaware of any sort of pattern in the writing, but as i bean the second chapter, i understood the method behind the structure. Hopefully as I continue to read, her full purpose in writing will become apparent.
ReplyDeleteSimilar to many others, I found Annie Dillard's "For the Time Being" to be slightly confusing. However, I did find that a prominent theme throughout each story was her general appreciation and awe for the world. Although the individual topics ranged from China to clouds to evil, each topic suggested a sort of majesty about life. From what I understood, Dillard seems to find so much astonishment for the little details from history that the question of God and religion can almost be overlooked. Even though I may think that Dillard has somewhat cast aside her care for religion, I do not believe that she won't reveal more of her opinion later in the text. I think that through her non-linear writing, Dillard will better prove her opinions through the multiple topics.
ReplyDeleteI was definitely confused in the beginning of the first chapter but like many others I soon came to grasp some of the main things that she was talking about. She starts with talking about birth defects; about children who are horribly deformed and then Dillard switches into another subject about natural disasters that killed thousands. She definitely had a unique writing style and I started getting into the flow of her just jumping into a different topic randomly. And like the comment above me said her writing is definitely non-linear. I don't think she's given up on religion like some have said I just think that she just questions it a lot, as do many of us, and is in limbo with it. I had a lot of thoughts and questions after reading her first two chapters.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I found the first two chapters really confusing. I felt like there was so much going on that I'm not even sure if I understood what Dillard's points were. As it is so confusing though, it also shows that she has a lot going on in her mind all of the time. She is constantly noticing things that are going on in the world and she truly appreciates the beauty of the world, like we talked about with Darwin. I would definitely disagree that she has given up on religion; she is simply trying to figure it out. If she was giving up, she would not put so much thought into it. She would not be noticing all bad things deciding what that means. She really is trying to find out for herself whether god is real or not. Even if she doesn't believe in god I think that she has done her part is really making an effort. She has done research and thought a lot to come to whichever conclusion she decides. Many people don't make any effort to find god like she does.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Annie Dillard’s style of writing was hard to understand, I walked away from the text with a conglomeration of sentiments and sayings that I believe she was using to define religion without actually defining it. “‘Throughout my whole life,’ he noted later, ‘during every minute of it, the world has been gradually lighting up and blazing before my eyes until it has come to surround me, entirely lit from within.’” I think Dillard uses this quote from Teilhard to try and explain the ethereal sense and feeling of religion. It isn’t something you can see or feel, but you know when you’re a part of it. Later Dillard says, “Moses’ question---the tough one about God’s allowing human, moral evil---is reasonable only if we believe that a good God causes, or at any rate allows, everything that happens, and that it’s all for the best.” Here she touches on doubt and the human ability to believe. I don’t know exactly where Dillard is headed with this disjointed structure but it seems that she believes that religion is not as clear-cut as some people make it out to be, and that’s alright with me.
ReplyDeleteI agree that she has given up on religion too quickly. Yes, suffering is a significant part of the world but so are countless other blessings. I understand that it seems to be unfair, especially when one considers the fact that books like Smith's Recognizeable Patterns of Human Malformation even exist. Nevertheless, it is also unfair to accept only the good things from God and not the bad. How would we even know what "good" things are if we don't have "bad" to compare it to?
ReplyDeleteIt also took me a while to become accustomed to her writing style. Though it is definitely different from what I expected, at times, it made it more interesting, like when she incorporated the smaller sections, such as "Numbers" in the first chapter.
I agree with Helen, I don't think Annie Dillard gave up on religion to quickly. She prides herself in studying religious texts before passing judgements, so I believe she did her research and found that religion does not fit with her lifestyle. This was probably the most confusing book I have ever read. The first chapter made no sense to me whatsoever. I was thinking the same exact thing as Andrew in thinking that the archeological dig resembles creation. It's weird, but I almost get the sense that Dillard his in the most spiritual part of her life when she was writing this book. She was questioning the truth behind God, yet not doing it in a condescending way - just in a curiously spiritual manner.
ReplyDeleteLIke others mentioned, the first chapter was very overwhelming, with so many (what at first seemed to be) random facts thrown together in a single text. As time went on, however, and I realized that the stories continued from chapter to chapter, the book almost had the feel of the Bible, in regards to the idea that different stories that seem to be somewhat unrelated are molded together to become one book that has a greater purpose. She is well-versed in various religious texts, and even though she seems to, at this point in time, be pessimistic in regards to the importance of each individual, it is obviously too early to jump to the conclusion that she has given up on religion too quickly. As the book progresses, we will obviously have a better scope as to what Dillard's true feelings are in regards to religion, and at that point will be able to better analyze her complete opinions.
ReplyDeleteI was slightly irritated by Dillard's sporatic story-telling in the first chapter. It seemed to be entirely for dramatic effect of the tragedies she was depicting, and merely to make life seem like a beautiful cliche (a victim to God/supernatural evils). For instance her use of flowery quotes like "The more I work, the more I see things differently...the world becomes more and more beautiful" (43) and "Throughout my whole life....the worl has been gradually lighting up and blazing before my eyes..." (13), completely romanticizes life and are suitable for an inspirational calendar.
ReplyDeleteAlthough it was somewhat confusing to try to pinpoint the purpose of the anecdotes, I think she was trying to revealing the horrifying states that some human beings are born into despite how beautiful and innocent the world is, thus leading the audience to wonder about God's goodness and creations. I think it is interesting to see how people often look at terrible situations and think "How can Christians believe in a God that allows such suffering?" because many people who believe in God also believe in the existence of Satan (who they hold responsible for the sufferings).
Annie Dillard’s novel is rather confusing at first as it seems to be just jumping from one thought to the next without any coherence at all. However as the novel progresses you begin to see Dillard’s point as it’s connected through these thoughts. Whether the stories be about clay soldiers in China, defects with childbirth or death, the idea of the existence of god is questioned throughout each one. If there was a god how could he let such terrible things as death or torture happen, etc. Therefore I do believe that Dillard has given up on religion, but I do not understand why people are saying she has given up too quickly. I mean this is her profession so she has researched this area thoroughly and has formulated her opinions from there which to me does not suggest she has done this too quickly.
ReplyDeleteDillard's writing style though confusing and sort of odd, proves to be a very good vehicle for her message. I think that her vocabulary and her use of simile's help us understand the complex style of writing. Most notably I enjoyed her topic of birth. I think that it gave a very interesting spin on the idea of birth. In which she speaks on the importance of birth and how we have lost it. She talk about the routine of birth, and a simile she uses is "washing babies off in the sink like dishes". Her kind of harsh opinion of this topic helps us to understand her views, and better comprehend the book.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Greg that Dillard doesn't give up on religion. Rather, she just questions the complexity of life and what our true meaning is. I thought the most profound paragraph was in the second chapter on page 47 when she challenges the reader to "...take yourself--in all your singularity, importance, complexity, and love--and multiply by 1,198,500,000." This takes her perspective of complexity from an individual level to a world scale. To me, her point is that no matter how much we try to understand our existence, our thoughts and morals are amorphous. Many details that she described did confuse me, but her general point shines through with some analogies such as the "multiplying" one above.
ReplyDelete