The readings this week, “More
Jataka Tales,” are very much like those we read weeks ago that were written by
Buddha. You can see how they were inspired by the original multiple mythologies
we were introduced to in message and style, as they in a short number of simple
lines had a moral lesson within. Each was unique but they had similar elements
as far as method is concerned, with clever use of language and certain contexts
that gave rise to an ethical conclusion. It’s a toss-up whether my favorite of
these stories were more overt ad obvious or whether it is the more witty and
obscure of these that left a more lasting impression.
For example, between the first two stories “The Girl Monkey and the String of Pearls” and “The Three Fishes,” the first created a situation in which the tables could be turned on the character that was trying to be caught for her moral turpitude. In this case, the crime that was trying to be brought to light was theft, and through a contrived situation the monkey in question was essentially a “victim” of entrapment in which she unknowingly confessed to her peers when she bragged that she had a necklace of pearls when they only had glass beads. Whereas, in the second “The Three Fishes,” the principle of the story is more exaggerated from the start and choice of character names literally differentiates them based on the characteristics these names elicit: thoughtful, very thoughtful, and thoughtless. This simple word (or name) choice drives the moral message of the story home from the very beginning this way by then building character profiles as the story progresses that made themselves apparent from the initial introductions in which the reader associated and inferred future events based on first impressions. Lo and behold, as was expected the fish named “very thoughtful” was as one could assume the hero of the story whose prudency saved himself and his fish friends.
I guess in the grey area would be the stories that are more obscure and whose messages aren’t so cut and dry as the author seemed to intentionally leave an air of uncertainty and confusion for the purpose of dramatization when in the finale the message unfolds. This is similar to the context driven technique I talked about above, but instead of the reader being I suppose “omniscient” or “in the know” (even if through a hunch that the author provokes) they are kept out of the loop until the “big reveal.” I think the stories that fall under this category would include but are not limited to “The Tricky Wolf and the Rats” or maybe “The Otters and the Wolf.” Some of these may fit in a number of these categories, or not in one indefinitely but these are some general similarities or procedures I can detect between the several of them.
For example, between the first two stories “The Girl Monkey and the String of Pearls” and “The Three Fishes,” the first created a situation in which the tables could be turned on the character that was trying to be caught for her moral turpitude. In this case, the crime that was trying to be brought to light was theft, and through a contrived situation the monkey in question was essentially a “victim” of entrapment in which she unknowingly confessed to her peers when she bragged that she had a necklace of pearls when they only had glass beads. Whereas, in the second “The Three Fishes,” the principle of the story is more exaggerated from the start and choice of character names literally differentiates them based on the characteristics these names elicit: thoughtful, very thoughtful, and thoughtless. This simple word (or name) choice drives the moral message of the story home from the very beginning this way by then building character profiles as the story progresses that made themselves apparent from the initial introductions in which the reader associated and inferred future events based on first impressions. Lo and behold, as was expected the fish named “very thoughtful” was as one could assume the hero of the story whose prudency saved himself and his fish friends.
I guess in the grey area would be the stories that are more obscure and whose messages aren’t so cut and dry as the author seemed to intentionally leave an air of uncertainty and confusion for the purpose of dramatization when in the finale the message unfolds. This is similar to the context driven technique I talked about above, but instead of the reader being I suppose “omniscient” or “in the know” (even if through a hunch that the author provokes) they are kept out of the loop until the “big reveal.” I think the stories that fall under this category would include but are not limited to “The Tricky Wolf and the Rats” or maybe “The Otters and the Wolf.” Some of these may fit in a number of these categories, or not in one indefinitely but these are some general similarities or procedures I can detect between the several of them.
Bibliography:
0 comments:
Post a Comment