Response to Rhiannon + My Complicated Relationship with Chris Anderson

“It hurts me as an English major to see how quick we all are to reject anything we disagree with! That's not what getting a university education is about. If you can't see past the cultural biases, what's the point of spending $300 on a class about a famous religious allegory?” Who said anything about rejecting Dante? I’m just trying to process him and I don’t believe I’ve said that I hate Dante, or dislike his poetry, or anything of that nature. I’m engaging in conversation with Dante, trying my damnedest to see past my own cultural biases through to what he’s trying to say and how he’s trying to say it. I think it’s rude and naïve of you to assume that the rest of us are incapable of seeing past these cultural biases, or of being as enlightened and in touch with Dante as you seem to think you are.

“Everyone has the right to their own opinion but you obviously don’t understand the difference between religion and faith.” Actually Rhiannon, I do. I wrote a lot of stuff that I didn’t end up including in that last blog post about how religion and spirituality are two wildly different things for me. For me, religion is associated with manmade institutions, excessive rituals, hate, exclusion, and discrimination. Spirituality, on the other hand, I understand as a personal relationship with a god, or higher power, or deeper connection to the universe in some way, personally, not through the conduit of a church or clergy.

“I find it kind of offensive to slam on religion in general as if it’s all crap just because you disagree with Dante.” Whoa. Thanks for assuming that my disenchantment with religious institutions stems from my “disagreeing with Dante.” Actually, if you must know, my distaste for religion predates this class by a few years. Assuming that I would get such strong convictions from reading an antiquated POEM is giving me way too little credit and Dante way too much. And if I am disagreeing with Dante, it’s not so much with him as with the cultural machine he is writing from. Obviously his views are not entirely his own, but belong to his era, his peers, his country, his culture as well. And if you’re getting offended by my posts, which have been my own processing of Dante and what he can mean to me in my life, that’s your prerogative. Maybe you should stop taking my posts (and yourself) so seriously.

My last post was a lot of me trying to personally process Dante in the context of my own experiences and values. Dante is writing from a very different space and time from me, and it has been difficult to figure out how to read and appreciate him. I TOTALLY agree with the point Prof. Anderson was making on Wednesday when he was comparing Dante to the comedic brilliance of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. Dante is poking fun at religion and certain individuals at the same time that he is honoring and paying tribute to his religion and his god. He’s taking a critical look at Catholicism and inserting some of his own interpretations, vividly painting grotesque pictures to shock and amuse us, and hopefully ultimately inspiring us to critically examine how we live our own lives. It’s a complex relationship he has with the church and religion and spirituality; pretty much the furthest thing from “black-and-white.” It’s kind of like my relationship to Prof. Anderson: sometimes he’s pompous, arrogant, and downright rude (*cough! Monday’s “grafters” comment, cough!*), but other times he actually has insightful and thought-provoking things to say. I don’t loath him with every fiber in my being, but I’m also not about to sing his praises in a blog post encouraging my fellow bloggers to “listen as much as you can to what Dante and Professor Anderson are trying to convey,” as if he were some sort of deity himself.

I agree with Prof. Anderson in his blackboard comments, where he talks about how this poem is about freedom and part of Dante’s purpose here was to inspire us to exercise our free wills. I grew up in a Christianity where I was taught about Satan and the force of evil in our lives. Sin was always talked about in terms of temptation, and succumbing to temptation. The very nature of human nature, and the strength and persuasion and craftiness of the devil were always referenced as contributing factors to sin. It’s interesting to think about how even though you were strongly encouraged to take personal responsibility for sins so that you could repent and be forgiven, there was always some other factor that watered this down. Dante, on the other hand, is saying that it’s all you. Your sins are your choices. Dante’s devil is not around every corner, trying to tempt you from leading the good life. It is your own human failing, your own action of turning your eyes from what is good that is to blame. But, just as you decide what to fill your life with, so too you have the power to choose Christ and choose where you will be eternally. In this I think Dante is being a little progressive and forward. We are not timid creatures, tossed about by the gods and the demons, the forces of nature and good and evil, with absolutely no power or say in our lives. We are strong, intelligent, free-willed individuals, made in the image of God, with the freedom and ability to choose him or not. We are awesome! The characters we encounter in the Inferno have taken that free will and ran with it, in the opposite direction of God, and so they’re burning, gnawing each other’s necks, freezing, running around, being pursued and hacked apart and clawed by demons. This IS scary to us, because, in the words of Peter Parker’s Uncle Ben, “With great power comes great responsibility.” Is complete freedom, complete control of our situation, really what we want? Isn’t it easier to show up in church every Sunday morning, robotically nodding your head as you’re told what to do and what not to do, as opposed to getting out there in the real world and making up your own mind about things?

did anyone read my first blog?

Basically I said that in our culture, no one has respect for authority. I'm feeling a lot of that right now. It hurts me as an English major to see how quick we all are to reject anything we disagree with! That's not what getting a university education is about. If you can't see past the cultural biases, what's the point of spending $300 on a class about a famous religious allegory? We had to spend a whole class period talking about this... crazy. I know a lot of people feel like their input isn't valued, or that we don't have enough time to cover all the material, but what did you expect when you signed up for a 10-week dash through the Commedia?

I just want to encourage everyone to keep trying, and please, stop and listen as much as you can to what Dante and Professor Anderson are trying to convey. This might be just a bacc core requirement, but it is still a really valuable class. Keep up your spirits, people; we're almost halfway through!

Latini and Natural Law

Well! I've noticed a lot of people have much to say about this guy! What does it say about us that issues of (homo)sexuality are so much more interesting than traitors and thieves?
I feel like it's unfair to judge Dante based on modern knowledge and values. Of course he thought homosexuality is a sin, he's a freaking 12th century thinker! He doesn't know all the things we know! He's not discriminating against a culture or lifestyle: in Dante's time a gay guy was a guy who preferred having sex with other men over women. Nothing more or less. I think that most guys like sex, no matter what form it comes in. Sodomy is not uncommon. Read the Kinsey reports; a lot of guys have sexual encounters with other men, and it doesn't make them homosexuals.
Today there is a whole culture of homosexuality, involving a sense of identity with a larger community. Gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgendered persons, etc. aren't a homogenous group; they are a collective of people who have been discriminated against for violating customary practices regarding a) sexuality, b) gender identification, and/or c) sexual behavior. All of these diverse people are grouped together because it's a lot easier for them to fight against discrimination. Strength in numbers, right?
This wasn't so in Dante's day. He isn't hating on people by putting Latini in hell. I think that maybe he's trying to sell his book. If everyone in your culture says such-and-such is true, and then you write a book that's already going to offend a lot of people, wouldn't you try to at least follow the rules? For instance, today it would be really hard to publish a book that said gays deserve to go to hell, because almost nobody agrees with that. As a culture, we have decided (the intellectual sector of our culture- the part that is actually involved with publishing) that homosexuality is a biological thing. Some people still disagree (fundamentalists) but they tend to be looked down upon for their backwards ideas.
Putting Latini in hell is Dante's way of showing that he's not playing favorites. He liked Latini! He just happened to be less "enlightened" than we are in these matters, and he couldn't very well leave a sin out just because his buddies were part of it. I don't understand why that's so hard to grasp. If I, as a Christian, wanted to make a faithful portrayal of hell, I couldn't escape certain things. For instance, some of my very close family members are adulterers. Not that I want to see them in hell (thank God they've repented!) but in order to have integrity as an allegorist I couldn't let them off scot-free just because I love them. Everyone is a sinner, to the Christian mind. It's whether you choose your temporary pleasure over God that lands you in hell (remember, hell is a choice, even if being gay isn't!) I'm NOT agreeing with Dante's way of dealing with homosexuals, but I think all this debate over Latini proves the point of my first blog: we as a society have no respect for tradition. All we want to talk about is how Dante is a jerk, instead of acknowledging his lasting influence. When I've written something better than the Commedia, I'll slam Dante. Until then, I'll try to see what's good about his poem.

Dante and Keanu...

I decided to go ahead with this topic at the behest of professor Anderson, even though he mentioned the movie in class and I feel like a bit of cheater writing about it. During class, after we watched the movie "What Dreams May Come", in fast forward, we began to discuss other movies where hell or the afterlife were the big foci. I immediately thought of the movie "Constantine" with Keanu Reeves.
"Based on the DC/Vertigo comic book Hellblazer and written by Kevin Brodbin, Mark Bomback and Frank Capello, Constantine tells the story of irreverent supernatural detective John Constantine (Keanu Reeves), who has literally been to hell and back. When Constantine teams up with skeptical policewoman Angela Dodson (Rachel Weisz) to solve the mysterious suicide of her twin sister (also played by Weisz), their investigation takes them through the world of demons and angels that exists just beneath the landscape of contemporary Los Angeles. Caught in a catastrophic series of otherworldy events, the two become inextricably involved and seek to find their own peace at whatever cost." (Summary written by unit publicist/WB on imdb.com.)
Although this is just in fact another comic book movie it has "practical" applications to Dante. For one, Constantine is Dante to a certain extent. Constantine has been to hell and walked through it. The difference is that Constantine is able to return to the living world and Dante, from what I understand, does not. The thing that I wanted to talk about was the very last scene of the movie Constantine.
During this scene Keanu Reeves' Character- who, as we understand, has been endowed with all kinds of specific knowledge about heaven and hell- sacrifices his life to save that of another. This results in God allowing him passage to heaven because he, like Christ, gave his life, making "the ultimate sacrifice" in order to get into heaven. Constantine, who has otherwise defiled the name of God over and over, and by all means is going straight to hell (we know this because Satan, played by Peter Stormare, tells us so), knows that by doing this one good deed, and because he believes in God, he is guaranteed a one way ticket to heaven. But Satan intervenes because he wants Constantine to run his army or something, and saves him so that he can sin again and get himself sent to hell.
Anyway, my point it, that the difference her is that Dante, to a certain extent believes the same thing. At the very beginning of the Inferno he says that with your last dying breath if you truly believe and ask for forgiveness from God that he will open the gates of Heaven to you. But, this is of course very unlikely, because few are aware of this fact. The difference between Dante and today's society, as it is told through this movie, is that we are a society that thrives on immediate gratification. We believe that even if we live a life of blaspheming and as a heretic that it is all good because as long as we do the right thing in the end then we are guaranteed a ticket to the holy place in the sky. Dante doesn't...you have got to work for it. Even if you believe in God, and love him, you must also be a good person and not live a life of access.
My point here is this, we as a society, are always looking for the easy way out. Whether it be a get rich quick scheme, or a self help book, we never take responsibility for our own actions which is exactly what Dante's hell is all about; atoning for the sins that you've committed during your life time for an eternity. Heaven is a place where only the worthy may go like Keanu, and Dante, so don't get too ahead of yourself and start living the good life today.

It is interesting to note the reactions that myself and other people are having to the strictly hierarchical, rigid Dantean worldview. It’s hard to look at one of Dante’s categories of sin without wondering “what about this” or “ what if that.” I’m going to do it in the next paragraph, in fact. What I’m really hoping is that we will be disagreeing just as much with Dante’s placements in Paradisio; bloodthirsty crusaders and things like that.

I don’t think I have much to contribute to the great Sodomy Debate…so I’m going to backtrack a bit and write again about how limbo continues to cause problems for me. As we’ve gotten further and further into hell and met more and more denizens of Dis, some inconsistencies have started to trouble me. Dante places Caesar in limbo along with Saladin. I’d like to take a look at these two in relation to a few fellows we find down in the eighth circle, the sowers of discord.

Way down in the Ninth Bolgia we come across the Islamic prophet Mahomet and the Roman Tribune Curio. These two are representative of the inconsistencies that I wonder about. First Mahomet. What is the difference between Mahomet and Saladin? If Saladin is used as an example of Dante acknowledging a great follower of Islam, then what to make of the founder of Islam “cleft from crotch to chin” in the depths of hell? At what point does the sin of following a false religion become muted? 200 years? I guess what makes Saladin so special? What did he do to avoid the fate of Mahomet?

But more interestingly I would like to know what Curio is doing here in hell. He has had his tongue hacked out for counseling Caesar to cross the Rubicon and begin the Roman civil war. Caesar is up in limbo though, as a virtuous pagan and the one who made the actual decision to cast the die. Can someone explain the fine point of internationality that separates the two men? My Roman history is a little rusty, but I don’t think there is much doubt that Caesar and Pompey were going to clash and that the Republic was doomed. So why isn’t Caesar chopped in two for dividing the Roman people and beginning the slide towards Tyranny?
Caesar established Rome as a full-fledged empire with himself as dictator; perhaps this is part of Dante’s rehabilitation of all things Roman as pre-Catholic precedent. But if the Pope then becomes the heir to the crown of the Empire, why is the man who allegedly helped make this a reality—Curio—not glorified as some sort of a prefigured pre-Papist?

The Case of the Hoarding, Fraudulent, Thieving Suicide

Since we seem to be discussing the subject of the sodomites in the 7th circle of Hell, I thought I might as well throw in my own opinion. I agree that homosexuality is different than sodomy. To me, sodomy isn’t just the physical act, but the promiscuity as well. With this in mind, seducers and adulterers should also be running with these sodomites instead of the next level down into the 8th circle with the fraudulent, malicious, and flatterers. Homosexuality in itself can be a choice or a genetic disorder. Perhaps sodomites are those who choose to be that way, contending with nature, instead of those who try to follow the natural course but are genetically incapable. For those with genetic anomalies who have no choice, making them suffer in Hell would be equal to that as someone with Down’s syndrome. Most people with Down’s never pass through puberty. Though they may have sexual relations, the ability to process a child is next to impossible. Wouldn’t this be a crime against nature as well? What about women who are barren, or men with low sperm counts? They can’t produce offspring, either. Of course, this is not their choice. So, in my opinion, the sodomites in this circle choose to do what they do in the name of promiscuous fun without regard to others, therefore those particular beings deserve their contrapasso.

Something else that caught my attention occurred in the same circle. On page 120, the last stanza reads: “I do not dare descend to his own level…” In the drawing, Dante and Virgil appear to be on a rocky ledge above the scorching sand. Dante, still living, cannot descend to the same level as his friend because he will suffer the pain of the sand. Though the evil of Hell can’t harm him, the physical place can. Allegorically, even on Dante’s guided tour, he must remember to follow the “right” path to avoid the torture of Hell, just as in his life. This also tells the reader that regardless of the sins of your peers and esteemed friends, you must remain on the “right” path to avoid the eternal torture of Hell. Could this simple phrase explain the danger of peer pressure?

Another thought that comes to my mind regards Minos. Minos is the beast that listens to each soul’s confession, and then delivers the verdict of their eternal (non) resting place. Did Dante take into consideration what would happen in the event of multiple sins? If a man is an adulterer, couldn’t he also be a seducer? What happens in the event of a woman who is a fortuneteller and a hoarder? Or a man who is a wrathful heretic? When multiple sins come into play, it would seem simpler to believe that all sins are equal and all souls go to the same level of Hell. Or, the more sins that are committed, the deeper the level of Hell. This way the worst of the worst get the highest punishment possible. I personally don’t believe that all sins are equal, but I do believe in varying levels of each sin (the difference between a one-time thief of desperation vs. the kleptomaniac). If Dante’s version of Hell were the real thing, I would think that in the case of multiple sins, that person would go to the level of the worst of his sins.

Queerness, Memorial Services, and Mussolini: Your Thoughts...

My two cents on the matter are this: I don’t classify sodomy or homosexuality as violence against one’s body or as mistreating one’s body. It is simply how some people express themselves and their sexuality. I think it is ironic that Dante puts sodomites in Hell under the classification of “Violent Against Nature” while modern day rhetoric (and Betsy) speaks of the biological naturalness of being homosexual, (an anachronism for Dante’s day, I know). I agree that it’s in the genes: you don’t choose to be homosexual. So it would seem the tables have turned, and what was once unnatural is now natural.

If sodomy, or more broadly, homosexuality, or broader still, “being queer” is no longer understood to be “unnatural”, is simply identifying as one of these enough to automatically relegate you to Hell? Not in my book. This just goes to show how much outside forces influence religion and our understanding of it. Our current understanding of homosexuality and what it is biologically informs our treatment of the subject, just as Dante’s Hell is informed by the thinking of his day.

We were talking in class about how the sins Dante places in Hell are often against natural law rather than religious law. For me this just drives home the point that religion is man-made. We created the houses of worship (churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, etc.), the religious texts and rules to follow, the rituals and ceremonies, not God (or god, or gods, or whatever). Nowhere is this more evident to me than at memorial services, of which I attended TWO this weekend. We need an afterlife, or the idea of one, to help us cope with our loss. Memorial services aren’t for that person, they’re for the rest of us. Many people need the comfort of knowing that that person is in a “better place.” I spent a lot of time this weekend wondering what does come after life, if anything? Is the thing we’re all meditating on and crying about really there? Who knows? We can (and do) spend our whole lives wondering about it, and everyone and their brother seems to have a different conviction, but who’s right? How do we know which teacher to believe, or trust, or follow?

This reminds me of my sophomore year of high school, when we read a novel version of Dante’s Inferno, (entitled Inferno, by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle, in case any of you were wondering), where the main character is led around Hell not by Virgil, but by a man named Benito. At the end of the book we find out that it is Benito Mussolini who we’ve been following around the whole time. That was a trip, (especially since at the time my knowledge of WWII history was horrendously sub-par, so I was like: ‘Mussolini? Who’s that?’ and the effect was lost on me). The loosely tied in point remains: be careful who you follow and whose doctrine you ascribe to.

So then, the question remains: what comes next? Natalie was wondering who else Dante would put in Hell, Betsy was saying that people who hurt other people would go to her own little Hell (which I think I agree with), and Rachel started touching on who she thinks will or will not end up in Hell and Heaven. I’m interested to see these ideas flushed out more, in either an academic or personal sense. Academically speaking, how would you arrange a Dantean afterlife? Who’s going to be where? Are there levels? Personally speaking, what do you ‘really’ believe it’s going to be like?