User:Sherrilledwards/sandbox: Difference between revisions

Line 101:

Sixteen years later, Mailer returns to these themes in his final book, ''On God.''{{sfn|Mailer|2007}} There, among other topics, he discusses modern science, fundamentalism, and intelligent design, bringing insight into the nature of plot in the novels of Henry James, Hemingway, James Joyce, and others.{{sfn|Mailer|2007|p=143-161}} He suggests, for example, that James and Hemingway were “avatars of Intelligent Design”{{sfn|Mailer|2007|p=150}} whereas Joyce “plays at the very edge of chaos."{{sfn|Mailer|2007|p=151}} It is no coincidence that Mailer moves smoothly between God-language and an analysis of plot in the modern novel—for two reasons.

First, his central theological motif is that God is an ''artist''—a limited Creator doing the best he can. At the start of ''On God,'' Mailer says, “I see God, rather, as a Creator, as the greatest artist. I see human beings as His most developed artworks."{{sfn|Mailer|2007|p=5}} He draws, therefore, an analogy between the Creator and the creative artist—like Hemingway, James, Joyce, or himself. Second, Mailer recognizes that literary ''plot'' is a synecdoche for the larger search for meaning, religion being only one manifestation of that search. Just as Mailer is suspicious of a ''plot'' that is too contrived in a novel, so he is also wary of a ''faith'' in God that is too dogmatic, not sufficiently aware of the indeterminacy and chaos of existence.{{efn|“The reason I don’t like plots to prevail is that they don’t allow the figures in the book, the characters, to push their own limits to the point where they make the plot unacceptable and so throw the design into chaos."{{sfn|Mailer|2007|p=151}}}} Such fundamentalism misreads the nature of the world, keeping human beings infantile, even dog-like.{{efn|“The worst to be said about Fundamentalism is that it reduces people to the reflexes of a good dog. . . . No great writer ever came out of Fundamentalism, nor any great scientist."{{sfn|Mailer|2007|p=71-72}}}}

=== Notes ===

@@ Line 101: / Line 101: @@
 Sixteen years later, Mailer returns to these themes in his final book, ''On God.''{{sfn|Mailer|2007}} There, among other topics, he discusses modern science, fundamentalism, and intelligent design, bringing insight into the nature of plot in the novels of Henry James, Hemingway, James Joyce, and others.{{sfn|Mailer|2007|p=143-161}} He suggests, for example, that James and Hemingway were “avatars of Intelligent Design”{{sfn|Mailer|2007|p=150}} whereas Joyce “plays at the very edge of chaos."{{sfn|Mailer|2007|p=151}} It is no coincidence that Mailer moves smoothly between God-language and an analysis of plot in the modern novel—for two reasons.
+First, his central theological motif is that God is an ''artist''—a limited Creator doing the best he can. At the start of ''On God,'' Mailer says, “I see God, rather, as a Creator, as the greatest artist. I see human beings as His most developed artworks."{{sfn|Mailer|2007|p=5}} He draws, therefore, an analogy between the Creator and the creative artist—like Hemingway, James, Joyce, or himself. Second, Mailer recognizes that literary ''plot'' is a synecdoche for the larger search for meaning, religion being only one manifestation of that search. Just as Mailer is suspicious of a ''plot'' that is too contrived in a novel, so he is also wary of a ''faith'' in God that is too dogmatic, not sufficiently aware of the indeterminacy and chaos of existence.{{efn|“The reason I don’t like plots to prevail is that they don’t allow the figures in the book, the characters, to push their own limits to the point where they make the plot unacceptable and so throw the design into chaos."{{sfn|Mailer|2007|p=151}}}} Such fundamentalism misreads the nature of the world, keeping human beings infantile, even dog-like.{{efn|“The worst to be said about Fundamentalism is that it reduces people to the reflexes of a good dog. . . . No great writer ever came out of Fundamentalism, nor any great scientist."{{sfn|Mailer|2007|p=71-72}}}}
 === Notes ===