Random dissertation related thought.

[tree_and_leaf]

There is a tendency to complain about the planlessness of 'The Flowing Light of the Godhead'. Actually, while 'spiritual diary', a term often applied in the criticism, albeit often explicitly out of a sense of helplessness, is clearly misleading, what it most reminds me of is an lj, since you get random incidents from (claimed) RL (visions; Rows I have had with thick-headed clerics), fanfic (er, imaginative narration of biblical or legendary events), meta (theological reflection), bits of comment on current events and snippets of formless dialogue, all within the same text or textual corpus.

Grubmüller rightly notes that this shouldn't be put down to female irrationality (yes, this has been said) or to lack of education, but is a positive choice and that the effect of the text is der Simultaneität unterschiedlichster Formen, Inhalte und Sprecherhaltungen, eines im Flusse sich herstellenden, sich der Verfestigung entziehenden, auf Syn-Opsen und Syn-Ästhesien gerichteten Textes, der seine Einheit erst im Rezipienten findet und so den Prozeßcharakter der mystischen Erfahrung .... gegen die Bedrohung einer unangemessenen Erstarrung rettet.† [the simultanity of the most varied forms, contents and speaker-roles, a text which produces itself in a stream, resists being made fast, and aims at synopses and synaesthetic effects, a text which first finds its unity in the reader and thus preserves the processural character of mystical experience ... from the threat of an inappropriate paralysis.] (Poor) translation mine.

It occurs to me, moreover, that the form of the work is precisely in accordance with the title, and with the concept of God presented therein. The work 'flows', like a river, and mediaeval rivers were not as controlled, as dammed in, as we know them today. They went where they liked, and humans made their dispositions accordingly. They were not neat or tidy. Equally, one point of the work is that God, and the love of God, cannot be contained.

I'm also now wondering about whether one could write a paper on "(Women's) mediaeval religious writing as fandom", and if so, who on earth would read it?


†Grubmüller, Klaus. 1992. “Sprechen und Schreiben. Das Beispiel Mechthild von Magdeburg” in Festschrift Walter Haug und Burghart Wachinger Band I. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 335-348.

Comments

[sacred-sarcasm.livejournal.com]

I'd read it, but I doubt I know enough about the theory of fandom or mediaeval religious writing to do it justice!

(why is it that if women write something that's 'stream-of-consciousness' it's because we're incapable of writing proper things and if men do it it's a brave new art form?)

[juno-magic.livejournal.com]

(why is it that if women write something that's 'stream-of-consciousness' it's because we're incapable of writing proper things and if men do it it's a brave new art form?)

SNEEERK!

Symptoms of deep-seated male insecurities?

[tree_and_leaf]

I doubt I know enough about the theory of fandom

Actually, this is also my problem!

(why is it that if women write something that's 'stream-of-consciousness' it's because we're incapable of writing proper things and if men do it it's a brave new art form?) At least with reference to the mediaeval period, it's partly because it's well known that the only people capable of logical thought are those who have enjoyed a scholastic education. On the other hand, as a deeper pattern of thought, it's probably down to male gittishness ;)

[juno-magic.livejournal.com]

I'm also now wondering about whether one could write a paper on "(Women's) mediaeval religious writing as fandom", and if so, who on earth would read it?

I think that's kind of the wrong question to ask *your* flist.

Whenever it's ready, I'll be happy to read it. MWHAHAHA!

[tree_and_leaf]

think that's kind of the wrong question to ask *your* flist.

True. Let me rephrase it: who on earth would publish it?

[nineveh-uk.livejournal.com]

I reckon every single undergraduate who found Margery Kempe or Julian of Norwich on her reading list would love it! You would drown in gratitude.

[tree_and_leaf]

True, I suppose - though I'm not sure Julian's an awfully good example, she's too self-contained (comes of being an anchorite?) Margery now strikes me as a classic example of someone who desperately wanted to be a BNF and never quite managed it (poor woman, that's probably dreadfully unfair, but she does get on my nerves a bit. Which probably makes me a tool of the patriarchy, but there you go....)

[nineveh-uk.livejournal.com]

Well, I don't speak from any position of knowledge, having successfully avoided both on the Medieval Lit. course.

[tree_and_leaf]

Julian is actually brilliant - a good writer, and while she's quite capable of startling images, she effortlessly wins the prize for Sanest Mystic Writer (possibly ever), most notably because she doesn't have the whole body-hatred thing†.

Margery... is interesting. And must have been a formidable character (she was a successful brewer, before she took to sobbing her way round the pilgrimage sites of Europe, while dressing in white because Jesus had given her her virginity back....) But I know who I'd rather have tea with. Although I must admit that Julian is virtually the only medaeival mystic I'd want to take tea with; Hildegard might not be so bad, but I imagine her as extremely intimidating.

† Otherwise known as the Yuck! I've got genitals! motif