One thing I learned in today's class that I did not know previously is that Salman Rushdie has a children's book to his credit, Harud and the Sea of Stories(the protagonist's name may not be spelt correctly). It was also mentioned that Mr. Rushdie has something of an obsession with The Wizard of Oz, which I can believe; there is a scene in his novel Midnight's Children where the hero has a nightmare featuring a witch eating children, where all is black and green--the colors of the Wicked Witch of the West in the 1939 film. Fascinating.

This is slighly besides the point perhaps. But it does tie in with what could be called archetypal stories and the power and influence they derive from metaphor. As was mentioned on Tuesday's lecture, and I believe also today, God is metaphor. And this in all liklihood how the Bible would best be read; through metaphorical image. Some of the most imaged of all metaphors are those which are parental. For instance, how Noah curses the progeny of his son Ham(Canaan)because Ham came upon his father naked. And this is why Israel has every moral right to conquer the inhabitants of the land of Canaan.

I suppose a great many weak misreadings of the Bible(to use Bloom's phrase) are done by those who are metaphorically deficent. Perhaps it is simply easier to read the Bible literally as opposed to metaphorically. I would submit that the latter option is much more challenging, but also in the long run more helpful and rewarding.