I got a paper back today. I wrote about Tarabotti's Paternal Tyranny, specifically the way she "interprets" (a.k.a. rewrites) the Genesis dialogue between God and Eve. I mentioned that she has a literary perspective that she applies to the passage. Professor M. wrote "Good. Isn't all Biblical interpretation 'literary'? The Bible is a book of stories after all." My first reaction was to wonder why he considered the point good if he went on to say that it's superfluous. But anyway, it made me think about how my religious background influences the way I look at certain things now. I don't generally look at the Bible as literature. I can, in the sense that I have heard of courses taught on it and I know that Job is technically a five-act play and Psalms a book of poetry. However, I never consider the Bible the way I consider Shakespeare or Tolstoy, so his comment surprised me a little. In my mind, literary interpretation is only one of many options for interpreting a text as weighty and significant as this. Does that make sense?
Right now I'm re-reading J.D. Salinger's Franny and Zooey. I love that book. It has the charm and appeal of Catcher in the Rye but there's a ton of religion in it. I'll write on it when I finish.