With that understanding, then, I’m thoroughly interested to hear how Meyer’s use of harlequin elements might be done for allegorical purposes. I’ll watch for that information in post number 9, John.

The rewriting of the Genesis tale fascinates me. I missed it, of course, but now that I think about it, it’s totally intriguing. Bella’s forcing her way into a knowledge that Edward tries to keep from her, a knowledge much too great for her; the deadly consequences of that knowledge, which she faces again and again, and the resolution through loving, self-sacrificial death–wow. I’ll have to think through that more.

Interestingly, they integrated the first book’s cover into the movie. Bella knocks an apple off a cafeteria buffet, and it bounces off Edward’s foot; he catches it and holds it out to her in cupped hands.

I can understand the frustration of those who are exasperated by our culture’s taste for the informal voice and the less-than-magisterial, even though I can only agree with it to a point. It reminds me of church debates (which I’ve been around numerous times, having been involved in church music for many years) over hymns played on organ and praise choruses played on the guitar. All Creatures of our God and King, played on the pipe organ with the stops pulled out, is sublime–the earth loses its gravity and I feel like I can touch heaven listening to that. But Here I am to Worship, guitar strumming alongside the highly repetitive melody, is almost as likely to bring tears to my eyes; it’s comforting, and heaven seems to reach down and softly touch the earth. Nobody claims that the latter is constructed on principles as high as that of the former, but that lowliness doesn’t make it meaningless or unworthy.

The polarization is of the masculine and feminine–which might also help explain why academic men so often snub the work of women–and the two were made for union.

We just need a little alchemy. Heh.

You write: “It is perhaps the signature irony and tragedy of our times that, focusing as we have on the physical sciences as our surest means to knowledge of what is most real, we have lost any profound understanding of what it means to be human, from our purpose and design down to knowledge about the most basic human needs.

I counter that, physical sciences be hanged, too much of Christendom focuses on “our purpose and design” but neglects to even ask and ponder the question “what does it mean to be human?”. In many spiritual circles our humanness/body is something to be despised, a mere jacket for the spirit, a despised material means to communicate with a material world, something regrettable to be gladly shed someday as the inconvenience and impediment to spiritual perfection they deem it.

God called his human creation–in full–good (with the addition of Eve, it was “very good”–hah!). And God acknowledged that even he could not fulfull all human requirement (“it is not good for man to be alone”). In calling his creation good, God meant all aspects of humanness, including the physical. For us to consider our physicality and its requirements/possibilities bad is to contradict him. Our sin-tainted bodies will be restored, not thrown away for something entirely other.

I first came upon the question, “what does it mean to be human?” several years ago in a book by author, sociology professor and progressive evangelical Tony Campolo. It struck me that I’d never heard any Christian, clergy or lay, ask this question. Why? It became a huge part of my quest while reorienting my life during a turbulent time. That question and a new understanding of God’s grace hugely impacted my spiritual growth, and I began to appreciate the body and humanness, and their beauty, needs and quirks, in a much deeper, more meaningful way. You could say I went beneath the surface meaning of physicality and human nature so neatly explained by many believers.

If we, as Christians, try to separate the two concepts in your paragraph, what hope has the rest of the world in grasping the interconnectedness in literature or anything eles?