A most educational dissertation on “Glow”

8 10 2009

GlowReferencing my 9/30 posting titled “Glow” (photo seen at right), Katie commented:

“the middle of the flower looks like a female silhouette, was that done on purpose? if not, amazing…if so, amazing still.” ;)

To which my father (nicknamed “The King of Texas” by my friend Debbi) replied:

Katie is right on—there is definitely a female silhouette in the bloom. I can’t believe I missed it—thanks, Katie.

And I can see in the outline that the female is holding a child—great Scott, Cindy! You have captured the Madonna and Child—no, not that Madonna—the one that artists have portrayed over the centuries. Raphael is one of the most famous, but many have painted the Madonna and Child, The Holy Mother and Son, Mary and Jesus.

I can remember stories about images of Mary or Jesus or both being found in tree bark, in a toasted cheese sandwich, in a piece of toast, in an oil slick on the pavement, potato chips and Doritos, and there are probably many more that I missed. And all have drawn crowds of one size or another.

If the news of your Holy Vision in a picture of (whatever that is) gets out, especially to this part of the U.S. and to our nearest neighbor to the south, the faithful will be beating a path to your door. They’ll leave all sorts of flowers, emblems, wreaths, burning candles and notes with wishes and prayers. You’ll have to hose them down just to get out to your car—the faithful, not the burning candles—although the candles could pose a problem for the local fire department.

And it’s possible—nay, probable, that some will bring sick and suffering friends or family members so they can be near such an apparition, in the hopes they will be comforted, perhaps healed.

I believe that you should submit this photo to your local papers, to one or more photography magazines, perhaps present it to some of your local theologians for inspection and comments. You need to protect your rights on this one—it may be a real winner.

And, of course, a closer look may lead one to believe that the image shows a woman holding one child aloft and pregnant with another. Hey, it could still be Mary—we have no way of knowing whether it is, or is not. After all, Joseph had been waiting on the sidelines for quite awhile, probably with mounting impatience (no pun intended) before the Babe was born, and he must have been filled with joy that the Child had arrived. Most men will be able to relate to the joy he felt—I sure can.

And to further clarify, he e-mailed me this morning with:

And if you, with a bit of imagination, can see the outline of a pregnant woman holding a child, I suggest you add another factor, provided your imagination supports it. Since one cannot see any suggestion of clothing in the shadowy image, the figures are probably nude. At any rate, that’s what I see (no big surprise there, huh?). Hey, maybe they’re in the shower.

And if I keep looking at the photo long enough and let my imagination run rampant, I’ll probably find Joseph lurking in the darkness. And if I can’t see him, I can always imagine that he’s somewhere close, just to flesh out (no pun intended) the story.

Incidentally, I found this definition online at http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/flesh.html. I have never confused “flesh out” with “flush out,” but apparently others have—hence the need for an explanation.

One more “incidental:” This refers to the proper use of further vs farther: I found an explanation of their usages at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/farther. In the definition of “flesh out” versus “flush out,” the author used the word correctly.

I know, I know. I have a lot of time on my hands, an expression that I have often used and will continue to use. I’m still waiting to hear someone say, or write, that perhaps I should “stop dragging my knuckles.”

There—since I am the first to apply that description, I’ve beat everyone else to the punch. (I found the definition for “beat to the punch” at http://www.yourdictionary.com/idioms/beat-to-it). It’s defined as follows:
beat to the draw or punch:

1. To get ahead of someone to obtain something, as in: There was only enough for one, so Jane ran as fast as she could in order to beat Jerry to it. [Colloquial; c. 1900]

2. Beat to the draw or punch. To react more quickly than someone else, as in: The new salesman tried to serve one of my customers, but I beat him to the draw and Bill was determined to get there first and beat everyone else to the punch. The variants imply aggression to get ahead, draw alluding to the drawing of a pistol and punch to hitting with the fists. [Second half of 1800s]

Hey, this has to stop somewhere, so I’m outta here.



2 responses

9 10 2009

I think anyone familiar with flowers understands the sexual nature of them. It is not surprising to me that we see sexual intimacy within flowers.

The flower is static, unable to prowl about in search of a mate. It relies on other creatures to propagate. It must shout its existence to be noticed. It must attract all species in order to satisfy its natural desires. It must make itself appealing beyond anything animals do.

Even the lowly snail may pursue its mate.

9 10 2009

A tip of the kingly crown to burstmode for the above comment. There may be someone, somewhere, some potential winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature that could say it better—but I seriously doubt it!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: