The Thing I Really Want To Know Is, Who Should Play Eve

How much of the Bible have you read? I mean truly read? Most non-(worst)writing-mortals sit down with a Bible at least once or thrice in life and later say: I’ve read the Bible. Hypocrisy aside, let me be clear here: I’ve not only read the Bible but it’s so much a part of my life that if – goodness forbid – you were to actually visit me without much prior knowledge of who/what I am, you might quickly put one and three together and assume that my American accent, along with living in Germany, would equate with some kind of clandestine evangelical plan to rid pagan Germania of the confusion that is both sides of the Rhine River.

You’ll really be confused when you see that I’ve got a few copies of the Koran and the Torah, as well.

FYI, I have numerous copies of the Bible strategically positioned around my apartment. These are all usually copies that I’ve received from priests, nuns or other clergy who have thrown me out of their churches.
“Here, go read it!” they would say/yell.
“How dare you! That’s blasphemous,” others would say.

Almost all the copies of Bibles around my apartment have the stamp “Do Not Remove”. Obviously, in more ways than one, I am unable to control myself when it comes to authority. Not unlike the Beamten (civil servants) at the Ausländeramt (where I get my German visa), all the clergy from Münster to Heidelberg know me – and like the Germans, they don’t like me. I am the foreign Nervensäge (pain in the ass) who questions both Biblical authority and the ignorance that is the pseudo-Kommunist Federal Republic.

Digression. Part 1.

Did you know that twenty to thirty year old Bible paper is great for cleaning? It’s both sturdy AND absorbent. It comes in perfectly sized pieces and was from a manufacturing era that could care less about fucking trees. It’s perfect window cleaning stuff, too. If needed it even makes good nose tissue. But you have to crumple the pages a bit in advance to work out the rough edges. I’m sure that most Kommunists are very familiar with this as they did the same thing with newspaper for most of their pitiful lives.

With Bible paper you can either use a page to blow your nose or, along with some Aldi-Glas-Reiniger, you can use it to perfectly clean the windows of your car. Seriously – no streaks. I don’t know what the secret is, but I’ve certainly wasted a few nights on the subject of other uses of Bible paper. There are so many practical household uses of Bible paper – the most printed book in history – that I even wondered if there was a way I could get rich on it.

Please. No emails about how you want to join in making millions.

One night after spilling a bottle of wonderful Chianti Reserve I also learned that Bible paper can save your expensive Persian carpet. You see, while contemplating the meaning of it all, trying to find answers in one of the newest Bibles added to my collection – after being thrown out of a really big and fancy church in Cologne – I ripped out pages of Genesis and laid them on top of my soiled Persian rug. There was no particular order to the pages, I just ripped them out – perhaps motivated by Beethoven or Brahms blaring from the stereo – and randomly placed them, albeit perfectly aligned, on top of the carpet. As the pages soaked up the wine, I then tried to kill two birds with one stone and grabbed my telescope and used the lens of Copernicus to find answers in the pages below. After an hour or so of searching, clumsily, I ended up spilling more wine.

Old Bible paper can save you.

It must be the mix of aged paper, aged ink and forever young hypocrisy in the pages of Bibles that somehow makes the windows of your car clearer, the shine of your Persian rug shinier and – believe it or not – your nose so clean that, along with a good diet… I haven’t had a head cold since I started using crumpled-up old Bible paper – and not just on my nose.

Digression. Part 2. Did I mention my fixation with knowledge AND telescopes?

Peter Hacks’ play “Adam and Eve – A Comedy in Three Acts and a Prelude” reminded me of the days when I had a telescope and thought a lot about the meaning of it all. (The telescope has since been confiscated by German authorities; I guess one of my neighbors complained.) I enjoy it when authors regurgitate things Biblical. There is so much literary fun reading/studying the Bible that, at times, I’m actually considering breaking that German court-order and buying me a new telescope. How dare the Germans assume that I was using the device to peak at the sexual antics of others. I was using it to search out, from great distances – not unlike Peter Hacks? – the tiny little secrets that are embedded in (human) dogma. What’s so wrong about that? Is it my fault that so many “neighbors” have bibles near their beds? The judge laughed until I let her know about my theory that The Fall of Man had nothing to do with “temptation”.

Enter Peter Hacks. He’s the Biblical interpreter that Tommi-(Worst)Writer will never be.

Here is where Mr. Hacks shines with this cute little play. Not only did he beat me to it, to say the least, his telescope was/is much better than mine. He saw through the lie that was labeled temptation that caused the infringement on the Tree of Knowledge – as initialized in Genesis 2:16. Mr. Hacks quite convincingly shows, by searching deep into the universe-like space of Biblical and/or historical texts, that it could have been something quite different that has lead Mankind thus far down this dusty road of…

It was Manipulation!

Not temptation but instead manipulation by God and His worker-bee Angels was the real cause of Man’s Fall – if you believe in that sort of thing. Quite a fitting premise, I would think, for an author stuck under the ignorance of Godless and brainless Honecker goons. Yes. The Fall of man was about Godly manipulation – and nothing more. They only used temptation all this time because that was/is much easier to understand, to grasp, to digest along with Bratwurst, curry sauce and the fact that the working classes of Germany (Adams and Eves) are being tempted – and have long since bit the apple of social market economic ignorance. Nothing more, nothing less. Yet how can one explain the manipulation behind all the useless, compulsive labor that Germans today call “Arbeit”? (Work?) Hacks knew the answer – and not because he was viewing it all from the East.

Digression. Part 3. Who cares? I just want to see Eve on stage.

I don’t want to interpret this play. It’s too basic. On the other hand, I can’t wait to someday see this play on a stage. Even if you’re not into Biblical (or political) interpretation this play might still appeal. For one, the actors playing Adam and Eve have to be butt naked up till the end of the play when they finally get them fig leaves. And that, along with my telescope, is what I’m thinking about now instead of just interpreting it. So in case your interested, here my picks of who should play Eve:

– My first choice would be that Feldbusch tussy that married the prick who inherited too much money and has since lost most of it because he’s a dipshit. Of course, Feldbusch would be better if they could get her before she had a kid. Plus, since Eve doesn’t have many lines in the play, comparatively speaking, we won’t have to listen to her dipshit voice. I hate her and her voice – but she is my type.
– Or how about Barbara Schöneberger? If that ain’t a pony I’d like to have a go with – even if it means only watching her butt naked on stage. All them German parts of hers moving around… But she gets the role only after she loses a few pounds. She could even sing a few of Eve’s lines – I’ve heard that Barbara likes to sing. And the way she moved on that couch when she hosted that dipshit interview show on TV…
– Then there’s Veronica Ferres. She could actually be given a speaking role in this play. To have her once again stretch that hot Germanic body like she did on the big screen in Schtonk… Yeah.Veronica. Let me be your Ferres-wheel.

Because I’m (un)comfortably heterosexual, I don’t give a hoot who they pick for Adam.

Back to Hacks. I guess.

The thing about reading Peter Hacks’ “Adam and Eve”, beyond the fact that it’s written in some weird kind of non-rhyming German verse (because God, according to Hacks, doesn’t like things that rhyme), is that Hacks’ does a great job interpreting but a bad job executing. Was he hung up on something when he wrote it? Was this play commissioned by some Kommunist thug? I mean, what’s the point of re-writing a story that almost everyone, to a certain level, already knows? The only thing I can come up with is the butt naked thing. Seriously. Hacks was a pervert. He had the hots for some Kommunist bimbo who wouldn’t put-out and so he wrote her a play where at least he could see her naked. No? Don’t like that theory? I know, all Kommunist bimbos put-out.

Does the thing with Gabriel hurt or work?

Still, of the plays I’ve read thus far by Hacks this one goes in the column under mediocre. So much could be done with the idea that it wasn’t (really) Adam & Eve’s fault. Yet all Hacks delivers is a free interpretation of Genesis 2 and 3, probably coercively influenced by anti-capitalist ideology. (Isn’t that what all Kommunists wrote about?) Interestingly enough, Hacks adds the Archangel Gabriel to the story, which reminds me of Paradise Lost – as that too has Gabriel as part of the beginning of man. Gabriel is not in Genesis – at least there’s no mention of him during the time of Adam and Eve. But I guess that doesn’t matter. Hacks needed a third “being” to fill any gaps there might be between God and Satan. Gabriel brings a cute little touch to the play as the three heavenly beings are almost like goofy CEO, COO and CFO of a major corporation that is on the verge of… (Ooops. I guess that would be part of my interpretation if I were given the task of directing this play. Hint. Hint.)

Can this play be called a comedy?

If this is supposed to be in anyway, shape or form a comedy, I didn’t get it. Could that be because of the old adage that Germans simply are not funny? At least there a few funny lines here and there in the play – but not enough to save it nor give one cause to call it a comedy. For example, here are parts of the text that I marked with “ha, ha, ha”:

(The following are Tommi’s free translations of the text. I do not follow the German rhythm that Hacks uses – and that’s probably due to the fact that I don’t understand that rhythm. But hey, this is dramatic literature, understanding is neither here nor there.)

Adam and Eve are arguing like a good couple should.
Eve (nonchalant): Adam. You have another rib.
Adam (frustrated manhood): What?
Eve: Ask God. He’ll make you another.
Adam (the first big baby): But I don’t want another. You’re my woman.

Eve is being manipulated by Satan.
Satan (coquettishly): I’m looking at the apple, that’s all.
Eve: That one, the one that’s not good to eat?
Satan: That one, the one that’s good to look at.
Eve: How does it look?
Satan: As though it was good to eat.

Gabriel is questioning why/how God made the earth.
Gabriel: Sir, your work is wonderful, but did you have to…
God: Yes?
Gabriel: Of all things…
God: What?
Gabriel: Work with material?
God (to audience): That is the degree that man comprehends. Oh, workers, never hire heavenly bodies …
Exit Gabriel. God then proceeds with a long monologue. At the end of the monologue he again faces the audience.
God (to audience): I hope you understand by now why you hold God’s majesty so high. You have to listen to his monologues.

Boy, as a director I would have a field day with that kind of text – especially if the main characters were butt naked! So much for wishful thinking.

There are a few other funny lines in the play but all they really did was remind me of what I consider to be funny Biblical (or at least Biblically related) text. An example of what I mean you can find on the Interwebnets. Or see link to vid below.

Even if I don’t really like this play, I admire someone like Hacks for attacking it, churning it, perhaps chewing it and yet leaving the original story intact. That’s quite an achievement for a man/writer who subjected himself to so much non-belief. As I (think I) said in a previous post in this forum, the thing that finally killed Soviet Kommunism wasn’t just the fact that it was bankrupt. What killed it was the fact that there was nothing (NOTHING!) to believe in.

At least with this play all the Kommunists got a chance to see a butt naked Eve. That would even be good enough for this capitalist pig.

(The link is an external link. If the link doesn’t work then go to any Internet video source and search for “The Devil’s Advocate John Milton’s speech”.)

Rant on.

-tgs-