Abstractifying the Bible

I've enrolled in a writing class called Writing Close to the Earth. We just received our first reading materials recently, and the first class activity based on them is a truly fun one. We were asked to read George Orwell's essay, Politics and the English Language. Below is the relevant excerpt:

I am going to translate a passage of good English into modern English of the worst sort. Here is a well-known verse from Ecclesiastes: I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

Here it is in modern English: Objective considerations of contemporary phenomena compel the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account.

From there, we have been asked to take and abstractify a passage from the Bible. Basically, we're supposed to BS as much as we possibly can, in an effort to get the feel of how NOT to write. It was such a fun assignment that I went and finished the whole story for my blog. I doubt it will be too hard to figure out which one it is.

The Great Judgmental Eye of Society

More often than not ingrained biological necessities compel more than one—and generally speaking less than three—individuals of dissimilar physiologies to produce, in due course of time, a state in which further unique individuals are expressed into the world and inducted into a similar social strata in society—however that society may choose to express itself. Let us take, for our purposes, two such specimens of individuality thrust by these biological processes into existence within a barbaric and rigidified social strata.

The first of these unique specimens that we shall turn our attention toward takes, of the few modes of employment offered at the time, the unenviable position of Lead Researcher in animal husbandry and containment. The second—though let us not overlook the fact that the second is truly the first if one measures such things by using the crude and archaic metric of who first entered into existence—takes another of the job market’s pitiful scraps: Overseer of the means of consumption.

Observe with an objective eye the strain that each must undergo in his respective field of expertise. Note the triumphs and tragedies, averted catastrophe and success snatched—oft quite literally—from the gaping jaws of defeat. All this, and each brings at great sacrifice to himself and his savings, a portion of the proceeds before the great eye of society, that they may be met with favor and advancement in their respective endeavors. But o! Fickle fate, the cruel social construct constricts the overworked Overseer and sears his soul with its judgment, dismissing as unworthy the labor of the working class in silent disapproval. Is it any wonder, then, that when the Lead Researcher is showered with grants and lavished with praise, that the Overseer may take into consideration seizing the means of all production across disciplines?

Yet society cannot let alone the overburdened Overseer nor leave him to his desperate internal struggle. Instead it lays upon his shoulders heavy reprimand for these passing considerations which, to society, are plain and obvious to see as the nose on one's face. A warning, yes, and even a mark on his record which brings the volcanic wrath of the overlooked Overseer brimful and boiling over. In a desperate bid to ensure his place in society, to consolidate the market, and to rid himself of the torment of observing privilege in action, he negotiates an alternate cranial configuration for the Lead Researcher and they part ways in a rather permanent, hostile, and irreversible manner.

In such primitive times, communities are rarely much larger than a single family unit and so there is not much that society can overlook. Once again, the Overseer is addressed by the great eye of society and a full accounting of all familial connections and their whereabouts is demanded of him. What, then, is the recourse of such an individual, burdened by actions which may be construed as unconscionable and which are certainly novel, daring, and unknown in their time? The wisest course of action must be to decry the implications that one is part of a surveillance state.

This answer, of course, is dissatisfactory and the great eye of society brings to bear forensic evidence—albeit a touch anthropomorphized for dramatic purposes—to seal the fate of the unfortunate monopolist. The market, he is told, will be ever bear and never bull, and that his best option is to remove himself from the vicinity and take up some form of itinerant business dealings. The objection of cruel and unusual punishment is then raised, and society allows for a modicum of mercy, granting the beleaguered and downtrodden Overseer all appropriate documentations of protection to keep any other enterprising monopolist from reconfiguring his cranium in a similar manner.