Translating Cain: Emotions of Invisibility through the Gaze of Raskolnikov and Bigger by Samantha Joo

Abstract

Reviewed by: Translating Cain: Emotions of Invisibility through the Gaze of Raskolnikov and Bigger by Samantha Joo Jeffrey H. Pulse samantha joo, Translating Cain: Emotions of Invisibility through the Gaze of Raskolnikov and Bigger (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books/Fortress Academic, 2020). Pp. xii + 187. $100. Samantha Joo approaches the narrative of Cain and Abel using a method designed to translate the emotional connotations of this ancient text. Since the author of the story wants to convey these emotional realities and the subsequent connotations of these emotions, the solution is to "recontextualize" the event in order to evoke similar emotions from the reader. J. argues for the story's transference of an emotional attitude to the reader because the power of the narrative resides in its ability to stir the emotions, not to stimulate the mind. In order to accomplish this, J. focuses on the issue of "invisibility" in the story of Cain and Abel using two classic examples from modern literature that contain this mythic plot: the character of Raskolnikov in Fyodor Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment and Bigger Thomas in Richard Wright's Native Son. Raskolnikov is a poor, young, ex-university student in nineteenth-century Russia, while Bigger Thomas is a poor, young, black man in Chicago in the 1940s. Both stories, while different in context and time, exhibit the same [End Page 304] mythic plot as seen in the Cain and Abel narrative—invisibility. (1) The character becomes invisible; (2) the character is emotionally distraught at being invisible; and (3) the character kills to find visibility. Thus, J. argues that seeing Cain's story through the characters of Bigger and Raskolnikov, characters who seek visibility through violence, even murder, will lead the reader to look at this ancient story differently. J. is interested in how invisibility molds and affects the character's emotions that then lead to violence. This approach does not try to discern authorial intent or consider the reader's response. Joo structures the book in five sections. In the first, she lays out the theoretical model and then explains the need for analogies. Section 2 is an analysis of the narrative of Cain and Abel, highlighting the social invisibility of Cain, which is implied in Cain's Kenite identity. Then, section 3 is an analysis of Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment and the character Raskolnikov, while section four treats Wright's Native Son and the character Bigger Thomas. Finally, in section 5, J. compares and contrasts the portrayals of Cain, Raskolnikov, and Bigger. The book is laid out to accomplish three distinct purposes. J. states, "On the theoretical level, I will provide a model that will convey emotional connotation of biblical stories via analogies. On the analytical level, I will highlight the Kenite identity of Cain that will explain the reason for the violence. On the social level, I will examine the phenomena of social invisibility and its violent consequence" (p. 6). I believe that J. accomplishes this quite well. The motivation for the murder of Abel is found in Cain's need to be "seen." He felt invisible/ignored by God as Abel and his sacrifice were preferred. To gain the attention of God, therefore, Cain killed his brother. But, as J. argues, this goes far deeper than personal rejection; it is the effect of social marginalization. Working beneath the surface is Cain's Kenite identity. The Kenites were a marginalized group of nomads, and so Cain is the ancestor who represents the Kenites' existence as an "invisible" group, alienated from the more established community. Thus, the rejection of Cain and his offering is a reflection of the social invisibility of the Kenites. J. argues that this Kenite identity is lost on the modern Western reader who is unfamiliar with the agropastoral background of Syro-Palestine; therefore, the intended meaning of the story is lost. Similar stories from modern literature provide an analogy that restores intended meaning to the text. Joo's example of this method of translating emotional connotations of an ancient text using modern literature as analogy is fascinating and useful. However, is it the only way to connect the modern reader to the text? Is it a valid method? Placing...