Perfume

[Anonymous No.5353955]

Was Jean-Baptiste Grenouille the second coming of Christ, or even a depiction of Christ?

-He had an immaculate conception
-He had supernatural gifts. Not just the lack of scent and incredible sense of smell, but the ability to heal his body.
-He was called John the Baptiste Frog
-Any male who exploited him for financial gain died almost immediately after his departure.
-He put himself in renunciation, not just for 40 days and nights, but 7 years.
-He sacrificed himself so that 'riff-raff' could experience pure love.

[Anonymous No.5353997]

He was the devil, he was cursed, he was an abomination. Everything he touched died, and he left a trail of pain and misery wherever he went. Even the priest at the start thought he was possessed by the devil.

-He was called John the Baptiste Frog.
"Only a darkly ironic person would baptize an infant whose mother had been decapitated with the name of Saint John the Baptist (who also was decapitated). Perfume is infused with such multi-leveled black humor. It is true that Jean-Baptiste was a common name at this time, but the irony of little Grenouille having to bear in his name his mother's shame for his entire life goes beyond situational, transient humor into the realm of cruelty, with the sins of one's mother constantly revisited on the son."

[Anonymous No.5354013]

>>5353997
>Saint John the Baptist (who also was decapitated)

Based Salome.

[Anonymous No.5354238]

>>5353955
Immaculate conception refers to the birth of the Virgin Mary, not jesus you stupid shit

[Anonymous No.5354360]

>>5354238
>Immaculate conception refers to the birth of the Virgin Mary, not jesus you stupid shit
Are you drunk? Jesus was conceived immaculately, not Mary.

>refers to the birth of the Virgin Mary
Nobody gives a shit about Mary being born because her mother wasn't a virgin.

[Anonymous No.5354366]

>>5354360
If you're not trolling you're a fucking idiot. The immaculate conception refers to Mary being born in her mother's womb free from original sin.
She was therefore born "immaculately" or sinless.

The virgin birth is another matter entirely.

Shut the fuck up you don't know what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.5354370]

>>5354360
No, he's right. The Immaculate Conception refers to Mary being born without sin. Jesus was born without sin, too, but the Catholic Church didn't need a specific doctrine to explain that.

[Anonymous No.5354371]

>>5354366
Christ you're an ignorant fuck.

The conception of Jesus was immaculate because there was no sex involved, fucktard.

[Anonymous No.5354378]

>>5354371
0/10

[Anonymous No.5354379]

>>5354366
>The immaculate conception refers to Mary being born in her mother's womb free from original sin.
>She was therefore born "immaculately" or sinless.

Jesus was born "immaculately" because Gabriel flew down from heaven and made Mary pregnant. If you get knocked up via angelic telepathy and not your husbands cock, then conception is immaculate.

[Anonymous No.5354391]

>>5354371
Dude, "immaculate" means without sin. Sex isn't a sin to the Church within marriage. The Immaculate Conception is about Mary's being brought into the world as sinoess and therefore a "perfect vessel" for Jesus to enter the world. This is a source of contention between Catholics and other Christians, which is why the Catholic Church explained it through this doctrine.

[Anonymous No.5354397]

>>5354379
Only Mary was born without sin. Jesus, even though he both God and the son of God, was born WITH sin. That's why Mary and Joseph had to take him to a temple for purification -- which was genital mutilation while slaughtering two turtle doves.

[Anonymous No.5354400]

>>5354397
>sin
>2014

[Anonymous No.5354402]

>>5354379
No, you're not getting the point. I understand Christ was born from a virgin, and free of sin - this is a thing, but it is not the dogma of Immaculate Conception, and is commonly confused for such.

There was a reason Mary incubated Jesus, as opposed to other women, and this is because she was born without Original Sin. The catholic decree that claims she was born in her mother's womb sinless is called Immaculate Conception.
Do you want to hear it from the horse's mouth, Pope Pius?

"We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful."

Immaculate Conception refers to Mary's birth AND ONLY Mary's birth.
If you think it's the same as Jesus' virgin birth that's cool, but just know you're completely wrong.

[Anonymous No.5354410]

>>5354397
What religion teaches that? Jesus, being God, was also born without original sin. At least that's the teaching of the Cathloic Church. Both Mary and Jesus were born conceived/born without sin. Any purification ceremony would done because of religious tradition.

[Anonymous No.5354421]

>>5354402
Legitimately who honestly gives a fuck what some illuminati child rapist faggot says about events that didn't even happen a hundred years before he was born?

[Anonymous No.5354528]

>>5354410
>What religion teaches that?
Mary was born prokathartheisa, which means 'pre-purified'. Even before her birth, God had rendered her incapable of committing sin, she had a "concomitant exemption from any taint". Jesus was born in sin, and had the free will to sin while he was mortal. Because of this, in Luke 2:22, Mary and Joseph had to take Jesus to the temple for "purification," which was circumcision and a blood sacrifice of two turtle doves.

[Anonymous No.5354536]

>>5353955
This book is shitty nerdcore for teenage girls to masturbate to.
Fuck you for bringing it up.

[Anonymous No.5354560]

>>5354421
don't cut yourself on all those edges m80

[Anonymous No.5354569]

>>5354560
Truly, I am slain
*tips mitre*

[Anonymous No.5354573]

Anybody here read The Pigeon?

I thought it was pretty ok for a novella

please respond

[Anonymous No.5354596]

>>5354569
ebin
;^)

[Anonymous No.5354598]

>>5354573
ahahahahahah, silly anon

nobody at /lit/ reads anything, much less DISCUSS a "book"

ahahahahahahahah

[Anonymous No.5354612]

>>5354536
0/10

[Anonymous No.5354620]

>>5354612
>oh no, he's right, my book is shit
>le ebin 0/10 meme to distract him

Your taste is shit, this book is shit and you know that.

[Anonymous No.5354629]

>>5354598
Why did /v/ invade this summer? Why.

[Anonymous No.5354633]

>>5354528
I hear you and completely agree with your point about Mary, but how/why would God--a perfect and sinless being--choose to enter the world in a state of sin when it was so important that his own mother be sinless. You're right about Jesus having the free will to sin, but most religions teach that he never did and also came into the world in a state of sinlessness (without "original sin"). Jesus was taken to the temple in Luke 2:22 because his parents were following the law of Moses, which stated that it had to be done. Mary and Joseph were Jews, and as such they followed their religious laws regardless of whether their son needed purification or not.

[Anonymous No.5354637]

>>5354629
>>>/v/

if you actually were here more than two days you would've already realized that no one in this board reads, and that almost all discussions are either composed of shallow philosophical, ripped-from-wikipedia debates or discussions of short articles by majorly hyped authors

[Anonymous No.5354648]

>>5354620
>this book is shit
Could you take a small break from shitposting to say why you didn't like it?

[Anonymous No.5354653]

>>5354637
>I came to 4chan recently and I'm a pretty big deal

[Anonymous No.5354657]

>>5354637
Someone who finally fucking gets it

[Anonymous No.5354674]

>>5353955

Parallels with Jesus doesn't automatically = Jesus. In this case I prefer this >>5353997

The devil is a parody of goodness.

[Anonymous No.5354679]

>>5354648
It's a twisted and degenerated view into the life of a murderer.
The setting is shit, Paris is boring as hell, the novel should take place in London instead.
The supernatural sense of smell of the "protagonist" is never explained, therefore the whole book is based on a shitty deus ex machina-esque plot device.

[Anonymous No.5354686]

OP, The only problem is trying to justify the 25 virgins he clubbed to death.

I had a similar thought when reading it. Initially i thought he was the devil, but then came to think that Suskind was making a clever comment on Christianity, and portraying Jesus as misunderstood by society. Sort of like he was in Behold the Man, where a modern day psychoanalyst goes back in time and is mistaken for Jesus.

It looks like he leaves a wake of destruction, but as you rightly pointed out, "Any male who exploited him for financial gain died almost immediately after his departure." Only sinful males were punished. That whole scene in the field where is playing with scents like mickey mouse in fantasia, and his ability to heal point at heavenly help too. And the misunderstoodness fits with everybody worshiping him.

My interpretation was that Jesus was a cunt portrayed as an angel.

[Anonymous No.5354697]

>>5354657
>>5354637
>projecting your own insecurities about your own reading habits onto others
top pleb

[Anonymous No.5354700]

>>5354633
Exactly, the whole point of the immaculate conception was to preserve Jesus from the taint of original sin.

[Anonymous No.5354701]

>>5354573
I did in one sitting and enjoyed it.

[Anonymous No.5354732]

>>5354697
How wrong.
All you need to do is go into a Neetch thread and see how many posts there are calling him a nihilist to see how shallow the readers are here. The Hegel thread a couple of hours ago was fucking embarrassing.

/lit/'s reading habits are monotonous garbage and usually centre among the same authors - Joyce, Pynch, DFW, Gene Wolfe, Stirner, and when someone tries to break out of this comfort zone, the thread is left to rot.
That, or there are "rate my shit" or bookshelf threads with 200+ replies.

No /lit/ you are the pleb.

[Anonymous No.5354743]

>>5354700
>Exactly, the whole point of the immaculate conception was to preserve Jesus from the taint of original sin.

Why? If God was capable of making Mary born without original sin, why couldn't he just do that with Jesus?

[Anonymous No.5354771]

>>5354732
>usually centre among the same authors - Joyce, Pynch, DFW, Gene Wolfe, Stirner
Wring, /lit/ discusses 75 authors.

The inner circle, or 1st is:
Joyce, Pynchon, and DFW

The 2nd ring is
PKD, GRRM, Laurie Penny, Tao Lin, Camus, Tolkien, Stephen King, Stirner, Hunter S Thompson, Jim Butcher, Bukowski, Kant, Murakami, Rimbaurd, Burroughs, Kerouac, Jim Butcher, J. K Rowling, Chuck Palaniuk, and Nabokov.

The 3rd ring consist of 52 lesser discussed authors.

[Anonymous No.5354791]

>>5354743
Most Christian churches teach that God did do that with Jesus too. To be more accurate, Jesus simply is without sin. It's part of God's/Jesus' inherent nature. The reasoning behind Mary being spared from original sin and leading a sinless life is that a sinless mother would be the appropriate entrance into the world for a perfect/sinless being. It's the same reasoning behind the purification of sanctuaries and tabernacles. These are the dwelling places of God among men, and as such they should be separated from sin/evil.

[Anonymous No.5354821]

>>5354791
>The reasoning behind Mary being spared from original sin and leading a sinless life is that a sinless mother would be the appropriate entrance into the world for a perfect/sinless being.
I thought it was a reward for Mary. God had been planning on unleashing Jesus, so he made Mary born sinless, knowing that she was always going to be the mother of Jesus. Pope Pius said "Rather than being cleansed after sin by baptism, she was completely prevented from contracting Original Sin in view of the foreseen merits of Christ." Seems less about Jesus having a sinless mother, and more about Mary being rewarded for being the future mother of Jesus.

[Anonymous No.5354847]

>>5353955
>-He sacrificed himself so that 'riff-raff' could experience pure love.
No he didn't. He was suicidal, made those whores and theives kill him, and gave the opinion that were killing him out of a moment of pure love. There was no sacrifice for them, he used them because he wanted to die.

[Anonymous No.5354898]

There are people on /lit/ right now who haven't read perfume.

[Anonymous No.5354925]

>>5354378
what a great rebuttal

[Anonymous No.5354935]

>>5354371
>The conception of Jesus was immaculate because there was no sex involved
Then how did the angel get her pregnant?

[Anonymous No.5354990]

>>5354821
I don't think it was meant as a reward because such a reward would have logically extended to Joseph too. Mary's reward was the honor of being Jesus' mother, her role in the redemption of humanity, and later her assumption into heaven rather than normal death. Pope Pius is explaining in that quote that she was spared original sin because of Christ and his inherent sinless nature (his "merits"), not because of anything Mary had done or would eventually do.

[Anonymous No.5354995]

>actually arguing about this shit pile of a book

[Anonymous No.5355006]

>>5354995
kurt cobain liked it

[Anonymous No.5355008]

>>5354935
God created the pregnancy in Mary. An angel announced it to her. It's pretty well established in the Bible (and just simple logic if you believe in an omnipotent being) that God is capable of creating life without the need for any biological process like sex.

[Anonymous No.5355018]

>>5354995
If for some strange reason (though I can't think why) you didn't like this incredible novel, then why don't you go and contribute to a thread about a book that you did like? Or, seeing as this thread is about the theme of theology in Perfume, why don't you make a comment about what you thought about that theme?

Your post does very little to further the discussion, and really wasn't needed.

[Anonymous No.5355035]

>>5355018
>I think the Perfume was incredible

[Anonymous No.5355038]

>>5355008
>God created the pregnancy in Mary. An angel announced it to her.
but how did he do it? "made her pregnant" is very vague. I mean, she went through a traditional pregnancy, right, she didn't return to Joe 8 months into pregnancy, so did God insert holy ejaculate into her vaginal canal, fertilize an egg with a holy sperm, or implant a four week fetal Jesus? Did Mary have temporary hermaphrodite qualities and Jesus' DNA was 100% hers, or was it half Gods (Didn't the Vatican do some DNA analysis on the Turin shroud?) This is a significant miracle, i must know how it was done.

>God is capable of creating life without the need for any biological process like sex.
Then why did he need pregnancy? Why didn't he just zap Jesus down in a lightning bolt or make him out of Mary's rib? If Mary really had no original sin, then it was a bit cruel of God to make her suffer childbirth (Womans punishment for original sin).

[Anonymous No.5355039]

>>5355035
Well, you have certainly changed your tune. I take it you read some excerpts then?

[Anonymous No.5355043]

>>5355038
>Then why did he need pregnancy?
Because of prophesy. Man must have his archetypes.
>Womans punishment for original sin
No, that's just an urban legend.

[Anonymous No.5355052]

>>5355008
The "immaculate conception" refers to the conception of Mary, not that of Jesus (that'd be the "virgin birth".) Sloppy mistake.

[Anonymous No.5355066]

>>5355039
lol, even the local telephone book is better than this shit.

>reading excerpts from shitty literature

i have the audio book, i used it to fall asleep

[Anonymous No.5355081]

>>5355066
>i have the audio book, i used it to fall asleep
Deutsch, hoffe ich?

[Anonymous No.5355095]

>>5355081
Halts Maul du Spast.
Das Parfüm is Scheiße langweilig und du solltest es besser wissen.
Typische deutsche Literatur, zu nichts zu gebrauchen.

[Anonymous No.5355142]

>>5353955
>-He had supernatural gifts. Not just the lack of scent and incredible sense of smell, but the ability to heal his body.
I don't think so. His sense of smell was an acute form of hyperosmia, and his regeneration was just his crippling despair ending.

[Anonymous No.5355153]

>>5355006
>kurt cobain liked it
Yeah, the song Scentless Apprentice is about it.

[Anonymous No.5355167]

>>5355038
How did God make Mary pregnant? We just don't know. If the Bible were authored today, maybe there would have been a more specific revelation regarding the science and DNA, but at the time of writing, people knew very little about the science of conception outside of what was obvious, so there was no reason to get specific. (I don't think any church even has a teaching of whether Mary's DNA was involved at all.) If you believe in the story of Adam and Eve, there's no teaching about how God brought them into being aside from the story with the mud and the rib, which leaves a lot of DNA questions, too. Religion is filled with unanswered questions, which is where faith tends to come into play.

To answer your question about why God needed pregnancy as a method to come into the world, it was because God had chosen to truly become human--from start to finish, just like all the rest of us (with the only exception being his separation from original sin because that was beyond his nature). Christians believe that Jesus created us and then chose to live fully among his creation.

Was it cruel to make Mary suffer childbirth? It was part of Mary's role in all of this, a role she accepted willingly at the Annuciation (when the angel explained all this to her). A mother accepts that pain for the good of the child. Christians believe likewise that Jesus accepted the pain of crucifixion for the redemption of humanity.