AI and Literature (6)

Notes on Progressive Inquiry and the Jews (Yup).

As I write this (which is a weird phrase because … when else?) my new is out for consideration by America. LITTLE SATAN: A DANGEROUS NOVEL is an alternative history spy thriller set during the Iranian revolution of 1979. My previous publisher “didn’t know what to do with it” according to my agent, so now — with my eighth novel — I’m facing an open market and New York City (read: America) will either accept or reject me as a writer all over again. It’s a lot like being a debut novelist. While it’s very, very risky, it’s also refreshing. Bring it on, I say. I’ll know whether my career has a future in a few weeks.

In this story, I really needed to get down to the essence of anti-Semitism. One of my questions was whether it really began with Christianity given that the Jews had been around for about a thousand years before Jesus of Nazareth.

The proposition that it began with Christianity is reasonable if debatable. At a fundamental level, the Jews rejected their prophet and — depending on how you see the relationship between Jesus and “the Lord” – their God. In order to validate itself as a new religion, it needed to explain what was insufficient about the old one. Anti-Semitism therefore becomes rooted in Christianity’s need to both distinguish itself from its parent religion but also show its superiority. For Christianity to be better, it only stands to reason that the Jews need to be worse.

One pre-Christian source I found was called Against the Jews by Apion, a Roman. Apion lived during the time of the Roman Empire and was a contemporary of Philo of Alexandria and Josephus. He was known for his opposition to Jewish customs and beliefs, and his writings often reflected the broader Hellenistic and Roman prejudices against Jews. What GPT summarized for me were the main points of the book (which I was able to validate with Britannica and other sources. GPT — even when wrong — does an excellent job of presenting material in categories!

What annoyed Apion about the Jews was: Their monotheism, which was a de facto rejection of the Greek and Roman gods; their customs and practices which the Greeks and Romans found strange; their social isolation, which he took to be a sign of their arrogance and a sense of superiority; and he claimed their origins were in question and they could not be trusted because their loyalty was not first-and-foremost to Rome.

A contemporary of his was Flavius Josephus, a Jewish Roman citizen and historian (though the term is a bit anachronistic). He countered Apion with a delightfully on-the-nose book called, “Against Apion.”

Here’s where GPT started to become handy.

I asked it to, “Please summarize the main arguments in "Against Apion" as well as the evidence he provides to refute Apion's claims.”

[Yes. I say please. No, I don’t want to talk about it.]

Given how topical each and every trope Apion used in 1 AD is today on college campuses, it is fun to share GPT’s summary of “Against Apion” (because heaven knows, no one else is writing about this):

Main Arguments in "Against Apion"

1. Defense of Jewish Antiquity:

   • Argument: Josephus argues that the Jewish people and their traditions are ancient, predating many of the Greek and Roman institutions and practices.

   • Evidence: He cites historical records from various sources, including Egyptian, Phoenician, and Babylonian histories, to show that the Jewish people have a long and continuous history.

2. Legitimacy and Virtue of Jewish Laws and Customs:

   • Argument: Josephus defends Jewish customs, such as circumcision, dietary laws, and the observance of the Sabbath, as being rational, virtuous, and divinely inspired.

   • Evidence: He explains the philosophical and ethical basis of these practices, arguing that they promote cleanliness, health, and moral discipline. He also highlights the respect for Jewish laws among some Hellenistic philosophers and historians.

3. Refutation of Allegations of Misconduct:

   • Argument: Josephus refutes allegations that Jews are disloyal to the state, antisocial, or involved in subversive activities.

   • Evidence: He provides examples of Jewish loyalty and contributions to the Roman state, emphasizing the participation of Jews in the Roman army and their support for Roman laws and governance. He also points out the peaceful and law-abiding nature of Jewish communities.

4. Countering Accusations of Xenophobia and Misogyny:

   • Argument: Josephus addresses claims that Jews are xenophobic and misogynistic.

   • Evidence: He argues that Jewish laws promote justice and compassion towards strangers and women, citing Biblical commandments and historical instances of Jewish hospitality and fairness towards non-Jews.

5. Critique of Greek and Roman Culture:

   • Argument: Josephus turns the tables by criticizing certain aspects of Greek and Roman culture, pointing out their moral and social failings.

   • Evidence: He mentions the decadence and immorality prevalent in Greek and Roman societies, contrasting these with the ethical and moral rigor of Jewish life. He also critiques the inconsistencies and contradictions in Greek and Roman religious practices and myths.

So … that’s fun.

How is any of this helping me write a book?

Part of what’s happening is that the “deep dive” (as the kids call it today) allows me to start to see patterns. Here, I’m able to see a consistency of accusations, hostilities, and rejections of the Jews preceding Christianity that nevertheless take similar forms: The Jews like their God and moral systems better than ours, and that makes us angry because we want to be recognized as the best.

That somewhat pathetic summary (which might also be balls-on accurate) sounds exactly the same as how the Christians felt, and later, how the Muslims felt.

What GPT is now allowing me to do is find patterns that educated people might wonder about. Yes, I’m an academic by training but I’m writing a novel, not a dissertation here. So once I reach the point of a robust observational pattern, I’m content to say, “well … a reasonable person, like my character here … might well believe this.”

That is, in effect, an interpretative move. I am saying, “Tamar, knowing these things, now believes that the animosity towards the Jews will never end until other societies change their attitudes. It is their feelings of inferiority, not Jewish feelings of superiority, that are the problem.”

Is this true?

Well … it is an interpretation that can be backed up by evidence. It can also be debated. Whether a better interpretation can be offered would be determined by a concerted effort to pit one idea against another.

Pitting ideas against one another is dramatic because it creates tension.

When characters believe things, and others believe different things, and those beliefs are relevant to the action of the story, we’re off and running!

Here’s where I want to end this entry: GPT did not write any part of the story. It did not create characters, plot, or tensions. Instead, it served as a useful tool in exploring and refining a proposition for understanding a core analytical belief in a character that will drive her forward and help her make decisions. If it’s “their Goddamn fault, not ours!” and she’s a fight-not-flight kind of person, we can anticipate what is going to set her off and get her chin into the fight. I have anchored character in ideas, and ideas in arguments that are robust if not fool proof.

I have long believed in mind over matter and that “compelling arguments” are what make the world go around. GPT serves as a useful tool in building compelling arguments (not finding them!) to ground a character’s worldview.

— DBM 24 June, 2024.