Russell Edson’s ‘The Toy-Maker’ reads like a mockery of the Hebrew Bible’s Genesis. Christians may read Genesis with reverence for their wondrous Creator, but to me that tale makes God seem like a childish, bored Dude amazed by his own powers to create toy shit. In ‘The Toy-Maker’, Edson has recreated my interpretation of Genesis.
In Genesis, God decides to create mankind and the universe. The text reads, “And God said, ‘Let there be light’; and there was light. And God saw that the light was good.” I always picture a caveman rubbing his stomach and saying, “Me want people to play with. I make people to play with. It good!” This worldly popular and infinitely controversial Creationism story is so simple. Likewise, Edson’s language is simple. Initially, each line is only a statement as to what the toy maker creates. By not explaining why the toy-maker has decided to create a universe, he mirrors Genesis, which never explains why God created the world.
The story of Adam and Eve does explain God’s “getting old toy” and “dying toy.” In this story, Eve eats the forbidden apple after God warns, “that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” Thus, age and death are introduced into the world. Adam and Eve is much longer than Edson’s depiction of a toy maker creating death. Edson does not pretend that there is any understandable, solid reason for suffering.
Edson’s toy-maker created these problems to amuse himself. Likewise, throughout the Hebrew Bible, it often seems like God views His creations as toys. During the Flood portion of Genesis, God decides His own toys are wicked and not as fun as He hoped. He says, "I will wipe man from the face of the earth, man, my own creation…for I regret having made them." Rather than viewing his creations as real, physical people and considering their feelings, he acts like he is returning toys to a department store. ‘The Toy-maker’ includes no similar flood scene. It is already clear that the toy-maker feels no compassion towards his creations because he calls them “toys.”
The toy-maker also creates God and Heaven. “God” and “heaven” are both lowercase, lessening their power and holiness. God and Heaven are just as much “toy shit” as all the other toys. The toy maker is God’s creator, just as humans have created God. Throughout history, God has been abused to transform people into toys for political and racist agendas of the elite. Priests and clergymen transform wives and children into toys to fool and play with in order to obtain money and more power. The last line of this poems sums up the reality of God and those who have created him: “And best of all, [they] liked making toy shit.” All these ideas – wives, children, years, age, death, heaven, and god—are summed up with one word: shit. I sure wish the Bible had concluded with that word.
Some good stuff in here, Holly. Good idea to directly compare Edson's Genesis with the Old Testament's version. Of course, you (perhaps necessarily) leave out a lot from the original version. But this brings up a bit of a dilemma--you end up picking an choosing section that fit your purpose. What of God's choice to make humans in his own image? What of the role of the snake? What about knowledge and the animals and naming and all the other stuff?
ReplyDeleteOf course, Edson greatly reduces the whole story down to these few lines, but do you think it's possible he's being a little facetious here? His brevity and word choice seems to so overtly reduce the power of creation (which, after all, is the writer/poet's job, too), I wonder if there's something else going on with his deadpan delivery. By denigrating the toy-maker, doesn't he also denigrate himself?
This isn't to take away from all the stuff that you bring to light here. Yes, you are right--humans (particularly men) have created and used religion for tens of thousands of years to produce systems of power to their own advantage. But I think Edson is also being rather snarky with this poem, suggesting multiple interpretations of this little parable. What other kinds of toy makers are there?
Overall, I would suggest you focus on trying to produce multiple meanings from the text that are investigating the deeper language structure of the work. Edson is deceptively simple, but I don't think what he's saying here is maybe always what it seems.
Good focus and nice detail though. keep going.
=8
e