IN THE BEGINNING
IN THE BEGINNING
IN THE BEGINNING is just what it sounds like it’s gonna be. A Three part retelling of the first family from the Bible. Which may lead to the following questions:
“WHY?” and “Did God really say …”
— ‘snake’ to Eve (Genesis 3:1)
Dear Reader:
What follows is a tale of fiction based upon the first eleven chapters of GENESIS. It is a story of love, trust and denial. Our story is divided into three books (IN THE GARDEN, IN THE FIELDS, NEPHILIM).
But, before this train can leave the station, I must stress two important issues: (consider them as you would “buckle up” and “your hands must remain inside the vehicle at all times”.) These points are A) This is a work of fiction. (I know this has already been stated but we tend to breeze past these words as we would our Miranda rights–yeah, yeah, we’ve heard it all before-or is that just me?) Under proper scrutiny one may find several holes in this story that though each choice can be supported by scripture (see MY APOLOGY for further info on this).as a whole they are built like a house of cards: pull one down and they all could fall. But with this in mind we have to remember we’re telling a story here. We are not taking a defiantly religious stance on our own dogma although I have been careful not to interject implausible accounts. All choices herein (though untraditional are indeed scripturally based).
Point B) God speaks. The protagonist of these stories being God himself; this account includes conversations between God and his people which for the most part consist of my own words and not His. (By “His” I, of course, mean God’s. ) So, the series of questions follow:
Q: “Did God really say all these things?”
A: “No … well, I wasn’t there: I couldn’t tell you.”
Q: “Did I write them down, anyways, as if they came from His mouth?”
A: “You betcha. (A conversation without dialogue is often a dull scene.) As a writer it becomes necessary to put words into the mouth of the character ‘God’ (by ‘character’ I mean the fictionalized characterization of … not the personage of … [Whew, this semantics thing gets dangerous, doesn’t it?]) but always in keeping with the true nature of God (here, I refer to the one true living God, and not the fictional character portrayed within these pages). I have done my best to keep within these parameters (that the fictional depiction should express the true aspects of the actual being).”
OK. If these are the ground rules, in fact if you feel the NEED to even set ground rules why even write such as story if it’s only a bastardization of the original?
That my friends, is simple: we, as a culture, have already turned these stories into less than a morality tale. They have become the grist for nursery rhymes and a little less entertaining than fairy tales. Ah, but there is so much more here, if we will only look at the people written of in the first few lines of the Bible as living flesh and blood individuals; complete with personalities, dreams, morals, desires, contradictions and purpose. It is the tale of children growing up and experiencing this thing called life without the benefit of any past histories or experiences to rely on. This makes their story the most unique. Most importantly this is our story. It is a family history to be learned from and must be retold by every generation to the next.”
A morality tale, at least. The original Everyman story lies within. The very first love story and family drama. And, of course, the earliest sitcom. So, if you can contend with my putting words into the Lord’s mouth for the sole purpose of telling this story, then please proceed forward … or back … as it were. Before anything was written … by anybody … anywhere …
— Michael Perlmutter
I offer to you here the first part (IN THE GARDEN) of the three part piece (IN THE BEGINNING) and a teaser: The first chapter of the second part (IN THE FIELDS). As well as my explanation for how and why I made the literary choices I did in writing this (MY APOLOGY). So . . . Enjoy.
Directing Hamlet 