AJS: on fish and fishing (i)

Seems the line is often attributed to Lao Tzu, a philosopher who may well be part legend but is very real to students of ancient Chinese culture. As some kind of meme, it has some significant miles on it. Its implication may be foreign to kids, but most adults have taken the time to shake meaning loose from what is, essentially an extended metaphor that's only tangentially about bait and tackle. 

As old and venerable as Lao Tzu may be, the memorable line with which he is credited may well have other sources, copy-cats maybe; but more likely simply other mortals who thought a lot of about gifting the hungry with their daily bread. Here's one:

Rabbi Moses Maimonides, a medieval Jewish philosopher and biblical scholar, was widely beloved and thoughtfully read by many during a lifetime of truth-seeking in Egypt and Morocco. His wisdom has worn well. Maimonides, who was also, by the way, a physician and an astronomer, died long ago, in 1204. 

Here's yet another. 

Anna Isabella Thackeray Ritchie, all four names of her, had to be a writer--she was, as was her famous father, the novelist William Thackeray. But Anna Isabella was no slouch herself, penning a number of very popular English novels in the late 19th century, as good an era to write novels as any, more so than most. The wording of her version is altered a bit. Plagiarism lurks maybe, I think--don't you?

Today, the old line about fish and fishing is so worn that it's renewed itself in endless goofiness.  

Even some misogyny. 

But then, what's good for the gander. . .

Zenna Schaffer, who would likely be happy to point out that she doesn't rank with medieval rabbis or Chinese wise men and would be nothing without Lao Tzu, was once--at least--quoted in a book titled Funny Women. More than that I do not know about her.

One of the downsides of pithy wisdom is that what gets old soon soon becomes, well, pithy. The minute what's wise becomes cliche, it loses bite but not (necessarily) truth. Tell me I'm wrong, but it seems that most everyone who knows the line about fish and fishing can probably remember where he or she heard it and thought it through for the first time. 

Cliches may be just that, but their overuse doesn't prove they're empty of truth. Chances are, in fact, the opposite phenom operates: cliches are often true because they're almost always true. 

I'd like to say some things about a Honduras enterprise/mission that absolutely captivated me last week because it uses this old line in a way that makes all kinds of sense. It takes the line about fish and fishing, and extends it, pushes out into uncharted waters. Doesn't mock that old line or make it a bad joke--it simply asks this question: What if you give a man (or woman) a fish and a fishing pole, but discover that the river's rancid and the last fish to call it home became fertilizer a decade ago? Wouldn't you want to know why the fish are gone? Wouldn't you want to do something about that? Wouldn't you have to? 

(More soon)