Good at what it purports to be, which is a Monty Python-like comedy of silliness. Every event is improbable, a deus ex machina device, which Adams eve...moreGood at what it purports to be, which is a Monty Python-like comedy of silliness. Every event is improbable, a deus ex machina device, which Adams even playfully admits, since the Heart of Gold (ship) runs on Improbability Drive. Adams seems, it is at least reasonable to say, in control of his material, and aware of its limitations. It is an achievement to write a book that it is merely funny, but it is a limited achievement to write a series of gags as discontinuous as a Family Guy episode.
The structure of the book is this:
1. Ford and Arthur escape Earth via Ford's uncanny abilities of hitching a ride with some Vogons. 2. They are thrown into space, and rescued in the nick of time by Zaphod and the Heart of Gold. 3. They encounter Magrathea by chance, and have adventures on it. 4. They escape Magrathea by chance (the galactic policemen die unexpectedly from the atmosphere).
All of these events are by chance, and have no logical connection to the one before them. We learn nothing of Trillian and her relationship with Zaphod. Zaphod is even more unpredictable than Mr. Adams, and his behavior defies any unity of character. Do you see how easy it is?
I like silliness, but I'm not sure if I shall continue on with the trilogy. I find the pseudo-intellectualism of this book's followers off-putting, much like that of Dmitri Martin's fans, or, more to the point, Monty Python. It does not actually take a clever mind to joke that "the answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything is 42." There is nothing apt about that joke; it is merely unexpected, a non sequitur. Similarly, it does not take an Aristotle to jape at the absurdity of philosophers playing soccer: again, there is nothing apt or revealing about the absurdity; it is merely absurd for absurdity's sake. This is no great feat. Making people laugh is a feat, but, on its own, it is a small one.(less)
The central argument is sound, however many ill-advised logical stretches he makes in demonstrating his premises. It is that television:
1. has limited...moreThe central argument is sound, however many ill-advised logical stretches he makes in demonstrating his premises. It is that television:
1. has limited capabilities of expressing propositions, especially the important ones; 2. has become so dominant in our culture as to become a meta-medium, controlling not only our knowledge of the world but what books we buy, what music we listen to, etc.
It follows from the combination of these two truths that people are increasingly unable to think in rational, ordered ways. The information we receive is limited; we rarely know what to do with it (largely because of information overload, albeit information of only a certain kind); and the information we do receive is most commonly in the form of context-free soundbytes, images, headlines, etc.
He wrote this in 1985. He didn't know how right he would turn out to be.(less)
I love Cardinal Wuerl, but this book is strictly for beginners, for outsiders. It is very basic, and, while the most profound truths are the simplest...moreI love Cardinal Wuerl, but this book is strictly for beginners, for outsiders. It is very basic, and, while the most profound truths are the simplest (for example, divine simplicity!), it will be of best use in evangelizing those who have fallen away from the Church (most Catholics), or those who don't actually know what the Church teaches (most non-Catholics). This is not a criticism: the book is intended to spread the Gospel, and I expect that it will. Cardinal Wuerl is a wonderful man.(less)
Reads too much like a campaign book. Brooks is generally right that people who actually believe in economic growth need to define themselves, at least...moreReads too much like a campaign book. Brooks is generally right that people who actually believe in economic growth need to define themselves, at least in messaging, more by what they believe in rather than what they are against. Bittersweet reading it after the tragic 2012 elections, which we lost because people see us as the party of scolds. Lord, have mercy on this country.(less)
Lots of fun. A brief satire of the French legal system, made up of 3 plots, in 3 Acts.
Plot A: the Judge Dandin has lost his mind. B: His son Leander is...moreLots of fun. A brief satire of the French legal system, made up of 3 plots, in 3 Acts.
Plot A: the Judge Dandin has lost his mind. B: His son Leander is in love with the attorney Chicaneau's daughter Isabelle, but no one is allowed in his house except other lawyers, bailiffs, judges, and other people in the field. C: Chicaneau is an absurdly litigious man, and is a villain figure for his frivolous lawsuits, by which he gains enemies, including a wealthy Countess. One case is his suit of a man whose cow wandered onto Chicaneau's field, and ate his grass. The case took ten years, and six-thousand francs, and he lost, but he's appealing. The judge ordered discovery of how much grass a cow could eat in a day.
Leander, in order to (Plot A) pacify his father, and (Plot B) get Isabelle, disguises himself and his father's clerk as bailiffs, and they serve a writ/summons to Chicaneau when he's not home. They give love letters to Isabelle explaining that, of course, this is not a summons, but a love letter, and, when Chicaneau arrives, they hand him a forged summons, and interrogate both of them ("how old are you? Are you married?"). It's quite funny.
They bring him to Judge Dandin, who in his madness was judging a dispute about a dog who ate the rooster of a different owner (a previous case involved a rooster bribed by litigants to not crow one morning so that the Judge would be late to court), and the Judge pronounces that she should marry soon. Leander presents the summons, and, upon actually reading it, Chicaneau discovers that it's actually a contract giving Isabelle to him. Judge Dandin determines that it's a valid contract, and she is bound to Leander. Everyone lives happily ever after, even the villain Chicaneau, who now has a family tie to a judge.
All but useless as a historical work, but highly entertaining as a work of fiction. The work is made up of three essays in four sections/parts:
1. “Mos...moreAll but useless as a historical work, but highly entertaining as a work of fiction. The work is made up of three essays in four sections/parts:
1. “Moses An Egyptian” – Freud admits that his evidence is weak. (1) Moses’ name could easily be derived from Egyptian as from Hebrew. In Hebrew it means “drawn out,” as he was drawn out of the Nile. In Egyptian, it simply would mean “child.” Ramses, for example, means “child of Ra.” Moses being adopted and raised in Egypt should be enough to make this unpersuasive, as well as the similarity of all Semitic languages. (2) He cites Josephus, who lived 1000 years after Moses. (3) He cherry-picks (as he admits) parts of the Bible that support his conclusion, and ignores the parts that don’t. Some of these are actually intriguing, such as Moses being “slow of speech” (not a native speaker of Hebrew). Still, a flawed method cannot persuade. (4) Worst of all, Freud claims that, because Moses’ childhood story does not fit in with other cultures’ hero myths, then it cannot be accurate. Seriously, he argues this: the Bible surely has it inverted because in the monomyth the hero is always born high and raised low, not born low and raised high. Facts are less important than a highly speculative, and, for that matter, specious argument from analogy made only a few decades earlier by Otto Rank.
2. “If Moses were an Egyptian...”
Freud then traces the consequences of Moses actually being an Egyptian. That is, he assumes that he has proven it, which he hasn’t. Here he tells an actually fascinating fiction story of the Egyptian Moses, the Pharaoh Akhenaten’s general who, after Akhenaten’s death and the restoration of paganism, flees to the East from his enemies at court. He agrees to lead a tribe, who then fuses with another Midian tribe. Moses is later murdered by one of the “stiff-necked” factions, an event so traumatic that it must be repressed, covered up, and deleted from the Bible, however surviving in the oral tradition, and winding up, in a veiled way, in the later prophets. To repress their guilt, the Moses myth is born, his Atenism/Egyptian monotheism fused with the Midian religion and culture, and he is credited as lawgiver and liberator both. Hope for him to return from the dead leads to a longing for a Messiah. The murder of Christ unleashes overwhelming psychological and spiritual power, reopening this wound, and throwing the people deeper into, paradoxically, both the Atenism (as the Torah is preached to the Gentiles), and to Midianism (with ceremony, ritual, and other “superstitions”).
3. “The Genesis of Monotheism”
To make this even more powerful, he cites Darwin in asserting that prehistoric man lived in small hordes (we cannot know this, but it seems, increasingly, to be a reasonable if not probable inference) dominated by a strongman. This strongman ruled without morality; he dominated all. Women were his property. Any threatening male he castrated or killed. Finally, the beta-males team up and kill the alpha male, who is their father and protector. The sons slay the father. They all have Oedipal urges to take over as alpha male, but, seeing what has just happened to the alpha male, they form a Rousseauvian social contract not to kill each other—no one will be alpha male anymore. The rule of law begins, as men begin to have duties to one another. In order to repress this traumatic memory of killing the father, they commemorate the event with a festival, where they kill a totem animal, such as a lamb, or some other symbol of him. Over time, the people begin to worship the totem animal, and they worship animal gods, which are later humanized, which leads to heliotheism, which leads back to monotheism, worship of the distant father.
4. The Jewish Character and the Enigma of Anti-Semitism
Freud wrote this while fleeing the Nazis. He had been living in Vienna, and had feared offending the Catholic Church, not publishing the “Genesis of Monotheism” out of fear. He didn’t know how good he had it: suddenly the Nazis conquered Vienna, and he hurried off to England, where he published the book in German and in English.
Freud thought that the Jews never recovered from this guilt complex of murdering Moses, and that: (a) They proudly, and somewhat arrogantly, thought of themselves as “chosen” by the universal God rather than simply under the patronage of a local god like the gentiles, and kept themselves aloof from other groups; (b) This caused them both to excel, and to be resented by the gentiles, (c) Especially after the advent of Christ, who, as a Jew, and as one who said “salvation comes from the Jews,” and billions of gentiles agreed. Christianity affirms the chosenness of the Jews, causing more resentment.
Freud is not to be taken seriously, but I personally enjoy the power of his imagination, and the novelty of his interpretations, not only of dreams, but of texts, and of reality. He might have been great as one of those (his words) “scholastics and talmudists who are satisfied to exercise their ingenuity unconcerned how far removed their conclusions may be from the truth."(less)
Couldn't get past p. 20. Some of the purplest prose I've ever read. For example, he has an entire page describing the silence of a scene--is this a jo...moreCouldn't get past p. 20. Some of the purplest prose I've ever read. For example, he has an entire page describing the silence of a scene--is this a joke? PKD wrote 40 books in 30 years; he could have used an editor.(less)
So poorly written that I couldn't make it past p.80. Hard to decide what is worst about it: the dialogue all sounding identical, and unlike real dialo...moreSo poorly written that I couldn't make it past p.80. Hard to decide what is worst about it: the dialogue all sounding identical, and unlike real dialogue, the muted junior high prose, or the preposterous story. Couldn't bring myself to keep going.(less)
An exercise in childishness. Proof that the Nobel prize was always politicized.
I hope to do now what Wittgenstein, as a student, did to his Prof. Russ...moreAn exercise in childishness. Proof that the Nobel prize was always politicized.
I hope to do now what Wittgenstein, as a student, did to his Prof. Russell within the course of one ten-minute conversation. As Russell put it, "His criticism, 'tho I don't think he realized it at the time, was an event of first-rate importance in my life, and affected everything I have done since. I saw that he was right, and I saw that I could not hope ever again to do fundamental work in philosophy."
So we have Wittgenstein to blame for making Russell quit real philosophy, and turning instead to logorrheal (Russell wrote 3000 words a day for decades) commentary on social, political, and religious matters, none of which he treated with the same respect and seriousness as he did academic philosophy. As Wittgenstein flatly said, "Russell's books should be bound in two colours, those dealing with mathematical logic in red — and all students of philosophy should read them; those dealing with ethics and politics in blue — and no one should be allowed to read them."
Russell is more or less a liberal, as we would call him today. He is a libertarian in social issues, and a utopian in economic matters. It is for this latter category that he reserves his worst howlers:
"In everything that concerns the economic life of the community, as regards both distribution and conditions of production, what is required is more public control, not less--how much more, I do not profess to know." If you don't know how much more, then you don't have an ideal. If you don't have an ideal, then you can't really call anything progress or regress, since those terms are relative to the ideal.
"The state ought to satisfy itself that [a man] occupies no more land than he is warranted in occupying in the public interest, and that the share of the produce of the land that comes to him is no more than a just reward for his labors. Probably the only way in which such ends can be achieved is by state ownership of land. The possessors of land and capital are able at present, by economic pressure, to use force against those who have no possessions. This force is sanctioned by law, while force exercised by the poor against the rich is illegal. Such a state of things is unjust, and does not diminish the use of private force as much as it might be diminished." The totalitarianism in this idea is obvious. A state gets to decide what amount of land is "warranted" for you to own. You have no right to property (which is one of the few rights that is actually real) if this is the case. Reminds me of Barack Obama's "I do think at a certain point you've made enough money." If the state is to determine how much you are allowed to earn (earning being a reward for production), then how are they to do so? There is no self-evident criterion for making this kind of judgment, which is one more reason why this judgment simply should not be made at all. Land is bought by wealth; wealth is earned by valuable goods or services. You can't limit land or wealth without limiting goods or services, lowering the value of resources not just for the evil rich man but for everyone.
"Few men seem to realize how many of the evils from which we suffer are wholly unnecessary, and that they could be abolished by a united effort within a few years. If a majority in every civilized country so desired, we could, within twenty years, abolish all abject poverty, quite half the illness in the world, the whole economic slavery which binds down nine tenths of our population; we could fill the world with beauty and joy, and secure the reign of universal peace. It is only because men are apathetic that this is not achieved, only because imagination is sluggish, and what always has been is regarded as what always must be. With good-will, generosity, intelligence, these things could be brought about." If this is not wishful thinking, nothing is. The liberal, even in the proto-liberal of WWI, simply fails to accept the intractability of life and its problems. Most neglected is scarcity, and the inevitability of illness and privation. As a far wiser Man said, "the poor you will always have among you." And again: temptations must come, but woe to him by whom they come. And again: Heaven and Earth will pass away.
"The tyranny of the employer, which at present robs the greater part of most men's lives of all liberty and all initiative, is unavoidable so long as the employer retains the right of dismissal with consequent loss of pay. This right is supposed to be essential in order that men may have an incentive to work thoroughly. But as men grow more civilized, incentives based on hope become increasingly preferable to those that are based on fear. It would be far better that men should be rewarded for working well than that they should be punished for working badly. This system is already in operation in the civil service, where a man is only dismissed for some exceptional degree of vice or virtue, such as murder or illegal abstention from it. Sufficient pay to ensure a livelihood ought to be given to every person who is willing to work, independently of the question whether the particular work at which he is skilled is wanted at the moment or not. If it is not wanted, some new trade which is wanted ought to be taught at the public expense. Why, for example, should a hansom-cab driver be allowed to suffer on account of the introduction of taxies? He has not committed any crime, and the fact that his work is no longer wanted is due to causes entirely outside his control. Instead of being allowed to starve, he ought to be given instruction in motor driving or in whatever other trade may seem most suitable. At present, owing to the fact that all industrial changes tend to cause hardships to some section of wage-earners, there is a tendency to technical conservatism on the part of labor, a dislike of innovations, new processes, and new methods. But such changes, if they are in the permanent interest of the community, ought to be carried out without allowing them to bring unmerited loss to those sections of the community whose labor is no longer wanted in the old form. The instinctive conservatism of mankind is sure to make all processes of production change more slowly than they should. It is a pity to add to this by the avoidable conservatism which is forced upon organized labor at present through the unjust workings of a change." Again, far wiser: "By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground." Russell, an aristocrat, has a decidedly aristocratic view of life. It is simply unfair to him that not everyone can be an aristocrat, and that the wealth of an aristocrat does not grow on trees, but must come from somewhere. The only reason to hire or pay someone is if they provide a good or service of equal or greater value than what you pay. We can't all be bureaucratic drones or charity cases. As Thatcher said, the Good Samaritan had to get his money before he could give it away.
People "should not be free as regards the price of what they produce, since price is a matter concerning their relations to the rest of the community. If there were nominal freedom in regard to price, there would be a danger of a constant tug-of-war, in which those trades which were most immediately necessary to the existence of the community could always obtain an unfair advantage. Force is no more admirable in the economic sphere than in dealings between states. In order to secure the maximum of freedom with the minimum of force, the universal principle is: _Autonomy within each politically important group, and a neutral authority for deciding questions involving relations between groups_. The neutral authority should, of course, rest on a democratic basis, but should, if possible, represent a constituency wider than that of the groups concerned. In nternational affairs the only adequate authority would be one representing all civilized nations." Price controls are another universal failure. Even liberals admit that they are a failure in theory. When you ask them about, say, the minimum wage, they might forget that a wage is a price of a service. But price controls are always bad. Just ask Hoover.
Russell's pacifism also deserves derision, especially since he was only a pacifist while he was of military age.
Bertrand Russell has done great damage to the West, though he fades with every passing day. I may be done reading him after this; in no work which I have read has he deserved his reputation.(less)
Fascinating, especially the earlier chapters, which supplement the New Testament, and are the source for many truths I had long heard ascribed to "tra...moreFascinating, especially the earlier chapters, which supplement the New Testament, and are the source for many truths I had long heard ascribed to "tradition." Later chapters are less interesting, since the illustrious men are less familiar to the modern reader, and, frankly, less illustrious.
Jerome's praise of the heretic Origen was a bit perplexing. If I didn't know better I would think he was the greatest of the Fathers. So brilliant was he that a man voluntarily hired him 7 secretaries and 7 copyists. Man, that's ballin.(less)
Normally this isn't a problem for Freud, who won the Goethe prize. He is almost always ready with an allusion or...moreDeeply flawed. Problems:
1. Dry prose.
Normally this isn't a problem for Freud, who won the Goethe prize. He is almost always ready with an allusion or apt metaphor for what he is trying to say, but not here. The style is not his usual, as he breaks into dialogue form 25% into it. Muddled, and just boring writing.
2. Petitio Principii
The entire argument is a petitio principii, which Freud acknowledges, saying "The truth of religious ideas is beyond the scope of this enquiry." Proceeding with the assumption that they are false is no proof that they are false.
3. Weak Thesis
Even admitting the premises under which he is operating, Freud's thesis is so qualified and tempered that it wastes away. His argument ("The Future" of the illusion) could be summarized as follows:
(a) Religion is a narcotic, and it is difficult to break addictions to narcotics. (b) The passions and emotions are stronger than the intellect, and so, the drive to live reasonably will never be stronger than the drive for comfort. [The drive to live reasonably, it might be objected, is contingent upon other salutary effects. It is an epiphenomenal impulse. Possibly.] (c) Religious people are less likely to suffer other neuroses because they are subject to religion, which is a substitute neuroris. (d) The French Revolution attempted to do away with religion, and leave mankind only with naked reason, but this was a complete disaster. Russia, too, will likely turn out to be a disaster (correct).
However,
(e) nonetheless, in spite of all these things, religion will fade as humanity matures, and science, which is still young, progresses.
4. Scientism
Freud twice makes the verification fallacy. Science is the only tool we have to gain "knowledge about reality outside of ourselves." Unfortunately, this methodological axiom is not learned from science, and therefore not certainly known. Therefore, the proposition refutes itself, and we are left where we started with: nothing.
Conclusion:
Freud has done unspeakable damage to the human race, and continues to do so in the corrupted misunderstandings of people who do not even know that they are his followers. Witness, near the end of the book, where he says that, if we just could get rid of (1) teaching children about religion, and (2) "sexual inhibition," and the teaching of it to children, civilization would be much better off.
I think we all know how both of those experiments worked out.(less)
I try not to read this kind of book, but I end up getting copies of them for free, which is for me an unanswerable argument.
I feel bad saying this, b...moreI try not to read this kind of book, but I end up getting copies of them for free, which is for me an unanswerable argument.
I feel bad saying this, but Gardner writes nonfiction a lot better than he writes fiction or poetry. He is, at moments, somewhat exciting, having, as he does, a gift for phrasing things, and for concisely getting to the point in an entertaining way. As quoted and dissected in this book, his fiction, frankly, is not as good; his poetry is worse still than that.
Reading about Gardner one cannot divorce this book from his death, as it was the last he ever finished. Therefore, one cannot read it without sympathy, and pity. Rest in Peace.(less)
I have occasionally struggled with Tolstoy's theology. He is persuasive, and there was a time when my understanding of the Gospel was virtually identi...moreI have occasionally struggled with Tolstoy's theology. He is persuasive, and there was a time when my understanding of the Gospel was virtually identical with his (though I had not read him yet). Upon reflection, of course, one could not construct a society based on his principles, and, as such, they are impractical, unless Christ was speaking only to the tiny minority of men who would really follow Him through the narrow gate down the narrow path.
Summary of his ideas: love is the one law, the rest is commentary. Therefore the Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes, etc. are to be taken completely literally. Complete pacifism, complete nonviolence. Resist not evil.
I wrestle with this line of thinking even now, as I type this. I do not know.
The foreward by Gandhi is cool because it's by Gandhi. This book was published at his behest.(less)
Trimble's speech is the best one, even though I was sort of brought up to think of him as an untrustworthy guy. From his lecture anyway, he is a sensi...moreTrimble's speech is the best one, even though I was sort of brought up to think of him as an untrustworthy guy. From his lecture anyway, he is a sensible conservative, something modernity has suffered from lacking.
[political] "Vision in its pure meaning is clear sight. That does not mean I have no dreams. I do. But I try to have them at night. By day I am satisfied if I can see the furthest limit of what is possible. Politics can be likened to driving at night over unfamiliar hills and mountains. Close attention must be paid to what the beam can reach and the next bend. Driving by day, as I believe we are now doing, we should drive steadily, not recklessly, studying the countryside ahead, with judicious glances in the mirror."
One of the best books I've ever read. A jewel. If you ever need a jolt of creativity, put on some JS Bach and read Borges for a few minutes. And have...moreOne of the best books I've ever read. A jewel. If you ever need a jolt of creativity, put on some JS Bach and read Borges for a few minutes. And have a glass of wine.
My favorite is "the Babylon Lottery." Borges has amazingly capable of dramatizing ideas, of showing us the consequences of ways of looking at the world. That is the Borges mode I like best, although he has others (there are, for example, two stories about Argentine knife-fights in here). In "Tlon," he shows us what life would be like if Berkeley, Spinoza, and the other idealists were right; in the "Lottery" he analyzes chance, and how, when we speak of it, we almost never mean what we say, and, consequently, fall into errors resulting from what we actually say (short version: there is no such thing as chance, and there cannot possibly be any such thing).
Reading Borges, I feel as though I have discovered a part of myself that I had kept latent. This is a good feeling.(less)
Why think about hell? "The thought of Hell fortifies the weakest."
Terrifying, as it should be. Father Schouppe, a Victorian Jesuit, is a wonderfully g...moreWhy think about hell? "The thought of Hell fortifies the weakest."
Terrifying, as it should be. Father Schouppe, a Victorian Jesuit, is a wonderfully gifted prose stylist, a skill he uses to terrify us into actually being good for once. After briefly making the argument, which should be obvious, that Scripture unequivocally speaks of hell's existence, he then cites stories of saints and others who have encountered hell, or had visions thereof.
My favorite is the story of St. Martinian, who, when tempted by a very beautiful woman to fornication, "took off his shoes and plunged both feet into the fire [in his fireplace]. The pain drew cries from him, but he said to his soul, "Alas! My soul, if thou canst not bear so weak a fire, how wilt thou be able to bear the fire of Hell?"'(less)
The Pope essentially names many of the great Catholic philosophers, but in the highest class, three philosophers, like three pillars, on whom to build...moreThe Pope essentially names many of the great Catholic philosophers, but in the highest class, three philosophers, like three pillars, on whom to build a stable society: St. Augustine, St. Bonaventure, and, most of all St. Thomas Aquinas, whom he proclaims as indispensable, as someone whom all should study. The rest of the encyclical concerns the importance of Aquinas for people in all walks of life, of all vocations.
Not as deep or useful as Fides et Ratio, but worth the brief read.(less)
Fascinating. The testimony of St. Aristides of Athens before the Emperor Hadrian. Very much like that of St. Justin before Emperor Marcus Aurelius, bu...moreFascinating. The testimony of St. Aristides of Athens before the Emperor Hadrian. Very much like that of St. Justin before Emperor Marcus Aurelius, but a lot more confrontational in tone. Whereas St. Justin appeals to the reason that is common to all, St. Aristides openly ridicules the beliefs of pagans, and mocks their worship of things created with their own hands.
Having derided paganism at length, going one by one through Greek, Roman, and Egyptian beliefs, he then presents the practices of Christians, which gives a fascinating account of what the early Church was like.
"There is no doubt but that the earth abides through the supplication of the Christians...verily whatever is spoken in the mouth of the Christians is of God; and their doctrine is the gateway of light."(less)
A lucid reiteration of what the Church has always taught since 33 AD.
What has changed in modernity? What change could change the moral law? Many argue...moreA lucid reiteration of what the Church has always taught since 33 AD.
What has changed in modernity? What change could change the moral law? Many argue that, because of improved methods of contraception, fornication is less uncharitable than it previously was. This may be true, but it does not follow from this that (1) it is not still gravely uncharitable, (2) it is not a privation of human purposes, (3) other, nonprocreative evils do not remain evils.
In fact, the importance attached to sexuality by so many of the modern depraved only serves to confirm the Catholic view: if something is so important, then, if there is a G-d, He is going to take it seriously, and not as a trifle or a toy. No biologist would say that, by G-d's regulating of sexuality, He is butting into trivial, personal matters. Sex is where people come from, where G-d gets the big family He wants.
The pure of heart shall see G-d (Mt 5:8). Christ does not say that the naturally intelligent shall figure out G-d. Purity serves charity, which is what G-d is made of. Hence, it is the pure who shall see G-d.(less)
I read this and Gallicanus (which I can't find on GR). Fascinating, at least for me. A medieval nun's miracle/conversion plays.
The plays aren't parti...moreI read this and Gallicanus (which I can't find on GR). Fascinating, at least for me. A medieval nun's miracle/conversion plays.
The plays aren't particularly good--the dialogue doesn't translate well out of Latin--but formally Gallicanus could be reworked into a powerful, powerful tragedy. Of course, all Christian works lead essentially to tragicomedy--a devastating fall and then, a miraculous rise of hope at the end.
Dulcitius: The martyrdom of three virgins. The evil pagan Roman governor sneaks into their house in the middle of the night to rape them but, in the madness of his lust, begins to hallucinate. He thinks that the pots and pans of their kitchen are them, and he tries to make love to them. In a very funny scene, he walks out of their kitchen covered in soot, where his soldiers deride him. The virgins are ordered to be killed, but again, their executioners hallucinate, and they get, at least temporarily away. Eventually, they make the ultimate sacrifice for their integrity, and are martyred, entering into glory.
Gallicanus: This one is marvelously structured. A great general under Constantine, Gallicanus, converts, like Constantine, just before a great battle, and wins a staggeringly unlikely victory, thereby winning the reward he had requested of Constantine, his daughter (whom he had requested before his conversion). She, however, is a consecrated virgin and sworn never to marry. She prays for him to change his mind about her, and, by the time he returns to Rome in triumph, and as a Christian, he is a lot more understanding about this consecrated virginity business. This is the high point of the play before the tragic fall: all are happy, everyone in their right place.
Constantine dies, and Julian the Apostate becomes Emperor, with Gallicanus and Constantine's daughter ultimately martyred by him. If somebody rewrote this thing, it could really be something.(less)
A banal argument, one she admits is "a prosaic conclusion:" to write a woman must have financial independence: money, and a room of her own. The three...moreA banal argument, one she admits is "a prosaic conclusion:" to write a woman must have financial independence: money, and a room of her own. The three "desirable things" for great writing is "time, money, and idleness." There is nothing feminist about this; this holds true for all writers. As such, I am surprised to see so many non-writers interested in this book. The conclusion is obvious. She makes many good observations about writing along the way (the title of the lecture was simply "Women and Fiction;" it was as much about fiction as about women, and about women only insofar as it involved fiction.). Her advice, which would go to both men and women, is simply to write unselfconsciously, unafraid, without bitterness, calmly, simply for the sake of doing it, without worrying about success or failure. This is sound, but, again, obvious. Hard to see why to bother reading this in 2013, with time and mores having changed so dizzyingly much as they have since 1928.(less)
I had sworn off reading this kind of book, but I got it for free, and it's short, so why not.
I follow none of these tips. I want to. I will someday. T...moreI had sworn off reading this kind of book, but I got it for free, and it's short, so why not.
I follow none of these tips. I want to. I will someday. The key thing, which makes up nearly half the book, is the importance of morning and afternoon pages, which train the conscious to command the subconscious.
Loading...
