Michael J. Roueche's Blog, page 15

Finishing the First Draft

Last week, I finished the first draft of the sequel to "Beyond the Wood." I expected the sequel to get much further along in the story than it actually got in the draft (so the third book in the series will have to cover more than I anticipated). The characters in this draft had so much to say and do, and there was so much of the Civil War era that I wanted to include, that the story required more words than I had anticipated. Right now it's a little shorter than "Beyond the Wood," but by the time I rewrite it, I anticipate it will be about the same length.

For me, I much prefer the rewriting, enhancing and editing than filling up the blank pages, so I'm delighted to move on from the first draft.

For anyone who's wondering, most of the characters from the end of "Beyond the Wood" at least make an appearance in the pages of the sequel, and there are some new ones–some of whom I'm very fond.

I've got a working title, but I'm not yet totally comfortable with it, so I'll save that for a later blog.

It’s Much Worse Than We Thought.

Just read the second article that appeared in the last six months in the NY Times that discusses the latest estimates for deaths in the Civil War. Interesting that they would run two columns, especially with one linked to the first.

The real message in the updated estimates is of course that the Civil War was far more devastating than we acknowledge. The latest estimates for deaths during the Civil War are based on  analysis of censuses by SUNY Binghamton’s  J. David Hacker.

Former estimates: Total Soldiers Killed in Civil War: 618,222 men (360,222 from the North and 258,000 from the South: There is no breakdown of deaths by side in the new estimate for accuracy reasons, but 150 years later it seems only appropriate not to divide the death totals as the wounds hopefully continue to heal and we have become one again.)

New estimate from the analysis: “A more realistic probable range, rounded to the nearest 50,000 deaths, might be from 650,000 to 850,000 excess deaths, with a preferred estimate of 750,000.”

One of the interesting tidbits comes from a “commentary” on the study written by historian James M. McPherson: “The figure of 750,000 soldier deaths would translate into 7.5 million American deaths in a war fought in our own time by the United States….” Gives us a scale to weigh the loss.

An important caveat from the study: “Veterans mustered out of the Union and Confederate armies with diseases or mental disorders related to their service no doubt faced a significantly elevated risk of death in the years immediately after the war.

This is an important caveat not only in terms of deaths from the war, but if we consider the shear misery caused by the war:  I’m currently reading “Shook over Hell: Post-Traumatic Stress, Vietnam, and the Civil War,” a book by Eric T. Dean, Jr., which based on what I’ve read to date will conclude that surviving Civil War soldiers suffered much like veterans from Vietnam, in spite of the different circumstances in the war and society. Some of Civil War examples Dean cites are devastating. He mentions increased crime levels North and South after the war, that Union surgeons reported more than 100 men from the battle of Spotsylvania Courthouse of Union shooting off their own fingers and toes to get discharges. My notes from reading the book list these words as some of the symptoms of those who survived: disoriented thinking, startle reactions, social numbing, depression, anxiety. It tells of men sleeping out of doors in the woods because they were frightened to sleep in their own beds, making their homes fortresses so the Confederates couldn’t take them, and repeated reports of men thinking that someone was trying to kill them.

Hacker’s analysis of Civil War deaths ends with the great line: “The human cost of the Civil War was greater than historians have long believed.”

But I’m left thinking, the number of deaths doesn’t begin to tell the horror and impact of it. How did they (and other courageous soldiers of modern war) endure it?

It's Much Worse Than We Thought.

Just read the second article that appeared in the last six months in the NY Times that discusses the latest estimates for deaths in the Civil War. Interesting that they would run two columns, especially with one linked to the first.

The real message in the updated estimates is of course that the Civil War was far more devastating than we acknowledge. The latest estimates for deaths during the Civil War are based on  analysis of censuses by SUNY Binghamton's  J. David Hacker.

Former estimates: Total Soldiers Killed in Civil War: 618,222 men (360,222 from the North and 258,000 from the South: There is no breakdown of deaths by side in the new estimate for accuracy reasons, but 150 years later it seems only appropriate not to divide the death totals as the wounds hopefully continue to heal and we have become one again.)

New estimate from the analysis: "A more realistic probable range, rounded to the nearest 50,000 deaths, might be from 650,000 to 850,000 excess deaths, with a preferred estimate of 750,000."

One of the interesting tidbits comes from a "commentary" on the study written by historian James M. McPherson: "The figure of 750,000 soldier deaths would translate into 7.5 million American deaths in a war fought in our own time by the United States…." Gives us a scale to weigh the loss.

An important caveat from the study: "Veterans mustered out of the Union and Confederate armies with diseases or mental disorders related to their service no doubt faced a significantly elevated risk of death in the years immediately after the war.

This is an important caveat not only in terms of deaths from the war, but if we consider the shear misery caused by the war:  I'm currently reading "Shook over Hell: Post-Traumatic Stress, Vietnam, and the Civil War," a book by Eric T. Dean, Jr., which based on what I've read to date will conclude that surviving Civil War soldiers suffered much like veterans from Vietnam, in spite of the different circumstances in the war and society. Some of Civil War examples Dean cites are devastating. He mentions increased crime levels North and South after the war, that Union surgeons reported more than 100 men from the battle of Spotsylvania Courthouse of Union shooting off their own fingers and toes to get discharges. My notes from reading the book list these words as some of the symptoms of those who survived: disoriented thinking, startle reactions, social numbing, depression, anxiety. It tells of men sleeping out of doors in the woods because they were frightened to sleep in their own beds, making their homes fortresses so the Confederates couldn't take them, and repeated reports of men thinking that someone was trying to kill them.

Hacker's analysis of Civil War deaths ends with the great line: "The human cost of the Civil War was greater than historians have long believed."

But I'm left thinking, the number of deaths doesn't begin to tell the horror and impact of it. How did they (and other courageous soldiers of modern war) endure it?

Media Leaks Among the Rebellious

Upon waking this morning, I read letter #14 from Screwtape to his nephew Wormwood, and it got me thinking.

First, I wondered who leaked the letters to C.S. Lewis. Doesn't seem the media has ever really spent much time trying to unmask the culprit (Was it theft? It was private correspondence after all. Or doesn't theft apply because they were written in the service of the master thief himself who owns nothing but that which he has stolen from others.) But the media's lack of effort is odd–Don't you think?– in view of the fact that they spent decades trying to identify "Deep Throat." I know that everyone claims (including Lewis) that it was just fiction written by Lewis himself, but that seems too convenient an answer–such an easy explanation smells a lot like a conspiracy, and therefore the government (governments in this case) must be involved. But, that's an aside.

Who did leak it and what was their motive? Was it Screwtape himself? Wormwood? Screwtape's Father? Or was it the omniscient "Enemy" that Screwtape seems to continually react to? Or was it one of the Enemy's agents, or even more interestingly, could it have been a rebellious servant of the "Our Father" of Screwtape's letters? Rebelling against a rebel: it would seem a normal result of filling your ranks with only rebellious disciples. Although I can't prove it, I suspect that Lewis got it from someone who had access to the letters–one of the rebellious just mentioned. Maybe this particular rebellious wanted to take over the enterprise from Screwtape's Father and was willing to take down the whole operation to get control of what would be left, if there was anything left at all. But who specifically it was, I don't know. (And pity the poor being if he is ever revealed because I don't think there is whistle-blower protection in his estate.)

Second, I was interested by Screwtape's take on humility:  "By this virtue . . . our Enemy wants to turn the man's attention away from self to Him, and to man's neighbor." Sometimes I think humility is just the way I relate to myself: how I look at myself. I think there is some truth to that as suggested by Screwtape's insights: The Enemy (not ours) wants us to be in such "a state of mind" that we "could design the best cathedral in the world, and know it to be the best, and rejoice in the fact, without being any more (or less) or otherwise glad at having done it than [we] would be if it had been done by another." But there's more to humility, and Screwtape himself reminds us that humility is all about how we relate to God and others as well. It's very purpose is to turn us out from ourselves till we are looking at others.

While this isn't going to come as a surprise to many, it seems we are invited, required and, most importantly, allowed to no longer put ourselves before others, but to see them as if they were us. Based on my personal internal experience, that's a tall order. But can you imagine a world where we truly did put others at least on par (maybe even ahead) of ourselves? I'm not sure I can see it, and I wonder whether we'd even recognize the place (or ourselves). I guess I'll just have to wait for some unnamed source to leak the video so I can imagine it.

It Could Happen! But then, Maybe not.

Last month, I read a New York Times article about a book that trumpeted something to the effect that science was getting close to proving that God wasn't necessary for a creation: that everything could have come from nothing.

The book evidently grew out of a viral video hit by the book's author, Lawrence M. Krause of Arizona State. I had watched the video earlier, so I was interested in the article. The video was slightly crude and as I recall definitely mocked the concept of God and belittled in silly comments and juvenile asides anyone who would believe in God. As I began watching the video, I was expecting some strong argument in favor of "No God" or why it was probable that God had not created the universe. I finished it surprised, entirely and absolutely unimpressed with his arguments against God's existence and involvement in creation because essentially there weren't any arguments. He was merely pushing the possibility that God didn't need to create anything: nothing could have spawned it all and all of us.

Well, thank you, Mr. Krause, for raising that possibility: but that's far from scientific proof, let alone at least a galaxy away from a strong argument that God does not exist and therefore was not involved. From my personal life experience, some people could come to a justifiable conclusion that I might have been born in Massachusetts, but that possibility does not translate into what really happened and would be thousands of miles off the final truth. Krause's argument seemed to come down to his personal conclusions and beliefs, bolstered by snide remarks (meant to entertain a like-minded audience) about people who have differing views. I will leave to the professor his personal conclusions and beliefs and am glad he can believe as he wants and can base those beliefs on his best thinking and experiences.

But faith is something hard to negate or to chose solely based on the physical world because it involves a relationship and interaction with a being that exists beyond our physical, natural world: a truly supernatural being. The only real proof for faith comes within those who sincerely desire it and who will do what's required to have it. It will come only in our experience with a revealed, personal God.

I am anxious to admit that I was fascinated by the science Krause outlined in the video, and I enjoyed the video; but I was left not with weakened faith nor even with doubt-filled questions: I came away with a greater feeling of awe for divine creation.

It all reminds me of a phrase from a movie our kids used to watch, "It could happen." Maybe, maybe not. But proving or disproving faith and God by science is and will be–until we know all–a futile effort. Science is great at helping us understand the world around us, and I love living at a time when our understanding of the world is expanding (and changing) at such an incredible rate. But a divine (and this is important: supernatural) creator will be revealed only when and how he wills it.

New Museum Reminds Us to Never Give Up.

This morning I'm listening to the groundbreaking ceremony for the New National Museum of African American History and Culture. President and Michelle Obama are there as is former First Lady Laura Bush. Congressman John Lewis, the only remaining of the so-called ""Big Six" of the Civil Rights movement who as a young man (just 23 at the time) spoke on the steps of the Lincoln Monument as part of the historic March on Washington which he helped plan, was also there and spoke just a few minutes ago.

The event and comments made so far bring three things to mind:

1) One of the speakers this morning suggested that this museum marks the progress of a people who had fought for social and legal racial equality for 400 years. I cannot imagine it. 400 years is a long time! Only the persistence, goodness and incredible patience of committed people from one generation to the next and God's grace could have brought it about. It is one of the many miracles that has blessed our nation that even during the Civil War there was no significant slave uprising. It speaks volumes, as they say, for the goodness of a persecuted people.

2) The museum is not just about the fight for freedom and equality, but a celebration of all the contributions that African Americans and their influence has brought to our country. It seems obvious to me that the US is a much greater, culturally rich and thoughtful nation because of African American contributions.

3) Opening this museum at the Smithsonian took me back to the early 1960s and a personal experience at what I believe even then was a Smithsonian institution: the National Zoo. I would guess that I was 8 years old, give or take a year or two. A very kind, older woman who lived in our community had grand kids visiting from out of state and had invited us to join them for a trip to the zoo. The only thing I remember of the day, which I'm sure was otherwise fun, was overhearing a statement by this woman. She clearly was thirsty and her visiting daughter I suspect had encouraged her to get a drink from one of the numerous drinking fountains. I only heard the woman's response that she couldn't stand the thoughts of drinking from the same fountains as "they" had been drinking from. I may have misunderstood what "they" she was talking about–maybe she was disgusted by thoughts of drinking from the same fountain that we, by now sweaty, dirty kids, had been drinking from, and she probably would have been wise to take that position–but I don't think that ever would have entered her mind. Her comment has led me multiple times over many years to wonder why "kind" people can engender in their hearts such hate and disgust. Surely it's at times nurtured by society and the world around us, but there must be a seed for it somewhere in our hearts: Is it fear? Pride? Jealousy? Animal instinct to protect our own regardless of the consequences to others' "own?"

Our great challenge continues to be our individual battle to root out all that leads to hatred in our our own hearts. It requires our continued best efforts and, again, the grace of God. On our own, we could never succeed, not in 50, 150 or 400 years.

Forget Valentine’s Day; Just eat the Chocolate

Chocolate’s, always a favorite topic, is getting a lot of positive press for its reputed health value. An article on MSNBC from Prevention Magazine writer this morning lists five  great things it may do for you, but my favorite is: “Chocolate may help you live longer.”

Based on the cited study in the article, here’s I suppose how it would work: If you eat candy (I’m assuming chocolate candy; the article oddly doesn’t specify.) one to three times a month, you would have been among those in the cited study with the lowest mortality rate in the study and added nearly one year to your life. There are often problems with these studies–let alone the lack of specificity in the article, but it’s important to remember that the real value of these studies of stuff we like (or don’t like) is not in new information uncovered; no, their  spectacular value is in justifying what we want to do or hear anyway.

So, with that in mind and finding confidence in my math skills based on another benefit cited in the article that drinking “chocolate may help you with math” calculations, I venture into new territory and easy math: If eating chocolate one to three times a month adds a year to your life, then think of the possibilities if you eat it daily.

Here’s the crucial question: If you eat chocolate every day (10 times to 30 times the amount from the story/study), does that mean you can add something between 10 and 30 years to your life?

What did I miss? What aren’t they telling us? Could this actually be true? What difference does it make? I just want some chocolate.

Forget Valentine's Day; Just eat the Chocolate

Chocolate's, always a favorite topic, is getting a lot of positive press for its reputed health value. An article on MSNBC from Prevention Magazine writer this morning lists five  great things it may do for you, but my favorite is: "Chocolate may help you live longer."

Based on the cited study in the article, here's I suppose how it would work: If you eat candy (I'm assuming chocolate candy; the article oddly doesn't specify.) one to three times a month, you would have been among those in the cited study with the lowest mortality rate in the study and added nearly one year to your life. There are often problems with these studies–let alone the lack of specificity in the article, but it's important to remember that the real value of these studies of stuff we like (or don't like) is not in new information uncovered; no, their  spectacular value is in justifying what we want to do or hear anyway.

So, with that in mind and finding confidence in my math skills based on another benefit cited in the article that drinking "chocolate may help you with math" calculations, I venture into new territory and easy math: If eating chocolate one to three times a month adds a year to your life, then think of the possibilities if you eat it daily.

Here's the crucial question: If you eat chocolate every day (10 times to 30 times the amount from the story/study), does that mean you can add something between 10 and 30 years to your life?

What did I miss? What aren't they telling us? Could this actually be true? What difference does it make? I just want some chocolate.

Challenge for Publishers and Booksellers

Interesting recent article in New York Times on Barnes & Noble attempting to stay viable both in e-books and, more importantly to traditional publishers, in printed books. The enemy of mom-and-pop bookstores has now become traditional publishing's last hope. Maintaining competition among booksellers, including Amazon and Barnes and Noble is important, so no one gains monopolistic-like power. But you get the idea that publishers are trying to exert such power when it comes to e-books: some e-books are selling for more than the price of the same book in paper. How does that work from a cost to the publisher standpoint. Or is it to just hold back e-books from even broader acceptance. In a world of e-books, do traditional publishers become obsolete? Is their current approach just a to-the-death fight for a shrinking market, which is a lot like lining up for a funeral march.

It's going to be interesting to see how all of this sorts out over time. You wonder if this is just cliched beginning of the end or the cliched beginning of something much different and new. But best for everyone to remember writers, publishers, booksellers are just selling entertainment, education, etc. To remain viable and avoid the fatal conclusion of the above-mentioned march, they have to compete with other media and create an expanded market. What are publishers and booksellers doing to promote reading among younger people? What are they doing to partner with schools to give them products that encourage reading or enhance learning? I'm hoping the answer is: a lot.

“Beyond the Wood” Now in Print

“Beyond the Wood” is now in print for those of you who have been asking for it. Thanks to Vesta House for all the work they did to bring it about. You can get it at Amazon where it’s eligible for Amazon Prime free, two-day shipping.