The Secret is all the rage, apparently. Haven't read it myself. From what I can gather, it is one of those "focus on it and it will come to you" books. I will grant that if one is thinking about something with intent, one will just naturally do things which might help that along. Beyond that, there's too much counterevidence.
If thinking really hard about something and imagining it in detail made it happen, or even was much help in making it happen, then I would have slept with a lot of girls in high school and college. My college had 4,000 students, high school had 2,000... heck, that's 3,000 girls right there. And don't tell me that you have to be more persistent and focussed and not so scattered to make it work. At the highest cutoff you can set, there would still be a dozen girls on that list.
Also, every guy in America would have had a brilliant sports career. There would be so many of us who hit the final shot with a few seconds left that it wouldn't be worth mentioning anymore. At least 50% of us would have won a lottery. Been in a movie.
On a more serious note, let's see how happy everyone is about explaining this secret to starving people in Africa.
Just think these things through, people.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
The Last Gift of Mary Magdalene
When Mary of Magdala went to the tomb on Easter morning, hoping with the other women to give the body of Jesus a proper burial (Friday afternoon's preparations had been hurried and the bare minimum), her situation was different than all of Jesus's other followers. The men could go back to their previous jobs and families. At least I can go back to accounting/fishing/building again. They would be humiliated, of course, but that would pass. They grieved for their friend, but lots of people grieve. Some of the men had wished to go back to their previous lives, and wanted assurance from Jesus that what they had given up to follow him was worth it.
Jesus had at least attempted to provide for his mother at the end. "Mother, behold your son; son, behold your mother" he had said to John. As far as we can tell, the other women had come from some sort of families, and after suitable punishment by their patriarchs, would be accepted back. Mary the mother of Jesus would have the greatest grief, of course, but no worse than a thousand other mothers in Jerusalem who had lost sons.
Mary had nothing to go back to. There were always job openings for Beggar, of course, but the other beggars would have been schooled for a lifetime in eliciting pity by appearance and tones of voice. She might not be able to make even a subsistence living. She might give herself as a slave, if anyone would have her - the woman of the house in any rich family might have something to say about the master taking on one of the girls from the Pampered Palestinian Escort Service, no matter how temporarily reformed. Ms. Magdalene had seemingly stayed somewhere the last two nights. Perhaps she had stayed with one of the other women, or one of the disciples - if she could find one out of hiding. But it could have been that she had nowhere, nothing, starting in about two hours.
We might hope that the followers of Jesus would remember at least something of what he taught, and that someone would take a poor woman in and provide for her. But if not, her own family was unlikely to take her back. She had shamed them already and was dead to them. Whatever friends she had formerly had among her customers wouldn't want to be that close to her new holiness, unless they were utterly depraved and would enjoy even more trying to take advantage of her need. You thought you were something for awhile there, didn't you - better than the rest of us, huh? Now look at you.
And yet out of love and duty, which are not as incompatible as we make them appear in our era, she wants to give what last little she has in the pointless gesture of doing things up properly for someone who wasn't even a relative. Just because it was the right thing to do. Just to show gratitude one more time, even if only only she noticed.
Reprinted from last year.
It was a gift of generosity unmatched by any of Jesus's other followers, a pouring out of her own self, probably pointlessly, in imitation of his own pointless sacrifice. Just because it had to be done. We lose too quickly in the immediate discussion of the resurrection how great must have been Mary Magdalene's despair at finding the tomb empty. Even this last ability to give a little gift had been taken from her, and she must have thought as well "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"
No wonder that Jesus's words to her are "Touch me not." What other impulse could she have had but to wrap her arms around his ankles, touch his face, burrow into his chest, weeping? How did even the Son of God move quickly enough to prevent her?
There are no tears that will not someday be dried, no lonely depths that will not somehow be filled. We hunger; food exists. We thirst; water exists. What else then could hope be for, but for completion?
Jesus had at least attempted to provide for his mother at the end. "Mother, behold your son; son, behold your mother" he had said to John. As far as we can tell, the other women had come from some sort of families, and after suitable punishment by their patriarchs, would be accepted back. Mary the mother of Jesus would have the greatest grief, of course, but no worse than a thousand other mothers in Jerusalem who had lost sons.
Mary had nothing to go back to. There were always job openings for Beggar, of course, but the other beggars would have been schooled for a lifetime in eliciting pity by appearance and tones of voice. She might not be able to make even a subsistence living. She might give herself as a slave, if anyone would have her - the woman of the house in any rich family might have something to say about the master taking on one of the girls from the Pampered Palestinian Escort Service, no matter how temporarily reformed. Ms. Magdalene had seemingly stayed somewhere the last two nights. Perhaps she had stayed with one of the other women, or one of the disciples - if she could find one out of hiding. But it could have been that she had nowhere, nothing, starting in about two hours.
We might hope that the followers of Jesus would remember at least something of what he taught, and that someone would take a poor woman in and provide for her. But if not, her own family was unlikely to take her back. She had shamed them already and was dead to them. Whatever friends she had formerly had among her customers wouldn't want to be that close to her new holiness, unless they were utterly depraved and would enjoy even more trying to take advantage of her need. You thought you were something for awhile there, didn't you - better than the rest of us, huh? Now look at you.
And yet out of love and duty, which are not as incompatible as we make them appear in our era, she wants to give what last little she has in the pointless gesture of doing things up properly for someone who wasn't even a relative. Just because it was the right thing to do. Just to show gratitude one more time, even if only only she noticed.
Reprinted from last year.
It was a gift of generosity unmatched by any of Jesus's other followers, a pouring out of her own self, probably pointlessly, in imitation of his own pointless sacrifice. Just because it had to be done. We lose too quickly in the immediate discussion of the resurrection how great must have been Mary Magdalene's despair at finding the tomb empty. Even this last ability to give a little gift had been taken from her, and she must have thought as well "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"
No wonder that Jesus's words to her are "Touch me not." What other impulse could she have had but to wrap her arms around his ankles, touch his face, burrow into his chest, weeping? How did even the Son of God move quickly enough to prevent her?
There are no tears that will not someday be dried, no lonely depths that will not somehow be filled. We hunger; food exists. We thirst; water exists. What else then could hope be for, but for completion?
Changes in First Names in English, 1200 - 2000
In 1300, the most common names in English for boys were John, William, Robert, Richard, and Thomas. In 1940, the most common names were James, Robert, John, William, and Richard. Thomas had slipped to 8th. That's not a lot of change in 640 years. The streak wasn't completely uninterrupted. Charles, Henry, George, and few others would slip into the top 5 for a century or so, but the top 5 never fell very far.
The most common names for girls in 1300 were Mary, Ann, Elizabeth, Jane, and Margaret. In they 1880's they were Mary, Anna, Elizabeth, Margaret, and Emma. A few names like Alice or Sarah would pop in, but that list was quite stable as well.
In around 1800 in England, about a quarter of the boys were named John, and more than a fifth of the girls were named Mary. When one considers that having multiple progeny was more the norm then, it would seem that just about every family had a John and a Mary.
Interestingly, the names had changed somewhat in the 13th Century. Before the Conquest, things like Radulf and Drogo were more common, along with the Johns and Roberts. But after the Normans took over, the Saxon names fell out of favor socially and French names moved up.
In America, these male and female names continued strongly in Virginia. New England and the Mid-Atlantic states began using other names, usually Biblical, but the names above continued strong. Not until about 1800 do we start to see new female names pop onto the lists, and the male names do not start changing until a century later.
Female names have turned over more rapidly since then, as we discussed in this post from a year ago. An excerpt:
Wikipedia covers the most common names for 1880 - present, which is fun thing to browse through.
It is also interesting to ponder Pathological Names, which I also wrote about months ago. John Derbyshire over at National Review Online has also weighed in on the subject.
This all comes up because the new grandchild will be either Benjamin or Emily, so I am thinking about onomastics again.
The most common names for girls in 1300 were Mary, Ann, Elizabeth, Jane, and Margaret. In they 1880's they were Mary, Anna, Elizabeth, Margaret, and Emma. A few names like Alice or Sarah would pop in, but that list was quite stable as well.
In around 1800 in England, about a quarter of the boys were named John, and more than a fifth of the girls were named Mary. When one considers that having multiple progeny was more the norm then, it would seem that just about every family had a John and a Mary.
Interestingly, the names had changed somewhat in the 13th Century. Before the Conquest, things like Radulf and Drogo were more common, along with the Johns and Roberts. But after the Normans took over, the Saxon names fell out of favor socially and French names moved up.
In America, these male and female names continued strongly in Virginia. New England and the Mid-Atlantic states began using other names, usually Biblical, but the names above continued strong. Not until about 1800 do we start to see new female names pop onto the lists, and the male names do not start changing until a century later.
Female names have turned over more rapidly since then, as we discussed in this post from a year ago. An excerpt:
Names given to boys have been more stable over time. Michael became the most popular name for boys over fifty years ago, and has been #1 most years since. David supplanted it for a few years in the 1960's and Jacob has pushed it into 2nd in the 21st C, but that's a very long run. In that time, Mary, Lisa, and Jennifer have each enjoyed runs of about 10-15 years atop the list. None of these have even been in the top 10 since 1992, when Jessica rose to the top, quickly replaced by Emily.
Wikipedia covers the most common names for 1880 - present, which is fun thing to browse through.
It is also interesting to ponder Pathological Names, which I also wrote about months ago. John Derbyshire over at National Review Online has also weighed in on the subject.
This all comes up because the new grandchild will be either Benjamin or Emily, so I am thinking about onomastics again.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Reprise of Stupid Things
I had not reviewed last April and May for what might be brought forward, and I have also four or so subjects I've been tussling with in my head to post about. I will try and spread this out, but as I do, I develop more of a backlog.
A wonderful collection of stupid things people said a year ago. It must have been a hot month for stupidity, because I didn't even include the Julia Roberts, BC Faculty, or Diversity Training idiocies (list cut here. Apparently pointing out stupid things other people say is about 50% of my blog).
First up: Jimmy "Birdhouse" Carter, with an absolutely jaw-dropping bit of bigotry. He believes that Jesus supports the Democrats views, and is much more blatant about this than anything a Falwell or Robertson might say. I can imagine Tip O'Neill or Jack Kennedy saying this puckishly, half-believing it but knowing it's ridiculous. But nope. Carter is dead serious here. A sample:
Next I have a great jeremiad of spew from someone with Bush Derangement Syndrome
And the utter vacuity of Barbara Boxer. It is not that progressives are always silly in what they say - they aren't. But when people who speak and reason like this are taken seriously, you have to wonder who's minding the store. On the right we try to get our nutcases to pipe down, not elect them.
There was a bit of conversation about the Gospel of Judas about that time, and I weighed in on that.
But Eric Pianka at UTexas has a solution to it all: Eliminate everyone.
A wonderful collection of stupid things people said a year ago. It must have been a hot month for stupidity, because I didn't even include the Julia Roberts, BC Faculty, or Diversity Training idiocies (list cut here. Apparently pointing out stupid things other people say is about 50% of my blog).
First up: Jimmy "Birdhouse" Carter, with an absolutely jaw-dropping bit of bigotry. He believes that Jesus supports the Democrats views, and is much more blatant about this than anything a Falwell or Robertson might say. I can imagine Tip O'Neill or Jack Kennedy saying this puckishly, half-believing it but knowing it's ridiculous. But nope. Carter is dead serious here. A sample:
"I told her that if she answered all of those questions, that she believed in peace, aiding the poor and weak, saving the environment, opposing torture ... then I told her, 'You should be a Democrat.'"
Next I have a great jeremiad of spew from someone with Bush Derangement Syndrome
And the utter vacuity of Barbara Boxer. It is not that progressives are always silly in what they say - they aren't. But when people who speak and reason like this are taken seriously, you have to wonder who's minding the store. On the right we try to get our nutcases to pipe down, not elect them.
There was a bit of conversation about the Gospel of Judas about that time, and I weighed in on that.
But Eric Pianka at UTexas has a solution to it all: Eliminate everyone.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Awful Sports News
The Celtics got the 5th pick in the draft, instead of one of the top two. Those poor bastards in Memphis didn't get a top two either.
I am going to start now teaching myself not to care about Celtics basketball for 10 years. Okay, 5.
I am going to start now teaching myself not to care about Celtics basketball for 10 years. Okay, 5.
Those Other Evangelicals
In reading the Doug Paggitt Reimagining Spiritual Formation, I was struck again by how many in the Emerging Church come with irritation from strict evangelical backgrounds. This time, however, I noticed that the church experiences they had come through were not that unusual or terrible. Yet I recognised those churches, pastors, and parents, nodding agreement that they were indeed irritating. I could see how one would want out.
I forget that not all evangelicals go to Covenant (or similar) churches, where disagreement and questioning are allowed, and A & H children are valued. The teachers and parents that I found irritating at my sons’ Christian schools are more common than I generally remember. I get to select my evangelicals by what websites I go to, what books I read, where I go to church, and who my friends are. From this I develop a picture of “what evangelicals are like” that is probably unrepresentative and too rosy.
The fundamentalists operated from a words-based faith, believing that if they could just get their doctrine absolutely pure, everything else would flow from that. This leads inevitably to schism. Evangelicals have a strong streak of that themselves, but I don’t have to participate in it much. That is a liberation the congregants of many evangelical churches don’t have.
We got to build the spiritual environment we wanted for our children, putting in all that non-traditional or non-verbal worship, exposure to Christian variety and secular arts & letters. This was built on a base of Covenant churches, a creative supportive community that was separate, and Lutheran camp – high shoulders to be standing on in terms of flexibility. Had we not had those, I think we would have had to do what the emerging churches are doing now – build something new.
From the pieces we had to work with, the right spiritual environment could be crafted. Minus a few of those pieces, parental energy might have been better spent in rethinking the whole ball of wax and starting over.
Christmas celebration provides a good example. As the holiday becomes increasingly secular in the surrounding society, it takes more and more energy to make it a religious holiday. With our energy and devotion to the things of Christmas (and standing on the shoulders of giants) we were able to keep it as a religious holiday. Some groups think the celebration has become so secular that it is no longer worth the effort to improve it. They may be right. More importantly, they may be increasingly right as we go forward in time. I would be saddened if any grandchildren of mine had to give up Christmas because there was just so little left worth keeping spiritually, but that could come to pass.
I forget that not all evangelicals go to Covenant (or similar) churches, where disagreement and questioning are allowed, and A & H children are valued. The teachers and parents that I found irritating at my sons’ Christian schools are more common than I generally remember. I get to select my evangelicals by what websites I go to, what books I read, where I go to church, and who my friends are. From this I develop a picture of “what evangelicals are like” that is probably unrepresentative and too rosy.
The fundamentalists operated from a words-based faith, believing that if they could just get their doctrine absolutely pure, everything else would flow from that. This leads inevitably to schism. Evangelicals have a strong streak of that themselves, but I don’t have to participate in it much. That is a liberation the congregants of many evangelical churches don’t have.
We got to build the spiritual environment we wanted for our children, putting in all that non-traditional or non-verbal worship, exposure to Christian variety and secular arts & letters. This was built on a base of Covenant churches, a creative supportive community that was separate, and Lutheran camp – high shoulders to be standing on in terms of flexibility. Had we not had those, I think we would have had to do what the emerging churches are doing now – build something new.
From the pieces we had to work with, the right spiritual environment could be crafted. Minus a few of those pieces, parental energy might have been better spent in rethinking the whole ball of wax and starting over.
Christmas celebration provides a good example. As the holiday becomes increasingly secular in the surrounding society, it takes more and more energy to make it a religious holiday. With our energy and devotion to the things of Christmas (and standing on the shoulders of giants) we were able to keep it as a religious holiday. Some groups think the celebration has become so secular that it is no longer worth the effort to improve it. They may be right. More importantly, they may be increasingly right as we go forward in time. I would be saddened if any grandchildren of mine had to give up Christmas because there was just so little left worth keeping spiritually, but that could come to pass.
Okay, This One's Important
Bill Whittle over at ejectejecteject writes only a few main posts a year, but those few are worth pondering. The concept of the Remnant will be familiar to Christian readers; Bill puts it in a more secular context, though compatible with the Christian one. I will be carrying these ideas around for a long time, I think.
If You Had Told Me
If you had come to me at age 20 and shown me this possible life…
You have four sons, two from a foreign country.
You have been married 30 years to a cute librarian.
You are awaiting the birth of your first grandchild, who will live nearby.
There is a method whereby personal computers are networked, providing instant access to most information. On this network you posted to the public on children’s literature, instantly sparking an insightful post on that topic from one of your sons 2000 miles away.
Another son is in college, and the fourth about to graduate highschool. Everyone likes each other.
You are all planning a backpacking trip to the place you brought your sons when they were children.
You are going to Europe for the (1, 2, 3…) 8th time.
If you had told me that, I would have traded everything I owned for it. For half of it. An arm. A leg. My sight or hearing. Without hesitation. Heck, I might have given a hand or a foot for any one of them alone. I know as an intellectual premise that all good things come from God, but it doesn’t always animate my existence as it should. Sometimes, some few times, I can look and see how I would not have these things were it not for Jesus. I would have screwed too much up.
We so seldom appreciate what we have. Alleluia.
You have four sons, two from a foreign country.
You have been married 30 years to a cute librarian.
You are awaiting the birth of your first grandchild, who will live nearby.
There is a method whereby personal computers are networked, providing instant access to most information. On this network you posted to the public on children’s literature, instantly sparking an insightful post on that topic from one of your sons 2000 miles away.
Another son is in college, and the fourth about to graduate highschool. Everyone likes each other.
You are all planning a backpacking trip to the place you brought your sons when they were children.
You are going to Europe for the (1, 2, 3…) 8th time.
If you had told me that, I would have traded everything I owned for it. For half of it. An arm. A leg. My sight or hearing. Without hesitation. Heck, I might have given a hand or a foot for any one of them alone. I know as an intellectual premise that all good things come from God, but it doesn’t always animate my existence as it should. Sometimes, some few times, I can look and see how I would not have these things were it not for Jesus. I would have screwed too much up.
We so seldom appreciate what we have. Alleluia.
Female Characters in Heroic Fantasy
Under Ben's comment on Books for boys, Books for girls over at 10-4goodbuddy is a disagreement from "Megan." I know who many of Ben's visitors are, but I don't know this one. I don't completely disagree with her point, though I fear she didn't follow the directions and first read the post here that started it all. She would far rather be Fleur than Lucy. She attributes this to a real-girlness in the Rowlings books, in contrast to a rather stiff goodieness in Narnia. I don't think that is quite what she means, though I see what she is driving at instantly.
A clearing of clutter: Megan might just be liking the HP girls because they show the type of imperfection and rebelliousness that teenagers of both sexes admire. Ecch. She might just like modern things better than dated ones. Sigh. I hope this is not the case, and that she means something deeper, but I may be projecting depth onto her that isn't there.
There is not only a difference in the type of young female in the Harry Potter and the Narnia books, there is also a difference in how well we know them. This is only partly a function of skill - Rowlings is quite good at this, Lewis is not - it is also a function of style, technique, intent. The effect of making us feel we know a character is greatly influenced by how much conversation takes place on the page. Narrative voice also plays a part: how much the author lets us listen in on the thoughts of characters.
Do they still teach that in school, BTW? Third-person omniscient and all that?
More conversation is the more modern style, and it is also a more female style. There is no sharp distinction here: there are male authors who use much conversation and female authors who use little, but the tendency is there. This is much of why the Harry Potter books are much longer than the Chronicles of Narnia. The people talk more. Rowlings also uses phrasing that is not only more modern, but more informal. A modern reader is more likely to feel she knows Hermione than she knows Aravis, however she feels about what each is like and what happens to them.
That is a perfectly legitimate preference. It is not always a superiority, however. It depends on what effect the author is aiming for. Lewis tends to make his main Narnian characters coequal, like figures in mythology. He is not unable to do the other. In his Perelandra series there is more conversation and in the first two volumes only one main character, whose thoughts we know a great deal about. We feel we know Ransom.
The mix-and-match, crush and recrush of the later Harry Potter books would be out of place in Lewis's recounting of the tales of Narnia. The focus is on what the children are doing in Narnia, and how that affects historical events in another world. What happens inside the characters is less central to the story. It is important that Edmund, Eustace, and Aravis change, because the changes make the necessary events, the events they were called to, possible. In Rowlings, the characters are much more the point of the story.
Lewis might actually agree that the characters are more important in the eternal view. Because Eustace will live forever, whether he lives eternally as a complete pill or as a follower of Aslan is more important than all of Narnia, which will pass away. But that is what the story ultimately points to, not what it is about. To the people in the story it is the events that matter, not some fine theology of sanctification. The effect is not pure in Rowlings, either: the characters in Harry Potter are focussed more on the unfolding of events than on each other while the plot is moving forward. Yet Rowlings books are "about" Harry becoming something, and the other young wizards becoming someones. Even the titles give this away. Lewis's series is the Chronicles of Narnia. Rowlings books are about Harry.
There is a chick-lit element to Harry Potter. Heroic fantasy written from a more female perspective. Well why not? And some might greatly prefer that type of mix. As Rowlings does the heroic fantasy part with great skill, she keeps her boy audience who might otherwise start wandering away if the series progressed to going to dances becoming too much of a focus. The child readers who have grown up with Harry are likely not too bothered by the romantic angles, as they are going through them themselves. I wonder how the new readers, male and female, are doing with the series if they are reading all of them in fourth and fifth grade.
Kids who like the first few books of a series will go a long way before they give up on it, even if they like subsequent books less.
The Chronicles intentionally have more distance between the reader and the characters, because Lewis is going for a less intimate, more universal effect. The books are shorter, more mythological, and more evocative of many cultures. Harry and Hermione are definitely English, the stories are English, and even the worldwide characters who attend Hogwarts have a certain quality of being flown in to an English boarding school for multicultural purposes. There's nothing wrong with that, and readers are free to prefer that style and intimacy. Harry Potter is a fat summer novel about young wizards. The Chronicles of Narnia are folk tales fleshed out. They're just different.
Tolkien's books lie between Lewis and Rowlings on this scale of intimacy and universality. The Hobbit is more like the Chronicles of Narnia in distance at first, with its obvious narrator exclaiming "Gandalf! If you had heard only a quarter of what I had heard about him..." and the crick! crack! sound effects. It is more like a fairy tale, or a folk tale. We move into knowing Bilbo more internally as the story goes forward. Two decades later, we know Frodo in LOTR more like we know Harry. The narrative voice has become different. There is more conversation, and more dropping in on thoughts. And as this happens, the Shire becomes much more England-in-disguise, where in The Hobbit it was "a land far away."
A clearing of clutter: Megan might just be liking the HP girls because they show the type of imperfection and rebelliousness that teenagers of both sexes admire. Ecch. She might just like modern things better than dated ones. Sigh. I hope this is not the case, and that she means something deeper, but I may be projecting depth onto her that isn't there.
There is not only a difference in the type of young female in the Harry Potter and the Narnia books, there is also a difference in how well we know them. This is only partly a function of skill - Rowlings is quite good at this, Lewis is not - it is also a function of style, technique, intent. The effect of making us feel we know a character is greatly influenced by how much conversation takes place on the page. Narrative voice also plays a part: how much the author lets us listen in on the thoughts of characters.
Do they still teach that in school, BTW? Third-person omniscient and all that?
More conversation is the more modern style, and it is also a more female style. There is no sharp distinction here: there are male authors who use much conversation and female authors who use little, but the tendency is there. This is much of why the Harry Potter books are much longer than the Chronicles of Narnia. The people talk more. Rowlings also uses phrasing that is not only more modern, but more informal. A modern reader is more likely to feel she knows Hermione than she knows Aravis, however she feels about what each is like and what happens to them.
That is a perfectly legitimate preference. It is not always a superiority, however. It depends on what effect the author is aiming for. Lewis tends to make his main Narnian characters coequal, like figures in mythology. He is not unable to do the other. In his Perelandra series there is more conversation and in the first two volumes only one main character, whose thoughts we know a great deal about. We feel we know Ransom.
The mix-and-match, crush and recrush of the later Harry Potter books would be out of place in Lewis's recounting of the tales of Narnia. The focus is on what the children are doing in Narnia, and how that affects historical events in another world. What happens inside the characters is less central to the story. It is important that Edmund, Eustace, and Aravis change, because the changes make the necessary events, the events they were called to, possible. In Rowlings, the characters are much more the point of the story.
Lewis might actually agree that the characters are more important in the eternal view. Because Eustace will live forever, whether he lives eternally as a complete pill or as a follower of Aslan is more important than all of Narnia, which will pass away. But that is what the story ultimately points to, not what it is about. To the people in the story it is the events that matter, not some fine theology of sanctification. The effect is not pure in Rowlings, either: the characters in Harry Potter are focussed more on the unfolding of events than on each other while the plot is moving forward. Yet Rowlings books are "about" Harry becoming something, and the other young wizards becoming someones. Even the titles give this away. Lewis's series is the Chronicles of Narnia. Rowlings books are about Harry.
There is a chick-lit element to Harry Potter. Heroic fantasy written from a more female perspective. Well why not? And some might greatly prefer that type of mix. As Rowlings does the heroic fantasy part with great skill, she keeps her boy audience who might otherwise start wandering away if the series progressed to going to dances becoming too much of a focus. The child readers who have grown up with Harry are likely not too bothered by the romantic angles, as they are going through them themselves. I wonder how the new readers, male and female, are doing with the series if they are reading all of them in fourth and fifth grade.
Kids who like the first few books of a series will go a long way before they give up on it, even if they like subsequent books less.
The Chronicles intentionally have more distance between the reader and the characters, because Lewis is going for a less intimate, more universal effect. The books are shorter, more mythological, and more evocative of many cultures. Harry and Hermione are definitely English, the stories are English, and even the worldwide characters who attend Hogwarts have a certain quality of being flown in to an English boarding school for multicultural purposes. There's nothing wrong with that, and readers are free to prefer that style and intimacy. Harry Potter is a fat summer novel about young wizards. The Chronicles of Narnia are folk tales fleshed out. They're just different.
Tolkien's books lie between Lewis and Rowlings on this scale of intimacy and universality. The Hobbit is more like the Chronicles of Narnia in distance at first, with its obvious narrator exclaiming "Gandalf! If you had heard only a quarter of what I had heard about him..." and the crick! crack! sound effects. It is more like a fairy tale, or a folk tale. We move into knowing Bilbo more internally as the story goes forward. Two decades later, we know Frodo in LOTR more like we know Harry. The narrative voice has become different. There is more conversation, and more dropping in on thoughts. And as this happens, the Shire becomes much more England-in-disguise, where in The Hobbit it was "a land far away."
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Western Art As Revealer Of Culture
Fjordman is often over-the-top on the superiority of Western Culture, but entertainingly so, and he is quite thought-provoking. His recent post Why Western Art Is Unique, and Why Muslim Immigration Threatens It at Brussels Journal, suggests that the type of representational art that grew up in the West, whether it is cause or effect, tells much about our subsequent advancement.
Tentative Good News
Good news out of Romania today, as exit polls show President Traian Basescu, who has been suspended for a month on bogus charges, winning over 75% in a "No Impeachment" vote. The Black Coalition against him, which has continued to hold power in the Parliament and the judiciary despite their steadily eroding popular support, will certainly jigger the vote some, but 75% leaves an awful lot of jiggering to do. This coalition includes what the European newspapers call a "conservative" party, because it is made up of members of the old communist Ceausescu regime, including much of the secret police; a rather militant Hungarian party, plus an assortment of socialist & communist parties. They won't just go away, of course, but regroup and try to find another way to stop this anti-corruption nightmare they are living through. Still, it's another solid kick to the still-formidable residue of communism in Romania.
Friday, May 18, 2007
Sarkozy Election: Demographics
Sometimes it's all how you slice the data.
Tom Peters' claim is that the Socialist candidate Royal won among those 18-59, while Sarkozy won among those over 60. Peters’ interpretation of this is that those retired or about to retire insisted that the younger workers were going to have to put their noses to the grindstone, while those working opted for more socialism.
Not so fast. There is first the required caution, not mentioned half enough about any poll, that small majorities are exactly that: small. If Sarkozy beats Royal 53-47 among café waitresses, your informal poll of those who bring you your morning omelet is going to seem evenly divided, even after a year of asking. Secondly, it is quite a leap to assume that all these French citizens are voting solely, or even primarily for the reasons that journalists and observers think they are. People have hundreds of reasons, ranging from the sensible to the bizarre, why they prefer a given candidate. As the election approaches, the candidates and the undecided voters focus on a very few issues, but these are not an exhaustive list.
But let’s throw caution to the wind*, and analyze the French election along these same oversimplified lines that journalists are so fond of. Let’s pretend it is economic aggressiveness versus economic protectiveness that dominated the mind of the French voter. If we look at the data in more detail, we see something quite different in the voting patterns. While it is technically true that Royal wins among those 18-59, such a broad generalization obscures a great deal. (Ipsos/Dell) The "internet" generation of 18- to 24-year-olds voted 58 per cent for Mme Royal. The 25- to 34-year-olds voted 57 per cent for M. Sarkozy. The "May 1968"- Mitterrand generation of 45- to 59-year-olds voted 55 per cent for Mme Royal. The 35 to 44 generation split 50-50. This is a sine curve, not a single sloped line that puts the under 59’s in Royal’s camp and the over 60’s in Sarkozy’s. Okay, it’s a messy sine curve, flattened through the middle part. Deal with it.
The 18-24 cohort has 20% unemployment. Any reason that unemployed adolescents might want a more socialist environment? Those who have figured out why France has so many unemployed 18-24 year-olds might lean toward Sarkozy, but there is no reason to assume that French young people are significantly more economically savvy and future-oriented than their American counterparts. A 20-year-old without a job tends to be worried about what is going to bring life’s goods to his door over the next few months, or even weeks. Vote Segolene, socialist mother of four.
Then we have a longish run of those aged 25 to about 40 who voted solidly for Sarkozy. 40-odd to 55 went for Royal, after which it is increasingly Sarkozy all the way. If we make the convenient assumption that the youngest voting cohort might become less socialist after they start getting jobs, what we note over the whole spectrum is not socialism among those younger than 60, but a more socialist blip somewhere between 40-59. As that blip is bookended by some strong Sarkozy support, unless there is a sharp break right at the edges of that age cohort it is likely that some ages in that range are well above 60% support for Mme. Royal. Hmm. A narrow cohort 5-10 years wide around 50 years old is very socialist. Everyone else over age 24 leans more free-market. This is not quite an opposite to Tom Peters analysis, but it is sharply different.
That batch of socialists aren’t going away soon, and they’re likely to become more demanding as they get older, so French conservatives had better get cracking on convincing younger people that it’s the protected, not the open, economy that’s screwing them over.
*Looking at that idiom more closely, what a beautiful, expressive phrase. Hackneyed by now, but still… ah, a bit of research shows it is derived at several removes from John Milton. Of course.
Tom Peters' claim is that the Socialist candidate Royal won among those 18-59, while Sarkozy won among those over 60. Peters’ interpretation of this is that those retired or about to retire insisted that the younger workers were going to have to put their noses to the grindstone, while those working opted for more socialism.
Not so fast. There is first the required caution, not mentioned half enough about any poll, that small majorities are exactly that: small. If Sarkozy beats Royal 53-47 among café waitresses, your informal poll of those who bring you your morning omelet is going to seem evenly divided, even after a year of asking. Secondly, it is quite a leap to assume that all these French citizens are voting solely, or even primarily for the reasons that journalists and observers think they are. People have hundreds of reasons, ranging from the sensible to the bizarre, why they prefer a given candidate. As the election approaches, the candidates and the undecided voters focus on a very few issues, but these are not an exhaustive list.
But let’s throw caution to the wind*, and analyze the French election along these same oversimplified lines that journalists are so fond of. Let’s pretend it is economic aggressiveness versus economic protectiveness that dominated the mind of the French voter. If we look at the data in more detail, we see something quite different in the voting patterns. While it is technically true that Royal wins among those 18-59, such a broad generalization obscures a great deal. (Ipsos/Dell) The "internet" generation of 18- to 24-year-olds voted 58 per cent for Mme Royal. The 25- to 34-year-olds voted 57 per cent for M. Sarkozy. The "May 1968"- Mitterrand generation of 45- to 59-year-olds voted 55 per cent for Mme Royal. The 35 to 44 generation split 50-50. This is a sine curve, not a single sloped line that puts the under 59’s in Royal’s camp and the over 60’s in Sarkozy’s. Okay, it’s a messy sine curve, flattened through the middle part. Deal with it.
The 18-24 cohort has 20% unemployment. Any reason that unemployed adolescents might want a more socialist environment? Those who have figured out why France has so many unemployed 18-24 year-olds might lean toward Sarkozy, but there is no reason to assume that French young people are significantly more economically savvy and future-oriented than their American counterparts. A 20-year-old without a job tends to be worried about what is going to bring life’s goods to his door over the next few months, or even weeks. Vote Segolene, socialist mother of four.
Then we have a longish run of those aged 25 to about 40 who voted solidly for Sarkozy. 40-odd to 55 went for Royal, after which it is increasingly Sarkozy all the way. If we make the convenient assumption that the youngest voting cohort might become less socialist after they start getting jobs, what we note over the whole spectrum is not socialism among those younger than 60, but a more socialist blip somewhere between 40-59. As that blip is bookended by some strong Sarkozy support, unless there is a sharp break right at the edges of that age cohort it is likely that some ages in that range are well above 60% support for Mme. Royal. Hmm. A narrow cohort 5-10 years wide around 50 years old is very socialist. Everyone else over age 24 leans more free-market. This is not quite an opposite to Tom Peters analysis, but it is sharply different.
That batch of socialists aren’t going away soon, and they’re likely to become more demanding as they get older, so French conservatives had better get cracking on convincing younger people that it’s the protected, not the open, economy that’s screwing them over.
*Looking at that idiom more closely, what a beautiful, expressive phrase. Hackneyed by now, but still… ah, a bit of research shows it is derived at several removes from John Milton. Of course.
Reference Books
The first grandchild, currently called “Doodle Bug” until its sex becomes known, should have a proper intellectual start in the world. I’m thinking reference books would be an appropriate gift. I am torn between the complete 20-volume Oxford English Dictionary and the Encyclopedia Britannica. Or should I go retro and get the 1911 Eleventh Edition of Britannica?
An atlas or an anatomy might be more appropriate for a young child, what with the color pictures and all. I am going to find this decision difficult.
An atlas or an anatomy might be more appropriate for a young child, what with the color pictures and all. I am going to find this decision difficult.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Those Tribes Again
Virginia Postrel, writing at The Dynamist, quotes from the geographer Yi-Fu Tuan's Escapism:
Tuan seems to be a fascinating thinker, from what I can gather browsing around about him. The theme of Escapism is that all human culture is designed to escape from the harsh realities of environment, conflict, and death. "A human being," Tuan says wryly, "is an animal who is congenitally indisposed to accept reality as it is." He means this as a compliment (mostly), for this escapism has enabled us to do great things. Two of his books just made it to my lengthening wish list.
Postrel is fascinating in herself, author of The Future And Its Enemies and The Substance of Style, both of which I have read excerpts of. Hmm, maybe those should go on my wish list...
If a small vocabulary and the frequent use of clichés promote understanding and communal solidarity, the achievement of verbal-intellectual sophistication can have the opposite effect. The more people know and the more subtle they are at expressing what they know, the fewer listeners there will be and the more isolated individuals will feel, not only at large but also among colleagues and co-workers. Let me use an architectural metaphor to show how this can come about in academic life. Graduate students live in sparsely furnished rooms but share a house--the intellectual house of Marx, Gramschi, Foucault, or whoever the favored thinker happens to be. A warm sense of community prevails as the students encounter one another in the hallway and speak a common language, with passwords such as "capital formation," "hegemony," and "the theater of power" to establish firmly their corporate membership. Time passes. As the students mature intellectually, they move from the shared life of a house to rented apartments scattered throughout the same neighborhood. The apartments are close enough that friends still feel free to drop in for visits, and when they do the entire living space is filled with talk and laughter, recapturing as in younger days not only the bonhomie but also the tendency to embrace wholeheartedly the currently headlined doctrine. Eventually the students become professors themselves. They begin modestly to build their own houses of intellect and add to the structures as they prosper. Because each house bears witness to a scholar’s achievement, it can be a source of great personal satisfaction. But the downside is, who will want to visit? And if a colleague or friend does, why should she spend time in more than one room?It fits rather interestingly with my Tribes Collection, exploring the American cultural tribes and how they see each other.
Social scientists claim that a tenement building where people hang out the washing or sit on the stoop to socialize can be a warmly communal place. By contrast, a suburb with freestanding houses is cold and unfriendly. I am saying that the same may be true of intellectual life as one moves to larger houses of one’s own design. Both types of move--socioeconomic and intellectual--signify success, and with both the cost to the mover can be an exacerbated feeling of isolation.
Tuan seems to be a fascinating thinker, from what I can gather browsing around about him. The theme of Escapism is that all human culture is designed to escape from the harsh realities of environment, conflict, and death. "A human being," Tuan says wryly, "is an animal who is congenitally indisposed to accept reality as it is." He means this as a compliment (mostly), for this escapism has enabled us to do great things. Two of his books just made it to my lengthening wish list.
Postrel is fascinating in herself, author of The Future And Its Enemies and The Substance of Style, both of which I have read excerpts of. Hmm, maybe those should go on my wish list...
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Psychiatry Updates
For those interested in teach-yourself knowledge about the brain, McGill University has a site The Brain Top To Bottom. The advantage is that it comes in Beginner, Intermediate, and Advanced versions, so you can click back and forth between levels of difficulty on a particular topic.
For those who like the genetic angle, there is an interview with Elliot Gershon about the overlap of affected genes in both schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. This remains preliminary, but intriguing.
My department is suddenly awash in "bodywork" therapies, which I remain extremely skeptical of. These would including things like Reiki, Rolfing, Orgonomy, Pesso-Boyden, and a dozen others. There is nothing particularly objectionable to the overarching theory that the body and mind are closely tied or even a unity, and the mind can be repaired by interventions on the body. The idea is that postures, sensations, sounds, and the like can be used to work backwards, the body teaching the brain. The difficulty is that this has proved enormously difficult to substantiate. Much of the neurological and brain-response info that the bodywork people quote does not actually provide evidence for their theories, but only possible explanations at a brain structure level of how they could work. Much of the current focus is on remote trauma and attachment disorder treatment. It has always been hard to sort out with such folk what we might call a measurable improvement, and how much of that results from the specific treatment versus the presence of increased structured attention.
On an odd note, we have two patients who seem to have been successful at cheeking Zyprexa Zydis, which would be quite a feat. We have not only one classic A-B-A experiment, but two on each of them. We have a guess how they are doing it, which I won't mention in case some paranoid who wants to ditch his meds is googling "cheeking Zyprexa Zydis" and stumbles on this. But if any of the 40-per-day of you has any further comment or interest, contact me.
For those who like the genetic angle, there is an interview with Elliot Gershon about the overlap of affected genes in both schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. This remains preliminary, but intriguing.
DAOA (D-amino-acid oxidase activator) is strongly implicated in both bipolar disorder and schizophrenia,” Dr. Gershon says. “There is some evidence that NRG-1 (neuregulin-1) might overpresent in individuals with bipolar disorder, but they’re not conclusive. The dysbindin-1 encoding gene appears to be implicated mainly in schizophrenia.” Other genes that may be associated with both illnesses include COMT, BDNF, and DISC1.The main page of this excellent site provides links to other new studies, including an update on the next generation of SSRI's, the SNRI's (serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors).
“The overlap in genetic susceptibility is quite interesting,” Dr. Gershon says.
“It appears that, although they tend to run in different families, both bipolar disorder and schizophrenia may share some common genetic—and therefore biologic—susceptibilities. This may partly explain why the two disorder have shared symptoms and respond to some of the same medications.
My department is suddenly awash in "bodywork" therapies, which I remain extremely skeptical of. These would including things like Reiki, Rolfing, Orgonomy, Pesso-Boyden, and a dozen others. There is nothing particularly objectionable to the overarching theory that the body and mind are closely tied or even a unity, and the mind can be repaired by interventions on the body. The idea is that postures, sensations, sounds, and the like can be used to work backwards, the body teaching the brain. The difficulty is that this has proved enormously difficult to substantiate. Much of the neurological and brain-response info that the bodywork people quote does not actually provide evidence for their theories, but only possible explanations at a brain structure level of how they could work. Much of the current focus is on remote trauma and attachment disorder treatment. It has always been hard to sort out with such folk what we might call a measurable improvement, and how much of that results from the specific treatment versus the presence of increased structured attention.
On an odd note, we have two patients who seem to have been successful at cheeking Zyprexa Zydis, which would be quite a feat. We have not only one classic A-B-A experiment, but two on each of them. We have a guess how they are doing it, which I won't mention in case some paranoid who wants to ditch his meds is googling "cheeking Zyprexa Zydis" and stumbles on this. But if any of the 40-per-day of you has any further comment or interest, contact me.
Legislative Disconnect Between Party and National Needs
Giacomo over at "Joust The Facts" has a medium-length post on the attempt to link an Iraq War pullout with unrelated legislation, and the possible consequences. His is a good summary, which I will not recreate here.
Republicans are hardly in a position to be indignant about tacked-on legislation; this has been SOP for both parties for decades. They try and bury pork or loopholes in some legislation sure to pass. In this case it is the opposite: because Bush is sure to veto the legislation as long as the withdrawal demand is in it, the Democrats are going for death-by-a-thousand-cuts. He vetoed clean water. He vetoed raises for policemen. He vetoed kitties and puppies. I have no idea whether it will work, as I am not good at those "national mood" sorts of evaluations.
I am good at noticing the simple things, however. The Iraq pullout is completely unrelated to this legislation, and smacks of dishonesty. This is an excellent example of how low things can go when Congress adopts this tack-on tactic as just the way business is done.
Election by sortition. It's looking better all the time.
Republicans are hardly in a position to be indignant about tacked-on legislation; this has been SOP for both parties for decades. They try and bury pork or loopholes in some legislation sure to pass. In this case it is the opposite: because Bush is sure to veto the legislation as long as the withdrawal demand is in it, the Democrats are going for death-by-a-thousand-cuts. He vetoed clean water. He vetoed raises for policemen. He vetoed kitties and puppies. I have no idea whether it will work, as I am not good at those "national mood" sorts of evaluations.
I am good at noticing the simple things, however. The Iraq pullout is completely unrelated to this legislation, and smacks of dishonesty. This is an excellent example of how low things can go when Congress adopts this tack-on tactic as just the way business is done.
Election by sortition. It's looking better all the time.
Monday, May 14, 2007
Post 800 - Dumb Swedes
The stereotype of the immigrant Swede was "squarehead," a large, genial guy who drank too much and wasn't very bright. Over the course of the 20th C, they positioned themselves for a new image, partly based on amazingly attractive women with lots of skin showing, partly based on high educational attainment and scientific achievement. Being of Swedish descent on one side, I enjoyed the shared glory of being associated with such a people.
That ended around fifteen years ago, as I learned what their neutrality in WWII and the Cold War actually entailed. Perhaps I was ready to believe that by the 90's, as I had gotten pretty tired of the insufferably condescending seminarians at the Lutheran camp.
Things are even worse than I thought. Swedish children between 15 and 20 know almost nothing accurate about communism, according to a Demoskop survey.
That ended around fifteen years ago, as I learned what their neutrality in WWII and the Cold War actually entailed. Perhaps I was ready to believe that by the 90's, as I had gotten pretty tired of the insufferably condescending seminarians at the Lutheran camp.
Things are even worse than I thought. Swedish children between 15 and 20 know almost nothing accurate about communism, according to a Demoskop survey.
Of the 1004 young Swedes involved in the nationwide poll, 43 percent believed that communist regimes had claimed less than one million lives. A fifth of those surveyed put the death toll at under ten thousand. The actual figure is estimated at around 100 million.Simply amazing. Maybe the stereotype was correct the first time around.
The poll also found that 40 percent of young Swedes believed that communism contributed to increased prosperity in the world; 22 percent considered communism a democratic form of government; 82 percent did not regard Belarus as a dictatorship.
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Assistant Village Idiot Becomes R-Rated
The MPAA is considering adding smoking to the list of things that can get your movie an R rating. I will probably get an exemption, however, as the problem is glamourized smoking, which no one has ever accused me of.
The US Senate is apparently considering getting in the game in a more intense way, by regulating more content. If you read down, you also find they are looking for ways to force content providers to find "ways to encourage" children to eat healthy food. How well did that work when Popeye tried it? Mothers all over America tried to use Popeye to sell the spinach idea when I was a lad, but I don't see that it was effective.
If you force "what's good for you" speeches into any medium, kids will start gravitating to a new medium.
The US Senate is apparently considering getting in the game in a more intense way, by regulating more content. If you read down, you also find they are looking for ways to force content providers to find "ways to encourage" children to eat healthy food. How well did that work when Popeye tried it? Mothers all over America tried to use Popeye to sell the spinach idea when I was a lad, but I don't see that it was effective.
If you force "what's good for you" speeches into any medium, kids will start gravitating to a new medium.
Abstinence Only
A study by Mathematica Policy Research finds that government abstinence-only sex education programs do not reduce the amount of sex teenagers have. Liberals cheer, conservatives go looking for flaws. The study also shows that abstinence-only sex education does not reduce condom use when teenagers do have sex. Conservatives cheer, liberals go looking for flaws.
Why does anyone think that a government program is going to have any effect at all? Here's a guess: government sponsored safer sex education is going to have little or no effect on amount of sex or number of condoms used either. We spent $176M on these programs - Bush keeping social conservatives happy. We spent slightly more, $208M, under Clinton for safer sex programs to keep liberals happy (I wonder about the price difference. Are demonstration condoms that expensive? Must be special government-approved condoms). Well I'm not happy either way. Bug out.
Why does anyone think that a government program is going to have any effect at all? Here's a guess: government sponsored safer sex education is going to have little or no effect on amount of sex or number of condoms used either. We spent $176M on these programs - Bush keeping social conservatives happy. We spent slightly more, $208M, under Clinton for safer sex programs to keep liberals happy (I wonder about the price difference. Are demonstration condoms that expensive? Must be special government-approved condoms). Well I'm not happy either way. Bug out.
Ministry Of The Humble
In our discussion of the "poor in spirit" in the Beatitudes, one of the possible synonyms we considered was "humble." Humility is a virtue I have thought about many times, but my seeking of it has been mostly avoiding its opposite, pride or conceit. I have had no better practical definition to work from - which I now see is stunning evidence of how little I know about this.
I do not dare to give up what reputation I have.
There is a woman in our church community who has had a very hard life. Recently she has had catastrophe descend upon her. She has handled that difficulty only moderately well, and at one juncture, made a terrible decision and handled it badly. She was surprised when people from the congregation rallied 'round, as she felt undeserving. We mostly felt embarrassment we did not come earlier.
She still feels undeserving, and has difficulty accepting that we remain fond of her and are not condemning of her. With the amount of condemnation she has received in her life, it is hardly odd that she should expect this of us. When she talks about what she did, why she did it, events from the past that relate to this, she shows complete candor, humility, and woundedness. She is at the moment textbook definition of humility.
Each Christian must learn humility. I don't think there is anyone else in our fellowship who can teach it except this woman. I mean no accusation against any of my friends in this, but it is true. She acknowledges weakness to me that I would not dare confess to her - perhaps not to anyone. She is humble before so many of us now, but even with her as an example, the rest of us will barely dare to humble ourselves even a little more. We likely need a dozen more of her in the fellowship to be able to break down the icy aloofness of reputation in the rest of us.
We have no one else to teach us. If she does not teach us and lead us in this, we won't learn it.
When I think of the Christian example of those who have tragedy, I usually think in terms of admiring their endurance, or their ability to praise God in all circumstances, or their faithfulness, or even the gentleness and compassion they have learned from their difficulties. From what I have heard of testimony and biography, those qualities are what other Christians think of as well. Those are fine; those are good virtues. But only the broken can teach us humility. We depend on them, and they don't know it. It likely won't occur to them unless someone asks Teach me humility. What do I need to know? That's sort of the deal with humility, after all - you don't think of yourself as having much to give.
The unbroken have to ask the broken for teaching. The broken must not fear to teach.
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Thursday, May 10, 2007
A Different Fear
Out of the many fears of aging, I have one I seldom see mentioned: fear of moral deterioration. You can find a thousand discussions of our coming physical disintegration, and how our short-term memories will begin to fail, but the thought seems to be if we can fix those, everything's gonna be pretty good. Live to 120 - go for it. That we might become in some way worse people doesn't enter into it.
I spoke with a young woman today who had been given a bracelet by a mentally ill person. The bracelet turns out to be worth $21K. Her husband wants it back. Yesterday, the young woman told me that she had brought it to a pawn shop, found out it was valuable, and given it to someone to sell. Today there was a subtle change in her story. She had given the bracelet to someone and then found out from him it was valuable, so he won't give it back. An enormous difference, and clearly a story she is telling herself to self-justify. I thought immediately of Gollum's story about his "birthday present." That lie was wrapped around a bit of truth, changed over the years. Most lies are.
There is also the chapter in The Screwtape Letters in which Wormwood is told not to panic at his patient's religious conversion, as there are many long, quiet years in which to slowly steer him toward Hell. It is hardly surprising to see a theological similarity between Lewis and Tolkien, but I think this is echoed in great literature over the centuries, at least in the Western tradition. We change our stories over time, fitting them into the narrative we prefer. It is not that we can never absorb uncomfortable information about ourselves and integrate it into our understanding of the world, but we resist it. We cannot be counted on to own up to our shortcomings. We will admit some, but others we will slowly change, enlarging our own virtue and innocent victimhood.
I don't suppose there's much in the way of evidence that this gets worse as we go along, but I have to think it is cumulative most of the time. We may do most of the reworking in the first few months or years, and living another decade or two may not add to the lies much. Some lies we may be able to reverse a bit because of added wisdom. My worry is that these are very much the exception. I consider what stories I have already changed and no longer even acknowledge that to myself. Perhaps I was better person 10 or 20 years ago. I haven't noticed any improvement in self-honesty - I hope there has been no worsening. Yet even if the worsening is slight, what does that mean for humans living to be 100, 140, 200 years old? We may become horrible to behold.
I spoke with a young woman today who had been given a bracelet by a mentally ill person. The bracelet turns out to be worth $21K. Her husband wants it back. Yesterday, the young woman told me that she had brought it to a pawn shop, found out it was valuable, and given it to someone to sell. Today there was a subtle change in her story. She had given the bracelet to someone and then found out from him it was valuable, so he won't give it back. An enormous difference, and clearly a story she is telling herself to self-justify. I thought immediately of Gollum's story about his "birthday present." That lie was wrapped around a bit of truth, changed over the years. Most lies are.
There is also the chapter in The Screwtape Letters in which Wormwood is told not to panic at his patient's religious conversion, as there are many long, quiet years in which to slowly steer him toward Hell. It is hardly surprising to see a theological similarity between Lewis and Tolkien, but I think this is echoed in great literature over the centuries, at least in the Western tradition. We change our stories over time, fitting them into the narrative we prefer. It is not that we can never absorb uncomfortable information about ourselves and integrate it into our understanding of the world, but we resist it. We cannot be counted on to own up to our shortcomings. We will admit some, but others we will slowly change, enlarging our own virtue and innocent victimhood.
I don't suppose there's much in the way of evidence that this gets worse as we go along, but I have to think it is cumulative most of the time. We may do most of the reworking in the first few months or years, and living another decade or two may not add to the lies much. Some lies we may be able to reverse a bit because of added wisdom. My worry is that these are very much the exception. I consider what stories I have already changed and no longer even acknowledge that to myself. Perhaps I was better person 10 or 20 years ago. I haven't noticed any improvement in self-honesty - I hope there has been no worsening. Yet even if the worsening is slight, what does that mean for humans living to be 100, 140, 200 years old? We may become horrible to behold.
Where Are The Anti-Communist Movies?
David Boaz asks this over at TCSDaily. He makes the point that we're still kicking Nazis in the movies, and British colonialism gets kicked from both the left and the right, but there has been precious little on the 1-200,000,000 killed in the 20th C under communism. There are a few movies, which he notes, but not many. Out of that many deaths and that interesting a bunch of maniacal dictators, there must be another story or two, eh?
The obvious conclusion Boaz wants us to draw is that Hollywood, and the arts crowd in general, underplay how miserably evil communism was, because they are a left-leaning group. (He fails to mention all those comedies about lovable and wacky Russians that populated the screens from 1960-1990. They also had their effect.)
That's a reasonable point, but it is part of a larger, more reasonable point: no one anywhere does historical movies unless they have a modern lesson in mind. It is rather like the Robert Fulghum post below. When you use an historical subject, you get to subtly say Do we have to keep learning this lesson over and over, people? This isn't new; it's a lesson you should know by now. It's an equal opportunity condescension, as we have all see it used to make a variety of religious or anti-religious, American or anti-American, moral or amoral points.
It's a lot more artistic than Fulghum is, though.
The obvious conclusion Boaz wants us to draw is that Hollywood, and the arts crowd in general, underplay how miserably evil communism was, because they are a left-leaning group. (He fails to mention all those comedies about lovable and wacky Russians that populated the screens from 1960-1990. They also had their effect.)
That's a reasonable point, but it is part of a larger, more reasonable point: no one anywhere does historical movies unless they have a modern lesson in mind. It is rather like the Robert Fulghum post below. When you use an historical subject, you get to subtly say Do we have to keep learning this lesson over and over, people? This isn't new; it's a lesson you should know by now. It's an equal opportunity condescension, as we have all see it used to make a variety of religious or anti-religious, American or anti-American, moral or amoral points.
It's a lot more artistic than Fulghum is, though.
Marcia, Marcia, Marcia
My visits to convenience stores are always a bit of a puzzle. Waiting in the checkout line, I wonder who Nick and Jessica are. Really. I'm not just saying that as a snooty way of announcing that I am far above popular culture at that level (though that is one of the implications you are supposed to absorb). I look at them and wonder TV? Movies? Music? I try to guess, then try to guess what kind of movies or music.
Marcia Brady is on the cover of something that begins with an OK this week (month). More precisely, whoever it was who played Marcia Brady years ago, whose name I forget, is on the cover, with the announcement that she lost 38 lbs. at age 50. I am 54, and the Brady Bunch was just one year out of reach for me. Had I been born in 1954 I have little doubt I would have been as enamored of Marcia as everyone else seems to have been. She looks darn good for 50. I did find the teaser line for the story within a little disquieting, though. Something, something, talks about her addiction to cocaine - and chocolate!
Does that seem odd to you? Is cocaine that run-of-the-mill in some circles?
Marcia Brady is on the cover of something that begins with an OK this week (month). More precisely, whoever it was who played Marcia Brady years ago, whose name I forget, is on the cover, with the announcement that she lost 38 lbs. at age 50. I am 54, and the Brady Bunch was just one year out of reach for me. Had I been born in 1954 I have little doubt I would have been as enamored of Marcia as everyone else seems to have been. She looks darn good for 50. I did find the teaser line for the story within a little disquieting, though. Something, something, talks about her addiction to cocaine - and chocolate!
Does that seem odd to you? Is cocaine that run-of-the-mill in some circles?
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
I Don't Think I Hate The Yankees Anymore
A commenter on the Roger Clemens post, expecting to duck as he announced it, mentioned he is a Yankee fan. Traditionally, that is supposed to be a declaration of rivalry nigh on to enmity. It mildly surprised me that I felt no welling of annoyance. On reflection, I have felt no welling of annoyance over Yankee fans for some time.
Growing up, Yankee fans were the only other baseball fans you might run into around here. We would meet them at summer camp - guys from Connecticut who seemingly had betrayed New England by being New York centered in their affections. A fair number from NY and NJ would come up to lake vacation or ski in NH as well. We would see their bumper stickers and hats. The team histories contributed to the rivalry, but kids are only dimly aware of such things. Being educated in the tribal lore of Red Sox Nation came later. We rooted for our team because it was ours. We never met any Orioles of Phillies fans. All our focus was on New York.
Going to college in the south, I went prepared to express tolerance for all sorts of cultural diversity: Braves fans, Dodgers fans, Pirates fans, and even (swallow) Yankee fans. But with that last category it was forced politeness.
Things are different now. We have teams from all over the country to be annoyed with, and I think that waters it down. There is more national broadcast, and people have moved to and from here in great numbers. I have a son dating a Yankee fan, and one can hardly blame her: her father got a spring training look with them as a pitcher in the 80's. Baseball is a tradition-based sport, and I think there will always be some residual preference for Yankee-bashing, but it's not what it was.
For me, the high-water mark for Yankee hatred was 1978. Tom Boswell declared that one-game playoff between the Sox and the Yanks as the greatest game in baseball history, not only for its internal drama, but for what it meant in the context of its season, the history of the two teams, and the history of baseball. If Peter Gammons is correct in his Beyond The Sixth Game, baseball changed because of free agency in the late 70's and has been a different sport since (though the game itself remains the same). For Red Sox fans that is certainly true, as the legend of the just-missing Boston teams took off in those years. Then in the early 80's we let Carlton Fisk get away, there was a strike shortened season - you could make an argument that the 1978 game was the last game of Old Baseball. The moving, broadcasting, and free agency brought in New Baseball.
I knew something had changed forever in the 1990's when I felt sorry for Bucky Bleeping Dent because Steinbrenner was being such a jerk, and I wasn't the only Boston fan who said that. For us to have sympathy for Dent, to root for his side in a dispute? The world had moved. There have been spikes in Yankee hatred in RSN, when Roger Clemens and Wade Boggs went there, or in the 2003 and 2004 seasons. But it's not the same, and I'm not sure I miss the old days that much.
Growing up, Yankee fans were the only other baseball fans you might run into around here. We would meet them at summer camp - guys from Connecticut who seemingly had betrayed New England by being New York centered in their affections. A fair number from NY and NJ would come up to lake vacation or ski in NH as well. We would see their bumper stickers and hats. The team histories contributed to the rivalry, but kids are only dimly aware of such things. Being educated in the tribal lore of Red Sox Nation came later. We rooted for our team because it was ours. We never met any Orioles of Phillies fans. All our focus was on New York.
Going to college in the south, I went prepared to express tolerance for all sorts of cultural diversity: Braves fans, Dodgers fans, Pirates fans, and even (swallow) Yankee fans. But with that last category it was forced politeness.
Things are different now. We have teams from all over the country to be annoyed with, and I think that waters it down. There is more national broadcast, and people have moved to and from here in great numbers. I have a son dating a Yankee fan, and one can hardly blame her: her father got a spring training look with them as a pitcher in the 80's. Baseball is a tradition-based sport, and I think there will always be some residual preference for Yankee-bashing, but it's not what it was.
For me, the high-water mark for Yankee hatred was 1978. Tom Boswell declared that one-game playoff between the Sox and the Yanks as the greatest game in baseball history, not only for its internal drama, but for what it meant in the context of its season, the history of the two teams, and the history of baseball. If Peter Gammons is correct in his Beyond The Sixth Game, baseball changed because of free agency in the late 70's and has been a different sport since (though the game itself remains the same). For Red Sox fans that is certainly true, as the legend of the just-missing Boston teams took off in those years. Then in the early 80's we let Carlton Fisk get away, there was a strike shortened season - you could make an argument that the 1978 game was the last game of Old Baseball. The moving, broadcasting, and free agency brought in New Baseball.
I knew something had changed forever in the 1990's when I felt sorry for Bucky Bleeping Dent because Steinbrenner was being such a jerk, and I wasn't the only Boston fan who said that. For us to have sympathy for Dent, to root for his side in a dispute? The world had moved. There have been spikes in Yankee hatred in RSN, when Roger Clemens and Wade Boggs went there, or in the 2003 and 2004 seasons. But it's not the same, and I'm not sure I miss the old days that much.
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
We Are All Turks
I promised y'all months ago that I would keep you up-to-date on the controversy about whether the Indo-Europeans came down the west side of the Black Sea or the east side. Because I knew you'd be fascinated to know whether the Gimbutas or Renfrew theory was more likely to be true.
Go Colin Renfrew! DNA evidence is supporting his idea that the Indo-Europeans trace back to Anatolia, in Turkey, around 7000 BCE. Hittite was the first language to split off from the main branch. Forget all that kurgan horseman north of the Black Sea stuff - that came later. Giacomo over at Joust The Facts will be thrilled.
Go Colin Renfrew! DNA evidence is supporting his idea that the Indo-Europeans trace back to Anatolia, in Turkey, around 7000 BCE. Hittite was the first language to split off from the main branch. Forget all that kurgan horseman north of the Black Sea stuff - that came later. Giacomo over at Joust The Facts will be thrilled.
Robert Fulghum Is Dangerous
Robert Fulghum, the All I Really Need To Know I Learned In Kindergarten author, persists in that paternalistic tone of his years later. He uses that cute “we,” when he means “you,” just like I did with the boys when they were little. “We should pick up our toys.” In his signature work about kindergarten lessons, Fulghum has that comfy little Clean up your own mess and later, just in case you missed it, hammers the candy nails into your tongue by explaining how these things are the key to “Ecology and politics and equality and sane living.” Really.
This latest is a suggestion that Anheuser-Busch use their commercials to show that real men recycle cans and bottles. C’mon guys, how much would it hurt? Take one for the team here. It’s for a good cause, you selfish bastards.
Yet why stop there? Why not use beer commercials to show that real men eat nutritious meals with their beer? And are involved with their kids. You couldn’t have the kids in the same shot as the beer, of course, but you could do cutaways to guys playing with kids, doing homework with kids. And welcoming flamboyantly gay men into their bars with a slap on the back – just think how much good it would do. Those great bar scenes with guys laughing while they drink Bud – those should have fluorescent bulbs.
And more old people.
And reminders to get prostate cancer screenings.
Beer companies shouldn’t have to carry the whole weight of course. Ads for pickup trucks, feminine hygiene, and personal injury lawyers should all include helpful additions. Heck, every commercial should include at least five “encouragements” for people to do the right thing. Even the public service announcements would have to multitask. Quit smoking…and don’t discriminate in housing. It would leave less room for actually selling products, but if everyone had to comply it would be a level playing field. What’s your problem, pinhead?
Better yet, why not have companies pay for commercials to tell us what to do? Programs would interrupt every five minutes for a minute of reminders, sponsored by various companies: Don’t drink and drive…Charles Schwab…save energy…Coca-Cola…learn about epilepsy…Jeep Cherokee. These companies should be grateful that we even let them use the public airways, dammit. They’re rich, they can afford it. It’s public service. And it’s voluntary, so you can show what a responsible caring company you are. ‘Cause if you don’t we’ll gradually make it mandatory. We’ve done it before.
Genial Grampy Bob is just much wiser than you, “Don’t hit people.” Did you hear me George Bush? Don’t hit people. “Share everything.” Corporate America, you’re supposed to share everything. Do I need to pull this car over? This is modern liberalism with the mask slipping, telling us that it’s all so simple, and everyone knows what the right thing to do is except for some recalcitrant selfish people. How sweet. How condescending. How vacuous.
Conservatives should have their version too. Feel free to take this and improve on it and pass it on. Just try not to stretch a point – it’s not necessary.
All I Really Need to Know I Learned From Supervising Kindergarten
People get in less trouble if they are doing something constructive.
Victims have to be protected and bullies have to be contained.
You can make people share community property, but it’s not fair to make them share their own: not their lunch, not their clothes, and not the drawing they carefully colored.
No one cares for community property unless you make them.
People like giving things, but not having them taken.
Natural rewards build self-discipline. Bribes undermine it.
You have to learn justice before you can understand mercy.
Boys and girls are not always the same.
Don’t encourage show-offs. Remove their audience, don’t add to it.
Not everyone who speaks has something to say.
Everyone’s got an excuse.
Jealousy leads to cruelty.
These rules hold up for governments and politics and ecology, too.
This latest is a suggestion that Anheuser-Busch use their commercials to show that real men recycle cans and bottles. C’mon guys, how much would it hurt? Take one for the team here. It’s for a good cause, you selfish bastards.
Yet why stop there? Why not use beer commercials to show that real men eat nutritious meals with their beer? And are involved with their kids. You couldn’t have the kids in the same shot as the beer, of course, but you could do cutaways to guys playing with kids, doing homework with kids. And welcoming flamboyantly gay men into their bars with a slap on the back – just think how much good it would do. Those great bar scenes with guys laughing while they drink Bud – those should have fluorescent bulbs.
And more old people.
And reminders to get prostate cancer screenings.
Beer companies shouldn’t have to carry the whole weight of course. Ads for pickup trucks, feminine hygiene, and personal injury lawyers should all include helpful additions. Heck, every commercial should include at least five “encouragements” for people to do the right thing. Even the public service announcements would have to multitask. Quit smoking…and don’t discriminate in housing. It would leave less room for actually selling products, but if everyone had to comply it would be a level playing field. What’s your problem, pinhead?
Better yet, why not have companies pay for commercials to tell us what to do? Programs would interrupt every five minutes for a minute of reminders, sponsored by various companies: Don’t drink and drive…Charles Schwab…save energy…Coca-Cola…learn about epilepsy…Jeep Cherokee. These companies should be grateful that we even let them use the public airways, dammit. They’re rich, they can afford it. It’s public service. And it’s voluntary, so you can show what a responsible caring company you are. ‘Cause if you don’t we’ll gradually make it mandatory. We’ve done it before.
Genial Grampy Bob is just much wiser than you, “Don’t hit people.” Did you hear me George Bush? Don’t hit people. “Share everything.” Corporate America, you’re supposed to share everything. Do I need to pull this car over? This is modern liberalism with the mask slipping, telling us that it’s all so simple, and everyone knows what the right thing to do is except for some recalcitrant selfish people. How sweet. How condescending. How vacuous.
Conservatives should have their version too. Feel free to take this and improve on it and pass it on. Just try not to stretch a point – it’s not necessary.
All I Really Need to Know I Learned From Supervising Kindergarten
People get in less trouble if they are doing something constructive.
Victims have to be protected and bullies have to be contained.
You can make people share community property, but it’s not fair to make them share their own: not their lunch, not their clothes, and not the drawing they carefully colored.
No one cares for community property unless you make them.
People like giving things, but not having them taken.
Natural rewards build self-discipline. Bribes undermine it.
You have to learn justice before you can understand mercy.
Boys and girls are not always the same.
Don’t encourage show-offs. Remove their audience, don’t add to it.
Not everyone who speaks has something to say.
Everyone’s got an excuse.
Jealousy leads to cruelty.
These rules hold up for governments and politics and ecology, too.
Monday, May 07, 2007
Bonds and Steroids
There has been some sports-page commentary about the racial gap in the poll numbers about Barry Bonds. To some, it's a big deal because 76% of white people think Bonds used steroids, versus on 37% of blacks. There has been some muttering that some black people are letting race interfere with their judgment, blah, blah.
But I understand that. People want to believe the best about folks they see as their own, and have a high standard of proof for believing accusations against them. I think people from NH are smarter and better than people from VT, ME, and especially, MA. I root for Americans in sports I've never heard of, followed by UK, Canada, Australia, Sweden, and Romania, though that's probably not the order. I think it's unfair when bald guys get voted off the island. So I have to figure if I were black, I could theoretically be part of that 67% who stares and says "prove it."
Here's my problem. Who are those 24% of white guys who think Bonds didn't use steroids? He obviously did. Some of them might be Giants fans, I guess. Rooting for your team can also cause you to overlook the obvious.
Overlooking the obvious is a very human characteristic. I am convinced that the Boston Celtics never commit any fouls, for example. But overlooking the obvious for no reason is just stupid.
But I understand that. People want to believe the best about folks they see as their own, and have a high standard of proof for believing accusations against them. I think people from NH are smarter and better than people from VT, ME, and especially, MA. I root for Americans in sports I've never heard of, followed by UK, Canada, Australia, Sweden, and Romania, though that's probably not the order. I think it's unfair when bald guys get voted off the island. So I have to figure if I were black, I could theoretically be part of that 67% who stares and says "prove it."
Here's my problem. Who are those 24% of white guys who think Bonds didn't use steroids? He obviously did. Some of them might be Giants fans, I guess. Rooting for your team can also cause you to overlook the obvious.
Overlooking the obvious is a very human characteristic. I am convinced that the Boston Celtics never commit any fouls, for example. But overlooking the obvious for no reason is just stupid.
Thrilled at the Clemens News
Roger Clemens is going to the NY Yankees. I couldn't be happier. I admit, I may live to eat those words, but that's how it looks from here. Roger will be pitching in a tougher league and division. He will no longer be in a pitcher's park. He now has designated hitters to face. He is one year older than a guy who seldom went more than 6 innings last year. The prediction: 100 innings, distributed over 18 starts of 5-6 innings. ERA in the low 3's. 6 games he is dominant, 6 games he is decent, 6 games he gets hit hard. For the Yankees, that's about 3 more victories. Maybe only two, if it puts more strain on the beleaguered bullpen.
Not that this guarantees that the Red Sox are going anywhere. They have all sorts of ways they can collapse in Baltimore, Detroit, Cleveland...
Not that this guarantees that the Red Sox are going anywhere. They have all sorts of ways they can collapse in Baltimore, Detroit, Cleveland...
There's a sach ur born every minute
Update on the avocado question, below.
There have been books and articles lately describing how the Irish gave us much of our slang. The overarching theory is that gamblers, drifters, and underworld figures of the early 19th C were often Irish (the Italians came a bit later), and Gaelic words took on English pronunciations and spellings. These words, such as jazz, honkty-tonk, slum, have similar meanings to Gaelic teas (pronounced tiaz) meaning “heat, enthusiasm,” Aing iht Tarraing meaning “evil lure,” and saol luim meaning “hard world, poor world.”
All very plausible, of course. But plausibility is not the only measure.
Upon hearing words in an unfamiliar language, our brains quite automatically seize on bits that sound like our own language. “Sparrow-grass” was what Mainers heard from the word asparagas. My son showed off knowing tak sa mycket,* Swedish for “many thanks” in first grade. A friend laughed: “Toxic mittens? What kind of a thank you is that?” On our first visit to Romania we were taught to say cu placere, “with pleasure.” One woman nodded. “Couple ‘a cherries. Got it.”
We have words and phrases like this all over English. The Mayan vegetable Ahucatl sounded like Spanish for lawyer, "avocado." Update in response to question, from Your Dictionary: Originally, the Aztecs called this fruit "ahucatl" in their language, Nahuatl, and believed it was an aphrodisiac. To the Spaniards, the Nahuatl word "ahucatl" sounded like their word, avocado "lawyer" (spelled "abogado" today). The first recorded English usage in 1697 was the compound "avogato pear." The Aztecs also made sauces, called "molli" in Nahuatl. That made their avocado sauce, of course, "ahuacamolli," shortened by the Spaniards to "guacamole" [hwah-kê-'mo-le], the popular chip dip today. A briar pipe has nothing to do with wild roses or other thorny bushes, but the root of the bruyere tree of the Mediterranean. The Cree Indians had a word otchek (Ojibwa otchig) for the groundhog. The English made it “woodchuck” and applied it to another animal. Kitty-corner or catty-corner comes from cater, meaning four. (Cf. Quarter, quarto). Happens all the time. It is called a folk etymology by linguists and etymologists.
So it’s not a ridiculous idea that all these slang phrases might be Gaelic in origin. The problem is there’s not a lot of evidence for it. The immediate protestation from Daniel Cassidy and others is that Gaelic was a suppressed language which migrated to the underworld, where it was seldom written down. Whether in London, Liverpool, New York, or New Orleans, the Irish were an underclass, and their language denigrated or even forbidden for many years. Thus, the usual documentary evidence we might hope for is simply not going to be available for Irish Gaelic in the 18th and 19th Centuries. Nonetheless, we have some record of Gaelic before and after, and some unusual reference points such as NY Police Chief George Matsell’s The Secret Language of Crime from 1859. Much of that information supports Cassidy’s claims partially. I know of no instance in which it provides a definite proof.
Linguistics is about proof; etymology is about probability. That’s an unfair simplification, but it will do for now. Cassidy and others who wish to defend Irish honor in the field of contribution to English get quite caught up in the oppression aspect, and recognizing Gaelic roots of terms begins to take on an aspect of “We have to do this to right ancient wrongs. Damn the English and their dictionaries.” The more you read, the more you descend into the rhetoric and evidence of conspiracy theorists. Baseball writers used “jazz” early, baseball players were largely Irish, they went to Hot Springs Arkansas where there was an Irish population, they used the hot springs and came back to California talking about “jazz” as heat and energy – what more do you need for proof you English bastards? And don’t get me started about St. Patrick and the snakes, which is just a metaphor for the Catholic oppression of pagan snake goddesses…
Okay, fine. I think it is possible and even likely that some of these folk etymologies from Ireland are the accurate explanations, though we may never get hold of good supporting data. I’ll even grant that many nonsense syllables in folk songs are merely poor renditions of Irish Gaelic phrases, such as Billy mee-oo ree-I- ree ay from “Pat works on the Railway” really means “I get up in the morning;” or whoopee-ti-yi-yo comes from something about underfed calves. I don’t claim that they are, but I allow that it’s possible.
I just don’t get the certainty, and the language of victimhood about the whole thing. The card game faro might come from Gaelic “the turn.” Yet who plays Faro anymore? Describing rich or respectable people as “swells,” which is familiar to readers of 19th C literature, could indeed be Irish. Who cares? Even readers of 19th C literature don’t care. The Dead Rabbits, a NYC gang made famous in the Scorcese film might actually mean “very big hulking fellows.” Sure and that’s goin’ t’ change the world naow, isn’t it Michael?
Word origins are for fun. What’s the Gaelic for “Get a life?”
*Cf. Mickle, an obsolete word for "many," or the place name in Tolkien Michel Delving, meaning "many diggings."
There have been books and articles lately describing how the Irish gave us much of our slang. The overarching theory is that gamblers, drifters, and underworld figures of the early 19th C were often Irish (the Italians came a bit later), and Gaelic words took on English pronunciations and spellings. These words, such as jazz, honkty-tonk, slum, have similar meanings to Gaelic teas (pronounced tiaz) meaning “heat, enthusiasm,” Aing iht Tarraing meaning “evil lure,” and saol luim meaning “hard world, poor world.”
All very plausible, of course. But plausibility is not the only measure.
Upon hearing words in an unfamiliar language, our brains quite automatically seize on bits that sound like our own language. “Sparrow-grass” was what Mainers heard from the word asparagas. My son showed off knowing tak sa mycket,* Swedish for “many thanks” in first grade. A friend laughed: “Toxic mittens? What kind of a thank you is that?” On our first visit to Romania we were taught to say cu placere, “with pleasure.” One woman nodded. “Couple ‘a cherries. Got it.”
We have words and phrases like this all over English. The Mayan vegetable Ahucatl sounded like Spanish for lawyer, "avocado." Update in response to question, from Your Dictionary: Originally, the Aztecs called this fruit "ahucatl" in their language, Nahuatl, and believed it was an aphrodisiac. To the Spaniards, the Nahuatl word "ahucatl" sounded like their word, avocado "lawyer" (spelled "abogado" today). The first recorded English usage in 1697 was the compound "avogato pear." The Aztecs also made sauces, called "molli" in Nahuatl. That made their avocado sauce, of course, "ahuacamolli," shortened by the Spaniards to "guacamole" [hwah-kê-'mo-le], the popular chip dip today. A briar pipe has nothing to do with wild roses or other thorny bushes, but the root of the bruyere tree of the Mediterranean. The Cree Indians had a word otchek (Ojibwa otchig) for the groundhog. The English made it “woodchuck” and applied it to another animal. Kitty-corner or catty-corner comes from cater, meaning four. (Cf. Quarter, quarto). Happens all the time. It is called a folk etymology by linguists and etymologists.
So it’s not a ridiculous idea that all these slang phrases might be Gaelic in origin. The problem is there’s not a lot of evidence for it. The immediate protestation from Daniel Cassidy and others is that Gaelic was a suppressed language which migrated to the underworld, where it was seldom written down. Whether in London, Liverpool, New York, or New Orleans, the Irish were an underclass, and their language denigrated or even forbidden for many years. Thus, the usual documentary evidence we might hope for is simply not going to be available for Irish Gaelic in the 18th and 19th Centuries. Nonetheless, we have some record of Gaelic before and after, and some unusual reference points such as NY Police Chief George Matsell’s The Secret Language of Crime from 1859. Much of that information supports Cassidy’s claims partially. I know of no instance in which it provides a definite proof.
Linguistics is about proof; etymology is about probability. That’s an unfair simplification, but it will do for now. Cassidy and others who wish to defend Irish honor in the field of contribution to English get quite caught up in the oppression aspect, and recognizing Gaelic roots of terms begins to take on an aspect of “We have to do this to right ancient wrongs. Damn the English and their dictionaries.” The more you read, the more you descend into the rhetoric and evidence of conspiracy theorists. Baseball writers used “jazz” early, baseball players were largely Irish, they went to Hot Springs Arkansas where there was an Irish population, they used the hot springs and came back to California talking about “jazz” as heat and energy – what more do you need for proof you English bastards? And don’t get me started about St. Patrick and the snakes, which is just a metaphor for the Catholic oppression of pagan snake goddesses…
Okay, fine. I think it is possible and even likely that some of these folk etymologies from Ireland are the accurate explanations, though we may never get hold of good supporting data. I’ll even grant that many nonsense syllables in folk songs are merely poor renditions of Irish Gaelic phrases, such as Billy mee-oo ree-I- ree ay from “Pat works on the Railway” really means “I get up in the morning;” or whoopee-ti-yi-yo comes from something about underfed calves. I don’t claim that they are, but I allow that it’s possible.
I just don’t get the certainty, and the language of victimhood about the whole thing. The card game faro might come from Gaelic “the turn.” Yet who plays Faro anymore? Describing rich or respectable people as “swells,” which is familiar to readers of 19th C literature, could indeed be Irish. Who cares? Even readers of 19th C literature don’t care. The Dead Rabbits, a NYC gang made famous in the Scorcese film might actually mean “very big hulking fellows.” Sure and that’s goin’ t’ change the world naow, isn’t it Michael?
Word origins are for fun. What’s the Gaelic for “Get a life?”
*Cf. Mickle, an obsolete word for "many," or the place name in Tolkien Michel Delving, meaning "many diggings."
Saturday, May 05, 2007
The Impression Of Capitalism
I am reading an entertaining bit of fluff by TJ English, Paddy Whacked, a history of Irish organized crime in America. There is assuredly a great deal of information I never knew, but I take it with a grain of salt, as I have already noted a few errors in the first 50 pages. And curiously, an odd comment apparently went unremarked by the various editors:
I think the author means "cutthroat competition," but easily uses "capitalism in its purest form" as an equivalent. I doubt that he had anything remotely like the capitalization of industries in mind. Even the more informal term free market seems out of place. What is "free" about a market that is run by violence and cronyism instead of price?
If we tease it apart further, I suspect Mr. English means "commerce not regulated by the government," and "a real risk of losing." Such criminally-dominated economies long predate any notion of capitalism or any writings of Adam Smith. These economies are actually quite common throughout history and worldwide. A more exact term would be "corruption."
I doubt that the author is intentionally trying to smuggle in any politics with this reference to capitalism. I think we can pretty well guess which way he might vote, if he votes at all, but scoring debating points on the sly is unlikely to be in his mind as he writes such things. He simply accepts these equivalences without much thought, as do his editors, and likely most of his friends. If the government isn't regulating the economy, and if someone can actually go bust, he sees it as capitalism. If the competition is severe and the government really doesn't have control, he sees it as "street-level explication of capitalism in its purest form."
A small thing, but an amazingly ignorant and biased one. Multiply it out by a thousand similar interpretations of anything to do with capitalism or the free market every day in the public discourse, and you can see why some folks would think government regulation is safe, and preferable.
Merciless, bloody, rooted in a street-level explication of capitalism in its purest form, this war of the underworld would play itself out in many domains.
I think the author means "cutthroat competition," but easily uses "capitalism in its purest form" as an equivalent. I doubt that he had anything remotely like the capitalization of industries in mind. Even the more informal term free market seems out of place. What is "free" about a market that is run by violence and cronyism instead of price?
If we tease it apart further, I suspect Mr. English means "commerce not regulated by the government," and "a real risk of losing." Such criminally-dominated economies long predate any notion of capitalism or any writings of Adam Smith. These economies are actually quite common throughout history and worldwide. A more exact term would be "corruption."
I doubt that the author is intentionally trying to smuggle in any politics with this reference to capitalism. I think we can pretty well guess which way he might vote, if he votes at all, but scoring debating points on the sly is unlikely to be in his mind as he writes such things. He simply accepts these equivalences without much thought, as do his editors, and likely most of his friends. If the government isn't regulating the economy, and if someone can actually go bust, he sees it as capitalism. If the competition is severe and the government really doesn't have control, he sees it as "street-level explication of capitalism in its purest form."
A small thing, but an amazingly ignorant and biased one. Multiply it out by a thousand similar interpretations of anything to do with capitalism or the free market every day in the public discourse, and you can see why some folks would think government regulation is safe, and preferable.
Sad and Stunning
A young woman was admitted to my caseload today. Her baby had died within her, and she was induced, delivering at 8 months. She had made suicidal statements afterward. The previous hospital had tried to be helpful, letting her hold the baby, putting a little hat on it and taking pictures for her. She still had the hat.
She used my phone to check her cellphone messages. She let me listen to the third message, a young female voice saying I heard you lost your baby to crack, you whore. You're a skank whore... and on and on.
I find it amazing that one human being could kick another when she is down like this. Even by the horrible standards of what I listen to every day, this was unbelievable.
She used my phone to check her cellphone messages. She let me listen to the third message, a young female voice saying I heard you lost your baby to crack, you whore. You're a skank whore... and on and on.
I find it amazing that one human being could kick another when she is down like this. Even by the horrible standards of what I listen to every day, this was unbelievable.
Friday, May 04, 2007
Emerging Church - Collection
As with my Tribes collection two months ago, this is just a convenience post to put all my Emerging Church links in one place, with a sample paragraph to remind me which essay it was. Nothing new, but convenient for those who wish to review. The collection goes oldest to newest, in reverse order than online. Notice how long it took me to get rolling. Ugh.
Emerging Church - Very Preliminary info
There is a difference between the Emergent Church, which is a specific organization associated with Emergent Village, and the Emerging Church, which is a more generic name for a broad movement. Critics of the movement often fail to make this distinction, which is not only inaccurate, but somewhat insulting, as the distinction is often mentioned...
Church Emphasis
I am still reading up on the Emerging Church, and will eventually offer opinions. Akafred sent me an article about another movement, the Simple Church. In the last two decades there have also been movements of Seeker-Friendly and Purpose-Driven churches...
Magic Words
“Okay, I take his staff and I blaspheme his god. What happens?”
“How exactly are you blaspheming his god?”
“I, uh, say I blaspheme thee. I blaspheme thee. I blaspheme thee.”
“Roll d20.”
“17.”
“Your own deity strips you of two wisdom points. Wanker...”
Next Gas - 420 miles
I have noticed in myself that I feel a powerful ambivalence about the EC, and such strong attractions and repulsions are always interesting. An understanding of this is gradually taking shape...
Why Discuss EC At All?
Most people are not familiar with the Emerging Church, and don't show much interest in it when articles go by in the magazines or in conversation. There have been all sorts of movements in the church over the decades, so why should we pay particular attention to this one?...
Intro To Emerging Church
For wandering about the web, these sites provide ongoing discussion of what people are doing and thinking about the EC: Tall Skinny Kiwi and Scott McKnight's Jesus Creed site. Both have the advantage of talking about many faith issues with emerging church views in prominence, rather than a mere back-and-forth op-ed style of defense and attack of EC versus traditional model church. The Emergent Village site has both. There are hundreds or thousands of other sites, for which you can follow the links at these three...
The Emerging Conversation With The Assistant Village Idiot
The Emerging Church conversation is composed of nice, earnest people who want Christianity to be more than a text-based, Sunday morning experience. They want to return to some earlier, multisensory forms of worship, including especially the visual arts, which they believe have been increasingly neglected in the modern church. The EC stresses Christians in community, knit to each other but still interacting with the culture around them. They believe the older culture of Christendom has eroded to the point that the church can no longer use it as a vehicle for bringing Christ into the world, and new models for transforming society must be developed. They have very cool names, too, like Mosaic, Sanctus1, Solomon’s Porch, and Vaux.
So why would a Christian want to kick people like this around?
Probable answer: because I am a grouchy and irritable person who can only focus on the negative...
Beginning Slowly
The Emerging Church likes to have narratives instead of dogmas, so I will start with some stories.
There is an apocryphal story of a woman who had seven demons who came to Jesus. "Daughter," he said, "what would you have me do?" "Cast out six." she replied. "Or maybe five..."
EC And Postmodernism
This Postmodernism thing is very important to a lot of folks in the Emerging Church. As Assistant Village Idiot, it is my job to point out the obvious. In all my reading about the EC, I was puzzled by how frequently it came up. We’re postmodern. We minister to postmoderns. This is a postmodern world. The traditional church is stuck in modernity. This is puzzling because postmodernism as a philosophical approach is unnecessary to what most of them want to do...
Liturgical Dialogue
Cantor 1: They believe Christian practice should trump doctrinal disagreement.
Cantor 2: They’ll end up heretics
Cantor 1: You’re anal-retentive.
Cantor 2: They’re anal-expulsive.
Cantor 1: Lord, have mercy.
Cantor 2: Lord, have mercy.
People: Christ, have mercy.
Emerging Church And Community
Here’s another obvious statement: The Emerging Church movement is very big on community. They are very concerned with forming and nurturing community, living out in the surrounding culture as an example of the Kingdom of God. Readers may be grumbling at this point “what is this hypercritical SOB going to find wrong with that?” I’m glad you asked...
Another Postmodernism Thought
The Carol Gilligan theory I had rejected long ago. When quiet, respectable Alabamans didn’t want civil rights for black people in the 50’s and 60’s because it would be disruptive to their communities and way of life we didn’t call that a postmodern morality or ethics of care, we called it for what it was: self-serving rationalization. Some critics of the war in Iraq accuse George Bush and the war supporters of merely caring about our people over their people, discounting any supposed principle behind our actions as a mere evasion. They do not say this approvingly, noting that it is a more postmodern, ethics of care, feminine morality; they condemn it as an abomination. And if it were true that there were no other principles behind our actions, simply a preference for our people over theirs, it would be abominable. Huh. Go figure. When the tables are turned, the “advanced” morality is revealed for what it always was: evasion...
Charles River Church
I don't want to be a reviewer of churches ever in my life, because CS Lewis makes such a point of it in The Screwtape Letters. But I think like a reviewer, so it hobbles me somewhat...
Wrap-Up
Now that I have half-formed my own EC opinions, I will now turn to the DA Carson book that is somewhat critical of the emerging church. Perhaps the pendulum will swing the other way, and my hypercritical focus will be turned on the attackers now...
Self-Fulfilling Prophecies
We use a form of self-fulfilling prophecy to train the young, or new members of groups. We announce to them what the expectations are: what virtues are expected, what faults will be excused..
We’re Irish; we have a temper but we’re loyal.
New Englanders aren’t very demonstrative in their emotions.
You’re a McInness, and no McInness has ever stooped to thieving.
Our people have always been slow to anger, slow to forgive.
We don’t do those things because we’re Christians, and we answer to God more than man.
That’s not the Army way.
Other companies will try and sell people things they don’t need, but we’re proud of our focus on the customer...
A Portable Faith
I read the words “Portable Faith” intended as a disparagement recently. It was an emerging church commenter criticising seeker-friendly and megachurches. I imagine the point was to emphasize the importance of community, and to take a swipe at church-shoppers seeking entertainment...
Funeral: On Art In Church
As a Protestant, I was always struck by how astonishingly ugly more than half the art was in Roman Catholic churches. Garishly painted statues, enormous murals of saints in pain, ornate altars that lit up like a carnival ride – what was with that? The expressions on the face of Jesus, and the stilted postures the put Him in – how did that give one the idea of a warm and welcoming God? Wouldn’t it be more likely that children would grow up petrified? The stained glass windows – now those I liked, even when they were impossibly ornate or had symbols I didn’t understand. We had stained glass in our church as well, and staring at them was sometimes the best way to get through a Sunday morning. A lamb carrying a flag, crowns, pelicans, ships – I loved that stuff. I had no clue what it was about until I was older, but it was great. Compared to listening, that is...
Is The World Changing?
It has become so automatic to declare that the world is changing, ever more rapidly, so that "change itself is changing," that hardly anyone doubts it. This alarming, difficult world we are entering is supposed to be so different as to disorient those not prepared for it. Technological advances will be so profound as to render our ability to cope with them in jeopardy...
Emerging Church - Very Preliminary info
There is a difference between the Emergent Church, which is a specific organization associated with Emergent Village, and the Emerging Church, which is a more generic name for a broad movement. Critics of the movement often fail to make this distinction, which is not only inaccurate, but somewhat insulting, as the distinction is often mentioned...
Church Emphasis
I am still reading up on the Emerging Church, and will eventually offer opinions. Akafred sent me an article about another movement, the Simple Church. In the last two decades there have also been movements of Seeker-Friendly and Purpose-Driven churches...
Magic Words
“Okay, I take his staff and I blaspheme his god. What happens?”
“How exactly are you blaspheming his god?”
“I, uh, say I blaspheme thee. I blaspheme thee. I blaspheme thee.”
“Roll d20.”
“17.”
“Your own deity strips you of two wisdom points. Wanker...”
Next Gas - 420 miles
I have noticed in myself that I feel a powerful ambivalence about the EC, and such strong attractions and repulsions are always interesting. An understanding of this is gradually taking shape...
Why Discuss EC At All?
Most people are not familiar with the Emerging Church, and don't show much interest in it when articles go by in the magazines or in conversation. There have been all sorts of movements in the church over the decades, so why should we pay particular attention to this one?...
Intro To Emerging Church
For wandering about the web, these sites provide ongoing discussion of what people are doing and thinking about the EC: Tall Skinny Kiwi and Scott McKnight's Jesus Creed site. Both have the advantage of talking about many faith issues with emerging church views in prominence, rather than a mere back-and-forth op-ed style of defense and attack of EC versus traditional model church. The Emergent Village site has both. There are hundreds or thousands of other sites, for which you can follow the links at these three...
The Emerging Conversation With The Assistant Village Idiot
The Emerging Church conversation is composed of nice, earnest people who want Christianity to be more than a text-based, Sunday morning experience. They want to return to some earlier, multisensory forms of worship, including especially the visual arts, which they believe have been increasingly neglected in the modern church. The EC stresses Christians in community, knit to each other but still interacting with the culture around them. They believe the older culture of Christendom has eroded to the point that the church can no longer use it as a vehicle for bringing Christ into the world, and new models for transforming society must be developed. They have very cool names, too, like Mosaic, Sanctus1, Solomon’s Porch, and Vaux.
So why would a Christian want to kick people like this around?
Probable answer: because I am a grouchy and irritable person who can only focus on the negative...
Beginning Slowly
The Emerging Church likes to have narratives instead of dogmas, so I will start with some stories.
There is an apocryphal story of a woman who had seven demons who came to Jesus. "Daughter," he said, "what would you have me do?" "Cast out six." she replied. "Or maybe five..."
EC And Postmodernism
This Postmodernism thing is very important to a lot of folks in the Emerging Church. As Assistant Village Idiot, it is my job to point out the obvious. In all my reading about the EC, I was puzzled by how frequently it came up. We’re postmodern. We minister to postmoderns. This is a postmodern world. The traditional church is stuck in modernity. This is puzzling because postmodernism as a philosophical approach is unnecessary to what most of them want to do...
Liturgical Dialogue
Cantor 1: They believe Christian practice should trump doctrinal disagreement.
Cantor 2: They’ll end up heretics
Cantor 1: You’re anal-retentive.
Cantor 2: They’re anal-expulsive.
Cantor 1: Lord, have mercy.
Cantor 2: Lord, have mercy.
People: Christ, have mercy.
Emerging Church And Community
Here’s another obvious statement: The Emerging Church movement is very big on community. They are very concerned with forming and nurturing community, living out in the surrounding culture as an example of the Kingdom of God. Readers may be grumbling at this point “what is this hypercritical SOB going to find wrong with that?” I’m glad you asked...
Another Postmodernism Thought
The Carol Gilligan theory I had rejected long ago. When quiet, respectable Alabamans didn’t want civil rights for black people in the 50’s and 60’s because it would be disruptive to their communities and way of life we didn’t call that a postmodern morality or ethics of care, we called it for what it was: self-serving rationalization. Some critics of the war in Iraq accuse George Bush and the war supporters of merely caring about our people over their people, discounting any supposed principle behind our actions as a mere evasion. They do not say this approvingly, noting that it is a more postmodern, ethics of care, feminine morality; they condemn it as an abomination. And if it were true that there were no other principles behind our actions, simply a preference for our people over theirs, it would be abominable. Huh. Go figure. When the tables are turned, the “advanced” morality is revealed for what it always was: evasion...
Charles River Church
I don't want to be a reviewer of churches ever in my life, because CS Lewis makes such a point of it in The Screwtape Letters. But I think like a reviewer, so it hobbles me somewhat...
Wrap-Up
Now that I have half-formed my own EC opinions, I will now turn to the DA Carson book that is somewhat critical of the emerging church. Perhaps the pendulum will swing the other way, and my hypercritical focus will be turned on the attackers now...
Self-Fulfilling Prophecies
We use a form of self-fulfilling prophecy to train the young, or new members of groups. We announce to them what the expectations are: what virtues are expected, what faults will be excused..
We’re Irish; we have a temper but we’re loyal.
New Englanders aren’t very demonstrative in their emotions.
You’re a McInness, and no McInness has ever stooped to thieving.
Our people have always been slow to anger, slow to forgive.
We don’t do those things because we’re Christians, and we answer to God more than man.
That’s not the Army way.
Other companies will try and sell people things they don’t need, but we’re proud of our focus on the customer...
A Portable Faith
I read the words “Portable Faith” intended as a disparagement recently. It was an emerging church commenter criticising seeker-friendly and megachurches. I imagine the point was to emphasize the importance of community, and to take a swipe at church-shoppers seeking entertainment...
Funeral: On Art In Church
As a Protestant, I was always struck by how astonishingly ugly more than half the art was in Roman Catholic churches. Garishly painted statues, enormous murals of saints in pain, ornate altars that lit up like a carnival ride – what was with that? The expressions on the face of Jesus, and the stilted postures the put Him in – how did that give one the idea of a warm and welcoming God? Wouldn’t it be more likely that children would grow up petrified? The stained glass windows – now those I liked, even when they were impossibly ornate or had symbols I didn’t understand. We had stained glass in our church as well, and staring at them was sometimes the best way to get through a Sunday morning. A lamb carrying a flag, crowns, pelicans, ships – I loved that stuff. I had no clue what it was about until I was older, but it was great. Compared to listening, that is...
Is The World Changing?
It has become so automatic to declare that the world is changing, ever more rapidly, so that "change itself is changing," that hardly anyone doubts it. This alarming, difficult world we are entering is supposed to be so different as to disorient those not prepared for it. Technological advances will be so profound as to render our ability to cope with them in jeopardy...
First Date Movies
My son has a post on this. It is a concept foreign to me. When I went on first dates – just south of 40 years ago now – my thinking was no more advanced than “Is choosing this movie going to embarrass me in any way?” The answer is always “Yes, possibly,” but I didn’t know that then. There were also very few choices within driving distance on any given week. Usually the choices boiled down to a bloody movie, a Disney movie, a suggestive comedy, a significant movie, and an adventure movie. Few of these are ever a good choice. Patton? The Aristocats?
Come to think of it, I doubt that first dates were movies very often, for this very reason. I think dances were more likely.
It does, however, remind me of a story about Benjamin…
Ben was enamored of an unsuitable young woman from youth group, and though she would entertain his attentions, it just wasn’t clicking, despite his best efforts. He hit upon the idea that they would each read the book that had been most important to the other in childhood. He chose Watership Down, which he had read every year since he was 8 or 9. She chose A Dog Named Kitty which was er, a book that she remembered reading. People who know Ben are wearing slightly pained expressions at the moment, and for good reason.
A Dog Named Kitty is reportedly even worse than it sounds. After the usual dog story elements are dispensed with – boy is unhappy, boy doesn’t want dog, boy warms up to dog, boy is happy, dog is heroic – the dog dies. As is usual. But the dog does not die while being heroic and saving the calf – that is the penultimate chapter. The dog dies randomly in the final chapter, when an oil pipe falls off a truck and crushes him. Those darn oil companies, eh? Boy is heartbroken I imagine, yet ennobled somehow, from having come to love such a wonderful dog.
Come to think of it, I doubt that first dates were movies very often, for this very reason. I think dances were more likely.
It does, however, remind me of a story about Benjamin…
Ben was enamored of an unsuitable young woman from youth group, and though she would entertain his attentions, it just wasn’t clicking, despite his best efforts. He hit upon the idea that they would each read the book that had been most important to the other in childhood. He chose Watership Down, which he had read every year since he was 8 or 9. She chose A Dog Named Kitty which was er, a book that she remembered reading. People who know Ben are wearing slightly pained expressions at the moment, and for good reason.
A Dog Named Kitty is reportedly even worse than it sounds. After the usual dog story elements are dispensed with – boy is unhappy, boy doesn’t want dog, boy warms up to dog, boy is happy, dog is heroic – the dog dies. As is usual. But the dog does not die while being heroic and saving the calf – that is the penultimate chapter. The dog dies randomly in the final chapter, when an oil pipe falls off a truck and crushes him. Those darn oil companies, eh? Boy is heartbroken I imagine, yet ennobled somehow, from having come to love such a wonderful dog.
Previamente
There has been some disappointment that I would run such an oversimplified, canned post in support of the Bush Administration (just below). Thank you, at least, for not putting it in the comments.
It’s not in support of the Bush Administration (Ed: not that there’s anything wrong with that). Yet how telling it is that anyone would think so. The conservative complaint has been that progressives have been focussing their energy on Bush instead of terrorists since about February 2002. Through long repetition, now it has become simply automatic – a reflexive response that reads the words “war in Iraq” and thinks “stop Bush.”
Details have changed, but my stance is the same: the war critics give little evidence of considering risk/benefit, but lots of evidence that their opposition is politically and tribally motivated; the war supporters have considerable disagreement with each other, but discuss military and foreign policy strategies in terms of considering ideas that might work and discussing their merits. Within that wide framework “We Win, They Lose” seems about as much military and foreign policy expertise as I can offer. That’s not much, but it’s way ahead of folks who cannot even frame the discussion in those terms. To be forever stuck on the implications of how all this plays in American electoral politics is going to get a lot more people killed.
It’s not in support of the Bush Administration (Ed: not that there’s anything wrong with that). Yet how telling it is that anyone would think so. The conservative complaint has been that progressives have been focussing their energy on Bush instead of terrorists since about February 2002. Through long repetition, now it has become simply automatic – a reflexive response that reads the words “war in Iraq” and thinks “stop Bush.”
Details have changed, but my stance is the same: the war critics give little evidence of considering risk/benefit, but lots of evidence that their opposition is politically and tribally motivated; the war supporters have considerable disagreement with each other, but discuss military and foreign policy strategies in terms of considering ideas that might work and discussing their merits. Within that wide framework “We Win, They Lose” seems about as much military and foreign policy expertise as I can offer. That’s not much, but it’s way ahead of folks who cannot even frame the discussion in those terms. To be forever stuck on the implications of how all this plays in American electoral politics is going to get a lot more people killed.
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Is The World Changing?
It has become so automatic to declare that the world is changing, ever more rapidly, so that "change itself is changing," that hardly anyone doubts it. This alarming, difficult world we are entering is supposed to be so different as to disorient those not prepared for it. Technological advances will be so profound as to render our ability to cope with them in jeopardy.
This view is offered both hopefully and warningly, but most often because the writer wishes us to make a particular change right now. You can't stop it, it's going to happen anyway grandma, you'd better get out of the way and let the clever ones take over the wheel. Government (or values, or understanding, or communication) is so on the edge of revolution that it will sweep all the past away. That, at least, is the picture drawn.
We are most aware of what is changing, as we notice most what is moving in our field of vision. Our own focus can delude us in these things.
People are living longer. Yes, but. Some few lived as long as the longest-lived now even centuries ago. More people, many more people, are living long, but not beyond what was already known. Perhaps increased length of life will come soon, bringing with it changes in how we see ourselves and our time on the face of the earth. But if 50 years from now the average life span is 100, and a fair number reach 125, how is that so different from the expectation of 80 years with hope of 100 today? It is some different. We would have more people who know their (few) great-grandchildren well, more people doing interesting things at 100. But is knowing a 10-year old great-grandchild going to be so different from knowing a grandchild?
We will eat bread. We will drink wine. They will be somewhat different and come from many places, but they will still be bread and wine. There will be songs. There will be drawings. There will be conversation. There will be reading. Each of those will be changed by technology, but remain the same thing.
We might come up with many technological imitators of sex, and technological ameliorations of chronic illness, but there will still be pleasure and pain. A deepening in neurological understanding that will change pleasure and pain is imaginable, but everyone reading this will still know pleasure and pain when they are old in much the same way that my grandparents did. We might bend our need for sleep and dreams, fitting them into patterns more congenial, but we will have sleep and have dreams.
How your parents treat you when you are small will continue to be important. How your children turn out will continue to fascinate.
As lighting improved, successive generations kept saying they had banished the darkness. Yet it still gets dark around here, anyway. We can push it back in small places, but darkness continues to obscure objects and light to reveal them.
Dogs will bark. Snow will fall. Plants will grow. We will have homes, and beds, and cupboards. We will need to pray; to confess; to worship.
The central things will change only slowly.
This view is offered both hopefully and warningly, but most often because the writer wishes us to make a particular change right now. You can't stop it, it's going to happen anyway grandma, you'd better get out of the way and let the clever ones take over the wheel. Government (or values, or understanding, or communication) is so on the edge of revolution that it will sweep all the past away. That, at least, is the picture drawn.
We are most aware of what is changing, as we notice most what is moving in our field of vision. Our own focus can delude us in these things.
People are living longer. Yes, but. Some few lived as long as the longest-lived now even centuries ago. More people, many more people, are living long, but not beyond what was already known. Perhaps increased length of life will come soon, bringing with it changes in how we see ourselves and our time on the face of the earth. But if 50 years from now the average life span is 100, and a fair number reach 125, how is that so different from the expectation of 80 years with hope of 100 today? It is some different. We would have more people who know their (few) great-grandchildren well, more people doing interesting things at 100. But is knowing a 10-year old great-grandchild going to be so different from knowing a grandchild?
We will eat bread. We will drink wine. They will be somewhat different and come from many places, but they will still be bread and wine. There will be songs. There will be drawings. There will be conversation. There will be reading. Each of those will be changed by technology, but remain the same thing.
We might come up with many technological imitators of sex, and technological ameliorations of chronic illness, but there will still be pleasure and pain. A deepening in neurological understanding that will change pleasure and pain is imaginable, but everyone reading this will still know pleasure and pain when they are old in much the same way that my grandparents did. We might bend our need for sleep and dreams, fitting them into patterns more congenial, but we will have sleep and have dreams.
How your parents treat you when you are small will continue to be important. How your children turn out will continue to fascinate.
As lighting improved, successive generations kept saying they had banished the darkness. Yet it still gets dark around here, anyway. We can push it back in small places, but darkness continues to obscure objects and light to reveal them.
Dogs will bark. Snow will fall. Plants will grow. We will have homes, and beds, and cupboards. We will need to pray; to confess; to worship.
The central things will change only slowly.
Monday, April 30, 2007
The Seven Chronicles of Narnia
I have myself passed on the speculation that each of the Chronicles of Narnia is intentionally designed to represent one of the Seven Deadly Sins of medieval theology. It is a plausible and attractive idea, as Lewis was a medievalist, author of Studies in Medieval and Renaissance Literature, An Introduction to Paradise Lost, English Literature in the 16th Century, excluding Drama from the Oxford History of English Literature Series and The Discarded Image, an introduction to medieval cosmology. That someone like Jack Lewis, who was already smuggling orthodox Christian theology into his children’s stories, would also smuggle in the popular theology of the Middle Ages makes a certain sense.
So too with the idea that the Chronicles would each be tied in theme to one of the medieval planets of both astronomy and astrology - the five visible planets plus the Sun and Moon. Lewis explicitly tied his Perelandra series to the planets in both their physical and mythological forms. Why not the Narnia books as well?
Unfortunately for those who like to see behind and underneath things, neither is likely to be true. Lewis’s own words are available to give the disproof.
We could, of course, line them up with whatever group of seven we choose. If we wanted to line them up with the characters from Gilligan's Island, we would have Mr. Howell for Voyage of the Dawn Treader, Ginger would go with The Silver Chair...
So too with the idea that the Chronicles would each be tied in theme to one of the medieval planets of both astronomy and astrology - the five visible planets plus the Sun and Moon. Lewis explicitly tied his Perelandra series to the planets in both their physical and mythological forms. Why not the Narnia books as well?
Unfortunately for those who like to see behind and underneath things, neither is likely to be true. Lewis’s own words are available to give the disproof.
Some people seem to think that I began by asking myself how I could say something about Christianity to children; then fixed on the fairy tale as an instrument, then collected information about child psychology and decided what age group I’d write for; then drew up a list of basic Christian truths and hammered out ‘allegories’ to embody them. This is all pure moonshine. I couldn’t write in that way. It all began with images; a faun carrying an umbrella, a queen on a sledge, a magnificent lion. At first there wasn’t anything Christian about them; that element pushed itself in of its own accord. Of Other Worlds
I think I agree with your order [i.e. chronological] for reading the books more than with your mother’s. The series was not planned beforehand as she thinks. When I wrote The Lion I did not know I was going to write any more. Then I wrote P. Caspian as a sequel and still didn't think there would be any more, and when I had done The Voyage I felt quite sure it would be the last. But I found as I was wrong. So perhaps it does not matter very much in which order anyone read them. I’m not even sure that all the others were written in the same order in which they were published. CS Lewis’s Letters To Children
We could, of course, line them up with whatever group of seven we choose. If we wanted to line them up with the characters from Gilligan's Island, we would have Mr. Howell for Voyage of the Dawn Treader, Ginger would go with The Silver Chair...
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Art In Church - Home Church
A Martian visiting my church would conclude that we worship wood grain and green leaves. A co-worshiper likened it to a worship space for gnostics: with nothing to fasten the eye on, the focus must be directed to the Idea, the Abstract.
We rent the space from the Seventh-Day Adventists, who would be well out on the bell curve of no-representations-in-sanctuary. Very 19th C, very extreme Protestantism.
I'm not sure what I would put up if I had the run of the place. But contemplating wood grain and artificial plants no longer does it for me.
We rent the space from the Seventh-Day Adventists, who would be well out on the bell curve of no-representations-in-sanctuary. Very 19th C, very extreme Protestantism.
I'm not sure what I would put up if I had the run of the place. But contemplating wood grain and artificial plants no longer does it for me.
Attacking My Son, eh?
Benny Hinn Ministries has instructed YouTube to remove a video my son uploaded that mentions Hinn. The claim is that there is copyright infringement, but there is nothing of the kind, simply the mention of his name. Presumably, they know that YouTube simply removes videos without checking if there is a copyright infringement claim.
He made the film for the Methodist church he works for down in Houston, so I figured Ben should let them know what is up. They probably don't want any bad publicity either.
So now you know. This particular religious (I cannot bring myself to say "Christian" for reasons unrelated to this issue) ministry protects itself by false accusation against little guys. Nice.
Pass this on, please.
He made the film for the Methodist church he works for down in Houston, so I figured Ben should let them know what is up. They probably don't want any bad publicity either.
So now you know. This particular religious (I cannot bring myself to say "Christian" for reasons unrelated to this issue) ministry protects itself by false accusation against little guys. Nice.
Pass this on, please.
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Reading, Writing, and Sex: The Effect of Losing Virginity on Academic Achievement
Other than the obviously fascinating topic, there's not much stunning in this study. A small correlative effect, with little clue as to causation.
The comment by Jenna (third one down) however, is priceless.
Thanks to Tigerhawk for the link.
The comment by Jenna (third one down) however, is priceless.
Thanks to Tigerhawk for the link.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Funeral: On Art In Church
Today I attended the funeral of a woman I had not seen for decades. She was a childhood friend of my mother’s, loyal to my mother at a time when few were, and the mother of girls about the age of my brother and I. She was um, undiplomatic; the sort of blunt common in those who drink too much. Her daughters were a little wild and I envied them sometimes. The older confided to me recently that she envied us our stable life and calm mother. That irony is an old story. Nothing to see here, move along, folks.
The family was Irish Catholic, but I doubt that mother or daughters have been practicing for many years. Ex-catholics all have their own stories, but in my generation the stories fell into a few standard categories. Rebellion against the Catholic preoccupation with sexual rules often figured prominently in the narratives of my RC friends, but I always figured that was what all churches did. I didn’t think the Catholics were any more obsessed than my own people. In retrospect, it is more likely that it was we adolescents who were obsessed with sexual rules. The adults looked obsessed because they were just responding to us. By looking for constant loopholes we also demonstrated that we were perhaps not, shall we say, the best arbiters of church doctrine. It must have been irritating for adults to listen to twerps like me. That’s another old story, which others have told better than I.
As a Protestant, I was always struck by how astonishingly ugly more than half the art was in Roman Catholic churches. Garishly painted statues, enormous murals of saints in pain, ornate altars that lit up like a carnival ride – what was with that? The expressions on the face of Jesus, and the stilted postures the put Him in – how did that give one the idea of a warm and welcoming God? Wouldn’t it be more likely that children would grow up petrified? The stained glass windows – now those I liked, even when they were impossibly ornate or had symbols I didn’t understand. We had stained glass in our church as well, and staring at them was sometimes the best way to get through a Sunday morning. A lamb carrying a flag, crowns, pelicans, ships – I loved that stuff. I had no clue what it was about until I was older, but it was great. Compared to listening, that is.
Those kids that grow up in those churches with an empty stage, beige carpets, and a single lily in front of a plexiglass lectern, what do they look at for 60 minutes? No wonder the emerging church generation wants more visual art in the sanctuary. The tormented saints gazing heavenward might create repulsion, but the bare sanctuary creates glazed looks. Boring is probably worse than unnerving.
I think I suspected that Catholics were leaving the church because of bad art more than they suspected. Not only because the art was ugly – we can all find charm in ugly things if they have sentimental value – but the way they were ugly. That Sacred Heart of Jesus picture is downright creepy. Those stylized Byzantine saints with black-lined haloes – those come straight out of the worst parts of my unconscious, Jack. Most of the people you see in church art, especially Catholic art, are saying If you ever have a problem, don’t come to us. We lived so long ago it was a different universe. Whatever you’re feeling, we never felt that.
When I first visited Romania, the immense distance of their religious art from my thinking was even more apparent. Eastern Orthodox art is even more likely to have angels spearing trampled dragons, and demons pushing people into the flames. Large wooden crucifixes are stuck in by the side of the road all over Romania, or even out in the sheep-fields. I don’t know whether these are memorials, permanent thank-you cards for significant events or what, but there they are, often with Jesus’s wounds in colorful detail. Hieronymous Bosch, notorious in western art for his fevered, tormented subjects, has got nothing on these guys. My worst nightmares never looked like this.
Yet I like dragons in stories and pictures, and the difference between the Balrog dragging Gandalf into the abyss and this church art with the demons I find so repulsive is…what, exactly? The psychiatrist Bruno Bettelheim wrote that the gruesome and frightening nature of fairy tales is not only allowable but necessary for children. Our worlds are already populated by fearful things that hover on the edge of perception or just over the horizon. Better to get them out in the open and demonstrate what can be done about them: pray, show courage, be kind to strangers, give your fear a name. Those who have a fondness for Jung, heroic fantasy, or folk tales, BTW, will find Bettelheim’s The Uses of Enchantment delightful and thought-provoking.
Perhaps that’s the point of this Roman Catholic art that I found so off-putting. I looked at a mural during the funeral today and thought that’s my fear come to light. Guys frightened, puzzled, hanging around Jesus hoping for some sort of relief or protection. I looked further and saw the whole collective unconscious on display: a man holding a baby, plants and animals, stone, wood, darkness and light. Not an erudite discussion on the nature of God and the nature of the universe, with fancy philosophical phrases in foreign languages, but God as bits of food and wine. Eating bread and wine has been done about, oh, one quintillion times since the beginning of man, and about one quadrillion of those have been in honor of God. This is about as close to the center of humankind’s existence as a god can get.
I thought of Mary, the woman whose funeral it was. (I had forgotten that Catholics are big on making sure your confirmation name makes it into your wedding and funeral, and chuckled inside at the daughters, Deborah and Nancy, who were going to give their relatives a jarring moment when their own funerals come: their confirmation name, which they have long since abandoned, will rise to prominence again, and they will be spoken about with a name they hardly knew. The priest kept referring to their mother as Mary Ann – I wonder when was the last time she was called that? Fifty, sixty years ago? I love it. Proof of how little control we have over our legacy.) Sorry, back to Mary. She would hardly have objected to the bad art. This was the first person we knew to get one of those silver Christmas trees with the rotating color wheel. She had miniature poodles with rhinestone collars. Whatever pulled her away from Holy Mother Church, it wasn’t the art. The older daughter is a designer of gardens – the art might bother her. On the other hand, plants, dirt, stone – that’s all very primal stuff, and she’s been reading Jung, so maybe the art looks different to her now. (I’ll be sending this to her. I’ll ask.)
I’m going to have a go at embracing some of the religious symbolism I’ve tried to shove in the background all my life. I’m not a very mystical person, so it likely won’t change things much. But this art, and symbolism, and enactment has fed people for generations, and most of them were better Christians than I. Maybe I’ve had this backwards.
The family was Irish Catholic, but I doubt that mother or daughters have been practicing for many years. Ex-catholics all have their own stories, but in my generation the stories fell into a few standard categories. Rebellion against the Catholic preoccupation with sexual rules often figured prominently in the narratives of my RC friends, but I always figured that was what all churches did. I didn’t think the Catholics were any more obsessed than my own people. In retrospect, it is more likely that it was we adolescents who were obsessed with sexual rules. The adults looked obsessed because they were just responding to us. By looking for constant loopholes we also demonstrated that we were perhaps not, shall we say, the best arbiters of church doctrine. It must have been irritating for adults to listen to twerps like me. That’s another old story, which others have told better than I.
As a Protestant, I was always struck by how astonishingly ugly more than half the art was in Roman Catholic churches. Garishly painted statues, enormous murals of saints in pain, ornate altars that lit up like a carnival ride – what was with that? The expressions on the face of Jesus, and the stilted postures the put Him in – how did that give one the idea of a warm and welcoming God? Wouldn’t it be more likely that children would grow up petrified? The stained glass windows – now those I liked, even when they were impossibly ornate or had symbols I didn’t understand. We had stained glass in our church as well, and staring at them was sometimes the best way to get through a Sunday morning. A lamb carrying a flag, crowns, pelicans, ships – I loved that stuff. I had no clue what it was about until I was older, but it was great. Compared to listening, that is.
Those kids that grow up in those churches with an empty stage, beige carpets, and a single lily in front of a plexiglass lectern, what do they look at for 60 minutes? No wonder the emerging church generation wants more visual art in the sanctuary. The tormented saints gazing heavenward might create repulsion, but the bare sanctuary creates glazed looks. Boring is probably worse than unnerving.
I think I suspected that Catholics were leaving the church because of bad art more than they suspected. Not only because the art was ugly – we can all find charm in ugly things if they have sentimental value – but the way they were ugly. That Sacred Heart of Jesus picture is downright creepy. Those stylized Byzantine saints with black-lined haloes – those come straight out of the worst parts of my unconscious, Jack. Most of the people you see in church art, especially Catholic art, are saying If you ever have a problem, don’t come to us. We lived so long ago it was a different universe. Whatever you’re feeling, we never felt that.
When I first visited Romania, the immense distance of their religious art from my thinking was even more apparent. Eastern Orthodox art is even more likely to have angels spearing trampled dragons, and demons pushing people into the flames. Large wooden crucifixes are stuck in by the side of the road all over Romania, or even out in the sheep-fields. I don’t know whether these are memorials, permanent thank-you cards for significant events or what, but there they are, often with Jesus’s wounds in colorful detail. Hieronymous Bosch, notorious in western art for his fevered, tormented subjects, has got nothing on these guys. My worst nightmares never looked like this.
Yet I like dragons in stories and pictures, and the difference between the Balrog dragging Gandalf into the abyss and this church art with the demons I find so repulsive is…what, exactly? The psychiatrist Bruno Bettelheim wrote that the gruesome and frightening nature of fairy tales is not only allowable but necessary for children. Our worlds are already populated by fearful things that hover on the edge of perception or just over the horizon. Better to get them out in the open and demonstrate what can be done about them: pray, show courage, be kind to strangers, give your fear a name. Those who have a fondness for Jung, heroic fantasy, or folk tales, BTW, will find Bettelheim’s The Uses of Enchantment delightful and thought-provoking.
Perhaps that’s the point of this Roman Catholic art that I found so off-putting. I looked at a mural during the funeral today and thought that’s my fear come to light. Guys frightened, puzzled, hanging around Jesus hoping for some sort of relief or protection. I looked further and saw the whole collective unconscious on display: a man holding a baby, plants and animals, stone, wood, darkness and light. Not an erudite discussion on the nature of God and the nature of the universe, with fancy philosophical phrases in foreign languages, but God as bits of food and wine. Eating bread and wine has been done about, oh, one quintillion times since the beginning of man, and about one quadrillion of those have been in honor of God. This is about as close to the center of humankind’s existence as a god can get.
I thought of Mary, the woman whose funeral it was. (I had forgotten that Catholics are big on making sure your confirmation name makes it into your wedding and funeral, and chuckled inside at the daughters, Deborah and Nancy, who were going to give their relatives a jarring moment when their own funerals come: their confirmation name, which they have long since abandoned, will rise to prominence again, and they will be spoken about with a name they hardly knew. The priest kept referring to their mother as Mary Ann – I wonder when was the last time she was called that? Fifty, sixty years ago? I love it. Proof of how little control we have over our legacy.) Sorry, back to Mary. She would hardly have objected to the bad art. This was the first person we knew to get one of those silver Christmas trees with the rotating color wheel. She had miniature poodles with rhinestone collars. Whatever pulled her away from Holy Mother Church, it wasn’t the art. The older daughter is a designer of gardens – the art might bother her. On the other hand, plants, dirt, stone – that’s all very primal stuff, and she’s been reading Jung, so maybe the art looks different to her now. (I’ll be sending this to her. I’ll ask.)
I’m going to have a go at embracing some of the religious symbolism I’ve tried to shove in the background all my life. I’m not a very mystical person, so it likely won’t change things much. But this art, and symbolism, and enactment has fed people for generations, and most of them were better Christians than I. Maybe I’ve had this backwards.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)