Unknown's avatar

About wjduquette

Author, software engineer, and Lay Dominican.

Sound vs. Sense

I’ve been a subscriber to Pandora for a couple of years now, and I really enjoy it. For those aren’t familiar with it, Pandora is a streaming music service that plays music based on seeds that you give it. The goal is to analyze the music you like, determine the characteristics that music has, and identify other music that matches the pattern and play it for you. I hasten to add, there’s no AI magic going on here; Pandora is based on something called the Music Genome Project, in which humans listen to songs and assess them relative to various qualities. For example, I asked Pandora why it was playing its current song. It answered:

We’re playing this track because it features electric rock instrumentation, ska influences, mild rhythmic syncopation, heavy use of vocal harmonies and many other similarities identified in the Music Genome Project.

And apparently I like all those things.

The interesting thing is that Pandora adjusts its notion of what you’ll like as it plays. You can give each song that appears a thumb’s up or a thumb’s down, and Pandora will use those assignments to better understand your preferences. And that’s a problem.

It’s a problem because Pandora can only assess the sound of a song, and not its sense. Once in a while a song will come along that I like the sound of, but dislike because of the lyrics—because the sense of the lyrics is egregiously immoral, or unpleasant, or simply repulsive. I can give it a thumb’s down, and Pandora will never play the song again, but I worry that Pandora will get the wrong idea. I’m objecting to the sense, and Pandora is going to assume that I’m objecting to the sound.

I don’t blame Pandora for this; it’s amazing that it does as good a job with the aesthetics as it does, and I expect that attempts to assess the sense in the same way would be unsatisfactory to everyone involved.

The reason I bring this up, though, is it seems to me that we listeners often judge music in the same way. We listen to the sound, and we ignore the sense. If it sounds good to us, we like it and we listen to it. What’s up with that? Where did the expectation that the sense doesn’t matter come from?

I’m no Tipper Gore; I’m not looking for parental advisory notifications or advocating a ban on music I personally find offensive. But why is it that we assume that popular music should be considered morally and philosophically neutral, when it manifestly is not?

The Economics of Staying at Home

I don’t usually comment on the political news, or on things at Instapundit (because I figure lots of people read that anyway); however, amidst all of the verbiage on Ann Romney’s choice to stay at home and raise the five Romney, I saw this post.

I don’t know anything about Kevin Williamson, and I didn’t read any of his post except the paragraph Glenn Reynolds quoted, but I agree with that paragraph completely:

It is difficult to put a dollar value on parental time, but it is clear that to the Romneys one hour of Mrs. Romney’s time at home with the family was worth far more than one hour in C-level wages; further, a 2,000-hour annual block of time invested in earning C-level wages would have fundamentally changed the character of the Romney household for the worse, while providing negligible economic benefit. Instead, she provided the family with a critical good that Mr. Romney, for all his riches, could not acquire without her cooperation. If we think of the household as a household, Ann Romney’s decision to stay at home makes perfect economic sense: Her decision to be a full-time mother enormously improved the quality of life for Mr. Romney, for the couple’s five sons, and — let’s not overlook this critical factor — for Mrs. Romney herself.

My wife Jane is a stay-at-home mom. She worked outside the home before we had kids; she might possibly work outside the home when our kids have moved out. But right now, right at the moment, having her at home has proven to be the best thing for all six of us, economically and in all other ways.

Human Wave Science Fiction

Sarah Hoyt, whose books I have not read, has recently begun advocating for what she calls “human wave science fiction.” And I’m all for it.

Check out her manifesto, which is really all about good story-telling. I’m especially fond of her rule #2:

2. Your writing shouldn’t leave anyone feeling like they should scrub with pumice or commit suicide by swallowing stoats for the crime of being human, or like humans are a blight upon the Earth, or that the future is dark, dreary, evil and fraught with nastiness, because that’s all humans can do, and woe is us.

Heretics

Continuing my jaunt through G.K. Chesterton’s books, I’ve just finished re-reading Heretics, an odd and not entirely satisfactory little book in which Chesterton examines the beliefs of many of the prominent people of his day. Toward the end of the book, he has a few words about progress, about the notion that we are, mentally, ethically, socially, every day in every way getting better and better:

The vice of the modern notion of mental progress is that it is always something concerned with the breaking of bonds, the effacing of boundaries, the casting away of dogmas. But if there be such a thing as mental growth, it must mean the growth into more and more definite convictions, into more and more dogmas. The human brain is a machine for coming to conclusions; if it cannot come to conclusions it is rusty. When we hear of a man too clever to believe, we are hearing of something having almost the character of a contradiction in terms. It is like hearing of a nail that was too good to hold down a carpet; or a bolt that was too strong to keep a door shut.

What would we say to a physicist who told us that the goal of physics is to know gradually less and less about the physical world? The goal of physics is to know more and more, with more and more certainty, about the physical world. And the same is true in all fields of knowledge, philosophy and religion not least. But if you’d rather not know, well…Chesterton has a word just for you.

Trees have no dogmas. Turnips are singularly broad-minded.

Noble House

Continuing to work my way through James Clavell’s oeuvre, I spent Holy Week working my way through Noble House. I use the expression “working my way” advisedly, as it was a bit of a slog—my least favorite Clavell to date.

Noble House is an immense book, with an immense cast. It takes place in just over a week; and it’s non-stop action the whole time. The basic premise is simple. The book is set in Hong Kong in the early 1960’s. Ian Dunross, a descendant of Dirk Struan and tai-pan of the Noble House. As the week begins, he’s considering a business deal with two Americans, Linc Bartlett and K.C. Tcholok, that will give the Noble House a presence in the New World. For their part, Bartlett and Tcholok will gladly take over the Noble House if they can, and are also in discussions with the interestingly named Quillan Gornt, the descendant of Dirk Struan’s old nemesis Tyler Brock. Gornt is encouraged to trigger a long-laid plan to destroy the Noble House. The whole drama plays out over the next week, against a background of spies (both Russian and Chinese), pirates, drug smugglers, banking, trade, fires, mudslides, torture, and lots of not particularly graphic sex.

It’s amazing how a book that covers so short a period of time can move so slowly. At about half-way through, I was strongly tempted just to move on to something else. At about that point, though, Clavell began to pay off some of the mysteries raised earlier in the book, and I got interested again.

Noble House is not a bad book; and amazingly, Clavell really does tie up all the loose ends and bring everything to a satisfying conclusion. And there are other inducements to read it, because he ties together all of his other books. It is a direct sequel to Tai-Pan, of course; Peter Marlowe of King Rat is a minor but significant character; and we even meet a descendant of the Anjin-San from Shogun. The theme of “going native” is still present, though somewhat muted, and there’s so much going on, and so many characters, that it’s a hard book to come to grips with. On top of that, the ’60’s is recent enough that (for me, at least) it doesn’t have that historical novel flavor that I enjoyed with the others.

So read Shogun; read King Rat; read Tai-Pan; if you like ’em, you might give Noble House a try. But don’t start with it.

Womb to Tomb

Today is Holy Saturday, when we remember Jesus in the tomb; and when one prays the Rosary, Saturday is also one of the days when you pray the Joyful Mysteries, which recount (among other things) Jesus’ conception and birth. (I gather that there are different rules for praying the Rosary during Lent; but I haven’t learned them. I simply go on praying the same pattern of mysteries that I pray the rest of the year.) So today I’ve been pondering Jesus’ life from womb to tomb. And it occurred to me that Jesus’ death was necessary, if he was to a human like us in all things but sin, because the quality of a human life can only be seen in retrospect.

St. Paul compares our human lives to a race, a race that ends only with our deaths:

Do you not know that in a race all the runners compete, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it. (1 Cor 9:24)

For I am already on the point of being sacrificed; the time of my departure has come. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. (2 Tim 4-7)

The letter to the Hebrews uses the same metaphor.

…let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us… (Heb 12:1)

Until you’ve finished the race, you don’t know where you stand in the rankings. How you run the race matters—”run that you may obtain it”—but clearly, finishing the race is essential. Jesus ran the whole race. Yesterday, on Good Friday, we remembered the moment He crossed the finish line. Tomorrow, we remember His entry into the Winner’s Circle.

We the living still have the race to finish. Thanks be to God! For in Christ’s victory we have the hope that we can not only finish it—any fool can do that, and will—but by His grace, can run so that we may obtain the prize.

A Heart on Fire

Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia has a new little book out; it’s what you might call an “e-pamphlet” ($0.99 at Amazon) called A Heart on Fire. It’s about the fault line running through American society these days on the subject of religion and its role in the public square, and about what we can do about it.

Actually, it’s mostly about diagnosing the fault line, because the prescription is really pretty simple. If you want to catch others on fire, you have to be on fire yourself. It’s not enough to complain about others, or about how we Christians are being attacked; in fact, complaints are mostly useless. Rather, we need to live active, dynamic, vibrant Christian lives.

And the key to living an active, dynamic, vibrant Christian life is spending time with Christ himself…which is to say, we have to make time for prayer and the sacraments.

It’s Holy Thursday–a great time to get started.

(Thanks to Richard, who brought the book to my attention.)

The Old Man in the Hat Comes Back

Quite a few years ago now, when I was reading Dr. Suess to my kids on a regular basis, I was also reading The Lord of the Rings, and somehow I begin work on a little bit of epic poetry, to wit, The Old Man in the Hat Comes Back. I hadn’t thought about it in years, when something brought it to mind yesterday; and honestly, it’s better than I remembered. The scansion is a little forced here and there, and stumbles completely in one or two places, but on the whole I’m rather pleased.

The poem runs from just after the Unexpected Party until the hobbits reach Rivendell. And here you go!

We had no time for adventures
We had smoke-rings to tend.
It was time for some pipeweed
At the door of Bag End.

When old Bilbo left town
With a bang for a joke,
He said we should always
Think of him and smoke.
“Somebody, SOMEBODY
Has to, you see.”
Then he picked out two somebodies,
Samwise and me.

Well…
There we were,
We were smoking like that
And then who should come up
But the old MAN IN THE HAT!

“Oh, no,” Samwise said,
“Don’t stay here on the mat.
That old man is a bad one,
That man in the hat.
He’s lost lots of young hobbits.
Don’t you let him come near.
You know who he took
The last time he was here.”

“Taking hobbits?” the man laughed,
“Oh, my, my! No, no, no.
There are just one or two facts
That I’d like to know.
So sit there and smoke
While we talk about things
Like your good uncle Bilbo
And the location of Rings.”

“I’m sorry,” I said,
“That we can’t stay and chat.”
And a smile crossed the lips
Of the Old Man in the Hat.
Came a bang and a flash
And I knew nothing more
Till we woke up in Bree
With Black Wraiths at the door.

Awakened we were
By a long-legged bloke
With a weather-creased face
And a funny green cloak.
“You’ll have to move quickly,”
The weathered bloke said,
“If you don’t want to wind up
Beheaded in bed.

“The hat man just couldn’t
Be with you today.
But I’ll help you out,
I am Ranger Man A.
I dwell in the wilds,
In forest and fen,
But I come back to Bree
For a wash now and then.”

Sam didn’t like him,
But what could we do?
Of pipes we had plenty,
But of weapons, too few.
Pipeweed is potent,
It’s powerful stuff
But it isn’t much use
Against wraiths playing rough.

The Ranger Man told us
Just how to proceed
As we got our belongings
And our pouches of weed.
“You can’t ignore Wraiths,
It’s not good for your health.
The way you get Wraiths
Off your tail is by stealth!”

So we tried to be secret.
We tried to be stealthy.
We wandered through swamps
That I’m sure were not healthy.
And the wet! O the wet!
I felt just like a newt!
Sam had moss in his hair,
And mildew on each foot.

Just when Sam and I thought
We would never get dry,
Our ranger man said,
“The Great Road is close by.
The Black Wraiths will be near,”
Said the A man to me,
“This is where is we must cross,
And I hope they won’t see.”

But although we used stealth
The Black Wraiths were not slowed.
There were five of the things
Keeping watch on the Road.
We jogged on with great care,
We climbed out of the damp,
And the wraiths were upon
Us before we made camp.

“Escaping these wraiths
Will be hard,” said our guide.
“I can’t do it alone,
I must swallow my pride.
At least I have someone
To help me,” he said,
“Right here in my hat
On the top of my head.

“This is Elven-lord G,
And I keep him about,
And when I need help,
Then I let him come out.”
And there on the top
Of his head stood an elf.
It’s hard to believe,
Though I say so myself.

The elf looked around
From his spot on A’s head.
“You’ve got a bad case
of the Wraiths,” the elf said.
“These Wraiths are a problem.
They stick to you like glue.
And you can’t knock ’em loose
Once they have you in view.

“So if you’ve got Wraiths,
The best thing’s a fast steed.
The way to get Wraiths
Off your tail is by speed!
Now be off,” said the elf,
“You’ve no reason to stay.”
He swept off his hat,
“This is Elven-horse A.”

“Not A!” cried out Sam,
“That’s the Ranger Man’s name.
We can’t have two As!
They can’t both be the same.”
“We’ve no time for your quibbles!”
The Ranger Man yelled.
“It’s his fleetness that matters,
Not how his name’s spelled!”

I don’t know just how,
But A got the horse down,
And he put us on top,
And he said with a frown,
“Now ride for the fords,
Ride fast and don’t stop it,
Or the wraiths they will catch you
And dine on smoked hobbit!”

Then Elven-horse A
Shot away like an arrow,
And we raced through the trees
But our lead was too narrow.
Sam held on with both hands,
And I cried for more speed,
And I wished I was home
With a pipe full of weed.

We crossed over the fords
And we both held on tight,
And when we touched shore
The whole river ran white!

The Wraiths were swept under,
Their horses were gone!
“They won’t be back soon,”
Said a voice, with a yawn.
“Black wraiths are no problem,
They can’t abide mud.
The way to get wraiths
Off your tail’s with a flood!”

The voice was attached
To an elf on the bank.
He lowered his hands
As the floodwaters shrank.
“You don’t know who I am
(And there’s so much to tell!);
I am Elrond Half-Elven.
–My friends call me L.”

“But he cannot be L,”
Sam said, “That cannot be.
If this horse here is A,
Then he ought to be E!”

“That is true,” said the Elf,
“You are wise, for a Sam.
But E was my sire,
And also my dam.
There already were two
In my family named E,
So my parents chose L
For my brother and me.”

That’s it. Sigh.

Penance vs. Suffering

For Palm Sunday, here are some thoughts on suffering and penance, in the form of a flow chart.

penance.png

We all suffer every day, some of us a little, some of us a lot. Some of that suffering is unavoidable. Some of it we can prevent if we take a little effort, if not now, then later (in the meantime, it’s still unavoidable). Some of it is voluntary: we choose the suffering because it goes along with something else we want.

The point is, we can choose how we respond to it. If we offer it up to God, then we are still suffering…but we are also doing penance. If we don’t offer it up, then we’re just suffering pointlessly, and that’s a bummer.

Even if you’re not going out of your way to do penance, you’ll find you have ample opportunity if you just offer up the little sufferings and annoyances that pop up every day. And why waste them?