Unknown's avatar

About wjduquette

Author, software engineer, and Lay Dominican.

Superseded

It used to be my kids couldn’t beat the video games I like to play: they didn’t have the perseverance or downright sneakiness. But today, for the first time, my nine-year-old beat a boss I’d completely given up on. When I was playing this game, a year or so ago, I’d once fought this boss for about twenty minutes straight and probably could have gone on fighting it indefinitely. It was a stalemate. The boss couldn’t kill me and I was simply not quite fast enough to kill it.

Youthful speed has dethroned mature sneakiness. Sigh.

I’m reminded of something my four-year-old said to me the other day. “Let’s play a game. The person who goes first wins. I go first.”

Question of the Day

There’s a question I need to start asking myself, when I’m reading a book or an article or a blog post or what have you:

What do I take away from this?

There are two good reasons I can see to read anything: to be entertained, and to be edified. All too often, especially when running down the posts in Google Reader, I find myself reading to fill time: I achieve neither. We’ve all done that, it’s a waste of time, and it’s not what I’m talking about.

When I read something that is worthwhile, what is that makes it more than simply filling time? Surely it must be because something about the work sticks with me. And yet, I can’t presume that just because I read a post/essay/chapter carefully, and understood what it was saying, that I will retain it. Perhaps I used to be able to, but they say that memory is the first thing to go.

Having read a worthwhile passage, and understood it, I need to stop, and reflect, and savor, and say, “What do I take away from this? What have I learned? What do I want to remember?” I need to do this, not simply when something strikes me, but as a conscious, explicit decision. Otherwise, while not necessarily wasting my time, I’m not making the best use of it. I’m like a man who sees a beautiful painting, recognizes that it’s a beautiful painting, and forgets it the moment he turns away. Choosing not to respond to the Good, the True, and the Beautiful deadens one’s ability to respond in the future.

Sometimes there will be nothing to take away, and that’s useful information as well. One can at least avoid the author/blog/subject in the future.

(But what about reading for pleasure: surely one can read simply for fun? Sure…but even there, there ought to be something to take away, if only the memory of the enjoyment and the desire to share it with others. And sometimes, there can be quite a bit more than that.)

The Shack

I have not read The Shack, but I was struck by this bit from Patrick Hannigan’s review:

That said, I can’t give “The Shack” an unconditional recommendation because its craftsmanship is inconsistent and its narrow focus on healing by any means necessary leaves significant minorities of readers either adrift or trying to connect dots that aren’t there. I am a fan of the Lord of the Rings movies, and this novel’s relationship to the gospel reminded me of Gollum’s relationship to Frodo, which pinballed between dysfunction and treachery on the one hand and surprising helpfulness on the other.

Ouch.

An Introduction to Philosophy, by Jacques Maritain

I’ve been working through this volume, little by little, for quite some time now, and I finally finished during my lunch break today. I say “finished”; what I mean is, I’ve read the whole book. I’ve no doubt that I’ll return to it again in the future, as I certainly haven’t absorbed all Maritain has to say.

Maritain’s book is, as the title suggests, an introduction to philosophy; but the book is by no means a survey of the history of philosophical thought.
Maritain was a follower of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, and this is an introduction done from an explicitly Thomistic point of view. It is, in fact, an introduction to Thomism; other schools of philosophy (other than the Greek predecessors of Plato and Aristotle, who are described in some detail) are mentioned only in discussions of the errors avoided by Aristotle and Aquinas.

If you’re looking for a broad overview of philosophical thought, consequently, this is not the book for you. On the other hand, reading such a broad overview is often like reading a movie review by a reviewer who doesn’t reveal his biases. For my money, give me an author who tells me what he thinks is true, and why he thinks it is true. I might not agree with him, but I’ll learn more from him that way. Maritain is this kind of author.

And, of course, as my current goal is to learn more about Thomism, this is exactly the kind of book I was looking for.

Next up is a book recommended by the no-longer-anonymous James Chastek at Just Thomism, Foundations of Thomistic Philosophy, by A.D. Sertillanges, OP. The book is out-of-print, but I managed to find a copy at Amazon.

Speaking of which, another advantage of the Kindle: I was able to buy a nice Kindle edition of the Blackfriars translation of the Summa Theologiae for just a few books; the print edition is five big volumes and costs around $150, if I recall correctly. I can carry my copy around with me in its entirety–and it’s searchable. Woohoo!

What did He know, and when did He know it

Some exegetes are fond of playing the game “What did Jesus know, and when did He know it.” One place I’ve often seen this is Mark 7:24–30, in which a non-Jewish woman comes to Jesus asking for help for her daughter. Jesus explains that he has been sent to the Jews and asks, shockingly, if he should throw what is holy to dogs? The woman says that even dogs get to eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table, after which Jesus commends her for her faith, and does what she asks.

Some exegetes take this as a learning experience for Jesus. He thought he was called only to the Jews; but here a foreign woman talks him around, and shows him something new. Now, this is clearly nonsense. Jesus is the Son of God–the Second Person of the Trinity–incarnate. He knew very clearly who he was, and what he was doing. God is the grand author, whose manuscript is history, and I think it’s fair to say that He staged the whole incident for our benefit.

The Fifth Joyful Mystery is the occasion when Jesus, as a young lad of twelve, goes missing for three days and is found, finally, in the Temple, bemusing the priests and scribes with his precocity. And personally, I’ve always found “mystery” to be the right tag. Why was it, alone of the incidents of Jesus’ youth, included in the Gospel? I think I’ve got a piece of the answer, and it has to do with the matter I mentioned above, and with today’s feast day, that of Mary, Mother of God.

Today’s feast was instituted as the result of a controversy in the early church. Mary had long been called the “Mother of God”; but Nestorius said that this title was invalid: Mary, a human being, could not possibly be the mother of the Second Person of the Trinity. Eventually this was resolved by a doctrined called, impressively, the Hypostatic Union: that Jesus Christ was one person possessed of two natures: a fully divine nature, that of the Second Person of the Trinity, and a fully human nature. The key phrase here is “one person”. Mary was undeniably the mother of Jesus’ human nature; and as Jesus is one person, fully God and fully Man, it is reasonable to call here the Mother of God.

In short, Jesus is not simply a good man, touch in some special way by the Diety. Nor was Jesus’ body a sort of mask worn by God. Jesus is God Incarnate, true God and true Man. And that’s why it makes no sense to play the game of “What did Jesus know and when did He know it?” He was God. As an adult, He knew certainly knew what he was about. But on the other hand, surely His human nature was capable of learning, and indeed needed to learn? In his human nature, he surely wasn’t possessed of the secrets of the universe as an infant lying in a manger. In human terms, he certainly did need to come to terms with who He was, to grow into Himself, as it were.

And this is precisely the importance of the day when Mary and Joseph found Jesus in the Temple, and He asked them, in wonder, “Did you not know that I would be in my Father’s house?” It was obvious to Him; the surprise was (and this shows His humanity) that it wasn’t obvious to Mary and Joseph. Even then, as a boy of twelve, He knew His Father in heaven, and was about His Father’s work.

Bleak House, by Charles Dickens

Bleak House is a long novel, approaching a thousand pages, and I have a correspondingly large set of things to say about it. I’ll begin by simply saying that I liked it.

From one angle, the book is primarily about Britain’s Court of Chancery. From what I gather, the Court of Chancery was the court that dealt primarily with wills and things of that nature. When I say “the court,” I mean the court. There was only one, presided over by the Lord Chancellor, and all business of this kind had to go through it. But not only was it a bottle-neck, it was dysfunctional. Once any case had been brought before it, as it might be a dispute about a will, the case could be carried on, slowly, painfully, and above all expensively until the estate in dispute had completely vanished into the pockets of an army of lawyers. Dickens regarded this as a great wickedness, and I daresay it was.

In the present volume, consequently, much of the action concerns a case called “Jarndyce and Jarndyce”, a case that has been ongoing for many years and shows no sign of coming to a conclusion. Most of the characters are tied to the case one way or another.

A secondary theme is an English penchant for do-goodery. The book contains portraits of a number of men and women with missions, missions that they pursue to the neglect of the duties directly before them. The most prominent of these is Mrs. Jellyby, who is consumed by a scheme to establish an English colony in the African village of Borrioboola-Gah. She spends her days in feverish correspondence on the subject, while completely neglecting the care and upbringing of her large family. Even from today’s point of view, when most women have entered the work-force and two-income families are common, Mrs. Jellyby’s detachment from the interests of her children is shocking. (I’ll note that there’s not much positive to say about Mr. Jellyby, either.)

At one point, we get to see a large collection of these fervent activists all in one place. One is a feminist of a type still all too familiar:

Miss Wisk’s mission, my guardian said, was to show the world that woman’s mission was man’s mission and that the only genuine mission of both man and woman was to be always moving declaratory resolutions about things in general at public meetings.

And then there was a clergy man, whose home was a wilderness

but whose church was like a fancy fair. A very contentious gentleman, who said it was his mission to be everybody’s brother but who appeared to be on terms of coolness with the whole of his large family…

There’s very little new under the sun.

The true backbone of the book, and the source of most of its charm, is the person of Miss Esther Summerson. The book consists of chapters of third-person-omniscient narrative, written from a variety of points of view, all in the present tense, and the first person narrative of Miss Summerson, whom we follow from her earliest days. She is the backbone, and the heart and soul of the book, and I quite fell in love her.

It is notoriously hard to write an interesting book about goodness, especially in our day when we have largely lost the pertinent vocabulary of virtue and vice. Things were different in Dicken’s day, and Esther Summerson is a thoroughly good woman: capable, smart, taking care for others, and blessed with a touching humility. In The Screwtape Letters, C.S. Lewis describes the sort of woman who lives for others–and you can tell the others by their hunted looks. Mrs. Pardiggle, a friend of Mrs. Jellyby’s, is a pre-eminent example. Such people do little good and a great deal of harm. But Esther Summerson is the real deal, the true coin of which Mrs. Pardiggle is the counterfeit.

I have the suspicion that this book, and especially the passages involving Esther, are the sort of thing that some would dismiss as “sentimental”. I suspect rather than some people simply don’t recognize goodness when they see it–or don’t believe in it.

There is a host of secondary and tertiary characters, in all states of moral growth or decay, including those who have learned by hard experience and those who have not, those who have grown old in kindness and in depravity. I found it touching, repellent, heartwarming, and funny by turns.

One last note: I did not read the book straight through. I find I need to be in the right mood for this kind of thing, and so I’d usually read a few chapters and then switch to something else. This is another great feature of the Kindle: it’s possible to be reading several books at once, each for a particular purpose of mood, and turn from one to another at a moment’s notice without having to carry multiple volumes about.

Some Books: Two Weeks with Kindle

I got my Kindle from Amazon about two weeks ago; and darn it, it works!. When I’m sitting in a comfy chair, I can lose myself in it just like I can in a printed book, something that seldom happens when I’m reading something on the laptop screen. And reading on the Kindle has some advantages over printed books. Being rigid, it’s easier to prop up on the kitchen table, and it doesn’t flop closed if I take my hand away. The search feature makes it easier to remember just who minor character Jones is, and why he’s important. And if I highlight an interesting quote, it’s much easier to find it for later use.

As witness, here are some of the books I’ve read on the Kindle since I got it.

Bleak House, by Charles Dickens: I’m not much of a Dickens fan, but over the last several months I’d run across a number of mentions of how delightful Bleak House is, a description I never would have guessed from the title. I downloaded it for free from FeedBooks.com, and gave it a spin. Dickens had me in the first paragraph:

Implacable November weather. As much mud in the streets as if the waters had but newly retired from the face of the earth, and it would not be wonderful to meet a Megalosaurus, forty feet long or so, waddling like an elephantine lizard up Holborn Hill. Smoke lowering down from chimney-pots, making a soft black drizzle, with flakes of soot in it as big as full-grown snowflakes—gone into mourning, one might imagine, for the death of the sun.

The book’s almost a thousand pages long, and I devoured it over the course of the following week. And, come to think of it, I’ve got too much to say about it for an omnibus review like this, so I’ll move along.

The Skylark of Space and Skylark 3, by E.E. “Doc” Smith: I downloaded these, both of which I’d read years ago, from FeedBooks.com and ManyBooks.net respectively. These two sites both draw from Project Gutenberg, and consequently have similar selections; however, the folks at FeedBooks appear to put more effort into producing an attractive product. On the other hand, I found Skylark 3 at the latter but not at the former.

Anyway, these books are classic tales of Space Opera and Super Science, and if I can’t take them at all seriously at least they are good fun. Or mostly good fun; it’s interesting to see how attitudes have changed since the 1920’s, when these were written. There’s a casual acceptance of both eugenics and genocide (fiendish alien race; universe not big enough for both of us) that would be unthinkable following WWII.

I also notice that all of Smith’s heroes in these books (and in his others that I’ve dipped into) are flawless physical and mental specimens. It’s not enough that Dick Seaton, super-scientist of the Skylark series, is a super-scientist; he also has to be one of the best tennis players and fastest shots in the country. Wishful thinking, anyone?

Update: These freely available e-books derive from the original magazine publications; they are not identical to the novels published with these titles. I glanced at a printed copy of Skylark of Valeron a couple of days ago; it’s the second of the novels, but its opening scene would be somewhere in the middle of the e-text of Skylark 3, if it were included at all, which it isn’t. It appears to me that the first three of the printed Skylark novels cover approximately the same ground as these two e-books, with lots of additional material.

Slan, by A.E. Van Vogt: I recently decided to give Van Vogt a try, having not read much of his work, and found this in Kindle Store. It’s an edition prepared by an outfit called Rosetta Books, which evidently specializes in producing and selling electronic editions of older books that are still in copyright. Peace be upon them, but I have to say that the frequency of typographical errors was unpleasantly high.

Be that as it may, Slan is the story of a young lad, Jommy Cross, who isn’t fully human. Rather, he’s a “slan,” a member of a new race, descended from humans, but with greatly enhanced faculties. Slan can read minds, are stronger than humans, and much smarter. They are also forced to live in hiding, because the vast mass of humanity hates them.

The book is interesting from a historical point of view, especially after reading the first couple of Skylark books: Dick Seaton is (minus the mind-reading capability) more or less a slan. The action kept me reading, and some bits are really good. But Van Vogt’s dialog is just awful, and the book ends with a most implausible info-dump. In short, I didn’t buy it.

But on the other hand, it was entertaining enough, and it cost me less than a printed copy would have. So what’s to complain about?

The Graveyard Book, by Neil Gaiman: Here’s a delightfully odd outing by Gaiman, intended for middle readers, about a boy who grows up in a graveyard, raised by ghosts and other denizens of the night. The boy’s family is murdered in the opening chapter, to some fell purpose, but the boy escapes and is taken in by a kindly shade. Ultimately, of course, the boy learns why his family was killed, and rejoins the living world.

The immediate inspiration for the book was, oddly enough, Rudyard Kipling’s Jungle Books, hence the title.

The book is illustrated, and the illustrations were included in the Kindle edition, but as it’s only four-level grayscale they weren’t all that clear and I didn’t spend much time looking at them.

This is probably the time to mention a minor detail about the Kindle that I find absolutely charming. The Kindle has a sleep mode that you use when you’re not actually reading; it saves power, and also ensures that pages don’t get turned accidently when you’re carrying the Kindle about in backpack or purse. And when the Kindle is sleeping, it pops up an image on the display, one of a large set of classic engravings, wood-cuts, and so forth that were chosen to take best advantage of the Kindle’s four-level grayscale display. The images are cool, and my only wish is that there were more of them.