Interview with Lars Walker

Over at Brandywine Books, Phil has done a short interview with Lars on West Oversea.

I’ve been pondering West Oversea and its predecessor over the last week, and I think I’ve figured out why I didn’t find it as compelling as Erling’s Word, Lars’ original novel and the first half of The Year of the Warrior. Erling’s Word is about Erling’s attempts to bring Christianity to his people despite the strong opposition of some of them; and also about Father Aillil’s spiritual battle against both the same opposition and his own past. Erling’s and Aillil’s stories run in tandem.

In the second half of The Year of the Warrior, and in West Oversea, we again have two stories in each tale, Erling’s and Aillil’s. Erling does his thing in the natural world, and Aillil does his in the supernatural world, and although they happen at the same time and mostly in the same place they seem oddly disconnected. Not entirely, of course, but somewhat, at least in comparison with Erling’s Word.

But I blither.

Wallpaper

Just saw this at John C. Wright’s blog:

Rules—
01. Anyone who looks at this entry has to post this meme and their current wallpaper at their LiveJournal.
02. Explain in five sentences why you’re using that wallpaper!
03. Don’t change your wallpaper before doing this! The point is to see what you had on!

I’m not LiveJournal, but what the heck. Here’s the image I’m currently using for wallpaper:

thomas-aquinas.jpg

This is, of course, a picture of Thomas Aquinas. You can tell it’s Thomas because he’s wearing a Dominican habit and has that weird sunburst on his chest. As a doctor of the Church, he’s holding the Church in one hand and the scriptures in the other. And he’s on my desktop because I’m extremely fond of him, and because I like this particular image of him.

Lemonade

I’ve just discovered that Julie at Happy Catholic has awarded me the coveted Lemonade Stand Award:

B09DC6CA-2AEC-4264-BCAF-00718ED2CF4F.jpg

The rules are as follows, so I am given to understand:

1) Put the Lemonade Award logo on your blog or post.
2) Nominate at least 10 blogs that show great attitude or gratitude.
3) Link to your nominees within your post.
4) Let the nominees know that they have received this award by commenting on their blog.
5) Share the love and link to the person from whom you received your award.

I say “coveted”; in fact, this is yet another of those award memes, where you receive the award, and then turn around and award it to X other bloggers you happen to like, where X is less than the number of bloggers the rules say you’re supposed to award it to. I’m grateful, of course, but I’m tempted to pass the award along to everyone on my blogroll, as a witness to my bad attitude. Unfortunately, there are too many blogs on my blogroll; and most of them are fairly high-profile already.

Instead, I’m going to pass it along to the two blogs I’m learning the most from these days:

Enjoy.

Don’t Burn Those Books

It seems that used bookstores that are disposing of older children’s books because they cannot afford to test them for lead content are over-reacting. I sincerely hope that this is the case. However, the guidance goes on,

However, resellers cannot sell children’s products that exceed the lead limit and therefore should avoid products that are likely to have lead content, unless they have testing or other information to indicate the products being sold have less than the new limit. Those resellers that do sell products in violation of the new limits could face civil and/or criminal penalties.

So a reseller is not required to prove that their wares are lead-free…but if they should happen to sell products containing lead, they are in deep trouble. The question is, how are they to know which products are likely to have lead content? Here’s a nasty scenario involving a reseller of children’s toys and clothes:

  • An overseas manufacturer ships toys made with lead paint to the United States (as happened recently).
  • The importer fails to test them, as they are now legally required to do.*
  • A parent buys the toy, and later sells it to Ye Olde Used Toy Shoppe.
  • Another parent buys the toy, which turns out to contain lead.

The only case, it seems to me, in which the reseller can morally be liable is if the reseller had reason to believe that the toy contains lead. If, for example, it’s reported on the news that a shipment of Little Plastic Gewgaws (TM) contains lead, and the reseller has seen this news item, the reseller should clearly remove any suspect Little Plastic Gewgaws (TM) from their stock. If they sell the Little Plastic Gewgaws (TM) instead, it seems to me that they can be held responsible. Otherwise, the guilty party is clearly the importer who failed their legal requirement to test the toys.

Is this how the enforcement agencies or the courts would see it? I dunno. I’d like to think so.

* May I note, requiring that every individual toy be tested is asinine. Sampling is much more effective.