“I believe that many who find that 'nothing happens' when they sit down, or kneel down, to a book of devotion, would find that the heart sings unbidden while they are working their way through a tough bit of theology with a pipe in their teeth and a pencil in their hand.”
C.S. Lewis - Introduction to "On the Incarnation" by St. Athanasius
11.27.06
Posted in Literature at 4:30 pm by Adam B.
Over the weekend I finished Crime and Punishment. This book, when compared to something like Eragon, reveals what I feel to be the major difference between literature and popular fiction. It is not that literature is old, where popular fiction is new. I have read a number of old books that, although still read today, are more like popular fiction than literature; books like Around the World in 80 days or Treasure Island. It also has nothing to do with how widely read a book is. Harry Potter, among other popular works (possibly even Eragon), have been translated into multiple languages and widely read around the world. It is also not the presence of themes or insight. I am sure even smutty romance novels have themes even if they are shallow like: Evil people always die terrible deaths and people with true hearts find true love, or: The man you least expect will have large pecs and will sweep you off your feet.
We also make a mistake if we say the difference between popular fiction and literature is that literature is good and popular fiction is not. While tempting, this is just haughty. Popular fiction can be judged as “good” if it’s popular, for that’s the goal. Literature may or may not be popular in its own day, but works of literature are not judged on whether or not they make the New York Times best sellers list. I will not try to describe what makes good literature because I am just a student.
I think the main difference between literature and popular fiction is that literature is demanding while popular fiction is entertaining. A reader of popular fiction says to the book, “impress me, move me, trick me with that twist of plot.” A book is considered enjoyable based on the experience of the reader. If the book made you laugh, cry, excited then it worked, it was good. The goal is to make the work as accessible and enjoyable to as many people as possible. Tools like subtlety are not just useless in popular fiction but rejected. If a reader misses something it is better left out. Everyone who reads a book of this type should have nearly the same experience, that is, they will understand or “get” everything. If any questions remain at the end of a book it is merely to whet the appetite for a sequel. The same is true of popular non-fiction. It must be understandable to the lowest common denominator or it will not sell. This alone should make any popular work that tries to teach you something suspect. Luckily, popular fiction rarely has anything to teach. If it did it might be too demanding.
In contrast, literature asks a lot from its reader. If nothing else it asks the reader to sit still and keep read. A lot of literature is not satisfying until the reader has finished. Authors like Dickens, Austen, and Dostoevsky have sections, sometimes long sections, that take discipline to get through. But the pain is worth the effort. Some things cannot be simplified, in many cases it is profane to try. In Crime and Punishment Dostoevsky deals with the role of suffering to expiate guilt, the torment of the soul and isolation caused by sin, how wicked people can do loving things (and how those loving things do nothing to ease the suffering of the wicked), and a host of other things I am sure I missed. Popular fiction must ignore these kinds of issues or simplify them beyond recognition. Like self-help books the best they can do is offer simple answers to complex and difficult questions. It is best if they leave such issues alone.
Literature is also demanding in that it forces the reader to think and reflect. If a “popular” work demands that a reader think about what is being said it is doomed before it hits the shelves. Thinking is work, and people who are looking for entertainment do not want to work while they read. The author should do all the work for them. In order to enjoy literature, on the other hand, the reader must engage the work. Literature is written to make people think. Sometimes it even asks the reader to change. That’s a lot of unexpected work for the reader who approaches literature looking to be entertained. If the reader tries to pass over the elements in literature that demand reflection he will miss the most enjoyable parts, the very things that makes literature great.
To sum it up, Eragon can be read, enjoyed and forgotten. Crime and Punishment will not let the reader get off so easy.
Permalink
11.23.06
Posted in Life at 11:41 am by Adam B.
Without the burden of AOM I am progressing nicely through Crime and Punishment. Our friend, Sam as we call him, has finally decided to confide in someone. She is sincerely a Christian, but also a prostitute so that she might help her destitute family. Sam goes to her because he thinks she might understand his inner turmoil since he murdered the two women. If I had not mentioned the murder up until now, fear not, I have not given anything away. It happens right at the beginning of the book. She is shocked, of course, at his confession, but she knows exactly what must be done to ease his soul.
“Go at once, this very minute, stand at the cross-roads, bow down, first kiss the earth which you have defiled and then bow down to all the world and say to all men aloud: ‘I am a murderer!’ Then God will send you life again.”
I fully agree with her, but I don’t understand it. Why is it so important for us to confess? Why do we long for others to know our secrets? I personally have experienced the freedom, the life she describes. I have bore my soul completely to others. I have listened as others have told me things locked away from the world. What is it in us that makes us long for our lives to be open and naked before others?
“I hid from you for I was naked.”
“Who told you you were naked?”
Is there any grace greater than being exposed, than being seen for who we are, completely? Why is this so, why do we long for it? I have seen its power but I cannot comprehend the reason.
Permalink
11.20.06
Posted in Literature at 4:59 pm by Adam B.
I am a little behind on my reading in Crime and Punishment because of a video game, but that is all over now. I have resumed reading at my regular rate.
Two times now Razumihin has had discussions about politics. (He is the best friend of the main character. I say this only because of his kindness towards him, not because the main character has any friends.) The first discussion was with the fiance that I mentioned before. The fiance was of a mind that the best way to live was to do everything for yourself. In doing this there would be maximum benifit to the entire community. I would not have know that this discussion was about politics (perhaps it is more about philosophy) except in the movie Beautiful Mind the gladiator makes a theory that contradicts the theory that the fiance is espousing in this book. In Beautiful Mind he says that all things should be done for the individual and the community for maximum benifit. This is the sum of my knowledge on this subject.
The second discussion Razumihin had while he was drunk. His idiot friends thought that all individualism needed to be erased and that everyone should be the same, to the point of denying their own nature.Â
Razumihin heatedly contradicts both of these views. In my understanding of the book Razumihin is the source of true wisdom and love so he would be the most fit to carry the authors opinion on the subject. Unfortunatly, I am so deficient in this area of knowledge that I am not sure what anyone is talking about. If anyone has any notes of clarification, or an online article I can read about these political philosophies (if indeed that is what they are) that would help.
Permalink
11.18.06
Posted in Literature at 10:53 am by Adam B.
I don’t think I have ever seen a movie that lived up to the expectations created by the trailer. Not that movies always fall short but fundamentally trailers are flawed in that it it impossible to sum up a movie experience in two minutes. Some trailers are down right deceptive. They take a drama and make it look funny. They take a comedy and make it look funny. Sometimes you wait through an entire movie for a particular scene and the when the movie is over you realize you’ve been conned. The great clip was from an outtake. Outrageous.
Monster House lived up to the hype, a self-generated hype in my case. I saw the trailer and loved the characters. For those of you who don’t know, Monster House is a 3D animated film produced by Steven Spielberg. If you remember The Goonies (also by Spielberg) it has a similar quality, but I enjoyed this much more. Unlike other 3d movies that try to wow you with great animation or spoofing other films this movie focused on the characters to drive the story. Everyone down to the peripheral boyfriend of the babysitter is hilariously stereotypical in the best way possible. The voices were so well chosen that I only recognized one by the end of the movie even though most were famous people I knew. Instead of trying to further describe why the movie is so great I will simply recommend it to you.
Warning: I cannot guarantee your enjoyment of this film if you don’t have a Chrissy watching it with you.
Permalink
11.16.06
Posted in Irritation at 1:01 pm by Adam B.
When I moved to Portland I knew about all the waterfalls, and the pretty mountain views. I had heard about the rain and the darkness and the fact that people get offended if you look at them funny. What I didn’t know was that people out here drive like freaks. I grew up in Milford, MI so I am familiar with driving in suburbia. I went to school in Chicago and learned to cope with crazy city drivers. But even with all my trips across the country I was totally unprepared for Portland’s madness.
I know that everyone at sometime or another has been distracted when a light turns green. In Portland, however, this is no rare occurrence. Several times on a normal day going to and from school I will hear other drivers honk to signal the man on the starting line to start his engine. But this is only the first of several peculiarities.
The most irritating thing about Portland drivers is that they always pull out in front of you. I will compare this to my Chicago experience even though the comparison might be a little unfair because I am talking about highway driving in Chicago and city driving in Portland. In Chicago I got used to getting cut off on the highway. This might sound irritating but cutting off people is a virtual necessity of switching lanes. If someone gives you enough room to squeak your car into the next lane you take it. In Portland there is no such need. I do not live in downtown Portland so the only heavy traffic is during rush hour. I could cope with someone pulling out in front of me then. Oddly enough during rush hour most drivers are strangely are courteous so you do not need to butt in to get onto an adjacent street. No, the only time someone will pull out in front of you, forcing you to slam on the breaks, is when you are the only other car in sight. And everyone here drives the same. They will inch out past their stop sign as if they’re looking both ways, and then go anyway. You might think that in such a courteous town they would at least accelerate quickly, but no. It is as though they imagined a sudden emergency that is alleviated as soon as they are in front of you.
I hate to complain about other drivers, honestly, but the consistent insanity warrants it. In a city that has a rainy season you would think that the drivers would get used to driving in the rain. Again, no. Whenever it rains everyone drives 10 under the speed limit already set low at 35. Madness. And to top it all off they frequently run red lights, not in busy traffic of course but often enough that I have seen it done several times in just three months.
So, last Friday I was driving to a friends birthday party and it was raining. Traffic was slow as usual and I was contemplating this as I pulled up to a red light. This intersection is busier than most and I knew it would be a little while before I could go. I needed to make a right turn, but there was enough traffic that I would have to wait for the light to turn green. As I watched I saw the cross traffic slow and their light change to red in the reflection on the traffic signal. I turned to look at my signal waiting for it to turn green. As soon as it did I looked to my left and and one of the cars that I watched stop decided to run the red light. “Typical,†I thought to myself. I was making a right turn into a two lane street and the violator was in the second lane so I watched him as I turned to make sure he did not drift into me. Chrissy yelled out “Adam†and I turned to acknowledge that I had seen the violator when I saw a man spinning to avoid landing on the hood of my car. Between the rain and my meditations on the driving habits of my fellow men I completely forgot to look out for pedestrian madness. We have all three forms of chaos in Portland: driving, pedestrian and biking. Needless to say when I saw the pedestrian hastily avoiding pain in the form of my car I slammed on the breaks. He spun to Chrissy window and she opened the door to make sure he was okay. He was young, like us, and nice enough considering the rain and the fact that I almost ran over him. We made it to the party and had a great time.
In the future I’ll try to complain less about how people drive in the rain.
Permalink
11.14.06
Posted in Life at 3:27 pm by Adam B.
At a very young age girls develop the insatiable desire to dress up their men. We are their proverbial Ken doll. Ken, in the Barbie lineup, was never meant to be an object of desire for Barbie. No, he is the opportunity to experiment with outfits that don’t work on women. Since I am a married man I allow my wife to fulfill her desire on me by buying me clothes.
Reflecting on my life I don’t recall any time I ever bought clothes for myself. When I was young my mother clothed me in the recently outgrown clothes of my nearest cousin. When I became a teenager my mother took me shopping for “outfits” and I began to don my older brother’s flannels. After I met Chrissy she took over and the circle was complete.
Being a nerd I always took a certain pride in the fact that I did not choose the clothes I wear. I felt my nerdiness completed in that I couldn’t care less about the articles I use to keep my body warm and my modesty socially acceptable. I was a bastion, a fortress if you will of apparel apathy. Little did I know I was living in a world of self-deception.
Chrissy did not bring home clothes often, but when she did it was generally in line with my current wardrobe: plain, yet functional. Sure, she did not bring home as much plaid as I might have liked, but what did I care? Then, out of nowhere, like some unknown terror embodying all your unspoken fears came… the girl pants.
The girl pants are a pair of jeans that are pre-faded. They are blue and darker on my outer and inner thigh than in the front or back. They are made of a stretchier material than my other jeans which is necessary because they are too tight on me. Chrissy says they are not too tight, they just fit. I call them girl pants because I had never seen pants that faded or fit in this way on anyone of the male persuasion before becoming an owner. I only notice them on other guys now because I am trying to calm my embarrassment.
It was actually the embarrassment that got me thinking. I thought I didn’t care what I wore and now here I am ashamed to go outside because of clothes. As I began to ponder this inner conflict I found the source of my discomfort. It was not that the pants were too tight, nor that they appeared feminine to any outsider, nor that they looked bad. No, it was much much worse. They were in style. Could it be? Had my desire for nerd perfection got the best of me. Had I actually become, anti-cool? Don’t misunderstand, I am quite aware that no pair of pants can make me any less than what I am and no one in their right mind would mistake me for cool. What irritated me was that I had allowed the “cool factor” to rule me. All that time spent scoffing at the cool and their pretty shirts and stylish hair and girly pants, thinking to myself “they are ruled by ‘the man’”, it was all a ruse to protect myself from the truth; I had defined a part of my being, my non-style, by the same standards as everyone else. The only difference was that I had striven to be non-cool. Even if my life was a complete rejection of all that the hip and trendy stand for, they still define me. I am not my own person I am just the opposite of them, in clothes if nothing else. I could not stand for this conclusion so I did the only thing I could do. I took my rightful place as the Ken in my woman’s life and wore the pants.
Permalink
11.10.06
Posted in Life at 4:51 pm by Adam B.
Is there anything more pleasant than the experience of torrential affection felt for a friend? The coupling of admiration and camaraderie multiplies the affect of each giving way to a compelling and powerful joy. Many would say the affection of a man for a woman, that of being “in love”, would easily best such admiration. It is more common, no doubt, and does accelerate more quickly due to the sexual chemical nature of the emotion. Nonetheless, I believe the first can overpower the second.
I, myself, am in love with my wife and it is not uncommon for her beauty to make me ill. When she is gone I miss the soft warmth of her body at night and have trouble concentrating during the day. While all of this might sound like pain you must trust it is infinitely wonderful. But, compared to the elevation of my affections when I meditate on the beauty of her character, while, at the same time, enjoying the simple pleasure of her company all the former affections are but a trifle, a pond compared to the ocean of my joy in her.
Now you may think, “Your latter description is not a different affection than being ‘in love’ but rather an expression of it,” as if the weight of my admiration was due to my animal desire for her. I will not deny that many are blinded to the faults of their lovers and so hold them in higher esteem than another person of similar quality. Let there be no mistake that all tokens of blindness are shed in marriage, if not viciously torn away from us. In marriage it is impossible to remain in the state of innocent duplicity so common to those newly “in love”. This change is necessary, but can be welcomed by those who married well. While our imaginations can create the “perfect” woman, the beauty of character pales the girls of our own invention. When true nobility is found you no longer need love to deceive you for the truth is far greater, besides it has the added benefit of being real.
My point is this, that the greatest moments of affection I feel for my wife are sparked by the same things I can enjoy in my friends, namely their character and camaraderie. This does not diminish the unique relationship I have with my wife for I am able to express said affection to her in ways I cannot to my friends. Since nothing can elevate a feeling more than the act of expressing it, and since my potential for expression is maximized in my married relationship it is only natural that my affections would be elevated the most in my relationship with her. However, simply because I am able to express my feelings for her in a more profound way it does not follow that those feelings, at their root, are different than those I feel for friends. I am familiar with the expression, “she is my lover and friend” and while I am usually annoyed by those who employ it, it does proclaim the simple truth that there is more to marriage than being “in love”. The wife fulfills both roles of romance and friendship and the two, while complimentary, are distinct.
So I ask again: Is there anything more pleasant than the experience of torrential affection felt for a friend? Even while I ask I fear that many men have not felt the power of this in their lives. Some men have been so battered in heart that they refuse to feel at all. Every feeling has the potential for a corresponding pain so it is safer not to feel at all. Other men believe that any feeling that is not either sexual or destructive is somehow effeminate. I contend that only the complete man can live in the fullness of emotion. When a child says “I am all grown up” it betrays the fact that he still a child. The same is true for the one who is constantly guarding his manhood by refusing to engage in deep relationships with other men. It may seem more manly to him to remain a bulwark of emotional solitude, but that is because he thinks he knows what a man is but is not yet one himself. Still others distrust emotions all together. His emotions constantly and irrationally lead him where he does not wish to go and he has seen the madness cause by emotional outbursts in others. It is better to forget them all together, he thinks, and let reason be his only guide.
To those who fear reaching out with their heart I say, you have every reason to fear. No man is more vulnerable than when he has entrusted his heart to someone else. Your only hope is to learn to discern and desire character. This takes wisdom which cannot be gained overnight. Friendships are often based on common interest with little thought given to the underlying nature of the friend. Cool people like to hang out with cool people, nerds with nerds, etc. While this is a nice model, in theory, it cannot help you ascertain whether or not the other person has your best interests in mind. To put it another way, common interests tell you nothing about another persons capacity to love. While everyone is able to have loving feelings and affections toward others only a select few have leaned to love completely regardless of the mistakes you make. Very few live as though others are more important than themselves. This complete love is difficult to find but essential if you wish to entrust your heart to someone else. Even still, you will not be able to escape the pitfalls of caring for another person. Even if they never let you down, which every person will, one day they will die and the pain you will feel will be comparable to the love you had for them. Pain in an inescapable consequence of affection, but not all pain is bad. It is good to hurt over the loss of a friend and there are a thousand other good hurts that can only be felt because of a strong relationship. If your life is spent avoiding this kind of pain you will never love or be loved and you will perish a lonely man.
To those who fear emotions, either for their own sake or because they want to continue in the delusion that they are a real man, I say, do not abandon emotion all together but practice self-control. Self-control, typically understood has a limiting effect. One will use self-control to keep himself from rage, from adultery, from, from, from. I suggest that self-control should not just limit but also enhance. This type of self-control is often called discipline. When in training a man will discipline himself to run further than he did the day before. This is the flip side of self-control, to continue when your body wants to quit. Such self-control should be practiced in the emotional sphere as well. Every day we are bombarded with feelings; some we follow, some we suppress. I suggest we use the same self-control to give greater weight to those feelings we have that are good. Instead of waiting to be overcome by our emotions to act, use self-control to act out the subtle but positive emotions we feel. If you have a glimmer of affection for your wife, do something, say something, grab her. As I said before, nothing can elevate a feeling more than the act of expressing it. Living this way can change our perspective on emotion. It is no longer a feared enemy, it has become a powerful ally. You will be amazed at how often you are approached with positive feelings for another person that you typically hid away in the name of self-control, or rationality, or “manliness”. If you feel something positive, something beneficial, a hint of joy in another person, give it the full weight of discipline, act it out, say something, feel. Use your entire person to communicate and embody your love, flesh, mind and spirit.
A life lived in this way will experience the fullness of joy and sorrow. This is our lot in life. Do not try to avoid it, embrace it, give it the fullness of your power. Revel in your affections, express them, live them. Meditate on the joys of friendship and lavish your heart in that joy. Use the gifts of wisdom and self-control to emblazon your heart and affections for the ones you love. Dive into the depth of feeling and find the treasure that has been lost to this generation. Feel.
Permalink
11.07.06
Posted in Literature at 4:01 pm by Adam B.
At this point in the book (Crime and Punishment) Raskolnikov, or Sam as we will call him, has received a letter from his mother describing his sisters upcoming marriage. Sam is infuriated because the guy is clearly a prick and his Mom and Sister are blind to it because of the wealth and security that he can offer. Sam takes issue with the fact that the husband to be will not pay his brides way to see him, he will only pay for the bags – bags that may be included anyway in the fare she will have to pay in order to come. The man is wealthy and he knows she is poor but he feels this is more fair. Sam, fuming with murderous thoughts towards the man thinks to himself.
“How is it that they don’t both see all that, or is it that they don’t want to see? And they are pleased, pleased! And to think this is only the first blossoming, and that the real fruits are to come.”
I love this. Sam rightly observes, in my opinion noting I have not read the rest of the book, that this beginning holds nothing but a sorrowful end. The beginning of a relationship is the “blossom” because the man and woman are still putting on a show for one another, trying to impress each other. This blossom will fade with time and reveal the true fruit of the relationship. This is normal and not universally condemned here (unlike many in our time who are constantly trying to recreate the blossom when marriage is really more about fruit, to keep the illustration going) but his point is well made. If this is how he treats his wife when their relationship is still fresh and new how much worse will living with such a man be. If he can not offer such a small consideration for her affection and comfort now how much more stingy will the rest of life with him be. If he cannot care for her now why should she have hope when they are wed? Perfect.
Permalink
11.06.06
Posted in Literature at 4:02 pm by Adam B.
Last night I began a journey into Dostoyevsky’s Crime and Punishment. I can already tell I will not escape this book without significant contemplation. All his characters are well drawn and captivating, and he has a way of making your heart break for them. In several instances, already, he has shown or signaled the end of a matter and then proceeds to walk through it entirely. As you see the end coming in the distance you plead with the character to change, but the deed is already done. It is not unlike knowing someone who is about to ruin their lives by their foolishness and, because you know the person, you sense it’s inevitability. It hurts much worse than hearing about it after the fact because your pain is renewed with each step towards the fatal end.
I will not escape from this.
Permalink
11.04.06
Posted in Language at 2:41 pm by Adam B.
For my own pleasure I have been reading English grammars. Take a minute and let that sink in. Consider its meaning before entering a field whose primary concern is language. Can one’s desires be so twisted that grammar is a good time? Yes, but I digress.
Grammars are exciting because they have a name for everything: superlative, independent clause, dangling participle. Wouldn’t you like to be a dangling participle? Not when you feel the fury of the grammarians against you. Who has known anger if not the anger of one teaching grammar to insolent fools?
In all their brilliant categorization, naming and delineating the way we speak, I have yet to find the name of this phenomena; when the speaker says something meaning to be truthful but in fact he deceives his audience and himself. I know what you’re thinking, self deception is not a matter of grammar but psychology and you may be right. However, the specific instances of self deception I am referring to are very idiomatic, that is, we use specific constructions of words to signal our listener (and presumably ourselves) that we are about to attempt to deceive ourselves and them. How, you may be wondering, can we have a construction of words that tells us we are about to deceive ourselves and yet still be legitimately deceived? Oh, the wonders of the human person. In case you don’t follow I will illustrate.
The first of these expressions is, “No offense, but…” When these words are spoken the listener can be certain that they are about to be offended. The beauty of this expression is that typically neither the speaker nor the listener are expecting an offense to occur. But it always does. Don’t let movies deceive you either, through the use of brilliant writing this expression has been used without offense. Yes, in a make believe world that is possible, but I have yet to see it work in real life. And yet, it always seems like it works. This is because “No offense,” must always be followed by the phrase “None taken.” “No offense, but the only people I have ever heard say things like that were idiots.” “None taken.” It is the coupling of these lines that gives it the appearance of validity and yet it is impossible not to take offense. If there was no possibility of offense then the line itself would be unnecessary. What we want to be saying is, “This may sound offensive to you but if you really understand what I mean it isn’t.” But in fact what we are saying is, “I am about to say something offensive but I am going to make you look like a jerk if you act offended.” The listeners response could be taken at face value, ie they are not offended, when in actual fact they mean, “I am not going to take the bait by acting offended thereby making me appear rude when you were the rude one. Instead I will put on a happy face so the conversation can continue in a pleasant manner but in my heart I hate you. No offense.”
There are many expressions that are similarly used so we can deceive ourselves but still say what we want. “Not to…” is a popular one. “Not to dominate the conversation,” means “I am going to keep talking, but I am doing it in a way that makes it seem like I feel bad for not listening while also making it impossible for you to stop me without being a jerk.” Similarly “I don’t want you to…” or “You wouldn’t think me…” allow us to do/be something while making it wrong for anyone to criticize us. “You wouldn’t think me a pig if I finished your fries, would you?” “I don’t want to seem insensitive but, gosh, get over it.” Of course we don’t think you’re insensitive.
Permalink
« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »