“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
11.10.09
Posted in Uncategorized at 12:28 am by Adam B.
The Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde
I read this book on a recommendation. Allow me to add to that endorsement: I enjoyed it thoroughly.
The premise of the book is simple: our lives, our character and actions, are imprinted on our visage as we age. This book considers what might happen to a person if this were not true.
The story is told of Dorian Gray, a beautiful, innocent youth who is the favorite sitter for a burgeoning painter. After his picture is complete Dorian bemoans the beautiful face in the painting knowing that his own beauty will fade while the likeness in the picture will stay young and perfect forever. In a twist the painted portrait begins to show the wear of life while Dorian remains unchanged. Of course, I have revealed nothing of the plot as this is merely the setup.
This story reflects on the shallowness of human nature. First on the propensity of a man to indulge himself in every form of evil when consequences are removed, and second on the fact that society is so quick to accept and believe anyone with a pure face. The slow descent of Dorian from purity to terrible evil is well told and thought provoking. Throughout the book he is guided by his mentor who enjoys turning morality, religion, and societal norms on their heads. He sounds very much like people today who see freedom as the only virtue worth guarding. In this way the book was surprisingly current.
This book considered the nature of the soul and its relation to the body. It is not merely our deeds but our character that is revealed in our face, according to Mr. Wilde. The blackness (or innocence) of our heart is projected through our eyes and the contours of our face. We cannot hide who we are from the sensitive observer. Ultimately everyone will be exposed for who they are, no matter how hard they try to hide it.
I heard that they were turning (have turned) this book into a movie. I will be impressed if they can paint a portrait with the same subtleties and effect. I’m not hopeful, but every now and then movies can surprise and delight. Either way, don’t let the fact that this book has been given Hollywood attention dissuade you from giving it a read.
Permalink
11.06.09
Posted in Uncategorized at 12:30 am by Adam B.
The Three Musketeers by Dumas
The Three Musketeers by Dumas started off great; a young man with a chip on his shoulder dreams of becoming one of the king’s musketeers. Lucky for him, short-tempers were in fashion. One by one he meets the Three Musketeers and separately offends them so deeply each challenges our young hero to a duel to the death. Through a series of events he wins their affection and loyalty. Without a doubt the first 100 pages of this book were some of the funniest I have ever read. Of course, with an author like Dumas 100 pages in means you’re just getting started. Little did I know what I was getting into.
I read a book about writing stories once which suggested that you start at the beginning, then write your conclusion, and then figure out what in the world you’re going to do to fill in all those extra pages in the middle. I think Dumas might have read the same book. This book seriously dragged in the middle, but amazingly it ends as good as it begins. My favorite scene involved the villain who had been locked in a prison by her brother-in-law convincing a Puritan prison guard to set her free and then kill her enemy. No easy task. It took Dumas over 10 chapters to do it. 10 chapters in a prison cell with an evil genius, used to getting her way through seduction, trying to figure out how to control a man immune to her wiles. And she does! Convincingly so. Brilliant writing… it made the entire book worth it.
To say that the middle dragged is not entirely accurate. In fact, most of the book was very entertaining and surprising; it just suffered from the high hopes generated by its opening pages. Reflecting on the story now I genuinely enjoyed the entire work; it just took 300 pages for me to get over how my initial disappointment, that’s all.
Before reading the Three Musketeers I had heard that Dumas’ readers often wonder if he has any idea where he’s going with the story. This book was no exception. That’s part of what made the middle so difficult. You think you know who the villain is, then he disappears. Then a new villain comes on the scene, but he is untouchable by any of the Musketeers, and it is clear that that’s not going to change. Finally, a person you thought was completely inconsequential is slowly (slowwwwly) shown to be the corrupter of all that is good and pleasing. This made the book frustrating. I couldn’t figure out who to hate. Once the villain is finally revealed, however, nothing is left but pure vitriolic delight.
This book is light historical fiction. It is set in the historical world with caricatures of major figures blending fact with fiction to ridicule some and honor the genius of others; but mostly to ridicule. I imagine for his contemporaries it is something like when Gerald Ford was portrayed in the Pink Panther movies and a buffoon who cared more about the scores of football games than then destruction of civilization. No doubt there were several layers of humor along these lines that could have made the arduous middle more of a delight. Perhaps when I have mastered the nuances of French history I will give it another go.
Permalink
11.02.08
Posted in Literature, Uncategorized at 5:40 pm by Adam B.
It has been a few years since I read Ender’s Game and I thought I would give the series another chance. I didn’t really enjoy Ender’s Game but I was desperate for some new friend-recommended books that I could get my hands on without going to a library. This was the first to come across my desk.
For those who don’t know, Ender’s Shadow is about a character in Ender’s Game named Bean. This book tells the same story as Ender’s Game, just from Bean’s perspective.
I loved it!
The psychological journey of Ender was not so impressive to me, but Bean held me captive from the very start. Every character in this book was not only believable but sincerely cared for by Card. He knew them well and gave them ample opportunity to explore their personalities. Besides Bean, my favorite character was a nun that floated in and out of the story. Instead of using her as an opportunity to show some dark underbelly to the Catholic church Card wrote a beautiful character that was sincere in her faith and love for others while being savvy enough to function in the real world. Rarely have I seen such grace displayed in modern writing when dealing with a Christian character. All too often Christians are either two faced or idiots (or both), not real characters but a caricature of some Christians’ worst and most misunderstood qualities.
Bean’s personal journey from being defensive and self-centered to genuine trust and affection was brilliantly accomplished. I appreciated how he was misunderstood by those he cared for but was powerless to change their opinion of him. He was both great and incomplete in his heroism, for in the end he was never able to connect with people the way Ender always could. If I remember right, I didn’t care for Ender because he had an emotional insight into people that I found frustrating as a reader. Bean, who was also insightful but on a more intellectual plane, was more acceptable to my sensibilities.
It is hard to tell if I enjoyed this book more simply because I identified with the main character more, or because Card had really developed as a writer. I may need to go back and reread Ender’s Game to find out.
Permalink
08.16.07
Posted in Uncategorized at 4:30 pm by Adam B.
Is that really me?
Permalink
04.30.07
Posted in Uncategorized at 9:35 am by Adam B.
Despite my out-of-date reading list I have continued to read this semester. My reading was stunted in January and February due to excessive vocab in Hebrew. I have read several books since then, however.
A Tale of Two Cities
This is another (some would say his best) classic by Dickens. It took me a while to get into it, but about when they finally arrived in Paris towards the end of the book it was came together. I have found that true with many “classics” that they urge you to give up half way through, but if you persist you are greatly rewarded. My favorite scene was a fight to the death between an English maid and a French woman. The English maid, though she had lived in France for sometime, refused to learn French because she hated the French (I love it). When the two of them fight they yell back and forth at each other but neither understands the other, and yet they communicate perfectly. There were so many redeeming qualities about this book, but most were saved until the very end. I doubt most readers would have the patience to wait.
A Wrinkle in Time
I read this book when I was young and didn’t understand a word. Reading it this time around it was better, but not a favorite. The author deliberately raises questions and then doesn’t answer them (I know this because they interviewed her about it) and she had this obsession with intuition. She seems to enjoy mystery herself and so she left much in her work unexplained. Even though this was deliberate I felt it just lazy. The questions wouldn’t annoy me if they related to life in general, but they didn’t. They were limited to the realm of her story so they create interest then offer no outlet for exploration.
Animal Farm
I enjoyed this book from cover to cover. This was similar to 1984 in that history was always being re-written. It showed a very natural progression from liberty to bondage. Everything is about controlling information and the one who can do that will rule. Highly recommended.
I Shouldn’t Even Be Doing This!
This was a comedy book by Bob Newhart about his life. I became interested in this comedian when he was celebrated on TV with some lifetime achievement award. I saw some of his old routines on the program and loved them. I have been interested in improving my comedic affect in my writing so I picked up his book. I imagine if a humerous writer tried stand-up comedy he would be about as successful as this book was. It had its moments, though.
On Writing
This was a book about writing by Stephen King. If you fancy yourself a writer and have not read this book, I highly recommend it. I have read several books on writing and the only I have enjoyed as much is The Elements of Style.
I also read some theology on the side, but I will not bore you with the details. I just finished watching Charlotte’s Web (better than expected), Little Women (I may have to read the book now) and the original Parent Trap 1 (funny enough) and 2 (what were they thinking). I am currently reading The Wind in the Willows, but I’m not sure I buy the whole animals in clothes thing if they are not trying to take over the farm.
Permalink
04.16.07
Posted in Uncategorized at 8:27 am by Adam B.
Jonah chapter 3 raises a lot of questions for me. As I was translating this passage I found myself perplexed in the middle of verse 8. The first word was a verb, “let them cover”. The second word was the plural noun “sackcloths”. In Hebrew the word following the verb is typically the subject. So I read, “let sackcloths cover”. The next word is usually the subject, and in this case it made sense, “men”. “Let sackcloths cover the men.” The next word was preceded by a conjunctive letter (and) showing either a second thought if it were a verb (for example “let sackcloths cover the men and let them fast) or a relation to “men” if it were a noun (for example …men and women). The word was a noun, but not the noun I expected. The word was animals. If I understood the passage right, which I am never completely sure at this point, then the first phrase should be read “let sackcloths cover men and animals.” I pondered this for a moment and decided to check the professional translations for confirmation. Sure enough, by edict of the king, both man and beast would wear sackcloth.
What a strange thing. Did the animals somehow participate in the sin of the people that they too should repent? This reminds me of the passage in Samuel when Saul is supposed to kill every animal in a city but instead he keeps some so he can “sacrifice them”. God was displeased with this because he wanted the entire city destroyed including all the animals (1 Samuel 15:3). What did the animals do there? I am not sure if these passages are related conceptually or not. It appears that there was closer connection between one member of the community and the rest and this connection, on occasion, even extends to the livestock. At the end of chapter 4, the last sentance of the book in fact, God says, “Should I not look compassionately on Nineveh, the great city with one hundred and twenty thousand men (who do not know their right hand from their left) and many animals.”
Enough with that, interesting as it is.
God is sometimes described as having a sense of humor, and I could see Jonah making a case. God appoints a plant to grow to give Jonah shade, and then he appoints a worm the next day to “destroy” the plant. This makes Jonah very angry.
I wonder if God is really trying to “teach us something” when things go wrong, or simply expose us. I always thought it a little simplistic (or at least monotonous) to ask “I wonder what God is trying to teach me in this situation.” To its credit, this attitude has the humility to acknowledge it is not yet perfect. Nevertheless, I think this is our way of making God manageable and his ways comprehensible. “God, why did that jerk cut me off… maybe to teach me patience. God why did my wife leave me… perhaps to teach me to rely more on you.” I don’t think things are so simple in either case. When we answer the question “what is he trying to teach me” we are never really learning, but stating what we already know we should be doing. If you think he is trying to teach you patience it is because you already know you are impatient. Do we need to wait for said “lesson” to learn this. No, we knew it already, that is why God’s cryptic way of “teaching” us seemed so clear in that instant. However, for more difficult and inexplicable matters I think we use the “teaching” defense because we cannot face the truth. It is easier, spiritually, to say that something terrible has happened to us because of some deficiency in ourselves. “My wife left me because I didn’t rely on God enough. He is just trying to teach me.” Other people blame the devil for everything bad that happens. I do not deny his involvement in such matters, but I think we let God off the hook too easily, to our own demise. God, as our all-powerful father, is responsible. Job, when he was hurting said, “if not God then who?” That is a good question, who can do these destructive things in our lives outside the watchful eye, outside the authority of God? No one. He is responsible. Does this let us off the hook (or the wife, in this case)? Of course not. But if we push God’s involvement in our lives to the fringe we deny his power over all matters. And if we deny his power over all matters how can we ask him to rescue us? Who will justify us if not God? Maybe we are more comfortable with a God on the fringe who is only responsible for the good things that happen and never injustice, but that denies the truth of this world. In a world twisted by sin sometimes the righteous ways of God (for all his ways are righteous) will appear equally twisted, but only He can (and will) make things strait again. (Maybe this example would be easier if it were not so clear that the human element is to blame. But if the human element excludes God from the situation then he is only be responsible for destruction caused by thunderstorms and hail, and I need him more than that.)
So what about Jonah? God killed the plant he caused to grow to give shade to Jonah. Maybe Jonah should blame the devil for the worm that destroyed the plant, I mean, would God really want to cause us discomfort? Yes, God appointed the worm. Why did God do this? Was it to teach Jonah compassion? Maybe. But Jonah already knew he should be compassionate. In very concise words (in the Hebrew, at least) he praises God’s qualities. “Was this not why I left to flee to Tarshish? I knew you are a gracious God, compassionate, long suffering and great in loving kindness and forgiving evil.” Jonah knew the Lord and he knew what was right. Was God teaching him here, or just exposing him? “Do you have the right to be angry about the plant?” “Yes I have the right, and I want to die.” This is the same question God asked when Jonah was mad that fire did not reign down on the people earlier in chapter 4. Jonah was mad at God’s compassion, he was mad at his discipline. Did Jonah learn his “lesson”. The book does not say.
Permalink