May 4, 2008
December 10, 2007
The Top Twenty Books Nobody Reads
Dear Dr. Esolen has posted an annotated list of "Twenty Books Nobody Reads. (unwritten subtitle: "But Should.") I am happy to report that I have read two books on this list (18, 4), have read parts of three more (20, 19, 14), and own three of them (19, 18, 14.)
October 28, 2007
If G.K. Chesterton had written Half-Blood Prince...
October 24, 2007
"Deathly Hallows" macro
sorry -- I HAD to do it.
August 25, 2007
Harry Potter and the Theology of the Body
There, did that grab your attention?
That title's worthy of an essay, isn't it? Or at least a really long, well-thought out, annotated post. Alas, I won't be serving one of those up; just some scattered thoughts. I wanted to write something short on Deathly Hallows, and then with Pansy's post....
First, Pansy's post. I'm not getting into the Harry = Evil Witchcraft!!!!! thing because there are plenty of other people who have responded to those concerns -- for example, Nancy Brown.
I read the first three books back in 2000. I didn't think they were The Greatest Thing Ever, but I thought they were clever and diverting and I could see why kids liked them. For myself, I enjoyed the funny stuff -- the dog-Latin, the details of the Wizarding word, the outrageous names -- and the satire. I was pleased to read a new book for kids in which evil was evil, good was good, and heroism was celebrated and not sneered at. And I enjoyed the mysteries, with the twists at the end.
My sister encouraged me to pick the series back up again, and I read Goblet of Fire and Order of the Phoenix in 2005. This time, I was hooked by the increasing complexity of the story -- and the increasing complexity of the characters.
And I think the characters are what I like best about the books. Good guys who act like bad guys; bad guys who act like good guys; bad guys who think they're good guys; good guys who are loving and giving and brave and still have very serious faults. I think it would be so much fun to read the books with a pre-teen or a teen -- what great discussions you could get into! "Was Harry being fair in that situation?" "Why do you think so-and-so's acting this way?"
Rowling has also laid her clues carefully. I'm rereading the books now with an eye toward all the clues I'd missed, the little details that seemed insignificant the first time around but have new meaning now that the series is complete. Again, I think you could have a lot of fun reading these books with teenagers and teaching them to read closely, paying attention to recurring phrases and themes and allusions. ("What do you think Argus Filch's name tells us about him? And the name of his cat?")
And yes, I'm very happy to read books aimed at teens in which dating couples sleep in separate bedrooms, in which babies are blessings, in which being open to life is presented as a sign of generosity.
So that's why I like the Potter books: clever puzzles, interesting characters, lots to talk about, and a world view that values duty, generosity, self-sacrifice.
Now for the other stuff, which will go in the extended entry because it's full of Deathly Hallows spoilers:
Continue reading "Harry Potter and the Theology of the Body" »
July 22, 2007
First report on Deathly Hallows
Vacuuming? Check.
Swimming lessons? Check.
Dinner? Check.
Receive and read the book?
CHECK.
Started reading at 3:50 PM; finished around 10:30. (I did take breaks to for dinner, bedtime stories, etc.)
Much to think about; much to discuss. But I just have to say...
July 21, 2007
My Saturday Plans
1. Vacuum the family room.
2. Take Hambet to swimming lessons.
3. Make dinner (bratwurst on the grill.)
4. Wait for the THUMP on the doorstep that means the UPS man's brought my book:
.
Drop everything and start reading, remembering to take it slowly.
5. Kick myself for not having plugged this book when I read it in May:
I wish I'd had this book in college just as a general reference. The chapters on alchemy were fascinating, and the chapters on post-modernism were enormously helpful (and jargon-free.) I'm going to try to get my husband to read it, even though he will probably never open a Potter book, for its explanation of how symbols really work (as opposed to the this-equals-this "code" approach.
I understand that Granger will update the book post-Deathly Hallows. It will be well worth reading, both as a guide to Potter and a friendly guide to reading in general.
February 16, 2007
Girls v. Boys
Dear Mr Luse has a post up in which he fails to share with us his feelings on finding his toothpaste tube emptied of toothpaste. He does allude to a thread somewhere on the Interweb discussing the relative intelligence of men and women, and then provides his own commentary, including a salacious confession to asking three -- three! -- women to be his Valentine.
Go read the post, it's good. Meanwhile, I am happy to report that two men asked me to be their Valentine and I said yes to both of them. So there. (Neither of them blog.) And on the topic of "are men smarter than women" I just have a few things to say:
1. Even if it's true that twice as many men as women have 120 +IQ's, that still means that the big differences are going to be on the skinny ends of the bell curve, where the extremes show up. Most men and most women are going to fall in the vast middle of the curve.
2. For most of us, lofty talk about averages and populations and medians and percentiles isn't going to be of much use in our daily lives. We'll never meet The Average Man and The Average Woman because they don't exist. We're going to meet individuals: Adam, Eve, Sally, Joe. And it doesn't matter where The Average Woman and The Average Man fall on the bell curves; what will matter is what Adam and Eve and Sally and Joe can do. They'll each possess their own unique constellations of intelligence and virtue. More men than women might be super-geniuses, but that doesn't mean Joe is a super-genius -- or that Sally is not.
3. Speaking of virtue, this would be a good place to note that without traits such as perseverance and self-control, the only thing a high I.Q. for good for is membership in Mensa.
3.5 Plus, as we know from comics and the movies, having a very high IQ puts one at risk for becoming a megalomaniac sociopathic super-villain.
4. Given how theories about average intelligence of populations have been misused in the past to justify mistreating individuals... well, maybe there was something to the idea of an Index.
I am happy to report that my Valentine is a really smart guy. After dinner on Wednesday, he announced, "Skip the dishes. Let's go watch 'Persuasion
One of the best parts of Persuasion is a friendly debate between two characters on the differences between women and men:
..."I do not think I ever opened a book in my life which had not something to say upon woman's inconstancy. Songs and proverbs, all talk of woman's fickleness. But perhaps, you will say, these were all written by men.""Perhaps I shall. Yes, yes, if you please, no reference to examples in books. Men have had every advantage of us in telling their own story. Education has been theirs in so much higher a degree; the pen has been in their hands. I will not allow books to prove anything."
The whole passage is in the extended entry.
December 21, 2006
Harry Potter and the Big Fat Media Extravaganza
aka Book 7, the title of which has been revealed to be Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.
I have no idea what that means.
August 24, 2006
The Last Good Woman, or, how not to prepare for kindergarten
Where does the time go? Hambet, who was not even two when this blog started, is headed off to kindergarten next Monday!
We've been getting ready slowly but steadily over the summer: new clothes, new shoes, picking up a few supplies here and there....
We started serious preparation this week by practicing the morning routine: laying out clothes the night before; getting up, dressed, fed, and out the door on time; and then actually making the drive to school. It's going well -- we've made it "on time" four out of four days this week. This morning Hambet was even up early and made his bed without complaining.
The one who's really dragging is Mommy! I'm so embarrassed, because I've been a lark all my life. Even in college, when I needed to cram I would go to bed early and then get up at four to study. When Posco and I were courting, he teased me mercilessly about how my eyelids started to droop at nine-fifteen, but what could I do? I was getting up at five-fifteen so I could start my shift at seven. And even after I quit bedside nursing, I still left the house by six so I could make daily Mass and still be at work by eight.
Things slowly changed when Hambet came along and the only thing I had to do by six-thirty was get the coffee started and make sure Posco had a shirt ready to go. Still in my robe at six-forty-five? No problem. I still got up reasonably early, but I had plenty of give in the morning.
But those days are over now, and I'm having a hard time getting back to my larkish ways. I've been trying to get up at six sharp and it just hasn't been happening.
Here's why. I like to read before I go to bed. Over the last week, I've been working on The Conservative Mind -- and wondering in despair exactly how much Burke I would have to read to even hope to comprehend even the first chapter.
So on Monday, when I received my very own copy of dear Mr Luse's The Last Good Woman, I tossed dear Mr Kirk's book on the ironing board for later. I figured I could read a chapter or two of the novel every night and probably finish it in a week.
It didn't quite work out that way. I opened the book and half an hour later, I was still reading. My husband finally asked me to turn out the light so he could sleep; I took the book and moved down to the kitchen, just to finish the chapter. Half an hour later I looked at the clock and thought, oh, I'd better get to bed. It was another hour before I finally made it.
Hambet dragged his sleepy Mommy out the door on time the next morning. That night, as I saw the book on the nightstand, I thought, no. No, I must wait and read tomorrow. And then I thought, well, maybe just five more minutes....
I made it to bed ninety minutes later, after I finished the book. (Disclaimer: I do read very quickly, especially when I realize I'm going to be reading something again.)
So the moral of the story: if you need to be up early the next day and need your sleep, and you know your will is weak, you may not want to make The Last Good Woman your designated bedtime book.
Make time during the day instead. You might want to block out a couple of hours.
I knew this was going to be a good read, but I wasn't prepared for its being such a good read in this way. The narrative is compelling, not in that plot-driven oh-no-what-happens-next! way, but in an I'm in the moment and following this thought and totally under the writer's spell way. In his book meme post, Bill mentioned Faulkner as an author he'd read more than once; as I read Bill's book, I wondered if I was hearing an echo of Faulkner in there, in the tapestry of thought and memory and association. (Of course, I could be totally wrong since I'm thinking of what I've been told about Faulkner. I've read only one book by Faulkner myself, and it wasn't one of the good ones.)
I heard a lot of Apologia in there as well: fatherhood and faith, daughters and wives, and the acute observation of how even the most trivial acts and encounters can be manifestations of the potential for goodness or even heroism -- or great depravity -- that lies within the hearts of even the most ordinary-seeming people. And beer. There's lots about beer.
So poor Dr Kirk's going to have to wait a while longer. I want to skim Bill's book again. And ever since I've finished the book, I've had the line Why do men not reck his rod? stuck in my head, and I don't think it's a coincidence, so I need to follow up on that. Then I might try some Faulkner. I should have some good reading time as I wait in the pick-up line at the end of the school day.
(And note to self: I need to get an old T-shirt, a box of gallon-sized zipper bags, and a towel ready for Monday.)
August 17, 2006
Jane Austen's Moral Vision
A nice post by Father Oakes on the First Things blog:
...within her own chosen sphere she has become, by almost universal consent, one of mankind’s greatest moral teachers. That we have so readily forgotten her lessons must surely have something to do with why the world is now in the state it is in.
He recommends this biography by Park Honan.* Dear Santa, I have been very good this year....
*and yes, the Mommies have finally succumbed and signed up with the Amazon affiliate program. Kids, shoes, food, bandwidth, etc.
January 26, 2006
still not too proud to beg
Dear Mr Dreher:
PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEASE give us the privilege of reviewing your book. We are the Hip Homeschooling Mamas!
well, Pansy is, anyway.
July 6, 2005
Flannery O'Connor in today's WaPo
Jonathan Yardley has a reflection on Flannery O'Connor's letters: The Writer Who Was Full of Grace .
January 4, 2005
Home Alone-America: The Hidden Toll of Day Care, Behavioral Drugs, and Other Parent Substitutes by Mary Eberstadt
Read it. NOW.
Of course, giving this book to a Sleepy Mommy to read is just preaching to the choir. But after reading it, I just wanted to snatch up Hambet, hold him tight, and never let him out of the house again.
Eberstadt acknowledges the knee-jerk "mommy wars" objection (She's making us feel guillllllllltyyyyyyyyy for having a careeeeeeeeeeer!) but points out that there are other big social forces at work: divorce and illegitimacy, and the loss of the support of extended family, are the other two "rulers of the empty hearth." These forces have, over the past few decades, led to more and more children spending less and less time in the care of their parents or other family members (page xx). Over the same decades, the personal and social health of children and adolescents has gone down the tubes. Eberstadt contends that it's time to stop our social denial: "At a time when roughly half of all children will have no biological father in the home at some point, and well over half of all mothers with children under the age of six are employed, it is time to stop talking of mere 'correlations' and start asking some questions about cause."
Mark Shea isn't the only one who's noticed the rationalization "Adults and their needs come first; children are resilient." Eberstadt also points out that much of the public discussion of the "mommy wars" and so on focuses on the needs and desires of adults: adults who "feel fulfilled" by going to work -- or by staying home. Not too much discussion of how this looks to the kids. In the course of the book, she focuses again and again on turning to the discussion to the immediate experience of children. For example, a couple of years ago a study came out that showed (again) that children in day care were more likely to get sick. Some defenders of the day care status quo greeted this news with glee, rationalizing it as good news, because the children would be able to build up immunity and would get sick less often "in school." So, Eberstadt points out, does this mean that the child's immediate suffering is unworthy of consideration? Doesn't it count? The promise of getting sick less often in first grade is not much consolation to a toddler screaming in pain from an ear infection, longing for the comfort of his daddy or mommy. But the pain, here and now, of children rarely enters into the discussion.
Eberstadt looks at day care, child aggression, the increased diagnosis of mental problems and learning disabilities in children, sexual activity in teens, raunchy popular music, and the proliferation of teenage boarding "boot camp" reform schools. Again and again, she discusses what these mean to adults -- and then turns them over to look at what they might mean to children.
For example, little children in day care are more likely to be aggressive -- for example, biting other little kids. Biting seems to be a particular problem; Eberstadt reports finding article after article in day care professional literature advising how to stop biting epidemics. Some people ask what's the big deal? they'll outgrow it in a few years.
[But this is] the wrong question -- the one about ends, not means. The right questions, the one addressing the overlooked moral dimension of all this, is: What, after all, is the mental state of a bunch of babies and todllers who take up biting as a habit? And we can all figure out the answer to that without reaching for the social science bookshelf: these kids aren't happy. They are exhibiting a self-protective animal instinct, which suffests that they feel unprotected. It is something we would all understand readily enough if, say, zoo animals were to attach each other more frequently in their quarters than in the wild. (And if they did, we would, of course, deplore it and blame the zoo.) Doesn't that apparent internal turmoil say something undesirable about hos institutional care is experienced by at least some small children? (p 12)
Between the "separationists" -- the "it takes a village" crowd who cheer for day care is downright good for children -- and the widespread outsourcing of parenting to day cares and preschools, have we as a society become desensitized to the needs and feelings of children -- and to normal childish behavior? For example, what's behind the overprescription of Ritalin and similar drugs? Could it be that normal childish behavior is now being seen as pathology? Is prescription becoming another way to outsource parenting? More and more children are being diagnosed with disorders such as autism-spectrum disorders, depression, and bipolar illness (I was astounded to find that someone out there has been diagnosing infants as "bipolar".) Are some of these kids being treated for their response to an unhealthy environment? Maybe some kids just aren't cut out for the stress of being away from home twelve hours a day. (I did not know this, but apparently there is also a growing problem of Ritalin abuse -- kids selling their Ritalin to other kids. When I was doing bedside nursing, we kept the Ritalin in the locked drawer with the morphine and other narcotics.)
The chapter that really curled my hair was the chapter on STD's. We're expected to be glad that teenage pregnancy is down, because that means that teens are "being responsible." Of course, condoms and oral contraceptives do nothing to halt the spread of many STDs -- and Eberstadt cites a 2004 study reporting that "of 18.9 million new STD cases in the United States in 2000, about 9.1 million, or half, were found in people between the ages of fifteen and twenty-four. " (p.125) The scariest STD is the human papilloma virus, which causes icky genital warts in the short run and can cause cervical cancer in the not-so-long run. More and more young women are developing cervical cancer; I know a woman in her early thirties who has just been diagnosed.
The most obvious way for parents to discourage their teens from early sex is, of course, supervision. When a responsible adult's keeping tabs on things, the after-school special gets back to being cookies and milk. But Eberstadt suggests two more ways in which parents, especially fathers, have a particularly important role to play (besides driving off suitors, of course.) One is a really interesting discussion on recent research on pheromones -- that a girls age at menarche may be affected by the presence or absence of her father -- or of an unrelated male such as a stepfather. The other is the fact that children living apart from one of their biological parents are more likely to become victims of sexual abuse.
Eberstadt's ultimate point is that it's time to face reality and renorm our society to acknowledge that children -- and society in general -- are better off "when more parents spend time with more children." And that doesn't mean that ALL mothers MUST stay home with ALL children. For some families, dad might be the one staying at home. It's unavoidable that some families are going to end up as single-parent families, or having both parents in the work force. But if there are plenty of other parents at home with their kids, that's enough social "padding" to absorb that stress: you'll have just a couple of kids in a kindergarten class under that stress, for example, instead of half the class. You'll have more parental eyes looking out the windows as the kids walk home. You'll have more parents who have time to lead after-school clubs, or who could welcome an extra kid into their house for some family after-care.
I read a review of this book that gave me the impression that the reviewer had read the first ten pages and the back cover, stuck her fingers in her ears, and started singing, LA LA LA LA LALA, YOU CAN'T MAKE ME FEEL GUIL-TY over and over again until it was time to submit her copy. Our whole society has been doing that for years. Hopefully this book will prompt more people to take their fingers out of their ears and start listening to our kids.
Home-Alone America: the Hidden Toll of Day Care, Behavioral Drugs, and Other Parent Substitutes
Mary Eberstadt
Sentinel, 2004
December 17, 2004
In the days before blogs
November 2, 2004
The titian-haired sleuth
October 4, 2004
Unassisted Childbirth
I just finished Unassisted Childbirth by Laura Kaplan Shanley. It was not exactly what I was looking for. I was looking for something in terms of a practical how to because I have very quick labors and I would like to be prepared if I do not make it to the hospital. This book was more of the "why's" against hospital births, although she is preaching to the choir. I have never had a homebirth, but would love one. I am not having one because the lay midwives are all too far away to come here to assist. I have quick easy labors. The only parts of any of my birth experiences that were traumatic were when the staff would not just leave me alone coupled by the lack of privacy. So she does not have to go far to convince me that being in the comfort and privacy of your home would be so much more preferable.
Aside from the lack of more practical info, my other critique is there were at least two chapters of New Agey suggestions of affirmations and thinking yourself to a quick and painless labor. I have little patience for New Age stuff. I also have little patience for both her and Dr. Bradley's attitude that labor does not hurt. I think labor can be enjoyable despite the pain, and having the right atmosphere and attitude can cut down on the pain, and even that some women experience more pain than others. But I think the idea that labor really does not hurt, but it is programmed into our subconscious by a malecentric society is a fallacy. If that were the case, it simply would not hurt. Why not program that eating ice cream is very painful? Why childbirth? Besides, the Bible states:
To the woman he said:
I shall give you intense pain
you will give birth to your children
in pain.
Genesis 3:16
She was pregnant, and in labour, crying aloud in the pangs of childbirth.
Revelation 12:2
So that is what scripture says and that overrides Ms. Shanley and Dr. Bradley in my book.
All that aside, as simply as a childbirth preparation book, I found the attitude of this book much more refreshing than Lamaze and Dr. Bradley who I thought were both full of bologna. Even though the book was about unassisted childbirth, there was a certain perspective that I think can be brought to any birth situation. I mean all these methods are take what will work for you and leave the rest, it is just annoying how militant they are about their particular perspective. Although I think I found Dr. Bradley the most annoying. I don't think many husbands really like being the coach person and I liked Laura Shanley's perspective that childbirth is ultimately about the mother and baby and no one else. Emotionally, if there is anyone else involved, it certainly is about the husband, but it doesn't have to be if no one is really feelin' that.
Anyway, if you are expecting I recommend this book even if you are not planning an unassisted or even homebirth. Actually especially if you are having a hospital birth because it will help you focus on a good birth plan and decide what you want out of your birth experience.
July 16, 2004
the proper response to the DVC
My husband Posco works with someone who apparently thinks quite highly of his own intellect -- one of those people who think they're geniuses because they got 1300 + on the SATs and went to a "good" college. Let's call him Hooper. Anyway, Posco and Hooper got into a rather wide-ranging conversation, and Hooper (who professes atheism) started expounding on the curious undergarments worn by the Latter-Day Saints and how they were designed so that the wearer can change them without ever being completely nude (how Hooper knows this he did not tell.)
Anyway, Hooper has read that stupid DaVinci Code book and, in addition to falling for it hook, line, and sinker, apparently started gnawing on the tackle box as well; he seems to have come away from the book with the impression that all Catholics practice "the discipline" (corporal mortification.) (It came out in the context of a conversation of special underwear -- apparently Catholics have special underwear too.)
Peony: "Let me get this straight: Hooper thinks you personally go home and flagellate yourself in the evening? and you have special underwear for it?"
Posco: "Apparently so...."
I am ashamed (well, only a little) to admit that my first thought was not, "what would a skilled apologist say?" but instead...
"What would Cordelia Flyte say?"
I'll go first: Stain removers such as OxyClean, Clorox 2, and so forth were not really developed by the soap companies but by Jesuit scientists working in Vatican labs, based on formulas handed down through the ages by a secret congregation devoted to alchemy (the Hypochlorite Fathers.) These bleaches, etc, were developed so that Catholics could practice their penances without being detected. The man-in-the-moon symbol formerly used by Procter and Gamble was actually a portrait of the founder of the Hypochlorites.
If you go to Catholic book and supply stores, you have to know the secret password to be shown the hair shirt section. And no, I'm not going to reveal the password on the blog -- I would be excommunicated! And as we all know, Catholic bishops excommunicate people right and left for publicly defying the teachings of the Church.
UPDATE: Dear Mr Luse asks, "Who's Cordelia Flyte?" If you need to ask who Cordelia is, please permit me to suggest that you quit reading TSM and go read Brideshead Revisited instead. For purposes of this post, Cordelia is a young teenager whose older sister, Julia, is engaged to Rex Mottram. Rex is completely unconcerned with matters eternal, but is nevertheless preparing for reception into the Church so that he can marry Julia. Lady Marchmain is Cordelia's and Julia's mother.
...So Rex was sent to Farm Street to Father Mowbray, a priest renowned for his triumphs with obdurate catechumens. After the third interview, he came to tea with Lady Marchmain. "Well, how do you find my future son-in-law?" ..."Lady Marchmain, he doesn't correspond to any degree of paganism known to the missionaries." ...
Next week the Jesuit came to tea again. It was the Easter holidays and Cordelia was there, too.
"Lady Marchmain," he said. "You should have chosen one of the younger fathers for this task. I shall be dead long before Rex is a Catholic."
"Oh dear, I thought it was going so well."
"It was, in a sense. He was exceptionally docile, and he accepted everything I told him, remembered bits of it, asked no questions. I wasn't happy about him. He seemed to have no sense of reality, but I knew he was coming under a steady Catholic influence, so I was willing to receive him. One has to take a chance, sometimes - with semi-imbeciles, for instance. You never know quite how much they have understood. As long as you know there's someone to keep an eye on him, you do take the chance."
"How I wish Rex could hear this!" said Cordelia.
"But yesterday I got a regular eye-opener. The trouble with modern education is you never know how ignorant people are. With anyone over fifty you can be fairly confident what's been taught and what's been left out. But these young people have such an intelligent, knowledgeable surface, and then the crust suddenly breaks and you look down into the depths of confusion you didn't know existed. Take yesterday. He seemed to be doing very well. He'd learned large bits of the catechism by heart, and the Lord's Prayer and the Hail Mary. Then I asked him as usual if there was anything troubling him, and he looked at me in a crafty way and said, 'Look, Father, I don't think you're being straight with me. I want to join your Church and I'm going to join your Church, but you're holding too much back.' I asked what he meant, and he said: 'I've had a long talk with a Catholic - a very pious, well-educated one, and I've learned a thing or two. For instance, that you have to sleep with your feet pointing East because that's the direction of heaven, and if you die in the night you can walk there. Now I'll sleep with my feet pointing any way that suits Julia, but d'you expect a grown man to believe about walking to heaven? And what about the Pope that made one of his horses a cardinal? And what about the box you keep in the church porch, and if you put in a pound note with someone's name on it, they get sent to hell. I don't say there mayn't be a good reason for all this,' he said, 'but you ought to tell me about it and not let me find out for myself.'"
"What can the poor man have meant?" said Lady Marchmain.
"You see he's a long way from the Church yet," said Father Mowbray.
"But who can he have been talking to? Did he dream it all? Cordelia, what's the matter?"
"What a chump! Oh, Mummy, what a glorious chump!"
"Cordelia, it was you."
"Oh, Mummy, who could have dreamed he'd swallow it? I told him such a lot besides. About the sacred monkeys in the Vatican - all kinds of thing."
"Well, you've very considerably increased my work," said Father Mowbray.
"Poor Rex," said Lady Marchmain. "You know, I think it makes him rather lovable. You must treat him like an idiot child, Father Mowbray."
So the instruction was continued, and Father Mowbray at length consented to receive Rex a week before his wedding.
"You'd think they'd be all over themselves to have me in," Rex complained. "I can be a lot of help to them one way and another; instead they're like the chaps you issue cards for a casino. What's more," he added, "Cordelia's got me so muddled I don't know what's in the catechism and what she's invented."
July 14, 2004
A Mother's Rule of Life by Holly Pierlot
I just finished this book, which supplied a much needed poke in the rear. I'm not sure I'll be following all of her suggestions -- I start getting fidgety and rebellious when I see what to me look like insanely overcomplicated diagrams -- but I appreciated the basic reminders about the hierarchy of priorities and the beauty of offering one's daily work to God -- and the immense time savings of being able to look at a list and knowing what one is supposed to be doing at that moment (as opposed to wandering aimlessly around the house.)
Saints Martha and Mary, please pray for us!
July 8, 2004
TSM Book find
I received a note from a reader wondering if I knew where to locate a copy of Fr William Virtue's Mother and Infant, a primary text for Catholic AP types.
I do not. And now I want a copy too. Any ideas? I suggested asking at the Newman Bookstore; the JPII Institute for Marriage and the Family might also be a good place to inquire. I'll be talking to a friend this afternoon who's a JPII alumna; perhaps she will know. (Perhaps she'll have a copy I can borrow!)
March 28, 2004
1421:The Year China Discovered America
Gavin Menzies, the author of the book is a retired British submarine captain who believes the Chinese reached and even colonized America around 1421 before Columbus did. He reaches this conclusion due to evidence such as many pre-Columbian maps he found which chart places like the Caribbean, North and South America, Antarctica, Greenland and Australia. his story is that the Ming Dynasty Emperor, Zhu Di set a huge armada, approx. 800 ships, out around the world to explore and chart. The problem is Mr. Menzies has no academic evidence to support this because supposedly while the fleet was out, the Emperor died, and the people were annoyed because the Emperor did things like wiped out whole forests of teak in Vietnam, and let certain areas go hungry in order to build this fleet. As a result the next Emperor wiped out all records of this expedition and instead of looking to explore the Chinese became xenophobic.
While Mr. Menzies has little in the way of academic evidence. He has a great deal in the way of physical evidence. Wrecked Chinese junks (ships) have been found that carbon date to this time period in many places including Australia, Sacramento the East Coast. Evidence of small Chinese villages in places like Rhode Island. Many Mezo-American, South and North American Indians speak dialects very similar to Chinese, and in many cases can understand Chinese. Their is DNA evidence to show that many of these people have Chinese DNA from the time period. Much of the art that is practiced such as lacquering, which is long. drawn out multi-step process was found to be practiced in only China and in South and Central America. Much of the plant life, such as coconuts, mangoes, bananas, sweet potatoes are not native to the New World, but to Asia.
My Thoughts
First of all the idea that the Chinese reached the Caribbean or North America is not great shock or surprise. Those of us of Caribbean descent know Asian culture has an extremely strong influence in this area of the world, granted it may be more recent than 1421, it is not like any big surprise or big deal. It more or less makes sense. The problem is Mr. Menzies is a one note Charlie, and more than his point that the Chinese were ever there, he wants to make a point that they were there before Columbus and that changes history around. But the fact is, we know the Vikings reached New Founland before Columbus, and maybe even St. Brendan before them. There were Taino (Arawacks) Indians, Caribe Indians and even evidence of Portuguese settlements in Ponce, Puerto Rico before Columbus, so people were there prior to Columbus. What is special about Columbus is it was because of his journey that we are all here today, that I the way it went. History is not changed.
I think in Mr. Menzies mission to discredit Columbus he spends too much focusing on this 1421 mission and the the places Columbus went. There is tons of compelling physical evidence that people such as the Incas (for example) are Chinese immigrants of a sort. This to me personally is fascinating and I personally would find it interesting to see this elaborated on much more.
He also spends way too much time talking about how barbaric the Christian cultures/Europeans are and how enlightened, civilized and educated the Chinese were, and hence the mezo-American Indians. Give me a break. as you know I tire of this type of racism. There are few perfect cultures because there are no perfect people. Granted the Chinese had beautiful art, were technologically advanced, but they certainly had their streak of barbarism. Before the Ming Dynasty China was ruled by the Mongols. The Chinese reclaimed China and for punishment, made eunuchs out of every Mongol male child. He speaks about how enlightened (unhindered) the Chinese were sexually because the ships were populated with Concubines educated in sex. These poor women were slaves. Good grief. Do we need to get into the sophistication of the Indians in Mexico? Yes, they built great structures, made porcelain plates as thin as egg shells, and they also offered human sacrifices. Of course I am not arguing the europeans were perfect, they didn't believe in bathing for crying out loud, but you are going on a wild goose chase looking for the perfect culture, many have there good and there bad, some worse or better than others. America, my home which I love with all our luxuries does not hold the record for being civilized with capital punishment, abortion, racism and let's nt forget this country was built on chattel slavery. But it is my home and the best I got. But I digress. I have to admit, when Columbus first came into the Caribbean, one of the first islands he went to was an island he named Guadeloupe (the significance to this was totally lost on Mr. Menzies which also makes me doubt bits and pieces of his other research) and it was populated by cannibals. I do not think it gets much grosser that that.
He just missed some obvious points as well. there is evidence of a Chinese colony in the Boston area, and he the author said he questioned modern Bostonians for Chinese like traits such as Mongolian blue spots. Mongolian blue spots are a pigment trait, not necessarily an Asian trait. My brothers had them as babies and when my parents asked if it was a genetic marker of their Chinese blood (my great grandfather was from China), the doctor said more likely from the southern Italian blood. the other things is Mr. Menzies mentions a great deal about many Indian groups speaking "Chinese". Chinese is actually 6 distinct languages, some of which are dissimilar (my cousins used to say that knowing Mandarin gave you more fore-knowledge of knowing Cantonese for example), so it is hard to see what he is talking about when he refers to dialects having many cognates to "Chinese", so again, I wish I had a just a little bit more to go one to believe him besides just his word.
All in all I think the book is a fascinating read and I think he really is on to something, but his theory has holes and I think think because his motive is simply anti Christianity. If his motive was simply knowledge for knowledge's sake with more of an open mind, I bet he would uncover a great deal more fascinating info.
March 18, 2004
The Light of Assent
...When Mary answers the angel, she answers God. She knows that the angel appears as God's messenger and that and that when she delivers her Yes to him, she is in fact giving it to God. Her seeing and hearing the angel at all already depends on an obedient subordination of her senses to the supernatural life, the life of God's grace. She has senses like every person, but she does not use them as other people do, to adorn herself, to win something for herself and make it her own. Instead of closing off her senses for hrself, she opens them up for God; she uses them only to serve a better comprehension of the divine will, to its greater honor and glorification. She surrenders to God the purpose and and end of every act of her senses. so her senses are an open space in which her in which God can manifest himself at any time; they are ready for the angel. She regards her senses as a mere loan from the Father, so that, in what her senses perceive, she always recognises at once the gift of the Father. She sees and hears the angel, but in such a way that at the same time she knows that what enables her to see and receive something which God has placed in her, something which therefore allows her to see God himself in the angel. And just as she knows that in the angel she receives God, so also does she understand that the angel accepts what he recieves from her only in order to carry it to God...
from Handmaid of the Lord
By Adrienne von Speyr
March 16, 2004
How those magazines at the checkstand mess with your head
K-Lo reviews Spin Sisters: How the Women of the Media Sell Unhappiness - and Liberalism - to the Women of America
January 25, 2004
Jane Austen, Public Theologian
January 23, 2004
Would anyone be interested in a group read?
I was ranting about that horrible Mansfield Park movie to a friend of mine; the tantrum had the best possible ending in that we're going to read the book together and talk it over in March.
Would anyone be interested in doing an online group read of Mansfield Park?
Perhaps we could do two chapters a week. On a designated day, I would start that week's discussion, to be continued in the comments box. Alas, we will each have to be responsible for our own coffee, tea, and wee little sandwiches.
Anyone interested? I'd like to have at least two or three people commit to start, but of course anyone's free to jump in later.
UPDATE: In our comments box, Elinor suggests Pride and Prejudice as a good starting book for those new to Jane Austen, and I agree with her. SO, if you're interested in doing the group read, please drop a note in the box, and cast your vote for Pride and Prejudice or Mansfield Park.
November 15, 2003
I will definitely rent this when it comes out
Steven Greydanus, my movie guru, raves Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World -- and he's even read the books! (Thanks, Victor, for the heads up.)
I could blog on and on about how much I love the books. I'm still only halfway through reading the series for the first time -- I'm pacing myself to prolong the pleasure of the first reading. Come for the adventure, but stay for the characters and O'Brian's exploration of how we humans can be so intelligent, stupid, noble, base, sinful, curious, obtuse, calculating, loving... all at the same time. Nothing that is human is alien to O'Brian.
October 15, 2003
Who else could unite the poety and processed foods threads?
Who else but...G.K. Chesterton?
The Song Against Grocers
(From "The Flying Inn", 1914)
God made the wicked Grocer
For a mystery and a sign,
That men might shun the awful shops
And go to inns to dine;
Where the bacon's on the rafter
And the wine is in the wood,
And God that made good laughter
Has seen that they are good.
The evil-hearted Grocer
Would call his mother "Ma'am,"
And bow at her and bob at her,
Her aged soul to damn,
And rub his horrid hands and ask
What article was next
Though MORTIS IN ARTICULO
Should be her proper text.
His props are not his children,
But pert lads underpaid,
Who call out "Cash!" and bang about
To work his wicked trade;
He keeps a lady in a cage
Most cruelly all day,
And makes her count and calls her "Miss"
Until she fades away.
The righteous minds of innkeepers
Induce them now and then
To crack a bottle with a friend
Or treat unmoneyed men,
But who hath seen the Grocer
Treat housemaids to his teas
Or crack a bottle of fish sauce
Or stand a man a cheese?
He sells us sands of Araby
As sugar for cash down;
He sweeps his shop and sells the dust
The purest salt in town,
He crams with cans of poisoned meat
Poor subjects of the King,
And when they die by thousands
Why, he laughs like anything.
The wicked Grocer groces
In spirits and in wine,
Not frankly and in fellowship
As men in inns do dine;
But packed with soap and sardines
And carried off by grooms,
For to be snatched by Duchesses
And drunk in dressing-rooms.
The hell-instructed Grocer
Has a temple made of tin,
And the ruin of good innkeepers
Is loudly urged therein;
But now the sands are running out
From sugar of a sort,
The Grocer trembles; for his time,
Just like his weight, is short.
September 24, 2003
More on Semiotics
Yesterday, when I was out driving, I was passed by a big white tractor-trailer. The only decoration on the truck was on its rear doors: a name and a picture of a penguin. I thought, "oh, this truck must be one of a fleet of refrigerated trucks."
Was this a semiotic moment? Would semiotics concern itself with how I came to this conclusion -- the study of the way I, in one glance, made the metonymic association penguin + cold + truck (- brand name) = one of a fleet of refrigerated trucks? Would semiotics concern itself with the guy who chose the picture of the penguin, with my brain seeing the picture making the association, or with the cultural associations that the truck owner and I share (the associations of penguins and cold)? Or is semiotics all of the above?
What if I had missed the point and thought that the truck was full of penguins? Would semiotics examine how and why I missed the point of the picture?
September 23, 2003
The find!
I gave in to book lust again yesterday. Hambet had fallen asleep on my lap and resisted my efforts to put him to bed, so I spent a little time surfing around the 'net with a sleeping baby on my lap. I had been thinking about a book I thoroughly enjoyed as a pre-teen and thought I'd see if I could find a copy. I remembered the title, Elizabeth, Elizabeth, but couldn't remember the author.
Googling the title alone was not much help, but adding a few words from the book itself helped. I tried "Elizabeth "Elizabeth" + aunt + Scotland and finally found a good hit in a Scottish tourism site that referred to the book and its author, Eileen Dunlop.
The book is hard to describe, but it's a real page-turner. (And I liked it for more than just the obvious reason!) It's a time-travel fantasy, in which a modern-day Elizabeth finds herself spending the summer at a Scottish castle with her aunt. Her aunt is a historian who has been spending several years researching the history of the great noble family that once lived at the castle. Elizabeth had once been close to her aunt, but recently her aunt has grown distant and cold.
The summer has a dismal start. Elizabeth is bored and unhappy, until she comes across an antique mirror stuck in the back of her bureau. She finds that the mirror has the power to transport her back to the castle as it was in the 18th century. Elizabeth finds herself living that life as another Elizabeth, the daughter of the lord of the castle.
Modern-day Elizabeth finds this spooky, but fun. As the summer wears on and her aunt grows more and more difficult to live with, Modern-day Elizabeth finds herself spending more and more time in Past Elizabeth's life. She is immersed in past Elizabeth's world -- in past Elizabeth's family, her studies, her accomplishments -- and that past world becomes more compelling to her than her own modern-day world. And the beckoning of the mirror grows almost irresistible.
The pacing and momentum in this book is just incredible -- it's been almost twenty years since the last time I saw a copy, and I still remember my heart pounding as I tore through the last chapters. I'm looking forward to reading it through an adult's eyes, especially reflecting on Elizabeth's immersion in the past compared to modern-day forms of escapist fantasy (especially in media such as computer games.)
Alas, this book is out of print -- truly there is no justice under the sun. I was astonished to find used copies going between $44 to almost $100! I finally found one for a much more reasonable price, and it's on the way. I'm so looking forward to this.
This book has also been published under the title Robinsheugh. Libraries might have a copy. Mine does not, and I was not willing to wait for inter-library loan.
September 12, 2003
The semiotics of the dunce cap
Poor Erik and Steven! Erik has been posting on semiotics (parts i, ii, iii, music) and I have been hanging out in the comments boxes, sniveling "I don't get it! I don't understaaaaaaaaaaand!" Erik and Steven have been patiently explaining semiotics to me, but to no avail. Every time I think I have a grip on the concept, it slips away from me.
Part of my problem is that I'm having trouble wrapping my brain around the lingo. I guess I am a very concrete thinker; I don't like using words unless I have a really tight grip on what they mean. (Pansy says, kyeah! Just ask her about my dogged attempts to learn the correct usage of certain slang words.) This is an obstacle when I go up against a totally new topic with a very specific (and very abstract) vocabulary -- even the clearest authors (like Erik and Steven) must sometimes use those new words to express themselves precisely.
(I still suspect there are more than a few of people out there throwing the word "semiotics" around without really knowing what it means, just aping their professors and stringing it together with a bunch of other buzzwords.)
But maybe I really do, at some level, understand what the semiotic approach is, and I'm just trying too hard. I've started dipping into this on-line book, Semiotics for Beginners; parts of it are beginning to make sense, particularly when they illustrate a semiotic approach by examining advertisements. This section has a good (and funny) example at the end of the page, involving cigarette ads. This section has another example (the tomato sauce ad.)
In college, I was once assigned to select a print ad and analyze the ad's use of metaphor and metonymy to make its pitch. I chose a pantyhose ad, in which the speaker told a little story about going to the supermarket looking for out-of-season peaches and instead coming back with a pair of the pantyhose. The peaches were a metaphor for the stockings: luxurious, but not too extravagant (the metaphor wouldn't have worked with diamonds, for example) and pleasing to the touch (the metaphor wouldn't have worked with kiwi fruit or pineapples, either.) So was I taking a semiotic approach to this ad without even realizing it? I think ads are interesting to analyze -- they're not too difficult (it's not like wading into Finnegan's Wake, for instance) and I think it's easy to avoid reading too much into them. You know that everything in that ad is there for a reason -- the admen spend big bucks getting those things just so, and they're not going to throw in any red herrings or Babylonian dog references to distract you from the product (unless they throw them in to appeal to your sense of vanity at being in on the joke. Which itself is probably some kind of semiotic topic involving the use of irony and metalanguage, or some such thing.)
Maybe I would understand more if I saw more good examples of the semiotic approach in action -- for example, a sound semiotic analysis of a movie (preferably an easy one, and one that I've actually seen.)
Erik and Steven discuss the dangers of getting carried away with semiotics; in their police report, Erik's semioticians discuss keeping in mind both the author's intent and the reader's intent. That reassures me a great deal. I suppose I am a very conservative reader. I think critics should keep close to the text. I detest far-fetched interpretations -- the ones that have more to do with the prejudices and outlook of the critic than of the author -- and the faintest whiff of deconstructionism or Marxist/ feminist cant leads me to throw down the book and head for the door. For example, in the example about the cigarette ad, I think Robyn starts getting a bit carried away when she starts speculating about masochistic women; my take would be that the ad was designed to appeal to men. Similarly, in Erik's example, are the good semioticians reading too much into the Italian motorist's use of a certain gesture? The self-accusatory root of this gesture is very interesting, but did that meaning persist through history? Is that what the Italian meant on even a subconscious level when he made the gesture? In English, the words "conceit" and "nice" don't mean the same thing that they did in the 17th century, and I think it would be unwise to try to read those old meanings into contemporary uses of those words. When is semiotics useful and when is it just showing off?
I am also having trouble comprehending where the border is between semiotics and plain old literary criticism. Let's say we're looking at Brideshead Revisited. My approach to carefully reading this book would be to look first at the story Waugh presents, look at the actions of the characters and at the results of their actions. I would then look more closely at the book for more clues. I would look at things like the names of the characters and the places in the books -- is there a reason that Ryder sounds so close to "writer"? Is the name Cordelia supposed to remind us of something, or did Waugh just think it's a pretty name? Is the light in Nanny's room supposed to remind us of something? (I try to avoid the word "symbol"; in my old book group I usually led the discussions of novels, and I had to fight hard to keep some of our members from trying to approach symbols as rebuses -- this equals this, and this equals this.) What do the titles of the two halves of the book tell us about the story? --that kind of thing. I don't think it's inappropriate to bring modern ways of looking at things -- for example, a psychological approach -- to literature, as long as your conclusions are supported by the text. For example, if you're going to tell me that Lady Marchmain is a codependent, you'd better tell me exactly what you mean by that and provide plenty of evidence from the book itself.
Now, I guess this is not the semiotic approach. Can one even take a semiotic approach to a book or poem, or is semiotics the "everything else" field? Would you take a semiotic approach to the film version of Brideshead? And if you did, what aspects of the film would you be looking at? What makes a semiotic approach different from ordinary film criticism.
Can you take a semiotic approach to architecture? Would it look something like, "The architecture and lack of adornment of certain churches suggests metaphorically that God is bland, uncomplicated, and boring?"
I'm trying hard to understand semiotics both because I'm interested in anything that will help me better understand what I hear and see and because it sounds interesting for its own sake. A big key to understanding Peony is that I am a frustrated English major (I did not have the pluck to go up against the disapproval of my parents and the deconstructionism of the English profs who seemed to have a lock on the introductory courses.)
I've been nibbling away at this post over the course of the afternoon, and every time I read Erik's posts, I think it becomes a little clearer. Maybe if I just repeat "semiotics is semantics applied to all of human communication" and keep mulling it over, things will become a little clearer.
July 17, 2003
The Complete Tightwad Gazette This
This is not a book review because I did not read the whole book yet. What I have read has been sort of an Examination of Conscience for Financial Household Management. The author, Amy Dacyczyn (pronounced decision) believes that most people have financial troubles (or at least can make more use of their money for example in the 80's with four children on an under 30K a year salary, she saved $49.000 in seven years and used it as a down payment on her dream home) by saving more as opposed to earning more (two income families). She might just be a woman after my own heart. But man is she frugal. I suppose it becomes a habit, but in the meantime thinking of ways to save money like that 24/7 makes my head hurt.
I have to say, I am not totally ashamed of myself, there are things I do do. We do not eat a lot of meat, I buy in bulk, I make a great deal from scratch, keep lights off at night (and use oil lamps when necessary), use cloth diapers, wash out ziploc bags, my husband cuts the boys' hair, just to name a few (although I refuse to cut moldy parts off of fruit or pour hot water in the bottom of a ketchup bottle to make it stretch-gross). People are often surprised how we have 4 children on one modest blue collar income and are not on any assistance or starving. Still I could do better.
My biggest problem is something everyone knows is a financial no-no. I like to eat out. Once a week, after cooking almost everything from scratch, watching our foods for dyes,preservatives and cholesterol, I have to get a weekly grease fix. What a hypocrite. I know this bad habit (and it is a habit because I have been unsuccessful in just saying "not this week") is what is going to keep me from my dream farm house on a few acres in Schoharie County, NY, I have begun to look at the "why's" of this habit.
Number one is I am burnt out. At the end of the week, I am sick of chopping onions, doing dishes, looking at the inside of my kitchen and wearing clothing that it is OK to splatter tomato sauce on. I want to get out and get cute. Also, there are times when, for example, someone drops by and stays until like 4.30, so I will order a pizza. To remedy this, I am going to attempt to fix things like casseroles to put into the freezer for days like this, and all I have to do is pop them in the oven.
Reason number two is I get tired of the taste of my own cooking. Do not get me wrong, I am a pretty good cook. Not an Erik Keilholtz kind of cook, but a pretty good (as Peony would say) a la femme cuisine cook. I would not eat my food at all if I could not cook well. But once a week I am dying for something like buffalo wings, or french fries, a burger, General Tso's chicken, you know those things that are hard to make at home-especially since I have no idea how to fry anything. This one is more tough to remedy. I have found two interesting sites that may help. One is Copykat.com and the other is Top Secret Recipes. It's like I need a junk food fix or something.
What I am looking for are recipes for something like Hot Pockets for when the kid's are hungry and I can stick in the microwave, but make myself without all the sodium, fat and preservatives. Would anyone have such a recipe?
April 1, 2003
Real life is just like the spiritual life
Real life is just like the spiritual life
Lee Ann was kind enough to leave a recipe for eggplant parmagiana in our comments box (by the way, I am starting the eggplant seeds indoors.) She also was kind enough to leave the URL for her blog, The Literarium. From her mega-post on Mega-Merton:
I don’t think you can have any kind of interior or spiritual life until you stop seeing things as you would like them to be, or fear they are, and start seeing them as they really are. As long as you focus on an illusion of a thing, on your idea of how it is or ought to be, you cannot respond to that thing. You can only respond to your self-created illusion. Only when you dispense with illusion and see things as they are can you respond to them and value them.
It's almost depressing to think about how many problems -- from the tiniest personal issues to international issues -- arise from refusing to face things as they are instead of how one wishes they were.
Another good one:
This is why I have never liked the stripped-down, rather morbid Spartan Aesthetic of Protestantism and modern AmCatholicism. Nothing is less conducive to a connection with the majesty of God than a plain white box. Modern churches can be more like sensory deprivation chambers than churches. Plain walls with nothing to look at, a plain altar with nothing to look at, and an overall sense of being in a nicely appointed office building are the first things I call to mind when I think about modern churches. There is nothing religious about them. There is nothing that says you are in a special, sacred place for a special sacred purpose. Boring, uninspiring buildings push you farther and farther away from God. You can’t pay attention to Him when you’v