Category Archives: Books

I’m running out of living authors

When I was a little kid, around the time I first learned to read, I loved the card game “Authors.” This made a big impression on the adults. They were amazed I “knew” all these writers and their greatest works.

In fact, my mother mentioned it just the other day, and I’m 72 years old. (Which tells me maybe I haven’t been very impressive since then.) I immediately pointed out that I hadn’t read them; I just knew them the way I knew the suits, numbers and face cards in regular deck. In fact, come to think of it, I still haven’t read some of those books. Maybe I’ll take another crack at finishing Moby Dick…

But that’s not my point. My point is that while lots of people write books, that bunch — Louisa May Alcott, James Fenimore Cooper, Charles Dickens, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Washington Irving, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Sir Walter Scott, William Shakespeare, Robert Louis Stevenson, Alfred, Lord Tennyson, and Mark Twain — were the ones I thought of at that age as actual authors.

And that hasn’t changed much. Oh, I’ve learned that the term technically applies more broadly, extending even unto the writers of self-help books, I’m still sparing with my use of the word. I’m even more sparing with my personal definition of writers worth reading.

And my list has a lot in common with the card game. You’ll note all most of those folks — with the glaring exception of Shakespeare — were active in the 19th century. Which didn’t bother me then — I wasn’t demanding that members of my generation be included or anything like that.

And over time, my adult tastes developed along similar lines. And not just with regard to literature. Consider church music. When I’m in Mass and hear a hymn, or would-be hymn, that really stinks (and yes, I sometimes do have such judgmental thoughts during Mass), I check in the hymnal to see who wrote it. And it pretty much always turns out to be someone writing within my own lifetime. My generation may have come up with the Beatles, and the Beatles were awesome, but they weren’t shooting for timeless sacred music. Except maybe with “Let it Be.”

I’ve mentioned before how stupid I think the annual “books of the year” lists are (and hey, it’s that season again!). I probably won’t ever read any book written within the past year, or if I do it will be by chance — simply a matter of a contemporary work being worth the trouble. The thing that gets me is that in order to compile such a list, or critique the list as a reader, you have to have read scores or even hundreds of books right off the press.

Which is an enormous waste of time.

Let the old man tell you, boys and girls, life is very short (and there’s no ti-i-i-ime…, just to give the Fab Four their due again). If you look over the list of works of literature written in English (and that’s all I’m thinking about here, because that’s a long-enough list on its own) over the last few centuries (before that, it’s hardly English), you will probably never get around to all the books that you should read (for your own enjoyment, and for the betterment of your mind and soul). Not in this life. Sure, lots of people read faster than I do, but still… well, this post is about me running out of living authors, not you.

All that said, peer pressure to keep up with the moment being what it is, especially for those of who lived through the frantically kinetic culture of the ’60s, I do like occasionally to trot out a short list of actual living writers that I’m really into.

But I’m running out of them.

Once, I could have claimed, if I wanted to:

John le Carré
William Faulkner
Alex Haley
Joseph Heller
Ernest Hemingway
John Hersey
Harper Lee
Patrick O’Brian
Philip Roth
J. D. Salinger
John Steinbeck
Hunter S. Thompson
Leon Uris
Kurt Vonnegut
Tom Wolfe

… those just being a few that come immediately to mind. And some of them — such as Faulkner, Hemingway, Steinbeck and even my great fave O’Brian — died before I read them. OK, to be honest, I still haven’t finished any novel by Faulkner, but everybody tells me he’s great.

And now we’ve lost another one. He died several months ago, but I just found out about it the other day. I had just finished rereading Rose — yes, again — and went to Google something about it, and found out that Martin Cruz Smith was dead.

That’s a real loss to letters — to the kind of stuff I like, anyway — and that’s what caused me to write this post.

I mean, who is left for me to really, really appreciate?

There’s Nick Hornby, who wrote such brilliant modern classics as High Fidelity — which inspired this blog’s Top Five lists.

And then Roddy Doyle comes to mind. You know, the Irishman who wrote The Commitments. But as brilliant as that film was, the book was — and this flies in the face of the cliche — not as good at the film. Because you couldn’t hear the music. I think Doyle’s best is another book from the Barrytown Trilogy, The Snapper. I can also recommend A Star Called Henry.

I read a piece Hemingway wrote, as a journalist, when Joseph Conrad died, in which he engaged in some self-flagellation for, as he put it, having used up all his Conrad. He’d read all Conrad had written, and now there would be no more. I could understand what a bad feeling that would be.

Happily, I still have some Doyle and Hornby to read — and come to think of it, plenty of Smith and O’Brians, and even a le Carré or two left.

But I need to come up with some more living writers I dig, before I run out completely…

The beauty of knowing where you are

5 Replies

One nice thing about ebooks is that you can keep them always handy.

I don’t have a temporary relationship with books. I think public libraries are very wonderful things, essential community assets, but I don’t often borrow books from them. If I read a book, and enjoy it or learn something from it or both, I don’t want to give it back. I want to have it handy to refer to, always.

This has led to a good bit of bookshelf-building on my part, but also a gradual turn toward downloading some of my favorite books to my iPad, using the Kindle and iBooks apps. This way, I always have a few of my favorites with me, because that’s where my iPad stays. This enables me to indulge, in quiet moments, my great weakness — rereading books I love. It’s something I can do for five or ten minutes, then move on to something else. And I almost always gain something that I didn’t fully get before.

This morning, at breakfast, it was one I’ve mentioned before — Rose, by Martin Cruz Smith. I’ve praised it before, said some of the same things before, but I promise I’m making my way to a different point today. Above is one of the passages I read this morning. It’s a good reminder of why I’m so into this book. Of course, this has been a forte of Smith’s work ever since Gorky Park. As I’ve said before, of both him and Patrick O’Brian, they are “capable, to an extent I’ve never seen anywhere else, to take their readers to an alien place and time and make them feel like they are really there.”

That passage above helps me to connect closely to Blair with a certain fondness (despite his extremely off-putting personality), because while I lack his skills as a mining engineer and explorer, I have always loved maps myself — even when studying one involved pulling it out of the glove compartment, and then enduring the challenge of trying to fold it back properly when I was done. Now, of course, Google Maps and Google Earth are always right there, the apps ready for reference as I read a book, or serving as a constant guide on my car’s dashboard. Blair would have loved interactive maps.

Today, though, I’m really focusing on something about entirely familiar places rather than exotic ones — although places I wish I knew as well as I know 19th-century Wigan from Smith, and Port Mahon circa 1800 from O’Brian. This is inspired by a paragraph that appears a bit after the one posted above:

Screenshot

That immediately brings to mind a place where I have have actually been: Wichita, KS, which is where I lived and worked before returning to South Carolina. It’s a city like Columbia in some superficially impressive ways. For instance, it’s located at, and sprawls across, the confluence of two rivers, the Arkansas and Little Arkansas (pronounce “ar-KANSAS,” not “arkansaw”). The place where the rivers came together to form one had been an important gathering point for pow-wows between Indian tribes before the whites arrived. A cultural center sits on the joining delta today. (I’ve witnessed a pow-wow there.)

Wichita is nothing like Wigan, except in this one respect: It is historically sharply divided, by class and culture, by the river at and below the confluence. The West side was like Smith’s miner side: When the city developed in the 19th century, that was where the stockyards, saloons and brothels waited eagerly to welcome exhausted, filthy cowboys who had driven their herds hundreds of miles to get them to the railhead. They had a lot of steam built up when they got there, and Wyatt Earp was among those lawmen trying to keep them in line until they left.

Across the river to the east were the respectable folk — the people who owned those stockyards, saloons and brothels — where they lived comfortable, proper lives with their families, insulated by the river from their rowdy source of income.

An ironic thing about that… we all know that newspaper editors are, or at least do their best to emulate, “liberal elites,” right? Just full of politically correct values. Well, one of the first things I learned about my fellow editors at that paper was that they all lived on the proper, safe, smug East side of the river, largely in a Shandon-like area called College Hill.

All of them but one, a guy named Tom Suchan. I liked Tom, naturally enough. He was a Catholic like me, and had four kids, as I soon would (my fourth was born there, my fifth not until we got here). And he lived as far West as possible while remaining in the city. Across the street from his house there was a wheat field, and nothing else visible beyond it for miles and miles of prairie.

The other editors gave him constant grief for being such an outcast, a wild man beyond the pale. Oh, they did it kiddingly, but I felt the jokes covered something of a real difference between him and them, one that reflected to his credit, in my book.

When I moved to Columbia in 1987, I immediately perceived a similar dynamic. When we had our daily editors’ meetings, I looked around at the dozen or so crowded around the table, and knew that most of them lived in Shandon (while I lived over here on the West side). But a starker difference was that all of them were alumni of USC (I had never encountered such a uniformity at a newspaper). Well, all but one. Tom Priddy (who ironically had almost the same job as Suchan, being over the photographers and artists at the paper) had gone to Clemson. No one ever let him forget — joshingly, of course — what a pariah that made him.

I don’t know where he lived while he was here. But the similarity in the situations was striking.

But there was an important difference. Although I know South Carolina overall so much better than I do Kansas, I can’t sum up the central narrative of Columbia nearly as well as I can that of Wichita. There, it was simple: Cows, the railroad, cowboys and the townspeople who lived off of them. It was hard to forget, with historical reminders such as that Indian cultural center, and the “Cowtown” attraction that was located, of course, on the western side.

I know lots of things about Columbia. By the way, when I use that name, I’m referring to the overall metro area, which is stunningly fragmented, legally and politically — two counties, about 10 separate municipalies, five school districts, and so forth. Wichita has one advantage over that. Despite the historic split, it’s all one city (except from some odd little conclaves similar to, say, Arcadia Lakes. It’s all in one county. And there’s one public school district (although my kids attended a parish school in the large, separate, Catholic system).

Consequently, it’s a community that finds it easier to get its act together. For instance, its riverfront areas were completely and beautifully developed long before I there. Progress has been made here, but it’s been fitful.

Of course, there’s that huge similarity in the Big Split between East and West. And I can give you all sorts of reasons why that alienation exists here. And it’s very long-standing. It has to do with why the first editor of The State was shot and killed by the lieutenant governor in broad daylight, in front of a cop, across Gervais Street from the State House in 1903 — and his lawyers got him office by obtaining a change of venue to across the river, where folks reckoned he had it coming.

But this post is already too long for me to elaborate. I know the division exists, and you know it exists. The difference is that I can’t explain it as simply and starkly as I can the split in Wichita. The causes are more complicated here on the Eastern Seaboard. There are things we know and could explain if we were willing to talk about them, and other things we have trouble fully wrapping our heads around.

I’d like to be able to do that. I’d like to be able to explain it — to myself, to my neighbors, and to outsiders — as clearly as I can explain Wichita (or at least, how it formed).

Can anyone recommend a book that treats this entire community in a way that makes that manageable? The author doesn’t have to be a Patrick O’Brian or a Martin Cruz Smith. Just someone who explains us and the place we live clearly, coherently, accessibly, and most of all accurately.

If y’all don’t know, I’ll check with friends at the libraries on both sides of the river. I don’t check out their books much, but I know what a valuable resource they are…

Screenshot

All Good Books: the best-named business in town

2 Replies

On the previous post, Paul DeMarco mentions All Good Books in Five Points. I wish to elaborate on that topic a bit.

My relationship with that store began before it existed. Several years back, my daughter gave my wife and me some gift cards to Odd Bird Books, which existed in the tiny Arcade Mall downtown. When we heard it was about to close, and we still hadn’t used our gift cards, we made a point of visiting that shop for the first and last time.

We picked up several books that day. I believe one of them was the third book in Edmund Morris’ trilogy, Colonel Roosevelt. But the main thing I remember about that visit was how very impressed I was by what was being offered in that diminutive space.

The shop was only about the size of my home office — maybe smaller. So there were not that many books. But the place possessed a virtue I’d never encountered in any bookstore, whether independent or chain — more or less every single book was one that I would like to read, if my life should last so long. It was like Ben Adams, the proprietor, had been asked to collect every book he wanted to have with him on the proverbial desert island — and he happened to have excellent taste.

In other words, all good books. No junk at all. There wasn’t room.

So when Ben teamed up with Clint and Jenna Wallace to open a new store, naturally it bore that name (although they didn’t get it from me — see the Hemingway quote in the picture below).

And it lives up to that name. Of course, since it’s bigger and there are many more books, they’re not all books that I particularly want to read. But we should consider that I’m not the only reader in the world (or even here in Columbia), and different strokes and all that.

Still, I’m deeply impressed by the selections. And if I happen to want something that’s not on the shelves (an astoundingly high percentage of what I seek is on the shelves), the folks behind the counter will quickly get it for me. And I’d certainly rather do that than order it from Amazon.

Oh, and there’s always coffee and other refreshments. And you may think this is odd to mention (you’ll understand if you’ve spent huge amounts of time in bookstores), but a very nice restroom. That’s essential, don’t you know.

I hope to see you at All Good Books sometime. It’s located at 734 Harden St. Now that Yesterday’s is gone, it’s my one motivation to visit Five Points.

DeMarco: Why Independent Bookstores Shouldn’t Go the Way of Blockbuster

2 Replies

The Op-Ed Page

By Paul V. DeMarco
Guest Columnist

One could argue that independent bookstores are a luxury. You can summon books to your doorstep with a few clicks, sometimes the same day. Or, if you have an E-reader, in seconds. So why do bookstores continue to survive?

As Blockbuster faded in the 2000s, I worried that bookstores might suffer the same fate. But here they are still, and they seem to be making a resurgence. According to the American Booksellers Association, more that 200 new indie bookstores opened in 2024. We are seeing a similar renaissance locally. Since 2023, three new bookstores have opened in the Pee Dee – Jack’s Books in Florence, Foxes Tales in Marion, and Our Next Chapter in Conway. It’s worth considering why.

First, I think, are the owners. Their identities are palpable within the walls. You feel as if you are walking into an extension of their homes. I can tell you the name of the owners of almost every independent bookstore that I have frequented more than once: Gwen at Foxes Tales, Jack (Ok, that’s a gimme), Wendy and her daughter Olivia at Litchfield Books, and Clint at All Good Books in Columbia. I fondly remember Rhett and Betty Jackson who founded the Happy Bookseller in Columbia which closed in 2008. And I look forward to meeting Bob and Lisa Martire at Our Next Chapter, whom I called for this column.

Second is the product itself. There is just something about books: their personalities on a shelf, their weight in your hands, the curve of the pages, the smell of the bindings. We connect with books in a different way from the way we do with VHS tapes or DVDs. Is an E-reader more economical and practical? Undoubtedly. But after a day full of screens, can you find repose and escape in another screen? Many of us cannot.

Third is the community bookstores create. If you are new in town, where would you go to meet people? Church used to be the answer, but less so now, particularly for young people. Bars and clubs, of course. If I were young, I would head to the local coffee shop first, and the bookstore next. Shopping for books is different from shopping for groceries. You don’t always have a plan, and you aren’t focused on getting home to cook dinner. People relax in a bookstore; their minds are open. Children peruse, curious and wide-eyed.

In the past month I have had the following conversations in a bookstore: As I was entering Litchfield Books, a woman I had never met engaged me in a five-minute conversation after I bent down to greet her dog. Inside, I had a long chat with Wendy and Olivia about books, bookstore dogs, bookstore swag (I love a good bookstore T-shirt and baseball cap) and the possibility of adding a coffee bar (I voted a loud “Yes!” to coffee). In another bookstore mentioned above, the name of which I shall not reveal, I was speaking to the owner about the new pope. The owner is a bit older than I and said, “I‘ve always thought of popes as very old men… but I just realized… I’m older than the pope!”

I met a new bookstore friend recently during a trip with my wife, Debbie, to Decatur, Georgia, for a wedding. Debbie is a nurse but could have been a librarian. She was always ready with a fun, age-appropriate bedtime story for me to read to our children. That was precious time, with a little head against each shoulder.

When she saw that the wedding venue was near a children’s bookshop called Little Shop of Stories, we knew we had to visit. Which brings us to the last reason why we can’t let bookstores go. Every one has a vibe, an ambience, much like a restaurant. At Little Shop, soft Saturday afternoon sunlight flooded though the glass façade into a welcoming space that was filled with perhaps a dozen patrons milling and talking. A father and daughter sat in a chair as he read to her.

When it came time to pay, the young woman at the counter mistakenly input my transaction as a credit rather than a charge. When I discovered the error on Monday, I called and spoke with my new friend, Heather, at Little Shop, who straightened it out. She was lovely; she was kind; we laughed. It was the best customer service call I suspect I will ever have. A few days later, a care package arrived with a Little Shop mug, a tote bag, and a half dozen books.

Take that, Amazon! Yes, you will pay slightly more at an independent bookstore. But we have already made this bargain with coffee shops. We understand that we are paying too much for the liquid in the cup. But that’s not all we are buying. We are renting a small portion of the shop, that favorite table where we like to sit. We are maintaining a relationship with the shop owner (Hi Liz at Groundout and Mel at Bear Bar) or our favorite barista that would end if the shop closed.

We have a choice. We can pay the minimum and have the lonely convenience of books at our doorstep or on our screen. Or we can choose a better way. We can support a small business that provides livelihoods for its staff and weaves a beautiful thread into the fabric of a neighborhood. Find an independent bookstore, and you’ve found a place that cares about its future.

A version of this column appeared in the June 18^th edition of the Post and Courier-Pee Dee.

DeMarco: The images that shape our lives

6 Replies

The Op-Ed Page

Dr. Ernest Guy Ceriani

By Paul V. DeMarco
Guest Columnist

As a graduation present, one of my best friends from college gave me a book titled Let Truth Be the Prejudice by photojournalist W. Eugene Smith. She knew I was on my way to medical school and chose the book because of a photo essay called “Country Doctor.” It documented the work of Ernest Ceriani, the sole physician for the people of Kremmling, Colorado, an isolated hamlet of about a thousand. The essay was published in 1948, when Ceriani was 32.

The images captivated me. There was a reality, a chest grabbing truth contained within. Smith said of the essay “I spent four weeks living with him. I made very few pictures at first. I mainly tried to learn what made the doctor tick.”

His patience was rewarded. The image that has been my lodestar captures Ceriani in the wee hours. He is in a homey hospital kitchen after completing a lengthy surgery. He wears a cloth surgical gown and cap. His mask is untied. He is slumped against the counter with the stub of a cigarette in his left hand and a slightly listing cup of coffee in his right. His exhaustion is palpable. In another photo (see below), he is holding the head of a 2-year-old child who had been kicked in the head by a horse. His brow is deeply furrowed. He is worried, afraid for the child’s sight. In another, he is on a home visit. He is sitting on a bed, listening to the chest of an elderly man dying of a heart attack.

I must admit that I had no idea what I had signed up for when I committed to medicine. I was the first doctor in my family and had never experienced a serious illness, nor had any family member or friend. I didn’t have a mentor to tell me what medicine would be like, but in a moment, these stark black and white photos showed me. I saw that being a doctor means to sometimes be afraid, to sometimes suffer, to carry the burden of your patient’s illnesses, to watch them die.

I write this not to tell you I have succeeded in my hope to follow in Ceriani’s footsteps. He bore a burden that I doubt I could have carried. Nor is it to say that the type of medicine I do is the most important or most difficult. There are physicians that put their lives on the line in war zones, brilliant bench researchers, and masterful surgeons whose accomplishments dwarf mine.

I tell you this for two reasons. First because Ceriani’s example is still powerful, and should remain relevant in patient care of all kinds, including quotidian practices such as mine. I teach medical students and give a talk every year entitled “Joy in Medicine.” Perhaps that wasn’t the title you would expect, given my description of medicine’s trials. Medicine is, of course, also full of joys and rewards. But accepting those requires no training. What allows doctors to maintain their sanguinity is an ability to anticipate and then face tragedy.

Physicians can make two mistakes confronting this reality. One is to be subsumed by the distress of their patients and become overwhelmed. But the more common mistake is to remain aloof, to treat medicine as a job rather than a vocation, as a means to a lifestyle. In these days of incentive contracts which reward physicians for increasing the number of patients they see or procedures they do, patients who gum up the works with thorny problems or unexpected complications become unwelcome. I can’t count the number of patients who over the years have broken into tears during a visit. There is no extra reimbursement for giving a despondent patient your undivided attention. I can rarely offer any helpful advice. But I do all I can do, which is listen. Surprisingly often, we both feel better for the time we spend together.

I ask the students to imagine a middle way in which we do our best to fully acknowledge our patient’s dignity without losing our bearings. I have had patients who have suffered unimaginably. One dealt with the death of her husband and then the tragic death of her son two days later. I can only go a certain distance into that pain. But I try to walk with the patient far enough.

Students want to know how far that is. I can’t fully articulate it. It’s the same sense I have that keeps me from getting too close to a campfire or to a cliff. Sometimes I go farther than I might, knowing that I will have help recovering. My medical colleagues, including my wife, who is a nurse and has lived the pressures of primary care practice with me, are there to support me in my temporary grief for my patients.

I have walked that line mostly successfully for thirty years thanks to the lessons contained in “Country Doctor.” Some days I don’t give enough, and others I let the pressure of getting the work done truncate my ability to fully engage. I could not have lived Dr. Ceriani’s life as a solo practitioner in the Rocky Mountains. But he has been my constant inspiration, and I am surely better for my friend’s thoughtful gift, one of the most important I have ever received.

A version of this column appeared in the April 16^thedition of the Post and Courier-Pee Dee.

Read a book. Please. And then go read some more…

2 Replies

There are plenty out there to choose from.

At the end of my previous post, I tried to offer hope in spite of the situation I was describing. I said there are still “plenty of smart people out there,” suggesting that even though I haven’t figured out a fix, some of them might. I could have named names, but as incredible as it may sound, I was restraining myself with all my might, trying to keep the post from being any longer than the 2,899 words I ended up with.

One of the names I might have mentioned is that of David Brooks. But y’all know I admire that guy’s work; I’ve said so often enough.

I mention him now because of his most recent column, which was blessedly shorter than mine, but eloquently addressed an important aspect of what I was on about. The headline is “Producing Something This Stupid Is the Achievement of a Lifetime.”

You should read the whole thing (after all, his point is that kids — and adults — today need to be reading something. I’ve tried to make it available by using the “share full article” link, but I’m still not sure whether that words for everybody if you post it on a blog, or is only meant for sharing by text or email with one or two friends).

If you can’t (or, being a person of the 21st century, simply won’t) read it all, here’s an excerpt from the top:

You might have seen the various data points suggesting that Americans are losing their ability to reason.

The trend starts with the young. The percentage of fourth graders who score below basic in reading skills on the National Assessment of Educational Progress tests is the highest it has been in 20 years. The percentage of eighth graders below basic was the highest in the exam’s three-decade history. A fourth grader who is below basic cannot grasp the sequence of events in a story. An eighth grader can’t grasp the main idea of an essay or identify the different sides of a debate.

Tests by the Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies tell a similar story, only for older folks. Adult numeracy and literacy skills across the globe have been declining since 2017. Tests from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development show that test scores in adult literacy have been declining over the past decade…

Later, he quotes from a book by Jim Mattis and Bing West:

If you haven’t read hundreds of books, you are functionally illiterate, and you will be incompetent, because your personal experiences alone aren’t broad enough to sustain you…

Amen to that, warrior monk.

He doesn’t get to current news until the end:

What happens when people lose the ability to reason or render good judgments? Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you Donald Trump’s tariff policy. I’ve covered a lot of policies over the decades, some of which I supported and some of which I opposed. But I have never seen a policy as stupid as this one. It is based on false assumptions. It rests on no coherent argument in its favor. It relies on no empirical evidence. It has almost no experts on its side — from left, right or center. It is jumble-headedness exemplified. Trump himself personifies stupidity’s essential feature — self-satisfaction, an inability to recognize the flaws in your thinking. And of course when the approach led to absolutely predictable mayhem, Trump, lacking any coherent plan, backtracked, flip-flopped, responding impulsively to the pressures of the moment as his team struggled to keep up.

Producing something this stupid is not the work of a day; it is the achievement of a lifetime — relying on decades of incuriosity, decades of not cracking a book, decades of being impervious to evidence…

But as I say, that comes at the end. As I said in that last post, the larger point isn’t Donald Trump. It’s the rest of us, and our own avoidance of reading, to the point that a majority of us were willing to vote for someone like Trump.

He ends with the words, “Civilization was fun while it lasted.”

Yeah. As I said…

So Brooks is one of those smart people I was talking about, and he’s offered a solution: Go out and read a book. And then read a few hundred more. I would add that they should be history books, but hey, almost anything would be an improvement….

God save the king. Meanwhile, I’m happy for the princess

Leave a reply

I was very pleased to see that the crown prince’s lovely wife is doing so well:

Britain’s Princess of Wales says her cancer is in remission

Those of you who were used to getting hard news at this URL in years past may moan, That’s what you want to talk about? Princesses and knights in shining armor? Will it be unicorns next?

Well, no, I’m commenting on this because I know what I’d like to say about it, which is that I’m very pleased that the lady is doing well.

I mean, if you want hard news… I think I’m probably pleased that with U.S. help in these last days of our republic, Israel and Hamas are apparently nearing a deal. But I don’t know all the details, and if anybody on the planet can trash a deal at the last second, it’s these parties.

Then, of course, there’s all that fire out in California. Well, I’m against it, and I’d like to see them put a stop to it, with minimum casualties. But I really hope the folks out there know how, because I don’t.

So I’m left with this.

You may say the princess’ condition doesn’t concern me. I beg to differ. As one of the lady’s countrymen wrote:

No man is an island,

Entire of itself;

Every man is a piece of the continent,

A part of the main.

If a clod be washed away by the sea,

Europe is the less,

As well as if a promontory were:

As well as if a manor of thy friend’s

Or of thine own were.

Any man’s death diminishes me,

Because I am involved in mankind.

And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;

It tolls for thee.

And the way I see it, that goes for every woman as well. It’s a better world if any young woman survives to see her children grow up. And not just when one of those children will someday be king. It goes for a simple shopgirl as well. It’s just that I don’t know about the shopgirl, and I do know about Kate, and I am pleased

Frances Trollope

I gave my wife a book for Christmas. I had been looking up something about Anthony Trollope on Wikipedia, and I saw that his mother had written a book that was well received, called Domestic Manners of the Americans, published in 1832. I ordered it from Amazon that very day, and my wife has been enjoying it and sharing what she has read with me. I’ve learned that one thing Mrs. Trollope didn’t particularly like about Americans was they way they were so stuck up about being free and independent and not having nothing to do with no kings or princesses or none of that eurotrash nonsense, and they didn’t mind telling her so, frequently.

Well, they may have been rough (Mrs. Trollope mentions what some of them smelled like as they approached), but back in those days they had room to talk. They had a great new country going, and it would produce great things for the world for almost two more centuries. And I’m proud of all that, too.

But now that a majority of Americans have gone out of their way to put the running of our country into the worst hands they can find, I’m not feeling nearly as bullish about our democratic republic as I have been, all of my life up to now. Maybe elections aren’t quite the universal blessing we once thought they were.

So if I run into any descendant of Frances Trollope who is touring our country and forming impressions of us, I won’t be nearly as smug or standoffish as some of my countrymen were long ago. I might wish her joy upon the recovery of the princess. And I might espress a sincere wish that God will save the king as well…

A sober reflection on ‘Flowers for Algernon’

Leave a reply

Happy New Year, folks.

I often hear people talk about teachers who opened their minds and transformed their lives during their schooldays. This is usually in the context of extolling education in general by offering a heroic figure for everyone to admire.

Well, I had a lot of great teachers, and still do, although school is far behind me. But I’ve never been able to point to one that had that sort of “I was blind but now I see” impact on me. I do have some more modest stories about teachers who turned me on to something.

Like Mr. Kramberg, down in New Orleans when I was in the 7th grade.

I’m sorry I don’t have his full name — and maybe I’m even misspelling his surname, after all this time. I’ve tried researching him on the Web, without success. And that worries me. You see, toward the end of that year, we were told that Mr. Kramberg wouldn’t be returning to Karr Junior High School after that 1965-66 school year, because he was going into the Army, and as I remember it, he was going to Vietnam (as my Dad did the following year). I assume (possibly wrongly) that since he was a teacher he would receive a commission, and while I may not have known then about the survival chances of second lieutenants in the infantry, I know more now.

Anyway, I remember him fondly, and not just because of the novelty of him being my first teacher who was a Mister and not a “Miz.” He had that quality that you find in “Conrack” (I never read The Water is Wide, but only saw the movie) and other books and films about teachers who made an above-the-call-of-duty effort to connect with students. And here’s the example of that I remember best…

For part of that term, he spent a few minutes each day reading a short story to us. I was a fairly voracious reader as a kid, but this story was different from any written work I had ever encountered. I had a habit in those days of letting my attention wander far from what was going on in English classes. I couldn’t help it. Classes in which the teacher went over and over rules of language that were second nature to me as an avid reader practically put me in a coma. But I was riveted by every word that he read aloud from “Flowers for Algernon” by Daniel Keyes.

Yes, I said “short story.” That’s all it was, initially, when it was written in 1958. I later found out about the novel version published in 1966 and read and enjoyed that, once I realized it was the story Mr. Kramberg had read us.

Aside from the story being compelling, the unique (to me at that point in my education) way in which Keyes told it was what grabbed me. It’s told in first person by a retarded man named Charlie Gordon who wants more than anything to be “smart.” He studies hard, and his motivation causes him to be singled out for experimental surgery to greatly increase his intelligence (yes, the story was published in The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction in 1959, and won both the Hugo and Nebula awards).

Aside from that premise, the story was decidedly down-to-earth, particularly because of Charlie’s very humble writing style. The doctors involved in the experiment have asked him to keep a journal, and he does his best, even though his grasp of spelling and composition are at best marginal. The story — in both short and novel form — is told entirely through that journal.

It’s a very compelling way to tell Charlie’s story, and that’s what grabbed me from the beginning Mr. Kramberg’s class. He did a great job of conveying Charlie’s challenges as a writer, and it really pulled us along. Or at least it did me. Since then, I have read and enjoyed the novel quite a few times.

If you haven’t read it, I highly recommend it.

After this, though, if you have not read it, I must give you a SPOILER ALERT. You probably shouldn’t read beyond this sentence…. Even though I suspect you would still enjoy it even if you knew how it ends. The appeal of the work is more in how the story is told than in the outcome itself.

But if you hate spoilers, read no further.

Those who have read it know the sad fact that this is, as Keyes described it, “a classic tragedy.” After the initial chapters, Charlie undergoes his “operashun,” which he assures us “dint hert.” It is a dramatic success, and the following journal entries showcase a process — gradual at first, then rapidly accelerating if I recall correctly — of a simple man becoming a genius, and discovering things about the world and himself that he had never suspected.

Those chapters are exhilarating. Unfortunately, the effect is not permanent. And once he becomes far smarter than everyone around him and has thoroughly studied and absorbed the data that underly the procedure he has undergone, Charlie is the first person to realize that he will soon return to being the way he was. The doctors who are so proud to have transformed him reject the suggestion that their project will fail, but Charlie knows. And then the journal entries start sliding down from brilliance to the stumbling level where they started.

Which is painful to endure, but it’s still a great story. In fact, if I can’t find that old paperback around the house, I might go buy myself another copy.

But if I read it again, I’m a bit worried that I might identify with those latter chapters a bit more than would be pleasant.

Everyone declines if one lives long enough. Sometimes in ways that don’t matter very much. For instance, I was a bit alarmed 20 years ago when I suddenly realized I no longer had perfect recall of every lyric the Beatles ever wrote or recorded.

Somehow, though, life went on, and in fact I still remember most of them. So what, me worry?

I got somewhat more alarmed this week. Remember how I theorized awhile back that studying Dutch had sharpened my language skills, even in English? As I wrote in early November:

Also… back when I was doing 10 and more [Duolingo] lessons a day, before the Europe trip, an interesting thing happened. I suddenly was really, really good at the NYT word games I play — Wordle, Spelling Bee and Connections. I mean crazy good. There was one week when I got Wordle in two tries three days in a row, and also hit the “genius” level — which means I “won” — three days in a row [on Spelling Bee].

It was a bit like experiencing in real life what Charlie went through in the period after his “operashun.” I was still digging that, even though I had stopped doing the 10 Duolingo lessons a day, and was only completing one or two, to avoid breaking my streak (which now stands at 297 days).

Well… today I decided to step up the pace to three or four lessons, and may do more before the day is out.

That’s because suddenly, I’ve hit a wall on Wordle. I did not complete the puzzle on Tuesday. But that’s OK, right? It was just because I forgot to go back and complete it. That happens occasionally — it happened one day when we were in Europe over the summer. And on Wednesday, I got through it just fine.

But then on Thursday, I failed entirely. Six tries, and no cigar. It had been awhile since that had happened.

Then today, it happened again.

Two failures in a row? I don’t think that has ever happened to me before. Sure, these were both of the kind of puzzle I hate — the kind in which it’s not at all hard to come up with a five-letter word using the letters that are still available. The problem is that it’s too easy — there are far too many possibilities, so it’s more about guesswork. Luck comes into play.

But enough excuses. I’m looking toward Saturday with some degree of dread. And I’m thinking I not only need to do more Duolingo lessons each day, but maybe it would be more mentally stimulating to start tackling a whole new language. Italian might be fun. And Russian would be challenging…

Anyway, I just thought I’d give y’all a warning in case, as I start posting on the blog more with the holidays behind us, my posts start to read like the later chapters in Flowers for Algernon.

I don’t think that will happen, but you never know. Meanwhile, I thought it would be nice, for any of you who have not read it, to turn you on to that book, so many years after Mr. Kramberg did me that same favor.

And more importantly, if anyone who reads this knows Mr. Kramberg and where he can be found, I’d like to send him a nice “thank-you” note…

December 6: Any Martin Cruz Smith fans out there?

3 Replies

Pearl Harbor on Dec. 6, 1941. Found this on the East Tennessee Veterans Honor Guard FB page.

Call this a sneak attack, coming on the eve of the date that will live in infamy.

I just had to write down today’s date for some reason, and it got me to thinking about Martin Cruz Smith. Well, specifically, one of his less-known novels, December 6. You ever read it? Here’s a synopsis from Wikipedia:

In late 1941, Harry Niles owns a bar for American and European expatriates, journalists, and diplomats, in Tokyo’s entertainment district, called the “Happy Paris”. With only 24 hours until Japanese fighters and bombers attack Pearl Harbor, Niles has to consult with the local US ambassador, break up with a desperate lover, evade the police, escape the vengeance of an aggrieved samurai officer and leave the island, the exit points from which are all closed. Having grown up in Tokyo, Niles is fluent in the Japanese language and culture, and is highly streetwise.^[2]^[3]

In other words, he’s streetwise for a gaijin, which is a word that comes up frequently in the book as Japanese folk interact with him. But it’s been awhile since I read it. I’ve never reread it as often as I have Rose and some of his Arkady Renko stories, especially Red Square. Although the one that pulled me and so many others toward his work was his amazingly brilliant first Renko story, Gorky Park.

So — are any of y’all fans? I’d like to have a discussion about his stuff sometime. The dude can tell a story. His characters are a bit repetitive — it’s like the same people crop up in both 1870s Lancashire and 1980s Russia — but he makes it work. It’s actually kind of fun to see a familiar character, just with a different name, show up in an entirely different situation…

Another way to look at our loss of the Garden of Eden

2 Replies

Hey, Michelangelo: I thought they were wearing fig suits when they left the garden…

The Gospel reading at Mass yesterday got me to thinking about ancient agriculture:

“A sower went out to sow.
And as he sowed, some seed fell on the path,
and birds came and ate it up.
Some fell on rocky ground, where it had little soil.
It sprang up at once because the soil was not deep,
and when the sun rose it was scorched,
and it withered for lack of roots.
Some seed fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up and choked it.
But some seed fell on rich soil, and produced fruit,
a hundred or sixty or thirtyfold.

Back in those days, it seems, farming was kind of haphazard. Seed was scattered in ways that today would seem quite haphazard. Whenever I read that passage, I think, why didn’t they put the seed IN the ground? Had the dibble not been invented, or what?

Which reminded me of my theory of Adam and Eve and their expulsion from the Garden of Eden.

It suddenly hit me as I was reading one of those books about the history of our species, from hunter-gatherer days until now — which as y’all know I frequently mention. I don’t remember whether it was Sapiens, or Guns, Germs and Steel, or what. But it was one in which the idea that the big move to agriculture was a decidedly mixed blessing.

Oh, it afforded advantages to the cultures that embraced it, in a competitive sense. As Jared Diamond stressed, the peoples who moved the earliest, and the most successfully, to food and fiber production dominate the world today. That’s how Pizarro conquered the Incan Empire with a handful of Spanish soldiers. He not only had the guns and the steel, but smallpox had spread ahead of the Conquistadores and had hit the Incas pretty hard just before he arrived. More than that, he had writing — not him personally, but the scribes he had along. He knew how Cortez had taken down the Aztecs, and followed suit. Emperor Atahualpa hadn’t known either the Spanish or the Aztecs existed.

It’s why Maori conquered and wiped out the Moriori — former Maoris whose forebears had moved away and gone back to hunter-gathering — on Chatham Island. You may not have heard about that, though, since the Maoris themselves were eventually dominated by European newcomers.

But that’s not my point. The point is that some of these things I’ve been reading make the argument that the big advantage that farming offered had a steep price. Basically, the farming life sucked compared to hunting and gathering. Before agriculture, people worked less each day, and on the whole ate better. They went about and gathered what they needed, and had plenty of time to chill after that. They didn’t think about the future. They didn’t worry about their land, or the weather over the coming months, or the price of cotton. They weren’t the slaves of the farms they worked day and night to keep going.

I was thinking about that, and suddenly it hit me — that’s what the first chapters of Genesis were about. In the Garden, Adam and Eve could just stroll around naked and eat their meals off the bounty of their property, and life was good. Then they fouled up — they couldn’t obey one simple rule — and got booted out. And then they were cursed with farming, in no uncertain terms:

Cursed is the ground because of you!
In toil you shall eat its yield
all the days of your life.

Thorns and thistles it shall bear for you,
and you shall eat the grass of the field.

By the sweat of your brow
you shall eat bread,
Until you return to the ground,
from which you were taken;
For you are dust,
and to dust you shall return.

Which certainly sounds like a raw deal to me.

And it hit me: The people who composed the story of Adam and Eve — and later wrote it down — were on some level remembering the switch to agriculture, and saw it pretty much as Yuval Noah Harari did, thousands of years before he wrote that “the Agricultural Revolution was history’s biggest fraud.” And they saw it as the ultimate human fall from natural grace.

So did I make some great discovery? No way. This was too obvious, and had been too obvious for ages. Search for “garden of eden hunter-gathering,” and you’ll see this idea all over the place. I liked this summary:

Apparently, the trauma of this transition from hunter-gatherers to farmers had a huge and lasting impact on humanity. We’ve never forgotten it. It’s burned into our consciousness. And, that’s why it’s the subject of the Bible’s foundational story. The Torah tells us that when humans were first created, we lived in the Garden of Eden, where we ate the fruit that God provided for us. We didn’t have to work hard or grow anything on our own. In other words, we were hunter-gatherers….

I don’t know where I was when everybody else was talking about it. All I can say in my own behalf is that I realized it on my own. All the talking that people do about Adam and Eve — usually, unfortunately, in the silly arguments between biblical literalists and those who think a story about the Earth being created in six days means all faith is bunk (both sides seem to have trouble grasping the concept of allegory) — and I’d never heard a reference to this.

And it sort of blew my mind. I love it when I see connections to things I had not previously seen as connected — such as the Bible’s foundational story of life on Earth, and the findings of secular scientists and philosophers in our own age — and this was the Mother of All Connections. It tied everything about the origins of humanity and our world together.

And the most amazing thing is that it appears as though the originators of the Eden story had some memory — consciously or unconsciously — about what had happened to people ages earlier, long before writing, before Abraham, much less before anthropology, archaeology, DNA testing or carbon-14 dating.

I marvel at it…

When did people get here, and how?

6 Replies

You know, it’s hard to find accurate pictures of those earliest boats. So I went with this one…

I’m making a point of reading new books these days — by which I mean books I haven’t read before. For instance, right now I’m reading Theodore Rex, the second volume in Edmund Morris’ trilogy on TR, released in 2001. I’m getting to it about a decade after reading the first book, The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt. But I guess that’s OK, since it took Morris way longer to get to writing it; the first book came out in 1979. I’m very much enjoying it, but at a leisurely pace.

That doesn’t mean I no longer indulge in my favorite way to waste time — reading the same books, over and over. And lately I’ve been drawn back to books about homo sapiens and how the species and our world developed. Right now, Guns, Germs and Steel is sitting on the kitchen table, and I thumb through it while eating (something I wasn’t allowed to do as a kid, but I’ve made up for that lost time).

And that got me onto this subject. I was reading a passage about the settlement of this continent, and Jared Diamond made a brief reference to archaeological discoveries that place humans here way before the Clovis culture came along. You see, the conventional thinking as he was writing was that people got here in about 11,000 B.C. Meanwhile, we have sites, including right here in South Carolina, that show indications of human presence as early as tens of thousands of years before that.

Diamond, writing in 1997 — well before some of the more startling claims about Topper — was sort of dismissive of these kinds of sites:

I wondered whether Diamond would be any more impressed by these more-recent claims. But I don’t know Diamond, and I don’t have his mobile number. So I reached out to the only archaeologist I know around here, our own Lynn Teague. I went over to her Twitter feed, and changed the subject by asking about what was on my mind. Looking back, I suppose I could have shown a little more interest in what she was writing about, but you know, the number count is limited on tweets. Lynn answered right away:

Some of the pre-Clovis sites are real although population would have been very low. Others inspire less confidence. When artifacts or butchered bone are found there are often complicated issues of stratigraphic integrity to resolve in deposits possibly more than 11,000 years old.

— Lynn S. Teague (@LynnSTeague) July 6, 2023

Yeah, just what I was thinkin’, Lynn. But I went on to ask…

Boats are a definite possibility for early migration. Over thousands of years there could be any number of failures and only a few successes. It is also uncertain that early groups were ancestral to later populations. Small groups may have arrived but died out.

— Lynn S. Teague (@LynnSTeague) July 6, 2023

Lynn’s answer satisfied me as much as one can be satisfied with regard to this question. Of course, that’s a minimal level of satisfaction. If I ever get a time machine, one thing I’d like to use it for would be to take a bunch of Dick and Jane books to the first modern humans just as they prepared started to break out of Africa and into Eurasia — long before they got here, by anyone’s reckoning — so that they could take up reading and writing and leave us some records.

I figure that by now, their books would be available in paperback, and maybe even free on Kindle…

Hey, Hollywood! Have I got a pitch for you, baby…

Leave a reply

Michael Jayston as Peter Guillam in 1979.

OK, admittedly it’s not boffo in, say, Marvel Universe terms, or last year’s “Top Gun” sequel. We’re talking more of a niche thing here. In fact, few of my readers here will take interest, unless they are avid Le Carré fans. (Which they should be.)

There’d be nothing blowing up, or people flying about under their own power in colorful tights, or other improbable things. In fact, maybe this idea might not be right for you, Hollywood, in your current state. Can we book Shepperton?

But it would be good. I’m excited about it. Just as I was excited last year, when I read one of Mr. Le Carré’s last efforts, A Legacy of Spies. It was such a gift to those of us to whom Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy opened such a wonderful world half a century ago.

It’s at this point I will lose you, dear reader, if you’re not into Le Carré….

Basically, Legacy plunged back through the decades to resurrect favorite characters from Tinker, and from the earlier masterpiece, The Spy Who Came In From the Cold. It was better than a high school reunion, way better. (At least, I assume that. I didn’t go to my 50th reunion; I’m not even sure that there was one. I had only been in touch with one of my 600 classmates — our good friend Burl — and he died two years before such a gathering would have taken place.)

Better in the sense that it wasn’t just wandering about glancing at name tags and trying to figure out who these old fogeys were back in your heyday. This book took one of our very best friends from those days and plunged him back into the events of that intense time, in a way that was immediately relevant to all concerned.

To set the scene — Peter Guillam, George Smiley’s long-ago protégé, is in retirement on a farm in France. Out of nowhere, present officials of the Circus (or former Circus) descend on him from their garish new building on the Thames, requiring that he come to London and dive into the records and explain to them what happened to Alec Leamas — and to what extent Control, and Smiley, and Peter himself are responsible for those shocking Cold War goings-on.

You know how tediously judgmental these young folks can be about such things — come back, old man, and justify yourself.

I’m not going to tell you any more, except to say that as Peter endures their interrogations and immerses himself in the official, and unofficial, records, much of the novel takes place in his flashbacks, and the past comes very much to life.

I really enjoyed reading it last year.

So imagine how pleased I was to see Peter Guillam himself appear before me just last night, much older but still the same former head of Scalphunters.

OK, not the fictional character himself, but the next best thing: It was Michael Jayston, who portrayed him so perfectly in the 1979 Tinker Tailer TV series (possibly the best TV show in history), alongside Alex Guinness as Smiley. He was Guillam. Sorry, Michael Byrne and Benedict Cumberbatch, but he was, and you were not — especially not you, Benedict.

Here’s how it happened — I had just come in last night from a late-evening walk, finishing up my 10,000 steps for the day. My wife was watching the very last episode of “Murder in Suburbia” (an underrated ITV cops programme that only lasted two “seasons,” as the Americans call them) on Britbox, and she called my attention to the screen and said, “Look who it is!” She was talking about Olivia Coleman. But a couple of seconds later, someone else showed up.

It was Michael Jayston. It was Peter! Much older and greyer, of course, but unmistakably the same guy. He even had the same hair cut, and the same expression he wore when listening to Ricki Tarr tell his tale about the mole.

Of course, this had first been aired in… July 2005, shortly after I started this blog. And while he looked perfect for the part on the screen, he’s now, um… 87. Oh. Dang….

But so what? 2005 was just minutes ago, and this is Peter Bloody Guillam! Certainly he’s stayed in shape! But let’s get moving. I’m envisioning a high-quality TV-series rendition of A Legacy of Spies here, and I can’t wait to see it! And no one else (especially not you, Mr. Cumberbatch) could play the main protagonist.

I stand ready to help in this noble endeavor. Writing, casting, whatever you need done.

In fact, it occurs to me that Alex Guinness is no longer available, and here I am. Of course, I’m somewhat young for the role, unless you want me for the flashback scenes.

But I’ll do anything you need. Be the third assistant gofer to the gaffer, whatever. Let’s just get started…

And suddenly, there he was — Peter Guillam, much older! (The guy in the middle. Duh…(

We have indeed met the enemy, but he is not yet ours

Leave a reply

Ross Douthat made a good point today, although it’s a depressing one.

In the column, “I’m What’s Wrong With the Humanities,” he brought up the subject addressed in a sobering recent piece in The New Yorker, “The End of the English Major.”

We all have shaken our heads over those stupid kids today who can’t seem to make their way through so much as a sentence of 19th-century prose:

Like all the others who managed to make their way through Nathaniel Hawthorne in high school, I read this with a mix of smugness and horror. Then, naturally, I‌‌ scrolled to the next declinist indicator, the next sign of the cultural apocalypse.

What I did not do was click through and read the whole Heller piece (though I have read it now, I swear it!). Even more conspicuously, I definitely did not go pick up a copy of “The Scarlet Letter” or any other 19th-century novel and begin reading it for pleasure.

“The answer to the question, ‘What is wrong?’ is, or should be, ‘I am wrong,’” G.K. Chesterton once wrote. And any response to the question of what’s happened to the humanities has to include the same answer. The Harvard undergraduates who can’t parse a complex sentence from the American Renaissance are part of the problem. But so is the Harvard-educated newspaper columnist and self-styled cultural conservative who regularly unburdens himself of deep thoughts on pop TV but hasn’t read a complete 19th‌ -century novel for his own private enjoyment in — well, let’s just say it’s been a while…

Oh, Douthat lets us know he’s started to read, say, Les Misérables, but only gotten a hundred or so pages into it. He has similarly failed with shorter works.

He cites some of the things that he lets get in the way: website browsing; looking at his iPhone, “even at a live performance;” and long-form television, an obsession he attempts to justify by talking up Golden Age TV’s supposed literary virtues.

I have to confess to all of those, plus:

The little work I do these days to pay the bills.
Naps, which fortunately I’m able to blame on my stroke.
My fitful blogging.
And other stuff…

So it is that, while I have boasted a number of times here about how awesome “Moby Dick” truly is, and how I’m reading it with great enjoyment and a commitment to finishing it, I have failed to get anywhere near the point at which they finally find the white whale.

I’ve been saying that since — well, since I was still working as a newspaper editor. That’s quite a while, in blog terms.

Douthat goes on from moaning about the problem to prescription, but I’m not sure how workable his medications are. For instance, he refers to a piece in the WSJ headlined, “College Should Be More Like Prison.” To be fair, the idea is more reasonable than it sounds — the author of that piece (which, alas, I cannot read, since I let that subscription lapse) was referring to things she has learned from teaching maximum-security inmates. But I find it hard to imagine it being a practical cure for the rest of us.

I’ve gone on and on about, for instance, what diving down the Rabbit Hole has done to our ability to think, and to have a functioning representative democracy. But that’s as far as I’ve gotten, and I’m still at the whiteboard working on the diagnosis. I await the inspiration that leads to a remedy…

These days people love to quote Pogo’s twist on a famous saying: “We have met the enemy and he is us.” Which works in this instance.

But I’m thinking of the saying that Walt Kelly was playing on, from Commodore Perry: “We have met the enemy and they are ours.”

Perry had captured two ships, two brigs, a schooner and a sloop from the British at the Battle of Lake Erie.

I, for one, cannot yet claim that the current enemy is ours. In darker moments, I fear that we have struck our colors, and we are his…

Perry at Lake Erie

I’m impatiently waiting for this other stone to roll away…

5 Replies

This morning, America — the Jesuit magazine to which I subscribe online — had a headline that definitely grabbed my attention:

What the Catholic Church can learn from the resurrection of Barnes & Noble

And I was all like, say WHAT?

I haven’t seen any such resurrection — I mean the bookstore one. I just Googled to see if it came back when I wasn’t looking. I see no such signs or wonders.

As y’all know, my favorite store of any kind in the entire universe was the Barnes & Noble on Harbison. And they closed it, and replaced it with some stupendously unappealing thing called a “Nordstrom Rack,” thereby adding further insult to the injury. I went in there once. They didn’t even offer coffee, as I recall.

If my store is coming back, let me know, and I’ll run there almost as fast as the Apostle John ran to the empty tomb. (I say “almost” because he was young and spry, and, well, that was a much bigger deal. Infinitely bigger, if you will. But I still want my store back.)

Just roll away that stone, and watch me. I want my store back…

(I say “almost” because John was young and spry, and, well, that was a much bigger deal. Infinitely bigger, if you will. But I still want my store back.)

Some stats documenting our Raskolnikov Syndrome

52 Replies

Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky

Yeah, I’m on about my Raskolnikov Syndrome theory again. But hey, I haven’t mentioned it since April, so…

The theory is that people lose their minds — and often become shockingly violent — when they cut themselves off from other people. Ten years ago, I summarized it in part this way:

I’ve long had this theory that people who do truly horrendous things that Ordinary Decent People can’t fathom do them because they’ve actually entered another state of being that society, because it is society, can’t relate to…

You know, the way Raskolnikov did. Brilliant guy, but as he cut himself off from family and friends and sat in his grubby garret brooding on self-centered theories, he became capable of horrible things. Well, you know what he did. If you don’t, read the book. Everyone should. I suspect it’s what made Mel Brooks say, “My God, I’d love to smash into the casket of Dostoyevsky, grab that bony hand and scream at the remains, ‘Well done, you god-damn genius.’ ”

Anyway, it’s come up again because of this piece I read the other day in The Washington Post., headlined “Americans are choosing to be alone. Here’s why we should reverse that..” It included some scary numbers, to me:

And now for the scarier news: Our social lives were withering dramatically before covid-19. Between 2014 and 2019, time spent with friends went down (and time spent alone went up) by more than it did during the pandemic.

According to the Census Bureau’s American Time Use Survey, the amount of time the average American spent with friends was stable, at 6½ hours per week, between 2010 and 2013. Then, in 2014, time spent with friends began to decline.

By 2019, the average American was spending only four hours per week with friends (a sharp, 37 percent decline from five years before). Social media, political polarization and new technologies all played a role in the drop. (It is notable that market penetration for smartphones crossed 50 percent in 2014.)

Covid then deepened this trend. During the pandemic, time with friends fell further — in 2021, the average American spent only two hours and 45 minutes a week with close friends (a 58 percent decline relative to 2010-2013)…

On average, Americans did not transfer that lost time to spouses, partners or children. Instead, they chose to be alone….

Take that, and combine it with the Rabbit Hole, and you have a dangerous situation, with a society that is dangerously alienated, and no longer understands what a fact is. And yeah, I’m talking about the 2016 election, and the “stop the steal” cult, but a lot of other stuff as well.

Look around at some of the bad craziness going on, and this helps explain it…

Remembering (or not) the royal funeral

6 Replies

Of course, I refer to the funeral of King Edward VII, on May 20, 1910.

Y’all remember that one? It was a biggie. I cite the first paragraph of The Guns of August:

I don’t mean to disrespect Her Majesty’s funeral yesterday, by any means. Based on all I’ve heard and the few photos I’ve seen (the reverence, the solemnity, the dazzling colors — except for the two disgraced princes in mufti), it was splendid — as it should have been.

I’ve just got this one on my mind because a couple of days back, I started re-reading the Tuchman book. I’m using the term “re-reading” loosely here, because I didn’t finish it the first time. After it shifted to the Eastern front, it seemed to bog down. All I remember about it was the incompetence of the tsar’s government (sort of like Putin’s in Ukraine), which gave me a bit of insight into why the revolution happened.

So I decided to start over, partly because I knew the first chapter was awesome, beginning with that portrait, excerpted above, of the old world that was about to end — that ruled by closely related kings, attending the funeral of their kinsman. He was known as “the uncle of Europe,” which Mrs. Tuchman explained thusly:

Anyway, I had remembered all that — not each and every relationship, or even the precise number of royal highnesses and such in the cortege. But I had remembered the main points — the pomp and splendor, the significance of this last gathering of the fam, and the general reasons why this was all to come to an end.

But I didn’t remember everything. And that’s my point. When I was young, I remembered any book I had read — no matter how much earlier — in absurd detail. Not photographic memory exactly, but I remember details clearly, and could quickly find them. Long before Google, I could in a brief moment find a quote I wanted in a book read 20 years earlier, by leafing through it thinking, OK, it was in the upper part of a left-hand page, and it was before this… but after that… a couple more pages… there! And when I got there, it was as I had remembered.

To some extent, that’s still there. And I remembered there were certain alarming ideas current in Germany at the time, and how I was impressed when I first read about them, thinking, As much as we make of Nazi ideology, this stuff didn’t just come from the twisted mind of Hitler a generation later….

But I had forgotten her portrait of the most prominent of those foreign cousins riding in the cortege — Kaiser Wilhelm II. “William” was glad his uncle Edward was dead. It meant, he thought, he — and Germany — would get more recognition, more respect. Note the way the author describes the kaiser’s reaction to Edward’s triumphant visit to Paris a few years earlier:

(Sorry about all the long screenshots, by the way. I would copy and paste much shorter quotes, but Google Books won’t let me, so I do this. I know it’s rather unsatisfactory. I don’t do it just because I’m lazy; retyping introduces a greatly increased possibility of errors.)

I’d forgotten what a cranky, needy child the Kaiser was. Of course, he comes across a lot like Trump — all that whiny me, me, me. Maybe it strikes me more strongly now because I first read that chapter pre-2016, when Trump was still this ridiculous figure from the 1980s whom we are all free to ignore.

Now, I think, Well, as messed up as our democracy not is, and as much as I like and will miss the queen, here’s another reason to appreciate that we don’t have a monarch. Think about it. As much as Trump tried to become king — on Jan. 6, and so often before and since — he failed. But imagine how much more awful things would be were he a sovereign, and his identification with the country were such that he was the country and the country was him? (Yes, I know this isn’t the Middle Ages and things were different by 1914, but there’s still the psychology of identification that lies at the heart of the idea of monarchy.)

Of course, if we had a monarchy, Trump would never have been the king. But let’s not get lost in speculative details.

Anyway, that’s not my point. My point is to bring up one of the few fun parts of getting older: It’s forgetting things, and enjoying the delight of rediscovering them.

It’s not that I’ve become a goldfish. I remember most things, and since I’m an intuitive type, I pretty much always remember, and can accurately describe in general terms, the forest. Which is what matters to someone who thinks the way I do. But I let go of a lot of the trees.

I first saw this coming on maybe 15 or 20 years ago (or, from my perspective, a few days ago) when I suddenly realized that I longer remembered all of the lyrics of every single Beatles song. I had always taken that knowledge for granted, and now there were many holes in it. Big deal, I was able to say to myself — those weren’t details I needed in my life. Still, it was a loss.

Then, about the time I entered my 60s, the delightful thing came along: I didn’t retain any new TV shows I saw. Oh, I remembered what Jethro did in “The Beverly Hillbillies” back in the mid-60s. But I could watch an episode of some British murder mystery and enjoy it in 2012 or later, and then come back in a year or so with NO idea whodunit, and enjoy it all over again. Because my personal hard drive was no longer adding this stuff to the database.

Which is awesome. Lately, my wife and I have been rewatching “Endeavour” from the beginning, and having a great time. Oh, something about a scene will be familiar; I might even say “I know this scene; this is the moment I realized the writers were basing this episode on ‘The Great Gatsby’.” But I still won’t know what’s going to happen. And there are episodes I don’t remember at all.

Which is great. It’s so much easier to be entertained whenever I want to be. I don’t have to look so hard for “new” content.

For some time, I’ve been thinking, What if this could happen with books, too? I mean, what if I could completely forget O’Brian’s Aubrey/Maturin series, and start over and experience it for the “first time” again? That would be bliss.

I’m not there yet, by any means. But this bit of forgetfulness with the Tuchman book is a promising beginning…

Maybe it would help to have a POINT to the story

16 Replies

The Washington Post ran a review of the new Tolkien prequel — financed by the newspaper’s owner, Jeff Bezos, or at least by his company — today.

It was headlined, “‘The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power’ is beautiful, banal boredom.”

Which, frankly, was about what I expected. I think if Tolkien thought what had happened (in his imagination, not Tommy Westphall’s) in Middle Earth 3,000 years earlier was as compelling as The Hobbit or Lord of the Rings, he’d have written the stories out, rather than summing them up in an appendix.

Coincidentally, the Jesuit magazine America ran something related today, headlined “C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien and the Inklings: Telling Stories to Save Lives.”

It concentrates on those Oxford writers as besieged Christians taking comfort from their friendship — and their work — in a time and place of growing indifference and even hostility to faith, and it’s worth reading. You can probably do so without subscribing as I have — as I recall, America still uses the model in which you can read two or three pieces before the pay wall goes up.

Frankly, when I read Lord of the Rings, I saw it as a warning against the isolationism that was so dominant in Britain and this country before the Second World War. (The writing of the work started in 1937 and continued until several years after the war.) I tended to see Sauron as Hitler, Saruman and Wormtongue as the quislings who were undermining Europe — I mean, Middle Earth — ahead of the orc blitzkrieg, and Gandalf as the sort of Churchill/Roosevelt figure who ran about trying to wake everyone up before it was too late.

But yes, Tolkien’s mind was working on deeper levels as well, as the piece in America notes:

Everyone loves an underdog, of course, but these tales feel more meaningful than a standard superhero film because their authors had their eyes on a deeper set of truths. Sin and corruption are real, but salvation is still available. They knew, as Tolkien explained to Lewis in the early years of their friendship, that the Christian story is the truest story, of which all others are echoes. When all appears to be lost, we always have recourse to the deep magic from the dawn of time.

Recently, I drew your attention (or tried to, anyway) to a homily by Bishop Barron in which he used the experiences of Bilbo Baggins as an example of what God expects of us — that we’re supposed to get out and encounter the world and have a great adventure, not sit comfortably in our hobbit holes smoking choice Shire pipeweed, and enjoying the copious food and drink of our larders.

Anyway, however you interpret it, it helps for your story to have a point, and consist of more than breathtaking CGI scenery and battle sequences. Those can leave you feeling rather empty…

I suggest we follow the Wally Schirra approach

Leave a reply

If we must exercise, let’s do it Wally’s way.

First, a complaint that’s unrelated to the subject: For some time, I’ve been meaning to write something about the sudden death of the newspaper headline. I’m still going to write it, but I’ll just touch on it here.

Back when there were real newspapers everywhere, journalists had an important ethic — to tell their readers everything they needed (or might want) to know about the subject at hand as quickly as possible. Do it in the headline if possible. Then, if you couldn’t do it in the hed, you did it in the lede. People should be able to read nothing but the hed and the lede and move on, and know the most important facts about what the story was about. If the story was a tad too complicated for that, certainly you finished telling the basics in the next couple of grafs — then, assuming you were writing in the classic inverted-pyramid form, the importance of the information you related diminished with each paragraph.

You did this for two reasons. First, those rabid lunatics on the copy desk (no offense to copy editors; I’m just describing them the way a reporter would) were likely to end your story randomly wherever they felt like ending it, in order to cram it into inadequate space, so you needed to get the best stuff up top. Second, you saw it as your sacred duty to inform the busy reader as well as you could. A reader who didn’t have the time to sit down and read the stories should be able to glance over the headlines on the front page and at least have a rough, overall idea of the important news of the day. A reader with a little more time should be able to get a somewhat deeper understanding just by reading the front, without having to follow the stories to the jump pages. And so forth.

But no more. Now, the point is to get readers to click on the story. So you get “headlines” that say things like, and I am not making this up, “What you need to know about X.” When there was room in the headline to just tell you what you needed to know. Or they make it clear that the story is about a particular person, but don’t name the person. The idea being that if you aren’t willing to click, then you can just take a flying leap. (There’s another, even more absurd, reason why the person is often not named, but I’ll get into that another time.)

Different ethic — if you want to call it that.

But you see what I just did? I wrote 414 words without getting to the point of this post. See what writing for an online audience, without the discipline enforced by the limited space of a dead-tree newspaper, can do to you?

I went on that tangent, though, because I was irritated by a story headlined, “What Types of Exercise Reduce Dementia Risk?” That grabbed me on account of knowing someone — a good friend, you see — who will soon be 69. And he might care to know. But did the story tell me? No. At least, not in the first 666 words. After that, it finally gave me a subhed that said, “Start by doing what you like best.”

Which meant we were getting somewhere, but not exactly. Still, I forgive this writer and her editors, because she had an excuse: She doesn’t know the answer. Nobody knows the answer. At least not an answer that would satisfy me — or rather, my friend.

So, in a way, my long digression about bad headlines was even less relevant than it seemed. Oh, well. At least I got some of that out of my system. But I’ll return to the subject in another post, with examples.

Back to the exercise thing — while there are no answers, there are… indications, such as those from three recently-published “major long-term studies” that “confirm that regular physical activity, in many forms, plays a substantial role in decreasing the risk of developing dementia,” and further tell us that “Vigorous exercise seems to be best, but even non-traditional exercise, such as doing household chores, can offer a significant benefit.”

That’s good. But I went into this hoping — that is, my friend went into it hoping — that the stories would endorse the Wally Schirra approach.

Did you read The Right Stuff? Well, you should have, and if you haven’t, go read it right now, and return to this point in the post when you’re done…

Did you enjoy it? It’s awesome, isn’t it? Well, I always liked the part where Wolfe is telling about how the people in charge of the Mercury program encouraged our nation’s first seven astronauts to engage in frequent exercise. And John Glenn, demonstrating what a Harry Hairshirt he was, would go out and run laps around the parking lot of the BOQ. But most of the guys agreed with Wally Schirra “who felt that any form of exercise that wasn’t fun, such as waterskiing or handball, was bad for your nervous system:”

Nothing against John Glenn. He’s a hero of mine, as for most Americans alive in that time. I was really disappointed that he didn’t do better in his bid for the presidency in 1984. I was definitely ready to vote for him.

But I like Wally’s approach to exercise. And while the data may not all be in on precisely the best exercise for keeping one’s nervous system functioning properly, it seems a good idea to “Start by doing what you like best.”

At least that way, maybe you’ll keep doing it…

The Hero’s Journey

2 Replies

Sometimes in this distracted age, our myths let us down.

I got to thinking about that this morning:

But… didn’t that end badly for Obi-Wan? Do you have any other analogies handy? https://t.co/NtyGZ7PJck

— Brad Warthen (@BradWarthen) August 9, 2022

OK, I remember that Obi-Wan let Darth win. It was a deliberate sacrifice, which I’m sure means a great deal in the theology of the Force, or would if there were such a theology. For us caught up in the film, I suppose the point was that it was so important to let the guys rescue Princess Leia, and even more importantly, destroy the Death Star (remember what it did to Alderaan), that he was willing to give his life to make it happen. (I’m not entirely sure why he couldn’t do all that and beat Darth, too, but I suppose Darth needed to live so there could be another movie, and so Anakin could be redeemed in the end.)

But anyway, he lost. And in this case, I’d rather see Rep. Cheney win and You-Know-Who lose. But I guess we can’t have everything.

My point, if I have one, is that this reminded me of something I’ve thought about a good bit lately. Actually, I’ve been thinking about it for several years, but I’m not asking you to be impressed — I suppose others have thought about it for millennia. It was when I was reading Rubicon by Tom Holland.

And as always, when I read about those days, I’m struck by how much the Trojan War comes up. Over and over and over again. It’s like the Greeks just had this one story they kept going back to, and of course, the Romans — as industrious as they were in so many other ways — couldn’t be bothered even to come up with one story of their own, so they stole the Greeks’. Which was their way.

If they came up with another story — like the one about Odysseus/Ulysses — they couldn’t even separate that new one from the big one. Sure, that’s about him and his boys being lost for years on the way home — but they were on the way home from… the Trojan War.

It even comes into the Romulus and Remus story, although I’m always forgetting how exactly.

Seems like they could have come up with some other stories. But they didn’t. They liked that one, and they stuck with it. Sort of makes me feel bad that I’ve never read the originals — not the Iliad, or for that matter the Aeniad. But you see, I have no Greek beyond Kyrie Eleison, and my Latin — despite the best efforts of the legendary Mrs. Sarah T. Kinney of Bennettsville High School — remains inadequate to tackling literature. I mean, I know that Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres, but I don’t know what comes next.

And yes, I know millions of people over the ages — or a lot of them, anyway — have contented themselves with translations, but it just seems that after all this time, I could have made myself learn Greek. But I didn’t, so I leave it alone. I know the basic story, though — that horndog Paris caused a heap of trouble, and it went on for a bunch of years, and ended with a fake horse. I content myself with that. At least I don’t have to study Communism or Nazism or anything to get what the war was about. Pretty basic, really, even though it’s a bit hard for a modern mind to fully grasp why most of those other people went along with having a war over it.

That’s not my point, though. My point is that I started thinking about it again lately when I read a piece in The Wall Street Journal headlined, “The Power of Our New Pop Myths.”

Yeah, I know — the paywall. Actually, it’s getting in my way at the moment, too — some problem with my password I’ve had for about 20 years. Which I’m not going to change. But anyway, the subhed is “Marvel, Star Wars and other franchises have become central to our culture by returning to a primal form of storytelling.,” and it begins like this:

And so forth. It’s sort of related to a complaint I frequently voice about Hollywood being unable to come up with fresh stories. They just keep recycling the same yarns. (How many Spider-Man origin movies have we had in the past few years?)

Kind of like with the ancient Greeks and Romans, but at least we have more than one story. There’s Marvel, there’s Harry Potter, there’s Bilbo Baggins, and Dune if you like. There’s the Matrix. All of which are at least entertaining, the first time you hear them.

And of course, between the Trojan War and Peter Parker, we Westerners who have at least paid some attention to the actual bases of our culture have had, with the help of the ancient Hebrews, the rich stories of the Bible, and a religion that speaks to me and many others of eternal verities, which if you’ll forgive me, I find even more meaningful than learning about the Kwisatz Haderach.

Which brings me back to Bishop Barron, who as you know continues to impress me with the power of his Sunday sermons.

He had a good one this week, in which he got all Jungian on the way to teaching an important lesson about what God wants from us.

His title was “Go on a Hero’s Journey,” and in it he gets into such stories as “The Hobbit.” It’s about how comfortable Bilbo was in his Hobbit hole, as hobbits tend to be, and beyond that about the inconvenient fact that that’s not what God wants. Like the dwarves who invade Bilbo’s sanctuary, and like Gandalf, he wants us to get out there and have an adventure, one that actually matters.

Anyway, I’m not going to recite the whole sermon to you; you can watch it below. I recommend it highly…

Sequels are seldom as good as the original

21 Replies

Hold it right there — no sequel will be as good as this.

Especially not the sequels of one certain genre — messianic fiction. You know, the type of story where you’re all in suspense as to whether the protagonist is The One, and eventually everyone learns that yes, he is. All of which happens in the first book, or movie, or whatever.

After that, you have sequels in which the author or director tries really, really hard to reproduce the magic of the original, usually by being super repetitive in terms of plot.

Some of you will disagree strongly with this Top Five list — I’ve found that in the past when I’ve pointed this out. But I think a lot of that is that the author or director just did an exceptional job of recreating the magic of the first, and you loved the first so much you loved the others, too. But for me, after the reveal has occurred, I’m ready for a different story — or at least, a story about a completely different messiah.

Here’s my list of examples. Oh, and for those who haven’t read or seen these, HUGE SPOILER ALERT!

Dune — I loved the first novel. But it turned into the worst generator of sequels I’ve ever encountered. Nevertheless, they kept coming out, even after the author was dead. Think about it: By the end of Dune, we learn that Paul is definitely the Kwisatz Haderach, all his main enemies are dead, and he even becomes emperor of the known universe. How do you top that? You don’t. Herbert certainly didn’t. The following stories try way too hard, and take liberties with characters that I found highly objectionable.
Harry Potter — This one will engender some of the strongest objections. But I was totally satisfied by the first book: Harry is rescued from a cartoonishly horrible life by Hagrid, who informs him not only that he is a wizard, but “a thumpin’ good’un I’d say, once yeh’ve been trained up a bit.” So he wanders in awe about Diagon Alley, and goes to Hogwarts, and spends the full school year there. You learn all about the magical world, and how it differs from that of muggles. And then, when it’s all over, Harry comes back to Hogwarts, and spends another whole year doing many of the same things. And because my kids and so many others loved the stories so much, I read the first three books or so in a vain effort to keep up, but then I stopped. But, you will cry, the stories after that get so serious and dark! Well, that’s not an attraction to me. Life is serious and dark enough, and this was a children’s story.
The Matrix — Let me confess, up front, that if I even tried to watch the sequels, I’ve since forgotten them. Frankly, I had no interest. “The Matrix” (the film, not the graphic novel) had bowled me over completely. I thought it was great. But then I was done. Neo was The One, and he could kick agent butt without breaking a sweat. What else did I need to see?
Star Wars — I’m flying in the face of some people’s religion here, but no, “The Empire Strikes Back” was not better than the original movie. Nothing was better than the original movie. “Empire” was good — especially the parts on Hoth — and other works in that fictional universe have sometimes been very engaging, especially “The Mandelorian.” But the first film contained everything that I would most enjoy from the characters and their respective arcs. And the overall premises of the fictional universe were fine for one film, but got a bit thin beyond that. A story such as this is fun, but needs to remember not to take itself too seriously.
The Godfather — Again, the second movie was most assuredly NOT better than the first. Yes, that’s that wonderful section that tells the story of how Vito became Don Corleone. But hey, that was in the novel that the first movie was based on — it just got left out. The first movie tells us how Michael, seemingly the least likely son, becomes the don’s successor, and seals the deal by overcoming all the family’s enemies. But he also becomes something terrifying, as the look on Kay’s face in the final shot drives home. I don’t need to see him manifesting his monstrosity in the second tale, as the family itself becomes consumed.

Not all sequels fall flat. Here are some that really worked:

Post Captain, and the other 18 books that follow Master and Commander. I refer here to the book, not the movie — which unfortunately based its plot vary roughly on the 10th book in the series, and pilfered good bits from various others. Each book tells a complete story, and the 20 taken altogether tell a saga of immense scale. Each deserves more than a film of its own. Each book should be a full season of a masterful television series — one that would last 20 years. Anyway, the “sequels” work because while the characters and the historical universe are the same, each story is fresh and different. And compelling.
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn — Yep, it’s a sequel — to Tom Sawyer. And it starts out in the tone of a sequel to that light celebration of youth in the 19th century, and a particularly amusing one at that. But Twain set it aside for several years, and then came back and turned it into the Great American Novel. If you’re the pedantic type, you might say that such an uneven book can’t be a great anything. But America is filled with different voices telling different stories, and its actual history is buffeted by mood swings and changes of tone. So it’s no surprise its greatest fictional work should be so “uneven.”

Note that none of those are of the “revelation of a hero’s destiny” type — what I referred to earlier as the “messiah” story.

I could mention more that worked and didn’t work, but I guess that’ll do for now…

A completely suitable ending to the story.

bradwarthen.com

All The News That Gives You Fits

Category Archives: Books

I’m running out of living authors

The beauty of knowing where you are

All Good Books: the best-named business in town

DeMarco: Why Independent Bookstores Shouldn’t Go the Way of Blockbuster

DeMarco: The images that shape our lives

Read a book. Please. And then go read some more…

God save the king. Meanwhile, I’m happy for the princess

Britain’s Princess of Wales says her cancer is in remission

A sober reflection on ‘Flowers for Algernon’

December 6: Any Martin Cruz Smith fans out there?

Another way to look at our loss of the Garden of Eden

When did people get here, and how?

Hey, Hollywood! Have I got a pitch for you, baby…

We have indeed met the enemy, but he is not yet ours

I’m impatiently waiting for this other stone to roll away…

What the Catholic Church can learn from the resurrection of Barnes & Noble

Some stats documenting our Raskolnikov Syndrome

Remembering (or not) the royal funeral

Maybe it would help to have a POINT to the story

I suggest we follow the Wally Schirra approach

The Hero’s Journey

Sequels are seldom as good as the original