This book was another from the cruise, and although it's fairly short it's not exactly a quick read. I'd been looking forward to reading it for several years, ever since I discovered that one of my favorite authors wrote matching biographies of possibly my two favorite saints: St. Francis and St. Thomas Aquinas. It seemed like a perfect combination, but I've got to admit that the book didn't quite live up to my expectations.
The disappointment was partially my own fault; Chesterton assumed that his readers have a basic knowledge of Greek philosophy and the early church controversies/heresies, and I don't really know Aristotle from Plato, much less have any idea what the Manicheans tried to preach. This may not have been a huge problem if I'd been reading at home, where a full background would have been a google or two away, but for travel reading it meant that a lot of the book went over my head. The other difficulty was that Chesterton's biography of St. Francis was apparently the first one written, and required reading before starting on St. Thomas. The two biographies must be more heavily linked than I assumed at first, because Chesterton was constantly drawing comparisons between the two saints.
So, overall this was not the best choice for travel reading, but I still finished with more information than I started with, which is always a good thing.
We got to go on a Caribbean cruise a few months ago, and in addition to being a ton of fun, it allowed me to actually catch up on some "real book" reading (as opposed to audiobooks, which constitute about 90% of my reading list). Near the top of my list was Planet Narnia: The Seven Heavens in the Imagination of C. S. Lewis, a literary analysis of the Narnia series that makes a rather interesting claim. According to the author, Lewis wrote the seven books of the series to correspond to the seven medieval planets: Jupiter, Mars, Venus, Saturn, Mercury, the Sun and the Moon.
I thought the idea was interesting at first, then after reading his first chapter, which added to the initial claim and made the planetary link the main and central reason for writing the entire series, I was like "riiiiight . . . no I'm pretty sure the Christian allegory was his main reason". But over the course of the book, he builds a pretty good case. He starts by addressing the 'kappa' element in literature, which Lewis had written about in cases such as Spenser's Faerie Queen--a kind of secret meaning behind a large work. The whole point of the kappa element is that it must remain hidden, the author himself can never call attention to it, which is why Lewis had no problem discussing the Christian allegory angle, but never let on to the planetary links. This was the high point of my skepticism, it just sounded way to conspiracy-theoryish to be true.
However, the fun part was the book-by-book analysis of the series. Ward explains the themes and attributes that belong to each planet, how Lewis identified these attributes/themes and used them in his other works (mostly unpublished poetry and his Space Trilogy, so the ST is basically prerequisite reading), and finally how they were used in their particular book. These ranged from the large scale aspects of the plot and setting to seemingly insignificant details like word choice, colors ,names, and metallic elements.
Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed the book, although it probably doesn't have universal appeal. If you really like Lewis, Narnia, and super-detailed literary analysis, you'll love Planet Narnia :-p otherwise, it's very easy to get lost in the mire.
What to Expect When You're Expecting, 4th edition by Heidi Murkoff and Sharon Mazel
Mayo Clinic Guide to a Healthy Pregnancy by Roger W. Harms, MD (ed)
Yep! It's finally time for a family that includes more than canine children ^_^ Due date is Oct 30th, and we're super-excited!
So, as soon as we found out and the first rush of excitement turned to "oh wow, we have no idea what we're doing here", it was time for the bookstore. These are the two titles that top the list for pregnancy books, and although I haven't shopped around much more, that popularity seems to be deserved.
What to Expect is the quintessential pregnancy book. My mom had a copy of What to Expect, your mom probably had a copy, and at my first appointment, my OB specifically asked if I had a copy. It covers all the basics: what to eat, what not to eat, baby's development, pregnancy symptoms, possible complications, a section for dads, and more. I've poked around on the internet a bit, since that's a default for me, but none of the pregnancy sites I've found have any new information, or at least not new information I'm willing to trust. It's well-organized and I've never had any problems using it. One thing I discovered after buying the book is that there's also a free iPhone app that includes most, if not all, of the text, and the book's website also has a lot of information. I still prefer having the physical book, but it might be a helpful alternative option.
Mayo Clinic Guide is all that and more. It's significantly bigger, and goes into more detail on a lot of the medical aspects, complications and post-birth tips. It's more clinical than What to Expect, with a slightly more formal tone and no funny business (WtE has fun sidebars now and then). One feature that I really like, in addition to the extra information, is charts for every month showing possible worrying symptoms and when to tell your doctor: wait til the next visit, call the next day or get on the phone ASAP.
Overall, either book is excellent and both cover all the basics. If you're expecting a normal pregnancy and don't have many risk factors, What to Expect is probably all you'll need, but if you're interested in the medicine and details, Mayo Clinic may be a better choice. I will say that because it has a more colloquial tone, What to Expect asked and answered a few questions that I'd never quite put words to, but Mayo Clinic didn't really address.
So, the full title is Cesar's Way: The Natural, Commonsense Guide to Understanding and Correcting All Common Dog Problems by Cesar Millan, Melissa Jo Peltier and John H. Mayer, but that wouldn't all fit in the title line.
We recently adopted a new puppy to be a playmate for our first dog, and I figured that with so many furry bodies around, it wouldn't be a bad idea to read up on them.
Gratuitous puppy pictures! For those of you who haven't seen Cesar's show Dog Whisperer on TV (and I've only seen a few episodes myself), Cesar is very, very good at working with dogs, fixing their "issues" and retraining the humans that gave them those issues in the first place. His life story, which takes up the first few chapters, is a good enough read in the first place--grew up on his grandfather's farm, watching and learning from the working dogs there. And we're not talking well trained, expensive purebred sheep dogs here, we're talking mongrel mutts that learned how to coexist and be useful in order to earn their spot on the farm.
Cesar's way is not easy, but it's well-reasoned and sensible. The main claim is that a happy dog knows his position in the pack, and that the only proper position is that of follower--the human must be a pack leader at all times and in all situations. His prescription for a balanced dog is excercise, discipline and affection, in that order. So that's lots and lots of excersise, a good heap of discipline, and affection only at the proper times. He recommends, at a minimum, 1.5 hours of walking every day, 1 hour in the morning and at least half an hour in the evening. You're only allowed to show affection at certain times, and must refrain from showing it at the wrong times. This amounts to a tall order! Fortunately, I'm lucky enough to have two wonderful dogs that are fairly laid back and submissive to start with, so hopefully half an hour most days is enough. (sorry puppies!)
However, the importance of regularly walking your dog and the ability to claim the pack leader position are two lessons I walked away with, and I'm fairly confident that all dog owners would benefit from reading Cesar's insights, even if they can't go all the way.
I've been trying to read up on Norse mythology without being quite sure where to start. My first two attempts from a university library yielded a kind of reference book, with gods and heroes listed in alphabetical order, and the first volume of Jacob Grimm's Teutonic Mythology. The former had plenty of good information, but I was looking for something to read straight through, not a reference book. The later is apparently a very important and influential work on Norse Mythology, but it's a scholarly work, very heavy reading, and not exactly a book for beginners.
I was looking for something lighter than Teutonic Mythology, but more in-depth than D'Aulaires' Book of Norse Myths, which I read back in the 3rd grade. Using a public library this time, I found Sagas of the Norsemen.
Overview
Sagas opens with a bit of archaeological background, pictures of relics, and an account of funeral customs. Then it delves into a description of the pantheon, with a few brief stories of the gods' various adventures and hijinks. The next section describes the provenances summarizes some of the more famous sagas. I didn't know any of them well enough to judge the accuracy of the summaries, but the story-telling left a bit to be desired. The last section of the book describes the cosmology of the Norse world, the creation of the world, and Ragnarok, the end of the world.
Recommended for: Meh, there's got to be better Norse mythology books out there. Sagas is part of a series called Myth and Mankind that covers the mythologies and legends of cultures around the world. They look pretty cool, but if Sagas is a good representation of the series, I probably won't bother with the rest.
Parental worries: The Norse gods and heroes got up to some pretty weird stuff, but this book has a fairly clinical approach. If you'd like to err on the side of caution, check out D'Aulaire's Book of Norse Myths for the young ones (or even the old ones :-p it's been awhile since I read it, but it's probably a better book)
Ramblings:
I always feel bad after giving a book a bad review :-p it may be better than I'm giving it credit for, or maybe I just had the wrong expectations going into it. Sagas approaches mythology from the wrong angle, I think. It doesn't tell a story, doesn't create a world, merely presents the beliefs of a long-dead civilization. For example, who in their right minds puts the creation myth at the end of a book of mythology? It makes no sense! I realize that Norse mythology is nowhere near as well organized as Greek and that it doesn't follow much of a chronology, but that's not much of an excuse. It throws off the whole narrative, to wade into a bevvy of gods, goddesses, and giants with no notion of where they came from, how they're related, etc.
To it's credit, the book does have tons of good pictures and photographs, and the archaeological background is pretty nifty. It also takes the time to discuss the most important sources of information for the myths and sagas it relates, an angle that helps to show the somewhat disjointed nature of Norse mythology.
So, my third attempt turned out to be only slightly better than the first two. Does anyone have other suggestions? I should probably just stop mucking around and just pick up the translated sagas :-p
* Warning: this review is ridiculously long, partially because I had a lot to comment on, and partially because I’m sitting in an airport with nothing better to do *
I have a tendency to pick up random books by famous authors if they’re available for cheap, and apparently I don’t pay too much attention to the book’s actual description. Therefore, I started reading The Planet that Wasn’t expecting a scifi story. Whoops :-p turns out it’s a collection of essays on topics ranging from astronomy to chemistry to history. Kudos to whoever picked the title, they were probably hoping its scifi feel would lure in poor saps like me, and it worked!
Overview
Asimov was interested in any and all areas of science, and the breadth of topics covered in this book is quite impressive. They tend to be a bit rambling at the beginning, and the opening anecdote or topic often has little or nothing to do with the actual meat of the essay. Maybe that’s an accepted style for a series of essays, I haven’t read enough of them to be sure. Some of the articles get pretty technical, but he does a good job of simplifying and explaining things.
Overall, a very interesting book; the articles are mostly interesting and informative, although there are a few that just failed to grab my attention much at all. The early articles in particular have some very nice science history.
Recommended for: Scifi fans (especially Asimov fans) and science buffs
Parental worries: None, unless you’re particularly wary of atheist sentiments
Ramblings
As I’ve mentioned before, Asimov’s scorn for religion, spirituality, and anything that he deems ‘unscientific’ tends to get under my skin, and there’s plenty of that in these essays. Interestingly enough, however; I find his essays that directly address religious issues, “Star in the East” and “The Judo Argument”, far less offensive than his snarky comments offered as a sideline in other essays. He ends both of the religious articles with an ‘of course I’m only discussing this out of curiosity/the challenge, I don’t actually take it seriously’ type of line, but since he manages to suppress his sneer for the vast majority of the article, I don’t begrudge him a parting shot.
It’s worth noting that since these articles were all written in the 1970s, they’re obviously not the pinnacle of science that they were when first published, but still solid science, every one.
“The Planet that Wasn’t” - It sounds like the title of a fiction piece, but turns out to be a historical snapshot, paired with an argument for the 'inevitability' of coincidence. Asimov considers that people are far to 'disbelieving' of coincidence, too quick to attribute such things to a cosmic order or intelligence behind the universe. He considers them to be 'inevitable consequences of the laws of probability'. He starts out by telling the story of Saturn, the god who ate his children and was eventually defeated by Zeus. Due to a slight tilt in Saturn's rings, Galileo observed two small blips beside Saturn that disappeared and reappeared from time to time. Saturn, it appeared, was still swallowing his children. Add to this the fact that Jupiter, named for the greatest of the gods, turned out to be the largest planet in the solar system. Just coincidence, Asimov claims, and then goes on to tell of yet another astronomical coincidence: the planet that wasn't. In the mid-1800s, irregularities were observed in Mercury's orbit that could not be explained by Newtonian physics. Astronomers at the time hypothesized that this indicated the presence of another planet, even closer to the sun. The presence or lack thereof of this hypothetical planet, named Vulcan for it's proximity to the fiery orb, stymied astronomers until Einstein's Theory of Relativity solved the problem. The changes in Mercury's orbit that seemed to indicate the presence of an unknown mass were actually a result of the massive energy of the sun's gravitational field. Since energy=mass, the sun's gravitational field was itself acting as a small mass, tweaking all the planets ever-so-slightly. Vulcan, therefore, was cast from the sky, even as its namesake was once cast from Heaven.
The story is fascinating and well told, but I don't think it quite makes the point that Asimov was trying for. At current count we've got 3 of 9 planets (not counting Earth, but counting the hypothetical Vulcan) that share characteristics with their mythological namesakes that were unknown at the time of their naming. I'm not a statistician, but the laws of probability account for that, really? Instead of inevitability, what came to my mind was the theory of Tolkien's that all myths have some seed of truth in them.
“The Olympian Snows” – The title comes from the appearance of snow on several large Martian mountains, and the article covers the range of observations and theories regarding our celestial neighbor over the ages and how most of them were eventually disproved.
“Titanic Surprise” – Like all scifi writers and fans, Asimov was fascinated with the possibility of life on other planets. In this article, he takes a look at the possibility of extraterrestrial life in terms of the planet's size and temperature. Really interesting stuff, because it turns out that a planet's ability to maintain an atmosphere is related to a delicate balance between its gravitational field and the phase of its components. For example, Venus is hot enough to vaporize any volatile compounds and large enough to hold on to them. On the other hand, Pluto is so cold
that only the lightest elements remain gaseous, and so small that it cannot hold on to them. After going through this analysis for most of the solar system, he concludes that only Earth and Titan, a moon of Saturn, are capable of supporting solid, liquid and gas phases in their atmosphere, and therefore Titan is the best bet for extraterrestrial life. He also gives Jupiter credibility as a cradle of life, observing that there would be a section of Jupiter's atmosphere at some depth that would reach Earth-level temperatures.
Another point he mentions about Jupiter is that it might be considered a sub-star, not quite big enough to ignite like the sun, but massive enough that some fusion is occuring in its core. Clarke also plays with this idea at the end of the 2001 series--mankind forces Jupiter just over that threshold, creating a second star halfway through the solar system. Its a fascinating idea, and really helps to put the scale of the Solar System in a more astonishing light.
“The Wrong Turning” – An analysis of the moons of various planets: how they were formed, what materials they’re made of, and what rules can be applied to their development. Fairly interesting, but after “Titanic Surprise”, I was getting a bit tired of the play-by-play of the solar system.
“The Bridge of the Gods” – A history of the study of light, particularly those properties that lead to rainbows. That part is interesting, but then he decides to take a dig at the mythology and theology concerning light. After a bit of retelling of Galileo’s troubles with the Church and Newton’s experiments with prisms that finally changed the way humanity thought about light, he comes up with this gem:
"To those who value the vision of the human mind organizing observations into natural law and then using natural law to grasp the workings of what had until then been mysterious, the rainbow has added significance and beauty through Newton’s discovery, because, to a far greater extent than before, it can be understood and truly appreciated. To those of more limited fancy, who prefer mindless staring to understanding, and simple-minded fairy tales of gods crossing bridges to the dancing changes of direction of light in accordance with a system that can be written as an elegant mathematical expression, I guess it is a loss."
You know what, Mr. Asimov? Screw you. Reducing the world to mathematical equations may be your idea of fulfillment, but there are many who are perfectly capable of appreciating both the scientific and romantic beauty of a rainbow. I love the old tales, and they are not diminished in the slightest by any scientific discovery, only enhanced because we have a more complete idea of how the phenomenon occurs.
“The Third Liquid” – On the nature of elements, specifically those that exist as liquids anywhere near environmental conditions.
“All Gall” – A discussion of cholesterol, its chemical properties and occurrence in the body. Slightly out of date, because we now know more about what role cholesterol plays in the body (I’m pretty sure it has to do with the cell membrane, but I forget the details)
“The Smell of Electricity” – Concerning ozone, its peculiar qualities, and the history of its discovery. I enjoyed the history, but when he moved on to chemical structure and bonds, my eyes started to glaze over.
“Silent Victory” – An analysis of the Earth’s atmosphere over its lifespan, and how the changing chemistry affected the development of life as we know it. I’ve always found atmospheric chemistry to be very interesting (at least on the overview scale, I’ve never gone too far into the topic), and Asimov gives a very good overview. If you’re interested in the topic, I’d also recommend James Lovelock’s Ages of Gaia and Lynn Margulis’ Microcosmos: Four Billion Years of Evolution from Our Microbial Ancestors.
“Change of Air” – This is an article that really dates the book, I’d say. Roughly around the time I was in elementary school (early 90s), the big environmental issue was the hole in the ozone layer, and this article must have been published just as the problem was being discovered. Following up on the ozone and atmosphere articles, it examines the discovery and widespread use of CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) for refrigeration and aerosols, and the threat they pose to the ozone layer. The really telling thing though, and the reason that I’m pretty sure the article was way ahead of its time, is that he never actually uses the phrases ‘hole in the ozone layer’, ‘CFCs’, or even ‘chlorofluorocarbons’, all of which were huge buzzwords for the ozone issue. I found this article to be an interesting look backward at environmental issues. (as well as good solid science, this was before any of the hype started) Last I heard, the hole in the ozone layer was actually shrinking. It’d be interesting to learn whether that’s a result of policy and behavioral changes on our part, or simply a natural occurrence. Are we actually releasing less CFCs than 20-30 years ago? I’d be quite surprised (but pleased) if that’s the case.
“The Wicked Witch is Dead” – It takes awhile to get to the point of this essay (how science has destroyed the wicked witch stereotype), because in addition to the rambling intro, Asimov spends a couple of pages being snippy about religion. To be fair, he’s talking about the horrors of witch hunts, so most of his condemnation is well deserved, but it reaches further than the topic at hand. And some of his reasoning is faulty, I’d say. For example, he discusses the biblical Witch of Endor: “If we interpret the Bible literally, we cannot think that witchcraft is a delusion. No, it is a competing religion making use of powerful supernatural forces, and, because it is competing, it is evil by definition.” Now wait a minute. If we’re interpreting the Bible literally, you can’t accept that witchcraft is real and then decide that it’s harmless. You have to also accept (or at least consider) that if it was a real power, it was an evil one. Basically, you have to accept that there are value judgments attached to the supernatural. Some supernatural forces are good, and contact with them is encouraged, while others are bad, and contact with them is forbidden. Now, if you want to interpret the Bible as an atheist and say that the definition of evil was any competing religion, then that’s at least an honest interpretation (dead wrong, I’d say, but at least honestly wrong), but you can’t just pick and choose what you’re going to be literal about.
Anyway, religious rantings aside, the point of the article is that the whole idea of the ‘wicked witch’ came from a) the fact that old women were very unusual in societies before modern medicine made childbirth less dangerous, and b) lack of dental care gave old people without teeth a very different facial structure than younger people, thus making them not only unusual but alien as well. Because they were so unusual and strange looking, they became the pariahs of society and cast as witches. Asimov points out that with the advent of safe childbirth, which gave women a longer life expectancy than men, and dental care, which allowed the elderly to keep their original facial structure, the wicked witch disappeared from society. Interesting stuff.
“The Nightfall Effect” – This article is basically a reply to many comments Asimov had received objecting to the possibility of mankind’s expansion into space. It’s an interesting article, all about the tenacity and intelligence of mankind, and their ability to overcome any barrier. This I agree with, and I do believe that mankind not only will, but must eventually move past our home planet, if they are to survive. But here’s where he gets it wrong, imho: Asimov thinks that if we are able to control the population problem and end war, then we will be sufficiently advanced to expand into space. If, on the other hand, we create an overpopulated, war and strife-ridden world, we will never make it off the planet. But he is ignoring his own arguments when he makes this conclusion. In answer to several of the objections raised, he holds as an example the colonization of America and other great migrations into uncharted territory. These migrations were not accomplished because things were nice and quiet back home, but in response to persecution or other hardships. If we do manage to create a near-utopia here on Earth, there will be no drive to explore, no reason to expand. No, mankind will only leave the planet when it becomes imperative for us to do so—either when we become so crowded that we must have more room, or when resources in space become easier to access than the dwindling resources on Earth.
“The Rocketing Dutchmen” – Asimov takes on UFO fanatics, and mourns that their mix of science, imagination and delusion blocks any serious study into the explanation for the handful of verified but unexplainable sightings of unidentified flying objects.
“Best Foot Backward” – Asimov answers those who claim that science has accomplished ‘nothing of real value’. The original claim is that all science has done is make our lives longer, but not improved the ‘spiritual’ quality of life. Asimov argues that on the contrary, science has made incredible improvements to the human condition, and draws several pictures of what would happen if we really turned our back on technology, as many luddites seem to be suggesting. I’m pretty much in Asimov’s camp on this one—although I am far from worshiping science as the solution to all man’s problems, you would have to be a fool not to recognize the good it has done. He includes a bit about how religion is the truly useless institution, but this post is way too long already for me to bother pointing out the fallacies in that one.
“Thinking About Thinking” – An analysis of the different measures of intelligence, and how subjective they are. Pretty interesting, although it basically boils down to “you can’t quantify intelligence”
“Star in the East” – An analysis of the possible scientific explanations of the Star of Bethlehem. I really liked this article, because although I’ve heard the common possibilities that it was a supernova or a comet, Asimov dismisses these as too easy. If it were that obvious, he points out, King Herod would not have needed to ask the Wise Men for an explanation when they came to visit him. So he goes into several different possibilities, the most impressive of which (imho) was that it wasn’t an actual visible star, but a very rare astrological event in which the Sun’s position at the vernal equinox moved from the constellation of the Ram to the Fish (the Sun switches constellations every 2,000 years or so, and the actual point of the switch could be calculated). He also points out several different alignments of the planets and stars that could have been significant only to astrologers and would also point them in the direction of Judea. Very interesting, very cool.
“The Judo Argument” – Asimov addresses several arguments for the existence of God that he calls ‘Judo Arguments’: arguments that use scientific knowledge to prove the existence of God. It’s a really interesting article, since Asimov actually finds these arguments interesting and valid, and addresses them seriously. Personally, I do not think that science is capable of definitively proving or disproving the existence of God (think about the definition of supernatural for a minute), but I still appreciate the analysis and argument.
I've been highly amused by O'Reilly's show the few times I've caught it, although I don't always agree with the stances he takes. The only time I distinctly remember not being amused was O'Reilly lambasting Vicente Fox for not helping with the illegal immigration problem from his side of the border. It sounded as if Bill had forgotten that we have a full range of unpleasant words for rulers who force their citizens to remain in the country against their will, and Fox was as flabbergasted by this memory lapse as I was. But I digress. The scary thing about The No Spin Zone was that I agreed with almost everything O'Reilly had to say. I'm not sure whether this is a credit to his writing skill, a comment on my gullibility, or not surprising at all because of course we're both completely right. ^_~
Overview
O'Reilly's book is separated into chapters by controversial issue, with one prominent guest for each chapter. It was slightly disconcerting to listen to, because sometimes the chapters flow very smoothly into each other, while other times there's a distinctive jump in topic. This resulted in my only noticing the chapter titles every now and then, and I had to check the table of contents to make sure I hadn't missed several chapters. Other than this, the book reads very well, as long as you don't mind O'Reilly's outrageous arrogance (aka, he actually believes his own opinions are right, and makes no bones about it). I don't, mostly because he makes no attempt to hide it, and because he respects people who he believes are wrong as long as they're honest. Issues covered in the book include sexual predators, working moms, fund raising scams, taxation, Bill Clinton, and the death penalty. (In other words, everything and anything came up, so the issues were probably just an overview of the significant guests O'Reilly had interviewed since his last book.)
Recommended for: Anyone, although the people who need to read it the most are probably the least likely to actually do so.
Audiobook Comments: Read by the man himself, which is as it should be. Only O'Reilly can deliver his distinctive oratory properly, and as expected for a TV personality, it is very well done.
Parental Worries: None, if they're old/smart/mature enough to make it through the book; unless you disagree with and/or dislike O'Reilly, in which case you should worry that your child might start seeing the world the way he does.
Ramblings
The opening topic is one that it's really hard to disagree with: the disgusting practice of protection for sexual predators. Specifically, protection of the rights of NAMBLA to publish information on how to molest young boys. O'Reilly interviews a representative from the ACLU for this chapter, since that organization is defending NAMBLA's right to publish information that has been directly linked to several cases of molestation. Disgusting. And O'Reilly wipes the floor with said representative, pointing out (among other things) that if nothing else, ACLU should listen to its donors, the vast majority of which are horrified by their action in this issue.
O'Reilly spends quite a bit of time describing the 'fundraising' (translation: extortion) activities of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. I have no real knowledge of the topic other than what's presented in this book, but it's pretty damning stuff. According to O'Reilly, here's the way it works: Rev approaches a company, rails at them for being evil white men without a diverse enough workforce. Threatens large-scale boycotts if company does not hire one of Rev's 'diversity counselors'. Company gives in, hires the counselor, lots of Rev's friends and family get hired, Rev gets plenty of donations for his pet charities (many of which support his own very comfortable lifestyle). Wow. It's astonishing that they can get away with this, which is one reason that I'm slightly skeptical. (Only slightly though, 'cause it fits with what I've seen of the two men in question.)
O'Reilly then takes Bush to task for his support of the death penalty because of its contradiction with his Christian faith. I've been frustrated by the death penalty debate for years because both sides have a knack for twisting facts left and right and backwards on themselves. (has it been proven to be a successful deterent against crime or not? is it more expensive to run endless hearings and appeals or just support criminals for the rest of their lives? I've received completely contradictory answers to these questions, both claiming the support of data) In the Christian view, however, the data doesn't matter--it's a question of morals and the teachings of Christ. Even though I'm a Christian, I tend to take a pragmatic view of the issue. I consider abolition of the death penalty to be a luxury of a sort--if a civilization is advanced far enough, they can afford to take the moral high ground and simply remove dangerous people from society instead of having to kill them. As one of the most advanced civilizations in the world, it seems that America should have that luxury, but a close look at our prison system may suggest otherwise. (I'm not using 'may' as a substitute for 'will' here, I honestly haven't researched our prison system or the death penalty debate closely enough to make that call)
O'Reilly provides the best solution to the death penalty debate that I've ever heard. He is against the death penalty, partially because of his Christian values and partially because he considers death to be too good for many of our worst criminals. He suggests a Federal prison in Alaska for murderers, child rapists and hard-core drug dealers--life sentences, hard labor, none of the cable television nonsense that we've got in most of our prisons these days. Removing these people physically from the mainstream of US life is a harsh exile, and O'Reilly is of the opinion that the threat of this life would be more of a deterent than death.
If this plan ever goes up for a vote, it's got mine.
I'm a big fan of fairy tales, so I picked this book up hoping to get an overview of the Brothers Grimm. I wanted to find out more about their lives, the sources for their stories, and their theory on the significance of fairy tales. (I think the technical term is comparative mythology and folklore?) I got all three, and I was surprised to find most of the book fairly readable for someone like me with almost no knowledge of the subject matter. There's a few chapters that go pretty deep into the history of literary criticism and the study of mythology, and I skimmed the thicker parts of those without feeling like I'd lost too much.
Overview
It turns out that the Brothers Grimm were first and foremost philologists, and would probably be slightly chagrined to discover that, except for select academic circles, they are globally and exclusively famous for their children's stories--stories that they collected almost as a hobby. The first chapter of the book covers their childhood and the course of their careers. Later chapters go over the brothers' sources, collection methods and theories, while the last bit of the book covers alternative theories on fairy tales and their place in society. The last bit was what I skimmed the most, since I was interested in the BG themselves. I was struck by the extreme closeness of the brother's relationship--except for a short period early in their careers, the two lived and worked together for their entire lives. (Then again, this may not be as extraordinary for the time frame, I dunno.) Although William was more interested in the study of mythology and folk lore than his brother, it sounds as if he largely sacrificed this interest in order to help Jacob on his more 'serious' philological work. (irony, anyone?) Another interesting tidbit about the Brothers: they spent some time as political martyrs for their support of the German constitution when the reigning monarch of the time abolished it. (or attempted to abolish it . . . I've returned the book to the library, so I can't check my facts >_< ) Recommended for: Fans of fairy tales who aren't afraid of a scholarly work, especially if you liked Tolkien's On Fairy Stories
Extended Summary
It turns out that the BG's main source of fairy tales was from local middle-class women: innkeepers, grocers, and anyone else they happened to run across. Apparently they never actually traveled around interviewing peasant women, which is a popular myth, but merely picked up stories here and there over the years. Their sister helped out quite a bit by holding social 'fairy tale parties' the way women of the time would have poetry readings, or more recently, tupperware parties. They also had several friends who collected tales, and these were passed on to the Brothers. The author credits them for being more 'scientific' in their collection methods than other folk and fairy tale publishers of the time, but I'm skeptical as to how scientific you can actually be when everything has been word-of-mouth for so long.
The book also spent some time contesting several unsavory claims that had been made about the BG and their work. One of the big ones was that they were fanatically nationalistic, and considered only German fairy and folk tales worthy of interest. This claim probably came from the Nazi era, when Hitler used the BG's work to foster a sense of national pride and superiority. The brothers were definitely patriotic and loved their fatherland, but they were not afraid to be critical of the government of said country. They also considered the fairy and folk tales of all lands to be a valuable resource, and encouraged people to study the tales of other lands. The BG focused on German folklore, both because it was readily available and because they had a particular fondness for it, but that does not imply a scorn of any other nations and their oral traditions.
Another claim was that many of the brother's tales were actually French in origin, because one of their sources had French ancestry. The author disputes this claim, pointing out that although the woman in question did have a Huguenot parent, she grew up in Germany, surrounded by German tradition. More importantly, she was the daughter of an inn-keeper, and probably learned all her tales from the local visitors.
There was also some discussion of gender-bias and so forth in their stories, but the bottom line was that sexist claims had been vastly exaggerated. I was proud of the author for not donating much time to this topic; modern feminism bores and aggravates me. (insofar as it's possible to be bored and aggravated at the same time :-p )
Ramblings
One of the first things that intrigued me about the BG was that they were primarily philoligists. This is an interesting distinction to me, because so was Tolkien, one of my favorite authors and a staunch defender of the fairy story genre. (Although Tolkien's definition of a fairy story and the BG's differed greatly) Turns out Andrew Lang, also of fairy-tale fame (the Blue Fairy Book, Red Fairy Book, etc) was also a philologist. (And so was one of my favorite characters from C.S. Lewis' writings, but he was modeled after Tolkien himself, so I don't think that counts)
So, what is it about philology and fairy tales? Probably something to do with the evolution of oral stories along with the evolution of a language. I've actually heard someone suggest that myths originally developed because of the limitations of language, and fairy and folktales followed from there. I don't personally agree with the theory, but it shows how closely language and storytelling are connected. I tend to agree with both Tolkien and the BG, that fairy tales, myths, and similar stories are tool in mankind's search for truth, and often an expression of that truth.
One concept from this book that I really liked was the Brother's distinction between naturpoesie (nature stories, or 'natural' stories) and kunstpoesie (art stories). To quote: "As Wilhelm saw it, naturpoesie derived its powerful vision and "eternal quality" from its quest for truth. In that sense, it was not a mere form of entertainment but a significant expression of the humanity of man". This struck me as a beautiful designation, and still appropriate for literature today. Many of the stories I dearly love are not remarkable for their contribution to bright and shiny truth, but merely fun. I love a good mystery series, Star Wars novel or fantasy tale, but no amount of lightsabers or sparkly magic can rival the 'beauty and truth' of books like Narnia, Lord of the Rings, Ender's Game, or Frankenstein. (Maybe I'll eventually give my reasons for these particular titles, but now is not the time :-p) Even if you disagree with my specific choices, there is definitely a distinction between mere fun reading, and a book that leaves you stunned. I'd never found quite the right words for this distinction, and I was thrilled to find it in this book.
