The Landmark Thucydides
The Man Who Would Be King and Other Stories
Christianity and Liberalism
Jesus: Made in America
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
On the Nightstand
The Landmark Thucydides
The Man Who Would Be King and Other Stories
Christianity and Liberalism
Jesus: Made in America
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
The Man Who Would Be King
Just finished reading The Man Who Would Be King (hereafter, MWWBK), by Rudyard Kipling. I enjoy Kipling, though I know others do not. I get his imperialism, I think. MWWBK is a short story, though I didn't realize this at first. The volume I have, published by Oxford World Classics, gave me access to a lot of Kipling short stories in the genre.
MWWBK is about a journalist who, by chance, meets a man on the train. The man on the train asks the journalist to deliver a message for him to another man on another train. The journalist decides to do this and then promptly reports both men for con-artists (which they are). Some time later they both show up at the newspaper printer and ask the journalist to hear their plan for the domination of some mysterious kingdom in the hills of Afghanistan. He gives them some assistance and off they go. Two years later one of them shows up and tells the journalist their story. This is the real meat of the story.
The delivery is fun and energetic. I won't spoil the real story, but instead direct you to read it yourself. Enjoy!
MWWBK is about a journalist who, by chance, meets a man on the train. The man on the train asks the journalist to deliver a message for him to another man on another train. The journalist decides to do this and then promptly reports both men for con-artists (which they are). Some time later they both show up at the newspaper printer and ask the journalist to hear their plan for the domination of some mysterious kingdom in the hills of Afghanistan. He gives them some assistance and off they go. Two years later one of them shows up and tells the journalist their story. This is the real meat of the story.
The delivery is fun and energetic. I won't spoil the real story, but instead direct you to read it yourself. Enjoy!
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Thursday, March 11, 2010
100 Cupboards
About two years ago, while at the ACCS conference in Atlanta, I discovered that Doug Wilson's son, Nathan, had been doing some writing. He had published two cute books on Noah's flood and Adam's fall at that time and was prepping for his first big release (as in Random House), Leepike Ridge. I picked up the two small books and brought them home. We enjoyed them. The next year for Christmas I ordered Leepike Ridge from Amazon for my son. He read it and enjoyed it, so did my wife. Then I heard about 100 Cupboards. I ordered it too. My son read it, but got a little freaked out while reading it. My wife read it, and understood why James had been a little tense about it. I still didn't get around to it. I had too many other things to be reading and preparing for. So I went on about my merry way. Then I heard that there was a second volume to the 100 Cupboards, Dandelion Fire. And a third to be released eventually. I decided to read 100 Cupboards.
That was one of the best reads I have done in a long while. Over the summer, I had made it my mission to read what James would read this year, so I would be able to talk with him about it. So I had read some children's literature in the recent past. But Wilson's prose is fantastic. Far better than anything I had read recently.
The story is really good too. What happens when a twelve year old boy goes to live with his aunt and uncle in Kansas because his parents are taken hostage while on a South American bicycle expedition? Well, obviously he discovers that there are magic cupboards in the attic where he is sleeping and accidentally wakes up a witch. This is a story that was clearly the product of a mind steeped in some of the best writing of the world. Lewis, Tolkien, Chesterton, O'Connor all find voice here.
One of the most fun things about the book though is its relationship to modern fiction. At first glance, it seems very like Harry Potter or other similar books. However, there are differences that need to be noted. In Harry Potter, as in many books today, the protagonists make really bad decisions, deceive others and go against authority figures. Much of these things happen to Henry York as well. The difference is in modern fiction, this behavior is almost always praised implicity or explicitly. What I mean is, either the characters are victorious in their tasks because they lie, cheat, or otherwise break the rules (hence implicitly teaching that breaking the rules is often a good thing) or they are outright told that by someone else in the book ("If you hadn't stolen the thing no one is supposed to touch and gone where no is allowed to go and told these lies to us, the world would have ended. Way to go!"). In Wilson's hands, these actions take place. Henry and his cousin Henrietta deceive their authorities (uncle or dad), sneak around when they aren't supposed to, and hide information from others so they can do something cool. But this book makes it very clear that if they had told Uncle Frank what was going on, things could have been much better. Henry is not rewarded for doing bad. This is what makes Wilson's book different from other books I've seen recently.
I think this is a worldview difference. Wilson is a Christian and writes like a Christian. That doesn't mean someone is saved in the book or evangelized. It means that the events of the book take place in a world governed by biblical values and biblical reality.
I have read the second book too, and am beginning the third. More to come.
That was one of the best reads I have done in a long while. Over the summer, I had made it my mission to read what James would read this year, so I would be able to talk with him about it. So I had read some children's literature in the recent past. But Wilson's prose is fantastic. Far better than anything I had read recently.
The story is really good too. What happens when a twelve year old boy goes to live with his aunt and uncle in Kansas because his parents are taken hostage while on a South American bicycle expedition? Well, obviously he discovers that there are magic cupboards in the attic where he is sleeping and accidentally wakes up a witch. This is a story that was clearly the product of a mind steeped in some of the best writing of the world. Lewis, Tolkien, Chesterton, O'Connor all find voice here.
One of the most fun things about the book though is its relationship to modern fiction. At first glance, it seems very like Harry Potter or other similar books. However, there are differences that need to be noted. In Harry Potter, as in many books today, the protagonists make really bad decisions, deceive others and go against authority figures. Much of these things happen to Henry York as well. The difference is in modern fiction, this behavior is almost always praised implicity or explicitly. What I mean is, either the characters are victorious in their tasks because they lie, cheat, or otherwise break the rules (hence implicitly teaching that breaking the rules is often a good thing) or they are outright told that by someone else in the book ("If you hadn't stolen the thing no one is supposed to touch and gone where no is allowed to go and told these lies to us, the world would have ended. Way to go!"). In Wilson's hands, these actions take place. Henry and his cousin Henrietta deceive their authorities (uncle or dad), sneak around when they aren't supposed to, and hide information from others so they can do something cool. But this book makes it very clear that if they had told Uncle Frank what was going on, things could have been much better. Henry is not rewarded for doing bad. This is what makes Wilson's book different from other books I've seen recently.
I think this is a worldview difference. Wilson is a Christian and writes like a Christian. That doesn't mean someone is saved in the book or evangelized. It means that the events of the book take place in a world governed by biblical values and biblical reality.
I have read the second book too, and am beginning the third. More to come.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
An Apology for being away...
This has been an extremely taxing school year thus far. I've had very little time to think much about anything other than my classes. But I haven't written on that either for a while. Just been very busy. Child #5 is due in about two weeks and we are busy preparing for that as well. Life, I have found, has a way of taking the moments you want to do something constructive with and turning your mind to jell-o before you can get there. Therefore, I think I have watched more movies and television than I would normally consider good. But on that thought, I have a certain theory I'm working on that I may be in a position to post on later this year.
Nonetheless, I am hopeful that Thanksgiving break and Christmas break after that will give me enough down time to begin contributing to my blog again. I have been posting on my facebook account, which has a somewhat larger following.
Nonetheless, I am hopeful that Thanksgiving break and Christmas break after that will give me enough down time to begin contributing to my blog again. I have been posting on my facebook account, which has a somewhat larger following.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Calling for Truth
Thanks to some very active Board members, I had the opportunity to be interviewed about Classical Education on Dr. Paul Dean's Calling for Truth a talk radio program on WLFJ here in Greenville. You can listen to it here.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
The Science of Refutation
"Bless me, what do they teach them at these school?"
Thus spoke Professor Digory Kirk at the end of C.S. Lewis' The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe. Earlier in the book he had lamented the apparent lack of logical training in modern schools, a fact which has been proven over and over again in government-funded schools across the world and is as true today as it was when Lewis wrote in 1950.
The current health care debate has many more details than I can possible comment on, but one of the more puzzling aspects of this is the very public debate over death panels. If I am hearing correctly, former Governor Sarah Palin first alerted most of us to the essential nature of this aspect of the Obamacare plan, not as something spelled out in a particular section of the bill, but as something that would take place in essence if the bill were passed as is. There is a big difference between saying we are going to pull the plug on Grandma and doing it because it makes sense to someone in authority because Grandma is just too much of a drain on the money pot.
The interesting thing about this for me has been the apparent lack of ability to form a real refutation of this charge. Everyone I have listened to, speaking from the left, has denied the death panel charge and said something to the effect of, "Of course we would never want to do that" without ever actually saying it would not happen. All they really ever get around to saying is that the bill does not call for death panels. But again, this is different from saying we will write language in that prevents the bill from being enacted in such a way as to make death panels a essential characteristic of Obamacare.
Doug Wilson wrote on this a while back from a different point, but I think the point still stands. You can read his post here. If you want to refute a charge, it is important that you speak to what the charge actually says. Neither Palin nor anyone else said that on line such-and-such of the bill it says there will be death panels composed to determine if it is in the best interest of the government or the people to continue paying for medicine or treatment for the elderly or terminally ill. What they said it that the language of the bill is sufficiently weak as to allow for this to take place and that given human nature and the federal government, it most certainly will eventually list in that direction if imposed as is.
So all these media guys and senators and whatnot running around saying it's ridiculous to suggest that the bill has death panels written in are not refuting the charge, they are stating the obvious, which is not what the charge is about. The charge of death panels is about the consequences of ideas, not about what words are on the page.
If this health care bill is passed, this is what will happen down the road.
"Why don't they teach logic at these schools?"
Thus spoke Professor Digory Kirk at the end of C.S. Lewis' The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe. Earlier in the book he had lamented the apparent lack of logical training in modern schools, a fact which has been proven over and over again in government-funded schools across the world and is as true today as it was when Lewis wrote in 1950.
The current health care debate has many more details than I can possible comment on, but one of the more puzzling aspects of this is the very public debate over death panels. If I am hearing correctly, former Governor Sarah Palin first alerted most of us to the essential nature of this aspect of the Obamacare plan, not as something spelled out in a particular section of the bill, but as something that would take place in essence if the bill were passed as is. There is a big difference between saying we are going to pull the plug on Grandma and doing it because it makes sense to someone in authority because Grandma is just too much of a drain on the money pot.
The interesting thing about this for me has been the apparent lack of ability to form a real refutation of this charge. Everyone I have listened to, speaking from the left, has denied the death panel charge and said something to the effect of, "Of course we would never want to do that" without ever actually saying it would not happen. All they really ever get around to saying is that the bill does not call for death panels. But again, this is different from saying we will write language in that prevents the bill from being enacted in such a way as to make death panels a essential characteristic of Obamacare.
Doug Wilson wrote on this a while back from a different point, but I think the point still stands. You can read his post here. If you want to refute a charge, it is important that you speak to what the charge actually says. Neither Palin nor anyone else said that on line such-and-such of the bill it says there will be death panels composed to determine if it is in the best interest of the government or the people to continue paying for medicine or treatment for the elderly or terminally ill. What they said it that the language of the bill is sufficiently weak as to allow for this to take place and that given human nature and the federal government, it most certainly will eventually list in that direction if imposed as is.
So all these media guys and senators and whatnot running around saying it's ridiculous to suggest that the bill has death panels written in are not refuting the charge, they are stating the obvious, which is not what the charge is about. The charge of death panels is about the consequences of ideas, not about what words are on the page.
If this health care bill is passed, this is what will happen down the road.
"Why don't they teach logic at these schools?"
Monday, August 17, 2009
A Chestertonian Hymn
O God of earth and altar,
Bow down and hear our cry,
Our earthly rulers falter,
Our people drift and die;
The walls of gold entomb us,
The swords of scorn divide,
Take not thy thunder from us,
But take away our pride.
From all that terror teaches,
From lies of tongue and pen,
From all the easy speeches
That comfort cruel men,
From sale and profanation
Of honour and the sword,
From sleep and from damnation,
Deliver us, good Lord.
Tie in a living tether
The prince and priest and thrall,
Bind all our lives together,
Smite us and save us all;
In ire and exultation
Aflame with faith, and free,
Lift up a living nation,
A single sword to thee.
- G.K. Chesterton
Bow down and hear our cry,
Our earthly rulers falter,
Our people drift and die;
The walls of gold entomb us,
The swords of scorn divide,
Take not thy thunder from us,
But take away our pride.
From all that terror teaches,
From lies of tongue and pen,
From all the easy speeches
That comfort cruel men,
From sale and profanation
Of honour and the sword,
From sleep and from damnation,
Deliver us, good Lord.
Tie in a living tether
The prince and priest and thrall,
Bind all our lives together,
Smite us and save us all;
In ire and exultation
Aflame with faith, and free,
Lift up a living nation,
A single sword to thee.
- G.K. Chesterton
Friday, August 14, 2009
Monday, August 3, 2009
The Green Book
In 1944, C. S. Lewis did a series of essays, lectures I think, that were published as The Abolition of Man. These lectures were a rebuttal of a book for "boys and girls in the upper forms of school." This book, known to Lewis fans as The Green Book because he graciously withheld the identity of the authors and the real title to the book, has been a mystery to me for several years now.
Not anymore. Doing some reading and searching about The Abolition of Man, I came across this web site and discovered the identity of The Green Book and the authors.
I already did an Amazon search and came up empty-handed on used copies. I'll bet there are none to be had. With the scathing review Lewis gave it, I'll bet the publisher did not even renew the copyright. Surely someone could scan the thing into Google Books or Internet Archive or something. I'd love to see some of the passages Lewis talks about in their original context.
Oh, and the actual title of The Green Book is The Control of Language: A Critical Approach to Reading and Writing and it was written by Alex King and Martin Ketley.
Not anymore. Doing some reading and searching about The Abolition of Man, I came across this web site and discovered the identity of The Green Book and the authors.
I already did an Amazon search and came up empty-handed on used copies. I'll bet there are none to be had. With the scathing review Lewis gave it, I'll bet the publisher did not even renew the copyright. Surely someone could scan the thing into Google Books or Internet Archive or something. I'd love to see some of the passages Lewis talks about in their original context.
Oh, and the actual title of The Green Book is The Control of Language: A Critical Approach to Reading and Writing and it was written by Alex King and Martin Ketley.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)