Archives

Semicolon Book Club for March

The theme for the Semicolon Book Club for March is biography/autobiography, and the particular selelction for this month is David McCullough’s Mornings on Horseback, a biography of Teddy Roosevelt, the 26th president of the United States. The subtitle is “the story of an extraordinary family, a vanished way of life, and the unique child who became Theodore Roosevelt.”

I very much enjoyed reading McCullough’s biography of John Adams last March, and I expect to enjoy this book just as much. TR is one of my favorite historical characters.

Come back to Semicolon after Easter (April 5th) for discussion of this most excellent biography.

Sunday Salon: Semicolon Book Club

The February selection for the Semicolon Book club was Till We Have Faces: A Myth Retold by C.S. Lewis. Till We Have Faces was Lewis’s last work of fiction, and he considered it his best. The particular “myth retold” is that of Cupid and Psyche. It’s a story Lewis considered retelling over the course of many years.

Lewis’s diary, September 9, 1923: “My head was very full of my old idea of a poem on my own version of the Cupid and Psyche story in which Psyche’s sister would not be jealous, but unable to see anything but moors when Psyche showed her the palace. I have tried it twice before, once in couplet and once in ballad form.”

He actually wrote the book in 1955, and it was published in 1956.

Links to read more about other readers’ responses to Till We Have Faces:
The Well at the World’s End
A Great Gulf Fixed: The Problem of Obsessive Love in C.S. Lewis’ Till We Have Faces by Amelia F. Franz.
Till We Have Faces at love2learn.net
Heather’s not a fan.
Kevin Stilley on Till We Have Faces.
A library is the hospital of the mind: Till We Have Faces.
Further Up and Further In: A Way into Till We Have Faces.
Marian Powell at BookLoons.
Peter Kreeft on TIll We Have Faces (audio) Excellent, though long (sermon length), and well worth your time to listen.

A few questions to ponder:

According to Orual, the gods are unknowable, whimsical, cruel, capricous, nasty, mean-spirited, not trustworthy, demanding. Why do the gods appear to her in this way and to Psyche as the opposite? How can a rational, thinking person come to the point of faith? If God is good, why is he so mysterious and hidden?

How does Orual’s love for Psyche become something evil and hateful? Is this transformation true to life? Can our human love for spouse, family, and friends become obsessive and even evil? How and why?

Till We Have Faces ends the same way the Book of Job ends–with questions unanswered. Is this a satisfying ending? Why does God not answer Orual’s complaint? Why does God not answer Job’s complaint?

Applicable Biblical references:

“He who loves his life loses it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it to life eternal.
If anyone serves Me, he must follow Me; and where I am, there My servant will be also; if anyone serves Me, the Father will honor him.” John 12:25-26

Then Job answered the Lord and said,
2 “I know that You can do all things,
And that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted.
3 ‘Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?’
“Therefore I have declared that which I did not understand,
Things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.”
4 ‘Hear, now, and I will speak;
I will ask You, and You instruct me.’
5 “I have aheard of You by the hearing of the ear;
But now my eye sees You;
6 Therefore I retract,
And I repent in dust and ashes.” Job 42:1-6

“For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.” I Corinthians 13:12

If you read Till We Have Faces, either this month or earlier, please leave your thoughts or a link to your post about the book in the comments. When I get back from my Lent break, I’ll add your links to this post.

The Cain and Abel Motif

I’m setting these speculations to post on a Tuesday, the day that LOST airs in the U.S., but I am still on blog hiatus for Lent. My Cain and Abel thoughts may be outdated or superseded by events in the TV show by the time this post appears.

Cain and Abel were the first brothers. Cain murdered Abel out of jealousy.

Isaac and Ishmael were the sons of Abraham. Ishmael, the older but also the son of a slave-wife instead of Abraham’s true wife, Sarah, mocked his younger half-brother until things were so dysfunctional that Abraham had to send Hagar and Ishmael away. Some say the rivalry between Ishmael, the ancestor of the Arabic nations, and Isaac, the ancestor of the Jews, continues to this day.

Jacob and Esau were the twin sons of Isaac and his wife Rebekah. Their rivalry started in the womb and continued into adulthood. Romans 9:10-16:

10 This son was our ancestor Isaac. When he married Rebekah, she gave birth to twins. 11 But before they were born, before they had done anything good or bad, she received a message from God. (This message shows that God chooses people according to his own purposes; 12 he calls people, but not according to their good or bad works.) She was told, “Your older son will serve your younger son.” 13 In the words of the Scriptures, “I loved Jacob, but I rejected Esau.”[h]

14 Are we saying, then, that God was unfair? Of course not! 15 For God said to Moses,

“I will show mercy to anyone I choose,
and I will show compassion to anyone I choose.”[i]

16 So it is God who decides to show mercy. We can neither choose it nor work for it.

Of course, Joseph and his brothers are full of jealousy and rivalry, and as the story goes Joseph, the younger brother, becomes the most powerful man in Egypt and saves his entire family from extinction. Again, God chooses whom He will bless and how.

Then, there was at least some rivalry and bad feeling between Moses and his brother Aaron and his sister Miriam. When Moses went up Mr. Sinai to meet with God and receive the commandments, Aaron was persuaded by his long absence and by the people’s need for guidance to build them a golden calf to worship. Later, Aaron and Miriam began to speak against Moses because he had a foreign wife, and they attempted what sounds like a coup. But God thwarted their rebellion by giving Miriam a temporary case of leprosy.

I noticed something interesting as I was thinking about the Cain/Abel motif in LOST. Not many of the guys on LOST have brothers. Sayid may have had a brother, or maybe it was a cousin? No brother for Jack or Sawyer or Ben or Locke or Miles or Faraday or Richard or Boone or Walt or . . . Hurley had a married brother, I think. Mostly the rest are only children or they have one sister or half-sister.

Mr. Eko had a brother, Yemi, and in their relationship the Cain and Abel motif comes through loud and clear. Yemi is the good and chosen younger brother; Mr. Eko is locked outside of society and the grace of God. Then Yemi dies as a result of Mr. Eko’s actions, and Mr. Eko must take on the role of his Good Brother, become a priest, and later a spiritual leader on the island.

Charlie had a brother, too, and the two of them play out not so much the story of Cain and Abel as Jesus’s parable of the Prodigal Son and the Elder Brother. Charlie is the good brother at first, the one who stays off drugs, who goes straight, who goes to confession, and his brother Liam is as wild and prodigal as the prodigal in the parable. But as Liam comes to his senses, Charlie loses his. Then, Charlie wonders why Liam receives grace and a family while Charlie is shut out from everything good by his addiction and his chasing after fame and fortune. It’s not fair. God’s grace and forgiveness are never fair; that’s why we who deserve justice and the wages of sin (death) receive grace with thanksgiving.

Now as last season ended and in this final season we have another set of (maybe) brothers on LOST: Jacob and, let’s call him Esau. There is a definite rivalry between the two who have differing ideas about how the Island should be run. “Cain” has “Abel” killed, but the two come back to fight another day.

Is one of these brothers or rivals the son of blessing and the other the cursed one? Whose sons are they?

Lenten Blog Break and a New 100 Project

Today is Mardi Gras (Fat Tuesday), and tomorrow is Ash Wednesday, the beginning of Lent. For the past three years I’ve taken a break from Semicolon and from blogging for the forty days of Lent. I’ve been blogging since October 2003, and I plan to continue blogging. I just feel that this break is a good time of rest and reevaluation for me and for my family.

I will continue to post the Saturday Review of Books each week, but I may not be able to read your reviews until after I get back in April. I also have a few posts and re-posts and links set up to come online on certain dates while I’m gone.

Last year I conducted a Top 100 Hymns Poll during the spring and summer. I had such a great time counting down all the favorite hymns of all my readers, so I decided to try something similar this year.

IMG_0209I thought a Top 100 Classic Poems Poll would be a great spring/summer project. I might learn something and be encouraged in my own quest to learn and appreciate poetry. You might learn some new poems or be reminded of some classics. We all might enjoy visiting and re-visiting the best in English poetry together.

Here’s how I think this poll/journey is going to work:
1. Make a list of your top ten classic poems of all time.
Classic: judged over a period of time to be of the highest quality and outstanding of its kind.
For the purposes of this poll the poems you choose should be poems that are no longer under copyright protection. Anything written before 1910 (1923?) is most likely no longer under copyright. Anything written after 1910 (1923?) is probably still protected by copyright. I’m putting this restriction on your selections for two reasons: first, this way the poems in our list will be truly classic, judged over a period of time. Second, if we restrict the list to poetry that is not under copyright, then I can freely share the poems that are chosen here at Semicolon.

2. List these poems in your order of preference. So your #1 poem would be the one you like the best, and so on. I will be giving your first choice 10 points, your second choice 9 points, and so on.

3. Submit your list to me at sherryDOTearlyATgmailDOTcom. Write “Poem Survey” in the subject line. I’d rather you didn’t leave your votes in my comments here because it’ll be easier to tabulate all the votes if they’re all in my email (plus I want everyone’s votes to be a surprise). Deadline for votes to be sent to me is midnight, March 26, 2010.

4. If you like, you can submit a justification for each poem (tell me why it’s a favorite). Or you can send me a link to an audio or video version online. Include the title or first line of the poem and the name of the poet. At the end of March I will tally up the totals, and I will pull from the submitted pieces why one reader or another liked a particular poem (naming the reader, of course). That way we’ll be able to hear from a whole bunch of people about why they love one poem or another. I will then count down from 100 to 1, over the course of Poetry Month (April), May and into June, the top choices of what folks feel the best classic poems of all time are.

Thanks in advance for your votes/nominations. I’m going to enjoy this little exercise, and I hope you will, too.
Oh, and if you don’t mind, I would appreciate your publicizing this poll on your blog. I’d like to get at least 100 nominations or lists for this survey; more would be even better. If you want to post your top ten list on your blog, that’s fine. Just be sure you send me a copy.

Finally here are a few links to help you as you observe Lent, waiting and watching for our Lord’s Resurrection Day:

10 Lenten Traditions to Enrich Your Family’s Easter Celebration by Barbara Curtis.

Books for Lent to Lead You into Resurrection

Lenten Links: Resources for a Post-Evangelical Lent by iMonk.

At a Hen’s Pace An Anglican Family Lent

Vegetarian Recipes for Lent.

Janice Meredith by Paul Leiscester Ford

OK, so older is not always better. The bestsellers of today are sometimes full of gratuitous sex and violence, without much depth of character and devoid of significant meaning.

Janice Meredith, one of the ten best selling novels of 1900, didn’t have any sex, other than a few stolen kisses, and the violence of the American Revolution was described somewhat obliquely through the eyes and experiences of the noncombatants, Janice and her mother. For example:

“Only with death did the people forget the enormities of those few months, when Cornwallis’s army cut a double swath from tide water almost to the mountains, and Tarleton’s and Simcoe’s cavalry rode whither they pleased; and the hatred of the British and the fear of their own slaves outlasted even the passing away of the generation which had suffered.”

Nevertheless, the character development in Janice Meredith is poor, and by today’s standards, the book could have been edited down from 503 pages to about half that. Janice herself begins the novel as a giddy teenager reading romance novels and indulging in romantic fantasies, and she ends the novel, after having bounced from one suitor to the next and back over a dozen times, indulging in her new romantic fantasy of marriage to dashing young officer with her father’s reluctant permission.

The characters of the Revolution –George Washington, Cornwallis, General Gates, General Lee, and others—appear with as much historical accuracy as can be expected in a romance novel. The battles and the deprivations that the people experience as the war drags on seem real, and if the language is little flowery, the descriptions are at least based on fact.

The main problem with the novel was that I never really liked wishy-washy little Miss Meredith. She never knew what she wanted. SHe ran away with one man and was fetched back by her parents. She promised herself in marriage to at least four different men over the course of the novel in return for their help to her and her family as they attempted to navigate the vicissitudes of war. Janice’s father promised her to several different men, usually the same ones Janice affianced, but at differing times. It made for several confusing reversals of plot, and Janice ended up seeming fickle and willing to give herself in marriage to the highest bidder.

If all of the bestsellers of 1900 are like this one, I feel sure that:

a) most of the books on the bestseller list must have been purchased and read by women. I can’t imagine any man reading through 500 pages of this.
b) surely Dickens’ and Thackeray’s heroines were a relief to the ladies of 1900 after reading about Miss Janice. At least Dora (David Copperfield) knows she’s found a good man in David, and Becky Sharp (Vanity Fair) could have transplanted herself to the New World and had a whopping adventure in the time it took Janice to dither around, flirt with half the British army, and then end up where she began with a penniless and somewhat immature American fiance.

Footnote: I looked up the author, Paul Leicester Ford, and his life, or more particularly his death, would make a rather lurid novel. (In fact this NY TImes article about Ford’s death reads like a novel. Ah, the good old days of yellow journalism!) Ford wrote biographies as well as novels, and his subjects were several of the founding fathers, including Washington. So I’m guessing his facts and characterizations are, as I said, quite accurate.

Sunday Salon: Random Stuff

The 2009 Cybils Award Winning Books in all categories.

The Semicolon Book Club selection for February is Till We Have Faces by C.S. Lewis. There will be a discussion post on the 28th here at Semicolon. So if you’re reading with us, it’s time to get the book and get reading.

I can spend a lot of time playing Lexulous (Scrabble) if I let myself.

I’m looking forward to my now-annual blog break for Lent. It’s not that I’m tired of blogging, just that I’m ready for an enforced break. Even a self-enforced break.

My sister, Judy, just started her book blog a few weeks ago, and it’s great. If you get tired of reading recycled Semicolon during the forty days of Lent, go over read at Carpe Libris.

I’m starting a new blog project while I’m on break: come back and read all about it on Tuesday, Mardi Gras. Do you do anything special on the Tuesday before Lent? Do you do anything special to observe Ash Wednesday?

President’s Day for Kids

Monday, February 15th is Presidents’ Day, so I thought I’d re-run this list with a few additions. Have a happy holiday!

Leetla Giorgio Washeenton by Thomas Augustine Daly.

More Washington Poetry.

O Captain My Captain by Walt Whitman.

White House site with mini-biographies of all 44 U.S. Presidents.

More information on the Presidents for President’s Day.

Recommended Children’s Books about the Presidents:

The Buck Stops Here by Alice Provensen.

So You Want to be President? by Judith St. George and David Small.

Lives of the Presidents: Fame, Shame (and What the Neighbors Thought) by Kathleen Krull.

A Book of Americans by Rosemary Carr and Stephen Vincent Benet.

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the White House: Foolhardiness, Folly, and Fraud in the Presidential Elections, from Andrew Jackson to George W. Bush by David E. Johnson.

George Washington and the Founding of a Nation by Albert Marrin.

George Washington’s World by Genevieve Foster.

George Washington’s Breakfast by Jean Fritz.

Dangerous Crossing: The Revolutionary Voyage of John and John Quincy Adams by Stephen Krensky.

John Adams: Young Revolutionary by Jan Adkins. (Childhood of Famous Americans series)

Abigail Adams: Girl of Colonial Days by Jean Brown Wagoner. (Childhood of Famous Americans series)

A Picture Book of Thomas Jefferson by David A. Adler.

The Great Little Madison by Jean Fritz.

Young John Quincy by Cheryl Harness.

Old Hickory: Andrew Jackson and the American People by Albert Marrin.

William Henry Harrison, Young Tippecanoe by Howard Peckham. (Young Patriots series)


Lincoln: A Photobiography by Russell Freedman

Lincoln Shot: A President’s Life Remembered
 by Barry Denenberg.

Chasing Lincoln’s Killer by James Swanson.

Abraham Lincoln for Kids: His Life and Times with 21 Activities by Janis Herbert.

If You Grew Up With Abraham Lincoln by Ann McGovern.

Unconditional Surrender: U. S. Grant and the Civil War by Albert Marrin.

Bully For You, Teddy Roosevelt by Jean Fritz

The Great Adventure: Theodore Roosevelt and the Rise of Modern America by Albert Marrin.

Eleanor Roosevelt: A Life of Discovery by Russell Freedman.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt by Russell Freedman.

Dwight D. Eisenhower: Young Military Leader by George E. Stanley.(Childhood of Famous Americans series)

Kennedy Assassinated! The World Mourns: A Reporter’s Story by Wilborn Hampton.

Ronald Reagan: Young Leader by Montrew Dunham. (Childhood of Famous Americans series)

Many Happy Returns: Poetry Friday

Happy Birthday to poet and novelist George Meredith, b.1828, of whom Oscar Wilde said, “”Ah, Meredith! Who can define him? His style is chaos illumined by flashes of lightning.” (Wilde had an opinion on everything and everyone, didn’t he?)

Meredith wrote one novel that I’ve read, Diana of the Crossways.

I’ve also read a series of sonnets that Meridith wrote, called Modern Love, in which he worked out his feelings about his wife who three years after their marriaage deserted him and ran away with a Pre-Raphaelite artist. (Those Pre-Raphaelites!) the sonnet sequence consists of fifty sonnets tracing the decay and the death of a romance and a marriage. Rather a sad subject for the advent of Valentine’s Day. Think of it as an antidote to all the hearts and flowers clogging the airways.

It is the season of the sweet wild rose,
My Lady’s emblem in the heart of me!
So golden-crownèd shines she gloriously,
And with that softest dream of blood she glows:
Mild as an evening heaven round Hesper bright!
I pluck the flower, and smell it, and revive
The time when in her eyes I stood alive.
I seem to look upon it out of Night.
Here’s Madam, stepping hastily. Her whims
Bid her demand the flower, which I let drop.
As I proceed, I feel her sharply stop,
And crush it under heel with trembling limbs.
She joins me in a cat-like way, and talks
Of company, and even condescends
To utter laughing scandal of old friends.
These are the summer days, and these our walks.

Ouch. I hope if you send your love roses for Valentine’s Day, they fare better than the one in the poem.

LOST Rehash: What Kate Does

Wow! LOST becomes Island of the Zombies.

So, to start toward the beginning, this episode is called What Kate Does. In an episode in season two of LOST called What Kate Did, we found out that Kate blew up her biological father, Wayne, and that she has a step-father named Sam Austen. On the island in this episode, Kate kisses Jack, runs away from him, and then has a heart-to-heart conversation with Sawyer who is recovering from being sick and infected and whatever else he was when he trekked halfway across the island with Ana Lucia and her crew.

I’m assuming this episode has something to do with that one, but other than Kate still running, chasing Sawyer, and generally being a fruitcake, I don’t know what. Kate and Claire are bonding in the No Crash World in spite of Kate’s having taken Claire hostage and scared the heck out of her. Claire even lies for Kate and gives Kate her credit card. Is Claire the world’s biggest sucker or what? (Maybe Sawyer should try a con on Claire, except Claire has no money —and now no credit card either.) Oh, and Kate also tells Claire that she’s “innocent”, and Claire believes that, too.

At least, we’re fairly sure that Kate is Kate. What Kate does is run away. Kate is The Fugitive. So since she’s still running, she’s still Kate. But who is Sayid? Is he still Sayid, or has he been “claimed”? Hurley asks Sayid if he’s a zombie, and Sayid says no. But this episode is all about trust, and can we trust the resurrected Sayid? Then, again, can we trust Temple Master Dogen? He says the pill that Jack is supposed to give Sayid is “medicine”; then, it turns out that it’s really poison. If they wanted to kill Sayid, why didn’t they do it while he was on the torture table? If they want to cure him, why use Jack to be the go-between?

How many times tonight did someone tell someone else that everything would be explained? Dogen said that they would answer all the Losties’ questions as soon as they talked to Sayid. But they didn’t. The show’s masterminds told us again at the beginning of the show and at the end that this was the last season when all questions would be answered. Then, at the end in the sneak peeks at next week, Fake Locke tells someone (I can’t remember) that he will explain everything. I think they’re teasing us. To paraphrase Hurley, whenever we go away and allow private conversations (among the writers), we end up doing something we don’t understand.

I am glad that Hurley’s back. “We’ll just wait outside in the Food Court.”
Miles: “As you can see, Hurley’s taken on the leadership position.”

Hurley is my hero, and Miles makes a good sidekick.

Next week’s episode is called The Substitute. Who do you think will be substituting for whom and doing what?

LOST Rehash: LA X

Antagonist: “They come, fight, they destroy, they corrupt. It always ends the same.”
Jacob: “It only ends once. Anything that happens before that is just progress.”

Antagonist aka Smokey aka Fake Locke aka Dark Suit aka Esau—if the writers would just provide a name for the guy I would be pleased.

Are we making any progress at all here in terms of resolving this story?

(By the way, if you’re reading any further, there are SPOILERS!)

Tonight’s double episode was supposed to start providing answers, but all I found out was what was in the guitar case. And I didn’t care about the guitar case contents that much. I recognized the ankh, an Egyptian symbol. It’s supposed to symbolize eternal life. Interesting note from Wikipedia that may have nothing whatsoever to do with LOST: “the depiction of the Ancient Egyptian Ankh was preserved by the Copts in their representation of the Christian cross.” It does look like a cross to someone like me, bathed in Christianity and Christian symbols.

And then they went and “baptized” Sayid, practically drowning him in the process. I felt so sorry for Sayid in this episode when he was talking to Hurley about what would happen to him after death. He was so guilty, and I wanted to run in there and give him the hope of the gospel. “Yes, you’ve done horrible stuff. But you can be forgiven. You’ve been bought with a price! Jesus can redeem you!”

So has Sayid become Jacob? Or vice-versa? Sort of the way Smokey Guy has become a Locke twin? And what’s with Locke having two bodies? One dead and one alive. Was Jacob using Christian Shepherd’s body, and now he’s using Sayid’s?

I think we know for sure who the “good guys” are and who the “bad guys” are. If they’re with Jacob, even after Jacob’s death, they’re good, and if they’re with Mr. Fake Locke, they’re bad guys. And Ben’s so confused, he doesn’t know which side he’s on anymore.

Has Time itself split into two streams? The LOSTies at LAX are going from bad to worse as they pursue their not-so-merry lives. Did you notice that none of the Tailies showed up on the airplane, except for Bernard and that stewardess, Cindy. Where are Libby and Ana Lucia and Eko? And how did Desmond get on the plane? (Ha, Desmond is seeing Jack in another life, brotha!)

Meanwhile back on the island, they’re still alive even after the explosion of a hydrogen bomb. How can that be? And how did Juliet know that “it worked?”

I don’t want Juliet to be dead—again. In LOST no one is completely, totally, without a doubt, dead until they’re buried and Miles can hear them speak from the dead. Sayid wasn’t dead, and Miles knew it. Juliet is dead, at least in island time.

The book that Hurley picked up in the tunnels underneath (?) the temple was Fear and Trembling by Soren Kierkegaard. According to Eldest Daughter, who’s a fan of Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling is mostly about the story of Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac in Genesis 22. For Kierkegaard, Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac was an example of “faith” which is contrary to reason and even absurd. The Knight of Faith, against reason according to Kierkegaard, believes that with God all things are possible and works out his salvation “with fear and trembling.” (Philippians 2:12)

Jack tells Locke in this episode that “nothing is irreversible” in reference to Locke’s paralysis. Could this statement also refer to Jack’s decision to detonate the hydrogen bomb and send them all back to their miserable pre-crash lives?

Also, Lostpedia says that Desmond was reading Midnight’s Children by Salman Rushdie. It’s a novel about Indian history and the events leading up to India’s independence. I’ve never read anything by Rushdie, but this Booker prize-winning novel is said to feature “magical realism.” Give me magic or give me realism; magical realism confuses me.

No live blogging at Thinklings, but there are lots of comments.
Bill: “In this series we’ve done flash backs. Then we did flash forward. Now we’re doing flash sidewayses.”