So after a week-long vacation, and several extremely busy days after getting back, I've finally returned to writing on a daily basis this week. The first couple days were tough, but now the words are flowing. I'm struck again, as I have been in the past, how important it is to write every day.
For the novelist, it's critical. You simply can't get any momentum going if you take days off between writing sessions. When you take a couple days off, you have to read over what you've previously written, re-calibrate, take a few paragraphs to warm up, and only then does real writing come out, maybe. You'll never finish that way. But write daily, and each new session flows beautifully. Your mind has been working on the problems of the previous session and you start exactly where you left off previously, with new ideas and energy.
I'm not the only one who thinks this. Stephen King's a big believer in writing every day. Raymond Chandler prescribed four hours a day for writing, and even if he couldn't think of anything, he forced himself to sit in the chair and look out the window.
That's novelists. Surely other types of writers are different? Well, maybe, but I'm not so sure. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe started writing a poem every day when he was a teen-ager, and continued the habit throughout his life. It worked out pretty well for him. I bet most successful writers make it to the writing desk daily, or nearly so.
If you miss a day here and there, it's probably unavoidable. Don't sweat it. But try to write at least six days every week. Avoid missing more than one day in a row. That's how you keep your brain bubbling. Here's a secret: Writing is not the product of inspiration; inspiration is the product of writing.
Thursday, May 30, 2013
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
What I'm Reading: In Cold Blood
Another recently finished book I'm only now getting around to writing about. "But isn't In Cold Blood true crime?" you may ask, more in Dana's wheelhouse than mine? Indeed it is, but since reading Popular Crime: Reflections on the Celebration of Violence by Bill James last summer, where he mentioned ICB as the best true crime book ever written, I've wanted to tackle it.
So ICB tells the story of Dick Hickock and Perry Smith, two ex-cons who had briefly shared a cell in the Kansas State Penitentary and got together after their release to commit a robbery. Their target: the Clutter farm, a prosperous spread in western Kansas described to them in detail by another prisoner. A farm may seem an unlikely robbery prospect, but they were told (erroneously, as it turned out) that Herb Clutter kept a safe in the house with at least $10,000 in it at all times. And the place was isolated, giving them plenty of time to work without interruption. All the time they needed to locate and open the safe, and kill any family members in the house, if necessary.
They broke in with no problems, but when they found no safe, they woke Herb, his wife Bonnie, and his teen-age children, Kenyon and Nancy, and tied them up. They knocked Herb around a bit but realized quickly the safe didn't exist, and proceeded to execute the family. Then they drove to Kansas City, floated a few hundred bucks worth of bad checks, and took a little vacation to Mexico. Eventually they returned to the United States and were located by Kansas detectives a few months later in Las Vegas.
The murder spree was nationwide news in 1959, and attracted the attention of Truman Capote, who traveled to Holcomb, Kansas, in 1960 and spent four years interviewing residents and following Hickock's and Smith's trial and death row appeals. He published his book in 1966, the first "nonfiction novel," in which a real-life narrative is elaborated with fictionalized thoughts and conversations.
One thing that struck me about the book is that neither Dick Hickock or Perry Smith could have committed the murders on his own, but their respective character flaws added up to a complete sociopath when together. Dick lacked a conscience and was the mastermind of their misadventures, but didn't have the guts to kill. Perry was an interesting character, sensitive, intelligent, and a natural at any instrument he picked up; he might have been a musician if a childhood of neglect and abuse hadn't twisted his personality. He too was no real murderer, but was capable of brutal violence if pushed, or when goaded and guided by Dick.
I'm probably not cut out for reading true crime. I have no problem with scary or gory books and movies in general, but I do prefer them to be fiction. There were several points when I was really getting into the story, only to realize that it had actually happened and become a little sickened at my own eager response and identification with the charismatic criminals. The only one I remember reading before this was something I picked up at my grandparent's house when I was in high school, a book of my grandfather's on Richard Ramirez, the 1970s California serial killer known as the Nightstalker. I was bothered then, too, by a feeling of what almost might be termed bloodlust when reading it, an unhealthy desire to see how the horror played out. (And what fascination with evil drives my grandfather, a gentle retired country doctor, to read such books by the boatload?)
But if this is your thing, I agree In Cold Blood is probably as good as it gets. The writing is precise and elegant, the characters well-presented and incisively analyzed. I'm not qualified to say how close Capote got to real life, but it feels as real as possible. There's nothing sensationalized in his telling, but be aware he does describe the murders in clinical, policework-like detail. In the end, I'm glad I read it, and can recommend it to adult who likes good writing and has a moderately strong stomach.
So ICB tells the story of Dick Hickock and Perry Smith, two ex-cons who had briefly shared a cell in the Kansas State Penitentary and got together after their release to commit a robbery. Their target: the Clutter farm, a prosperous spread in western Kansas described to them in detail by another prisoner. A farm may seem an unlikely robbery prospect, but they were told (erroneously, as it turned out) that Herb Clutter kept a safe in the house with at least $10,000 in it at all times. And the place was isolated, giving them plenty of time to work without interruption. All the time they needed to locate and open the safe, and kill any family members in the house, if necessary.
They broke in with no problems, but when they found no safe, they woke Herb, his wife Bonnie, and his teen-age children, Kenyon and Nancy, and tied them up. They knocked Herb around a bit but realized quickly the safe didn't exist, and proceeded to execute the family. Then they drove to Kansas City, floated a few hundred bucks worth of bad checks, and took a little vacation to Mexico. Eventually they returned to the United States and were located by Kansas detectives a few months later in Las Vegas.
The murder spree was nationwide news in 1959, and attracted the attention of Truman Capote, who traveled to Holcomb, Kansas, in 1960 and spent four years interviewing residents and following Hickock's and Smith's trial and death row appeals. He published his book in 1966, the first "nonfiction novel," in which a real-life narrative is elaborated with fictionalized thoughts and conversations.
One thing that struck me about the book is that neither Dick Hickock or Perry Smith could have committed the murders on his own, but their respective character flaws added up to a complete sociopath when together. Dick lacked a conscience and was the mastermind of their misadventures, but didn't have the guts to kill. Perry was an interesting character, sensitive, intelligent, and a natural at any instrument he picked up; he might have been a musician if a childhood of neglect and abuse hadn't twisted his personality. He too was no real murderer, but was capable of brutal violence if pushed, or when goaded and guided by Dick.
I'm probably not cut out for reading true crime. I have no problem with scary or gory books and movies in general, but I do prefer them to be fiction. There were several points when I was really getting into the story, only to realize that it had actually happened and become a little sickened at my own eager response and identification with the charismatic criminals. The only one I remember reading before this was something I picked up at my grandparent's house when I was in high school, a book of my grandfather's on Richard Ramirez, the 1970s California serial killer known as the Nightstalker. I was bothered then, too, by a feeling of what almost might be termed bloodlust when reading it, an unhealthy desire to see how the horror played out. (And what fascination with evil drives my grandfather, a gentle retired country doctor, to read such books by the boatload?)
But if this is your thing, I agree In Cold Blood is probably as good as it gets. The writing is precise and elegant, the characters well-presented and incisively analyzed. I'm not qualified to say how close Capote got to real life, but it feels as real as possible. There's nothing sensationalized in his telling, but be aware he does describe the murders in clinical, policework-like detail. In the end, I'm glad I read it, and can recommend it to adult who likes good writing and has a moderately strong stomach.
Sunday, May 19, 2013
What I'm Reading: The Complete Crumb, Vol. 5
So it's been awhile since I've written in here about what I've read. I was out of town last week on a family vacation (Disneyworld!) and spent this week getting caught up. I might write up another of these later this week, but I'll start with the Complete Crumb, Volume 5. This collects underground comic artist R. Crumb's work from December 1967 to April 1969.
Wow, is this one ever not for kids. Drug use, extremely uncensored sexuality, and all sorts of adult situations and scatology, all done in the cute, "big-foot" style of art Crumb is best known for. This is what most would consider his classic period, and includes the Janis Joplin album covers, as well as multiple episodes of his best-known characters taken from underground comix and alternative newspapers of the period.
Fritz the Cat, the motivationally-challenged cat who stumbles, smokes (not tobacco), and sleeps his way through San Francisco's hippie underworld, receives the book's longest section. It's a fairly episodic story culminating in Fritz's almost accidental involvement in a Marxist cell's plot to bomb San Francisco's bridges. Fortunately, the cell is utterly incompetent, many of its members more interested in free dope than revolution, and the plot fails. Fritz himself is dopey and affable, and it's hard not to like him even when he's involved in terrorism--after all, he doesn't really mean it, he's just going along with what his friends are up to. I do have to wonder what Crumb really thought of his friends and acquaintances, if the bumblers, psychotics, and druggies depicted in this story were typical of his own circle.
Mr. Natural, the white-bearded philosoper who instructs his "clients" in overcoming their hang-ups to achieve sexual liberation and spiritual fulfillment, appears in several one- or two-page strips. In one series of strips, he even goes to heaven and meets God, only to decide the scene is too boring and he wants to go back to Earth. Mr. Natural is the opposite of Fritz, perhaps something of Crumb's ideal man: funny, wise, able to see through the various falsehoods the world presents to discern what's really important in life.
Another recurring character is Angel McSpade, a sort of hyper-sexual Aunt Jemima who's used in several pieces satirizing white men's attitudes towards black women. I found these strips to be the most uncomfortable to read, although I can see the point Crumb was making. In fact, they are probably the most pointedly political strips in the book.
Much of the remaining material is little more than humorous scatological skits, fairly juvenile but funny if read with the the right attitude. As a whole, I would recommend this book only to a fairly narrow segment of people. If you have an interest in comics history or the 60s counterculture, and a high tolerance for raw language and graphic (though cartoon) sexuality, this is an important document of the era not to be overlooked. For anybody else, this should be avoided.
Wow, is this one ever not for kids. Drug use, extremely uncensored sexuality, and all sorts of adult situations and scatology, all done in the cute, "big-foot" style of art Crumb is best known for. This is what most would consider his classic period, and includes the Janis Joplin album covers, as well as multiple episodes of his best-known characters taken from underground comix and alternative newspapers of the period.
Fritz the Cat, the motivationally-challenged cat who stumbles, smokes (not tobacco), and sleeps his way through San Francisco's hippie underworld, receives the book's longest section. It's a fairly episodic story culminating in Fritz's almost accidental involvement in a Marxist cell's plot to bomb San Francisco's bridges. Fortunately, the cell is utterly incompetent, many of its members more interested in free dope than revolution, and the plot fails. Fritz himself is dopey and affable, and it's hard not to like him even when he's involved in terrorism--after all, he doesn't really mean it, he's just going along with what his friends are up to. I do have to wonder what Crumb really thought of his friends and acquaintances, if the bumblers, psychotics, and druggies depicted in this story were typical of his own circle.
Mr. Natural, the white-bearded philosoper who instructs his "clients" in overcoming their hang-ups to achieve sexual liberation and spiritual fulfillment, appears in several one- or two-page strips. In one series of strips, he even goes to heaven and meets God, only to decide the scene is too boring and he wants to go back to Earth. Mr. Natural is the opposite of Fritz, perhaps something of Crumb's ideal man: funny, wise, able to see through the various falsehoods the world presents to discern what's really important in life.
Another recurring character is Angel McSpade, a sort of hyper-sexual Aunt Jemima who's used in several pieces satirizing white men's attitudes towards black women. I found these strips to be the most uncomfortable to read, although I can see the point Crumb was making. In fact, they are probably the most pointedly political strips in the book.
Much of the remaining material is little more than humorous scatological skits, fairly juvenile but funny if read with the the right attitude. As a whole, I would recommend this book only to a fairly narrow segment of people. If you have an interest in comics history or the 60s counterculture, and a high tolerance for raw language and graphic (though cartoon) sexuality, this is an important document of the era not to be overlooked. For anybody else, this should be avoided.
Sunday, April 21, 2013
What I'm Reading: The Life of Samuel Johnson
There's little I can say about James Boswell's Life of Samuel Johnson that hasn't been said before, and better. Thus, I won't attempt a real review, but I'll just put down some of my observations. It is simply the best biography and one of the most entertaining books in the English language. Along with Alexander Pope, Johnson was one of the two towering figures of 18th century literature. Unfortunately, he's not as well-remembered today as he might be, I think because his greatest achievement, writing the first comprehensive dictionary of the English language, has been supplanted by the OED and Webster and others.
He was also a poet, an essayist (almost singlehandedly penning both the Rambler and the Idler, two magazines of the time), a literary historian, one of the foremost Latin scholars of his century, and possibly the best English conversationalist ever. That last point is especially made clear in Boswell's biography. Boswell, a wealthy member of the Scottish gentry, and probably Johnson's best friend for the final 30 years of his life, accompanied his friend to dinner parties and on excursions around London and the English countryside, all the while recording everything Johnson said throughout the day in his journal. Rarely a page goes by without one of Johnson's finely honed witticisms, trenchant observations of human life, or a funny or enlightening conversation with a companion.
And the companions Johnson had! Just off the top of my head, Joshua Reynolds (foremost English painter of the 18th century), Edmund Burke (famous conservative philosopher), Oliver Goldsmith (leading playright), and Edward Gibbon (wrote The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire) turn up with regularity. There are also cameos by King George III, Adam Smith, John Wesley, and dozens of others I can't remember at the moment.
That cast of characters is one reason this book is what I refer to as a "Shortcut to Smartness." By this, I mean a book that so expands your knowledge and understanding in so many areas that it is like a college course in and of itself. First, you learn everything about Samuel Johnson himself. Second, you learn a lot about all his famous friends. Third, you improve your grasp of 18th century British history, for many historical events are referenced. Fourth, more so than in most biographies, you learn about everyday life in the past, because the book covers not only the major events of Johnson's life but also the little day-to-day oddities and intersting happenings. Fifth, you become wiser about human nature and the best ways to live, for Johnson's insight can't help but sink in. (In the future on this blog, I'll talk about more books I think of as Shortcuts to Smartness.)
Now, Life of Johnson is a thick book, but don't be intimidated! This is my second time through, and it's taken me more than a year. But that's not at all because it's so difficult to read, but because I read twenty or thirty pages at a time and then put it aside for a few days. It's actually the perfect book to pick up and put down like that as so much of it is episodic--a few pages are devoted to, say, a visit to Johnson's alma mater, Oxford, or an evening meeting of the Literary Club, or Johnson's thoughts on the occasion of a friend whose son was hanged, etc.. But I always come back to it because it's so funny and wise. I think the perfect reader for this book would be an aspiring English or history major during the summer before college--it would give a student such an edge up on the competition in so many ways. But really, any adult who wants to learn about a witty, humane, learned man who had a huge impact on English letters would find Life of Johnson to be of interest.
He was also a poet, an essayist (almost singlehandedly penning both the Rambler and the Idler, two magazines of the time), a literary historian, one of the foremost Latin scholars of his century, and possibly the best English conversationalist ever. That last point is especially made clear in Boswell's biography. Boswell, a wealthy member of the Scottish gentry, and probably Johnson's best friend for the final 30 years of his life, accompanied his friend to dinner parties and on excursions around London and the English countryside, all the while recording everything Johnson said throughout the day in his journal. Rarely a page goes by without one of Johnson's finely honed witticisms, trenchant observations of human life, or a funny or enlightening conversation with a companion.
And the companions Johnson had! Just off the top of my head, Joshua Reynolds (foremost English painter of the 18th century), Edmund Burke (famous conservative philosopher), Oliver Goldsmith (leading playright), and Edward Gibbon (wrote The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire) turn up with regularity. There are also cameos by King George III, Adam Smith, John Wesley, and dozens of others I can't remember at the moment.
That cast of characters is one reason this book is what I refer to as a "Shortcut to Smartness." By this, I mean a book that so expands your knowledge and understanding in so many areas that it is like a college course in and of itself. First, you learn everything about Samuel Johnson himself. Second, you learn a lot about all his famous friends. Third, you improve your grasp of 18th century British history, for many historical events are referenced. Fourth, more so than in most biographies, you learn about everyday life in the past, because the book covers not only the major events of Johnson's life but also the little day-to-day oddities and intersting happenings. Fifth, you become wiser about human nature and the best ways to live, for Johnson's insight can't help but sink in. (In the future on this blog, I'll talk about more books I think of as Shortcuts to Smartness.)
Now, Life of Johnson is a thick book, but don't be intimidated! This is my second time through, and it's taken me more than a year. But that's not at all because it's so difficult to read, but because I read twenty or thirty pages at a time and then put it aside for a few days. It's actually the perfect book to pick up and put down like that as so much of it is episodic--a few pages are devoted to, say, a visit to Johnson's alma mater, Oxford, or an evening meeting of the Literary Club, or Johnson's thoughts on the occasion of a friend whose son was hanged, etc.. But I always come back to it because it's so funny and wise. I think the perfect reader for this book would be an aspiring English or history major during the summer before college--it would give a student such an edge up on the competition in so many ways. But really, any adult who wants to learn about a witty, humane, learned man who had a huge impact on English letters would find Life of Johnson to be of interest.
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
What I'm Reading: Compulsion
Compulsion, by Heidi Ayarbe, is a YA novel about Jake, a senior in high school with a serious case of obsessive/compulsive disorder (OCD). Jake is a standout soccer player being recruited by several colleges, but except for those brief periods of time when he's on the field and they disappear, his life is completely dominated by a number of compulsions: a need to manipulate numbers in his head, to obsessively track the time, to brush his teeth a certain way, chew his food a certain number of times, take a precise number of steps to descend a stairway, etc.
His compulsions get in the way of his social life, and only Luc, a fellow soccer player he's known since kindergarten, puts up with his bizarre behavior. Jake is routinely late to class because he can't leave his house until he's performed his waking ritual a certain way. Despite the fact that pretty girls practically throw themselves at him as the school's star athlete, he has never had a romantic relationship--touching other people is too germy.
Still, there is one person who could help: Mera, a weird girl who used to play with Luc and Jake when they were kids, but is now a school outcast due to her aggressive vegetarianism and take-no-bull attitude. She seems to understand his problems and instinctively does the right things to calm him. It's too bad she's not one of the popular kids.
He can't even describe his problem to anybody--he feels he has to maintain his image as an athlete with a perfect life, and his OCD in no way fits into that agenda. Anyway, he's not aware that his compulsions are a disease. His family is working-class and even though his mother is positively crippled by her own OCD, she's apparently never been to a doctor about it. This was actually the weakest point in the book for me--surely at some point somebody in the family would have seen an episode of Oprah or some other television show about OCD and realize it can be treated?
Other than that point, which can probably be explained away though it wasn't addressed, the book is powerful and emotionally affecting. It really resonated with me because I've had OCD tendencies all my life. In late elementary school, I even suffered from mental number manipulation in my head, just like Jake. I suppose I have/had a mild case, but there was a point when much of my time and energy was taken up with this compulsion. I thought it was a bad habit, and at one point decided to break myself of it. Over a period of weeks I forced myself to stop manipulating numbers whenever my brain would start to do it, an exhausting effort which became easier over time. Maybe if Jake had fought it earlier on, his OCD wouldn't later have become so all-consuming?
I assume my wife brought this home from the library because of my own OCD issues. Nevertheless, I could recommend this book to anybody who wants to learn what it's like to have OCD from inside the head of a sufferer. I can attest from personal experience that the book's treatment of it is realistic. It's not a "fun" book, indeed it's fairly harrowing, but it's quite accessible and readable. It's aimed at teens but I think adults interested in the issue, or who simply want a powerful, well-written story, could read it as well.
His compulsions get in the way of his social life, and only Luc, a fellow soccer player he's known since kindergarten, puts up with his bizarre behavior. Jake is routinely late to class because he can't leave his house until he's performed his waking ritual a certain way. Despite the fact that pretty girls practically throw themselves at him as the school's star athlete, he has never had a romantic relationship--touching other people is too germy.
Still, there is one person who could help: Mera, a weird girl who used to play with Luc and Jake when they were kids, but is now a school outcast due to her aggressive vegetarianism and take-no-bull attitude. She seems to understand his problems and instinctively does the right things to calm him. It's too bad she's not one of the popular kids.
He can't even describe his problem to anybody--he feels he has to maintain his image as an athlete with a perfect life, and his OCD in no way fits into that agenda. Anyway, he's not aware that his compulsions are a disease. His family is working-class and even though his mother is positively crippled by her own OCD, she's apparently never been to a doctor about it. This was actually the weakest point in the book for me--surely at some point somebody in the family would have seen an episode of Oprah or some other television show about OCD and realize it can be treated?
Other than that point, which can probably be explained away though it wasn't addressed, the book is powerful and emotionally affecting. It really resonated with me because I've had OCD tendencies all my life. In late elementary school, I even suffered from mental number manipulation in my head, just like Jake. I suppose I have/had a mild case, but there was a point when much of my time and energy was taken up with this compulsion. I thought it was a bad habit, and at one point decided to break myself of it. Over a period of weeks I forced myself to stop manipulating numbers whenever my brain would start to do it, an exhausting effort which became easier over time. Maybe if Jake had fought it earlier on, his OCD wouldn't later have become so all-consuming?
I assume my wife brought this home from the library because of my own OCD issues. Nevertheless, I could recommend this book to anybody who wants to learn what it's like to have OCD from inside the head of a sufferer. I can attest from personal experience that the book's treatment of it is realistic. It's not a "fun" book, indeed it's fairly harrowing, but it's quite accessible and readable. It's aimed at teens but I think adults interested in the issue, or who simply want a powerful, well-written story, could read it as well.
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Best books of the Bible
My final post of Lent, a list of the top five books of the Bible! Of course top favorites lists are kind of ridiculous. Boiling down all the artistry and importance of, in this case, books of the Bible, to one dimension is an overly simplifying and even arrogant exercise. So let's get to it!
#1) The Acts of the Apostles. I find these tales of the spread of the early church to be endlessly fascinating. The second half of the Apostles gives us the terrific story of Paul, from his conversion on the road to Damascus, through his spreading Christianity across Asia Minor, to his trip to Rome to appeal a prison sentence to Caesar himself, at which point the story abruptly ends. I think my favorite part is his visit to Athens, when he tailors an intellectual argument to the philosophical Athenians, who have gathered to hear him speak as they might any other thinker presenting his theories. Paul is immensely charismatic, a complicated character with an adventure-filled life.
#2) Ruth. A gentle, touching recounting of Ruth's loyalty to her mother-in-law Naomi, even after her husband has passed away, and her mother-in-law's compassionate response, finding her a new husband who will take care of her.
#3) The Gospel of John. The weirdest of the Gospels, and also the only one written (or claimed to be written) by someone who was actually one of the Apostles. Beatifully done and with a tight but well-chosen selection of miracles. I know a lot of people like the Gospel of Luke because it explains so much, but I simply can't believe all that stuff. John leaves out everything unnecessary, including all the nonsense about Jesus's birth. Yet he also includes episodes not found in the other Gospels, such as Jesus raising his dead friend Lazarus, which I think is one of the most humanizing events in his life. Yes, if you can read only one Gospel, I definitely feel that John is the way to go.
#4) The First Book of Samuel. The second half tells of David as a young man, his rise to fame (killing Goliath, remember?), and his gathering together a sort of outlaw band that eventually topples Israel's cruel king Saul. An interesting story, with lots of parts you never hear about in Sunday school. His friendship with Saul's son, Jonathan, in particular, is strongly homoerotic. The story is interesting and David himself a remarkable character.
#5) Micah. Well, this one mainly because my son is named after him. The book itself is kind of a downer, mostly a long prophecy about the coming downfall of Jerusalem. Still, you can't top this quote: "What does the Lord require of you? To act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God." Still trying to get my son to reflect his namesake!
So, what did I get wrong? What are your favorites Bible books?
#1) The Acts of the Apostles. I find these tales of the spread of the early church to be endlessly fascinating. The second half of the Apostles gives us the terrific story of Paul, from his conversion on the road to Damascus, through his spreading Christianity across Asia Minor, to his trip to Rome to appeal a prison sentence to Caesar himself, at which point the story abruptly ends. I think my favorite part is his visit to Athens, when he tailors an intellectual argument to the philosophical Athenians, who have gathered to hear him speak as they might any other thinker presenting his theories. Paul is immensely charismatic, a complicated character with an adventure-filled life.
#2) Ruth. A gentle, touching recounting of Ruth's loyalty to her mother-in-law Naomi, even after her husband has passed away, and her mother-in-law's compassionate response, finding her a new husband who will take care of her.
#3) The Gospel of John. The weirdest of the Gospels, and also the only one written (or claimed to be written) by someone who was actually one of the Apostles. Beatifully done and with a tight but well-chosen selection of miracles. I know a lot of people like the Gospel of Luke because it explains so much, but I simply can't believe all that stuff. John leaves out everything unnecessary, including all the nonsense about Jesus's birth. Yet he also includes episodes not found in the other Gospels, such as Jesus raising his dead friend Lazarus, which I think is one of the most humanizing events in his life. Yes, if you can read only one Gospel, I definitely feel that John is the way to go.
#4) The First Book of Samuel. The second half tells of David as a young man, his rise to fame (killing Goliath, remember?), and his gathering together a sort of outlaw band that eventually topples Israel's cruel king Saul. An interesting story, with lots of parts you never hear about in Sunday school. His friendship with Saul's son, Jonathan, in particular, is strongly homoerotic. The story is interesting and David himself a remarkable character.
#5) Micah. Well, this one mainly because my son is named after him. The book itself is kind of a downer, mostly a long prophecy about the coming downfall of Jerusalem. Still, you can't top this quote: "What does the Lord require of you? To act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God." Still trying to get my son to reflect his namesake!
So, what did I get wrong? What are your favorites Bible books?
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
What I'm Reading: Job
My final reading for Lent: Job. I'm sure everybody knows the basic story. Satan comes to God, who asks him what he thinks of Job, an especially devoted man. Satan responds that of course Job is devoted to God, for God has blessed him. But take away Job's riches, family, and health, and he would curse God as anybody else. God accepts the wager, and Job is made to suffer the loss of everything he holds dear as part of this divine contest.
I'm not sure I realized beforehand that much of Job is poetical. After the brief prose introduction setting up the situation, there are a series of alternating poetic speeches between Job and his friends. Job laments his situation, but never does curse God. Meanwhile, his friends encourage him to repent, claiming he must have sinned in some way for God to punish him so. Job knows he's done nothing wrong, however, and longs for a hearing or trial so he can hear God's charges against him and plead his case.
In the end, God comes in the shape of a great storm and does respond to Job, though it is not the response Job expected. Rather, he demonstrates to Job that his wisdom and power are beyond human understanding, and that Job must simply put his trust and faith in God no matter the circumstances. He never reveals the wager (which in any case he has won--for Job did remain faithful, despite all his complaining) or otherwise explain himself, essentially for the same reason you don't explain yourself when you tell your two-year old child not to run in the street or that he can't have a juicebox right now.
The language in Job is quite beautiful, full of metaphor and grandeur, if quite ornate by modern standards. I wouldn't have minded it a bit shorter, though it's not difficult to read. The arguments between the friends do seem to go in circles after awhile. On the hand, I would have liked more on the relationship between Satan and God. Oddly, they speak to each other almost as old friends--it would have been interesting to have this explicated at more length.
It occurred to me while reading it that the author (who is thought to have written this down around 600-400 BC) was himself writing ancient history, for the story is set in the time of the patriarchs (i.e. somewhere around 2000-1500 BC). Not sure whether he considered himself to be recounting an actual historic episode, or if it's meant purely as a fable or parable. Wikipedia suggests there are "Jobic" stories found in earlier Sumerian and Egyptian literature, although no direct antecedents. Whether the author knew of these or not is an open question.
Interesting that in Job, riches consist of flocks of camels and goats, and Job, who is said to be the richest man in his area, lives in a tent. I would guess even by the author's time this was considered a pretty rustic way of life. I imagine some Jewish scholar in a town, perhaps Jerusalem itself, imagining how life had been 1,000 years earlier. He does a good job of it!
For those interested in reading the Bible, I would probably not recommend you start here, unless you have a special interest in the question of how a just God can allow humans to suffer. Ruth or Esther offer gentle, beautiful stories, while Exodus is full of action, and the Acts of the Apostles is a fascinating history of Christianity's early days. But for those ready to tackle deeper questions, Job provides a thorough and tough examination of one of the thorniest theological issues.
I'm not sure I realized beforehand that much of Job is poetical. After the brief prose introduction setting up the situation, there are a series of alternating poetic speeches between Job and his friends. Job laments his situation, but never does curse God. Meanwhile, his friends encourage him to repent, claiming he must have sinned in some way for God to punish him so. Job knows he's done nothing wrong, however, and longs for a hearing or trial so he can hear God's charges against him and plead his case.
In the end, God comes in the shape of a great storm and does respond to Job, though it is not the response Job expected. Rather, he demonstrates to Job that his wisdom and power are beyond human understanding, and that Job must simply put his trust and faith in God no matter the circumstances. He never reveals the wager (which in any case he has won--for Job did remain faithful, despite all his complaining) or otherwise explain himself, essentially for the same reason you don't explain yourself when you tell your two-year old child not to run in the street or that he can't have a juicebox right now.
The language in Job is quite beautiful, full of metaphor and grandeur, if quite ornate by modern standards. I wouldn't have minded it a bit shorter, though it's not difficult to read. The arguments between the friends do seem to go in circles after awhile. On the hand, I would have liked more on the relationship between Satan and God. Oddly, they speak to each other almost as old friends--it would have been interesting to have this explicated at more length.
It occurred to me while reading it that the author (who is thought to have written this down around 600-400 BC) was himself writing ancient history, for the story is set in the time of the patriarchs (i.e. somewhere around 2000-1500 BC). Not sure whether he considered himself to be recounting an actual historic episode, or if it's meant purely as a fable or parable. Wikipedia suggests there are "Jobic" stories found in earlier Sumerian and Egyptian literature, although no direct antecedents. Whether the author knew of these or not is an open question.
Interesting that in Job, riches consist of flocks of camels and goats, and Job, who is said to be the richest man in his area, lives in a tent. I would guess even by the author's time this was considered a pretty rustic way of life. I imagine some Jewish scholar in a town, perhaps Jerusalem itself, imagining how life had been 1,000 years earlier. He does a good job of it!
For those interested in reading the Bible, I would probably not recommend you start here, unless you have a special interest in the question of how a just God can allow humans to suffer. Ruth or Esther offer gentle, beautiful stories, while Exodus is full of action, and the Acts of the Apostles is a fascinating history of Christianity's early days. But for those ready to tackle deeper questions, Job provides a thorough and tough examination of one of the thorniest theological issues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)