Peter Sean Bradley

Aeschylus I: Prometheus Bound by Aeschylus


I read Prometheus Bound as part of the Online Great Books program.

This is a fascinating story. it is, of course, a Greek play written in the 5th century BC. The story is written in a form of prose poetry with dialogue and monologues intercut with contributions from the chorus to provide background and move the story along. The translation in this edition is quite accessible to the lay reader. This edition has a nice glossary that briefly explains references to persons and places in the text.

The story involves the “nailing” of the titan Prometheus to a mountain for offending Zeus by giving fire to man. The text is very clear that all of man's arts come from Prometheus and that Zeus's great ambition for man was to destroy mankind and start again.

The story moves in dialogue format. Prometheus talks to Io - a woman who has been horribly mistreated by the gods - and Hermes - who interrogates Prometheus about a prophecy that Zeus will be overthrown by a son (and who assigns the eagle to tear out Prometheus's liver for his refusal to share his knowledge.)

Reading this text at this point in my life makes me regret my misspent youth. This text raises questions about theodicy and the role of the gods in paganism. The sense I got was that Greeks viewed the goes with ambivalence. There is a lot of talk about Zeus being great and the first cause, but Zeus does awful things to individuals for petty and venal reasons. Likewise, Prometheus comes across as a kind of proto-savior, but one who denies a resurrection.

Again, this is a fruitful book for discussion and contemplation.

Christ's Samurai by Jonathan Clement

Please give my Amazon review a helpful vote - https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R11LXXHQUCOI5A?ref=pf_ov_at_pdctrvw_srp

On August 9, 1945, the largely Protestant nation of the United States dropped the second atomic bomb on the most Christian city of Japan, Nagasaki. For targeting purposes, the bombing crew used St. Mary's Urakami Cathedral, the largest Christian church in East Asia.

Three hundred years earlier, another Protestant nation, this time the Dutch, used their ultimate weapon, a ship with cannons, to bombard the Catholic rebels of the Shimabara Rebellion, which minimally aided the Shogun to end the rebellion and exterminate the visible Christian presence in Japan.

To be a Japanese Christian has been to be at the mercy of local and international power.

This is a detailed, thoroughly researched and investigated book. At times, I was wondering how the material support for this book had managed to be preserved over the centuries. I also enjoyed the author's travelogue details that began each chapter. I found in myself, the strangest yearning to take a trip to Japan and see these sights and to visit the sites he describes.

The Shimabara Rebellion (1637-1638) was a local conflagration but large and significant even so. The background of the rebellions lay in the prior century when Portuguese and Spanish traders had reached Japan. At that time, Japan was going through its civil wars and the advent of foreigners who could supply advanced technology was welcomed. Catholic missionaries made substantial headway with the population around the Nagasaki area converting hundreds of thousands of the Japanese locals, sometimes deeply and sometimes shallowly.

With the establishment of the Tokugawa Shogunate in 1600, the fortunes of Christianity took a turn. War technology was no desired in unified Japan and the Shogun had heard from various sources that Christians were a “fifth column” used to turn native lands into puppets of Spanish rulers. The Shoguns, accordingly, issued edicts compelling Christians to return to Buddhism. It was at this time that the ritual of stepping on Christian objects, mentioned in Endo's “Silence,” began.

In the 1630s, in the Nagasaki region, the oppression of Christians was combined with the oppression of farmers, who had been required to pay higher taxes during a period of agricultural decline. The result was the last rebellion in Japan until the end of the Shogunate in 1866.

Catholicism had been driven underground but not exterminated. An alliance was formed between ronin who had been on the losing side in 1600, farmers, and Catholics. Leadership was taken by Amakusa Shiro, aka Jerome Amakusa, who was young and an ardent Catholic. The rebellion acquired the tropes of a Catholic rebellion in its language and imagery.

After some initial successes, the rebellion was crushed as it seems was the inevitable outcome. Approximately 40,000 Catholic peasants were slaughtered. The Amakusa/Shimabara area was depleted of population to the extent that immigration was encouraged from other areas of Japan.

This was the beginning of real persecution of Christians who were driven totally underground as Kakure Kurishitan with their own rites and memories of the gospels. Christianity itself was equated with devil worship and evil rites. In my review of books on the “Hidden Christians,” I have mused if a reason for the harshness shown by Japanese to Christian POWs had something to do with this history (along with, of course, the Samurai ethos.)

In any event, this is a readable book with more than sufficient detail about the nuts and bolts of the rebellion to satisfy those with an interest in that subject.

Conundrums Answered: this is the book I've been looking for.

Please give my Amazon review a helpful vote - https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R102DZPNHI41TF?ref=pf_ov_at_pdctrvw_srp

I am a lay Catholic with an interest in historical theology. My interest has led me to read, among other things, the complete debate between Erasmus and Luther, the creedal statements of the various magisterial churches, and similar documents. I've also engaged in discussions with various Protestants, including Lutherans (one of whom converted to Catholicism before our discussion could begin in earnest.)

In my discussions, I've noticed that Protestants are insistent that justification is by faith alone, which I agree with if we understand that after “initial justification” the believer continues to grow in justice, which Protestants call “sanctification.” I often point out to my Protestant interlocutors that their creeds include a statement that sanctification requires that Christians perform the good works prepared for them, without which they will not see Heaven. They usually admit that sanctification is required. This would seem to render the controversy about faith and works moot or far more subtle than tossing slogans about “faith alone” or “works righteousness,” or citing James or Paul, can permit.

When I get to this point in the discussion, my Protestant interlocutor will usually retreat to “justification by faith alone” and tell me that their salvation depends on no works.

And around and around we go.

Professor Robert C. Koons offers an insider-view of this conundrum. Koons wrote this book as part of his long process of considering the claims of Catholicism against his faith tradition of Lutheranism. Portions of this book were written by Koons as his private consideration of the issues, the resolution of which led him to convert to Catholicism.

Protestant apologists usually start with Catholic distinctives, such as Mary and the papacy, which is odd since, as Koons points out, Luther and Lutherans claim that justification is the point on which the Reformation stands or falls. On that basis, Koons examines the issue as outlined in both the Council of Trent and in Lutherans texts, such as the Formula of Concord. This is useful since it seems that many Protestants know Trent (or misunderstand Trent) but their own positions sit in a limbo of formlessness. (Koons also has a very useful analysis of Trent, biblical proof texts, and St. Augustine's “On the Spirit and Letter,” which is worth the price of the book.)

Koons confirms my lay experience; the division between Catholic and Protestant is not faith v. works. Both sides acknowledge that salvation is by grace alone, that faith provides the avenue by which that grace is applied, and that works are the vehicles to confirm and grow faith and grace. The distinction between the two traditions lies not in these areas, but in the distinction between infused grace and imputed grace.

For Protestants, God's declaration of justification is “forensic” or “imputed.” It does not do anything (other than changing the relationship of God and the justified individual.) For Catholics, justification is “infused”; not only is there a declaration that a person is “right with God” but the Holy Spirit makes a deposit of supernatural faith, hope, and charity into the hearts of the justified.

The different positions seem to have something to do with a “works” phobia. Lutherans prefer to think of “faith” as purely a “grace receiving organ” which works passively to channel God's grace. (p. 31.) As such, faith is viewed as not involving work, whereas “love” inherently implies a “work” or “working,” but as Koons points out, a saving faith is “active trust” which seems to be as much of a work as love. (p. 29.) There is also the further point that the infused virtues are “supernatural virtues” that come from the Holy Spirit and hardly presuppose a human work.

Koons ultimately points to the fatal contradiction in the faith alone paradigm. (See p. 44 – 45.) I'm pleased to see it as the same point I've made – and had ignored – namely, that Lutheranism acknowledges that works play a vital role in ultimate salvation. Historical Lutheranism – as opposed to Luther – acknowledges that grace can be lost by living in serious, unrepentant sin. The Formula of Concord insists that believers can and must cooperate with the Holy Spirit. Salvation depends upon perseverance in grace, which, in turn, involves “good works” which “should be done, namely that we may make our calling sure.” (p. 44 quoting Melanchthon.) Koons makes the following observation at this point:

“Thus, it seems that Lutherans must admit that our works do contribute to our final salvation, so speaking of ‘salvation through faith alone' is an exaggeration.” (p. 46.)

Exactly! And it is at this point in my discussions with Protestants that they perform the Justification/Sanctification Two-Step and start talking about Justification again. Then, I remind them that we are talking about sanctification and it is like I'm speaking Martian.

Lather, Rinse, Repeat.

My Aquinas group is now discussing the Incarnation. Koons offers a fascinating Incarnational analysis of the distinction between eternal and temporal penalties as found in the human/divine natures of Jesus. (p. 46-48.)

Koons then turns to the issue of Sola Scriptura and points out the theoretical and empirical disproof of Sola Scriptura which can be found in the lack of an inspired table of contents and the historical evidence of disunity among sola scriptura Protestantism. Koons addresses the conundrum of Protestant claims that there is agreement on “matters of essentials” by noting that Protestants do not agree on what the essentials are. Koons accurately observes that “the Protestant principle has utterly failed the test of history.”

Finally, Koons summarily disposes of the usual Protestant arguments under “other issues.” He notes that the big Protestant objections are relatively minor aspects of Catholicism. For example, the discussion of purgatory takes up only four pages in the Catechism. Koons finds the Lutheran objection to purgatory to be “exceedingly weak.” Lutheranism argues that purgatory creates doubt which is intended to be dispelled by the doctrine of salvation by grace alone. However, purgatory does not create doubt – those who are in purgatory are destined without a doubt for heaven. On the other hand, purgatory is consistent with the many doctrines that teach God's respect for the “integrity of the development of our personalities.” (p. 76.)

As a Catholic, the objection to purgatory seems puzzling. Certainly, we know (a) no one is perfectly sinless at death and (b) no one who is not sinless will enter heaven. This seems to necessitate an in-between state, which some Protestants (e.g., Jerry Walls) acknowledge. The alternative position is problematic. Koons explains:

“The Lutheran conception of glorification embodies a kind of Gnosticism, wrongly identifying our sinfulness with our physical bodies. Lutheran theologians assume that the death of our mortal bodies will, all by itself, free us forever from the propensity to sin, as though sin's reality in our lives is grounded entirely in our physical aspects.” (p. 21.)

Is this true? I suspect that my Lutheran interlocutors would deny this, but the gist of this paragraph seems to answer my conundrum.

Concerning Mariology, Koons notes that Luther held positions identical to Catholic positions and that Catholic Mariology counteracts the “extreme form of monergism espoused by Luther and Calvin.” (p. 79.) Further, Mariology usually acts as a “hedge around the Incarnation.” The Incarnation is ultimately about the involvement of human nature with God in the salvation of humanity. Mariology furthers this concept: “Mary's role as co-redemptrix highlights the fact that Christians are not utterly passive in the process of salvation, i.e., that we genuinely cooperate with God's grace.” (p. 79.)

This is an easily read, fairly slim book of about 150 pages. The language is generally accessible to the lay reader, particularly to those with an interest in theology and/or scripture. There is a wealth of insights that would pay dividends for discussion or contemplation.

The Incarnate Lord by Thomas Joseph White OP

Please give my Amazon review a helpful vote - https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R22QW65K8Y8E68?ref=pf_ov_at_pdctrvw_srp

Strap in. This may be a long, bumpy ride.

By way of background, I picked up this book after my Aquinas group moved into the Summa Theologica, Part III, which concerns the Incarnation. Through St. Thomas Aquinas's exposition of the Incarnation, I've developed a deeper appreciation for the nuance and beauty of the Incarnation, but, not surprisingly, various questions continue to perplex me.

This is a lengthy, finely analyzed work that discusses Thomistic Christology in light of contemporary and historical issues. The writing is generally accessible, but the concepts and argument can be dense. I am not sure that I could have gotten as much out of the book as I did without the Thomistic background (and the help of other members of my group in working my way through some parts of the book.)

Following the structure of the book, and highlighting the points that caught my attention. I don't want to imply that my summary gets anywhere close to discussing the nuance and subtlety of White's analysis. I'm just giving an overview for myself when I want to dive back into particular topics.

INTRODUCTION: Biblical Ontology.

The Bible will not permit Christians to walk away from the Incarnation. As White says the New Testament is “concerned above all and before all with the ontological identity of Christ.” (p. 7.) Thus, to study the New Testament “realistically at all is to study the being and person of Christ.” (p. 8.) The New Testament, of course, affirms that Christ is both man and God. “The word became flesh and dwelt among us.” (Jn 1:1, 3, 14.) The man Jesus had a pre-existent identity that was anticipated in the Old Testament. (p. 11.) Christ is identified as the Lord and can perform actions reserved to God alone, such as forgiving sin. (p. 15.) The communication of idioms begins in the New Testament whereby events that pertain to the man Jesus are ascribed to God, e.g., “they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” (p. 19;1 Cor. 2:7-8, See also Phil. 2:6-11.)

The issue of the relationship between Jesus as man and Jesus as God is baked into the cake.

PROLEGOMENON: Thomistic Christology

Chalcedonianism affirms that Christ is one person, the Son of God, who subsists in two natures as God and man. (p.32.) Naturally, this is a difficult position that easily leads to contradictions, which have been exploited by various theologians, such as Friedrich Schleiermacher, Immanuel Kant, and Karl Barth, to question the Chalcedonian formula. (p. 32.) White notes the claim that we live in a post-metaphysical world and asks if we are required to rethink the Incarnation in the light of Immanuel Kant. (p. 34.) White discusses Schleiermacher as the source of a methodology in modern German Christology that evolved within liberal Protestantism, including von Harnack. (p. 35.) Schleiermacher reinterpreted Chalcedonian metaphysics in terms of the “original experience of God in Christianity as first instantiated in the life of Jesus (in his God-consciousness) and as transmitted to his disciples, who in turn codified this experience in doctrinal terms.” (p. 37.) The proper methodology is to get behind the doctrine and the transmission to the “pre-doctrinal primitive truth.” (p. 37.)

This seems to involve a fair amount of mind-reading. White points out that for Schleiermacher, the locus of the divine-human connection is no longer found in the nature or the person, i.e., ontologically existing things, but in “the world of human consciousness” of Christ. (p. 42.) Schleiermacher “transfers the locus of divine-human unity from the realm of the substantial to that of the accidental.” (p. 43.)

White compares and contrasts Karl Barth to Schleiermacher. In Barth, particularly through the interpretation of his disciples, White argues that doctrine is eschewed in favor of the proposition that we understand God only through the life of Christ. (p. 48.) hence, the cross reveals that the Son is eternally obedient to the Father and that God in his very deity obeys and suffers. (p. 48.) The “very deity of God can be subject to death and the regaining of eternal life. (p. 48-49.) White observes that while Barth rejects the liberal Protestant conception of our human religious consciousness as the locus of the divine human encounter, “yet he also seeks to place the site of the hypostatic union in an odd location: the transcendent identify of God is revealed in a voluntary act of the human Christ (the free and willing submission of Christ to God.”) (p. 48; See also p. 369 (“Rather as we have seen with Barth, the personal Sonship of Christ is revealed through his human obedience.”).)

We cannot help but think that we are a long way from Chalcedon.

As a Thomist, White disputes this approach. The Incarnation was a concrete reality, which we cannot access as a historical matter. We access it through grace which means through doctrine. Historical study will not determine doctrine, but it can clarify what is reasonable to believe concerning the historical mode that the doctrine was revealed. (p. 58.) For White, the recovery of a metaphysics of being is an integral part of a renewed Chalcedonian Christology. (p. 62.) White notes the different modes of existence “in act.” In one, the existence is ontological, e.g., a person exists in act from embryo to death. In another mode – secondary act – a thing exists by an operation, such as conscious knowledge. (p. 63.) The Incarnation represents the former; our union with God takes place in the second mode, though human operations, by the working of grace we come to know and love God. (p. 63.) The Incarnation is therefore not accidental; it takes place substantially in the subsistent person of the Word and not in the accidental operation of the man Jesus. (p. 64.)

This distinguishes Aquinas from Barth and Schleiermacher by placing the Incarnation in the ontological and not the operational. White also notes that the operations of the man Jesus are only natural analogies that of God (p. 66.).) Thus, “the goodness of Christ as God is not identical with his goodness as man. “ (p. 66.) “All of this suggests that if human beings can believe in the incarnation (by grace), then they are also capable of natural analogical thinking about the transcendent God,” which means that Christians make implicit use of natural theology. (p. 66.)

PART ONE: THE MYSTERY OF THE INCARNATION

1. The Ontology Of The Hypostatic Union.

The poles this chapter run between Nestorianism and Chalcedonianism.

Aquinas posits a unique “Grace of Union” that united the human nature of Christ with the person of the logos. In contrast, in its pure form, Nestorianism posits two persons in Christ – a human and divine person coordinated by grace. (p. 77, 79.) Nestorianism may also include forms where the union of natures is not substantial, but accidental, where Christ is “two subsistent entities joined or united by a kind of operational union, a moral synergy.” (p. 80.)

White finds that there is a Nestorian “tendency” in modern theology, particularly that of Karl Rahner. (p. 76.) White argues that Rahner locates the ontological unity of God and man in the same place where Nestorianism typically locates it: “uniquely in the spiritual operations of the man Jesus, particularly as they are conformed by divine indwelling to the mystery of God in himself.” (p. 76.) The key is therefore the difference between the “grace of union” unique to Christ and the grace that unites us to Christ.

I will confess that when I read Aquinas's discussion of the “grace of union,” I blew past its significance. The Grace of Union is the unique grace that joined Christ's human nature to the person of the Logos in the hypostatic union. The Grace of Union is unique to the incarnation; it is not a habitual grace of the kind that pertains to all saints who persevere in sanctification. Habitual grace is created; the Grace of Union is uncreated and infinite because the human nature is united immediately to the infinite Logos. (p. 87.) The difference between our union and the hypostatic union are differences of kind and degree. (p. 89.)

White provides a deep critique of Karl Rahner's Christology. What I think it boils down to is that modern theology has a tendency to deny the uniqueness of the Incarnation. (p. 92.) Thus, Christ's human nature is coordinated to the Logos almost voluntarily, accidentally, and by way of the same habitual graces that coordinate saints with God. (p. 92.) While this creates a greater space for Christ and reduces the instrumentalization of Christ as man, it does make one wonder what makes Jesus unique? (p. 92.) Aquinas starts from the grace of union; Rahner finds the human nature united to God in the beatific vision and the act of self-surrender, which made Christ the most perfect historical expression of God among us. (p. 100.)

White explores other modern theologians who locate the Incarnation in accidental operations of self-surrender or understanding.

White then discusses Aquinas's ontological metaphysics. The hypostatic union begins in the person of the Logos and from the Logos the habitual grace flowed into the intellect and will of Christ. White then discusses the ideas of subsistent existence. He also dispenses with the idea that moral autonomy is inconsistent with the human nature being an instrument of the Logos. (p. 120.)

I thought White made a good point about the difference between ontology and operation when he points out that Jesus did not stop being the hypostatic person when was, e.g., sleeping. (p. 122.)

2. THE HUMAN NATURE AND THE GRACE OF CHRIST.

This chapter takes the reader into natura pura and the question of whether the desire for God is purely grace or exists naturally in the human soul. (p. 131.) This is a difficult chapter. White explains that a key take-away from the chapter is that it demonstrates a “profound correspondence” between philosophical concepts about human nature and theological concepts about Christ. (p. 171.) I think that White affirms via Aquinas that there remains in human nature in its wounded state after the Fall, and without grace, a natural appetite or inclination to God as to the highest good, which might still be ascertained through reason. (p. 161-162.) I think that White also affirms “pure nature” in that the alternative is that grace is required to make a complete man and that means that either human nature was created evil or that grace is no longer a free gift. (p. 167.) According to White, it follows that since Christ is the perfection of humanity is morally perfect, i.e., free from sin, then evil is not inherent to human nature. (p. 167.)


3. THE LIKENESS OF THE HUMAN AND DIVINE NATURES

This chapter deals with the issue of understanding how we are even able to talk about the divine nature as being related or relative to the human nature. This seems like a reasonable concern inasmuch as the divine nature would seem to be radically alien considered against created nature. The divine does not exist as part of the “furniture” of reality and is not contained in a genus.

White's explanation is that the divine nature cannot be “radically” alien because creation was created by God. This permits consideration of analogous ways of thinking about divine attributes.

4.WHY CHRISTOLOGY PRESUPPOSES NATURAL THEOLOGY

White argues that (a) the affirmation of supernatural revelation (given in grace) presupposes the existence of knowledge in the human persons that is not derived from revelation (so-called natural knowledge) and (b) there is a correlation between the workings of the human mind and the grace of revelation unless the human mind is a naturally capable under grace of recognizing such revelation a grace, i.e., outside the ordinary spectrum of truths obtained by human reasoning, and (c) recognizing revelation includes an innate capacity to reason, i.e., that there is a God and God communicates to humans, etc.
5.THE NECESSITY OF THE BEATIFIC VISION IN THE EARTHLY CHRIST.

One of the more surprising features I found in reading Aquinas was that the Angelic Doctor posited that Christ at all times in His life, even in the womb, had perfect knowledge – infused and beatific – about who He was and all information that He might need for His earthly mission.

White defends the Thomistic position against contemporary criticism on the ground that it is the beatific vision that serves to guarantee in a non-accidental way that Christ would carry out His mission.

The contemporary criticism of the Thomistic position has included that it involves a latent Monophysitism. This criticism seems a natural conundrum for the Chalcedonian position, namely, at any point where the divine and the human overlap, it would seem that the divine would crowd out the created human nature. Aquinas dealt with this by arguing that the human nature did not have access to the totality of the divine knowledge.

But that move leaves the opening for Thomas Weinandy to argue that this position is Nestorian since it seems to separate Christ into two persons. (p. 243.) In order to fend off this charge, White emphasizes the “nature/mode” distinction, whereby in the Incarnation the Logos has two modes of existence, human and divine. We know this to be the case since Christ's two wills are attested to in the Agony in the Garden. However, the Logos is singular and “the singularity and unity of the person of Christ can only be sufficiently manifested in his human actions if his divine and human wills cooperate concretely in all of his personal actions.” (p. 254.) White locates the concrete basis of this cooperation in the Beatific Vision by which the man Jesus has always known that He is the Son and what that Sonship entails. Infused knowledge is insufficient: “In the absence of the vision, by contrast, the infused knowledge of Christ would still be the medium by which the man Jesus would be conscious of his own divine will, but it would no longer participate in any evidential certitude of that will.” (p. 260.) The human and divine wills might “operate on parallel tracks” but they would not be part of a single person, which raises the specter of Nestorianism. (p. 260-261.)

PART TWO: THE MYSTERY OF THE REDEMPTION

1. OBEDIENCE.

This section begins an examination of more substantive topics. White's method is to discuss some contemporary thinker whose account seems to contradict that of Aquinas. White seems to fairly set forth the objection but counters the objection with Thomistic reasoning.

Julius, Leonard, Arthur, and Herbert go to Texas

Please give my Amazon review a helpful vote - https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R2BK0Q698UCSYW?ref=pf_ov_at_pdctrvw_srp

Hail! Hail! by Harry Turtledove

This is an inventive and educational story that shows Harry Turtledove at the top of his form. This story is substantially longer than a short story but not quite as long as a novella. It is an easy, amusing and engaging read that manages to mix in so much history in what turns out to be both a time travel and an alt-hist story.

The protagonists are the brothers Julius, Leonard, Arthur, and Herbert, better known under their stage names Groucho, Chico, Harpo and Gummo Marx. The story starts in 1934 as the brothers are about to travel to New Orleans by train. Duck Soup has been recently released to disappointing box office. On the way to New Orleans they stop off at Nacogdoches, where they performed in 1912. It was during that performance that they discovered their gift of comedy. The brothers get out to visit the play house, but, improbably, they get involved in a lightning strike that throws them back to Nacogdoches in 1826, which is on the eve of the historic Fredonia Rebellion.

You say you have never heard of this event? Not to worry, Turtledove does, and it is fascinating to learn that this was a real event that presaged the Texas Revolution by a decade and involved Stephen Austin on the side of the Mexicans. From this point on the Marx Brothers are delivering japes and puns like they, well, the Marx Brothers in the real, authentic, smelly west, throwing their lot in with the Fredonia rebels.

I enjoyed the characterization of the Marx brothers, albeit most of the attention was given to Julius/Groucho than the others. Turtledove sprinkles his story with accurate details about the brothers, 1930s Hollywood, and Texas in the early 19th century.

All in all the story is delightful and worth the read, particularly if you are a fan of time-travel or Turtledove.

A Master of the Short Story.

Please give my Amazon review a helpful vote - https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R1EBGGY14Z2MU4?ref=pf_ov_at_pdctrvw_srp

In reading this collection of 22 short stories spanning Damon Knight's career from the 1940s to the 1960s, I was absolutely floored with Knight's craftmanship. Knight was able to provide a background, a character, and a story arc within the course of a few thousand words. More importantly, the stories have some kind of impact on the reader, whether the impact is humorous or thought-provoking.

And all of this during the early days of science fiction.

I compare these short stories to contemporary short stories and the latter fall short. I find that too many short stories today appear to be the first chapter in a planned novel and, therefore, are inconclusive and banal.

The topics and insights of Knight's short stories are often amazing. In “Semper Fi,” Knight imagines societal energy being drained off by the invention of a device that can take the user to their own dream world. In a way, Knight anticipated the reality of social media back in the 1940s.

In “Down There,” Knight imagines a short story writer in 2012 using a computer to write a short story by dictating to it and then using a pull-down menu to make changes or additions to the story. Except Damon Knight didn't use the term “pull-down menu” because when the story was written in the 1960s, the term didn't exist.

Some of the stories are based around jokes (To Serve Man), dirty jokes (The Cabin Boy), or puns (Eripmav). And, yet, there are some beautiful stories - “Mary” is beautiful romance set in a post-apocalyptic world where everyone is free to have sex but not free to change occupations. Then, there is “The Handler” which seems to reach a level of absurdist metaphor akin to “Being John Malkovich,” which Knight disclaims.

A nice feature of this collection is that the stories are introduced with a short excerpt from Knight that situates the story in Knight's life.

This is an easy and enjoyable read, particularly for those who like the more “classic” age of science fiction.

Prigg v. Pennsylvania: Slavery, the Supreme Court, and the Ambivalent Constitution by H. Robert Baker

Please give my Amazon review a helpful vote - https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R2P87RV29WGDEP?ref=pf_ov_at_pdctrvw_srp

Having read a few books on the cases involved in the fraught issue of slave law, I have been surprised to discover that this approach allows for a fascinating and insightful view of social history. The legal history approach requires that attention be paid to the facts, which in turn requires an analysis of social circumstances while acknowledging the limitations of actions available to the actors under the law at the time.

In this case, the issue was whether Pennsylvania could constitutionally enact a law that required out-of-state slave-catchers to comply with Pennsylvania state law before kidnapping an alleged slave to return that slave to slavery in a slave state. The legal issue was framed by an ambiguity in the Constitution's “fugitive slave clause” that failed to specify who would enforce fugitive slave rights.

The Fugitive Slave Clause (Article IV section 2) provides: “No person held to service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another shall, in consequences of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labour may be due, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due.” Baker describes this as a guarantee that the Somerset principle would not apply among the states. (p. 29.) I think this is wrong: the Somerset holding applied to slaves voluntarily taken to England - not escaping to England. The Somerset holding remained a stare decisis in a number of cases until Dred Scott.

The ambiguity in the clause was that it did not specify to whom the claim would be made. There was virtually no federal enforcement mechanism until the 1830s and, so, one view was that the claim would be made to state courts under state laws, which could guarantee rights to those accused of having escaped to the free state, including the right to a jury trial or striking the testimony of the alleged master.

What is interesting in the light of the current belief that “America is a racist country” was the lengths that Northern free states went to protect Black citizens. Northern states universally passed laws forbidding the kidnapping of Black citizens without compliance with state claim laws. Further, the laws were written in such a way as to stack the decks in favor of the alleged slave, such as by requiring jury trials, which made enforcement of rights under the clause expensive and put the issue into the venue of Northern citizens who were not inclined to return Blacks to slavery. The 1830s saw Northern states enacting Personal LIberty Laws to protect Blacks from kidnapping by slave-hunters.

The particular facts of the case are illustrative of the issues. Margarett Morgan was born a slave in Maryland. She moved to Pennsylvania, allegedly after being freed her master. When her master passed away, his widow decided to reclaim Margarett. By this time Margarett had married a free Black citizen of Pennsylvania, Jerry Morgan, and had a child. In 1832, Margaret and Jerry moved to Pennsylvania. In 1837, Edward Prigg came into Pennsylvania and kidnapped Margaret back to Maryland after a desultory effort to comply with Pennsylvania law that would have given Margaret the right to a trial in Pennsylvania before a judge or jury hostile to slavery. Jerry Morgan persuaded the local sheriff to bring criminal charges against Prigg for kidnapping in violation of Pennsylvania's Personal Liberty Law.

The issue teed up for decision was whether could be held criminally responsible for kidnapping Margaret Morgan in violation of Pennsylvania's Personal Liberty Law.

Baker's book nicely goes through the legal precedents that existed prior to the 1842 decision in Prigg. The precedent could be fairly said to lean against Prigg. However, the United States Supreme Court found in Prigg's favor and struck down Pennsylvania's law. The majority opinion by Justice Story was a “nationalist” in the sense of elevating federal law over state law. Since the Congress had enacted the Fugitive Slave Law of 1790, it had spoken authoritatively and comprehensively on the subject. (This principal is applied today under the doctrine of federal preemption.) Since the Fugitive Slave Act provided a national right, federal law overrode contrary state law, leaving state's no role on the subject (outside of police power issues.) Baker writes that Justice Story “braided Lord Mansfield's Sommerset v. Stewart into his opinion.” Mansfield had held that slavery was not a natural right but required a positive law to create rights in slave. Story seems to accept the proposition that the Fugitive Slave Law provided such a basis. Later, in Dred Scott, the seeds planted by Story would bear fruit.

Chief Justice Taney went further in a concurrence that foreshadowed Dred Scott by arguing that the individual states had a positive duty to enact laws that assisted slaveowners in recovering fugitive slaves.

Justice John McLean wrote a dissent arguing that a “slave was a sensible and human being” who could be protected by the state, even if the master might have a superior claim to the slave's labor than the slave himself. McLean understood that Story's legal theory denied that free blacks had legal rights, although Story simply assumed that conclusion.

Here's a factoid that surprised me, and shows how complex history is. Baker discusses the significance of Jerry Morgan staying in slave Maryland for some time to be with his wife. Then, he notes:

“But it may have been a safer decision than we know. Hartford County, Maryland had a sizable and growing free black population. The number of free blacks living there doubled between 1790 and 1800, and nearly doubled again between 1800 and 1810. The percentage of blacks who were free also rose steadily during this period, rising from 18 percent in 1790 to 33 percent in 1810 to 41 percent in 1830. And the trend continued. By 1860, more than 67 percent of Hartford County's black population was free. In the legal borderlands, freedom and slavery coexisted.” (p. 103.)

The idea that over half of the black population in a Southern state would be free surprises me. My surprise speaks more to my own ignorance and the popular presentation that all blacks prior to 1865 were slaves. Clearly, there were free black populations throughout America, but we hear so little about them.

After the decision, Margaret Morgan and her child disappear from history into slavery. Jerry Morgan's life was even more tragic. In traveling to legal proceedings, he failed to have papers and was detained as a fugitive slave. In attempting to escape this legal predicament, he jumped ship and drowned.

The Prigg decision was one of many decisions understood by the North as indicating that the South had unbridled control over the nation. Worse still, Northern states were prevented from protecting their own citizens. In 1850, Congress passed a new Fugitive Slave Law that was viewed as more intrusive than the prior law.

We can see how the travesty of Dred Scott was built legal brick by legal brick. When I look back on the concrete, personal reality of this bit of history, I find it horrifying. My thoughts go to Jerry Morgan and how he lost everything in a life that was hard enough to begin with and had turned into a horror story.

Turtledove is a Craftsman of the Short Story.

Please give my Amazon review a helpful vote - https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R2LK6G0OIXVIED?ref=pf_ov_at_pdctrvw_srp

Harry Turtledove provides a master class on how to turn out an engaging short story about nothing more than a father who wants his daughter to get a fair shake in getting a good role in a college play.

Being Turtledove, though, the setting is a “different history” - in this case the imaginary state of Jefferson, formed from Southern Oregon and Northern California with its capitol in Yreka - and the father the Sasquatch governor of Jefferson.

In this imagined future - actually, since it is set in 1980, it is the past - Sasquatch, Yeti, and other “Big People” exist and Sasquatch are a tiny minority of Jefferson, necessitating an Equal Accommodations law where business has to allow access to 9 foot tall Sasquatch.

The conflict that moves the story is based on Governor Bill Williamson's trip to the (real) Ashland Shakespeare Festival and discovery that his daughter has been cast as Caliban because “she doesn't need make-up for the part.”

Think about how simple the plot is, but it is vastly entertaining story because of Turtledove's ability to imagine “what if Sasquatch were real?”

Sometimes you take a job; sometimes the job takes you.

Please give my Amazon review a helpful vote - https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/RU6CDVVQBGGJI?ref=pf_ov_at_pdctrvw_srp

This is a Tor.com short story, which usually means that it is an incomplete prequel for some novel by the author.

Not this one, though. In this one, we get a complete origin story that emerges as a bit of a surprise when our narrator, Chessup, takes a crappy day labor job cleaning up a river in Colorado with other losers in the rat race, discovers some skeletons in the roots of an uprooted tree, and while deciding how to hock the bones, discovers something far darker.

This was a fast-moving, gripping story that was worth its Tor.com price and the half hour spent reading it.

Battling Protestants (Ideas Roadshow Conversations) by Howard Burton/David Hollinger

Please give my Amazon review a helpful vote - https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R3T06LYXCEKR2B?ref=pf_ov_at_pdctrvw_srp

Two Secular Dudes Having a Conversation about How Evangelicals Should Not be Allowed in the Conversation.

This is part of a series where Howard Burton has conversations/interviews with scholars about interests that would probably be of interest to, I imagine, based on this book, secular leftists. The interviewee in this case is David Hollinger. Hollinger is an atheist, left-wing Berkeley professor who writes on religion in America. Burton shares that he is not American and that he views America's religiosity as bizarre and wacky.

The conversation, in this case, centers around Hollinger's argument that America's continuing religiosity does not invalidate the “secularization thesis.” This thesis says that as societies modernize and become more scientifically aware, religious explanations lose their appeal and religion whither away. America is said to challenge the secularization thesis because, unlike other Western cultures, America has retained high levels of religious commitment and participation.

Hollinger is very reassuring to despairing secularists. He explains that America is like other countries, but perhaps twenty years behind the curve. Hollinger's thesis is that America has typically been divided between liberal Christians and conservative Christians, which he labels “Ecumenical Christians” and “Evangelical Christians,” respectively. Hollinger explains:

“In the 18th century, there is both a more rationalistic, enlightened style of Protestantism that moves in a Unitarian direction, and a more evangelical, revivalist strand. There are thus two parties, and through the 19th century there are various versions of this.”

And:

“Now, “Ecumenical” is a term that comes into vogue partly because, from the 1940s onward, the liberals—the people who were the most interested in modernity and who want religion to be up-to-date and to respond to modern challenges—are impatient with the sectarian divisions that divide different Protestant groups from one another. They're eager to minimize those distinctions and be “Ecumenical,” applying a sense of unity. They began establishing more and more trans-denominational organizations, such as The Federal Council of Churches, The National Council of Churches, The World Council of Churches and Church World Service, as well as a variety of agencies that will enable Presbyterians, Methodists and so forth to work together.
In the meantime, while this Ecumenical Protestantism is taking form—and I'll comment a little bit more about that in a moment —it is defined partly against what comes to be called “Evangelical Protestantism”. Now, Evangelical Protestantism is a direct inheritor of Fundamentalism, but it includes other things that are not quite as text-driven.”

And:

“A group of Ecumenical Protestants who had been pacifists, together with another group who had been so-called “realists” (more concerned with the standard exercise of power in the world), had been quarrelling in the 1930s about peace and war. But by the 1940s, they bury the hatchet and come together to hold a big conference in 1942, in which Ecumenical Protestants outline what is quite a radical program for what the world should look like after the war.
They're very critical of the British Empire, they're critical of colonialism, they're critical of racism, they're critical of nationalism, and so forth. This conference becomes a big push towards what becomes the United Nations; and they all pronounce themselves in favour of Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Methodists and Baptists and so forth working together.”

In a nutshell, this spells the divide between the traditional Protestant denominations and the non-denominational Protestants. It also defines the relative arc of the fortunes of the two Protestantisms in the post-War era. Thus, because of their guilt over colonization, Ecumenical Protestants – who had previously led in this area – gave up missionary efforts and focused on good works.

“DH: Yes. First, regarding the missionaries. Indeed, quarrels about what missions should be undertaken is one of the major factors that animated both the Evangelicals and the Ecumenists, because the Ecumenical Protestants, very early on, begin to be worried about cultural imperialism. They increasingly move their missionary endeavours away from preaching and conversion towards social services and education, building all these hospitals and so forth.
Zhou Enlai used to talk about the magnificent contribution that the missionaries had made to China because of all these colleges and medical schools. There were a number of examples like that throughout the world.
The Evangelicals, in the meantime, got very fed up with these Ecumenists for giving up on preaching. There were a number of quite fierce battles about that all the way from the 1920s down through the 1960s, by which time the Ecumenists are largely out of the business of missions. There are more American missionaries abroad in the world right now than at any time in American history, but they are Evangelicals—graduates of Biola and Wheaton —instead of Princeton and Yale, the way they used to be.”

Interestingly, much of the World War II generation of OSS operatives was drawn from the ranks of Preacher's Kinds because of their familiarity with foreign countries where their father had a mission.

The result has also been the destruction of mainstream Protestant denominations. Hollinger casually dismisses this latter effect, presumably because he thinks it is historically inevitable. He says:

“That's why, since the 1960s, the Ecumenical churches have declined so much—much more than the Evangelical churches. The Ecumenical churches and their numbers have declined, in part, because they're already so far towards secularization that they can move easily into that, whereas the Evangelicals are still fighting this.”

This is a fantastic understatement and a bit of legerdemain. Part of my legal practice has been representing vibrant, vital congregations of mainstream Protestant denominations – Episcopal, Methodist, Presbyterian, UCC, etc. – who have pulled out en masse from their liberal/left denominations. This is part of a trend that has seen mainstream Protestantism hemorrhage membership in a version of “get woke, go broke.” Each of these denominations has lost something on the order of 50 to 60% in absolute numbers, which is something on the order of 70 to 80% based on population growth over the last forty years.

In contrast, Evangelical churches have been picking up members.

When a speaker's grammatical references become muddled that is a clear indication that some cognitive dissonance is occurring. So, when Hollinger says “they can move easily into that,” it is unclear what he is saying. Is he referring to “secularization”? If so, how do Ecumenical Protestants become secularists without ceasing to be Protestant? Is that what he means. In which case, why is it surprising that Evangelicals are “resisting” this process?

The conversation has the feeling of watching British colonial administrators talking about the backwardness of the native from the perspective that Britannia will always rule the waves. The agreement between the interlocutors means that a lot of buried assumptions are not critically examined.

This book ties into other books I've read that discuss the differences between an immanent and a transcendental religiosity. (see Smith, Pagans and Christians in the City.) The former is concerned with values and goods in this world; the latter in the next world. It is obvious that Hollinger's Ecumenical Protestants fit the model of immanent religiosity.

I particularly enjoyed the apparently incoherent position that there should be a “conversation” on whether Evangelicals should be allowed to participate in public policy discussions and that they should not be allowed to participate in such discussions. Thus, Hollinger says:

“DH: That's right. Now, I understand that. I can see why they do that, but since I believe that many of the things that are problematic about the culture of the United States today have to do with the continued currency of a lot of obscurantist ideas that cannot meet modern standards of cognitive plausibility, then I'm very eager for us to have a national conversation about those things.
When you look at where the most conservative of the political voices come from, they very often come from these evangelical sites, so that there is a connection between obscurantist, theological ideas and these reactionary, political ideas. I think we'd be better off if there was a more open debate about it. I don't see very many signs of it. In fact, I think that the press is afraid of this.”

So, open debates about how obscurantist Evangelical theological ideas are connected to “reactionary political ideas” are perfectly acceptable. But then, there is this:

“DH: Well, I don't have a good answer to that. I was speculating a while ago that it had something to do with corporate interests, relations to advertisers and the necessity of maintaining connections. But I don't have a good answer to that. I would prefer, of course, that they do exactly what you've described, that they convene such a conversation, but I have seen very little signs of anybody wanting to do that.
The closest I've seen to that is that the Center for American Progress, a big Washington-based left-liberal think tank run by John Podesta, has convened several of these consultations.
I've done a couple things with them. E.J. Dionne and I did a debate there a few years ago in which they brought in about 50 or 60 heads of religious service organizations and we talked about this matter of how religion can play a more progressive role in the society.
But the thing broke apart on the lines that I indicated earlier: that there was a group of people who felt that our early task should be to recognize the importance that Catholic hospitals should not have to provide abortion services or even distribute contraceptives, and this was what was really important if we wanted to establish a rapport with religious groups.
Well, you can imagine how that went over with some of the rest of us.”

So, the problem with open conversations is that they might be “too open” and result in the application of principles to things that our comfortable British colonial administrators might find problematic.

So, this is an interesting book with a good model of the present plight of Protestantism. It's an easy read and worth seeing what elitists are inclined to say when they talk to each other.

Commentary on the Book of Tobit by Keith Humphreys

Please give my Amazon review a helpful vote - https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R1NI8J058C64OL?ref=pf_ov_at_pdctrvw_srp

This book has a very narrow focus, namely pointing out where the language of the Book of Tobit seems to parallel that of later New Testament writings. Sometimes these parallels seem forced, coincidental, or simply the product of expressing themes that are common to virtually all cultures in a language that is common to all cultures.

However, there are some gems that stand out. This one, for example, was something I picked up on re-reading this book:

“So these principles are throughout the New Testament.

It also says, I am Raphael, one of the seven holy angels, which present the prayers of the saints, and which go in and out before the glory of the Holy One. (Tobit 12:15)

These two ideas, that there are seven angels in God's inner court, and that angels carry prayers and present them before God, are also present in Revelation 8:2-4

And I saw the seven angels which stood before God; and to them were given seven trumpets. 3 And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne. 4 And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel's hand.”

Tobit is one of the Deuterocanonical books. I think it's worth attention, but I've had the experience of a lot of Protestants mock the book for things using the gall of a fish to cure cataracts and other parts of the same fish to exorcise demons. Yet, as Humphreys points out, the themes of Tobit are interwoven into Judeo-Christianity:

“From this book, we see concepts that were also taught by Jesus and the apostles, and others that continue with us to this day.

The idea that we should pray for special protection during a long journey, and that angels might be involved in the role of the guidance of pious travelers. The idea that God provides for the healing of his people, often through the administration of natural medicines. The idea that some human afflictions are the result of demonic oppression, and that these demons can be cast out and bound. The idea that God especially regards and rewards prayer, fasting, and giving to the poor. And the idea that God restores the fortunes of those who trust in him though the midst of adversity.”

The narrow focus of this book does not allow for a deep look at Tobit. The book is essentially excerpts from Tobit with Humphrey's remarks at the end of each chapter pointing out the New Testament parallel.

Nonetheless, the book accomplishes what it sets out to do, and what it intends to do is something worth doing.

How to Use Trello to Write More Books

Please give my Amazon review a helpful vote - https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R17JNNYZ72WEGZ?ref=pf_ov_at_pdctrvw_srp

I picked up this book hoping to learn more about Trello and how to use Trello to write a book.

What I think I got out of this book was that I should used Boards to set up to-do, doing, and done lists.

If there was more than that, then it wasn't clearly explained.

This short book could have used screen captures to show the reader what the author was talking about.

Overtime (Laundry Files) by Charles Stross

Please give my Amazon review a helpful vote - https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R1FJQLDK5DSDDY?ref=pf_ov_at_pdctrvw_srp

On the night before Christmas, I was looking for something short and fun to read. So, I decided to go with this Laundry File short story that has been on my Kindle since 2010. So, I was really surprised to find that this was the perfect Christmas read.

This is story features a young Bob before he becomes the Eater of Souls but after he's met Mo. Mo is out of the story on a trip, which allows Bob to volunteer for overtime as the Laundry's night duty officer over the Christmas holidays. Bob starts his tour after the Christmas party, where an agent of the forecasting department explains that this is the last Christmas party ever. Bob eventually comes to realize that as the stars align the door has been opened to the “Filler of Stockings, who oozes through chimney and ventilation ducts every Dead God's Birthday-eve to perform unspeakable acts against items of hosiery.”

This is a fun story and a quick read. If you are a Laundry fan, this is one to check out.

Immortal: Last Call (The Immortal Series Book 6) by Gene Doucette

Please give my Amazon review a helpful vote - https://www.amazon.com/s?k=Learn25&i=audible&ref=dp_byline_sr_audible_2

This seems to be the end of the Immortal series. We see author Gene Doucette ravel up the threads that have been spun out since the first book when 60,000-year-old Adam decided to sober up and deal with the life around him. As we've watched him deal with problems, and then discovered in the last book that there was an overriding conspiracy behind it all, we've seen Adam renew his acquaintance with people from his past and species that are impossible.

In this book, Adam is trying to save the “impossible things” from a killer epidemic and take revenge on the other immortal man whom he didn't know was his immortal nemesis. Adam is almost out of gas. He's gotten rid of his wealth. He's under arrest. And, he's in Chicago.

But people we've met in past books show up at the right to lend a hand. In addition, Adam reaches out for help from Corrigan Baines - the hero of Doucette's “Fixer” series - for Baines' help. It seems that Baines is from a family that can “see” slightly into the future. This is something that can be very useful if you are trying to stay alive when assassins are trying to kill you.

This is a fun book. Adam is an amusing character and his observations about his past are always engaging.

This may not be the last we see of Adam. Doucette can start a new series if he wants. There are also the novellas that cover different episodes from Adam's life, which Doucette can expand upon for the sake of his fans.

Never Forget Anything

Please give my Amazon review a helpful vote - https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R2GTLFXW0K9PPE?ref=pf_ov_at_pdctrvw_srp

This book is exactly what it says: it's 99 tips about using Evernote.

I've been using Evernote since 2011 and I have found it a terrific instrument for organizing, storing and retrieving documents and information. I like Evernote and tell people to use it when I get the opportunity.

I got this book to “brainstorm.” Are there other ways to use Evernote that I haven't found? Are there other uses for it?

I got a couple of ideas from the book. It would probably be more useful for beginners.

101 Questions for Single People

Please give my Amazon review a helpful vote - https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R2LK5K97BOAUXE?ref=pf_ov_at_pdctrvw_srp

This book is what it says, i.e., questions that you can use as ice-breakers.

In general, the questions are not particularly profound, the reader could probably come up with them on their own. For example:

“For Everyone, not just the Singles

What is the best love song ever?

And what's the cheesiest, lamest, dumbest one?”

And this one:

“Dodgeballs

It's your birthday. You only get one gift. It's a magical card. The card can be used just three times before vanishing forever.

Choose which card you want:

Get-Out-of-a-Lousy-Date-Free card

Avoid-a-Vicious-Argument-With-a-Lover card

Know-What-Someone-Else-is-Thinking card

Beer-Googles-Immunity-for-One-Night card

Mind-Blowing-Sex card

No-Weight-Gain-for-a-Month card”

The good thing about the book is that they are all collected here and could break the ice for some free-flowing discussions if you are still dating.

Seven Questions About The Two Natures by Bill Grover

Please give my Amazon review a helpful vote - https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R2XOC6T06V2WAO?ref=pf_ov_at_pdctrvw_srp

My Communio group is into the Incarnation section of Part III of the Summa Theologica, which raises issues about the relationship of the divine and human natures of the divine Logos in the hypostatic union. This is obviously unclearly territory fraught with much misunderstanding. This is a book about those misunderstandings. The author Bill Grover is an Evangelical with, I assume, a Calvinist background. The aim of his book is to question the lack of agreement among modern Evangelical theologians.

And there is a lot of disagreement, some of which verges, or steps directly into, notorious heresies.

The chapter breakdown should give the reader a good idea of the topics covered by this book:

Chapter 1: How Do Evangelical Scholars Disagree about the Two Natures in Christ?
Chapter 2: Does the Bible Require that We Learn Theology and Christology?
Chapter 3: Is the Son Eternally Begotten?
Chapter 4: Is the Son Eternally Role-Subordinate?
Chapter 5: Does Christ Have a Distinct Human Center That Wills, Acts, and Experiences?
Chapter 6: Did Christ Lose the Use of Divine Powers in the Incarnation?
Chapter 7: Does Christ's Divine Nature Give Divine Attributes to His Human

Chapter 1 is a survey of the literature of modern Evangelical theology concerning the incarnation. Evangelical theologians are all over the map on a lot of different issues, including the eternal begetting of the Logos by the Father, the equality of the Persons of God, and whether the divine nature of Christ includes divine properties. This last point introduces the concept of “modified kenoticism” which argues that during the Incarnation, the Logos gave up all divine properties. Grover writes:

“McCall is confusing regarding what modified kenoticism teaches regarding the ignorance of Christ as in Mark 13:32. He says this view teaches that the ignorance is predicated to only one nature, not to the Person.63 One could understand that one nature to be the humanity as this section is about the human nature. But the implication is that in the other nature (the divinity), the Son is not ignorant. But Feenstra, who adheres to modified kenoticism, rather teaches that the Son of God “during His life on earth was not omniscient.”

Grover acknowledges that he cannot accept “modified kenoticism,” which, frankly, is inconsistent with Chalcedonian Christianity. Chalcedon affirmed that Christ was fully God, which is contradicted by a “Godless” divine nature. In addition, the idea that God can give up divine power misconceives God's relationship with creation, i.e., that God maintains creation in existence at all times. A God who stops acting as God means a universe that stops existing. (For purposes of the Trinity, each person of the Trinity acts with respect to creation.)

Chapter 2 provides a good discussion of why this level of theology matters. Briefly, believers are instructed to hold to traditions:

“1. Believers must adhere to doctrinal tradition. “Hold to the traditions we taught you whether by speech or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15). The plural noun (traditions) is paradoseis. This substantive refers to the transmission of doctrine.73 It appears at times to assume a fixed verbal form of teaching as in 1 Corinthians 11:23, where Paul recalls the Lord Jesus' words in the Gospel account of the Last Supper. Buchsel notes that Christian teaching is the tradition which must be kept, according to 1 Corinthians 15:2 because salvation depends on keeping it.74 The text in 2 Thessalonians alludes to all doctrinal teachings of Paul to that church. One should not think that the apostle would expect less of other churches. So, by extrapolation, members of churches in the Christian tradition today should adhere to the Pauline theology, including topics as Christ's Person, salvation, the work of the Holy Spirit, the Church's ordinances and officers, the after-life, and the Second Coming.”

In addition, Christians are affirmatively charged with learning and defending doctrine. (“Growing in the knowledge of God” (Col. 1:10); “We must progress beyond the elementary instruction about Christ” (Heb. 6:1).) Grover's arguments correspond to the Observations of Robert Louis Wilken in “The Spirit of Christian Thought” that Christianity has been intellectual from the beginning. For those of us who find theology important and enlightening this is a useful reminder that theology is important and enlightening.

Chapter 3 addresses the Evangelical position on whether Jesus is “eternally begotten.” Under Christian creeds, this should not be a difficult question, which makes this observation surprising:

“Erickson (2013 reprint) and Grudem (1994) reject the tenet of the eternal generation of the Son. The subject index in Erickson does not even include a reference to it, and in his discussion of the Trinity, he makes no mention of the doctrine. In 2000, Grudem added an appendix to his 1994 systematic in which he suggests the doctrine of eternal generation should be abandoned in theology textbooks.118 It is reported that Grudem, in 2016, changed his view and now believes the Son to be eternally begotten.”

And:

“As for making the Nicene creed, itself, normative, Charles Hodge expresses belief that the Nicene fathers wrongly decided eternal generation meant a derivation of essence; Hodge states it is instead the Person of the Son which was generated.”

And:

“The Heidelberg Catechism mentions the only begotten Son but does not reference eternal generation. The Augsburg Confession (1530), in Art. III on the Son of God, does not reference eternal generation, but earlier, in Art. 1, indicates agreement with the Nicene Synod. But none of these say the begetting is ongoing or that the Son receives essence or deity by it.”

Some of the concern with eternal generation involves a concern with placing the logos into a subservient position vis a vis the Father. There is also a concern with the meaning of “monogenes” which Grover explains does not clearly mean begotten.

I don't know what Grover's take is on this issue. The answers to these issues are clearly established within Catholicism's Thomistic tradition. The lesson I took away was that having a tradition that makes all theological answers provisional is one that has to constantly be re-inventing itself.

Chapter 4 deals with the Trinitarian question of whether Christ was subordinate to God. The Thomistic answer is that Christ's human nature was subordinate to God, and to all the persons of God, including the Logos, whereas none of the Trinity is subordinate to any of the other Persons. In part, this is because the Trinity share the same will, power, essence, and memory; what distinguishes the Persons of the Trinity is their origin with respect to each other.

Evangelicals have largely jettisoned this tradition, which raises a lot of questions:

“Yet, a number of modern theologians teach there are three powers of will in God and inhere the wills rather in the Persons of God. Again, I am surprised by Erickson in this matter because of his supporting the possibility of three wills in God. I am surprised because the one will theory, as Giles shows, is a better posture for rejecting eternal role-subordination.248 And Erickson rejects eternal role-subordination. Erickson states Luke 22:42 evidences a difference between the will of the Father and the will of the Son, but he quickly adds this text may allude only to the human will of Christ.”

The distinction between the human and divine wills was accepted by St. Augustine, which makes the confusion perplexing. (To be fair, Grover points out that there are Evangelicals who accept that God has one will.) Grover points out a number of scriptural passages that would seem to supports a subordinationist position, which he then distinguishes.

Chapter 5 deals with the issue of whether Christ has a “human center” that thinks and wills. The Thomistic answer is that the Logos assumed a human nature. Thus, it is the Logos that lives as a human person, which involves understanding and willing as a human being. This same person also wills and understands as God. So, the answer is both yes and no.

The problem is that failing to find the proper balance either divides the Incarnation into two persons (Nestorianism) or erases one nature in practical effect (Monophysitism). Grover provides an excellent survey of the issues and history of the issue that is worth reading.

Chapter 6 is perhaps the most interesting chapter of the book. I had not heard of “modified kenoticism” before reading this book, although I had been involved in an internet debate with a person making such an argument a few months back.

Grover explains that “Modified kenoticism—also called “functional kenoticism”—is the belief that when incarnating, Christ had to give up the use of some divine attributes.” One can see the attraction of this position because it makes understanding the Incarnation much easier; there is no confusing balancing of human and divine natures, it is functionally all human. In other words, this is Monophysitism but with the divine nature erased or overwritten rather than the human.

What surprised me is how popular this position is. One has to wonder if this has something to do with modernity and a desire for a God who suffers with us, perhaps, making God less culpable for the horrors of existence.

Chapter 7 asks whether God's divine attributes were communicated to Christ's human nature. The traditional position going back to at least St. Augustine is labeled the “communication idiomatum” which says that since the person who is Jesus is the Logos, it is proper to attribute human powers and properties to the Logos, but not to the Father, and since the Logos is God, to God. Thus, it can properly be said that the Logos died on the Cross, or that God died on the Cross, with the understanding that this means “in His human nature.” On the other hand, divine attributes cannot be ascribed to humanity in general; God became man, man did not become God.

This is a complicated area that leads to differences between different traditions:

“Pieper at length explains the genera of the Lutheran understanding of the communication of attributes. The first is the genus idiomaticum, which is that because Christ is one Person, the attributes of both natures belong to the Person.472 The second is the genus maiestaticum, which is that the humanity of Christ is given divine attributes.473 The third the genus apotelesmaticum, is the belief that all the works of Christ are attributable to both natures.474 Then, of course, the humanity participates in the use of the divine attributes. Of the three, the Reformed only accept the first.”

Likewise,

“Pieper proceeds to demonstrate the humanity of Christ also is omniscient. He uses John 3:31–32 as evidence that the Son knew all that other members of the Trinity knew, and that because that knowledge took place in and through the humanity, therefore, the humanity is omniscient. Pieper asserts that in the case of Mark 13:32, the divine omniscience of the human nature did not always “become functional.” The divine knowledge is “dormant” in Christ's human nature. Christ has only one consciousness, so the human nature is also omniscient.”

This seems to be the opposite of “modified kenoticism” and a move in the direction of “functional Monophytism” (however much the advocates of this position explain that they do not reject the two natures.)

The Thomistic answer to the problem that Christ is one person whose human nature had the maximal natural human knowledge (infused/prophetic knowledge) and the beatific vision at all times during his life. This creates its own problems such as explaining why Jesus said that no one knew the time of the end of the world except the Father.

I found this book interesting and useful in being a survey of Evangelical approaches to fundamental questions. Many of those questions are dead issues in my tradition, having been resolved a long time ago. It's revealing to find that these questions remain live and that the answers given by my tradition are as live today as they were in the time of St. Augustine or St. Thomas Aquinas.

Each chapter ends with the author's summary and a set of questions for readers to answer.

Eye of the Zodiac (Dumarest #13) by E.C. Tubb

Please give my Amazon review a helpful vote - https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R2ZASJB4T64A1Y?ref=pf_ov_at_pdctrvw_srp

This is Book 13 of the Dumarest Saga. All the pieces that constitute the Dumarest formula are in place. Dumarest has the code for the Affinity Twin, the Cyclan is after him, and the Cyclan needs the Affinity Twin formula in order to better rule the universe.

Dumarest knows the Cyclan wants him. This has made him grow very paranoid. When a young man reveals the name of “Nerth” and that he may be part of the Original People, Dumarest suspects a ruse from the Cyclan, particularly since a Cyclan has arrived on Tradum, the world where Dumarest is working as a miner and security guard. Using his wits, Dumarest eludes the Cyclan on Tradum and makes his way to Shajok, where he is enlisted into a rich man's expedition to find a mythical creature of supernatural abilities.

Will Dumarest be wrecked in the backcountry?

Will he find the Original People?

Will the rich man's sister prove to be a transexual-desiring schemer?

Will Cyclan show up to capture him?

Read the book and find out.

This is the pulpiest of pulps. You can make a drinking game out of the book using the words “fast,” “titivation,” and “lambent” but for me, it is a guilty pleasure and I am enjoying watching Dumarest pick up clues to guide him back to Earth. (In this one he gets a listing of star names and distances from some point.)

The Tindalos Asset (Tinfoil Dossier #3) by Caitlin Kiernan

Please give my Amazon review a helpful vote - https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R3TEQ285JW3HPY?ref=pf_ov_at_pdctrvw_srp

I am conflicted in my assessment of this book. As with the second book of this series - Black Helicopters (Tinfoil Dossier #2) - I liked Kiernan's writing. She presents her story with ambiguity and vagueness that engaged me in trying to decode what was going on. She crafts some solid Lovecraftian language interlaced with spy jargon.

But does any of it have any meaning? I couldn't tell.

In this case, the Signalman reactiviates a broken asset, a young woman who had a horrific experience in a failed assignment and is attempting to erase her memory with drugs. The reason for her reactivation is that the end of the world is nigh as the target from her failed assignment seems intent on awakening Cthulhu.

Kiernan's style is not to present anything so straighforwardly as that. The narrative is chopped up into around 20 chapters which bounce around from the perspective of different characters over the course of nearly 100 years. (There is one chapter set in 2040.) Kiernan drops clues into the chapters, but the plot problem and resolution do develop over the course of the book.

One problem that I had with the book is that there seems to be a backstory I want to know about. The Signalman belongs to an organization referred to as “Albany” which is where its headquarters is located. It seems to be a very shadowy governmental agency dealing with supernatural threats. In this book, and in the prior books, there are references to other supernatural organizations (e.g., “the Julia Set”) that are opposed to Albany, but we have only the vaguest sense of what they stand for. Likewise there are references to Fata Morgana phenomenon, the “oceanic pole of inaccessiblity,” and how “that Fermi and his Project Y goons had inadvertently called up, these critters that can only reach us through angles.”

Two of those are real things.

I'll admit I love the weaving of obscure knowledge with pseudo-history. So, I'm pretty much a sucker for this kind of thing.

I also like looking up things. Because I am not a Lovecraft aficionado, until I looked it up on a hunch, I did not know that the “hounds of Tindalos” was a monster deriving from Frank Belknap Long's 1929 story “The Hounds of Tindalos.” Now, that I do, and a cursory overview of the story, I think I have a greater appreciation for this story. Perhaps more information should have been shared in this story about that subject, but, hey!, the premise of the story is that Dagon, Deep Ones, and Cthulhu are real, so why should this datum get treated differently?

So, I think I come down on the side of liking the story for its Lovecraft-Meets-LeCarre quality. If you are unwilling to live with obscure references and hidden plot points, this might not be your cup of tea.

Please give my Amazon review a helpful vote - https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R2ND25GNKI0YTY?ref=pf_ov_at_pdctrvw_srp

This is a novella-length story that will be hard to describe without spoilers, and I don't intend to provide spoilers.

I will start with my reaction: I enjoyed the story. The story started very mundanely. If it wasn't for the description of the book, I wouldn't have thought it was science fiction. The story starts with British constable Frank Grant chasing a stolen car, then segues into his visit to a couple claiming that they had a trespasser on their property who looked like Cary Grant.

Cary Grant?

Author David Hutchinson drops hints thereafter indicating that there may be more to Frank Grant than we initially suspected. Then, the story grows into a dimension that blows the mind together with some spycraft elements that might have fit into Hutchinson's “Europe Sequence.”

Stick with the story, There's a payoff.

On a speculative note, I wonder if there isn't a larger novel lurking out there set in the same world as this novella. The novella leaves questions open, but the answers may not be as satisfying as the questions.

Terminus by Peter Clines

Please give my Amazon review a helpful vote - https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/RK8X11HIV0QPT?ref=pf_ov_at_pdctrvw_srp


Peter Clines has been turning out some wonderful page-turning books in a variety of subgenres. One of those takes into a world of Lovecraftian horrors, including huge, flying, eternally-hungry, bat-winged, tentacle-faced, humanoid-looking “squales.” Clines is usually craft about unleashing these Cthulhu-inspired monsters on the reader until later in the book, so be on the lookout for green cockroaches with extra arms to flag that you are in his horror universe.

This book is the third book in what is now a loose-knit “trilogy.” His first book was “14” which involved a “Winchester Mystery House” apartment complex that introduced a handful of characters, the Family of the Red Death, doors into an alternate Earth cleaned out by the squales and the green cockroaches. The second was the fold which started out as a science fiction teleportation story but moved into Lovecraft horror territory after an engaging build-up. These two stories weren't connected except by the overall universe including the cockroaches (and I've come to realize, a character named “Anne,” who features as an easily overlooked background character.)

This is the third installment of the collection. This one starts with a “Lost” like set-up where the main character, Chase, is a passenger on a freighter. Chase and another passenger are taken to an island with some crew members to get them off the freighter during a storm to avoid insurance issues. The “storm” turns out to be a squale and the island appears to be the location of a second “machine” like that in “14” and the Family has landed on the island with a kidnapped character from “14” to lead them to the building on this lost island.

And the island has green cockroaches and the three-armed overseers we met in “14.”

And squales are loose in the world.

Unlike the other stories that were leisurely in building up the weirdness and tension, this story launches quickly into the riveting advenure nearly immediately and does not let up. Sometimes it's hard to follow what's happening in what reality, but that doesn't detract from the engaging plotting and characters.

This is a stand-alone book, but it reads better as the third in this “series.” The reader just gets a lot more enjoyment by understanding who the characters are and the background of the story, as well as the satisfaction of having some of the mysteries from “14” solved.

For me, I read “14” back in 2012 and “The Fold” in 2017, so I forgot a lot of details, which made this like a new reading experience, but also frustrated me because I wanted to go back and see the points that I had forgotten from the previous book.

I recommend that the new reader start with “14,” continue with “The Fold,” and move on to this one. The good news for new readers is that they won't have to wait nearly a decade to get answers to “14.”

Against the Grain by James C. Scott.

Please give my Amazon review a favorable vote -

https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R2GTEESKFVFSZT/ref=cm_cr_getr_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B0747RTP2W

When I was in college in the late 1970s, I was taught that agriculture was a product of the river beds where people retreated during a drought or other environmental crisis. Agriculture developed from people being forced to intensively exploit the naturally occurring grains in that environment in order to avoid starvation. This situation meant that villages developed simultaneously and from there it was a short hop to states and civilization.

This book takes a new look at this model and finds that science has left this model behind. Thus, it turns out that sedentism predated agriculture by thousands of years and agriculture was around for thousands of years before anyone through to building up a state. Scott places the relevant dates of these events as follows: 12,000 BC (Scattered evidence of sedentism); 7,000 to 8,000 BC (Domestication of founder crops); 6,000 BC (permanent towns); 3,100 BC (Walled statelets.)

The time intervals between these events are long and deep. 3,000 years to go from towns to states? 2,000 years to go from agriculture to towns? What were people doing in the interim?

The answer is that the advantages for each development are not obvious and the costs and risks are high. Occasional sedentism may have been occasionally preferable to picking up and carrying things to new settlements but not always. Founder crops could be domesticated in situ by bands moving through territories where they knew such crops could be found. Walled towns become necessary only after a population has developed the habit of storing grain and other valuables.

As for the state, Scott points out that states are not the natural institution we think they are. States require a lot of developments to make them work, such as a record-keeping system, surplus agricultural production, a military caste and other features. Scott points out that most states are short-lived affairs. We may call the interregnum periods “dark ages” but such dark ages are the natural state of mankind, which gets along fine without the high culture of buildings and literature that we enjoy from the far future.

Scott compares state formation to the human period which people can laboriously build-up only to see it come tumbling down the first moment any of the lower tiers weaken. One of the collapse points according to Scott was likely to have been disease, which would have found a much greater opportunity to afflict human populations once they began to cluster in towns and communicate with each other through trade and war. In addition, the domestication of animals introduced new vectors of contamination. Ancient religions often made a point of supplicating plague demons which is an indication of the role of plagues in such societies.

Scott writes:

“Epidemic disease is, I believe, the “loudest” silence in the Neolithic archaeological record. Archaeology can assess only what it can recover and, in this case, we must speculate beyond the hard evidence. There are nonetheless good reasons for supposing that a great many of the sudden collapses of the earliest centers of population were due to devastating epidemic diseases.3 Time and again there is evidence of a sudden and otherwise unexplained abandonment of previously well-populated sites. In the case of adverse climate change or soil salinization one would also expect depopulation, but in keeping with its cause it would be more likely to be regionwide and rather more gradual. Other explanations for the sudden evacuation or disappearance of a populous site are of course possible: civil war, conquest, floods. Epidemic disease, however, given the entirely novel crowding the Neolithic revolution made possible, is the most likely suspect, judging from the massive effects of disease that appear in the written records once they become available.”

And:

“The first written sources also make it clear that early Mesopotamian populations understood the principle of “contagion” that spread epidemic disease. Where possible, they took steps to quarantine the first discernible cases, confining them to their quarters, letting no one out and no one in. They understood that long-distance travelers, traders, and soldiers were likely carriers of disease. Their practices of isolation and avoidance prefigured the quarantine procedures of the lazaretti of the Renaissance ports. An understanding of contagion was implicit not only in the avoidance of people who were infected but avoidance as well of their cups, dishes, clothes, and bed linen.5 Soldiers returning from a campaign and suspected of carrying disease were obliged to burn their clothing and shields before entering the city. When isolation and quarantine failed, those who could fled the city, leaving the dying and deceased behind, and returning, if ever, only well after the epidemic had passed. In doing so, they must frequently have brought the epidemic to outlying areas, touching off a new round of quarantines and flight. There is little doubt in my mind that a good many of the earlier and unchronicled abandonments of populous areas were due more to disease than to politics.”

Another feature necessary for state formation was the domestication of grains as opposed to other forms of starch. The early states were grain states rather than tuber or bean states because grain is harvested at a regular time above ground at a definite time, which enables the state to identify grain production and take its cut. This would not be possible with other forms of starch production.

Scott argues that the key purpose of early states was the domestication of humans. States squandered human population and were constantly beset with the issue of filling up lightly populated or depopulated territory with new population. Hence, the state went big into the slavery racket and would specialize in transferring populations from the exterior to the core in order to ensure that grain production was maintained. Scott notes: “The imperative of collecting people, settling them close to the core of power, holding them there, and having them produce a surplus in excess of their own needs animates much of early statecraft.”

Slavery was only a temporary solution given the horrific treatment of slaves:

“Perhaps the strongest evidence of brutal treatment is the general conclusion by scholars that the servile population did not reproduce itself. In lists of prisoners, it is striking how many are listed as dead—whether from the forced march back or from overwork and malnutrition is not clear.22 Why valuable manpower would be so carelessly destroyed is, I believe, less likely to be owing to a cultural contempt for war captives than to the fact that new prisoners of war were plentiful and relatively easy to acquire.”

You also have to wonder about whether human empathy extended to strangers. If you read the Achilles' response to Hector in the Illiad, you see a primitive inability to understand that the other being was a fellow human.

Scott also points to the instability of sedentism:

“Sedentism was, as we have noted earlier, not a once-and-for-all achievement. Over the roughly five millennia of sporadic sedentism before states (seven millennia if we include preagriculture sedentism in Japan and the Ukraine), archaeologists have recorded hundreds of locations that were settled, then abandoned, perhaps resettled, and then again abandoned.”

One thing that went along with sedentism and states was the formation of barbarians who lived off of settled peoples and often viewed settled people as their “herds.” Barbarians were sometimes formed from refugees fleeing the epidemics and the oppression of the core areas or from people in areas shattered by state activity, including slave raiding. Barbarians could place pressure on, or provide opportunities to, sedentary populations that destabilized them.

There is a lot here in a “big think” way. The book can be dry at times, but big ideas drop out at a fairly regular rate. In its way, this book should be of particular interest to those with an interest in political philosophy or the origin of the state.

One interesting question that isn't answered is, why now? After tens of thousands of years of wandering, why did “traces of sedentism” emerge only 14,000 years ago? And why would towns develop 8,000 years ago rather than 8,000 years from now? What is the reason that we are reading this on the internet today, rather than living on a planet orbiting another star or, just as easily, hunting and gathering on a lightly populated Earth?

Please give my review a helpful vote - https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R1B7NNBPN05S8C?ref=pf_ov_at_pdctrvw_srp

I didn't expect an anthology about the victory of Cthulhu to be particularly uplifting, but this collection is worse than grim. Worse, the stories are often incoherent and mostly inconclusive. I had this anthology before and while a few stories were memorable, most were easily forgotten.

The Walker in Cemetery by Ian Watson - This is a decently written story about survivors who are picked off one by one. The ending is grisly. This is one I remembered. A collection of stories like this one would be a tough pill to swallow but would definitely deserve a higher rating.

Sanctuary by Don Webb - Another good but nihilistic story set in the American Southwest.

Her Acres of Pastoral Playground by Mike Allen - I didn't follow this one. It was too obscure and too much effort for the pay-off. Obviously, some kind of pocket universe with apparitions. It wasn't poorly written but I just didn't care.

Spherical Trigonometry by Ken Asamatsu - This one may be memorable, but maybe not. Cthulhu rises and a rich person and his architect and friends head to a safe house. Things happen. The end. It wasn't bad, but not really worth the effort.

What Brings The Void by Will Murray - Strangely, this one was the most memorable of the stories I read the first time, perhaps because of the final image of a soul catching entity. The story involves a paranormal agent attempting to flee the takeover of the world by the Elder Gods and his miscalculations. I liked it. Your mileage may vary.

The New Pauline Corpus by Matt Cardin - Stream of consciousness writing that is incoherent. Christ and Cthulhu are hierophanies sounds interesting but this is not.

Ghost Dancing by Darrell Schweitzer - A cultist regrets his role in releasing the Elder Gods but realizes that all that's left is to teach other cultists that they will not benefit from their betrayal of humanity. Not badly written but it's an awful lot of effort for a small return.

This Is How The World Ends by John R Fultz - People running away from the Elder Gods and their minions. Incoherent ending.

The Shallows by John Langan - This may be the worst story of the collection as we get another stream of consciousness narration of things I couldn't be bothered to sort out.

Such Bright and Risen Madness In Our Lives by Jay Lake - There could have been an interesting story as we see a member of the resistance learn that there is a toxin that kills the cultists who are serving the Elder Gods. OK, cool...hope in nihilism. An author is entitled to end the story when he thinks he's done, but the ending on this one seemed premature or, perhaps, the story seemed like too much of a build-up to a conclusion that didn't happen.

The Seals of New R'lyeh by Gregory Frost - In this one we see the cultists who bring about the end and two of them who may be able to reverse the disaster if they weren't such idiots. This is another one that I think ended prematurely. I understand that the ending was supposed to leave us in suspense, but my unhappiness with the story suggests that it didn't make the sale it was supposed to make.

The Holocaust of Ecstasy by Brian Stableford - Man is resurrected as a fruit on a tree. All of humanity is resurrected as fruit on trees. There is a call-out to the Lovecraft story, “The Shadow Out of Time” and a member of the Great Race who shouldn't be there. This story is weird and unexplained. I think I liked it, but maybe as a palate cleanser in a different anthology.

Vastation by Laird Barron - Stream of consciousness and incoherent.

Nothing Personal by Richard A. Lupoff. Matter and Anti-Matter. A nihilistic but strangely happy ending. Again, the story seemed to drag for not much of a pay-off.

Remnant by Fred Chappell. This seems to be the only hopeful story in the bundle as a handful of humans are rescued by other victims of the Elder God.

I found getting through this anthology to be a bit of a chore. It probably isn't fair to blame the difficulty of reading an anthology of nihilistic stories on their nihilism but that was a factor. Also, as I said, a lot of stories seemed underdeveloped or slight in their pay-off.

Your mileage may differ.

The Cunning Man by D.J. Butler and Aaron Ritchy

Please give my Amazon review a helpful vote - https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R376V99EB33DG9?ref=pf_ov_at_pdctrvw_srp

I picked this up thinking it might be along the lines Manley Wade Wellman's “Silver John” series, which I think was initially set during the same post-World War I time frame. Like the Wellman, this story involves a staunch, sober and decent man who knows the magical lore of the backcountry. However, where Wellman's hero roamed around the Appalachians with a silver stringed guitar, the hero of the Cunning Man is a Mormon beet farmer.

In this time when diversity is used to justify giving awards to mediocre books, this book really shows diversity. Outside of Orson Scott Card, I don't think I know of another book that mines Mormon culture for its story resources, but this book shows that there is an exotic and deep source of material there.

The “cunning man” of the story is Hiram Woolley, a Mormon beet farmer who helps out his neighbors during the Great Depression. Hiram learned his cunning from his grandmother. Mormon hedge magic involves cantrips, lamens, symbols, and rocks. Hiram has rocks that stop poisoning and also tell him whether someone is lying to him. Since this is Mormon mythos, there is also a “seer stone” that puts the user into contact with angels or demons after one places it in a hat.

Hiram is dispatched to a Utah mining town where the inhabitants are on the verge of starvation because the owners are divided on where the mine should be operated. There are rumors of ghosts in the mine. The railroad wants to use the family division to force a sale of the mine. And, finally, there is another cunning man whose knowledge of lor may exceed Hiram's.

The authors D.J. Butler and Aaron Michael Ritchey set up the pieces and do a good job of moving them around to keep the readers interest. This is a fun book, particularly in light of its setting, but not entirely perfect. Hiram's adopted son, Michael, is just a little to sarcastic for my tastes, but I enjoyed the characters and the working out of the plot.

Please give my Amazon review a helpful vote - https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R9G85B7ER3OKP?ref=pf_ov_at_pdctrvw_srp

There's a reason that the Iliad had remained a best seller for nearly three-thousand years. Namely, it is a fun read (or listen.) This is my second journey through the book - the first time involved listening to an audiobook version - and I was surprised by all that I had missed the first time through, namely the comedy bits involving Zeus and Hera, Aeneas's substantial involvement, and the graphic “slasher film” elements. I was surprised to find that Homer seemed to be staking out some part of all genres that we 21st-century moderns would expect to find on television in his epic.

If you haven't read the Iliad, it begins ten years into the siege, spans about thirty days of the war, and ends long before you have the Trojan horse or the fall of the city. Despite its compressed time span, it covers thousands of lines of poetry that should amaze us when we think that someone memorized and orally recited all this in the granular detail of the life details of scores of subsidiary characters who walk on the stage, are identified by name, share their life stories, and are slaughtered with an arrow through the spleen or a sword cut removing tongues or a spear strike through the back of the head, knocking eyes to the ground.

The story starts with the rage of Achilles as Agamemnon takes away his war prize - Briseis - to compensate for the loss of his own war prize - Chriseis - the refusal to return to her father, a priest of Apollo, has provoked the wrath of Apollo. From that point, Achilles sulks and plots with his mother Thetis to take Greek fortunes so low that they will come begging for his return to war. There is, of course, the unintended side-effect of Hector killing Patroclus, which returns Achilles to the fight and results in the almost human scene of Achilles and Priam, King of Troy/father of Hector, sharing a moment of grief together.

You can see how the ancients could milk the depth of the Iliad for insight. While the characters are mostly Bronze Age warriors caught up in honor/glory/face-saving, there are moments when a more civilized ethose may be breaking out. Thus, we have two passages that I found most effect. The first is when Achilles spurns Hector's offer to treat the body of the defeated warrior in their duel with respect. Achilles answers:

“Hector, stop!
You unforgivable, you...don't talk to me of pacts.
There are no binding oaths between men and lions -
wolves and lambs can enjoy no meeting of the minds-
they are all bent on hating each other to the death.”

Later, Priam comes to Achilles with an offer of a ransom for the return of Hector's body:

“Revere the gods, Achilles! Pity me in my own right,
remember your own father! I deserve more pity...
I have endured what no one on earth has ever done before -
I put my lips to the hands of the man who killed my son.

Those words stirred within Achilles a deep desire
to grief for his own father. Taking the old man's hands
he gently moved him back. And overpowered by memory
both men gave way to grief. Priam wept freely
for man-killing Hector, throbbing, crouching
before Achilles' feet as Achilles wept himself,
now for his father, now for Patroclus once again,
and their sobbing rose and fell throughout the house.”

So, Achilles goes from someone who cannot recognize the enemy as human to someone who can share a moment of grief, perhaps.

I read this as part of the Online Great Books program. I found the structure and teleconference-style seminars to be quite helpful.

I would also recommend Fagles' translation. As you can see from the above, Fagles communicates the text in clear and vividly accessible prose.

This book is part of the heritage of Western Civilization. It would be a shame for you to miss out on it during your short course on this earth.