Are we ever going to meet?

I think the title says it all.

The girl gets to choose

Okay Recappers, it is now my choice. I warned some of you that my choice would be different, and so it is.

Philip K. Dick's UBIK

The library has several, and you can find them pretty cheap online. So take a deep breath, and dive into the world of Science Fiction!

Just to clear up any misconceptions...

According to the previous post, "Snippet of an overheard conversation" quoted someone saying, "Dude..." I know that some might have associated me with this statement, however, it was not I. Might I add, that lasts night round-table (or booth) discussion was great!

Snippet of overheard conversation

"...and you really can't remember where you were when you saw those guys?" "No, for real, I can't. I couldn't concentrate because there were so many goyim around. And I've been to a bunch of places since then. Why do you want to know, again?" "I'm supposed to meet them. Or allegedly I am. But they never told me where." "Dude, I bet it's a conspiracy to keep out the Jew."

My Impression of a Misunderstood Writer

As I approached the Beer Barn, the classy establishment the book club that I’m just barely an active member in intended to meet, I recognized the person walking out and toward me. I knew who he was immediately, because his face is on the cover of the book that I just read. Actually, his mug was not on my copy of the book. The book has two covers and I purposefully chose the cover that wouldn’t stare at me while using the bathroom. “What’s up,” I said. This was my usual non-intimate greeting. “This guy inside kept telling me about painting his kitchen. He asked if I wanted to help, but I don’t think that he was serious.” “Yeah, I know that guy,” I said. He gave me an odd look. “That guy or a guy like him?” “Definitely that guy. Did he tell you about the wagon?” “No.” “How many times did he tell you he has painted his kitchen?” I asked. “Thirty-two times.” “Seriously, or are you making that up?” “I’m making that up.”

It was amazing how naturally he led me right to the most important question I could ever ask him. “Is there any significance to the number thirty-two, or is it just a random thought?” I asked. “Nothing I say or write is completely random. Everything has significance.” “Shut up!” “No, really.” “Shut up!” “No, really.” This could have gone poorly if I had continued. I was afraid that the conversation was over, but I had a follow-up question. “So, what is the significance of thirty-two?” I asked. “It’s for my favorite basketball player, Magic Johnson.” “That’s it? Nothing profound? It isn’t symbolic, doesn’t deal with our conscious feeling of being tired and desire to rest, which is completely contrary to our fear of dying?” He slowly scratched his head. “I don’t even understand what you just said.” “I didn’t think so,” I said.

We looked at each other for quite some time. I wasn’t really sure what I was thinking, but his thoughts were electric images displayed in his eerily large eyes. He was ogling a young college student and swinging his right arm in a rigid, lifeless way. And then we parted.

A night at the bar with Jon Foer....

So there I am sitting on the barstool of the "Society of Letters Bar and No-Grill." Hanging out, having a good time, listening to the banter back and forth between the other patrons (I swear if either Kristen or Josh mention "black @#$%^ bread" again I'll throw one of Tre's leftover wing bones at them) when I look over my shoulder and there's ol' Jon Foer sitting all alone nursing a black eye and a broken spirit. I excuse myself from the delightful Indian fella I've been talking with and walk over to the table in the dimly lit corner.


R: "Hey John. So, um, how's the eye?"

JSF: "Oh hi Rick, it's fine, no thanks to you. It was a little swolen at first but I've been keeping the it down with a handful of $100 bills from my last huge advance."

R: (uncomfortable laugh) "Yeah, you kinda took a beating earlier. About that, I wanted to help but, well you know, I was on the phone with my wife talking about cars and... I told you about my kitchen project, right?"

JSF: "Save it Rick, it doesn't help me now does it? You can't spare five minutes to run over with a barstool and club Franklin as he's kicking me on the ground? Josh and Dusty won't even acknowledge me but I thought you'd at least have my back. I tried damn it; I tried to fight off Bruce but he just kept laughing at me saying things like 'Hit me with your good arm, Foer!' I could be wrong, but I swear I heard him saying something about how if he'd made it as a professional wrestler his finishing move would have been called the 'final solution.' You've known me longer than any of these guys, you should have at least hit one of them."

R: "But, I do feel like I've known Jaqua my whole life. Between you and me I think he might be the reincarnation of the actual Sammy Davis Jr, he's just that likable. And to be fair, Curri had your back so you didn't need me."

JSF: "But he couldn't save me from Kristen's words - she said I was a no-talent, cliched, hubristic undergrad-English-major hack of an author!"

R: "Well she has a point, it does seem like you're trying a little hard at times."

JSF: "I studied literature, journalism, and creative writing, don't you think I'm aware of the various literary genres and styles? If it were all just a hodgepodge of unoriginal techniques and immature ambition wouldn't someone had called me out?

R: "Maybe you made it through because of some kind of Jewish control of the entertainment business conspiracy? Or maybe in lieu of your immaturity you wrote a really good story that on occasion suffers from the impulsiveness of youth."

JSF: "You're talking about the arm aren't you?"

R: "I'm talking about the arm. I can't stop talking about the arm! I was thinking if I'd only had a dead arm I would have been the coolest guy in my high school; the girls would have loved me. I was trying to think of some kind of profound meaning, but tell me the truth it doesn't have any meaning does it?"

JSF: "Nope, I was 22 when I wrote it and thought, let's give him a dead arm. Then I thought, wouldn't it be crazy if women craved the dead arm, wasn't too long until it was pleasuring all of Eastern Europe. I thought it was funny and random, like the guy on Kids in the Hall who had a cabbage for a head."

R: "Sure but what about that whole we experience illumination and a glow visible from space when we're, um, doin' it? That whole village-wide orgy thing. But later your grandfather gets more pleasure from destruction than sex, right?"

(Foer writes a bunch of stuff on a napkin and slides it across the table)

JSF: "Why don't you talk about this at your meeting, I don't have the time to talk about it here, I'm meeting Wes Anderson for dinner. It's a not-so-serious book about a very serious subject, with the juxtaposition of meaningless and meaningful experiences. I think that life, and love, is ultimately a frustrating experience that is part idea and part praxis and it's the conflict and powerlessness that occurs between the two that give us the pathos of life - well, at least for the characters, I've got so much paper I don't even know what pathos is anymore.

R: "But, as you point out, in lieu of all this frustration there are those special moments when you can look through a hole in the wall, fondle yourself, and make it all worth while, that's what I took from it."

JSF: "Yes, it took me 250 pages and a few other words, but that's pretty much it."

R: "Well, I think it's a good book and I'd hardly call you a hack. I think your second book makes you a hack. Hey, you'd better get out of here, you've been here a long time and this place can get pretty rough once Josh, Dusty, and Huskerson join in."

JSF: "Yeah, I'm going to go. Tell your Indian friend I said Hi and I hope he gets treated better in here than I did. Oh, and be sure to tell the janitor I'm sorry for the mess."

(Moments later an elderly gentleman with a mop, a bucket, and a goatee begins to clean the beer, peanuts, and bits of Jonathan Safran Foer off the floor.)

R: "Night Francis, see you next month."

"A book is never a killer, it's a tool in Killah's hands" or Tom Rubane returns to protect Jonathan Safron Foer....

Seneca (the author of the above quote, but talking about a sword rather than a book) would have been proud of the Society's open discussion of books, ideas, and the marvelous things that can occur when human ingenuity, teenage lust, and a dead-armed Jew cross paths in Eastern Europe. We put off meeting to discuss the most recent controversial book until Jaqua returns from his vacation. That being said, we should probably nail down a specific time to meet on either Monday or Tuesday of next week- whichever night won't end in sending Bruce Sharp out to coach little girl's soccer smelling like banquet beer.
Also, we will meet to discuss my selection on India the Tuesday or Wednesday following Labor Day if that's good for everyone.

This will give me (as well as Josh, Dusty, and Huskerson) time to write a take on the book before next week...maybe Huskerson can write about the differences between the movie and the book?

Round and Round We Go

Any ideas for the round-table? My schedule is getting thick, so I need to plan a little in advance. Friday August 17th after work perhaps? Or if you don’t want to give up your Friday, Monday August 20th?

Now I really feel like I am back in undergrad...

As my colleague accurately pointed out, Roggenbrot, or roggenbrod, is not the Russian word for black bread. In my haste to post before meeting up with my mother, I admit to a mistake or two. In addition to a few typos, I misspoke with reference to Roggenbrot, crediting Russia with the etymological origin of this former USSR favorite. Roggenbrot is not the Russian word for black bread. Rather this Germanic word refers to a specific class of black breads popular in Eastern Europe and Southern Russia. References to Roggenbrot have been found in the literature of the Ukraine, Russia, and other countries formerly part of the USSR as early as 1717 (probably earlier than that, but I don’t feel like looking into it). Chorniy (this is how it is spelled by the leading Russian bakeries in the US – some even spell it Cherniy) is indeed Russian for “dark”, however it is often used to classify dark breads made without sugar and oil. It is my opinion that the bread referenced by Foer is indeed the Ukrainian favored Roggenbrot which is made with both molasses and sugar. Now that I know the “standard” our blogs must meet, I will take more than 30 minutes to post.

Roggen Brod

As I read this book I was transported back in time to the fall of 2001. I am back in my English Lit capstone course listening to the drabble being spewed forth by my fellow English majors as they proudly proclaim that they just finished the last sentence of the next great American Novel. I am forced to read Elizabeth’s borderline plagiarism in which she reworded some of my favorite passages from Shakespeare, Butler, Hawthorne, Bronte, Chaucer and Dickens, piecing them together to form 200 or so pages of what can only be coined as “crap”. So in true Elizabethan form, let me summarize Foer’s work:

“Multifarious in its Forced Construction, Extraordinary in its Regurgitated Story, and Irrelevant in 101 Diverse Ways… Written with Stanch Self-Absorption and Self-Importance.”

What is Love:
Lots of death, lots of violence, lots of bread, what’s not to love? Perhaps a better question would be what is love?

Don’t worry guys, I am not going mushy on you. There was a lot I did not like about this book (it took me 156 pages to get to a point where my reading was not forced). Most of my complaints/concerns/frustrations have already been expressed by others, so I will move on.

Love is clearly an issue for Mr. Foer. Perhaps he wasn’t loved as a child. Perhaps he loved and lost. Perhaps he tried to hard to write the new “it” novel. He uses every tired cliché, and a few new ones, to create forced dialogue in hopes of leading him to an understanding of what love is. While it appears that Mr. Foer feels that he solved the riddle through the self-sacrifice (suicide) of Grandfather, I am not confident that he got it right. In fact I am rather confident that he got it wrong. So where did Mr. Foer go wrong?

Sex:
A tired cliché. After reading Alex’s first few pages I closed the book. Being carnal? 270+ pages of listening to a 20 something go on about being carnal is not my bag, baby. Devoted to the group, and having little to do, I trekked on through the gratuitous sexual escapades of Brod’s line. As I approached the end of the book I began to wonder if perhaps all the sex had a point (lame as it may be) after all. Foer’s characters spend approximately half of the book having sex in a vain attempt to feel love. Brod is repeatedly beaten by a husband crazed by a saw blade because she wants to feel love. Safran (who I dubbed “Duce”) pleasured the village’s old and widowed while remaining as dead inside as his calcium deprived arm. Alex claims to have been carnal with many women, but as we learn his claims are only to make him appear “premium” to Little Igor. (Wow, dead arms, miniature hunchbacked grave robbing little brothers, oedipal references EVERYWHERE… it’s like reading every great work of literature in one book! Elizabeth, you may have a run for your money.) No one achieved love through sex. (I realize that some believe that love was achieved through the parent/child relationship, and since children are created through the act of sex, sex clearly led to love, but it is my position that love did not exist between parents and children). Sex is clearly not the answer.

Violence (aka passion):
Yet another tired cliché. “I hit you to remind you that I love you.” “I don’t care that you beat me because I know you love me.” “I am raping you in hopes that you will love me.” “I only pounded my dead grandfather’s face because I loved him.”

“I am temped in occasion to strike Brod, not because she does wrong, but because I love her so much.” Pg. 86.

I think Foer spends too much time watching the Lifetime Network. I hear that there is a movie based on this book. Let me guess the cast, Costas Mandylor as Father, Victoria Principal as Mother, a young Kellie Martin as Brod, Jim Thorburn as young Safran, Wilford Brimley as Grandfather. I don’t think I need to elaborate.

Roggen Brot:
Take out the sex, take out the violence, what are you left with? About 45 pages of broken English, bad puns, and one (1) creative, original line of thought – Roggen Brot. Roggen Brot, or black bread appears subtly throughout the book.

“What Jacob R Ate for Breakfast on the Morning of February 21,1877
Fried potatoes with onion. Two slices of black bread.” Pg. 205.

“He made a bed of crumpled newspaper in a deep baking pan and gently tucked it in the over, so that she wouldn’t be disturbed by the noise of the small falls outside. He left the over door open, and would sit for hours and watch her, as one might watch a loaf of bread rise.” Pg. 43.

Roggen Brot, also known as Roggen Brod, is Russian for black bread. As I read the next passage, I couldn’t help but think of the Jewish people, Manna, and the desert.

“I tried very hard to be a good person today, to do things as God would have wanted, had He existed. Thank you for the gifts of life and Brod.” Pg. 85.

Yankel was a lost man. He was wondering aimlessly through life, slowly dying until God provided him with the divine gift of Brod.

But why the references to black Brod? Perhaps it is because she and her line appear to be cursed to never understand love. They are destined to be empty, lost, wondering in the wilderness forever without hope of salvation. Or maybe it is simply because Roggen Brod is a common Russian dark rye bread, or maybe Mr. Foer thought it sounded “neat”. Whatever the reason, it caught my attention.

All in all, this one will not be going on the book self.

Unusual Combination of Fun, Deep, and Creepy.

I admit, I'm tempted to write Alexiforously, with the use of thesaurus-enhanced vocabulary that does justice to the flexibility of the English language. Admit it... you were/are all tempted to do the same. Someone will, I hope, do so in their posting before this is through.
Overall... a very mood-spanning read. I wouldn't say a spectrum of moods, or a rainbow of moods, but rather a span of moods. That was fun. The ending, while doing a surprisingly good job of bringing conclusion, also lends a sense of hindsighted creepyness to all the other serious parts of the novel, which I otherwise enjoyed during the reading process. I feel as though I should be asking myself, "ok... so then what?" and yet I'm not. That's why the end is surpisingly conclusive.
What I probably enjoyed most during the read was the character development of the two "writers." One begins with the notion that Alex is all comedy, and that Jonathan is all seriousness, despite the sillyness of the novel what he is writing. But as things progress, the layers really peal off of Sasha-Stop-Spleening-Me. The book's Jonathan character seems to move more and more to the back of what interests us. He is "the hero," but not the hero. I think this is very intentional on the author's part. I think it is intentional that certain parts of the book drag and one feels forced to plod through them. This is perhaps Foer the author's way of pushing Foer the character into the background and bringing into the foreground Alex, his grandfather, and therefore the events that take place towards the end of the novel. The Jonathan character fades away as Alex, grandfather (and vicariously little Igor) are illuminated. In the beginning, Jonathan is Odysseus; in the end he is Ishmael. Perhaps this is also something that the double-house represents. The Jonathan side of the story and the Alex side. It seemed that the switch-over was most noticeable at the point where Alex says that it is he who was born to be a writer, and not Jonathan. Perhaps that was Foer the author's way of telling the reader, "hey... if you haven't noticed yet, pay attention! I'm taking the weight off of one foot (Jonathan) and putting it on the other (Alex)." The way Alex's forthright honesty develops is probably more of an indication of how the relationship between Jonathan and Alex develops more than it is an indication of any change in Alex as a character. Another fascinating thing to Foer the author's approach. Character development without character change. Alex might even think he had changed, but rather it seems that he was more revealed than altered. Stepping into the role of "man of the house" is a new role, but it shows the character that exists, and that has been revealed in the course of the book. It is not a story about how the responsibility will change him, but rather we are gradually shown the character who then steps up to the plate of responsibility.
I've written more than I intended. I've left out any discussion of the philosophy and probable worldview of the author. Overall, probably an enjoyable book. I'll have to see how I think about it as time progresses.

Dead Hand Control

One test that I always give a novel is the "100 page test." If the novel has not sparked my interest by 100 pages, I throw it across the room and send it to Goodwill or the Salvation Army. Unfortunately, since this was a book club selection, I had to forego execution of the test and trudge on with continued reading.

The only real benefit I got from the book was that I may now know how Bob Dole was able to snag Elizabeth Dole. Other than that, I found nothing useful from reading; it was not even entertaining.

I understand that there may be some literary value to the book, however I am ill-equipped to not only speak of it, but also to understand it. If it is not a good story - it is not a good book.

The only character that I could identify with was the grandfather because I wished I would have been able to kill myself at the same time.

The broken Uklish of Tasha was cute for one chapter, and it reminded me of those Dan Akroyd and Steve Martin skits on SNL, but by the third chapter the Uklish became annoying, and by the middle of the book it seemed like I was watching a perpetual skit of the "Wild and Crazy Guys."

If you have to guess at what the main plot of the story is, then I think the author has not done his job. This novel seemed to typify postmodernism to a tee, in that it was all over the place and did not provide any explanations or closure.

Additionally, the author presupposes that the Holocaust actually happened.

Illicit Sex! The Holocaust! It must be a masterpiece!

OK, I JUST finished the book. Maybe 2 minutes ago. Hope that doesn't make my thoughts/comments premature, but I guess there's always the roundtable discussion to look forward to.

Like Tom, I felt extremely ambivalent about the book. Throughout the process of my reading, I felt at different times like it was one of the more courageous and accomplished novels I'd read in a long time, and at other times that Foer was a total hack, and at other times that the novel was extremely self-aware and pretentious, and at other times that it was refreshingly messy and naive. In the end, I feel that all of these are probably accurate at some level. I read an interview in which Foer says he wrote the book in a matter of weeks and edited it for years. That made me think he probably had a really great novel to begin with, and at some point decided he was going to make a masterpiece, at which point the novel became overdone and just good. What I mean is that I felt like there was a lot of good in the book, but also a lot of forced symbolism and themes. The fact that Tom was able to point out such a host of themes, but none of us probably could make sense of half of them tells me quite a bit about how far-reaching Foer's ambition was, and how flawed the outcome became. But, for a 20-year old first-time author, Bravo!

In my opinion, the over-arching theme of the book has to me life versus death, and Foer's inability to distinguish between the two. This factors into almost any work of art that is Holocaust-related, because how else can one account for the murder of millions upon millions of Jewish people, resulting the birth of a (prophetic) nation? In my oh-so-biased opinion, the only answer to this is God, but because the book itself, and all the characters in the book, resist belief in God, they are left with a meaningless search through fiction and made-up history and man-made tradition, looking for meaning to life, which ends up only leading to the opposite of truth, which is death. This God-less searching for meaning and identity is the string that begins being an opportunity to remember and ends up being a spider-web that doesn't mean anything. Sir Francis Schaeffer, anyone? :)

In response to Tom's thoughts, I think this theme is what the bread is all about - a picture of life versus death, or life through death. Jesus used the same symbolism when he calls himself the bread of life, that must be broken in his death. The 2 houses-in 1 symbolism is also extremely prevalent in Judaism, with the division of the House of Israel into the house of Judah and the house of Ephraim. The two are still connected, but are lost in a maze (like the house in the book) until they find each other... The prominent 20th-century Rebbe Schneerson told his followers they don't need to be looking for Messiah, they need to be looking for the House of Ephraim, because Ephraim will tell the Jewish people (Judah) who Messiah is. Overanalysis? Maybe so, like I said I just finished the book...

In response to Aaron's thoughts, I agree that most of the sex in the book was totally gratuitous. To me it is another example of something meant for life being used only to try to cope with death. And Foer is probably pretty sexually broken. I mean, he's fantasizing at length about his grandfather's (imagined) kinky sex life. In this same interview I read, the journalist asked Foer how much he used the internet, and Foer said all the time, several hours a day. The interviewer asked what for, and Foer said only e-mail and porn, honestly. I thought that was pretty interesting...

All right, I'll shut up.

Strings, not-truths, potatoes, and coffee

okay, this one is tricky. When i first started reading i was intrigued. Then confused. Then grossed out. Then intrigued again. If you remember, at the top of the page in which each chapter begun, there were sometimes little drawings. The one in the beginning of the book for the chapter that told the story of the careening wagon, was a little picture of an out-of-control wagon... I feel like this picture best describes how i felt for the duration of the book.

I was talking to Franklin and he made this comment, "Yeah, i can't figure out who is actually writing the book... is it Jonathan or the Ukraine?" I remember thinking to myself, "crap, i didn't even notice that i was confused about that!" As i kept reading i began to think that maybe i should start tying strings around my fingers and body to remind me of the things that were confusing me... or at least to remind myself that i may not be smart enough for this book- haha!

Well, as we all have come across those pesky Final Decrees (you know, the ones that you read and re-read like 20 times and you're still not sure if they're really dead and who gave what to who?) Or as I like to quote Hollywood or Wolfman from Top Gun, "I was like, 'where'd he go,' and he said, 'where'd who go?" -- ask me to do the voice and it will help you to remember this... or maybe you should tie a string around your finger and connect it to the toaster which is connected to the fan which is connected to the DVD of Top Gun.

Okay, to the book. Bruce warned me that he had to make himself read it. And i will say, as i turned the page to see that the next chapter was a letter from the Ukraine, i was thinking, "oh no, this is going to take me forever." When i began the book it was so hard to just get flowing, but then i realized that was the point. Life doesn't just flow... speaking another language doesn't just flow. Family relationships don't just flow. The way that Foer portrays speaking in a different language, trying to learn slang, and combining a bunch of words that technically should make sense in a sentence, but then don't at all, blew my mind. I felt like i was right there in the car with Jonathan, Alex, and Grandfather, and the crazy dog! When everyone is yelling at everyone else, and Alex is stuck in the middle translating.

Alright, as i have a tendency to be long-winded and i guess now "long-typed" i will sum up the rest of my thoughts briefly. I felt that all the sexual descriptions of Jonathan's grandfather were completely unneccessary. Maybe he's proving a point, maybe not. Either way it was one of those moments when i was having to skip huge chunks of the book because they were totally ridiculous.

Example: Tracy Morgan (Saturday night Live). I thought he was hysterical. He came and did stand-up comedy at OU a few years ago and it was so sick and perverted that people started leaving... i mean he started doing stuff with the microphone. Come on, that's lame. I guess when people have to start getting vulgar to appeal to audiences i just lose some respect because in most cases, it feels like an easy way out.

Other than that, i really enjoyed the way he intertwined so many themes, thoughts, and sayings from each character to the next. Tom, i didn't catch a lot of the things you did! Some of those things you brough up are crazy how much they tie into each other. The stuff about the war was very interesting too.

Okay, i need to wrap up. I will end with a quote that stood out to me. "They had been terrified at first. Shtetl meetings were held daily, news reports (Nazis kill 8,200 on Ukranian border) examinded with the care of editors, plans of action drawn up and crumpled up, large maps spread out on tables like patients waiting to be cut open. But then the meetings convened every other day,and then every other every other day, and then weekly, serving more as social minglers for singles than planning sessiion. After only two months, wihou the impetus of any further bombing, most Trachimbroders had removed all of the splinters of the terror that had entered them that night." Funny, how nothing changes, and it seems that ignorance is bliss... or is it?

until next time, friends.

Everything Is Illuminated: What happened (or didn’t happen) and what it might (or might not) mean; or, What the hell?!

This has to be one of the most ambivalent books I’ve ever read. There was much that I enjoyed about it, and some that was less enjoyable, and some that left me scratching my head. But I admire the book for tackling a lot of the big questions head on, and for being genuinely moving (I thought). The ending of the story was terribly anguishing. At any rate, I guess I would like to approach the book on three levels, namely story/plot, meaning/symbolism, and theme.

I had fun with the three different parts of the book (Alex’s narrative, Alex’s letters to Jonathan, and Jonathan’s story of Trachimbrod). They played off of each other in entertaining ways, each throwing light on what was going on in the others. I guess I would consider Alex’s letters and his narrative together as one half of the book, and the Trachimbrod story as the other half. And the two stories are really just parts of the same story, as we find out in the end. The Trachimbrod sections were interesting, I thought, due to the whimsy and folk-tale elements. Even so, I found them less engaging than Alex’s parts of the story. That voice and its mangled English were hilarious, and the present-day story line seemed more accessible, somehow, probably due in part to the contrast with the folk-tale style of the Trachimbrod sections.

The plot seemed (mostly) fairly straight forward. But I was left wondering what really happened, which is odd considering it’s a work of fiction to begin with. Foer played around a lot with themes of truth and fiction, or truth and lies. Alex’s letters pointed out ways that he had altered his story, and ways that Jonathan had, or should have, altered his. And, in the Trachimbrod portions, Foer seemed to incorporate several anachronisms. (I doubt many people in the 18th century were taking vacations, or were vegetarians. Even Alex pointed out the anachronism of the saw-blade at the flour mill.) It seemed like Foer was purposefully drawing attention to the artifice of the Trachimbrod story. (Or would it be ifactifice or maybe ifactifartiface?) The part of the plot that did confuse me was when Jonathan wrote something in his diary about Alex and his father which didn't actually occur until the end of the book. I

I mentioned the story seemed ambivalent; perhaps ambiguous would be a better word. Or if not better, at least equally applicable. In any case, Foer definitely set up a ship-load of dualities. The one that I noticed the most was the duality between remembering and forgetting. There’s the whole contrast between Jonathan’s choice to recover the memory/memories of his family from Trachimbrod and Grandfather’s ultimate choice to sever the thread of memory or of history. I don’t know if Foer was saying you have to remember, or it’s better to forget, or if he believes both. Then, there’s the whole question of whether memory is real or just an invention. Like Yankel’s make-believe wife; or like Trachim Day, for instance - a celebration of an event about which nobody really knew what happened but that was determined by community decree.

Some of the other dualities that I noticed included

Hanah and Chanah (who really seemed indistinguishable)

• Trachimbrod and Sofiowka (interesting that the name of the shtetl on maps and for Mormons was the same as a rapist)
• Uprights and Slouchers (and related dualities such as Torah/Book of Dreams, Ark/Oven, etc.)
• The Kolker’s split brain and the loving v. violent aspects
• Love/hate (or love/not-love).
• Life/death
• remembering/forgetting

Some of the symbolism that I found interesting (or just obvious, but not necessarily understandable (to me (yet))) includes:

• The whole bread motif (Brod sounds like Brott, which is Yiddish for bread; and Yankel kept Brod in his oven when she was a baby; and the flour mill)
• The Brod River (but not sure what it means, or how or if it relates to the bread motif)
• The Garden imagery (all the stuff floating up from Trachim’s wagon was “like a garden”.)
• The house which was made up of two houses, and was always being worked on or re-invented.
• The butterflies

Well, I don’t have much more to say tonight. I’m getting distracted and am starting to ramble a bit. (I may, though, post a little bit later about the issue of antisemitism.) It will be fun to hear everyone else’s take on the book.

Book Selection #3

I've spent countless days and many a sleepless night thinking about what book to select for the Society of Letters. My indecisiveness over what to choose left me with a neglected wife, an angst-ridden toddler, and the sort of absent-mindedness that results in a drowned sport wagon.
Then, one day, I knew exactly what I had to do. I know we all think we hear voices from time to time, but this voice was real. It said, "Thank you for calling Harris Bank customer service. How can I help you?" "India!" I shouted. "I don't know anything about India!"
A recent study said that as an American I'm culturally predisposed to dismiss the legitimacy of other cultures. Well you Mr. Soros-funded academic, you underestimate both the patriotism and sensitivity of the Society of Letters. Join me my literate friends as we explore the diversity of the subcontinent that has given us so much more than spicy food, yoga classes, and 30 minute long phone conversations. They're always asking if "there's anything else I can do for you?" I say it's time we ask if there's anything else we can do for them!

Pankaj Mishra, Temptations of the West: How to Be Modern in India, Pakistan, Tibet, and Beyond, 323 pp.

A proposed schedule

The first round-table turned out to be really enjoyable and interesting. Bruce did a great job guiding the discussion, and I enjoyed getting to hear everyone's thoughts on the Schaeffer book. Now we can take up the second book. I was thinking that we could take next week to read the novel, or finish reading it, or wait on others to finish, as the case may be. (Sorry Bruce, some of us aren't as fast as you.) We could start posting at the end of next week and into the first part of the week after, and plan on meeting maybe on Wednesday the First or Thursday the Second, if that is agreeable. If that seems too slow, we could move it up; it just depends on the consensus.

So, go tie some string on so you remember to read. And if your potato falls on the floor, don't eat it.

I gave up my lunch hour and all I got was this post and a seven layer burrito at taco bell

If I were still in college I'd beg for an extension.

The selective history of the first several chapters of Schaeffer's book made it difficult for me to concentrate on the conclusions Schaeffer was trying to support. For a while I stopped every few paragraphs to shake my head at a particularly galling omission or unsupported conclusion.

Eventually I tried to separate Schaeffer's conclusions from the evidence he used to support his conclusions. Then I just quit thinking about whether or not the evidence he gave actually supported his conclusions. Then I quit thinking about the evidence altogether. That made things better.

Dusty's piano analogy is a good summary of the argument I felt like Schaeffer was trying to make. The argument is easy to attack, but I feel it still has some value. After I finished being angry about Schaeffer's work I started to think about my response -- and that was the valuable thing about the book for me. Reading Schaeffer pushed me to think about how I would outline history, and it forced me to examine the "base upon which society is built". For that I am grateful.

I'd love to go into more detail about the specifics of Schaeffer's book, but my lunch hour is almost up -- I'll save it for tonight.

maybe i should change my name from maddawg'r to the alumnus?

as i sit here on my unemployed couch tuesday morning, i realize that some used book sellers on the barnes and noble website can be crooks. i wonder what schaeffer would have to say about that? of course, i dont really know, because the wankers who sold me my $4.00 book off of the website, sent me the study guide to the film series - and not the actual book that i ordered. i figured that by the time i got that all straightened out, we would be on to the next book. so, being the laid back hippie (what up dusty) that i am, i thought id just wait and get going on this second everything is illuminated book. please dont stone me.

on that note, isnt it interesting that both of the books so far kind of deal with illumination. hmmmm.....

i dont really know the parameters/deadlines for this second book (for obvious electronic mail reasons). is it being read yet? when is the tenative date to plan on being finished with it? and most importantly, rick, when are we going to have the cookout at your place?

well, back to layin around in my shorts.

later.

A pig without wings can't fly

I'm not here to flex my mental muscles, dazzle you with a fireworks display of words, create an analogy or display obscene sacreligious photos. I'm not here to insert words from a language I've hardly mastered, but in my opinion Schaeffer is a бздёнок.

As a prophet he joins the ranks of the best and the worst. Yawn.

No one commented on his attempt to Christianize science, so I will. Maybe "modern" and "modern modern" (what an uncreative idiot) science was built by Christian hands, it doesn't really matter, because regardless that foundation, that bedrock was most certainly paid for by the Church, and for the most part not a prostestant church, but those Mary lovers. Schaeffer spends most of the book bashing this three-fourths of the Christian world, then praises the knowledge that their money was able to buy. If you doubt me, the first telescope, the eye to the cosmos was paid for by the Pope, and probably sprinkled with holy water, maybe even asked to lead a round of prayers to the Virgin/not really a virgin anymore.

I'm not going to give you a gallimaufry synopsis of the rest of the book. Honestly, I was completely indifferent to it all. The General would salute me and say, "That's my boy."

Ah come on, procrastination smashtination...

Okay friends, time to blog. I know, you're thinking, "he's taking it, to the limit, one more time." (repeat this song line 40 times)... But it has reached the moment for me to finally post. I have always gone back and forth with whether or not I am a procrastinator. I have found that most of my creativity really kicks in when I’m coming down to the wire... Or as some like to think of it as a runner who is saving a little bit of energy for the end, and when he hits the home stretch, gives his last kick to burst to the end...

Since I, like Rick, used to also be a History Professor, a lot of our points will probably be the same... okay, okay, so I’m really just now going back to finish my undergrad.

I need to inform you all of something. When I went up to Tulsa a few weeks ago to visit my in-laws, I told them about the book club and what we were reading first. I then proceeded to tell them that I was attempting to track down a copy of H.S.W.T.L. by Schaffer, and not only did they have a copy I could borrow, but also a red, hard-back folder containing a study guide, two VHS tapes of Schaeffer explaining the first part of the book, and an incomplete set of audio cassette tapes! Hahaa- If you knew my in-laws this would not surprise you (ask Huskerson)- Their house is mainly made up of books. They are incredibly well read! Now, don't get the impression that they are "Schafferians" or something, but we did have a great convo this last weekend on the pros and cons of the book.

Now, I tend to be the guy who goes for the underdog. I think so far Schaffer has been somewhat "thrashed" for lack of a better word. I will start by saying that my blog is two part. First, my impression of the book, and second, the book's impression on me.

Being the non-history buff that I am, and the fact that most of the time I just nod my head in "agreeance" (as Rick quoted the Durst-e-nator, which by the way, his remix of "Faith" might make the updated version of "How Shall We Then Live - 2007") while listening to others talk about history in all its forms, I really do enjoy learning about all eras of history. So for me, the beginning of the book was really enjoyable. Going into it, I figured that Schaffer wasn't attempting to re-write history, and by interjecting some sort of apologetics, to prove that everything can be simplified down to a 250 page book. I will get back to why I liked the beginning...

Now, whereas I don't know enough about art to say that Schaffer was wrong, I do agree with everyone so far that some/most of his points did seem fairly "convenient" or "coincidental" as support to his statements, to say the least. My actual thought was, "Crap, if that's really what Michelangelo or any of the other artists were thinking, then this is just getting crazy!" However, I do think that Schaffer stressed that his point was not to show how great of an art historian he was, but that artists painted either consciously or sub-consciously through their world view. I was pretty skeptical as I continued to read, but I knew that since I haven't really studied much Roman history (actually none at all) that I would have no base to compare the truths and misconceptions of Schaffer. I did think that he hit the "meat" of his argument from the Enlightenment forward. This is where he really did wade through a LOT of different philosophies and you can tell that he has more knowledge in this area compared to the arts. Actually, I felt like you could break down each chapter into a separate discussion, and it is a little overwhelming to try to sum up Schaffer summing up Western history.

The book's impression on me. Whereas I don't think we should replace all text books with Schaffer's work, I do however think his point is not only valid, but urgent. I'm sure that there have been countless books written about "world views" and those who have tried to argue which one is right and which is wrong. However, I don't think many have taken on the uphill battle of showing the consistency of the World View's effects and effected throughout the course of history. I walked away with the realization that I need to step back and look at the bigger picture. That man, from the time the world began, has been trying to figure and be figured out. I think that is why I was intrigued with the beginning of the book. Whether historically accurate or not, the point being, that we as a thinking and worshiping people have come almost full circle: We are back to Rome.

Art, music, philosophy, and history itself are what make the present real. I guess I can't help but walk away with the conviction of how long I have simply accepted things as they were, and how wrapped up I am at times in seeking my own personal peace and affluence. Jesus always seemed to confront these things by presenting a way that seemed upside down to everyone and everything at the time. “What should profit a man if he gains the whole world and yet loses his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?” Matthew 16:25. By the end, it wasn’t that I obtained an answer to “How Shall We Then Live?” Rather, all I could hear was the overarching question, "Why, what, and how, do I believe, do, and live?"

(Insert witty/cynical title here)

In reading this book, i must say that i was able to experience the full spectrum of both completely agreeing with Schaeffer and also at the same time thinking he was a total idiot. First of all, i think the concept of this book as far as juxtaposing art and the philosophical/religious outlooks of these civilizations was fairly predictable yet at the same time quite convincing. I personally felt that the first few chapters seemed like they were a little rushed in cramming in such a rich time both artistically and socially. i think this may be partly due to the fact that i am not an expert on the reformation, enlightenment or the renaissance.

I still feel like he didn't really lay a solid foundation concerning the arts and i can see how "worldview" will definitely effect art but i think that some of his other arguments weaken this viewpoint. follow me here...Schaeffer makes a pretty major point of stating that there are things that are naturally right and wrong based upon precepts given to us by God. He also states that God has not created us as machines and that we are all completely individuals. So by that same rational, isn't it possible that the whole idea of art and freedom in art was given to us by God to more fully understand his nature. Schaeffer talks about how Bach would write music that would contain very strange portions but that there was always a resolution and that this reflected the worldview of the time which was strongly Christian. I believe that Schaeffer writes off the shear nature of God (who he has claimed to be creator and artist of this world) by stating that the predictability of music as a reference to our understanding of God is a good thing. I personally feel that this music that doesn't follow a pattern is just as strong of a metaphor for God who is the ultimate artist.

Secondly, i feel that the strength of his arguments could be bulked up by looking perhaps at the arts in societies that aren't Christian based societies, yet operate on the same basic set of moral principles.

I also wanted to state that i feel like this book was strongly influenced by the Cold War.

Time to sleep now.

A Table Without Chairs

"You can't sell leaf-tables and no chairs. Chairs, you got a dinette set. No chairs, you got @#%^!" - Nathan Arizona

"Arrogant bastard!," "Glib!," "Arbitrary!," and "Hubris!" are labels I audibly threw at Francis Schaeffer while reading How Should We Then Live? To be fair, there were also times I thought "there's definitely some truth to that...you arrogant bastard." A credit to his career as a theologian and an intellectual seeker, Schaeffer has produced a very thought provoking, if at times not always thoughtful, thinkpiece that has kept me up at night in ways that seedy internet chat rooms and youtube clips of "Bas Rutten's Lethal Street Defense System" never could.

In my opinion, and I suspect the opinion of many others not named Chuck Colson, Schaeffer's work is going to accomplish little outside of either reinforcing a faith-centered declensionist view of Western history or making someone like myself fear the generations of home schooled children who's parents will teach the ideas in this book as actual history.
There have been several of discussions in the office over the accuracy and overall importance of Schaeffer's history-based methodology, anecdotes, criticisms, and observations (impressively, all of this discussion was done most efficiently during 15 minute breaks and the occasional lunch). And for the most part there has been a goodwill gesture (myself included) to let him off the hook because he's not writing a history book, he's writing a work of cultural criticism. Try as I might, I can't let him off the hook. If anyone sees a bus around please let me know so I can toss his carefully self-fashioned-bourgeois-fake-monk-bearded @#%^ beneath its front wheels. Sorry, that was harsh. I'm going to blame Dusty for encouraging a free-associational method of blogging.

On History, Presentism, Memory, and long German words: First, Scheaffer's declensionist narrative (tracing the disappearance of his "freedom without chaos" base) is only serving a means to a premeditated end. This is a blatant example of presentist history or just plain bias - Tom pointed out the same when he commented on Schaeffer's "Christian triumphalism," which is funny since given the pessimistic view of the present and the future, I kept wondering if Schaeffer died an optimistic man. It's unfair to confront his book strictly on the grounds of its history. I realize Schaeffer isn't a historian, but that doesn't excuse him from misrepresenting the past to reach his presentist conclusions. I have to justify years and years of college, so please bear with me as I point out a few of my favorite "Schaefferisms":

• As Dusty already said, there is no Thirty Years War in Schaeffer's Reformation. This is a bit like leaving World War II out of World War II. Furthermore, how about we just leave Germany out of the narrative of Reformation-based nations all together. Why? Because a discussion of Germany would force Schaeffer to view politics as paramount to the center of Luther's Reformation and not at the periphery as he does in daying England's reformation "began" as a political movement (e.g., no mention of the German territorial princes in the Reformation). He correctly says that England's Protestant base began as a political movement, he just doesn't bother to say that Luther's call for Papal reform became the Protestant reformation largely because of local and regional politics.
• The "Glorious Revolution" or the English Revolution of 1688 will only be referred to as the "Bloodless Revolution" when setting up a discussion of the bloodier French Revolution. Of course, the "Bloodless Revolution" and the securing of Parliament's authority would have been impossible had Parliament not beheaded a king 40 years earlier - and you might ask the Irish about that whole "bloodless" part. I'm not saying the French Revolution wasn't a political, social, and intellectual mess, it most certainly was. But, if you're keeping score on the beheading of divine-right kings, that's Reformation-based England: 1; Renaissance-based France: 1.
• Legislative bodies and revolutionary success: Apart from the ideological and philosophical difference that doomed France and Russia (the Reformation vs. Renaissance base), Schaeffer should also point out that the legislative responsibilities of the Estates General and Duma on the eve of their respective revolutions left them much more unable and unqualified to organize and direct a government than either the various legislative bodies in the American colonies or Parliament. A sudden transition to a legislature can be difficult, just ask Ira.....oh, let's not go there.
• Name drop as many social theorists as you can, dismiss their ideas and intellectual contributions, and last, don't discuss these ideas. Schaeffer throws out Freud's ideas of determinism as resting "upon a child's relationship to his mother" but never bothers to quote his influential work Society and its Discontents, a work that has much to say about the downward spiral of modern societies and very little to say about mothers. He mentions the "neo-Marxist" Frankfurt School, but lumps Marcuse, Adorno, Horkhheimer, and Jurgen Habermas together with complete disregard for the fundamental differences between their works and how they fit into the New Left. Poor Albert Einstein is reduced to his cliched quote "I cannot believe that God plays dice with the cosmos."

A second problem exists in his idea of a Christian consensus. Schaeffer laments the slowly disappearing "memory of the Christian consensus which gave us freedom within the biblical form." With this part I am in complete Fred Durst-like "agreeance" with Schaeffer: the Christian consensus is exactly what he says it is , a "memory." But this memory is a construction of the author's subjectivity as opposed to being any specific historical moment he can pull out of an archive, a contemporary memoir, or a textbook of "Western" thought and culture. This inability to point back to any specific example creates a narrative that inconsistently jumps from cultural history to political history to intellectual history looking for examples to support his teleological progression. I think this is the reason why his numerous art history lessons fail to advance his argument - the reader is never entirely sure what to do with them because they are largely presented without any real supportive context. Maybe I missed where he found this consensus? Would be more than happy to think about it if someone knows where it is.

Finally at the end we get prophecy, er predictions, um warnings. Most of these are vague descriptions that, given the rhythms of history, will happen somewhere at some time. In fact, I'm willing to bet that if you go back over the last 500 years you can probably find scenarios like the ones Schaeffer presents existing outside the realm of our current era of cultural depsair. I will say though that with these predictions Schaeffer demonstrates a real understanding of history and its cycles. Enough at least to scare the gay marriage out of people. That was a joke. It's a blog for God's sake.

So at the end the reader is left with 250+ pages of sketchy history, a glorified past, a pessimistic present, and a potentially pessimistic future that can only be undone if a certain group of people realize that society needs to unmask itself from the values that are rapidly eroding personal, civic, and cultural decency. Sounds like Marx to me. Which makes sense given that what Schaeffer is ultimately doing is writing a book that is most similar to philosophical works like those of Marx's Capital or Weber's The Protestant Ethic, in which history is simply a comparative means of advancing a specific "world view." The reader is invited to think, dissect, and decide which Weltanschauung is correct or most persuasive. So in some way, maybe we can forgive him for his shotty history because he's just doing what the other theorists do (note, you'd never know it from the book, but there are lady theorists out there). That being the case, his world view failed to be any more substative, any more realistic, and any more attainable than any of the modern theorists and philosophers he half-heartedly confronted.

A few questions/things to ponder:

1. How much credit should we give to the Cold War for shaping Schaeffer's view of the future/past?

2. Why doesn't Schaeffer discuss Islam? If you're looking for absolutes, monotheism, and god-centered people I'd think you might want to consider them. Not to mention that in its structure at least, Islam is more democratic than Christianity. (Note, I am not saying that Islamic society is more democratic! There's a profound difference between what a religious book says and how that religion is carried out in relation to societal norms.)

Update: A couple of pictures

Reading Schaeffer, I thought of these two things. I'll explain later.

Update and Explanation:

I thought I would put these photos up so people could have a little while to contemplate them. The pictures are of 1) a Medieval Crucifix I saw at one of the big Chicago Museums, and 2) Ghandi (or, as Rick dubbed them, "Jesus with the _____ ____, and Ben Kingsley). Their relevance is as counterexamples to some of Schaeffer's assertions.

The first is only of peripheral importance, but I thought it was amusing. If you've looked at the crucifix, you might have noticed that the artist painted Jesus' abs in a, shall we say, interesting configuration. This crucifix was one of about 6 or 8, by different artists (iirc), hanging in a row, all similarly configured. Schaeffer, in one of the early chapters, denigrates Roman/Greek art as dedicated to the cult of the phallus. I would just say that the cult seems to have survived within the Christian milieu.

The second, and much more important point has to do with Schaeffer's arguments about democracy. The Ghandi photo is just to show that there are other philosophies and religions that value peace. Schaeffer argued that the American Revolution and the British "Bloodless Revolution" were successful due to the presence of Bible-based Christian values (as opposed to the French and Russian revolutions which turned into blood baths). He also argued that Christianity is a necessary prerequisite to democracy. Ghandi and India certainly cast doubt on those propositions. Ghandi is revered as a peaceful revolutionary. And India is the most populous democracy in the world. In fact, of all the people that have ever lived in a democracy, nearly half of them live or lived in India.

Just off target

I think Schaeffer's art history lesson really didn't serve the purpose of this book. So any and all criticism of him in that regard seems fair. I also objected to his selective use of history to bolster his arguments for Reformation thinking. There was a reason he avoided talking about the religious wars in Europe in this era (I'll get to that in a second).

I agree with Tom's take on Schaeffer as a Christian Triumphalist to some extent. However, the book reads like it was written for a Christian audience. In addition, I think the point Schaeffer was making was a Christian point, because that was the historic context from which he drew, keeping in mind that this book is centered on "Western Thought and Culture," exclusively. The heart of Schaeffer's message is the importance of absolutes in defining the way people think. He hits that point pretty hard at the very beginning of the book. Drawing on a strictly Western viewpoint, the primary model for an "absolute" way of thinking is a Judeo-Christian model. I think illustrating Christianity's stand-alone position in this regard is point of the first 3/5ths of the book. Unfortunately, this argument is both too drawn out and too brief at the same time.

But back to his point, I created an analogy to make sense of what he was saying. Starting with the parallel histories Schaeffer gives us, one a Reformation History, and the other a Renaissance history, imagine the following scenario. Each of the two groups approach a piano for the first time. Sitting atop the piano is a "how to" book on playing the piano. The Reformation group holds high the book as the absolute authority on how to play. They learn to do what the book says, they succeed at it, and following the principles set out in the book, the group pioneers advances in playing guitar and tambourine. Faith in the book gives what they do meaning and purpose. The Renaissance group disregards the book's position of authority. They are self-taught. Without a structure, they value abstraction. While the Reformation group finds meaning in the belief that they are playing "music", the Renaissance group, because it never submits to the book, bangs around on the keys creating what it can, but eventually despairs at the lack of definition. One can imagine the Renaissance group saying, "what is music? does it exist? how can I know that what I have crafted is music?" And maybe the Renaissance group eventually starts taking LSD. At some point, without the definition provided by the book, the Renaissance groups creates rules and order on its own. Perhaps the biggest guy in the group decides what music is, and what it isn't. It all seems, in the end, arbitrary.

Painted in this light, just submitting to the book sounds like a better plan. This is how Schaeffer paints Christianity, at least in my view.

Now on to selective history: Go back to my above scenario. Imagine the Reformation group has disputes on how to interpret the book. Imagine they fight a bloody war over it, for thirty years, that nearly tears the continent of Europe apart. Imagine that at the end of the day, at the end of all this fighting, you still have to trust that somebody interpreted correctly, if that is even possible or knowable. Maybe there are 200 different Reformation camps, each claiming to be the authority on how to play. Are you any better off than the desperate existentialist? Or the California Hippie? Is society better off? I think Schaeffer would say yes, and he might pass off the 30 years War (1618-1648) as a by-product of some other line of thought, but by pointing the finger at the French Revolution and the Bolshevik Revolution as the result of non-Reformationist thinking, while simultaneously not owning all of the problems and consequences of the Reformation, he comes across as disingenuous.

So I guess my primary critique was that his argument was incomplete.

My thoughts on Schaeffer (or a few of them, anyway)

I finished reading the Schaeffer book last week, and found it to be very interesting. I appreciate the book because it made me think about the important questions of meaning and purpose in life. As a Jew, I have a different theological perspective (I’m guessing) from most of you, and I will admit up front that I disagreed with most of Schaeffer’s premises and conclusions. I also found his arguments to be unconvincing. Overall, the book seemed to be very conclusory, with lots of assertions and few arguments. My main impression was that this was a work of Christian Triumphalism rather than serious scholarship. There was a lot in the book that I felt it would be interesting to discuss, but I will start out with a few comments and the one main question I had after finishing.

First, the comments:

• As Bruce and Bryan said already, I found Schaeffer’s treatment of art to be somewhat off the mark. I’m not sure how the ability to paint a subject so that his feet appear to be touching the ground makes one a more Christian artist. Also, it seems odd that at the beginning of the book, Schaeffer criticizes the early medieval artists for painting mere symbols instead of painting realistically, and then later in the book criticizes recent artists who have a realist style for being too realistic and failing to try to paint the invisible.
• I find Schaeffer’s claim that Christianity was a necessary precondition for the invention of science to be unconvincing. He acknowledges that other civilizations did some science (Islamic science or Chinese science) but says they gave up on it because they weren’t Christian. As much as Schaeffer talks about cause and effect in the book, I think he has confused them with coincidence in this case. He never makes any argument to this effect, merely the bald assertion. And anyway, the keystone of modern science is the scientific method which is well known to be an Islamic development.
• I was floored by Schaeffer’s assertion that existentialist philosophy is responsible for it being unsafe to walk the streets in the cities these days. As far as I know, most crime is due to poverty and drug use. I doubt poverty has much correlation with being Christian; and drug use – or most drug use, I should say, or maybe at least a lot of drug use – is due to poverty as well as the wide availability of cheap drugs. One could try and argue that the lack of the Christian base is responsible in some indirect way for violent crime, but I just don’t think Schaeffer came close to making that argument. I suppose one could argue that if you are a person with the Christian base, you wouldn’t do criminal things like that; but I don’t think that Christianity, alone, is enough to outweigh, in every case, the ugly effects of long-term poverty and hopelessness.
• Also, Schaeffer at one point mentions the “genuine” part of the “hippy movement”. That begs the question of what is the non-genuine part of the hippy movement, and what’s the difference, and why does it matter?

And second, my main question:

• Schaeffer talks a lot about how Christianity, or I should say Bible based Christianity, made the development of freedom and democracy possible. He also, at other points, talks about those who have the Christian base and those who believe (mistakenly believe, I think Schaeffer would say) that they have complete autonomy. My question is, what does Schaeffer believe Freedom, Autonomy and Free-Will are? He has a very negative view of those who believe man has full autonomy. How is full autonomy different from free-will? Schaeffer talks about “freedom” a lot, but I’m not sure I know exactly what he means. In a democratic society which Schaeffer believes is dependant on the Biblical Christian base, would Schaeffer be prepared to let others have the freedom to make choices that are incompatible with Bible-based Christian doctrine?

I hope my comments and questions made some sense; they are somewhat off the cuff. I’m interested to hear what others have to say.

First Out of the Gate - Schaeffer

Since I picked the book, I think it only fair that I probably post the first discussion about it. Let me start off by saying that you shouldn't really post or comment unless you have finished reading the book; it is only fair to those of us who have put in the time to finish. Remember part of the benefits of this sort of club is that it makes you read.

Even though I am scarcely qualified to judge Schaeffer's recount of European history (but I am sure there will be some of you who are), Schaeffer's analysis of everything prior to existentialism seemed abrupt. For all I know he could be spot on with his analysis of the reformation, renaissance, etc., but it just seemed he came to a conclusion before the information called for it. As a matter of fact, the book wasn't a very good read until he got to the enlightenment, and I think that is fair because that is what he rails against most.

Also his critique and analysis of art seemed unrealistic. Probably because I don't understand art. However, it seems a bit of a stretch to think that most of these artist put that much thought into their paintings. The artists and different styles he uses to illustrate societal paradigms (I love Kuhn, too!) fit nicely with his analysis, but it seems like this could be possible with anything, such as the Miracle on Ice is what caused the Reagan Revolution.

His predictions about the future are uncannily accurate (remember he wrote this in the 70's), but what most intrigues me are some of his main points (you'll have to pardon the upcoming paraphrasing):

1. reason and non-reason:
a. I really see his reasoning here exact as it relates to the modern church. Isn't it interesting that the really successful churches (the megas) today are either a self-help seminar using the Bible as a 12 steps program(narcissistic reason) or supernatural on cue, basing its relationship with God on charisma or some other supernatural experience with the Holy Spirit(narcissitic non-reason).
b. Modern church has almost entirely become an inward-focus experience. We go so we can overcome vice, be better parents, experience emotion, or get some sort of special revelation. I think this falls in line with Schaeffer's explanation of focusing on the particulars (even though he doesn't literally predict this within the modern church, I think it is a logical flow from his thinking on the particulars.)


2. A society without absolutes will:
a. Become hedonistic: presently this needs no further words, it has become almost an absolute in itself; or
b. Be ruled by the tyranny of the majority, or
c. Be ruled by a dictatorship of one or some.
This is the really scary one because I think we are headed (not in my lifetime) to some sort of dictatorship. I think there are some (whose names I will not mention) who worship at the altar of an academic elitism, believing that those who excel in the academic realm are the only ones who should hold government leadership positions, so they can look out for and know what is best for the rest of us who just don't understand.
If you think this isn't possible then tell me the last U.S. President not connected to an Ivy League school; or name the only SC Justice not from Harvard, Stanford, or Yale. The polarity and partisanship in present national politics is not going to go away by electing a uniter as president, because the partisanship is really nothing more than the primary to elect which academic elitists will soon rule over every aspect of our lives, (or as Schaeffer would say, "be those who give us our arbitrary absolutes by which to live by.") Will it be the blue-blood Republican hedonists, or the equally hedonistic Democratic socialists? The religious right and the populist left are mere pawns being used by these opponents to further their cause and will be discarded once their usefulness has been depleted.

Anyway, that is enough for now. I would appreciate any pro or con comments.

Book No. 2

The high sheriffs behind this operation have let it be known to me that, based on Josh's arcane and possibly demon inspired book-chooser order selection algorithm, I get to pick our second book. I've decided to go with Everything is Illuminated by Jonathan Safran Foer. It's supposed to be good; hopefully it's something we can all enjoy (or enjoy discussing, at least).

Podcast/YouTube

Do any of you guys know what it would take (hardware/software) to turn our eventual Round-Table discussion into a Podcast/YouTube broadcast? I would be willing to turn that dream into a reality if I knew how.

earlier or later copy?

would it be better to try to get an original copy of this book, or the newer 50th anniversary edition? does it even matter?

and yes, i am currently recapping really really hard right now. thanks for asking.

ma

Fathers don't always know best - buy your book online.

When I was a kid, my father took me aside once at the grocery store, slapped the can of Vienna Sausages out of my hand and said, "Ricky, don't buy cheap #@%^." So I blame you, Dad, for my thinking that ordering a bunch of books for $17 a piece was a better idea than ordering a single book for $4.00. Instead, everyone should order Schaeffer online solomente for the best deal for you and your family. I started the book tonight and reading it in the allotted time shouldn't be a problem even if you can't get a copy until next week.

But you know, I like to think that today, when I walked out of Borders on Main St. with a copy of How Should We Then Live? that I paid $21 for instead of $5 because I didn't want to wait three to five business days, I bet my Dad was smiling down from Heaven...or maybe from his boat on a lake somewhere....where ever he is, he's proud.

Dude...

Our First Book

Since I am first, I will choose an easy book for all to read: "How Should We Then Live?: The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture, by Francis Schaeffer, ISBN-10: 0800708199, ISBN-13: 978-0800708191, 288 pages.

Books, Bücher, Boeken, Livres?

Welcome to The "Recap Like a Champ" Society of Letters. Senior member "sharpsooner" has made his selection for our inaugural reading. We should consider what is the best way to get copies of the book to everyone. We've discussed ordering in bulk from Amazon or another used book site and having them delivered to the office. Please feel free to make a suggestion. It would probably be easiest to just give Bruce $$$ once we have a price and then each individual will be in charge of finding/buying the books for each month. (note, by "buying" I mean with the money of the people involved, not on the good faith that our members will reimburse).

Let me also say that I'm really looking forward to this. Now, I don't know if I'll be able to make it through one of Ron Anderson's "Anger from the Right" kind of books or Jaqua's "Dude, I Can't Feel my Legs Dude" selections, but I sincerely hope that everyone who expressed interest in this irrational exchange of rational ideas is able to participate.