Andrew

I've decided to read/listen to the entire King James translation of the Bible for a number of reasons. Not only have I never read it in its entirety, but it's also one of the fundamental backbones of western literature. I have quibbles with the translation (there are some egregious translation errors in it, both intentional and otherwise), but it is obviously beautifully rendered from a linguistic/literary point of view. If I wanted to study Genesis as a piece of ancient near-eastern writing, I'd pick up a different translation, probably Robert Alter's or the New Revised Standard Version, but the KJV is bedrock English literature. Absolutely a fundamental piece for anyone who wants to grasp modern western writing and philosophy.

It's pretty stunning that, in the grand tradition of teaching epic poetry in the west, that Job has not been taught alongside works like Beowulf or the Homeric epics. It's a stunning work, and the KJV is breathtakingly rendered into English, even if at the sacrifice of some cultural nuances. God's arrival from the whirlwind is one of the great character entrances in all of literature, hands down.

Christopher Glyn's Jesus is angry and I kind of dig it.

Because of my seminary work, I'm maybe more familiar with Matthew than any other book of the Bible, and I definitely think the King James translation is clumsy in this book, leaving a lot to be desired. But there are definitely iconic passages here that still resound down the ages, their echo being heard in modern and better translations. For instance, let's be real and admit that when most people think of the Lord's Prayer (or maybe the Sermon on the Mount, in general), it's the KJV that they hear in their head.

Mark's Jesus gets stuff done, yells at people, berates the rich, and tells the religious elite to get lost. A lot of American Christians would lose their minds if this Jesus walked into their church on any random Sunday morning. The language here (referring to the KJV translation) is of course beautiful; one of my favorite verses in all of scripture is in this book, and the KJV translators rendered it beautifully:

Jesus said unto him, “If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.”

And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, “Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.”

Last year, I read most of the Hebrew Bible in Robert Alter's fantastic translation, including Song of Songs. Alter's rendering of this poem is more effective, even if the KJV obviously has beauty to it; Alter simply understands the culture and poetical forms better than the KJV translators and is able to do more with the text.

Try as hard as I might, short stories never do it for me. Overall, this was lackluster and most of the stories were uninteresting or outright (in my opinion) bad. The titular story, “Together We Kill,” was the only one worth anything, in my opinion; but it was also the punchiest and had the best ending.

Really beautiful. One of the great speeches in all of literature. I'm a sucker for long-form speeches like this, where a person just lays out everything they think in an organized manner. There's also neat ancient near-eastern structural and genre things going on here, in terms of how contracts and covenants worked.

Did Moses write it? I don't know. Not sure if it matters. Like Ecclesiastes, this is more likely a book written in the sytle of Moses. Some of the grammar and vocabulary are very late-Hebrew, denoting the post-Babylonian period; which could indicate either editorial changes or late-authorship (and late-authorship could be based on long-standing oral traditions of things Moses said), but neither changes the effect of the book.

Basically, Deuteronomy is a neat book, and the KJV translation is really beautiful.

Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.
Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.
(Deuteronomy 6:4-5)

I won't pretend that some of this isn't complete nonsense, but some of it is brilliant philosophy, aiming to realign one's viewpoint of the world to generate peace and calmness, both with oneself and others.

One thing that struck me very much are the way the Lama's Buddhist worldview can be compared to someone like Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas saw that the idea of physical eternity was absurd and that there could not be an infinite regress of cause and effect; he came to the conclusion, based on the teachings of Aristotle, that there had to be an “unmoved mover,” an entity who was infinite in itself, without beginning and ending, who (so to speak) “kickstarted” everything we see. The Buddha came to a somewhat similar conclusion, but with a stark difference: nothing that exists does so inherently, that is, of its own power, except for the energy of life itself, or perhaps what could be called “consciousness.” So the Lama talks quite a bit about the emptiness of existence (but not in a “woe as me” way), nothing that is reality (nothing) inherently exists; and by this he means nothing exists own its own. In other words, everything has cause and effect, stemming from the consciousness, which the Lama says is eternal.

Anyway, that's a layman's explanation, and as that summary probably shows, some of this stuff is clear as mud, but it's nevertheless fascinating. Ultimately, the same apparent problems that exist with the Buddhist theology are also true of Aquinas's: how does something exist forever and not have something else that starts it off? Furthermore, why is that idea of infinite cause and effect apparently illogical (Newton's laws?)? I'm a big Aquinas fan (he has his problems), probably because Lewis and Tolkien were, and maybe now I'm a Dalai Lama fan, too. I'm reminded of Lewis writing that “truth is always about something, but reality is that about which truth is” (God in the Dock 67): so if I see some grain of truth in Aquinas and the Dalai Lama, it's because they both stumbled (although, imperfectly) into some shared, correct perception of reality (which truth always points to).

As for somethings that I learned (apart from learning about Buddhism itself (specifically Tibetan Buddhism)): one is that you cannot know a thing unless you do it; head knowledge of a subject is not enough: it must be put to use. Another is that enemies (people who cause you problems or pain) are to be cherished, because without an enemy to pester you, you cannot practice patience and love. That's pretty good.

Years ago, I spent months listening to a preacher go through this book verse-by-verse. After a few years, he had not finished the book and had to take a break; this left a strange relationship between me and Acts, which made me dread listening to it since I've not read deeply in the book since then. I'm pleasantly surprised to say that not only did I enjoy the narrative immensely, but I enjoyed the sound of the King James translation. Very pleasant reading!

This book is not perfect or near perfect; the 5 stars just reflect my enjoyment of it. This book has every good and bad writing tic that you might find in any Stephen King books, and it's way too long, and it has stuff in it that doesn't need to be there (anyone who's read it knows). But it's nevertheless beautiful, and if you like King (if you can see beyond his glaring flaws), then check this out.

That said. I'll never read/listen to this ever again (but that's just because of how long it is).

I hope to one day write something half as scary as this.

It's been a long time since I really delved into this book–and phew! Mostly geographical information, lists of kings/kingdoms, only a little bit of narrative, and then a big speech by Joshua. I suspect (although I've not researched this) that Joshua is partitioned into five sections that mimic the structure of the Torah (Genesis-Deuteronomy), but this makes for a bit of a dull read; also, the King James translation doesn't really bring anything here until Joshua's speech at the end, which is quite beautiful.

Some of these are really beautiful. I wish the Kindle édition better incorporated the endnotes and footnotes, but that's a pretty minor complaint; because of the formatting, I was made to really just focus on the poems themselves, which was nice, although I do wish each poem had a brief introduction from the translator that could help sort out issues of clarity.

Thoroughly enjoyed the beginning and ending of this, but became wholly lost in the middle. I had so much going on that I was never able just to sit down and listen to large portions of this at one time, which is a real shame, because in the few instances that I was able to devote much time to it I enjoyed it immensely.

This is really just a survey, and it only deals with its topics in the lightest, simplest ways, but it gets the job done in getting things started. From here, I feel like I can go on to a more in-depth book without feeling overwhelmed, since I now in part understand some of the core ideas of Confucianism.

Admittedly skipped around in this, skimming and focusing on the essays that most interested me. Probably read a third of the book and skimmed the rest. Truth be told, I don't think this book is very good. I found very little that illuminated Ang Lee's films in here, only half-argued connections to various philosophers who are either dubiously or exhaustively explained (there's no in between). Some of the films crop up again and again (Brokeback Mountain is in nearly every other essay), meanwhile others seem entirely absent (Pushing Hands only merits an occasional mention).

There's definitely good stuff in here, it's just buried. It's also written in a dry, academic tone that makes it nearly impenetrable to anyone (like me) not already familiar with philosophical vocab.

Hard pass on this one, and I'm still not convinced there is a good book on Ang Lee's films.

Do you believe in an elusive, difficult to describe past when things were “great” and heroes roamed the landscape, when men-were-men and women-women and children never disobeyed? That the Nation was built by great people who were, at least, more right than they were wrong, and that we would be better off going back to how things were? That we should make the Nation great again?

Do you believe that your Group (defined by nation/race/gender/religion) is the greatest, is without flaw (or at least more right than wrong, usually), and that your national identity (and the Nation itself) are defined by its people being members of the Group? Do you feel that your Group is the target of blame and that the culture at large hates your group, aiming to suppress and do away with it, thus destroying the Nation?

Do you believe that so-called “experts,” who claim to use facts and data to promote their ideas are simply mouthpieces for agendas designed to topple the Nation's history and standing, and the Group associated with it, and that public universities and schools are dens of liberal indoctrination, best to be avoided by those who make up the Group?

Do you believe that certain people are just more deserving of things like comfort, success, happiness, and resources than others are, whether it be because of how they act or where they come from? That crimes should be dealt with quickly and mercilessly, and that the Nation should maintain law and order primarily through fear of punishment? Do you believe that lazy people just don't deserve things as much, and that hard-work solves and covers a multitude of sins? That success means wealth and wealth means freedom?

Are stay-at-home dads or men who cry emasculated and weak? Are women who work instead of taking care of the house rebellious against the natural hierarchy? Are homosexuals and trans people trying to destroy the Nation and corrupt the Group's children? Do you believe that cities are dens of immorality and liberality, designed from the bottom up to destroy the traditional values of the Nation and Group?

The above are all parts of fascism: the notion that life operates best when it is racially, ethnically, ideologically, and culturally pure; where the world operates in simple top-down structures (the father rules over the family, the CEO over the business, the Leader over the nation ) that put people in their place; and where people who suffer poverty probably deserve it, because only a person bankrupt of moral character (ie: lazy) could ever become poor or need the help of the State. Also the State is distinct from the Nation: the State is that liberal hive that wants people to push against tradition, where all people have value for no reason other than that they are alive (and not because they add anything to society); the Nation is that core collection of Ideas, perhaps enshrined in a religious or philosophical notion, but embodied by the Group, explaining the successes of the Nation as a result of favor (either from natural-order or God himself), while explaining the failures of the Nation as the result of deviance (from the Ideas).

When the State does something, it is government overreach, an act of Big Government. When the Nation does something, it is a desperate act to maintain the Nation and the Group and the Ideas. The State coddles its citizens like children, whereas the Nation makes them productive members of the Group.

I will end with two quotes from the book. The first describes fascism and how it relates to social Darwinism (survival of the fittest); the second regards the legacy of fascist thought.

Fascist movements share with social Darwinism the idea that life is a competition for power, acording to which the division of society's resources should be left up to pure free market competition. Fascist movements share its ideals of hard work, private enterprise, and self-sufficiency. To have a life worthy of value, for the social Darwinist, is to have risen above others by struggle and merit, to have survived a fierce competition for resources. Those who do not compete successfully do not deserve the goods and resources of society. In an ideology that measures worth by productivity, propaganda that represents members of an out-group as lazy is a way to justify placing them on a hierarchy of worth.

Does anyone really want their children's sense of identity to be based on a legacy of marginalization of others?

Addendum:

Republic

1. Elected officials
2. Free, fair, and frequent elections
3. Freedom of expression
4. Alternative sources of information
5. Associational autonomy
6. Inclusive citizenship (“What Political Institutions Does Large-Scale Democracy Require?” Robert A. Dahl, Political Science Quarterly (vol. 120, no. 2, Summer 2005, pp 187-197))

Is this thing difficult? Yes. Is it fragmen[tary? Yes]. But is it rewarding? If you can get on its wavelength and find the rhythm of the poetry, then it's incredibly rewarding. But this isn't entry-level mythology by any means, or even intermediate. This is advanced, if only because the texts are so fragmentary. But the poems here reward patience.