The recent attempt by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to seek common ground on questions of gay rights vs. religious rights has, in the main, generated far more hostility and criticism towards the Church than appreciation for the effort. The responses have shed light on one thing though: namely, how few people really understand the underlying principles involved, which ought to properly frame the debate. Herewith, some principles which ought to govern and be understood relative to the issues in question.
WHAT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IS
Before we get started, let's define "religious freedom". If understood pursuant to the U.S. Constitution, religious freedom involves three core ideas: That there can be no religious test for a public trust (U.S. Const. Art. VI), that there can be no officially established state church (i.e., no "establishment of religion") (U.S. Const. Am. 1) and that there can be no legal infringement on one's right to the "free exercise" of religious belief and practice (U.S. Const. Am. 1). These legal concepts have numerous practical applications, which can be gleaned from the history which gave rise to the constitutional text, and the subsequent case law based thereon. Among these practical applications are these core principles of religious freedom:
-"Penalties are impertinent" if they are used to "compel men to quit the light of their own reason, and oppose the dictates of their own consciences." (John Locke 1689).
-"[N]o official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein." (Justice Jackson, W. Va State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943)[emphasis added].)
-"Government may neither compel affirmation of a repugnant belief [i.e., a belief a particular citizen believes to be repugnant] nor penalize or discriminate against individuals because they hold religious views abhorrent to the authorities." Justice Brennan, Sherbert v. Verner (1963).
-"[G]overnment coercion of moral agency is odious." Gilardi v. U.S. (D.C. Cir. 2013).
With those statements of what religious freedom is as a starting point, let us look at some basic principles which govern the maintenance of religious freedom, and which Latter-day Saints need to understand.
WHAT INVIDIOUS DISCRIMINATION IS
There are many laws which potentially implicate religious freedom, but since the Church's recent effort to find common ground involved anti-discrimination statutes, and inasmuch as such statutes are increasingly involved in cases which test the limits of religious liberty (especially in light of new definitions of marrage which many religious believers find abhorrent) it is important to properly understand the legal standards involved in traditional anti-discrimination law. The term "discriminate" comes from a Latin verb, discrimire, which means "to separate, distinguish, or make a distinction." There is nothing inherently immoral about discrimination, understood as such ("he has very discriminating taste in French cuisine"). What is immoral is discrimination in which persons who are otherwise alike are treated as different, or unequal, on the basis of classifications which might prevent certain individuals from fully participating in society on an equal basis. Even that type of discrimination is not necessarily evil: if John prefers brunettes and refuses to date any blondes, or Julie refuses to date any one who is physically smaller than her, they may be denying themselves of meeting some really great marriage prospects, but that doesn't mean acting on their private preferences is immoral. However, if those private preferences spill over into areas that are less personal than dating, such as who they choose to employ, and if those preferences are based on irrational distinctions formed out of antipathy (as opposed to being based on rational grounds, such as choosing to hire a reporter whose ethnic background and language skills will allow him to understand communities which the newspaper serves), then "invidious discrimination" is involved. It is invidious discrimination, and only invidious discrimination, which the government may properly prohibit and regulate.
PRINCIPLES OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
1. From a Theological Perspective Few Principles in the Gospel Are More Fundamentally Important than the Doctrine of Religious Freedom: Bruce R. McConkie has put it thus: “Freedom of worship is one of the basic doctrines of the gospel. Indeed, in one manner of speaking it is the most basic of all doctrines, even taking precedence over the nature and kind of being that God is, or the atoning sacrifice of the Son of God, or the vesting of priesthood and keys and saving power in the one true church. By this we mean that if there were no freedom of worship, there would be no God, no redemption, and no salvation in the kingdom of God.” Bruce R. McConkie A New Witness for the Articles of Faith (Deseret Book, 1985) 655 (emphasis added). This is a fairly remarkable statement. But it makes sense. To allow the Atonement of Christ to be fully effective in our lives, we must enter into the covenantal ordinances which allow us to fully access the power of the atonement. If we live under a form of government which prevents us from entering into these covenants, we cannot fully partake of this power. Thus, as pointed out by W. Cole Durham, the doctrine of religious freedom is not more important than the other doctrines listed by Elder McConkie, but more "basic" (or fundamental) in the sense of being a prerequisite to the fulfillment of the other doctrines. In that sense, "it is the most basic because none of the other doctrines could become operative or have any meaning or authenticity if we did not have the option to choose them freely." W. Cole Durham "The Doctrine of Religious Freedom" April 3, 2001 BYU Devotional Address.
2. From a Civic Perspective, the Right of Religious Freedom Is Also of Fundamental Importance, as our "First Freedom": Freedom of religion has been called the "first freedom" both because it is listed in the First Amendment to the Constitution, but, more importantly, because it is a necessary precondition to our other civic rights. James Madison, the father of our Constitution, and of our Bill of Rights, stated this principle as follows, in his Memorial and Remonstrances Against Religious Assessments, written before the Constitution or the First Amendment:
"The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And . . . every man who becomes a member of any particular Civil Society, [must] do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that . . . Religion is wholly exempt from [Civil Society's] cognizance."
Robert P. George, Chairman of the U.S. Commission for International Religious Freedom, has explained the precedent nature of religious freedom as involving the fact that this freedom is typically the first to fall, leading almost inevitably to the failure of subsequent societal rights and benefits as well: ". . . societal well-being tends to suffer when religious freedom is unprotected. Politically, religious freedom abuses are linked with abuses of other human rights. Economically, religious persecution can marginalize the persecuted, causing their talents to go unrealized and robbing affected countries of added productivity and abundance. Civically, whenever religious liberty is violated, nations surrender the benefit religious beliefs may yield through the molding of character which enables the responsible exercise of citizenship. Socially, wherever freedom of religion is abused, peace and security may be threatened, affecting these societies and in some cases the security of the United States and the world."
3. The Right to Religious Freedom is a Constitutional Right. As noted above, the right to religious freedom is listed in Article VI of the Constitution (prohibiting any religous test for a public office or a public trust -- such that it would be unconstitutional, for example, for a State which had chosen to contract with a Catholic adoption agency for the public trust of arranging adoptions, to terminate that contract and prohibit and restrict the agency from continuing to perform this function, on the grounds of the agency's religious beliefs) and in the First Amendment to the Constitution, which prevents government from enacting any law relating to an establishment of religion (i.e., government cannot establish an official State church, -- such that it would be unconsitutional, for example, to require citizens to agree to orthodox belief systems, or to require citizens to attend and participate in a Catholic Mass or a same sex wedding ceremony, if doing so violated the citizen's beliefs) or prohibiting the free exercise of religion by individual citizens (under the "free exercise" clause -- such that it would be Unconstitutional, for example, to prohibit a citizen from engaging in certain religiously motivated conduct, such as invoking God in a Valedictorian speech).
4. When in Conflict, Constitutional Rights Potentially Preempt Statutory Rights, not Vice Versa. It is among the most fundamental concepts of American law that the U.S. Constitution proscribes what is and is not valid law. It does this procedurally by establishing the methods for enacting new laws, but, more to the point for present purposes, it does so substantively, by regulating and restricting the ability of Congress and (by extension under the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th amendment), the ability of state and local governments as well, to pass certain laws at all, if they violate the rights against such laws enumerated in the Constitution, especially (but not exclusively) in the Bill of Rights. Based thereon, the test of any statutory law is whether it infringes upon rights guaranteed in the Constitution, or is valid or invalid under the Constitution's proscriptions. It is the burden of those who would uphold a statute to prove that said statute is consistent with the Constitution, not the other way around. The Constitution trumps any statute which violates the Constitution, and any statute which does so is subject to being declared invalid and expunged from the books. The reverse is not true: a constitutional principle cannot be trumped by a statute. Gay rights advocates understand this, which is why they have been running into various federal courts to claim that any laws which affirm or maintain the long-standing definition of the pre-political institution known as marriage are unconstituitonal. They are wrong, of course (Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810, 93 S.Ct 37 (1972)), but in this context they at least understand the nature of the test which must be met, and the opportunity which constitutional tests potentially afford.
5. The Right Against Invidious Discrimination Is Statutory, and Therefore Subject to Constitutional Review, if Statutes Are Written or Applied in a Manner Which Conflict Irreconcilably with Precedent Constitutional Rights. There is no Constitutional right to be served or employed by a private business, or to prevent such a private business from making its decision to deny service or employment on grounds which constitute invidious discrimination against a member of a protected class, by virtue of antipathy towards a member of that class because of his or her race, gender, religion, or other statutorily protected characteristic, which, in recent years, increasingly include sexual orientation and sexual behavior. To the degree that you have the ability to seek legal redress for such discrimination, that ability is based on anti-discrimination statutes, which prohibit private businesses from denying service to individuals based on antipathy towards members of their protected class, or making employment decisions on the basis of such antipathy.
If such statutes are written or interpreted or enforced in a manner which infringes on religious rights, then such statutes are potentially invalid. The reverse is not, however, true: to the extent that the Constitutional right of freedom of religion infringes on anti-discrimination principles, the Constitutional right is not potentially invalid. To the extent, if any, that there is any irreconcilable conflict between the Constitutional right to freedom of exercise of one's religion and any statutory protection against private invidious discrimination, the Constitutional right potentially trumps the statutory protection, not the other way around. Based thereon, when certain religious exemptions are codified into anti-discrimination laws or other statutes, this is not necessarily a per se invalid or unfair legislative preference, but a reasonable attempt to ensure that legislation is constitutional, which good legislators should always strive for (upholding the Constitution being the heart of their oath of office). This does not mean that anti-discrimination laws against individuals with same-sex sexual orientation are necessarily unconsititutional, but it does mean that such statutes must pass constitutional muster.
Contrary to the long standing religious rights which are precedent, inalienable, and affirmed in the constitutional text, many of the more recently claimed rights and privileges which are now taking center stage in the American consciousness, which have been called by some the "erotic rights" (such as the recently discovered constitutional rights or recently enacted statutory rights to have an abortion on demand and without regard to reason, to terminate an inconvenient pregnancy; the right to access to contraception, including for unmarried adults and not-yet-adults; the right to unilaterally divorce one's spouse against that spouse's will even where no betrayal by the spouse justifies the divorce via no-fault divorce laws; the right to engage in sexual acts which were previously illegal; and the right to require that one's relationship be defined as a marriage even if it does not include both a male husband and female wife, such that the State must now pretend that there are no sex distinctions among parents on birth certificates or spouses on marriage licenses) are of relatively recent vintage, and are not referenced in the text of the Constitution. Certain of these rights or legal protections have become largely uncontroversial, but all of them were enacted in their time with little to no evidence as to the long term effects, for good or ill, of their recognition. As the decades go by, easier assessments may now be made on that question, and the evidence to date suggests the sexual revolution which gave birth to these new erotic rights is not making society a better place, especially for women and children.
6. Constitutional Rights Are Not Absolute. None of the foregoing is intended to suggest that religious freedom may always be invoked, or should always be invokable, as an absolute trump card and prohibition in every case where a statute is claimed to violate any particular individuals or group's right to conscience. The First Amendment protection of freedom of speech does not prohibit the government from punishing you for yelling fire in a crowded theater. A member of a religion which taught its members that they must kill non-adherents would not be able to avoid charges of murder for fulfilling any such commandment, on the grounds that the murder statute violates his rights to the free exercise of religion. The U.S. Supreme Court recognizes that certain governmental interests are sufficiently compelling to allow statutes enacted in furtherance of those ends to be enforced even against Constitutional objections, where the statutes in question meet certain tests, such as with respect to a statute which was not motivated by an intent to violate Constitutional rights, but to further other sufficiently compelling interests, and which was written and applied in neutral fashion and in a manner designed to avoid overly restrictive means to further those interests.
Thus, gay rights advocates have every right to argue that certain statutory schemes pass constitutional muster, despite any alleged encroachments on religious freedom, if those statutes meet particular legal or logical tests. Such arguments must, however, be rational and reasonable and legally compelling, if they are to be taken serously. Manichean arguments which presume that any proposed legislation sought by one side or the other must always be taken as representing light and truth and any objections from the opposite aisle must always be presumed to be based in darkness and bigotry, should be treated with contempt, so as to force both sides to formulate and present better reasoning which will hopefully result in superior legislation. For example, Dallin H. Oaks was asked about a New York Times editorial claiming that the Church was seeking legal permission to discriminate against gays. His response, as quoted by Tad Walch in the Deseret News of January 30, 2015, was a perfect example of insisting on fair and rational dialogue and argument: "When I heard that I can tell you my reaction," Elder Oaks said. "I thought, well that illustrates how much we need to have people educated about the principles we are teaching of fairness and balance, because that's a very unbalanced statement. I would be ashamed to make a comparable statement saying that nondiscrimination is just trying to wipe out religious freedom . . . . That would be the equivalent. I'd be ashamed to make that kind of a statement, and I'm sorry that a responsible voice in the New York Times made it. I'm hopeful that he'll see that's not our motivation and that's not the intended effect of what we're doing."
7. Invidious Discrimination in Secular Life against Individuals Because of their Sexual Orientation Is Morally Wrong. I have represented gay clients including in matters involving their relationships with their partners, and I would consider it immoral to decline such representation on the basis of a potential client's actual or perceived sexual orientation. Likewise, I would consider it immoral for any business which offers general services, not tied in any way to endorsing any particular viewpoint, to discriminate against potential customers on the basis of their sexual orientation.
8. Declining to Participate in Certain Events or to Promote Certain Points of View Is Not Morally Wrong, Nor Is it Necessarily Invidious Discrimination. As a lawyer, I have and I will continue to represent some clients who are gay, and will be happy to provide them with the best representation possible in civil and business transactions and disputes. I would even be happy to draft a prenup for a same-sex couple, and I have in the past assisted in legal disputes upon the termination of such a relationship. However, I would not accept a case to represent a gay client who wanted me to argue against a traditional marriage statute. This would not be a form of discrimination against such a client. I would not be declining the case because of the potential client's sexual orientation, but because of the position he wanted me to assert, with which I fundamentally disagree. I am not required to accept a case which would require me to argue for changes in the law with which I personally fundamentally disagree. Similarly, no one would claim that a gay lawyer who declined to represent a religious group seeking to file a brief in support of maintaining the traditional definition of marriage was guilty of invidious discrimination against a potential client because of that client's religion, especially if the lawyer indicated that he would have been happy to represent the same group, or any of its members, with respect to other issues, such as a private business disputes, having no political implications. This seems a fairly easy test, but it is one which government and courts are increasingly failing, as they seek to impose ideological conformity against any who dare to dissent from the new political orthodoxies of our age.
For example, in one recent case, the New Mexico Human Rights Commission, a public body founded upon the Orwellian principle that the biggest threats to our human rights are to be found in our fellow citizens, not in our government, disproved that founding principle of its absurd existence, by fining a private citizen for declining, on religous grounds, to photograph a same sex committment ceremony. Although the photographer testified that she would have offered other photographic services to the individuals involved, such that she was not discriminating on the basis of the potential clients' sexual orientation, the commission ruled that she had violated New Mexico anti-discrimination statutes. This was the wrong ruling. In the name of consistency and equal application of the laws, would the commission have issued a similarly inappropriate ruling against a gay-owned web-design and hosting business which declined to provide its services to a group wishing to establish and maintain a web site promoting traditional marriage, on the grounds that its denial of services to such a group was based on invidious discrimination against the members of a particular religion? Or in that case, would they have suddenly become able to parse the difference between declining a service on grounds of viewpoint difference, rather than on grounds of invidious discrimination? If you believe the commission would have reached the same result in both cases, please contact me to help you set up a guardianship, as you are clearly not sufficiently intelligent to handle your own financial affairs. For the rest of us, who are sane enough to understand that the ruling against the photographer was based on exercising raw political power in order to bully, censor, and intimidate people of faith, and was not based on any sound principle of neutral and universal application, it is worth contemplating the various ways in which the ruling violated virtually every principle of religious freedom and freedom of conscience which the English speaking people have understood since John Locke explained to us over 300 years ago that "penalties are impertinent" if used to "compel men to quit the light of their own reason, and oppose the dictates of their own consciences."
9. Declining to Perform Acts Which One Believes to Be Immoral Is Protected Conduct. An even greater threat to religious liberty than being forced to endorse viewpoints with which one disagrees, is the potential threat of being required to perform acts which one believes to be morally wrong. Should a Catholic doctor be required to prescribe an abortifacient? Should an Evangelical pharmacist be required to fill it? Should a photographer be required to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony if she is personally opposed to same-sex marriage? Should a doctor be required to provide in vitro sperm donation services to a lesbian couple, if he believes children have a moral right to a mother and a father? Should an adoption lawyer or agency be similarly compelled? According to long-standing case law, and even longer standing principles of religious freedom in the west, the answer to all of these questions is clearly no. Nevertheless, the wrong answer has been reached, again and again, in recent years. Notwithstanding long-standing principles of religious freedom, citizens in America HAVE BEEN FORCED to pay an impertinent penalty, to confess by word or act their faith in new orthodoxies, to have their moral agency coerced, to quit the light of their own reason and oppose the dictates of their own consciences, and have been discriminated against because they hold religious views abhorrent to the authorities (as happened to the students of Gordon College, a religious institution with prohibitions against homosexual conduct, whose students were recently prevented from applying for student teaching internships in a public school district). How has this happened? We have sold our birthright of religious freedom for a mess of erotic-rights pottage. We have decided that religious freedom, though explicitly guarantied in our Constitution, is less important than the judicially created right (no-where explicitly set forth in the Constitution) not only to participate in certain sexual acts, but to force the entirety of society to affirm and celebrate you for doing so. Religious movements and religious adherents brought us abolition and the civil rights movement. The sexual revolution brought us an illegitimacy rate of 50% (vs. 6% in 1960), broken homes, fatherless children, the feminization of poverty, sex selective abortions which overwhelmingly target unborn female children, and a youth suicide rate which is three times higher today than it was in 1950. But no matter: the erotic rights which were pioneered during the sexual revolution are now far more important (despite their overwhelmingly adverse consequences) than the religious rights which are explicitly stated in the Constitution.
10. The Constitution Did not Create, but Merely Affirmed, the Right of Freedom of Religion. It is important to understand that religious freedom, together with the other freedoms listed in the Bill of Rights, were not created therein, but, rather, were affirmed thereby. Our founding fathers understood this distinction. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights listed and recognized pre-existing rights, granted by God, not by government (demonstrating another essential reason for religous liberty and for religous involvement in a healthy civil society: as giving the citizenry a source beyond government for its rights and liberties). The rights listed in the Constitution were argued to be essential reasons for the revolution long before the Constitution was enacted. As explained by Bernard Bailyn, in The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, at pp 187-189, the great thinkers of the revolutionary tradition argued, many years before the constitution was enacted, that the rights being pursued in the revolutionary struggle were the inherent and intrinsic God-given rights which existed independent of any written legal documentation. John Dickinson pointed out in the mid 1760s that charters are "declarations but not gifts of liberties" as kings and parliaments cannot give "the rights essential to happiness." Rather: "We claim them from a higher source -- from the King of kings, and Lord of all the earth. They are not annexed to us by parchments and seals. They are created in us by the decrees of Providence, which establish the laws of our nature. They are born with us; exist with us; and cannot be taken from us by any human power without taking our lives. In short, they are founded on the immutable maxims of reason and justice." Id. Thus, written statements of rights "must be considered as only declaratory of our rights, and in affirmance of them." Bernard Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution. pp 187-89. Similarly, Alexander Hamilton declared that "the sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of divinity itself, and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power." Id. Philip Livingston queried whether he had truly understood an argument to the contrary, raised by the Reverend Thomas Chandler, correctly; had that man really meant to say "that any right . . . if it be not confirmed by some statute law is not a legal right"? If so, Livingston stated: "in the name of America, I deny it." Rather: Legal rights are "those rights which we are entitled to by the eternal laws of right reason" existing independent of positive law, and standing as the measure of its legitimacy. Bailyn, id. Thus, the rights to religious liberty listed in the First Amendment were not created thereby, but were understood by the revolutionary generation, long before the Constitution was even proposed, let alone enacted, as natural and God-given (not Government-given) and inalienable, as (we might say today), pre-Constitutional rights, which is what they were fighting for. Freedom of religion was one of those rights, and it was not invented by the founders or created by the First Amendment, but rather, understood by the founders and affirmed by the Constitution. It cannot, therefore, be taken away, no matter what the historically illiterate advocates for 2014's ghastly proposal known as the "Udall Amendment" (criticized by even the ACLU, which, once in a while, remembers its claimed purpose) had to say about it.
Saturday, March 7, 2015
Books Completed in 2015
JANUARY
Revolutionary Summer by Joseph J. Ellis (Vintage Books 2013). Trade Paperback. 4 stars out of 4. If you don't think American history is interesting, try reading this little book covering the major political and military developments of the Summer of 1776. It may just kickstart an interest. It is fascinating, engaging, compelling, page-turning. And it can only make you want to learn even more about John Adams (historically our most underappreciated founder--at long last in recent years getting his due, primarily thanks to Ellis and also David McCullough), George Washington (who learned a painful lesson in 1776, which he used to his advantage for the next 7 years), Thomas Jefferson (who had no idea of the importance of the Declaration as he was writing it), and the Howe brothers (whose hopes for reconciliation, and fears of repeating another pyrrhic Bunker Hill victory, kept the war from being won by Britain in one swift stroke, and allowed the Continental Army to live to fight another day). Just really great stuff. If we could get this kind of reading into our public schools, instead of the Textbook-by-Committee-Death-by-Boredom stuff we force our High Schoolers to read instead, Americans might actually appreciate their heritage.
FEBRUARY
Heretics by G.K. Chesterton. Kindle. 3 out of 4. Chesterton was C.S.Lewis's C.S. Lewis. I could read him for weeks on end and never get tired of his insights or his voice. Even though I am not particularly familiar with the works of H.G. Wells, Rudyard Kipling, George Bernard Shaw, and the other Chesterton contemporaries whose works are examined here, the gist of the ideas which Chesterton is tilting against are easily recognizable to anyone who has lived through the last 40 to 50 years of American life, in which the social and cultural movements which were first aborning in Chesterton's day have arrived at their full fruition. It's fascinating to know that the seeds which brought us the sexual and moral and political revolution of the stupidest of all American epochs (that which began in the 1960s, was delayed a bit during the 1980s, and came into full fruition with the reelection of Barack Obama and the Obergefell decision), were planted so long beforehand, and to read the dangers of our era's prevailing idiot ideologies being so presciently foreseen so long before their time. This precursor to Orthodoxy is the inferior book, but it's still worth reading.
Conjugal Union: What Marriage Is and Why It Matters by Patrick Lee and Robert P. George (Cambridge University Press 2014). Kindle. 3 out of 4. It is unclear why Robert P. George felt it was necessary to co-author yet another natural law theory defense of traditional marriage, after his similar involvement on what is perhaps already the definitive text: What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense, but both books are worth reading. This is especially true for those who believe the only arguments against redefined marriage are religious in nature, as the authors present a "philosophical" argument on the basis of "reason unaided by faith" which does not "presuppose . . . any revealed source of truth." (Introduction) They do an excellent job. Understanding why marriage matters from a scriptural point of view (leave and cleave, become one flesh) but also from a logical point of view will be important for anyone seeking to withstand the new inquisitions which the "tolerant" have in store for those of us who remain committed heretics, unwilling to bend to the new orthodoxies of our day.
Pathfinder by Orson Scott Card. Audible. 4 out of 4. A reread, to remember the plot before I dive into reading the final book, which was published late last year. I enjoyed this even more this time around. Either that or I'd forgotten how much I loved it the first time. The narration on audible is so fantastic that I'm still not sure if the book is as good as I think it is, or if the voice of Stefan Rudnicki, the narrator, just made it seem far more cool than it really was. In any event, great stuff, with two interesting stories ultimately melding together perfectly.
MARCH
Ruins by Orson Scott Card. Audible. 2 out of 4. A reread, to remember the plot before reading the third (and final?) book. Somehow I thought this was a trilogy, but now it's being marketed as a series, so I don't know. I enjoyed the book better this time around. Though the whiny teenage characters are still annoying. My least favorite entry in the series, but it does have some highlights and some cool ideas.
Visitors by Orson Scott Card. Kindle. 3 out of 4. A great end to this trilogy. (If it is a trilogy; which seems likely. Although the series could go on, and not all plotlines remain completely tied down, the resolution here leaves you with a sense of conclusion.) After two books of relatively straightforward plotting, with a few minor time travel digressions to establish Card's causation-is-never-destroyed time travel rules, the author decides to really let loose and have some fun here with all the possibilities of time travel. So, in the second half of the book, Card perpetuates a panoply of perplexing plotlines: one version of Rigg on earth with one version of Ram visiting the distant past; another version of Rigg on Garden with another version of Ram visiting the various wallfolds (which includes one beautifully written, highly intriguing and philosophically weighty chapter, addressing the question of why God allows bad things to happen, in the name of agency); facemasks showing their full possibilities, both scientific and literary, in descriptions brimming with possible religious allegorical application; a baby from one timeline being plucked from any parental memory of his birth and being raised in another timeline; a big plot twist with respect to the visitors; a time travel escape from the machinations of General Citizen, culminating in multiple Riggs trying to forestall the end of the world of Garden; some new planets to go along with the newly introduced wallfolds; and the two young characters who were so annoying in the second book finally coming into their own. The only thing I really could have done without were the mice. Other than the mice, I just really enjoyed this entire book, and my only only other complaint would be it's far too short, given how much more fully all of these different plotlines could have been developed. But it's always best to leave the audience wanting more, not less (See, Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings film trilogy vs. his Hobbit film trilogy). Based on the great ending, I have to say that this is now my second favorite Orson Scott Card series, after his four original Ender novels. If only he could have pulled something like this off with the Alvin Maker books, or the Memory of Earth books, instead of letting them dissipate . . . . Oh well. My full review of the first two books in the series can be found here:
http://dadsbookreviews.blogspot.com/2011/05/pathfinder-by-orson-scott-card.html
APRIL
Station Eleven by Emily St. John Mandel (Borzoi / Alfred A. Knopf 2014) Kindle. How did the genre of post-apocalyptic survivalism, once the province of horror meisters like Stephen King or Robert R. McCammon, become so ubiquitous as to now be regularly featured in the more respectable parts of the bookstore, where books aren't classified by genre, but simply as fiction and literature, including in works clearly intended, like this novel, as highbrow literary fiction? And what does its ubiquity in our current popular culture say about us? Do we know, deep inside, that our world's current path is morally, financially, and otherwise unsustainable?
My first exposure to literary fiction was in my Senior Year of High School, as part of an honors English class in which we were all required to subscribe to the Atlantic Monthly and read the short stories which were at that time still part of its regularly featured content. I didn't really "get" literary fiction then, and I still don't fully "get it" now. "What was the point of that story exactly?" was my reaction at the time, and is still, to some extent, my reaction now. Nevertheless, I've grown to enjoy it occasionally. A well-written piece of literary fiction, like certain types of music, can linger in your mind or affect your emotions for a long time. Though capable, I am sure, of all kinds of collegiate English class symbolic decoding, such works can perhaps best be enjoyed without worrying about the point, but simply as something that affects you at some gut level and therefore has some intrinsic value that you can't really fully explain. This novel did that to me in some ways, but the effect would have been longer lasting if there had been more than two or three admirable and likable characters worth rooting for, and if the book hadn't been focused on the death of a shallow, selfish and narcissistic human being.
Letters to a Young Mormon, by Adam S. Miller (BYU Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship / Living Faith Books; 2014) Kindle. 3 out of 4. This is one man's highly personal and subjective views of the meaning of his own faith in his own life. The reader's response is likely to be equally personal and subjective. I loved the author's take (in the "letter" / chapter entitled "Work") on reliance on God's grace for salvation, and pursuing excellence and obedience for their own sake, as intrinsically valuable in and of themselves, rather than as means to another end. I also loved the letter on developing a love for the scriptures and other great works, and reading them to translate them anew for our own hearts and minds. But some of the other chapters just failed to connect, for me. One ongoing metaphor in particular didn't quite resonate with me, but perhaps I didn't understand its point. Definitely a worthwhile read. It's short enough that, even if you don't like it, there's no harm no foul.
MAY
Time Vindicates the Prophets / The World and the Prophets, by Hugh Nibley (FARMS 1954). CD and Hardcover. 3 stars out of 4. Nibley delivered this series of radio addresses in 1954 under the theme Time Vindicates the Prophets. Their text (with some footnotes to help find certain of the sources Nibley was quoting from) were later published as part of FARMS collected works of Hugh Nibley, Volume 3, under the title The World and the Prophets. They are extremely enjoyable to listen to on CD including to hear Hugh Nibley's young voice (although my copy was not in the right order, an introductory explanation of what you are about to listen to appearing at the beginning of CD 5 for some reason). They are an equally enjoyable read. This is the classic Nibley style, which, here, is primarily concerned with tracing primitive Christianity's apostate descent into a full embrace of and integration with Greek Philosophy, and comparing the original Christian teachings with the restored Gospel as understood by Joseph Smith and the Latter-day Saints. Good stuff.
The Wright Brothers by David McCullough (Simon and Schuster 2015). Hardcover. 3 stars out of 4. Not my favorite McCullough book (that honor goes to John Adams, or maybe to Mornings on Horseback), but still wonderful, vintage, McCullough. Reading him is comforting the way a nice mug of hot chocolate with whip cream on top, or some Campbell's Tomato soup (made with milk, of course) and saltine crackers, is comforting. He chooses to write about people who are admirable, and to tell us why they were admirable, giving us the same uplifting feeling we get from attending a really wonderful funeral service. This type of hagiography could be boring. But somehow, in McCullough's hands, it never is. His prose takes the reader to an early 20th Century Americana that is vivid, real, and forever lost. If we learn, along the way, how two small-town autodidacts (the Wrights never went to college, but did grow up in a house full of books), and their bicycle shop employee, driven by curiosity, and an unceasing work ethic, were able to conquer the mysteries of motorized and controlled flight for the first time in human history, so much the better. The Wrights' achievement is especially remarkable considering that they spent only perhaps $3,000.00, over a remarkably short span of time (only several weeks of which each year could be taken away from operating their own business) to get the job done, while a concurrent publicly funded effort, overseen by a man with all the prestige and backing of the Smithsonian and the U.S. Government, costing over $70,000.00 in public funds, and steered by a large team of university educated engineers and scholars, resulted in a spectacular failure, during the same month, December 1903,that the Wrights' efforts made history. (And that children, plus the part where a governmental institution later, fraudulently, claimed the publicly funded airplane had been capable of flight after all, and should be given preeminence over the Wright flyer, is all you need to know about public sector versus private sector efficiency.) But the best part of this book is the vindication story. The Wrights' efforts to perfect their flying machine, during months of trial and error and construction and experiment near their home town of Dayton, after their successes at Kitty Hawk, was largely, and stupidly, ignored by the press, both local and national, and their claim to having been first in flight came under increasing skepticism, despite the ease with which an enterprising reporter or two could have authenticated it. Those travails were put behind them in a series of spectacular demonstration flights at Le Mans France, which showed the world just how much further along the Wrights were than anyone else in the business at the time, leaving no doubt among the new profession of aviation professional, that the Wrights had to have been first, to have, by the date of the Le Mans flights, already advanced so much further than the rest of the world.
JULY
Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton (1908). Kindle. 4 Stars out of 4. I'm making my way through an omnibus collection of Chesterton's works I bought for some ridiculously low price on my Kindle. I thought about skipping this one since I'd read it a couple of years ago. I'm glad I didn't. It's even more relevant today than it was just two years ago, as time is moving increasingly more swiftly in what Chesterton described as the modern assault against reason.
Chesterton, the great popular lay Christian apologist of his day, was to his era what C.S. Lewis has been to ours. (Indeed, he was Lewis's Lewis, as his writings played a role in Lewis's conversion to Christianity.) Chesterton eventually took a very specific view of what constituted Christian truth and orthodoxy: Roman Catholicism. This has prevented him from rising to the heights of popularity which Lewis achieved, with his much more approachable mere Christianity, safe even for Latter-day Saints. This is unfortunate, as a great deal, indeed most, of Chesterton's thoughts can be appreciated without the necessity of adopting a specifically Roman Catholic viewpoint.
Chesterton lived in a time period (straddling the nineteenth and twentieth centuries) in which Europeans were losing their faith in God and traditional social structures, and placing their faith, instead, in a variety of political movements promising some version of Utopia here on earth: socialism, Marxism, fascism, Fabianism, nationalism, etc. Chesterton's writings insisted that it was only in and due to the doctrines of Christianity that the West had come to enjoy its liberties, and that supplanting Christianity with one or more of these Utopian schemes would upend that liberty. The wars which these various isms engendered in the first half of the 20th Century, and the rise of totalitarian states dedicated to one or another of these ideologies were the proof of Chesterton's prophetic pudding. Nevertheless, his warnings continued to go unheeded in the post-World War world, and many of the more absurd ideas against which he battled, in their aborning and budding stages, reemerged post-war, in the 1960s, and have now come into their full fruition.
For the modern reader, surrounded by so many of the wrecks of modernity on every side, the eerie prescience of Chesterton's paragraphs startle on almost every page. His messages were profound in and of themselves, but Chesterton made his thoughts soar, by writing in a distinct voice, somehow instantaneously both gruff and earthy, but also poetic; bordering on bombastic, but moderated by beauty. His ability to deploy clever, platitude-shattering paradoxes, to restore truths to the mentally lazy lemmings of his day, has never been matched. I could read him for hours for the sheer joy of his style: it's like eating the perfect bowl of tomato soup, or skiing in perfect conditions on snow with just the right amount of dusted powder on top of the firmer snow down beneath. That I agree with so much of the substance just makes it that much better.
This entire book is a classic and well worth reading. But my favorite section is perhaps Chapter VII The Eternal Revolution, in which Chesterton describes his own intellectual journey towards Christian belief. He narrates the tale of his confronting various arguments to which he has been exposed against a life of faith, attempting to reconcile them with other anti-Christian arguments which are made just as frequently but which raise an opposite objection, and finally rejecting or reconciling his thoughts to arrive at his own truth, only to find that his final reasoned viewpoint had been there all along, within the doctrines of Christ. Here for example is how he ends that chapter, with a deeply resonant passage on what I, as a Latter-day Saint, would call a discourse on covenants:
American Creation by Joseph J. Ellis (2007) Vintage Books 2008 Trade Paperback edition. 4 stars out of 4. As in his earlier work, Founding Brothers, Ellis does not seek, here, to exhaustively and chronologically detail the founding era, but chooses, rather, six distinct topics to address and analyze, each in its own chapter, including "The Winter" at Valley Forge, "The Argument" which brought about the creation and ratification of the Constitution, "The Conspiracy" (a chapter title which can be read in several ways) leading to the establishment of the first opposition political party in American history, and "The [Louisiana] Purchase".
The Conspiracy was, to me, the most interesting read, as I find myself increasingly fascinated by the original partisan arguments between Washington's Federalists and Jefferson's Republicans, on issues which have recurred so frequently in our subsequent politics. Nor can any one with the slightest interest in politics or history or human nature fail to be intrigued by Madison's political schizophrenia. Few men in history can claim to be the chief and most important intellectual advocate for a political position which proved as significant as Madison's push for his new nation to be given a strong and powerful central government. But to have then become the chief and most important intellectual advocate for the opposite position, the need of his new nation to have a weak and largely powerless central government, is truly astounding, especially when one considers that he largely succeeded in bringing about the changes he sought on both occasions -- before being chastened and reminded again of the perils of a weak central government, during the War of 1812, and therefore ultimately switching sides one last time, in the Nullification Crisis of 1832. If flip-flopping is a necessary political art, then Madison was a DaVinci for all times. But one thing his own life experiences can demonstrate for future generations is clear: an extremist position on either side of the Federal Government vs. States Rights question can be dangerous. If we start to hew too far in one direction, we are likely to regret it, and a course correction is in order before we fall off the road.
But the most intriguing chapter, at least in terms of telling a story I had never heard before, may be "The Treaty" detailing Washington's attempt to establish a lasting and honorable peace with the Creek Nation, as a template for establishing similar relations with other Native American tribes living East of the Mississippi. The plan failed miserably, even after successful negotiation and a full-scale celebration of a historic treaty, because the Federal Government was simply powerless, politically, financially, or militarily, to even begin any serious effort to enforce a treaty between the U.S. and the Creeks, against its own citizens, the surging tide of white settlers determined to establish their own manifest destiny by planting farms and homesteads in areas promised to the Creeks. Washington sought to uphold the virtuous republican principles of 1776, and the nation's honor, against the criticisms which he knew would inevitably follow if the new nation exterminated an existing native population, without any effort to afford them some degree of honor and sovereignty as the original occupants of the land. But not until Lincoln's time would a Federal Government exist that was powerful enough to force virtue upon a group of white people more interested in their own financial needs and interests than their souls.
Caesar and Christ, by Will Durant (1944) Hardcover. 4 Stars out of 4. Magnificent. My full review here: http://www.mytakesonthat.com/2015/10/best-books-caesar-and-christ-history-of.html
An Officer and a Spy by Robert Harris (Alfred A. Knopf 2013) Kindle/Audible 4 Stars out of 4.
Definitely the best novel I read all year and the most entertaining and engaging book of the year. I've studied enough Jewish history to have been vaguely aware of "the Dreyfus Affair" before reading this book. I knew it involved a Jewish French army officer who was wrongfully accused of treason, and was considered a historically important example of European anti-Semitism. But I didn't know much more, and learning the details by reading this novelization of the events in question was absolutely fascinating. The story is told in the first-person, present-tense, point of view, from the standpoint of unlikely hero Captain Georges Picquart: a casual anti-Semite, a secular snob who sneers at his aging and sickly mother's Catholic faith, and a bachelor who carries on a series of affairs with both married and unmarried female friends, and resents the bourgeoisie values which might lead colleagues to take any umbrage at his doing so. Only in France could such a sleazy character turn out to be Atticus Finch.
The novel opens with Picquart's narrative of his official observation of the Dreyfus degradation ceremony, during which he is as convinced of Dreyfus's guilt as anyone, though he does have misgivings about the severity of his punishment as the sole prisoner of Devil's Island, which strikes Picquart as a bit "Dumas" (author of The Man in the Iron Mask). A few months later, Picquart takes over the military intelligence unit which spearheaded the case against Dreyfus, in which capacity he stumbles upon a terrifyingly inconvenient truth: that Dreyfus is innocent, and, more importantly, that the military hierarchy will do everything within its power to suppress that fact. Picquart refuses to let them, and what happens next, if read as fiction, might be one of the best mystery / espionage / political thriller / courtroom drama novels I'd ever read. It's been a long time since I was this riveted by a novel, and I tried mightily to avoid googling how it all ended, and what finally became of whom, as French society was ripped open by the case. But this isn't just an amazingly engaging work of fiction. The story that it tells is true, and a case study of human nature and human institutions at their best and their worst. This makes it not just an amazing book, but a great one.
SEPTEMBER
A. Lincoln by Ronald C. White, Jr. (Random House 2010) Trade Paperback. 4 Stars out of 4. Well worth the read. My full review is posted here:
http://www.mytakesonthat.com/2015/09/a-lincoln-by-ronald-c-white-jr.html
OCTOBER
The Quartet by Joseph J. Ellis. (2015) Hardcover. 2.5 stars out of 4. If you are looking for a book which tells the story of the creation of America's constitution in an engaging fashion, with a compelling, page-turning, narrative, this is not it. (Ellis's footnotes offer up two books which he finds noteworthy for their readability and narrative verve: Miracle at Philadelphia by Catherine Drinker Bowen, and Plain, Honest Men: The Making of the American Constitution, by Richard Beeman). This book is more akin to watching post-game analysis on ESPN, than sitting down and watching the entire game as it unfolds. It's a wonky discursive analysis of the major players (the title's "quartet" of James Madison, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, with supporting roles by Benjamin Franklin, William Morris and Gouverneur Morris), the winning political strategies they employed at various stages to get what they wanted, and their strategic and ideological shifts at various stages of the game.
Ellis, whose books I normally thoroughly enjoy, makes several missteps here: He begins with a pedantic critique of the Gettysburg Address. He then references various debunked historical theories without sufficient explanation of the same to make the references worthwhile (if I hadn't read elsewhere about the progressive economics-based view of American history which held sway throughout academia in the first half of the 20th century, I'm not sure I would have understood the first thing Ellis was talking about when he briefly discoursed on the same). The book includes a controversial argument about the original point of the Second Amendment which, if supportable, deserved far more support than Ellis bothered to provide (apparently wanting us to take his reasoning on faith, and to answer for ourselves the numerous questions and objections which immediately come to mind in learning his theory). Finally, the book ends with a dubious attempt to turn a 19th-Century Jefferson quote into a critique of the 20th Century legal judicial doctrine of originalism (never mind that Jefferson was in France during the entire relevant time period, and, therefore having nothing to do with the Constitution's creation, should probably not be given the final word; or that the quote had nothing to do with the subject to which Ellis applies it; or that the whole point of originalism is to place some restraint on the arbitrary and potentially despotic powers which an overly powerful and overly activist judiciary might discover for themselves, and that Jefferson very much shared the modern conservative skepticism towards an activist and overly powerful judiciary).
For all of that, I am still glad I read the book, and I learned a number of things that I hadn't known or fully appreciated before, about the historical lay of the land through which the founders did their work. I had previously vaguely understood the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation, but not to the degree explored here, and I hadn't realized how unimportant that body was treated by even its own members, unable to even form a quorum to ratify the treaty that ended the Revolutionary War, because no one was bothering to attend. And Ellis is especially helpful to understanding Madison's shifting arguments and strategies at various stages of the story, from the time he spearheaded the Philadelphia conference until he finished his fight for the Bill of Rights. Madison came to understand that what he thought of as Philadelphia failures were in fact a Godsend, as the document would never have been ratified by the States had it achieved the type of clearly sovereign national government he was originally hoping for, which would have made the States largely irrelevant. This allowed Madison to play up the dual sovereignty of both State and Federal governments, in their respective spheres, in his post-Philadelphia writings, and in his debate victory over Patrick Henry and Henry's fellow Anti-Federalists at the Virginia ratification convention, which, in turn, convinced Madison of the need to create a Bill of Rights during the first Congress, in order to forestall any initiative towards a second convention designed to undo the work of the first.
NOVEMBER
Thinking Fast and Slow Daniel Kahneman (Farrar, Straus and Giroux 2011) Trade Paperback. 3 Stars out of 4. Human beings are linguistic and intuitive. But they could make better choices if their decisions were more quantitative and analytical. That they have lousy intuition for numbers makes the situation that much worse. Now let me give you 4,327 examples. This is no doubt a great and an important book. But given its major premise I must ironically use quantitative reasoning to explain its main flaw: There are too many chapters. Give me 7 paradigm shifting concepts and spend enough time on each of them that I thoroughly understand them, and I might just alter my entire worldview. You might affect my entire way of life. But give me page after page after page of paradigm shifting concept piling up upon paradigm shifting concept, and I'll drown in the numbers, and not remember anything that seemed so fascinating the first time through. Kahneman has every right to be proud of his life's work. But that didn't mean he needed to share so much of it. A bit of editing and some quantitative easing would have made all the difference. As it stands: a great reference, something to go back to again and again, but only if you can remember what you were looking for, which is less likely than it would be had the book been chopped down a bit. Still, a book that everyone should read.
What's Wrong With the World G.K. Chesterton. Kindle. 3 Stars out of 4. Things I could do all day long, for weeks, if I only had the means: Snow-ski at Park City when the snow is just right; Hike through the alps with a friend and a camera; Read G.K. Chesterton. The main thing that is wrong with the world is that too few people read G.K. Chesterton 100 years ago and therefore we have fallen into virtually every trap he so presciently foretold.
DECEMBER
The Restitution of Man: C.S. Lewis and the Case Against Scientism Michael D. Aeschliman. Paperback. 4 stars out of 4. 80 pages of pure unadulterated truth about the false ideologies which currently plague the world. Almost as great as the book which inspired it, C.S. Lewis's The Abolition of Man.
A Study in Scarlet Arthur Conan Doyle Audible. 2 stars out of 4. Sir Conan Doyle's first Sherlock Holmes adventure is two books: a detective story introducing one of the most successful genre characters in the history of pop culture, full of character touches which show just how faithful the Benedict Cumberbatch BBC version of these stories really are; and a lurid tale of Mormons, Danites, and Avenging Angels, oh my, fueled by Yellow Journalism's sensationalist takes on Mormon polygamy. If we survived this kind of 19th Century misrepresentation, hopefully "The Book of Mormon" musical won't pose too much of a danger.
Revolutionary Summer by Joseph J. Ellis (Vintage Books 2013). Trade Paperback. 4 stars out of 4. If you don't think American history is interesting, try reading this little book covering the major political and military developments of the Summer of 1776. It may just kickstart an interest. It is fascinating, engaging, compelling, page-turning. And it can only make you want to learn even more about John Adams (historically our most underappreciated founder--at long last in recent years getting his due, primarily thanks to Ellis and also David McCullough), George Washington (who learned a painful lesson in 1776, which he used to his advantage for the next 7 years), Thomas Jefferson (who had no idea of the importance of the Declaration as he was writing it), and the Howe brothers (whose hopes for reconciliation, and fears of repeating another pyrrhic Bunker Hill victory, kept the war from being won by Britain in one swift stroke, and allowed the Continental Army to live to fight another day). Just really great stuff. If we could get this kind of reading into our public schools, instead of the Textbook-by-Committee-Death-by-Boredom stuff we force our High Schoolers to read instead, Americans might actually appreciate their heritage.
FEBRUARY
Heretics by G.K. Chesterton. Kindle. 3 out of 4. Chesterton was C.S.Lewis's C.S. Lewis. I could read him for weeks on end and never get tired of his insights or his voice. Even though I am not particularly familiar with the works of H.G. Wells, Rudyard Kipling, George Bernard Shaw, and the other Chesterton contemporaries whose works are examined here, the gist of the ideas which Chesterton is tilting against are easily recognizable to anyone who has lived through the last 40 to 50 years of American life, in which the social and cultural movements which were first aborning in Chesterton's day have arrived at their full fruition. It's fascinating to know that the seeds which brought us the sexual and moral and political revolution of the stupidest of all American epochs (that which began in the 1960s, was delayed a bit during the 1980s, and came into full fruition with the reelection of Barack Obama and the Obergefell decision), were planted so long beforehand, and to read the dangers of our era's prevailing idiot ideologies being so presciently foreseen so long before their time. This precursor to Orthodoxy is the inferior book, but it's still worth reading.
Conjugal Union: What Marriage Is and Why It Matters by Patrick Lee and Robert P. George (Cambridge University Press 2014). Kindle. 3 out of 4. It is unclear why Robert P. George felt it was necessary to co-author yet another natural law theory defense of traditional marriage, after his similar involvement on what is perhaps already the definitive text: What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense, but both books are worth reading. This is especially true for those who believe the only arguments against redefined marriage are religious in nature, as the authors present a "philosophical" argument on the basis of "reason unaided by faith" which does not "presuppose . . . any revealed source of truth." (Introduction) They do an excellent job. Understanding why marriage matters from a scriptural point of view (leave and cleave, become one flesh) but also from a logical point of view will be important for anyone seeking to withstand the new inquisitions which the "tolerant" have in store for those of us who remain committed heretics, unwilling to bend to the new orthodoxies of our day.
Pathfinder by Orson Scott Card. Audible. 4 out of 4. A reread, to remember the plot before I dive into reading the final book, which was published late last year. I enjoyed this even more this time around. Either that or I'd forgotten how much I loved it the first time. The narration on audible is so fantastic that I'm still not sure if the book is as good as I think it is, or if the voice of Stefan Rudnicki, the narrator, just made it seem far more cool than it really was. In any event, great stuff, with two interesting stories ultimately melding together perfectly.
MARCH
Ruins by Orson Scott Card. Audible. 2 out of 4. A reread, to remember the plot before reading the third (and final?) book. Somehow I thought this was a trilogy, but now it's being marketed as a series, so I don't know. I enjoyed the book better this time around. Though the whiny teenage characters are still annoying. My least favorite entry in the series, but it does have some highlights and some cool ideas.
Visitors by Orson Scott Card. Kindle. 3 out of 4. A great end to this trilogy. (If it is a trilogy; which seems likely. Although the series could go on, and not all plotlines remain completely tied down, the resolution here leaves you with a sense of conclusion.) After two books of relatively straightforward plotting, with a few minor time travel digressions to establish Card's causation-is-never-destroyed time travel rules, the author decides to really let loose and have some fun here with all the possibilities of time travel. So, in the second half of the book, Card perpetuates a panoply of perplexing plotlines: one version of Rigg on earth with one version of Ram visiting the distant past; another version of Rigg on Garden with another version of Ram visiting the various wallfolds (which includes one beautifully written, highly intriguing and philosophically weighty chapter, addressing the question of why God allows bad things to happen, in the name of agency); facemasks showing their full possibilities, both scientific and literary, in descriptions brimming with possible religious allegorical application; a baby from one timeline being plucked from any parental memory of his birth and being raised in another timeline; a big plot twist with respect to the visitors; a time travel escape from the machinations of General Citizen, culminating in multiple Riggs trying to forestall the end of the world of Garden; some new planets to go along with the newly introduced wallfolds; and the two young characters who were so annoying in the second book finally coming into their own. The only thing I really could have done without were the mice. Other than the mice, I just really enjoyed this entire book, and my only only other complaint would be it's far too short, given how much more fully all of these different plotlines could have been developed. But it's always best to leave the audience wanting more, not less (See, Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings film trilogy vs. his Hobbit film trilogy). Based on the great ending, I have to say that this is now my second favorite Orson Scott Card series, after his four original Ender novels. If only he could have pulled something like this off with the Alvin Maker books, or the Memory of Earth books, instead of letting them dissipate . . . . Oh well. My full review of the first two books in the series can be found here:
http://dadsbookreviews.blogspot.com/2011/05/pathfinder-by-orson-scott-card.html
APRIL
Station Eleven by Emily St. John Mandel (Borzoi / Alfred A. Knopf 2014) Kindle. How did the genre of post-apocalyptic survivalism, once the province of horror meisters like Stephen King or Robert R. McCammon, become so ubiquitous as to now be regularly featured in the more respectable parts of the bookstore, where books aren't classified by genre, but simply as fiction and literature, including in works clearly intended, like this novel, as highbrow literary fiction? And what does its ubiquity in our current popular culture say about us? Do we know, deep inside, that our world's current path is morally, financially, and otherwise unsustainable?
My first exposure to literary fiction was in my Senior Year of High School, as part of an honors English class in which we were all required to subscribe to the Atlantic Monthly and read the short stories which were at that time still part of its regularly featured content. I didn't really "get" literary fiction then, and I still don't fully "get it" now. "What was the point of that story exactly?" was my reaction at the time, and is still, to some extent, my reaction now. Nevertheless, I've grown to enjoy it occasionally. A well-written piece of literary fiction, like certain types of music, can linger in your mind or affect your emotions for a long time. Though capable, I am sure, of all kinds of collegiate English class symbolic decoding, such works can perhaps best be enjoyed without worrying about the point, but simply as something that affects you at some gut level and therefore has some intrinsic value that you can't really fully explain. This novel did that to me in some ways, but the effect would have been longer lasting if there had been more than two or three admirable and likable characters worth rooting for, and if the book hadn't been focused on the death of a shallow, selfish and narcissistic human being.
Letters to a Young Mormon, by Adam S. Miller (BYU Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship / Living Faith Books; 2014) Kindle. 3 out of 4. This is one man's highly personal and subjective views of the meaning of his own faith in his own life. The reader's response is likely to be equally personal and subjective. I loved the author's take (in the "letter" / chapter entitled "Work") on reliance on God's grace for salvation, and pursuing excellence and obedience for their own sake, as intrinsically valuable in and of themselves, rather than as means to another end. I also loved the letter on developing a love for the scriptures and other great works, and reading them to translate them anew for our own hearts and minds. But some of the other chapters just failed to connect, for me. One ongoing metaphor in particular didn't quite resonate with me, but perhaps I didn't understand its point. Definitely a worthwhile read. It's short enough that, even if you don't like it, there's no harm no foul.
MAY
Time Vindicates the Prophets / The World and the Prophets, by Hugh Nibley (FARMS 1954). CD and Hardcover. 3 stars out of 4. Nibley delivered this series of radio addresses in 1954 under the theme Time Vindicates the Prophets. Their text (with some footnotes to help find certain of the sources Nibley was quoting from) were later published as part of FARMS collected works of Hugh Nibley, Volume 3, under the title The World and the Prophets. They are extremely enjoyable to listen to on CD including to hear Hugh Nibley's young voice (although my copy was not in the right order, an introductory explanation of what you are about to listen to appearing at the beginning of CD 5 for some reason). They are an equally enjoyable read. This is the classic Nibley style, which, here, is primarily concerned with tracing primitive Christianity's apostate descent into a full embrace of and integration with Greek Philosophy, and comparing the original Christian teachings with the restored Gospel as understood by Joseph Smith and the Latter-day Saints. Good stuff.
The Wright Brothers by David McCullough (Simon and Schuster 2015). Hardcover. 3 stars out of 4. Not my favorite McCullough book (that honor goes to John Adams, or maybe to Mornings on Horseback), but still wonderful, vintage, McCullough. Reading him is comforting the way a nice mug of hot chocolate with whip cream on top, or some Campbell's Tomato soup (made with milk, of course) and saltine crackers, is comforting. He chooses to write about people who are admirable, and to tell us why they were admirable, giving us the same uplifting feeling we get from attending a really wonderful funeral service. This type of hagiography could be boring. But somehow, in McCullough's hands, it never is. His prose takes the reader to an early 20th Century Americana that is vivid, real, and forever lost. If we learn, along the way, how two small-town autodidacts (the Wrights never went to college, but did grow up in a house full of books), and their bicycle shop employee, driven by curiosity, and an unceasing work ethic, were able to conquer the mysteries of motorized and controlled flight for the first time in human history, so much the better. The Wrights' achievement is especially remarkable considering that they spent only perhaps $3,000.00, over a remarkably short span of time (only several weeks of which each year could be taken away from operating their own business) to get the job done, while a concurrent publicly funded effort, overseen by a man with all the prestige and backing of the Smithsonian and the U.S. Government, costing over $70,000.00 in public funds, and steered by a large team of university educated engineers and scholars, resulted in a spectacular failure, during the same month, December 1903,that the Wrights' efforts made history. (And that children, plus the part where a governmental institution later, fraudulently, claimed the publicly funded airplane had been capable of flight after all, and should be given preeminence over the Wright flyer, is all you need to know about public sector versus private sector efficiency.) But the best part of this book is the vindication story. The Wrights' efforts to perfect their flying machine, during months of trial and error and construction and experiment near their home town of Dayton, after their successes at Kitty Hawk, was largely, and stupidly, ignored by the press, both local and national, and their claim to having been first in flight came under increasing skepticism, despite the ease with which an enterprising reporter or two could have authenticated it. Those travails were put behind them in a series of spectacular demonstration flights at Le Mans France, which showed the world just how much further along the Wrights were than anyone else in the business at the time, leaving no doubt among the new profession of aviation professional, that the Wrights had to have been first, to have, by the date of the Le Mans flights, already advanced so much further than the rest of the world.
JULY
Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton (1908). Kindle. 4 Stars out of 4. I'm making my way through an omnibus collection of Chesterton's works I bought for some ridiculously low price on my Kindle. I thought about skipping this one since I'd read it a couple of years ago. I'm glad I didn't. It's even more relevant today than it was just two years ago, as time is moving increasingly more swiftly in what Chesterton described as the modern assault against reason.
Chesterton, the great popular lay Christian apologist of his day, was to his era what C.S. Lewis has been to ours. (Indeed, he was Lewis's Lewis, as his writings played a role in Lewis's conversion to Christianity.) Chesterton eventually took a very specific view of what constituted Christian truth and orthodoxy: Roman Catholicism. This has prevented him from rising to the heights of popularity which Lewis achieved, with his much more approachable mere Christianity, safe even for Latter-day Saints. This is unfortunate, as a great deal, indeed most, of Chesterton's thoughts can be appreciated without the necessity of adopting a specifically Roman Catholic viewpoint.
Chesterton lived in a time period (straddling the nineteenth and twentieth centuries) in which Europeans were losing their faith in God and traditional social structures, and placing their faith, instead, in a variety of political movements promising some version of Utopia here on earth: socialism, Marxism, fascism, Fabianism, nationalism, etc. Chesterton's writings insisted that it was only in and due to the doctrines of Christianity that the West had come to enjoy its liberties, and that supplanting Christianity with one or more of these Utopian schemes would upend that liberty. The wars which these various isms engendered in the first half of the 20th Century, and the rise of totalitarian states dedicated to one or another of these ideologies were the proof of Chesterton's prophetic pudding. Nevertheless, his warnings continued to go unheeded in the post-World War world, and many of the more absurd ideas against which he battled, in their aborning and budding stages, reemerged post-war, in the 1960s, and have now come into their full fruition.
For the modern reader, surrounded by so many of the wrecks of modernity on every side, the eerie prescience of Chesterton's paragraphs startle on almost every page. His messages were profound in and of themselves, but Chesterton made his thoughts soar, by writing in a distinct voice, somehow instantaneously both gruff and earthy, but also poetic; bordering on bombastic, but moderated by beauty. His ability to deploy clever, platitude-shattering paradoxes, to restore truths to the mentally lazy lemmings of his day, has never been matched. I could read him for hours for the sheer joy of his style: it's like eating the perfect bowl of tomato soup, or skiing in perfect conditions on snow with just the right amount of dusted powder on top of the firmer snow down beneath. That I agree with so much of the substance just makes it that much better.
This entire book is a classic and well worth reading. But my favorite section is perhaps Chapter VII The Eternal Revolution, in which Chesterton describes his own intellectual journey towards Christian belief. He narrates the tale of his confronting various arguments to which he has been exposed against a life of faith, attempting to reconcile them with other anti-Christian arguments which are made just as frequently but which raise an opposite objection, and finally rejecting or reconciling his thoughts to arrive at his own truth, only to find that his final reasoned viewpoint had been there all along, within the doctrines of Christ. Here for example is how he ends that chapter, with a deeply resonant passage on what I, as a Latter-day Saint, would call a discourse on covenants:
"I could never conceive or tolerate any Utopia which did not leave to me the liberty for which I chiefly care, the liberty to bind myself. Complete anarchy would not merely make it impossible to have any discipline or fidelity; it would also make it impossible to have any fun. To take an obvious instance, it would not be worthwhile to bet if a bet were not binding. The dissolution of all contracts would not only ruin morality but spoil sport. . . . [T]he perils, rewards, punishments, and fulfilments of an adventure must be real, or the adventure is only a shifting and heartless nightmare. If I bet I must be made to pay, or there is no poetry in betting. If I challenge I must be made to fight, or there is no poetry in challenging. If I vow to be faithful I must be cursed when I am unfaithful, or there is no fun in vowing. . . . And this is my last instance of the things that I should ask, and ask imperatively, of any social paradise; I should ask to be kept to my bargain, to have my oaths and engagements taken seriously; I should ask Utopia to avenge my honour on myself. All of my modern Utopian friends look at each other rather doubtfully, for their ultimate hope is the dissolution of all special ties. But again I seem to hear, like a kind of echo, an answer from beyond the world. 'You will have real obligations, and therefore real adventures when you get to my Utopia. But the hardest obligation and the steepest adventure is to get there.'"AUGUST
American Creation by Joseph J. Ellis (2007) Vintage Books 2008 Trade Paperback edition. 4 stars out of 4. As in his earlier work, Founding Brothers, Ellis does not seek, here, to exhaustively and chronologically detail the founding era, but chooses, rather, six distinct topics to address and analyze, each in its own chapter, including "The Winter" at Valley Forge, "The Argument" which brought about the creation and ratification of the Constitution, "The Conspiracy" (a chapter title which can be read in several ways) leading to the establishment of the first opposition political party in American history, and "The [Louisiana] Purchase".
The Conspiracy was, to me, the most interesting read, as I find myself increasingly fascinated by the original partisan arguments between Washington's Federalists and Jefferson's Republicans, on issues which have recurred so frequently in our subsequent politics. Nor can any one with the slightest interest in politics or history or human nature fail to be intrigued by Madison's political schizophrenia. Few men in history can claim to be the chief and most important intellectual advocate for a political position which proved as significant as Madison's push for his new nation to be given a strong and powerful central government. But to have then become the chief and most important intellectual advocate for the opposite position, the need of his new nation to have a weak and largely powerless central government, is truly astounding, especially when one considers that he largely succeeded in bringing about the changes he sought on both occasions -- before being chastened and reminded again of the perils of a weak central government, during the War of 1812, and therefore ultimately switching sides one last time, in the Nullification Crisis of 1832. If flip-flopping is a necessary political art, then Madison was a DaVinci for all times. But one thing his own life experiences can demonstrate for future generations is clear: an extremist position on either side of the Federal Government vs. States Rights question can be dangerous. If we start to hew too far in one direction, we are likely to regret it, and a course correction is in order before we fall off the road.
But the most intriguing chapter, at least in terms of telling a story I had never heard before, may be "The Treaty" detailing Washington's attempt to establish a lasting and honorable peace with the Creek Nation, as a template for establishing similar relations with other Native American tribes living East of the Mississippi. The plan failed miserably, even after successful negotiation and a full-scale celebration of a historic treaty, because the Federal Government was simply powerless, politically, financially, or militarily, to even begin any serious effort to enforce a treaty between the U.S. and the Creeks, against its own citizens, the surging tide of white settlers determined to establish their own manifest destiny by planting farms and homesteads in areas promised to the Creeks. Washington sought to uphold the virtuous republican principles of 1776, and the nation's honor, against the criticisms which he knew would inevitably follow if the new nation exterminated an existing native population, without any effort to afford them some degree of honor and sovereignty as the original occupants of the land. But not until Lincoln's time would a Federal Government exist that was powerful enough to force virtue upon a group of white people more interested in their own financial needs and interests than their souls.
Caesar and Christ, by Will Durant (1944) Hardcover. 4 Stars out of 4. Magnificent. My full review here: http://www.mytakesonthat.com/2015/10/best-books-caesar-and-christ-history-of.html
An Officer and a Spy by Robert Harris (Alfred A. Knopf 2013) Kindle/Audible 4 Stars out of 4.
Definitely the best novel I read all year and the most entertaining and engaging book of the year. I've studied enough Jewish history to have been vaguely aware of "the Dreyfus Affair" before reading this book. I knew it involved a Jewish French army officer who was wrongfully accused of treason, and was considered a historically important example of European anti-Semitism. But I didn't know much more, and learning the details by reading this novelization of the events in question was absolutely fascinating. The story is told in the first-person, present-tense, point of view, from the standpoint of unlikely hero Captain Georges Picquart: a casual anti-Semite, a secular snob who sneers at his aging and sickly mother's Catholic faith, and a bachelor who carries on a series of affairs with both married and unmarried female friends, and resents the bourgeoisie values which might lead colleagues to take any umbrage at his doing so. Only in France could such a sleazy character turn out to be Atticus Finch.
The novel opens with Picquart's narrative of his official observation of the Dreyfus degradation ceremony, during which he is as convinced of Dreyfus's guilt as anyone, though he does have misgivings about the severity of his punishment as the sole prisoner of Devil's Island, which strikes Picquart as a bit "Dumas" (author of The Man in the Iron Mask). A few months later, Picquart takes over the military intelligence unit which spearheaded the case against Dreyfus, in which capacity he stumbles upon a terrifyingly inconvenient truth: that Dreyfus is innocent, and, more importantly, that the military hierarchy will do everything within its power to suppress that fact. Picquart refuses to let them, and what happens next, if read as fiction, might be one of the best mystery / espionage / political thriller / courtroom drama novels I'd ever read. It's been a long time since I was this riveted by a novel, and I tried mightily to avoid googling how it all ended, and what finally became of whom, as French society was ripped open by the case. But this isn't just an amazingly engaging work of fiction. The story that it tells is true, and a case study of human nature and human institutions at their best and their worst. This makes it not just an amazing book, but a great one.
SEPTEMBER
A. Lincoln by Ronald C. White, Jr. (Random House 2010) Trade Paperback. 4 Stars out of 4. Well worth the read. My full review is posted here:
http://www.mytakesonthat.com/2015/09/a-lincoln-by-ronald-c-white-jr.html
OCTOBER
The Quartet by Joseph J. Ellis. (2015) Hardcover. 2.5 stars out of 4. If you are looking for a book which tells the story of the creation of America's constitution in an engaging fashion, with a compelling, page-turning, narrative, this is not it. (Ellis's footnotes offer up two books which he finds noteworthy for their readability and narrative verve: Miracle at Philadelphia by Catherine Drinker Bowen, and Plain, Honest Men: The Making of the American Constitution, by Richard Beeman). This book is more akin to watching post-game analysis on ESPN, than sitting down and watching the entire game as it unfolds. It's a wonky discursive analysis of the major players (the title's "quartet" of James Madison, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, with supporting roles by Benjamin Franklin, William Morris and Gouverneur Morris), the winning political strategies they employed at various stages to get what they wanted, and their strategic and ideological shifts at various stages of the game.
Ellis, whose books I normally thoroughly enjoy, makes several missteps here: He begins with a pedantic critique of the Gettysburg Address. He then references various debunked historical theories without sufficient explanation of the same to make the references worthwhile (if I hadn't read elsewhere about the progressive economics-based view of American history which held sway throughout academia in the first half of the 20th century, I'm not sure I would have understood the first thing Ellis was talking about when he briefly discoursed on the same). The book includes a controversial argument about the original point of the Second Amendment which, if supportable, deserved far more support than Ellis bothered to provide (apparently wanting us to take his reasoning on faith, and to answer for ourselves the numerous questions and objections which immediately come to mind in learning his theory). Finally, the book ends with a dubious attempt to turn a 19th-Century Jefferson quote into a critique of the 20th Century legal judicial doctrine of originalism (never mind that Jefferson was in France during the entire relevant time period, and, therefore having nothing to do with the Constitution's creation, should probably not be given the final word; or that the quote had nothing to do with the subject to which Ellis applies it; or that the whole point of originalism is to place some restraint on the arbitrary and potentially despotic powers which an overly powerful and overly activist judiciary might discover for themselves, and that Jefferson very much shared the modern conservative skepticism towards an activist and overly powerful judiciary).
For all of that, I am still glad I read the book, and I learned a number of things that I hadn't known or fully appreciated before, about the historical lay of the land through which the founders did their work. I had previously vaguely understood the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation, but not to the degree explored here, and I hadn't realized how unimportant that body was treated by even its own members, unable to even form a quorum to ratify the treaty that ended the Revolutionary War, because no one was bothering to attend. And Ellis is especially helpful to understanding Madison's shifting arguments and strategies at various stages of the story, from the time he spearheaded the Philadelphia conference until he finished his fight for the Bill of Rights. Madison came to understand that what he thought of as Philadelphia failures were in fact a Godsend, as the document would never have been ratified by the States had it achieved the type of clearly sovereign national government he was originally hoping for, which would have made the States largely irrelevant. This allowed Madison to play up the dual sovereignty of both State and Federal governments, in their respective spheres, in his post-Philadelphia writings, and in his debate victory over Patrick Henry and Henry's fellow Anti-Federalists at the Virginia ratification convention, which, in turn, convinced Madison of the need to create a Bill of Rights during the first Congress, in order to forestall any initiative towards a second convention designed to undo the work of the first.
NOVEMBER
Thinking Fast and Slow Daniel Kahneman (Farrar, Straus and Giroux 2011) Trade Paperback. 3 Stars out of 4. Human beings are linguistic and intuitive. But they could make better choices if their decisions were more quantitative and analytical. That they have lousy intuition for numbers makes the situation that much worse. Now let me give you 4,327 examples. This is no doubt a great and an important book. But given its major premise I must ironically use quantitative reasoning to explain its main flaw: There are too many chapters. Give me 7 paradigm shifting concepts and spend enough time on each of them that I thoroughly understand them, and I might just alter my entire worldview. You might affect my entire way of life. But give me page after page after page of paradigm shifting concept piling up upon paradigm shifting concept, and I'll drown in the numbers, and not remember anything that seemed so fascinating the first time through. Kahneman has every right to be proud of his life's work. But that didn't mean he needed to share so much of it. A bit of editing and some quantitative easing would have made all the difference. As it stands: a great reference, something to go back to again and again, but only if you can remember what you were looking for, which is less likely than it would be had the book been chopped down a bit. Still, a book that everyone should read.
What's Wrong With the World G.K. Chesterton. Kindle. 3 Stars out of 4. Things I could do all day long, for weeks, if I only had the means: Snow-ski at Park City when the snow is just right; Hike through the alps with a friend and a camera; Read G.K. Chesterton. The main thing that is wrong with the world is that too few people read G.K. Chesterton 100 years ago and therefore we have fallen into virtually every trap he so presciently foretold.
DECEMBER
The Restitution of Man: C.S. Lewis and the Case Against Scientism Michael D. Aeschliman. Paperback. 4 stars out of 4. 80 pages of pure unadulterated truth about the false ideologies which currently plague the world. Almost as great as the book which inspired it, C.S. Lewis's The Abolition of Man.
A Study in Scarlet Arthur Conan Doyle Audible. 2 stars out of 4. Sir Conan Doyle's first Sherlock Holmes adventure is two books: a detective story introducing one of the most successful genre characters in the history of pop culture, full of character touches which show just how faithful the Benedict Cumberbatch BBC version of these stories really are; and a lurid tale of Mormons, Danites, and Avenging Angels, oh my, fueled by Yellow Journalism's sensationalist takes on Mormon polygamy. If we survived this kind of 19th Century misrepresentation, hopefully "The Book of Mormon" musical won't pose too much of a danger.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)