Some Dumb Book List

That was floating around Facebook. Apparently the BBC released it and predicted that most people had only read six novels on the list. I don't think that's true but it makes people like me feel good because I have read more than six. Also I noticed that a lot of titles were books we have posted about on this here blog, and it's late at night and I'm stressed and need something to distract me. Let's do it! (bolded titles are the ones I've read).

1 Pride and Prejudice - Jane Austen

2 The Lord of the Rings - JRR Tolkien

3 Jane Eyre - Charlotte Bronte

4 Harry Potter series - JK Rowling

5 To Kill a Mockingbird - Harper Lee

6 The Bible

7 Wuthering Heights - Emily Bronte

8 Nineteen Eighty Four - George Orwell

9 His Dark Materials - Philip Pullman

10 Great Expectations - Charles Dickens

11 Little Women - Louisa M Alcott

12 Tess of the D’Urbervilles - Thomas Hardy

13 Catch 22 - Joseph Heller

14 Complete Works of Shakespeare

15 Rebecca - Daphne Du Maurier

16 The Hobbit - JRR Tolkien

17 Birdsong - Sebastian Faulk

18 Catcher in the Rye - JD Salinger

19 The Time Traveler’s Wife - Audrey Niffenegger

20 Middlemarch - George Eliot

21 Gone With The Wind - Margaret Mitchell

22 The Great Gatsby - F Scott Fitzgerald

24 War and Peace - Leo Tolstoy

25 The Hitch Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams

27 Crime and Punishment - Fyodor Dostoyevsky

28 Grapes of Wrath - John Steinbeck

29 Alice in Wonderland - Lewis Carroll

30 The Wind in the Willows - Kenneth Grahame

31 Anna Karenina - Leo Tolstoy

32 David Copperfield - Charles Dickens

33 Chronicles of Narnia - CS Lewis

34 Emma -Jane Austen

35 Persuasion - Jane Austen

36 The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe - CS Lewis

37 The Kite Runner - Khaled Hosseini

38 Captain Corelli’s Mandolin - Louis De Bernieres

39 Memoirs of a Geisha - Arthur Golden

40 Winnie the Pooh - A.A. Milne

41 Animal Farm - George Orwell

42 The Da Vinci Code - Dan Brown

43 One Hundred Years of Solitude - Gabriel Garcia Marquez

44 A Prayer for Owen Meaney - John Irving

45 The Woman in White - Wilkie Collins

46 Anne of Green Gables - LM Montgomery

47 Far From The Madding Crowd - Thomas Hardy

48 The Handmaid’s Tale - Margaret Atwood

49 Lord of the Flies - William Golding

50 Atonement - Ian McEwan

51 Life of Pi - Yann Martel

52 Dune - Frank Herbert

53 Cold Comfort Farm - Stella Gibbons

54 Sense and Sensibility - Jane Austen

55 A Suitable Boy - Vikram Seth

56 The Shadow of the Wind - Carlos Ruiz Zafon

57 A Tale Of Two Cities - Charles Dickens

58 Brave New World - Aldous Huxley

59 The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time - Mark Haddon

60 Love In The Time Of Cholera - Gabriel Garcia Marquez

61 Of Mice and Men - John Steinbeck

62 Lolita - Vladimir Nabokov

63 The Secret History - Donna Tartt

64 The Lovely Bones - Alice Sebold

65 Count of Monte Cristo - Alexandre Dumas

66 On The Road - Jack Kerouac

67 Jude the Obscure - Thomas Hardy

68 Bridget Jones’s Diary - Helen Fielding

69 Midnight’s Children - Salman Rushdie

70 Moby Dick - Herman Melville

71 Oliver Twist - Charles Dickens

72 Dracula - Bram Stoker

73 The Secret Garden - Frances Hodgson Burnett

74 Notes From A Small Island - Bill Bryson

75 Ulysses - James Joyce

76 The Inferno - Dante

77 Swallows and Amazons - Arthur Ransome

78 Germinal - Emile Zola

79 Vanity Fair - William Makepeace Thackeray

80 Possession - AS Byatt

81 A Christmas Carol - Charles Dickens

82 Cloud Atlas - David Mitchell

83 The Color Purple - Alice Walker

84 The Remains of the Day - Kazuo Ishiguro

85 Madame Bovary - Gustave Flaubert

86 A Fine Balance - Rohinton Mistry

87 Charlotte’s Web - E.B. White

88 The Five People You Meet In Heaven - Mitch Albom

89 Adventures of Sherlock Holmes - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

90 The Faraway Tree Collection - Enid Blyton

91 Heart of Darkness - Joseph Conrad

92 The Little Prince - Antoine De Saint-Exupery

93 The Wasp Factory - Iain Banks

94 Watership Down - Richard Adams

95 A Confederacy of Dunces - John Kennedy Toole

96 A Town Like Alice - Nevil Shute

97 The Three Musketeers - Alexandre Dumas

98 Hamlet - William Shakespeare

99 Charlie and the Chocolate Factory - Roald Dahl

100 Les Miserables - Victor Hugo

I have read 43 of the books on this list. I didn't count the ones that I have only partially read, like the Complete Works of Shakespeare, Sherlock Holmes, or Middlemarch. However, if it turns out that Ken has read more of these books than I, then I fully intend on counting those partial reads.

ATTENTION DISTANT BLOGGERS

I just found out a fun fact about Kelsha's post "The Little Prince" I will place this fun fact as a comment on that post.

Britania's Two Greatest Men of Mystery. . . Well three if you count Watson.

Sorry no picture available I'm on a cluttered mac.

I just read Sherlock and Watson's second adventure, The Sign of the Four. I personally liked it better than a Study in Scarlet. This book is where we are first introduced to Holmes' recreational cocaine use. According Homes he only shoots up when he's between cases to quiet his mind. It is also in this book that we meet Miss Mary Morstan, the character we are introduced to in the movie as Watson's recent fiance. In The Sign of the Four, Watson instantly falls in love with her but despairs because as soon as he and Holmes track down Miss Morstan's treasure she'll be rich and want nothing to do with him, or WORSE, suspect him of being a gold digger. Well precious gem digger as is the case. Fortunately the treasure is never recovered for which both lovers rejoice. I read the first page of the next book, A Scandal in Bohemia, and they are married. It was also there that Irene Adler is introduced, "the woman . . . In his eyes she eclipses and predominates the whole of her sex." But I haven't read on to discover anymore of this character.
I've been too busy zipping through the short stories of Britain's second man of mystery. Commander Bond, James Bond. I found this lovely little book at Sam Weller's new, used, and rare book store, it's not rare or used, falling under the new category. It's been a fun little read though I'm embarrassed to take it on the train because there's a topless woman dominating the front cover. The best story so far has been For Your Eyes Only, where an elderly couple is gunned down in Jamaica by Cuban thugs under the direction of a former Gestapo officer looking to take over their lovely estate. What these thugs didn't know was that old man Havelock had a powerful best man at his wedding. This best man was none other than the director of England's secret service, M. This murder chaffed M, who sent Bond as justice's hammer. But the thugs also didn't know that the Havelock's young daughter, whose pony and dog they'd killed as incentive for her to sell the desired property, was raised in Jamaica's jungle and had become quite sufficient with a bow. Jamaica's Catniss didn't hesitate to stalk her parent's killers in the mountains of Vermont with her shiny bow. Sweet fate it was that the two stalkers, Bond and Miss Havelock, should happen upon each other in the woods. After "taking out the trash" they hiked back to Canada to make sweet love in the kozy motel. But while this was the best short story so far it wasn't the most interesting fun Bond fact I've come across.
Fun side note is that Bond lost his virginity at the tender age of 16 to a Parisian hooker, because some well known bar tender had advised that when in Paris the adventuresome youth should tell his cabby, "Sank Roo Doe Noo" whatever that means, he lost his notebook in the process as well. Notebook being, I assume, limy for wallet.
But this still isn't what I've found most interesting, or, why I've bothered to post, what I want to put up for conversation. Perhaps like me you were disappointed with the latest Bond film installment Quantum of Solace. To me nothing new was learned and nothing resolved in the greater story line that Casino Royal had eluded to, Bond was simply put into a holding pattern. Well, in Ian Flemming's world (Flemming also wrote Chitty Chitty Bang Bang) Quantum of Solace is one of his short stories that actually has very little to do with Bond. In Quantum of Solace James Bond is sitting with the governor of Bermuda who is relating a tragic love-less story. This tragic tale is about an introverted government worker who married a flight attendant because she was the first woman ever to pay attention to him. He was transfered to Bermuda where she had a very public affair with one the the local playboys. This so broke the man that the Governor developed a term for what happened. The term he coined was . . . the Law of the Quantum of Solace. Which "high-sounding" title describes, "the death of common humanity in one of the partners." Here the Governor commentating on his observations of every human relationship, and uses it in connection with, "That particular insult to the ego--worse, to the instinct of self-preservation". Bond interprets the Quantum of Solace as, "Human beings are very insecure. When the other person not only makes you feel insecure but actually seems to want to destroy you, it's obviously the end. The Quantum of Solace stands at zero. You've got to get away to save yourself."
Now to the Conversation I'm trying to generate. Hopefully after discussing what we've got here we will be able to pull deeper understanding from the film Quantum of Solace.
Questions: I haven't looked up the definition of Quantum or Solace to get an exact feel of the usage in general or here together. Also I've quoted so much because my mind in not fully wrapped around the Governor's term, so I'd like your takes on what you think is going on. Finally any insights on how the Quantum of Solace as a term can be used to interpret the movie. This final query is of course assuming that the screen writers read this short story and didn't just steal the name because it's a Bond story and sounded cool.

Intelligent Design, pt. 1

The days of apathy are over. I officially have way too much free time at work that can be spent neither reading nor doing anything genuinely productive, so I am forced to reinstill the glory of activity to this blog. Just kidding. I've missed reading and writing on this blog and the time for repentance is nigh.

<----- This is my current read. I'm not done with it yet (it is fairly long, especially for a book on DNA), but I intend to give you a basic summary of what I've read so far as well as a finisher once the book's done.

It's written by Stephen C. Meyer (DOESN"T THAT SOUND AN AWFUL LOT LIKE STEPHAN I MEYER?!), a smart guy with good credentials.

It's basic premise is that the DNA molecule is too complicated to have arisen by any origin-of-life model currently employed, and that all sound science can be seen to point to an intelligent Creator as the architect of the cell's complexity and life's capacity for adaptation and progression.

A short background: Until the 19th century (with a few notable exceptions) the majority of the science community tended to support the idea that all nature and especially that of living nature tended to support the inference that some grand and brilliant Designer had created all things and guided their development in order to help them to adapt to their various environments.

The advent of the theory of natural selection changed all this.

While Darwin certainly didn't begin the natural selection movement, in so many ways he has generally come to personify it. His On the Origin of Species is considered a foundational work in the science of natural selection, and if not scientifically at least ecclesiastically seems to stand as the bible of evolutionists. However, lest the faithful tremble, they can rest confident in the knowledge that Darwin's book and the subsequent movement of evolutionary design are not all power/rational/knowledgeable. Darwin himself admitted that his theory did not account for the actual origin of life, but only served to show that once initiated species could adapt to their environment through the process of natural selection that we're all familiar with. He trusted to future science to establish that the beginning of life could in fact have happened without divine intervention.

It hasn't.

This book attacks several of the main theories proposed to justify a naturalistic solution to the origin of life. I've read about the impossibility of chance resulting in life, natural laws predestinating molecules to combine in such a way as to form life, and that RNA molecules came first and prefaced the development of later, more mature DNA molecules. Stephen has various darts that seem to take these fanciful creatures down, but the most prevalent and significant are the absolutely minute chances of random events creating the condition necessary for life (Appx. 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000, or one in a trillion trillion), and the necessity for preexisting information to fill on all the gaps of the inevitable combination theory and RNA first, as well as the sheer complexity of the DNA molecule.

I'm not done with it yet, but I think it's going to go down as one of the most influential books I've ever read, and thus will surely gain my recommendation for you to read it at one time. While complex it is also well written and accessible (as is told by the fact that I, the most unscientific and biology-hating person on the planet can read it), and well worth any time invested.

SO THERE! A POST FROM ME! AND MORE TO FOLLOW!

In the Soup

The long drought is over! I just finished The Inimitable Jeeves by P.G. Wodehouse, and oh boy was it great.

It was basically the story of Bertie Wooster, a not-very-bright member of the Idle Rich in London society, who has a genius servant named Jeeves who is always getting him out of scrapes. It was published in 1924 and is chock-full of phrases like "old boy" and "in the soup" and "rummy" and "cove." It's very funny and very light, and perfect for mid-semester stress reading. I will probably be reading some more P.G. Wodehouse soon; I was impressed.

Also, you know the website ask.com? Formerly known as askjeeves.com? That Jeeves is the same Jeeves as P.G. Wodehouse's character! Isn't that crazy business!

I don't have much else to say about it, except I think that British humor might be my favorite of them all. I know this is a pathetically short entry; I apologize. I haven't been reading much of anything but textbooks and comic books, but next up I want to check out "Benito Cereno," a short story by Herman Melville.

To Post or not to Post? Or another attempt at titling: If a post falls onto the blog will anyone comment?

I had always wanted to see this movie. I guess cause I was in 8th grade when it came out and wanted to see every movie but never could because I was, well, stuck in 8th grade. Well 11 years later I finally got my chance on a recent trip to Vegas. It was playing on FX right before I was to head for home. I got to watch the whole thing. Though it was really suspenseful and I was alone in the room. Naturally my skin was crawly. At the end I learned it was based on a book. I determined to buy it and read it. I was a little nervous because there was a significant homosexual thread through the movie but I got the book anyway and I'm glad I did. Because the movie's thread turned into a small piece of lint in the book. At the end of the movie Tom Ripley hooks up with a guy (who he then strangles on a boat to Greece for no apparent reason). This never happens in the book. At one point in the book Dickie Greenleaf announces that he's, "Not queer" to Tom Ripley. He says this after walking in on Tom all dressed up in his clothes talking to himself. It is true that the aunt who raised Tom referred to him as a sissy, and that Tom is repulsed by the thought of Marge, the main female character's, underwear laying on his furniture. Tom starts out being obsessed with Dickie and the thought of living with him forever. However, I would argue that this is the beginning of Tom's true obsession. Which is Dickie lifestyle and the freedom, gentlemanly class, and exploratory opportunities it offers. Because as soon as Dickie expresses repulsion and disdain for Tom, Tom kills him. Tom is obsessed with the lifestyle, originally wanting to just be with Dickie in order to achieve it. When this first less malignant option is no longer available he takes the next most logical step. . . Disposing of Dickie by the deft use of an oar, and convenient rope and cement block. He is then free to assume Dickie's identity, and who among us would not do the same! An ugly "walleyed" ginger kid gets in the way and is neatly disposed of as well.
TOLEDO! This book was really, really great! But in a freaky, freaky way. First off I was totally sucked in. I shared Tom's world. This is my favorite thing about books, when they suck you in and you literally share the experiences with the character's. I'll admit I was cheering for Tom the whole time. The killing of Dickie was written in a business like tone, and with Tom you forget that it really happened. It was just an unfortunate necessity. We didn't really want Dickie to die, but he left no other alternative. As a sociopath Mr. Tom Ripley only gets upset when he thinks he might get caught. I sometimes confused this with remorse but then I mentally checked the timing, and he only freaked out when things began to close in around him. I freaked out to! I wanted him to pull it off. But he sails through and I was glad he did. Intense!!

Environmental/Nature Writing Assignment

Here's a paper I just wrote. The assignment was "Sensory Impressions". We had to go out into nature and commune. Eyes closed for 10 minutes. All comments are welcome, except negative ones. Because I really just want to be told how awesome I am.




AJ Bell
Sensory Impressions
WRTG 4080

Quaking Winds

I quietly attempt to find a spot resembling the one in my head, or at least one filling a certain set of requirements. It's cooler today, I'll need sunshine, but not too much, not a complete clearing. Because trees directly overhead are also needed, like front row seats at the symphony. I pass a couple of prospects. I need more than just sunshine: soft ground cover, minimal amount of cattle remnants, mixed with an absolute absence of ants. This one should do, the degree of slope might even improve my comfort. Yes, this will do nicely. The light warms my skin as I settle in, muscles relaxing, molding to the ground. Now I wait, eyes shut. Wait, for the forest's breath to come. . . so it can sing.
The first wave approaches, breaking quietly. Initially it's as though I've just stopped talking, and in this new stillness a distant waterfall joins the conversation. But a water fall would speak in one tone, this sound is building. Steadily it grows, moving closer, louder as more aspen leaves join in. The ringing rustle reaches the leaves directly above, and the light outside my eyelids begins to flash yellow and orange. Then something unexpected, different, new. I've been here before. Sat among the aspens as the wind made them sing. I knew their song. I intentionally came today, to this spot to hear it. But today more of me joins in. Perhaps it's because today I closed my eyes, closed off that sense that others came alive. Today I don't see the trees, their little green leaves dancing in wind and light. I feel them. Today though still I feel movement, as sensation of swirling wind, sound of swaying trees cause my muscles to lightly contract and release in concentric waves across my body.
Before I laid down I wondered how long consciousness would last, how long I could lay peacefully with my eyes closed before sleep took me. The answer never came, only suspicions. Curiously, my eyes opened on their own, I quickly shut them again, but there was a change. I must have slipped away because as another breeze came in the leaves dance, but not the light. I tip my head back to gaze at the sun. It's now smiling back with no trees in its grin. The wind has changed to, not its sound, not its motion, but its attitude. Instead of rocking me in waves, the breeze comes in soft. It hits my face and causes a coolness to spread across my skin. I extend into this touch as into a lover's kiss. It kisses my arm.
That arm later receives another sensation, one potentially less friendly. Not wanting to acknowledge my first reaction, I hold as still as possible just in case it was only the brushing of grass. Unfortunately movement continues. They've found me. I lift up my arm to flick their little black and red bodies off into the void. A couple more flicks, a brush here, there, and I sync back in. I wonder if there are any woodpeckers around, there normally are. As if he heard my thoughts, drumming begins, pause, more hollow drumming. My thoughts deepen, and I fancy that he felt me missing him; drummed out to tell me he did. Have wind and trees, he and I have become one? I smile at my own profoundness and proposed power. But I soon question this. Perhaps my ears dulled by a sinus infection only caught his first drummings enough for me to subconsciously think “woodpecker”. Fully registering “woodpecker” only after his second set began. This doubt couples with the coolness which no longer softly spreads because it has conquered, add to this one of Grandpa's cows deciding to move through the area bellering all the way. Time's up. I send a couple more ants on there way as I get up. Then stalk off, suddenly self-conscious. When did my feet and jeans get so loud?

If We Burn

Oh man oh man oh man oh man.

I have discovered the Holy Grail of Awesome, and it is the third book in the Hunger Games trilogy, Mockingjay. Which I finished early this morning.

I don't want to spoil anything for anyone. I want everyone who reads this book to go into it completely fresh and unsullied, with only their own biases/expectations in tow. I will only leave you with my opinions of this 390-page tome of greatness.

To help you fully understand how much I loved this book, I will say this: I had a big, big day today. I had to pack all of my things and move up to my new apartment in Logan, plus at one I had a telephone interview for a Disney College internship, which I desperately want to get. Today was a day that needed a good night's rest preceding it.

However, after acquiring the book and arriving home at 1:30 a.m., I couldn't stop reading. I literally could not stop. Until I finished it at around 6 a.m.

Needless to say, today has been a blur of zombie-packing and fake cheeriness. All because of Mockingjay.

My theory for why I could not stop reading is that Collins' writing pulls you into her sparse, horrifying world and makes you feel like you have to be there. I couldn't put the book down because it would have felt like I was abandoning a friend.

On a final note, I had a nightmare about lizards last night.

READ THIS BOOK AND THEN CALL ME SO WE CAN GEEK OUT.

Le Petit Prince

One of my most favoritest books growing up was The Little Prince. It is a short story written by Antoine de Saint Exupéry. Originally the book was written in French, but there are several really good translations. I found my old copy of it laying around the other day and read it in about an hour. I forgot how much I loved it. 


The plot is basically that of a small prince that lives on an asteroid and is visiting Earth where he runs into a pilot that has broken down in the dessert. The pilot then proceeds to discover the wonderful adventures the prince has recently been on traveling around space. It is a very simple book fraught with complicated meaning if you care to look into it, which you don't have to if you don't want to bother.


Turns out there is a bunch of movie adaptations of the short story the most prominent of which involves Gene Wilder playing the role of a fox....I have been terrified of Gene Wilder ever since I saw Willy Wonka and The Chocolate Factory (His creepy eyes mixed with his unreal intensity I think. It's just chocolate man--Lighten up!) Needless to say the man finds a way, in my opinion, of making everything he is involved in creepy. I will prove it. 


First read the quote from the book below:

(The little prince has just finished taming a wild fox and has to leave it in the wild to continue on his adventure) --The little prince went away, to look again at the roses. "You are not at all like my rose," he said. "As yet you are nothing. No one has tamed you, and you have tamed no one. You are like my fox when I first knew him. He was only a fox like a hundred thousand other foxes. But I have made a friend, and now he is unique in all the world." And the roses were very much embarrassed. "You are beautiful, but you are empty,"...... 
And he went back to meet the fox. "Goodbye" he said.
"Goodbye," said the fox. "And now here is my secret, a very simple secret: It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."....
"It is the time you have wasted for your rose that makes your rose so important.
"Men have forgotten this truth," said the fox. "But you must not forget it. You become responsible, forever, for what you have tamed."--

Now, watch the clip from the movie of it on YouTube. I predict you have first found the quote to be pretty great and will now find the same sentiment to be a bit disturbing after watching the clip.

Dear Kenny,

HAPPY BIRTHDAY!

-from everyone here at the book blog :D

Something new...

This picture seems appropriate concerning this post.

I'm gonna do something on this blog I've never done before: post about a book Kelsi recommended to me that I actually liked! Shocking, I know. But one must be varied and unpredictable lest one fall into the boring pit of monotony and languish there forever. So anyway, let's get talkin' 'bout The Hunger Games!

So I'm sure if you're acquainted with Kelsi you've heard at least a passing description of this book, but I'll let you have the benefit of the doubt and give you the rundown. So it's the future, right? And it's set in this place that once was a magical world called North America, see? And human civilization is split up into twelve districts scattered throughout the country and a capital city that has dominion over all the districts, okay? And years ago there used to be thirteen districts but when all the districts rose up against the Capital, District 13 was obliterated, comprende? And now every year, to remind themselves how pathetic they are and to dissuade them from ever rebelling again, each district has to give up one boy and one girl below the age of 18 to fight to the death in gladiator style games that the whole country will watch, you know? And the winner will have untold fame and fortune, but the twenty-three losers will have death. And that's the setup.

The story follows Katniss, a girl from District 12 who is desperately trying to make ends meet for her family of three (herself, her sister, and her mama) by hunting and trading. But her world is turned upside down when she is randomly chosen to compete in the games. And so Katniss The Hunter Of Squirrels And Other Small Rodents must become Katniss The Killer And Stabber Of Teenage Boys And Girls. And it is awesome indeed when she does.

I loved this book so hardcore. Action is one of the hardest things to do and do well in literature (I refer to bazillions of sci-fi books that fail miserably) and yet this book had me white-knuckled through all of its intense sequences. There's a rather awesome part when the Games first begin that's quite shocking and intense, but I won't spoil it. And kudos to Suzanne Collins for not pulling any punches. She makes a story about teens and tweens killing each other be as brutal and harrowing as it sounds. There's no sissy "maybe everyone can survive and be best friends forever" endings in this book. Only killing, killing, and then some more killing! Of course, if the book was straight action it would get rather tedious no matter how well written it was, and so it's just as well that the parts that take place outside the Games are engrossing. Ms. (Mrs.?) Collins has created a very intriguing world that I'd like to explore more and has filled it with characters that actually seem real and relatable. The dialogue never seems cheesy or hackneyed like it does so many other young adult novels. And let's talk about comedy! There's nothing funnier than teenagers killing each other in brutal and gut wrenching ways, amiright? And that previous sentence just put me on every 'Most Wanted' list in the country.

Obviously I can't say enough good things about this book, so I'll stop right there. Oh, except this: whoever you are, read this book immediately so we can talk about it and get to work on writing our fan fiction together. And if you read this book and you don't like it... I don't want to know you.

A Strange Journey, in scarlet

After my prolonged read of For Whom the Bell Tolls I launched into my complete collection of Sherlock Holmes Vol. 1 starting at the beginning with numero uno A Study in Scarlet.
Again great, it began as a narration by Watson and as it is the first book told how Watson and Holmes became rommies. What is so strange about this story and why the members of a book blog comprised of mostly Mormons should read it is that Part II begins in the Western United States Desert!! Two weary travellers settle down in the shade of a boulder to die, but before they can launch into their death throws, and to the chagrin of awaiting vultures, they are rescued by the Brigham Young and the Mormons on their way to the promised land. At first Sir Arthur presents quite a favorable image of the Mormons. This however, is short lived as they become corrupted by total control in their new home. He even goes as far as to say that the Spanish Inquisition had nothin on the LDSers in Utah. My endnotes told me that while on a U.S. speaking tour he apologized to the Mormons while in Salt Lake for misrepresenting them. But what I find fascinating is this late 19th century fascination authors had with the Mormons. Jules Verne gave them a chapter in his book Around the World in 80 days. And here we have half of the first ever Sherlock Holmes book being set in Utah with the Mormons. I just never knew we were so that interesting to the world stage, my what peculiarity will do for you.
Now I'm blogginly up to date. I have begun my first ever biography, General Patton, a soldier's life. Coincidentally it's by the same guy that wrote Lion of the Lord, about Brigham Young. All of his other works are about military men, I'm not sure of the resemblance. . .

A Beautiful Journey

It all started with a pen. A Monte Blanc Fountain pen to be exact. This exact pen, made in honor of Ingrid Bergman. This pen sent me to wikipediea to see who this lovely dame Ingrid is. From there I learned that Ernest Hemingway desired most that she play the part of Maria in the movie For Whom the Bell Tolls. If my fellow book bloggers will recall I posted a question about who is Ernest and why is he significant. You were all very helpful. I then asked each of you which of his books I should read. Ken replied don't go near The Old Man and the Sea, Kelsen said The Sun Also Rises was great but didn't recommend it. However, it was Luke that pulled through with a reasonable response, said he simply, "Read For Whom the Bell Tolls, it's great." So I bought it and began reading it clear back in May. I LOVED this book!!! And I have our blog to thank for it. You all explained Ernest's style of writing to me and gave specific examples of how he used short declarative sentances which though short convey a ton of back story. I kept calling to mind Kelsen's example, "Baby shoes for sale, never been used". Knowing this I got so much more out of the book then I otherwise would have. It took me forever to read it but that was because I went over the lines very closely to make sure I got everything and then imagined the back story of the characters. Plus the imagery is so beautiful, book me a trip for Spain. But I still don't understand how he does it. How he creates such a beautiful picture because he doesn't blurt it out, it's underlying. After finishing the book I watched part of the movie Windtakers. I only watched part because it made the scenes I had just read in the book too vivid and painful. Finally I loved how he presented views of Spain and it's people from the view of a loving outsider and citizens view of other citizens. A long journey yes but very worth it!!

Hometown Book Hero

So you FAT participants now know Shannon. Well Her mother has been working for some time on a book quilt to raise money for the Coalville Library. She's been sending quilt squares to authors explaining what she's doing and they sign it and sometimes send a signed copy of their books back. As this is a book blog with ties to Coalville I had to put it up on our blog. She has a website http://www.joslibraryquilt.com/
Which we should all visit.

Blinded By Science

{pictured: science being awesome}

I know what you are saying right now, "Well golly, it sure has been a long time since Kelsi has posted anything." That is what you were saying RIGHT GUYS because I know all you ever do is sit at the computer and wait for me to post on the book blog.

Well today is your lucky day! Because whilst on break at work, I conquered my latest volume of knowledge: The Prism and the Pendulum by Robert P. Crease.

This particular reading was a break in form for me: a nonfiction book that basically listed and described the ten "most beautiful" experiments in science, plus some reasoning and argument for why they could be considered beautiful. Among the experiments listed: Eratosthenes' measurement of the earth's circumference, Foucalt's pendulum, and Millikan's oil-drop (are any of these familiar to you folks? Because none were familiar to me before I read this book. I ain't no science nerd.) Between every chapter describing and analyzing each experiment, there was a chapter that discussed beauty, perception, artistry, and other such topics.

I won't attempt to deceive you: there were parts of this book that bored me. But that is only because I have a very limited understanding and interest in the scientific discipline. What kept me going was Crease's obvious passion on the subject. You could just tell by reading The Prism and the Pendulum that he has this big crush on physics, and it's super cute. In all seriousness, though, I find it fascinating to listen to people discuss and explain the things they love. It can keep me interested in even the most inaccessible subjects.

My favorite experiment to read about was Newton's leaning tower experiment. OKAY THAT'S A LIE I really just wanted to reference Isaac Newton so I could link this comic, because what would this blog post be without a link to my favorite webcomic? NOTHING. It would be NOTHING.

Next up I am going to try to finish Reconstructing America but trust me, it's taking forever. Probably because I finally acquired my own copy of The Hunger Games and now I spend all of my spare time re-reading that marvelous tome.

just so everyone knows, i know this wordle is totally egotistical b/c it's based pretty much entirely on mine and gavin's conversation, but I really like how in the bottom left hand corner it says "Jesus like Kenny". That made me smile. As soon as another post is made the wordle shall be adjusted accordingly.

my conversation with gavin

So, gavin wilde and I have spent the last few days debating the existence of a Christian God, and I want to post our conversation and receive feedback. I know this is not a book post, but it's intellectual and therefore deserves an exception. I learned a ton from this conversation, and would appreciate constructive dialogue.

Kenny Kitchen Brown

I don't think this is a fair way to speak of

Kenny Kitchen Brown

I don't think this is a fair way to speak of Christianity. It's like saying, "Remember that when it comes to 'the right thing to do', a lot depends on the perspective of the...." No it doesn't. The right thing to do is objective (though that's another discussion for another time), and that the 'Christian' chooses to label a particular act Christian doesn't make it so.

p.s. gavin, Christians didn't stone people, the followers of the Law of Moses did.

Friday at 17:25 · ·

Gavin Wilde

So the stoning stuff was nullified once the human sacrifice was made. I gotcha...

Friday at 19:16 ·

Bret Evans

However, it was Jesus (as Jehovah) who demanded stoning in the holy writ.

Friday at 19:31 ·

Bret Evans

And I don't think that Kirby was making grand assumptions about Christianity. He was just saying that deciding what is the Christian thing to do is certainly in the eye of the beholder. One says give aid to the poor, another says social justice is evil. I'm not suggesting one is correct and the other isn't, just that doing the Christian thing ...See more

Friday at 19:35 ·

Kenny Kitchen Brown

Gavin-What is wrong with a supreme sacrifice giving humanity a chance to realign its spiritual development and give it means to change? If the Jews as a society required such a stern law to enable them to survive amidst hostile forces, can't we look on the final consecration of Christ as the symbolic (and literal) end of that law and the moment mankind decides to move forward?

Bret-I don't dispute that Jesus commanded the Jews to stone people, but again, I hardly think it is fair to place our 21st century code of morality as an absolute stamp of the 'fairness' of another civilization. There were a multitude of reasons for the social forms of organization and coercion that existed in the days of Moses, as today, and I hardly think we stand in a fair place to judge that. I'm not saying it's good to stone people, I'm just saying that every culture has attributes developed for environmental and other reasons and sometimes they seem strange when compared to our own.

Bret - point 2, I also don't think that individual Christians really do decide what the 'Christian' thing is. I think individual Christians pretend to do that, but that doesn't make it valid. I also don't claim a monopoly on interpreting what the Christian thing is, and I read a lot of the scriptures, so I hardly think many people can claim such a lofty privilege.

and your slam was well received. take that sarah palin.

Friday at 23:30 · ·

Spencer Cawley

I ♥ Kirby. He makes me giggle over my Saturday eggs and toast.

Saturday at 00:48 ·

Gavin Wilde

Kenny- A few things:
A- The whole episode is not factual in the first place. The "exodus" never happened. The talmud is admitted by the world's foremost biblical archaeologists (Finkelstein, Herzog, et al) to be nothing more than mere legends, codified to consolidate political power by King Josiah. There is no evidence of Hebrews existing inEgypt, escaping from it, conquering Jericho, or that David's "kingdom" was anything more than a small desert clan. It even remains a point of debate whether the ancient Hebrews were even monotheistic. Biblical literalism, given the actual scholarship, is a bridge too far.
B- The same justifications you're giving for stoning here could just as easily be made from the point of view of a radical Muslim, if not moreso, as they have far more license to feel a need to "survive amidst hostile forces" in today's current world than the Jews did in a fairy-tale one. So how are you to prove your justification right, and theirs wrong?
C- I find it odd that you differentiate between the "morality" of ancient Judaism and that of the 21st century, especially in regards to Jesus. I thought god was unchanging? Why the inconsistency? Was it easier for him to watch an adulteress stoned to death back then than it would be today? Was it somehow less evil and barbaric? Why is it that the god of the Old Testament was such a vindictive, childish imp, and how is that somehow alleviated by a barbaric, bloody human sacrifice? You'd have to bend your mind into a pretzel to make that logic work.

Ultimately, the same supernatural rationalizations, superimposed into the world of reality - puts your arguments, and those of any other radical religionist on equal shaky footing.

Saturday at 06:36 ·

Laura Y. Pereyra

lol. I love you, bret.

Saturday at 10:05 ·

Kenny Kitchen Brown

Gavin - a response
A-I don't give absolute credence to every story in the Bible, nor to the veracity of its scale in many cases, but that doesn't undermine the theme. I believe unilateral dogmas on both sides concerning its origin fail to be either constructive or given to calm deliberation, wouldn't you agree?
B - While I personally feel that capital punishment is at best tenuously justified, that is my opinion, there are good arguments on both sides. The fact that Jews or Muslims stone(d) people for various crimes is obviously disconcerting to me, when viewed through my 21st century perspective, but before I look for the nearest pebble with which to stone other cultures, I prefer to take a moment wherein I consider the failings of our own culture. I'm not saying it's ok to stone people, I'm just saying it's not ok to do a lot of things, but various cultures have various reasons for doing the things they do and when it comes to a culture so near and dear to my heart like ancient Judaism I want to take a moment before I superimpose my enlightened sense of rightness on them.
C-God is unchanging, but neither requires him to establish uniform laws of social behavior for all people at all times regardless of circumstances. I believe God created us to be different, that He loves our diversity, and that His plan for our progression is best calculated to our individual and cultural characteristics. In answer to your question, I do believe that it was hard for God to watch an adulteress get stoned to death just the same as it is now.

Ultimately, the ultra-rational arguments of the enlightened ex post philosopher, superimposed with limited knowledge in a world of immense complexity, is just as shaky as the arguments postulating the world is 7000 years old.

Saturday at 11:07 · ·

Gavin Wilde

Kenny- You're switching the goalposts here. The argument isn't about capital punishment, it's about why the Judeo-Christian god sanctioned stoning, and why it's not ok today. Your statement that that god isn't required to "establish uniform laws of social behavior for all people at all times regardless of the circumstances" flies in the face of the very doctrines you espouse. As far as your god "loving diversity", I could very easily quote Ezra Benson, Bruce McKonkie, Mark Petersen, etc. as a sound rebuttal that your god clearly favors the "white and delightsome"...but I'm sure they were merely "speaking as men", right?

Further, you make the mistake of expounding on what "god" is, does, and doesn't do...only to close out your argument by insinuating that we're too "limited" in our knowledge to make any rational arguments. If the world is "immensely complex", you ought not make extraordinary claims to know the mind of a therefore unknowable deity.

Saturday at 18:30 ·

Whitney Trover Goodrich

how come you guys failed to mention moutain medows masacure?? Just a thought..

Saturday at 19:16 ·

Whitney Trover Goodrich

Since you guys are mormon...that's why i asked. Lots of controversey behind that massacre.

Saturday at 19:20 ·

Kenny Kitchen Brown

I don't know why the Judeo-Christian God sanctioned stoning in the good old days. I don't claim to have a supernatural understanding of the cultural fabric of any time or people or God's relationship with them. How the fact that God isn't required to establish uniform laws of social behavior undermines my thesis eludes my grasp. Why is it either a logical or eternal imperative that God give every person regardless of circumstance in mortality an exactly similar code of conduct?

Further, I agree that I offered a personal interpretation of God's interaction with His children, which is neither authoritative nor comprehensive, but I nowhere claimed extraordinary insight into His thinking or behavior. I offer lay opinions from a biased perspective for the sake of expounding my thoughts. But that still leaves my point about absolutism. I doubt either extreme of the faith argument has the requisite knowledge to make these definite irrefutable claims, and I believe that applies to your arguments of social and religious criticism. I've been trying to advocate the open-minded perspective (which is ironic considering my position) considering the reasons for various practices of etc....

I also will maintain that racist comments made by any person of authority in the Church were not expressed with the mind of Christ or the spirit of His inspiration.

FURTHER! I love you like a brother gavin, though I have not seen you in far too long.

Saturday at 21:10 · ·

Gavin Wilde

It's the very illogic inherent in the Judeo-Christian model that initially led me to reject it. If I lived back then, I'm punished if I eat shellfish, and admonished on the correct way to treat my slaves. Nowadays such issues aren't even mentioned. For an infinite deity, that seems curious to me. However, with even a cursory reading of the very cultural and archaeological history that you mentioned, the narrative's inconsistencies begin to emerge as part of a clever political consolidation by Bronze-age leaders, and make sense within that framework, rendering the Bible, particularly the Talmud, into an interesting book of legend, useful as literature, but not as a guiding philosophy.

As far as absolutism is concerned, I run into this line of thought all too often. For me its troublesome, because it essentially claims that since neither 87 nor 11 equal the requisite 100, both numbers are equal in value, which is absurd. Don't confuse my rejection of deity and biblical ideas for a positive assertion.

As far as the racist comments, that is also troubling to me. Prophetic statements, given history of the last century, seem to run squarely with the political and social mores of the time, rather than with some divine providence. Today's current anti-gay crusade will be looked on by tomorrow's saints as "not with the mind of Christ or spirit of his inspiration". Thought I'd agree, it would certainly be beneficial for the church to be on the right side of history for once, rather than have to explain away the demons of its past.

That said, I echo the brotherly love. I rarely turn down a debate, and appreciate the level-headed nature you approached it with. And thanks be to Bret for the use of his wall!

Yesterday at 07:07 ·

Kenny Kitchen Brown

The principle that God adapts His commandments for His people to meet their realtime environments and exigencies doesn't appear to be either illogical or inconsistent. Why not command a people to not eat shellfish if physiological risks outweigh the calorie count? Why not command men and women to be nice to their household slaves if they insist on maintaining slavery as a primitive form of labor and political organization? I see a progressing standard of discipline and morality being required of those who choose to keep God's commandments (remember that Jesus comes to amplify, not destroy, the law) and that appears to be perfectly consistent with the story of humanity. I will admit wholeheartedly that I too have questions about why God didn't impose a more enlightened view at time, but that doesn't require a categorical denial of the faith.

As far as the legitimacy of the Bible and other scriptures, while I obviously can't jump into the fundamentalist camp and say every verse in every book of every testament is not only the literal word of God but the literal accurate portrayal of historical events, I do believe that the majority of scripture is inspired text. While it might contain unsubstantiated legend, I believe that it is useful for both literature and philosophy. I understand that all scripture contains inconsistencies and the occasional anachronism, but I believe that is the price we pay for our humanity. We get things wrong sometime, but don't let this undermine your faith in the theme.

Finally, on the mores of the Church. I am not an expert on this issue (I have a hard time believing anyone is), but I think the Church is trying to walk a very difficult position between protecting a social institution it venerates and honoring the truest Christian principle. It's not going to walk this line perfectly, I no doubt will find myself questioning the wisdom of its course at times, but I think this requires me to participate in the intra-ecclesia discussion even more, not abandon it.

9 hours ago · ·

Gavin Wilde

Well, for me the argument is tertiary. About a thousand unprovable and unreasonable assumptions would have to be true to validate a debate on the logic of Christian deity. For me, it equates to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I find the current empirical, verifiable, and material evidence for the origins of the universe and man to be sufficient without invoking the magical world-view that most religions require. Hence an "intra-ecclesia" discussion for me is unnecessary. My approach is that of theological noncognitivism (see wiki for more) - that is, you can't even begin the tertium non datur debate on the existence of deity without a clear delineation of what defines "deity".

3 hours ago ·

Kenny Kitchen Brown

Hm. Well, I suppose here we reach the ultimate impasse. I do not believe that God works by magic any more than quantum theory or the theory of gravity. These various forays into the physical/natural science I find likewise require the occasional acceptance of that which cannot be immediately verifiable.

As for the theological noncognitivism as it relates to Christianity, I truly believe that there exist truths about God and Christ that have been clearly defined and can form a basic conceptual idea of who and what They are. VERY basic admittedly, but still delineated. I also believe the consistency of these attributes so much contested in the preceding posts to be manifest in the scriptures, even the Old Testament (although I freely admit it takes serious sallies into the insane at times, which I'd like to credit to fractious compiling, bad redaction, and just the occasional crazy rabbi). I especially feel that the Christian conception of God described in the New Testament through Christ's example and teachings and and in the Book of Mormon through various sermons and revelations hits truer to the mark than any other philosophy or creed.

All these things said, I recognize the metaphysical debate leaves much for the faith to answer. I would never contend that the religion of Christianity be completely rationally provable with our current knowledge of the universe. My personal experiences with Christ lead me to believe in His existence and verify the things I learn, but these are individual sensory perceptions based on the faculties of a young ignorant high school graduate, and ultimately rest on my personal faculties (and I won't make the Cartesian leap into asserting their ultimate validity, though I'd like to think it is the case).

THEREFORE! Gavin my brother. I concede your superior IQ and admit my admiration for your advanced conceptualization but obstinately maintain my defense of the fundamental tenets of Christianity like a true unreasonable zealot! I do this with no malice and having sincerely enjoyed the debate. We must collaborate on source material, I would very much enjoy reading some selected treatises from your bibliography.

43 minutes ago · ·

Gavin Wilde

So let it be written, so let it be done! Haha, good form fellow traveler. I'll PM you with some rec's should you so desire.