Man's Search for Meaning by Viktor Frankl

It was my time to choose a book for Book Club and I picked a book that had long been on my list: Man's Search for Meaning by Viktor Frankl. Dennis Prager says it's his favorite book and it changed his life.

So my expectations were high.

Plus I've read A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, The Gulag Archipelago, and Darkness at Noon. All in the same genre. 

I think because of my prior exposure to those books, this one did not seem as impactful. If anything, I'd say The Gulag Archipelago was the one that most made an impression on me.

Frankl writes as do the others, disjointed and out of chronological order. It's more thematic. It makes me wonder if having that kind of state-sponsored trauma impacts one's ability to tell the story. Or perhaps for them, it's not about the day-to-day events, but the larger meaning behind it all. 

Certainly Frankl wants to get at why he and his fellow prisoners suffered the way they did at the hands of the Nazis. Even before being detained, Frankl was spreading interested in the question of meaning and purpose in life. He was convinced that if a man did not have a sense of meaning or purpose he would die either mentally or even physically. So he looked on his fellow prisoners as a kind of science experiment. He clearly saw that those who gave up hope always died. It was those, like himself, who felt that their unjust suffering had a purpose of some sort that survived. 

I suppose the most remarkable thing about the book (and the others of the same genre) is how disconnected they were from their own tortures. They can discuss it dispassionately and disconnect from the personal experience of it. I suppose that necessary for survival. In Solzhenitsyn's case, he writes in a sarcastic manner, further removing himself from the horror. 

Frankl is also remarkable for the fact that he could forgive and move on once released from the prison. He recognized the humanity of each person, whether guard or prisoner. All had the ability to be cruel or kind. He famously states, "The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either — but right through every human heart — and through all human hearts."

The second half of his book discusses his theory of "Logotherapy." In a nutshell, after the war, he started his psychiatric practice helping people discover meaning in their lives. He was convinced that lack of meaning and purpose was the root of all mental suffering. He worked to reframe and redirect his patients towards discovering meaning in their circumstances, whatever they be.

One disappointment is that he never directs the reader to faith. I think he had faith in God as a result of his Judaism, but he never recommends that faith as a source of meaning and purpose. I suppose that's because he wants everyone, believer or not, to be able to access a life filled with meaning. That's a fair point. Obviously for me, a life whose meaning is found outside of God is just a temporary fill, but for Frankl that's enough. 

The book is worth reading because it's such a cultural touchstone. I'm sorry to say it did not impact me the way it impacted some. I wish it had. 

Lincoln and Douglas by Allen C. Guelzo

One of my former students, Will Rhodes, who attends Princeton, gave me this book, signed by his professor and my favorite Lincoln scholar, Lincoln and Douglas by Allen C. Guelzo. What a delight this book was. 

Of course I'm familiar with the Lincoln/Douglas debates. I have read most if not all of them. But this book, following the pair from stop to stop really brought it alive for me. 

It begins with Lincoln's frustration at what Douglas was claiming on the campaign trail for senator of Illinois. Lincoln began to follow him and rebut his claims soon after Douglas' speeches. Annoyed, and definitely not in his best interest, Douglas agrees to formally debate Lincoln at each of the seven remaining campaign stops. 

Douglas is a very popular politician and his doctrine of "popular sovereignty" is popular as well. The idea that slavery should be voted up or down in a new territory and state appeals to Americans' democratic disposition. But Lincoln sees the end of this argument: slavery will exist, eventually, in every state in the union. 

Because the 17th Amendment has not yet been passed, senators are chosen by the state legislators. How this plays out practically is that men, like Douglas, campaign, not for themselves, but for legislative candidates pledged to support his bid for senator. It is, de facto, a popular vote on the senator, using the institutional constraints of the Constitution. While it is technically incorrect to say they are "running" for the Senate, it is arguable that that is exactly what they are doing. Lincoln, however, is a very dark horse in this race. He was a one-term member of the House of Representatives and a local lawyer. He is unknown outside of his home district and is not a national figure, by any means. 

These debates will change all that. 

With the advent of the new, anti-slavery Republican Party, the political ground was shifting rapidly. Whigs were in disarray and their vote is up for grabs. Henry Clay, the quintessential Whig is Lincoln's political hero, and his only hope is to persuade them that he, and the Republicans, are not rabid abolitionists, but align with the Founders. His opponent must simply seem reasonable. One thing I loved about his book is to discover how the political landscape is not so different from today. We think we are polarized now and mythologize some distant past where politics was civil and gentlemanly. That is a past that never existed and never will. Politics is bloodsport and Lincoln understood that better than most. 

In June of 1858, Lincoln was nominated to represents the Republicans in the Illinois Senate race and delivered his "House Divided" speech. Recalling Jesus' admonition that "a house divided against itself cannot stand," Lincoln posited that an America, similarly divided on the question of slavery, could not stand. To his detractors, this sounded like a call for civil war. To his admirers, he was finally asking that the question be answered, not in political or economic terms, but moral terms. Americans must answer whether slavery was right, and should therefore be national, or wrong, and should therefore be put on a path towards extinction. Lincoln believed he stood with the Founders and answer that slavery was immoral. But the intervening years had given way to political solutions and Americans, Lincoln believed, had forgotten the question. 

Guelzo does a great job uncovering the political consideration, and they were myriad, that Lincoln faced seeking to upset Douglas. He refers to letters and newspaper articles describing the in-the-weeds political needle Lincoln had to thread. That part is interesting and new to me, but what really fascinated me was the flow of the debates as they moved from town to town. While much was repeated, a new emphasis and nuance was introduced at each stop, culminating in the final, and what I believe to be the crux of the argument, debate. 

The first debate took place in Ottawa. While it was friendly territory for Lincoln, Douglas began by describing the Republican Party as a party of rabid abolitionists and challenged Lincoln to defend each of the planks of their Illinois State Convention platform. Of course each was framed to inflame the passions of the audience. Douglas referred back to the "House Divided" speech, implying Lincoln wanted war to settle the issue. In fact, Douglas stated that it was he, not Lincoln, on the side of the Founders. Weren't they the ones who "made this Government divided into free State and slave States, and left each State perfectly free to do as it please don the subject of slavery"? And as for the Declaration's claim that "All men are created equal"? Obviously that meant all white men are created equal. To read it any other way was to say the blacks and whites were equal in every way. This horrified the crowd. What Douglas left out was any mention of the already failed popular sovereignty doctrine in "bleeding" Kansas and the results of the Dred Scott Supreme Court case, which guaranteed slavery free passage anywhere in the nation. 

Unfortunately, Lincoln took the bait and proceeded to spend his time defending himself against Douglas' charges rather than make the moral case against slavery. He said he never signed on to the Illinois Republican platform. He did not believe blacks were equal in every sense, just as fellow humans. He did not want to abolish slavery everywhere, but simply keep it where it was. He tried to argue that Dred Scott had effectively made popular sovereignty moot. In fact, Lincoln argued, the decision was all part of a vast conspiracy to extend slavery nationally and, like any good conspiracy theorist, he tried to show that all evidence for or against the conspiracy only pointed to its validity. The crowd wouldn't hear it. They simply heard he was anti-war in the "good" war (Mexican American) and pro-war in the bad one (civil war) and wanted to give black people all the privileges currently given only to whites. 

In this debate, it's hard to call a "winner." Douglas went on a rabid attack and Lincoln spent his time on the ropes defending himself. Yet he did defend himself. Against the nation's best debater, that seemed like a win. 

The second debate took place at Freeport. Once again the crowds showed up for what promised to be a robust political spectacle. This time Lincoln spoke first. Lincoln began on the defensive, stating all of the queries Douglas had posed at the last debate and answering them all again. In fact, he answered them in such a way that even his admirers felt he had given away the entire Republican doctrine. But as a lawyer, Lincoln understood that it's better to give up what you cannot keep and save one irrefutable argument in your pocket. This was his belief that only Congress had the right to answer the slavery question in the territories. This went directly against popular sovereignty and Dred Scott. Then Lincoln went on the offensive asking Douglas to defend his positions in light of Dred Scott which ruled that any new territories could not lawfully keep out slavery. Lincoln, through a series of questions, walked Douglas through to the only logical conclusion: that Douglas would be ok with all new territories entering the Union as slave territories and that there was nothing to be done about it. This seems to have very much concerned the people of the free state of Illinois. He also made clear that what Douglas claimed to be the platform of the Illinois state Republicans was actually that of another organization and that Douglas had no right to hold him accountable to it. He claimed Douglas was careless in his facts and therefore could not be trusted.

Douglas responded by breezing past Lincoln's question, reiterating his popular sovereignty mantra, once again, as if Dred Scott had not made it moot. He then went on to disparage Lincoln as a "Black Republican," and implied that Lincoln stood for mixing of the races on every level. Again and again, Douglas plays the race card and appeals to the bigotry of his audience. 

The most important part of this second debate was Lincoln's second question to Douglas at Freeport, "Can the people of the United States Territory, in any lawful way, against the wishes of any citizen of the United States, exclude slavery from its limits prior to the formation of a State Constitution?" The key word is "lawful." Lincoln knew the Dred Scott decision had already answered this question with a "no," since slaves were property and could not be excluded based on the territories' borders. But Douglas could not afford to acknowledge this. He wanted to straddle the fence with his "don't care" philosophy towards the legality of slavery in any particular state. This question would pursue him time and again at subsequent debates. This is Lincoln playing the long game. He knew in 1858 that Douglas' answer might satisfy the people of Illinois, but he knew Douglas had presidential ambitions and that question would destroy any chance he had on the national stage in 1860. Guelzo believes Lincoln was also desperate to deny Douglas a place at the top of the Republican ticket. He could see Douglas believing he could unite northern Democrats with Republicans and win in a landslide. Lincoln saw that as the death of the Republican Party. 

The third debate took place in the southern town of Jonesboro. In this very poor and largely illiterate town, Douglas had a hard time connecting and certainly had no energy to feed off of. Although the area definitely leaned pro-slavery, Douglas spent a good deal of time on Republican inter-party weeds before finally getting to his main point about Lincoln's supposed desire to give black people all the civil rights enjoyed by whites. He reiterated that it was he, not Lincoln, upholding the Founders' intentions to let each state decide the slavery question for itself. 

Lincoln agreed that the Founders had indeed left slavery up to the states, but disagreed that they intended that situation to prevail. He pointed out evidence that the Founders had always hoped to see slavery on a path to extinction. He also tried, with little success, to tie Douglas to some Democratic positions that sounded on slavery exactly like Lincoln's. Lincoln denied that he was agitating for war, but did remind the people the closest they got to war was the perpetual question of slavery with the addition of each new territory. Lincoln did, however, add a question concerning a federal "slave code" that would ensure the property rights in slavery in any territory. This, like the second Freeport question, was a damned if you do, damned if you don't question. Douglas could not concede any federal right to regulate slavery in the territories, because they could make it legal everywhere. He also could not say the federal government could protect a state in its anti-slavery legislation either. Douglas simply reverted to his magical panacea of "popular sovereignty." 

No clear winner emerged from this southern excursion, but Lincoln had little to lose in unfriendly territory anyways.

The fourth debate took place in Charleston, a Whig stronghold. While hating slavery, they also abhorred the idea of equality in civil rights. Lincoln was therefore forced to clarify that he did not believe blacks were equal in any way other than natural human rights. This marks a low point and is the basis for declaring Lincoln a racist. He certainly panders to a racist crowd, trying to thread the needle between full acknowledgment of the humanity of blacks and full social equality. 

Douglas responded with his own conspiracy of the ways in which Lincoln and the Republicans were seeking to make the Whigs abolitionists. He knew this to be an anathema. He also rejected Lincolns forceful claims to only want human rights for blacks by saying Lincoln opposed Dred Scott, which made citizenship illegal for blacks. He therefore implied that Lincoln must be for citizenship for blacks and all that entails. 

While Lincoln wanted to argue that he opposed Dred Scott because it put the slavery question in the hands of the Supreme Court, arguing for the states to decide on the civil rights of black people edged a little too close to Douglas' popular sovereignty doctrine. He also had to spend time diffusing Douglas conspiracy charges of "abolitioning" the Whig party. But Lincoln scored a few points. He made Douglas look inconsistent on his "don't care" policy regarding slavery by showing Douglas had actually voted against legal provisions that would have helped the anti-slavery movement. He used the morality of slavery as a cudgel against Douglas and reiterated that the best and least harmful path forward was the one the Founders advocated, an inexorable path to extinction. And, most importantly, he stood his ground. The people came to see Lincoln as the equal of the "Little Giant" Douglas when it came to the debates. 

The fifth debate took place in Galesburg, friendly territory for Lincoln. Plus Douglas had been wearing himself out physically, battling bronchitis, and was becoming more and more dependent on the bottle. He trotted out his tired arguments on popular sovereignty and tried to hold himself out as a man willing to stand up to both pro- and anti-slavery forces and fight for the will of the people. But he lacked energy and enthusiasm.

Lincoln, in contrast, came out swinging. Lincoln dismissed most of the speech for what it was, simply the same things Douglas had said at every stop. He would focus, however, on the Declaration's claim that "all men are created equal." Lincoln pointed out that one could search in vain for any evidence at all that the Founders only intended it to apply to white people. He pointed out that the author, Jefferson himself, "trembled" when he considered that God is just and that slavery would never gain His favor. Here Lincoln became quite elevated indicating that if slavery is right or wrong based on a majority's opinion, then morality itself is on the ballot. If Douglas continued to willfully blind himself to Lincoln's natural law argument that black and white people are inherently equal as humans, then Douglas would bring down the entire moral edifice of right and wrong. If Douglas persisted in claiming he "don't care" whether slavery is voted up or down, and refused to recognize the moral degeneracy of slavery, then Douglas had no right to speak of "right" and "wrong" in any context. Right and wrong then became entirely dependent on the mood of the electorate. Lincoln ended by saying that the only way to put the immoral practice of slavery on a path to extinction was to elect Republicans. 

In his rebuttal, Douglas found his fire. He rabidly called out Lincoln for hypocrisy, literally foaming at the mouth and shaking his fist. He said Lincoln was not for equality in unfriendly territory like Jonesboro but now claimed he was for equality in friendly Galesburg. He angrily defended his honor against Lincoln's charges of lying about the Republican resolution brought up in the first debate. He claimed that Lincoln, with his opposition to Dred Scott, invited mob rule. 

The debate ended with a defeated and deflated Douglas, and a Lincoln who could now see a path forward on offense. 

The sixth debate took place at Quincy, on the border of slave state Missouri. Lincoln spoke first, coming after Douglas with a vengeance. He called Douglas a liar for continuing to pin resolution on him that Lincoln had not agreed to; he called Douglas a dodger for refusing to see the logic of Dred Scott and the way it demolished his popular sovereignty doctrine; and he called out Douglas for willfully refusing to debate on the moral principle of slavery and obfuscating instead with racial rhetoric. Lincoln made it exceptionally clear that the reason slavery presented a fight every time it came up was because Americans knew it was a moral question: some believed it to be wrong, the Republicans; some believed to be right, the Democrats. Lincoln posited that that was the only question up for consideration. Was slavery right or wrong? Was it a refutation of the Founders and the Natural Law upon which the nation had been founded or was it simply another political position to be left to political institutions? The audience could join with the Republicans and at least acknowledge it as a moral wrong, and leave the "then what" to the future or join with the Democrats and deny even the immorality of the institution. 

Douglas, addled in in poor form, continued to deny slavery was a moral issue. He agreed with Lincoln that truly didn't care about the morality of slavery. For him all the agitation that came with the slavery question was promulgated by abolitionist like Lincoln. He continued to claim he was directionally correct in tying Lincoln to the resolutions put forth in the first debate, if not factually correct. He defended his honor against Lincoln's charges of lying and being part of a conspiracy to extend slavery to the whole nation. He seemed genuinely unable to understand Lincoln's point about Dred Scott's protection of slavery in any territory, and by extension, any state. He simply could not see why a territory or state could not disallow slavery as they would any other property, like alcohol. 

Lincoln responded that the only question under consideration was, once again, the morality of slavery. ALL opposition to the institution stemmed from moral opposition. The Founders opposed it on moral grounds and put it on a path to extinction. Had not the cotton gin made it economically feasible, it would have remained on that path. It was Douglas, not Lincoln, who departed from the American ideal. To the charge of changing his message to suit his audience, Lincoln offered his notes from each debate and speech he'd given to show that his message remained the same. 

The seventh and final debate took place in Alton. Douglas began, looking quite haggard from the exertions and the alcohol. Douglas harkened back to the "House Divided" speech and once again portrayed Lincoln as a war-monger. He continued to paint Lincoln as a man who believed in civil and social equality between the races. He accused Lincoln of slandering the Founders in refusing to accept a permanently half-slave and half-free nation. He pointed out that he had broken with the Democrats over slavery numerous times, but that Lincoln had refused to reject the position of the extreme abolitionists. Lincoln simply listened to the charges he had heard again and again. Lincoln wanted civil war. Lincoln was a n_____ lover. Douglas was the true hero who stood up for the rights of the people.

Lincoln stood and made a joke that watching Douglas distance himself from the pro-slavery aspects of his party was like a battered wife watching her husband fight off a bear: she wasn't sure who to root for. 

Then he got down to business. Douglas had claimed that Lincoln refused to acknowledge the authority of the Supreme Court by rejecting the logic of Dred Scott. Lincoln said that was nothing compared to Douglas' willful misrepresentation of the Declaration of Independence. Lincoln quoted from the Great Compromiser (and notable Whig) Henry Clay to the effect that all men are created equal, but that does not always imply social and civil equality (i.e. women and children were not civilly and socially equal to men). In opposing the "House Divided" speech, Lincoln put Douglas on the side of satan disparaging the Bible, as it was biblically inspired. Lincoln reiterated the clear evidence that the Founders believed they had put slavery on a path to extinction. Pulling the rug out from Douglas' popular sovereignty argument, Lincoln stated that he no problem with the principle if contained to subjects over which the majority had the right to decide. He simply believed morality fell outside that boundary. And he claimed everyone listening knew that. Finally Lincoln boiled his entire argument down to one statement, "The real issue in this controversy--the one pressing upon every mind--is the sentiment on the part of one class that looks upon the institution of slavery as a wrong, and of another class that does not look upon it as a wrong." (p. 265) All practical questions of how to deal with the institution as it existed must be pushed aside until that fundamental question could be answered. 

In fact, argued Lincoln, the arguments for slavery were identical to the arguments for a king, rejected by our Founders. Slavery did not just dehumanize black people, it introduced the idea of a hierarchy among people. Worse, according to Douglas, this hierarchy could be determined by a vote! "Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves, and, under a just God, can not long retain it" (p. 267). Thus the apex of his argument was formed. After starting out on the defense, Lincoln had moved solidly into offense.

Douglas was wholly unable to rebut him. He sunk back to his tired arguments of blaming the abolitionists for all the unrest. He deeply resented Lincoln's resort to the question of morality for it implied that Douglas was, himself, immoral. He stood solidly with all those who before him had punted on the question of morality and appealed to the pragmatism of popular sovereignty. 

Douglas was a broken and defeated man.

Yet, Lincoln did not win the Senate campaign. By a narrow margin, pro-Douglas legislators were voted into office. It was always a long shot anyways. 

But, in 1860, Lincoln won the bigger prize: the presidency. The nation would go to war, which Lincoln vigorously opposed, to settle the slavery question once and for all. Lincoln would be magnanimous in victory as he appealed to the "better angels" of our nature. 

I'm so glad I got to dive into the details of each debate from so well-respected a scholar as Allen Guelzo. My appreciation for Lincoln rose tremendously.

*note bene: Guelzo makes a handwritten correction to a typo and signs it on page 238.

Tuck Everlasting by Natalie Babbitt

Our book club decided to choose a "re-read a book you loved as a child." Our pick was Tuck Everlasting by Natalie Babbitt. I've never read it, so it was fun to dive into. 

The story centers around the Tuck family, who have drunk a magic elixir and now are fated to live forever, and a little girl named Winnie, who discovers their secret.

The book details the lengths to which the Tucks will go to keep word from getting out. Although it's a child's book, some of the adventures could give a child nightmares. 

Although it's set in the late 1800s, it soon became clear to me that the book had a more modern origin. Sure enough, it was written in 1975. That made sense. That's a time when books were full of children with voices sounding very much like adults. Winnie is precocious and thinks and speaks and reasons in a way her adult author imagines a child might. But she actually reveals an adult's ruminations on deep questions. 

The book was an easy read. Not exactly satisfying. It's not supposed to "end well" according to the author. Some questions and simply beyond our purview and offer no easy answers. Tuck raises questions but doesn't answer them in a way that feels satisfactory.

The Scarlet Pimpernel by Baroness Emmuska Orczy

Part of my never-ending endeavor to educate myself involves reading the classics. The latest is The Scarlet Pimpernel by Baroness Emmuska Orczy. 

I actually may have read this book before. It felt very familiar.

The basic plot revolves around an anonymous English hero rescuing French aristocrats from the guillotine during the French Revolution. His name is a problem. "The Scarlet Pimpernel" refers to a small red, star-shaped flower the hero has chosen as his signature. Call him the Red Rose or the Burgundy Blossom. I simply cannot abide the word "Pimpernel." Call it my own bias.

That aside, once the story begins, it tells of masterful disguises and daring deception. But like a murder mystery with only one suspect, the identity of the Scarlet Pimpernel becomes clear very early on (Or I had already read the book.) 

His evil pursuer is Cheuvelin, a member of the Committee of Publicc Safety. Everything about him screams "villain." Our heroine, Lady Blakeney, is the most beautiful, charismatic, and intelligent woman to be found in either France or England. Her husband is the dull-witted, rich, and lazy playboy Lord Percy Blackeney. All other characters are supporting characters.

Between the stereotypes and silly language (Lots of "La!," and "Odd's fish".) the book is a breeze to read. It's silly and predictable, but certainly not a waste of time.

The Pilgrim's Progress by John Bunyan

I'm developing a new-found respect for the theological seriousness of the Puritans. So when our book club proposed The Pilgrim's Progress by John Bunyan, I was excited to re-read it. (I think I read it as a kid.)

Although an allegory with names specifically designed to inform the reader of its allegorical qualities (Mr. Worldly-Wise, Ignorance, Christian), the story elucidates real, deep theological discussions. 

Christian has come to realize that his city is set for destruction and only by traveling to the Celestial City can he hope to be saved. Evangelist tells him the way to the path. In the end, it is a path he must travel alone, although he has companions at times. On the journey he meets all the classical temptations a Christian faces: Despair, Pleasure, Sloth.

Just when all seems lost, Christian is reminded of his journey and the good that awaits him. Ironically, just as he crosses the river into the Celestial City he experiences such deep doubt that he almost sinks. 

Bunyan is writing the story from prison. I suspect much of Christian's story is autobiographical. Perhaps Bunyan, close to death at times, experienced his own sinking doubt. 

The story is not an easy read, but well-worth reading. It can cause common obstacles in the life of a Christian to come alive.

Remarkably Bright Creatures by Shelby Van Pelt

My friend Mary recommended Remarkably Bright Creatures by Shelby Van Pelt, and if Mary recommends it, I'm reading it.

This book is a delight. 

Will it change your life? Probably not. But the highly improbably story of a widow in a small town befriending an octopus sucked me in. 

The story is sweet. 

It offers a glimpse into the lives of the people in a small town. It vividly demonstrates the fact that everyone has their own story and that story is always bittersweet.

The story begins with "Day 1,299 of My Captivity." The first entry is from the octopus, Marcellus, point of view. Obviously this captures the readers attention and begs explanation. 

Next on the list of characters is Tova Sullivan. She is widowed and her only son drowned just after graduating high school. 

She is lonely. Enter Marcellus. And others. The book is populated by interesting people all trying to figure out life.

I definitely recommend it. Sweet and charming read.

Portrait of a Lady by Henry James

Summer reading means jumping into some classic books I've not yet read. This summer it was Portrait of a Lady by Henry James. 

It was published in 1881, apparently at a time when authors were trying to dive deeply into what it meant to be human and what limitations that included.

The book is the story of a young American woman, Isabel Archer, who has lost both parents. Her aunt, who has married rich in England, brings her to that island nation as a sort of project. While there, Isabel's rich uncle dies, leaving her a fortune. The set-up for this strains credulity, as she hardly knows him, but it is apparently a necessary plot fixture for James' own project.

At this point, as Isabel is so incredibly charismatic and attractive (on the inside), no man can resist her charms, and she has money to boot, the world is her oyster. She can literally choose any life she desires. Initially desiring to see the world unencumbered by a love interest. she and a female friend launch into a European tour. 

Despite having any pick of any man, and despite making it quite clear to all who ask that she is not suited nor desirous of marriage, she chooses to marry an older widower with a teenage daughter who delights in seeing the world through jaded eyes. She could have had the delightful, rich, and young Lord Warburton, the charming and devoted (also rich) American businessman, Casper Goodwood, or her sweet, adoring, and sickly cousin, Ralph Touchett. Why she chooses Gilbert Osmond is anyone's guess. 

Literally.

It's not exactly clear when or why she did choose him. The reader is just informed of it three years later. 

It doesn't end well. Slowly Osmond begins to turn his cynicism on his wife and she feels that she can never live up to his expectations. That's because she can't. He's so jaded about everything, except his daughter, that nothing can meet his standards. 

And then there's the enigmatic Madame Merle always hovering in the background. She seems to have orchestrated the marriage between Isabel and Gilbert, but her motivation is not clear. Why she doesn't marry him herself is left an open question. They'd be perfect for each other.

The end. 

Seriously, the book ends with an unhappy marriage. Secrets are revealed. The cousin dies. Most everyone is disappointed. And that's it.

I had to read up on why this book is a "classic." Apparently James was making the point that humans, given every advantage, will still choose badly. We are simply incapable of making good decisions despite our best intentions. Isabel is repeatedly praised for her intelligence, yet this is nothing but a trap. It's her attraction to Osmond's brains and wit that leads her astray. James seems to imply that people end up happy by luck alone. We are a deceiving and deceived thing.

I suppose there is something to that. But it doesn't mean I agree with James. He's as cynical as Osmond. Humans have agency. Our intentions and choices matter. We are not destined to the roll of the dice. While luck plays a role, we play a greater role in our destinies than James would seem to think we do. 

On a side note, I really hate the way authors, male and female, will paint a female protagonist in broad terms and "tell" rather than "show." At no point, other than from the descriptive words about Isabel and her own description of herself, do I catch a glimpse of a charming and intelligent young lady, attractive to all who enter her sphere. She simply IS charming and attractive. It's like women cannot be full-formed characters about whom the reader can make her own judgment. Personally, I found Isabel boring and insipid. She's arrogant in the way only the young and ignorant know how to be. For all her worldly wisdom, she has no actual wisdom. She might say and think deep thoughts but they are never revealed to the reader. We must take James's word for it.

Maybe if I re-read the book with James' point in mind, I would see more value in the book. But I'm not sure what the point of a book is that tells the reader all your choices are an illusion. Maybe it's James who is deceived.

Dracula by Bram Stoker

The latest classic book I read is Dracula by Bram Stoker. We all know the story and that's what made it an interesting read. The characters did not know the story. So while I saying to myself, "His name is Dracula, you fool!" the characters go blithely on completely unaware of the danger they are in. 

The story centers around a young lawyer, Jonathan Harkin, and his fiancé Mina. Harkin must go to the castle in Transylvania (for goodness sake!) to conduct a real estate transaction with Count Dracula (again... doesn't this feel obvious!). Although he's warned by the townspeople not to proceed, as a brave young man  he charges ahead. 

Fast forward. Harkin barely escapes with his life but must now rescue his fiancée from the clutches of the villain. 

It's definitely a thriller and it must have shocked the audience at the time. Unfortunately, the story is too familiar today to get much of a rise. 

And yet, it's scary and engrossing. 

Definitely worth reading.

The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian by Serman Alexie

Our book club read The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian by Serman Alexie as part of our "Novel with a Native American as a main character" genre. My proposal was Last of the Mohicans. 

The short take on the book was that it was a YA novel about a boy growing up on an Indian reservation who makes the decision to go to the nearby "white" school. I had to sigh when I read that. I mean, the book writes itself: Boy feels like an outsider in both places. He's bullied. He's stereotyped. He aims for a girl way out of his league. He finally settles into some kind of stasis in which he comes to believe he is who he is. Others will not define him. 

And that's the book. Literally. I wasn't exactly disappointed. I just got exactly what I expected. Junior is too smart for the rez, so a teacher urges him to attend the closest public school outside the reservation. Upon discovering his plan, his best friend beats him up. The white students at his new school, where strangely enough a beautiful girl sits in front of him and after a brief introduction ignores him, make fun of him and seem to threaten violence. Plot twist, he eventually kinda gets the girl when he discovers her secret: She, too, feels pressure to perform and conform. Junior eventually develops a level of respect from both communities and realizes he will have to live permanently in both worlds.

Junior's running commentary about the reservation is interesting and had the book sought to dive deeper into those seemingly intractable issues, it would have been more interesting. If Junior would have had to examine himself more deeply for his own blind spots and vices, it would have made for better literature. Instead it's another one of countless, "I never really felt like I belonged" navel-gazing novels. It's Catcher in the Rye for Native Americans. The difference is no one likes Holden Caulfield, while Junior is certainly lovable. I just want to hug him. It's a "let me tell you my story of the particular way in which I discovered that, although I didn't fit in, I had to learn to love myself the way I am." It's actually everyone's story and interesting in its specifics. 

We are so far from literature exposing us to real human foibles and the concomitant search for virtue. My classical teacher self is on full display in that sentence. 

The book is fun. It's dessert. It isn't something you will read twice. 
 

Emma by Jane Austen

I found the beautiful copy of Emma by Jane Austen in our neighborhood "Little Library." What a treasure!

I cannot help but compare it to Pride and Prejudice. 

Apparently, at some point in the past, Emma notices that Mr. Watson would be perfect for her tutor, Miss. Taylor. The book opens with their marriage and Emma believes herself highly prescient. 

But needing a new person to work her magic upon, she alights on the new girl in the local boarding school, Miss Smith. With no knowledge of her parentage, she provides a blank slate which Emma can work to improve. Initially, she thinks Mr. Weston, the local cleric is a terrific fit. Even though her friend and neighbor Mr. Knightley declares Mr. Weston far too aware of his ability to marry "up," Emma continues to push Miss. Smith away from a local farmer and towards the young parson. 

Mr. Knightly is right and Miss Smith is devastated. Emma swears off matchmaking. 

When Mr. Weston's adult son, Frank Churchill, finally deigns to visit and meet his new step-mother, Emma's antennae go up. Even after putting all thoughts of making matches behind her, she cannot help but dive into neighborhood gossip. Miss Smith is still available, and she even finds herself coming under his sway. Despite Mr. Knightley's attempts to reign in the brattier parts of Emma, she continues to gossip and speculate. In one particularly painful moment, she is cruel to a local, poor spinster. Mr. Knightley rather harshly holds her to account.

Having to beg Miss Bates for forgiveness and seeing all the damage she has done to Miss Smith finally causes Emma to face up to her own terrible lack of virtue. Despite it all, Mr. Knightley declares his love for her and proposes. He's even willing to move into her home so that her father will not have to part with her. Could he be more perfect?

What I liked about this book is Emma's sheer brattiness. She's proud, gossipy, arrogant, and sees the world as needing her tending. But she's also at heart kind and able to see her own faults. She's a better Elizabeth Bennet than Elizabeth Bennet. We come to love her because she's such a mess.

Mr. Knightley, on the other hand, is no Darcy. Yes he's rich and proud, but he's practically perfect. It seems he loves Emma because she's the only woman of equal standing available to him. He does see her heart and knows her to be kind, but mostly she just seems silly and very young to his age and wisdom. She is his project.

Emma's father, Mr. Woodhouse, is a hypochondriac that we are supposed to love for his little idiosyncrasies. But I don't. He imposes his will upon all around him and is completely unwilling to bend or shift his opinion on any matter. He's no lovable curmudgeon Mr. Bennet. 

Like any Austen, we see the full panoply of human existence. She's an amazing observer of the human condition and bring us characters we swear we know!

A Raisin in the Sun by Lorraine Hansberry

Our senior American Literature is probably going to be reading A Raisin in the Sun by Lorraine Hansberry next year. Since I've never read it, I thought it would be a good time to dive in.

It's a play, so it's short. I read it in a few hours.

It tells the story of a working-class black family with the four adults, a matriarch, her son and daughter-in-law, and her college-aged daughter, and one child of the Younger family living in a small two-bedroom apartment. 

They are tired and world-wary, but the promise of a $10,000 life insurance pay out holds out hope. 

Walter is the "man of the home" denied that role by his proud mother. Although it's her money (the settlement is from the death of her husband), Walter has big plans to quit his chauffeur job and buy a liquor store. Mama, wants nothing to do with that. Walter's sister, Beneatha, needs the money for college. She wants to be a doctor. Ruth, the daughter-in-law, and Mama would love a house, with a yard and more living space.

Similar to The Jungle, this family on the edge experiences heartbreak after heartbreak. Once I noticed this similarity, I almost gave up on the book.

Fortunately, little of the book deals with race. It's post-war America and so they are subject to the obvious racism prevalent at the time, but that is not the source of their troubles. Hansberry makes clear that the family has it within their power to better their lives. 

The book ends in dignity and the promise of a better tomorrow. Of course they are not out of the woods and the a reader 50 years in the future knows the outcome could still be bleak. But I really loved the human dignity displayed at the end. 

The title comes from a Langston Hughs poem, "What happens to a dream deferred?/ Does it dry up/ Like a raisin in the sun?" All the Youngers, including the deceased Mr. Younger, have dreams. Those dreams are often frustrated, sometimes thought their choices and sometimes through bad luck. Yet the dream of a dream survives in this book, even when it looks the bleakest.

A Little Book for New Historians by Robert Tracy McKenzie

This book, A Little Book for New Historians by Robert Tracy McKenzie, was recommended by a member of our History team. It's short, but packs a powerful punch.

He begins by defining History. It doesn't seem like it should be all that difficult, but he starts with telling us what History is not: it is not the past. Looping C.S. Lewis into his argument, he makes the persuasive case that the past is comparable to a vast ocean: each moment which has ever occurred is a tiny drop. Only God knows the past, but we mortals can access limited parts of it, at least those parts that can be remembered. And "remembered" is the operative word. History is the remembered past. History is the collective memory of a people, and just as memory forms a person's identity, so History forms the people. Therefore the study of History should engender awe and humility as we struggle to remember who we are.

But if History is not necessarily the past, what is it? History is actually many things and must therefore be understood differently depending on the purpose of studying it. It is first of all an intellectual discipline. As such, it involves analyzing evidence and making arguments. The historian must love his subject and treat it as an object of love, while at the same time thinking critically about sources and veracity. We treat figures from the past as made in the imago dei, while recognizing that human are fallen and flawed and subject to cultural currents (as are we today). This intellectual discipline involves four distinct categories: historical information, historical understanding, historical thinking skills, and historical consciousness. After gathering the facts as best as we are able, we need to fit those facts together into a coherent whole. Then we make logical and persuasive arguments concerning the past and allow the whole process to change both ourselves and how we see the world. This final point is crucial. History without a look inward is antiquarianism, the study of history for history's sake. 

But History is not only a collective memory, it is a conversation. We speak to each other of our findings and arguments (secondary sources) and we speak to the dead (primary sources) because their ideas are still with us. We must enter that conversation with humility, acknowledging the limitations definitional to humans. All, whether other historians, historical figures, or ourselves, are struggling to understand the times and each comes with his own perspectives, biases, and blind spots. This conversation is the real point of History. Facts and figures will be forgotten, but the interpretation of those discreet points and the way in which we invite that interpretation to mold us will not be. It must therefore be top of mind that although the historian talks with the dead, he is speaking to the living. 

While History is a collective memory, an intellectual discipline, and a conversation, History is most importantly a mirror. Without an application to humans living today, History becomes a parody of its biggest criticism, a collection of dates and dead people (usually dead, white males). The Christian historian will take the sovereignty of God as a given. But the Christian historian must be careful not to ascribe motives to the workings of God. Only with extreme arrogance can we proclaim that God is doing this or that for this or that purpose. We know for a fact that History is the working out of the Gospel message as God seeks to redeem a lost and broken world. We know that History is moving towards the return of Christ and of Jesus's dominion over all. We know that nothing happens without the knowledge of God. Beyond that it's all speculation and we should tread lightly. 

But if History is a mirror, what should it reveal? Moral judgment is the act of judging the morality of past actors. In some respects, this is necessary. We should be able to say with confidence that the Aztec's proclivity for human sacrifice was evil. Where we should be wary is in concluding that we, ourselves, would never practice such depravity. Here we are invited to make a moral reflection. Would I, immersed in the world of the Aztecs, have accepted or even advocated for human sacrifice? The answer, if we are being honest, is often, yes. We need therefore to ask the next question, why? What in my heart makes me susceptible to cultural norms and the will to power such that I might find myself cheering as an innocent victim dies? And then follow that by asking, what am I blindly following today? What areas do I accept or advocate that run directly counter to the Word of God? McKenzie invites the historian to look closely at the strange over the familiar as areas that particularly challenge and reveal blindspots. 

McKenzie ends with three questions vital to the study of History:

1. How does what I am learning informing how I see the world?
2. How does it change how I understand myself? 
3. What does the knowledge that I'm acquiring require of me? 

I would add, how does this knowledge allow me to fulfill my purpose of glorifying Good and enjoying Him forever?

Only God knows the entirety of the story He is writing. As we study History, we fallen and flawed humans, depraved and blind, seek to know the very mind of God. We join in with the chorus of those, not actually dead, but our brothers and sisters gone home before us, to discover the immensity of the story He is telling about Himself. We stand on holy ground, seeking Him, and delighting in the glimpses He allows.

Curtain: Poirot's Last Case by Agatha Christie

With a bit of sadness, I read the last of the three books in this anthology, Curtain: Poirot's Last Case by Agatha Christie. It's his last case because, well... it's definitely his last case. 

I also read his first case just before this because Poirot is first introduced to the world in the same location as this story. It's a fitting ending. 

Once again Poirot is back at Styles. He knows a murderer is on the premise, but he's not sure who the murderer is. He calls Hastings to join him as his eyes and ears to provide the clues he needs before the person kills again. Hastings is frustrated that Poirot will not tell him the name of the suspect, but agrees to supply all the information he can. 

As usual identities are concealed and connections hidden. Just like the reader, Hastings will not solve the case. That's why the world needs Poirot.

The Mysterious Affair at Styles by Agatha Christie

After our book club read Murder on the Orient Express I got on a Christie kick. I was told that if I wanted to read Curtain: Poirot's Last Case I needed to read The Mysterious Affair at Styles. Apparently Curtain refers back to that novel.

This is the book that introduced the world to the eccentric Hercule Poirot. He seems to have been born fully formed with a backstory and everything. He's living in retirement in the English village of Styles for an undisclosed reason for an undisclosed time, but our main character, Arthur Hastings, has already heard of him and knows of all his exploits while on a Belgium police force. 

Of course someone must be murdered to be a proper murder mystery. And it's the most obvious murder/suspect of all: A wealthy widows marries a younger, dashing man and is found dead of strychnine poisoning. 

But not so fast. What about the stepson in need of money, his distant wife, the other odd stepson, the young and beautiful ward, the strange doctor who is an expert in poisons? No one is who they say they are. Everyone in an Agatha Christie novel has a secret identity and just plain secrets. Poirot and his little gray cells show up to solve a case that, according to him at least, should be obvious.

Spoiler, it's not. 

But Christie has introduced the world to an inimitable character and his trusty sidekick, Hastings. Until the day he dies, Hasting, although he doesn't know it yet, will play us, the befuddled audience, in almost all the Poirot novels. We, like Hasting, will struggle to see the "obvious" clues and will provide a fantastic foil to Poirot's brilliance. 

The days of murder before DNA and forensics offer a tantalizing view of what a mind, fully concentrated, might be capable of. A mind, that is, written into existence, fully formed, by Agatha Christie.

The Murder of Roger Ackroyd by Agatha Christie

The second story in this this edition, by Agatha Christie, was so much fun. The ending, completely caught me off-guard! 

Poirot is once again on the scene when a sensational murder takes place. But Hastings is not and so Poirot must turn to Dr. Shepherd. As a doctor, he is intimately acquainted with the town's secrets. He knows Roger Ackroyd well enough to know that he was being blackmailed. He knows Ackroyd's love interest killed her husband and then killed herself. And he knows Ackroyd might know who else knows. Except Ackroyd ends up dead and that information does with him. Unless Poirot can solve the case!

I love reading Christie, although I never solve the mystery before its revealed, because I can just read and relax. I love being surprised by the ending and this one didn't fail to produce. 

Murder on the Orient Express by Agatha Christie

Our book club suggested Murder on the Orient Express by Agatha Christie for the "mystery" genre.

Although I have read it before, of course I don't remember the ending. It was a great way to jump back into the Christie books and the mystery genre in general. Obviously she's the best. 

In classic Christie fashion, no one is who they seem, the murder takes place in a room locked from the inside, and Poirot needs nothing but his little gray cells to solve the case. 

In this story, Poirot is on a train, full of people in a typically low travel time. He barely finds a room on-board. A snow storm stops the train in its tracks and the scene is set for a murder. The list of suspects is confined to the passengers. The clues lead to everyone and no one. Confusion abounds and the snow is melting. Poirot must think fast.

So much fun, I read the other two novels in this beautiful edition!

The Beast that Crouches at the Door by Rabbi David Foreman

I've been listening to the BEMA podcast and they reference this book quite a bit, The Beast that Crouches at the Door by Rabbi David Foreman. Obviously I had to give it a try.

What a powerful book full of new insights!

It's written by a Jewish Rabbi, and so he grounds most of his teaching in the original Hebrew wording. Therefore most of his insights are not necessarily available to those of us who read the Bible in translation. 

Foreman dives in with a discussion of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (Notice the Tree of Life is  not off limits.). It seems self-evident that the knowledge of good and evil would be something valuable to have. But in Foreman's telling, before this knowledge was grasped, humans only knew "true" and "false" insofar as a thing lined up with the thinking of God. Now "good" (I like it) and "evil" (I don't like it) enter into the picture. We are suddenly conflicted. God says one thing is "good," but I think something else is "good." And didn't God put that desire in me in the first place? 

This leads to a discussion of the snake, who is called "crafty," or "naked." The snake is quite naked in his arguments. God said one thing, "Don't eat," but your desires say something else, "Eat." Which one takes precedence? The snake nakedly appeals to Eve's desire, even her desire to "be like God." We've been fighting this battle ever since. 

After the Fall, when God approaches man, He asks, "Where are you?" The understanding is not that God didn't know where they were located; it is that they were not where the were supposed to be (akin to "Where are all the good men?"). Foreman speculates that the reason Adam and Eve felt "naked" is because for the first time their desires are ruling their hearts rather than the Word of God. And that frightens them. Their own physical nakedness is no longer pure and innocent, but takes on a much darker tone.

This story of desire trumping all is paralleled in the story of Cain and Able. Once again, they are given a choice. Obey God or your desire. Although God did not ask for a sacrifice, Cain, whose name literally means "acquire," decides to offer God some of his produce, maybe in order to use (Hebrew "et") God for further blessing and the ability to acquire more. Able ("breath" or "vapor") chips in with his best. Seeing Cain's heart, God rejects his sacrifice. God responds to Cain's disappointment by telling him he has the same choice as his parents, respond in obedience or allow desire to take over. 

We all know how that story ended. 

God's punishment is three-fold: Cursed from the ground, no longer have access to the best, forced to wander and never be able to truly acquire. Cain acted as an animal, as the snake told Eve to do, and let his desire inspire murderous rashness. Now Cain would live an animalistic existence. Cain seems to recognize  that God has conscripted him to a life of a beast, and worries he will be killed by another. Interestingly the story replays itself in future generations with Jabal (almost the identical word for Able), and Tubal-Cain, who made weapons, thereby perfecting methods of killing. The Midrashes say Lamech killed Cain, mistaking him for a beast, thereby bringing the punishment on himself and avenging Able.

From there the story is a continuous repetition of man as a creating being, never knowing when to say "enough," always driven by his desire. 

This book offers so much more and is a fascinating read!

The Exodus You Almost Passed Over by Rabbi David Fohrman

After listening to the BEMA podcast on the Jewish understanding of the Torah, I decided to buy the book on which the lessons were based. I cannot stop raving about, The Exodus You Almost Passed Over by Rabbi David Fohrman. Fohrman is not a Christian, but takes Judaism and the Jewish perspective on the text very seriously. In doing so, he approaches the story from an "eastern" perspective in which one is invited to ask questions of the text and assume meaning only discovered through a deep dive.

He begins in a way which would never be taught in any Christian church and points out some obvious oddities about the story. Why didn't God just get the Israelites out through smiting all the Egyptians, blinding them while the Israelites escaped, or simply killing Pharaoh? Why did God go through the whole "Ten Plagues" thing at all? Fohrman quickly makes it clear that God was after much more than the freeing of the Israelite slaves; He wanted Pharaoh's heart. He wanted to show Pharaoh that He was a God above all other gods and give Pharaoh the opportunity to proclaim Him to the nations of the earth. He is the Creator/Father and we owe him both love and obedience. He is a God like nothing Pharaoh can even conceive. 

Fohrman suggests God had a Plan A, "The Easy Way," Pharaoh consents and the off the Israelites go, a Plan B, "The Hard Way," in which Pharaoh, eventually convinced of his own free will, recognizes who God is and submits to His call, or Plan C, "God's Will Prevails Despite Pharaoh." All of the plans would convince Pharaoh of who God is and all would lead to the "birth" of God's first-born (bechor). But in both Plan A and Plan B, Pharaoh would, of his own free-will come to understand God's loving and providential character and respond in a moral fashion by freeing his slaves. In Plan C, Pharaoh would be forced to free God's people, but would never relent of his stubborn refusal to recognize the Creator/Father God. 

The hardening of Pharaoh's heart begins early (Ex. 7:13). Moses and Aaron have just demonstrated their God-given ability to cast down their rods, which turn into snakes, and devour those of the Egyptian magicians. This should have been enough. The message was clear: One God to rule them all. But "Pharaoh's heart was hardened." Interestingly, Torah uses two Hebrew words for "harden." Chizuk halev refers to "strengthening" or giving yourself a pep-talk. This is what Pharaoh believes he is doing, strengthening his resolve to not listen to the prophets of Yahweh (YHVH). In the next verse, Scripture will reveal that God sees it as kibbud halev, simple stubbornness.

With each subsequent plague, God ups the ante. The first plague of water turning to blood is duplicated by Pharaoh's magicians. In Pharaoh's mind the ground rests on power and it's a tie. By stopping the plague of the frogs at a time of Pharaoh's choosing, God shows himself to be a God not only of power, but of precision. Pharaoh's Egyptian gods are capricious and random. In one overwhelmingly clear show, God reveals that he is both all-powerful AND precise. The plagues of gnats cannot be duplicated by Pharaoh's team and once again God demonstrates His power over all Egyptian gods. Yet Pharaoh, still believing he is in a power struggle chizuk halev's (courages) himself. In the fourth plague (known as either flies or wild animals) God not only says when, but where he will afflict the land. This level of precision is simply unknown in Pharaoh's world. As Pharaoh continues to strengthen his heart, God unleashed the plague of killing livestock. Yet this time God dictates the time, the place, and the ownership of the affected animals. This is an overwhelming show of godship in the ancient world. Pharaoh's only concern was to verify the precision of YHVH, while concluding with kibbud halev (stubborning) his heart. In the sixth plague of boils, God even takes out Pharaoh's magicians. No one can stand to support Pharaoh; he is all alone. Apparently this broke Pharaoh and God steps in to chizuk halev (courage) Pharaoh's heart. This hardening is often looked at as God forcing His will on Pharaoh. The opposite is true. God simply strengthens Pharaoh's heart to help him stay true to his own desire. 

For the next plague, God makes clear to Moses that he is going hard after Pharaoh's heart (9:15, "so that you [Pharaoh] may know that there is none like me in all the earth"). When the seventh plague of hail, a supernatural mixture of fire and ice, hits Pharaoh crosses a line and makes the fatal decision to both kibbud halev (stubborn) his denial of the lordship of YHVH and chizuk halev (courage) his position. He courages his own stubbornness. In verse 27 Pharaoh finally gets it. YHVH is not one of many gods. He is THE God. He is Father; He creates and parents. Like any parent He deserves gratitude and love. He demands justice. For the 1st time Pharaoh sees the contest in terms of morality, not power. No longer "Might makes right, but "Right makes might"! Yet by verse 34 we see his willful and conscious choice to spit in the face of the one he knows to be creator God. Pharaoh is incorrigible. 

This is where it shifts to Plan C. God will have his way despite Pharaoh. God hardens (chizuk halev) Pharaoh's heart and announces a new goal: the Israelites will KNOW He is God. In the Hebrew, God states in 10:2 that he will now "play with" Pharaoh, seeing as consent will never come. Chilling. In verse 3, God calls Pharaoh His "slave," intentionally pushing Pharaoh's last button. God knows this will cause Pharaoh, of his own free will, to retreat into his fortress of stubbornness. Pharaoh's grip on power is slipping as his servants beg him to call back Moses and Aaron to repent. Yet Moses twists the knife, allowing Pharaoh no face-saving way out, and contrasts the joy they anticipate in their feast to the Lord with Pharaohs total devastation. God used the completely free-will choice Pharaoh made to cling to his pride to harden his heart. Pharaoh thinks he is "winning" by denying God the recognition Pharaoh knows He deserves. 

As the final plague, the death of the firstborn approaches, Israel celebrates the first Passover. This is the night they choose to become the bechor. They will slaughter an animal considered a god by the Egyptians and very publicly paint their door frame with the blood. There is no turning back. The blood is not for identifying whose house to "pass over;" God has already shown Himself more than capable of preserving His people. The blood is the very public acceptance of God's offer. This night, as they pass through a bloody opening, they will be "born again" as God's first born.

Although this part of the book fascinated me, the second half opens another door to understanding this text. As the Israelites prepare to depart, Ex. 14:4 states, "I will get glory over Pharaoh." Does the text indicated God will showboat in his victory. No. Rather Fohrman reminds the reader of an earlier Pharaoh and an earlier trek by the Israelites. He returns to the story of Joseph hundreds of years earlier. At the time of his brothers' betrayal, Joseph may have wondered why his father never came to rescue him. He had no idea that his father thought him dead and mourned for years over the loss. By the time Joseph is reunited with his family, he has made a close connection with his Pharaoh and it stands to reason that Jacob may have worried Joseph no longer considered him his father. When Jacob blesses Joseph's sons and calls them his very own, just before his death, he requests that Joseph carry his body back to the Promised Land. This is a tough ask as Joseph will have to basically declare his loyalty to his own family over his adopted Egyptian father. But Joseph does it, and the kind and loving Pharaoh, along with the whole nation, not only grieves the death of Jacob, he sends Joseph off with a retinue of soldiers and singers all praising the dead patriarch, the father. Then Joseph and his family return.

Fohrman posits that Plan A involved much the same thing. God asks Pharaoh to allow his people three days in the desert in order to see if Pharaoh was made of the same stuff as his ancestor (of course God knew and foretold from the beginning that Pharaoh would fail). Since ultimately God shifted into (what looks like from our perspective) Plan C, God would still have His glorious send-off. The army and the horses would still accompany the Israelites, but this time under duress. God would get his due. Only this time the Israelites did not return. Pharaoh lost everything. His intentional refusal to worship the God who created him led to his downfall. 

Since God's original plan that Pharaoh would acknowledge His Lordship and proclaim Him to the world did not take place, Fohrman suggests there is still work to do. It is now our job to do what Pharaoh failed to do: Proclaim the name of the Lord.

Beartown by Fredrik Backman

Our latest book club genre is "Books in translation." My pick was The Count of Monte Cristo. We voted on Beartown by Fredrik Backman instead.

It's staccato prose and subject, a dying, desolate, and desperately cold hockey town, proved an initial obstacle to me. But once I got over that, the story really began to suck me in. I don't think I've had a book grab ahold of me like this in a while. All the characters were multi-dimensional. They all had their flaws and virtues. Just when I was ready to write off a character as unredeemable, he would surprise me. But the actual plot a bit to get going. 

But once the central action took place, it was non-stop.

Except that what appeared to be the central action was not. The author keeps us up-to-date on the happenings of a secondary character, Benji, who appears to move "off-screen" as the plot really takes shape. In those glimpses, we see hints that this boy is a closeted gay student. But that is a distraction to the gripping story the town is facing. 

Somehow the author manages to pull out a somewhat satisfying end. No one gets everything they want, but all get some satisfaction. That's the point we shift the focus back to Benji and his coach's discovery of the young man's sexual attraction to males. Suddenly the story becomes about acceptance and the appalling lack of sympathy the coach and players have displayed when it comes to same-sex attraction. The big takeaway seems to be, "Don't be a bigot to gay people." 

This "moral of the story" left a bad taste in my mouth. Obviously, as Christians, we are called to love all people and treat all with dignity and respect. Acceptance of that bent is another story. But just as a matter of story-telling, the ending felt jarring. While one really big and intractable story is seemingly the focus, Backman pulls a bait-and-switch and seems to say, "And by the way, while I got you hooked on one compelling story, I'm going to use this time to shame the anti-gay bigots." 

Anyways, I wouldn't recommend it. And I'm leery of reading his other novels. I don't need to be that invested to have the rug pulled out from under me. 

It's really a shame.

The Discarded Image by C.S. Lewis

Having read many of C.S. Lewis' books, and considering him one of my favorite thinkers, I decided to tackle, The Discarded Image. I think I probably bit off more than I could chew. I blame my own meager education.

Lewis is making the point that the medievals had a full and coherent "model" of the world and from it grew all we know of it and the subsequent Renaissance. Lewis begins by describing the medieval man as, "not a dreamer nor a wanderer. He was an organizer, a codifier, a builder of systems. He wanted 'place for everything and everything in the right place.' Distinction, definition, tabulation were his delight" (10). 

Unfortunately, while I yield to better minds who claim great reverence for this work, I got lost time and again. 

I should probably read it again in twenty years. After I finish my "List of Great Books to Read Before I Die."