Darkness at Noon by Arthur Koestler

After listening to Hillsdale's class on totalitarianism, I decided to read Darkness at Noon by Arthur Koestler. 

Although the book is fiction, it follows in the tradition of other accounts of horror at the hands of totalitarian governments, like Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago. In fact the eerie way it is written, almost disembodied, is also found in Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning. 

The main character is Rubashov, a true believer in Marxism and the Communist ideals. The novel begins with this arrest. As a good party man, he expected it, and believes all this is necessary to achieve the final utopian vision of the Party.

At first he is unwilling to "confess," but over time, and with increasing disillusionment, decides that is his only choice. And whatever the punishment, he comes to believe it is inevitable. He might even deserve it.

The book ends with his execution. 

It is a great book, and I highly recommend reading it to get a fictional flavor for a very real time in history. 

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!