Lykeion Regis

Hymn to Dionysos

2010-01-18T19:50:00.003-07:00

The poet begins with a list of several proposed locations for the birth of Dionysos, all of which are located in the Greek-Aegean world (Drakonen, Ikaros, Naxos, Alpheios, and Thebes). This suggests that the cult of Dionysos was at least widespread in the Greek world. When the poet offers Nysa as his chosen location for the event, he reveals something more of his geographical bias: Nysa is described as "far off in Phoenicia, near the streams of Egypt." Apparently, in his mind Phoenicia and Egypt both simply represent "a land far, far away", and there is no need for a meaningful distinction between them, all of which is further emphasized by the poet's insistence that it is far removed from human contact.

Also of note is the poet's use of stock phrases from the Iliad and Odyssey, which may help to explain the connection of these poems with Homer. Zeus is "father of men and gods," and Hera is "white-armed Hera." I do not know an exact Homeric parallel, but the entire stanza in which Zeus bows his head in assent also reminds one of the old bard's poems. I suspect that this whole stanza is lifted from Homer.

There are multiple references to Dionysos as a bull-god, but I need to do some more research to determine the significance of this.

The fact that this poem comes first in the collection is to be explained by the reference to Dionysos as the patron god of poets. The idea is that the creativity of the master poet can only be explained by being overcome by the madness of the god. Later, and even in Hesiod, this power is connected with the Muses, more minor deities. Homer of course had invoked a goddess, so is this poem very early, or very late? Certainly the great drama festival in Athens, whose authors were also considered poets, was connected with Dionysos, as was the theater itself.

The Odyssey continues...

2009-12-24T18:24:00.003-07:00

It has looked to be on hiatus, but I am getting back to this now, and determined to keep reading through all the classic texts from the beginning. Having dusted off the essentials of the Ancient Near Eastern tradition, I am now setting out through the wisdom of the Greeks. Although Homer's two epic poems should come next in the journey, after finishing Hesiod, I have read these before, and will read them again. I will thus set them aside for now and press on to something new: The Homeric Hymns.

Hesiod, Theogony and Works and Days

2009-12-24T17:17:00.003-07:00

What we have here is a pair of poems from the eighth century BC. The poetic style is the same as that of Homer's poems (dactylic hexameter), although their length is much shorter. The Theogony presents us with a genealogically-oriented story of the origins of the gods, the world, and mankind. Works and Days deals with some of the more practical issues of Hesiod's day, including the agricultural calendar. As strict literature, these works probably fail as stories, although the myths and explanations are not without some interest to those familiar with the Ancient Greek gods and mythology. In some cases, these represent the earliest known versions of stories about such famous figures as Prometheus, Pandora, and Heracles (aka Hercules - Hesiod loves Hercules!).

As the editor and translator, M. L. West, notes in his Introduction, the works of Hesiod reflect obvious oriental influences. The Greek world of the eighth century (the opening of the Archaic Period) was a world expanding beyond its own frontiers and importing much from beyond its shores. Thus, it is possible that Hesiod's poems were among the earliest works of literature recorded for posterity with the newly imported and adapted Phoenician alphabet. West argues that Hesiod should be seen as just another example, albeit a Greek one, of the ancient tradition of wisdom literature in the Near East. There is certainly much wisdom embedded in these poems, even for modern-day non-farmers.

As a window into the culture of Archaic Greece, there are some fascinating glimpses here. I like to use Hesiod in my history classes as the classic example of the mythopoeic explanation of the origins of the world, in contrast to the work of the pre-Socratic Ionian philosophers. Essentially, Hesiod's Theogony is telling us that the human mind cannot really understand the origins of the world, except to say that it was created by the will and power of the gods - this knowledge is unknowable by humans. The pre-Socratics would challenge this notion, but there is no doubt that Hesiod's works contain much that we would simply dismiss as superstition. I think it is important to remember this when we encounter Classical Greek authors like Plato. We tend to think of Ancient Greece as the birthplace of rational science, and it was, but running right along side it was an irrational strand. This was the irrationality that condemned Socrates to death and attracted numerous adherents to the Eleusinian Mysteries or the Oracle at Delphi. One of our great challenges as human beings is finding the balance in our world between the rational and the irrational, or to put it another way, between the sophic and and the mantic, or in modern parlance, between faith and science. Hesiod, who is just as Greek as Plato or Aristotle, reminds us that man cannot know everything, nor should he.

I am particularly fascinated by Hesiod's discussion of war and strife and Zeus' justice. Hesiod lives in a world in which human justice often fails the righteous. He calls the aristocrats of his day "bribe swallowers", and one can detect a certain personal bitterness in his discussion of these local rulers, and even towards his own brother, Perses. Yet, through it all, Hesiod has faith that Zeus is watching, Zeus the defender of justice. In the strife and conflict created by these unjust judges lies, in fact, the origin of Greek democracy. From this conflict would arise the principle figures in that development: Draco, Solon, and Cleisthenes. But Hesiod is not just a close-minded liberal or conservative (he advocates social change like a liberal, but also emphasizes the traditional virtues connected to agriculture like a conservative). Hesiod is also a supporter of the Greek notion of arete, a word often translated as 'excellence'. He describes what he calls the good kind of strife in opposition to the bad kind of strife engendered by social injustice. The good kind is what we would probably call ambition (I am reminded of Sallust's discussion in his historical texts of ambitio, "the vice that comes closest to a being a virtue"). At the heart of Greek civilization and its greatest achievements was a striving with one another for excellence, seen most visibly in the quarrel between Achilles and Agamemnon in Homer's Iliad, a text relatively contemporary with Hesiod. The key to success in this battle, says Hesiod, is simply work. Hesiod firmly believes that labor will bear its own fruit as well as being rewarded by the gods: "But in front of Superiority the immortal gods set sweat."

There is a lot more cultural evidence and basic advice to savor here. Hesiod's views on women are fairly misogynistic, and yet quite practical given the living conditions of his day. Hesiod might also be called the Benjamin Franklin of the Greeks, and Works and Days would be his version of Poor Richard's Almanac. His versions of some myths are a bit different from the version we tend to tell today. It all adds up to a Greek Classic well worth the read, especially considering its length.

The Epic of Gilgamesh

2009-07-30T19:09:00.003-06:00

Analysis

On the one hand, I don't want to fall into the trap of comparing Gilgamesh to Homer's epic poems, since the contexts of their creations are both geographically and temporally distinct. On the other hand, both provide some of the earliest explorations of the human experience, and thus seem ripe for comparison. I will simply say that I prefer the richness of Homer, but there is certainly something attractive about the raw emotions and experiences in the Gilgamesh epic.

Gilgamesh gets right at the heart of the human experience in its most basic terms: love, fear, power, and friendship. Almost right from the start, the Epic begins to explore the nature of human civilization, and the benefits and costs of moving from a more natural state of living to the sophisticated city life of ancient Mesopotamia. Gilgamesh takes full advantage of his position of power in Uruk, lording it over his subjects. Another powerful dynamic in the city is religion, the only potential power capable of addressing the people's woes. Of course, the gods only react when they get tired of hearing the whining from below. Their solution is to match might with might, through the creation of Gilgamesh's equal: Enkidu. Of course, Gilgamesh's first effort to deal with the threat is to turn to religion as well, in the form of a temple prostitute. She it is who is able to tame and civilize the wild Enkidu. All of this should remind us of the constant battle between wild nature and the cultivated (read: agricultural) city inherent in the earliest civilizations.

The social nature of the human experience is also heavily emphasized, particularly through the friendship of Gilgamesh and Enkidu. Together they achieve great feats of wonder, just as ancient kings organized their people in the construction of great buildings and public works. We should remember that the infamous Tower of Babel was built not too far from Uruk. In fact, like the builders of the Tower of Babel, the team of Gilgamesh and Enkidu become a threat to the gods themselves when they kill the Bull of Heaven, and thus Gilgamesh's world must be thrown into confusion. The lamentations of Gilgamesh for his one true friend in the world of men are powerful and emotional - stirring up feelings that all humans must experience at some time in their life, that of loss and loneliness.

The death of Enkidu spurs the famous quest of Gilgamesh for immortality. This quest becomes a contemplation on the nature of mortality. As we can also learn from Homer's Iliad, what truly distinguishes men from the gods is their mortality. But where Homer shows us that the gods, in all their immortality, are missing something (and know it), here human mortality is portrayed with a typically Mesoptamian pessismism. Gilgamesh will die; there is nothing he can do about it (it is his, as for all men, destiny, despite attempts to thwart it); that is why the gods are to be envied.

The Epic of Gilgamesh, therefore, becomes the perfect segway between the earlier Mesopotamian poems, which focused almost solely on the exploits of the gods, and the earliest Greek poems, which will move us further and further into a truly human perspective, which makes this ancient literature so meaningulf for us, even 3000 years later.

A Farewell to Virgil

2009-01-17T20:03:00.002-07:00

Dante's Purgatorio XXX is a canto of transition, as Dante prepares to leave Mount Purgatory and enter Heaven. Dante the poet has earlier hinted at the necessity of a change of guides for Dante the Pilgrim in order to complete his prescribed journey. The suddenness of that exchange comes rather unexpectedly for both Dante and his readers. As the majestic Beatrice approaches him, Dante turns to Virgil, as he has become accustomed to do during the last 63 cantos, using the simile of a trembling child turning to its mother for comfort. When he turns, however, and states his fear out loud, his words fall mutely to the ground, for Virgil has quietly departed the scene. Dante's brief encomium that follows, however, becomes the focal point of the movement in this canto celebrating repentance. We thus come to see repentance not just as a progress through Hell, Purgatory, and Heaven, but specifically as a process of transition from one guide to another.

The poet has already equated Virgil to a mother. Now he is described as "sweetest of fathers" (XXX.50). When Beatrice has fully entered the scene a few lines later, she comes dressed in the simile of an admiral. Thus, we compare Dante to a young cabin boy heading off to sea under the tutelage of an old sea captain, to extend his own simile further. We can imagine the many tears that such a boy might weep in the first few days of his new life, thinking back to the home and family he has always known, but now lying so far away. And of course the old sea captain draws the boy's attention away from that past life to focus on the task at hand. In Dante's words, "Do not weep yet/there is another sword to make you weep." (XXX.56-7) We can expect that these experiences of our hero will one day produce a man worthy of our admiration.

The commentators divide up Dante's journey into two main parts, each marked by a different guide. Virgil's task was helping Dante to master his own will in order to fully bend it to God's. Beatrice will now aim to reform his intellect or understanding of God. This then is Dante's view of repentance: We must bow our will to God, and having done so, we will come to fully understand God's ways, fully overcome our sinful ways, and complete our path to divine perfection. I suspect that most of us tend to think of repentance in a more Platonic way, simply as a matter of recognizing and understanding our fault. One can hear the voice of Socrates: once we know what is good and right, we will surely do good and right rather than evil. Yet, our sins are typically the result not of faulty knowledge, but simply of a weak will. We know at some level that we should not do it, but we just can not help it. Surely, then, Dante is right to spend 2/3 of his poem of repentance and salvation learning to curb his appetites, bending his will to God's will.

This makes the final line of his 'farewell to Virgil' tercet all the more poignant. It calls to my mind the twenty-first verse of Obadiah: "And saviours shall come up on mount Zion to judge the mount of Esau; and the kingdom shall be the Lord’s." As Beatrice tells us later in the canto, it was she who shed tears before Virgil in a last ditch effort to save Dante, essentially from himself, or at least his weak will. From Dante's perspective, however, at least at this point in the poem, it has been Virgil who has been the real author of his repentence: "Virgil, to whom I gave myself for my salvation." (XXX.51) Virgil is acquited of any potential charge of trying to usurp Beatrice's primary role in Dante's true conversion process, since he has repeatedly made mention of the lady who sent him on his errand. Nevertheless, it is Vergil who appeared to Dante in the dark woods at the very beginning of the poem; it is Virgil who safely guided Dante past the devil and his minions in Inferno; and it is Virgil who has been his constant support in his upward climb through Purgatory. It is no wonder that Dante cannot stop the flow of tears at the loss of his guide and mentor. Dante's language also seems to suggest that it may have been his study of Virgil's poetry in real life that has not only inspired him in his current vocation, but indeed led him to this salutatory point of repentance.

And so, as readers of Dante's poem, we too must bid farewell to the old Roman at this point, and prepare ourselves to continue the journey into Paradiso, perhaps by shedding a tear or two of our own for the poor fellow who must now hasten back alone to his eternal home in limbo. We can only wish him a safe and happy return, and perhaps some future adventure, if he so wishes it, as our guide on our own journey towards salvation.

RPC

How Soccer Explains the World

2008-12-29T19:34:00.003-07:00

Review: Franklin Foer, How Soccer Explains the World: An Unlikely Theory of Globalization (Harper Perennial, 2004).

I enjoyed this book, probably because, like Foer, I like soccer. I learned something new about world soccerdom in each chapter. The title of the book, however, is a bit overstated. Since each chapter is related to the others only in the largest thematic ways, Foer fails to really present any kind of "theory" of globalization - in other words, the book lacks a central thesis. What he offers instead is a series of pastiches illuminating the impact of globalization upon soccer, and even to some extent the impact of soccer on globalization. The book probably succeeds more in provoking thought about globalization than in making any real explanations. I definitely think soccer proved a good choice for exploring the impact of globalization at the local level in a variety of locales. Since he focuses on club soccer more than international soccer, he can zoom in on the most local of rivalries and see how they have been changed by progress of globalization. Not all the chapters do this as well as some, however.

I was particaulrly intrigued by the inter-play between local (or national) rivalries/group identification within a global culture. One assumes that the world's sport operates simlarly wherever one might go. This might be true on the pitch, although we are all familiar with the different styles of soccer found in the various locales of world soccer. What we find, though, is that the cultural, economic, and political background of each locale affects the nature of the soccer in each locale. What drives a local rivalry in Glasgow, and how the clubs themselves treat it, is not even the same as close as London. Yet, there are some more global aspects to be found in a wider context, such as anti-semitism (although there is little of this outside Europe, so again we see the regional variation with a global culture). Likewise, when powerful economic or political forces get involved in football, the very nature of the game in that region can be affected, whether we are talking about the Brazilian diaspora or Italian catenaccio. And of course, soccer itself can play a political role, as was seen in the chapters on Serbia and Iran.

For me, this book followed nicely on Nick Hornby's Fever Pitch, whose insights into English hooliganism meshed well with several of Foer's chapters. As an insightful glimpse into the world of football, the book succeeded masterfully. As a sustained argument about globalization, however, it falls a little flat. This book essentially leaves it to the reader to draw some significant conclusions from these 10 case studies. It really demands deeper discussion than I can muster up here by myself. The publisher even provides a series of questions to provoke further discussion, many of which I would love to discuss with someone in the know.

RPC

Fever Pitch

2008-12-28T19:15:00.003-07:00

Review: Nick Hornby, Fever Pitch (New York: Riverhead Books, 1992).

This book held the double attraction of being a football fan's memoir, and being specifically the memoir of an ARSENAL fan. Ever since I discovered club football, I have been an Arsenal fan, and while I cannot claim to be as fanatical as Hornby, I too find that I cannot relinquish my support of the Gunners.

I have to agree with the many blurbs I have read about this book that it is "a small classic", at least in the genre of sports memoirs, even though it is written by a fan, not a player. In many ways, the perspective of the fan makes it worth reading more, because Hornby uses the exploration of his Arsenal obsession as a window into more serious issues of football and life. His insights into the hooliganism of the 70s and 80s, culminating in the Hillsborough disaster, were interesting and enlightening. His explorations of his development as a person, through the experience, at the same time communal and individual, of football spectating were especially intriguing. One of my own personal theories of explanation for many of the problems of our modern world come down to our collective and personal immaturities, and I think Hornby's book sheds some light on this — it is an explanation of his own maturation process as seen through his obsession. Even though he does some serious maturing in both his personal life and his sporting life, in the end he still remains somewhat immature in his inability to relinquish his obsession, forcing even his closest friends to adapt their lives to his obsession. I would be hypocritical to cast this as too great failing, however, seeing how I suffer from the same, albeit in a much smaller degree since I may never see Arsenal play live in my lifetime, immaturity.

The book also gave me the opportunity to reflect on my own football obsession. For Hornby, it was his visit to Arsenal’s match against Stoke City that ignited his fire for football and Arsenal. For me, it was the 1990 World Cup, which I watched on the Spanish channel, which. I had played little league soccer, but like so many American youths, that hardly had an effect on me after I stopped playing. My personal interests in the world beyond America, the same interest which had also made me a bicycle racing fan starting with the 1987 Tour de France, hit head on with the spectacle of Italia ’90. This was all in the pre-Internet days of globalization, so my only chance to delve further into the world of international soccer was to find a trendy bookstore which carried European soccer magazines – not so easy in Phoenix, Arizona. I would try to guess when the next issue would be put on the shelf, usually guessing wrong once or twice in my enthusiasm. I read every word of those issues, most more than once, but what I liked most were the league tables in the back of the issue – which of course were hopelessly outdated by the time they got to me. It just so happened that Arsenal won the 1990-91 English First Division title, and that is probably how I became an Arsenal fan. I was also attracted to Barcelona, Milan, Ajax, and others (I figured I should have a favorite club in each country), particularly those clubs which had players from the countries I had seen on Spanish television. Somehow, the Arsenal fixation stuck. Not being English, and thus having no local club (I loved Hornby’s account of his experience watching Arsenal play at his “home” club, Reading), I was free to choose any club to support. I think the idea of a club whose name wasn’t particularly associated with a city (like Liverpool, or Manchester United, or Newcastle – boring!), also appealed to me for some reason. I was fortunate in my choice, I guess, since Arsenal have been one of the premier teams of the Premiership in the almost two decades I have been following them. I haven’t had to experience such things as relegation (OK, no Arsenal fan has had to experience that since 1913), fighting to avoid relegation, or floundering in mid-table mediocrity for years on end. I couldn’t have known that when I glommed on to them in 1991, though. I appreciated the opportunity that Hornby offered me to reflect on my own fanhood and maturity.

RPC

Blogging

2008-12-27T17:18:00.002-07:00

OK. I have learned how difficult it can be to be a consistent blogger. I have been reading lots of stuff, although I have not made much progress on my Odyssey - Gilgamesh stares at me from my bookshelf every day - but I haven't had the inclination (the excuse of 'no time' is always a little lame, since we always have time for what is really important to us) to write about what I have been reading. That takes more mental energy than I am often willing to muster up. Sometimes, if we've read the same book, I have a good conversation with my wife about some of the things I've read, but I read a lot of stuff she doesn't, and while I could have a good conversation with another intellectual about the book, I don't know anyone else reading the same stuff or who has the time to try. As I near mid-life, I am finding a reading of Dante particularly relevant, and I've been able to discuss it a little with a colleague at work, but neither of has enough time to do it justice. Anyway, I suppose one of my New Years' Resolutions will be blogging more consistently.

RPC

Speculative Fiction

2008-12-18T20:50:00.005-07:00

I have been reading a fair bit of fantasy and science fiction lately, something that I have generally avoided for many years. It's not that "speculative fiction" is not interesting to me, but rather that I question its quality and such a use of my time. The books that I have been reading have been helping me to think about the nature of "literature." I'm not trained in literary criticism at all, so I really struggle to differentiate real literature - what I consider to be things worth reading because they hold some value for the reader besides just passing the time in an entertaining way - from what I call "fluff fiction" - the literary equivalent of most popular television (only it takes longer to get through a book than a TV episode).

I think most people would agree that Tolkien's Lord of the Rings series can be classified as literature, and I would even go so far as to classify it as a modern classic. It is a rich text, full of potential meaning and interpretation. If there is any book that could be held up as a standard by which to judge other speculative fiction, Tolkien may just be it, and indeed much fantasy literature has been little more than pale attempts at recreating Tolkien in their own (lesser) minds. This is the kind of fantasy fiction that I am not interested in. So, I have tried to focus my latest reading on some of the giants of modern speculative fiction - authors that seem to get a good amount of praise as authors by people who at least claim to be in a position to know such things.

The thing about Tolkien, despite the fact that he took it so seriously himself, is that the fantasy world in which his stories are set are not the real point, at least not for his readers. I read the books not to gaze into Tolkien's imagination as he describes a different world peopled by different sorts of beings, but rather as a tale of heroic goodness in the face of great evil - i.e. the story is about Frodo, not Middle Earth or even the Ring. His sources of inspiration (Beowulf, Arthurian legend, Norse mythology, etc.) are similar: the point of Beowulf is not to enter a world wherein such a monster as Grendel lives, but rather to recall the deeds of the heroic human Beowulf. By pondering Beowulf's deeds and fate, we should be reflecting on our own. The same is true for Frodo, or Samwise, or even Aragorn.

So, how do my recent forays into speculative fiction measure up?

Philip K. Dick, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
Neal Stephenson, Snow Crash
Ursula K. Le Guin, A Fisherman of the Inland Sea
Ursula K. Le Guin, A Wizard of Earthsea
Gene Wolfe, The Knight

I should say, first of all, that I enjoyed each of these books. I would say, however, that the least "literary" of the books, even though it was perhaps the most entertaining read of the bunch, was the Stephenson book. Not only was I a bit put off by the excessive language in the book, but I have also never been a real big fan of near-future cyberpunk kind of settings. Nevertheless, Snow Crash presented a futuristic, fallen-apart, America which was interesting, and accessible, enough for me to actually enjoy reading about. The main character, Hiro Protagonist, was the kind of heroic protagonist, a sword-fighting, motorcycle-riding, computer programmer, that I could connect with. This was a book that relied heavily upon its presentation of the author's vision of the world of the near future, introduced the reader to some intriguing ideas which had been percolating in the author's mind, but that contained only moderate explorations of the characters' development within the storyline. Basically, it was a fun adventure in a weird setting - the makings of good fluff fiction. However, the ideas that Stephenson plays around with are enough to remove this from the same shelf as the fluffiest fiction out there: What is the nature of language and communication? How is our increasingly computerized world affecting our use and understanding of language at the most basic levels? What is the true power of language, both in reception and production? Even, how has language use and meaning evolved over the centuries, going back to ancient Sumeria? So, it was not a total waste - not just "empty calories" as it were.

I'm going to lump Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? and A Fisherman of the Inland Sea in essentially the same category. Both are science fiction - the first a novel, the latter a collection of stories, the last three of which are set in the same imaginative future. Both deal with the social implications of potential future technology. Dick wonders about the relationship between humans and androids which have become practically human themselves. In other words, what does it mean to be a human, or even 'alive' for that matter? I'm probably not really doing justice to this book, which I found quite thought-provoking, for the sake of time. Le Guin's three main stories in the collection deal with the ramifications of instantaneous travel, as opposed to what she calls Nearly As Fast As Light travel. The latter, of course, drawing upon relativity theory, has terrible social consequences, since the time it takes for the traveler to a distant planet is not the same as for those who remain stationary relative to the traveler. Le Guin posits some potential quirks associated with the development of what she calls "churten" technology - instantaneous space travel - although I think for her the opportunity to exercise her imagination in describing different cultures on different planets is at least as important as anything else, perhaps making this work less significant as science fiction and moving it more towards "literature" generally. She should be applauded, however, for considering the real implications of space travel, which are so conveniently over-rided or ignored in other imaginative universes (Star Wars or Star Trek, for example).

Le Guin's other book here held a greater potential trap for the fantasy writer, but she steered well clear of it. This is the first book in what is known as the Earthsea Cycle. She has imagined a new world which requires some description and explanation. It would be easy for her to be sucked into the kind of "world-building" approach I so fear from fantasy literature. The world she imagines is a world of archipelagos - no huge continents, just lots of small, medium and large landmasses (islands) scattered about. Each island has the potential for her to imagine a new and different people/culture, which she does, in fact. Yet, the background world in which she sets her story always remains in the background - it plays its proper role without ever dominating the story, which is always front and center. This is not a fantasy world for role-players that must be completely fleshed out to allow GMs to run their campaigns. The focus is on the story (and it is a good one), and on the development of the protagonist. Her main character is a young man who will become one of the greatest wizards of his world. Not only do we get the standard boy-to-man plot, but we also get the traditional fantasy quest plot, and yet there is nothing too traditional or stale about this plot-line. Indeed, the story is woven together so tightly it draws the reader in and won't let them back out until it is over. Now there is probably some classic literature out there which does both these plots better, or in richer fashion, (Who will ever improve on the quest plot which is the heart of Homer's Odyssey, for example?) but even they may not be written in such a fluid and attractive way.

Finally, Gene Wolfe's The Knight: This is a hard one to judge. I have noticed that this seems to be one of those love it or hate it kind of books. Some readers toss it aside in disgust after reading some or even all of it; others rave about it as one of the best books ever. One way that I could sympathize with the naysayers is in the confusion that Wolfe creates in his presentation. The story jumps forward sometimes without any warning, taking the reader a page or two to get their bearings back and figure out how we have moved ahead so far from the previous chapter. This is done sometimes through the main characters' forays into different worlds which run on different time scales. I wasn't bothered too much by the constant references to things the narrator (the first person main character) knows will happen in the future between the current point in the story and the author's own place and time; however, there are often rather oblique references made to people or places which are obviously meant to be obscure, but they only produce some confusion. Despite all this disorientation, the book moves along at a rather swift pace and because of that, the overall storyline is easy enough to follow. Some commentators have praised Wolfe for what he has done in taking stock characters and situations from traditional fantasy literature (going back at least to Arthurian legend) and putting a fresh spin on them. I can see some of that, and if I took the time I could probably identify more, especially if I was more familiar with those traditional figures of the genre. So, clearly, the book cannot be simply tossed aside as fluff fiction, and those who did not appreciate it were probably not real connoisseurs of literature. Having said that, though, I remain skeptical of how good this might be as literature. Granted, he doesn't overdo the world description, allowing it to take over the story, which is good and well done considering the multi-tiered world he is imagining, which is a bit foreign to us. Also granted, the story focuses on the character development of the protagonist. Like Le Guin's wizard above, Abel, the narrator and protagonist, is growing from boy to man and on a major quest (in more ways than one). Still, I don't know how much of the feeling of confusion comes from me just not reading carefully enough and how much just isn't even there to find no matter how hard I look or how many times I read it. How much would this book repay a re-reading? A good question. I think I could definitely benefit from some good discussion about this book with someone who was more of an expert in literary criticism or at least more experience in reading and thinking about speculative fiction.

Wresting and Wrangling

2008-10-20T20:20:00.011-06:00

Review: Jack Monnett, Awakening to our Situation: Warnings from the Nephite Prophets (Nauvoo House Publishing, 2006).

To begin with, this is not a real review because to really do that I would have had to read this entire book, and I'm just not willing to waste that much of life. Two chapters was enough for me, and I am only devoting more of my time to write a review of this book as a public service, seeing as how almost all of the discussion on the Internet about this book is by fellow conspiracy theorists who are enthralled by this tripe.

Up front, I can also say that I am not really qualified to weigh in on the specifics of this book - modern American history is not my specialty. However, unlike the author of this book, my PhD is in historical research, and my profession involves teaching students how to conduct good research. From that perspective, I can tell you that if Dr. Monnett, PhD, submitted this book as work in one of my classes, he would be earning a D at best. He does practically everything I tell students NOT to do when doing research and writing it up. A few examples should suffice.

One of the last chapters of the book is about 9/11. After reminding us that "most ideas that challenge the status quo are not found in traditional radio and television news reports, newspapers, and news magazines", which must explain why he never really cites anything published by a reputable or academic publisher, he proceeds to explain what "really happened" on 9/11 through a series of questions and answers. I will quote a little:

What about the nineteen hijackers? Have they finally paid for their crimes?
We would have expected that the hijackers would have been quickly brought to justice and been sentenced. A year after the tragedy, Director of the FBI Robert Mueller told the nation that "We at this point definitely know the nineteen hijackers who were responsible" and implied that they would speedily be brought to justice.* Instead, today, we find them referred to in most writings as "alleged" hijackers because several have been found to be living (not burned up in plane crashes) and, of those interviewed, all have denied that they had anything to do with the hijackings and have shown plausible alibis. To date, even with various bits of circumstantial evidence found, no convictions have been made against any of them who are living.

But the planes were hijacked and flew into the World Trade Center, didn't they?
There are some inconsistencies in the reporting, but most researchers feel that the airplanes that hit the Twin Towers were the hijacked American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175. One concern that has been raised is that hitting either tower with a difficult to maneuver plane such as a Boeing 767 would be particularly difficult for novice pilots. Another interesting aside is that each of the planes "had at least one passenger who was a senior official in Raytheon's division of Electronics Warfare" aboard which, for some, opens other possibilities.*

The chapter then continues on to question the reaction of the Air Force to the hijacking: it was too slow, and the reports afterward show some confusion and conflicting views. The obvious conclusion, therefore, is:

This all may sound quite confusing, but most researchers have come to the conclusion that any scrambling that may have been done by jet interceptors was not done with the intent of preventing the airliners from hitting their targets. Given the prescribed protocol and the nation's state of emergency, the only answer for the silent fighter jets appears to be willful complicity by those who were responsible for scrambling and intercepting the airplanes.

And now we have the crux of it all - a great big conspiracy to get us into war so that the secret combination trying to rule the world could make some more money.

Now, the two asterixes above are in place of the author's footnote markers. Notice the massive lack of documentation for anything that Monnett asserts. The first * is a citation for an article entitled "Playing the 9/11 Unity Card" which he says in his endnote was authored by the Associated Press on November 3, 2002. He follows this with a link to the nomoregames.net website, which turns out to be the creation of a fellow conspiracy theorist, who appears to be the actual author of the article. This guy, Morgan Reynolds, is another "PhD", this one in economics, who would thus appear to be unqualified to say anything definitive on the subject, particularly on the structural integrity of the twin towers, which is exactly what he does do in another article on his website. Whether he is qualified or not (I'm not saying you have to have a PhD in history to do good research, although one in engineering would be a useful accreditation for someone commenting on the structural integrity of the buildings), this is hardly the place to find your quote from the head of the FBI. There are more reliable sources for this kind of information, and as I teach my young research students, you want your evidence to be from as reliable a source as you can find.

Now we skip down through some pretty amazing, and undocumented, assertions until we finally come to his second source citation. This * refers us to David Ray Griffin, The New Pearl Harbor. Olive Branch Press: Northampton, MA, 2004, p. 209. Now, I don't know anything about this book, but I can tell you a couple of things just from this citation information: The reference to the "new" Pearl Harbor must mean that he is another conspiracy theorist who belives that Pearl Harbor was all a conspiracy by FDR to get us into WWII (I have heard of this conspiracy theory before). I'll leave it to the WWII historians to debunk that myth (as I'm sure they already have). And what about this Olive Branch Press - I teach my budding researchers to look at the press to help determine the reliablity of a source. The best presses use a peer review process that ensures that other experts in the field agree that the work is based on sound research, even if they don't agree with its conclusions. The nice thing about the Internet is that you can usually learn something about these questionable presses right from their own websites, and sure enough, right on the front page of their website:

Our Mission

We endeavor to glorify and serve God, by educating, edifying and entertaining His people. We will do this by providing quality materials that help to develop a Biblical worldview. We desire to be used by God to draw non-believers into a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and believers to a closer walk with Him.

Statement of Faith

We believe in one God, eternally manifested in three persons. We believe that the Bible alone is the standard for every area of life, and that all scripture is given by inspiration of God, is infallible, and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness. We believe that man is saved by grace alone, and that the atoning work of Jesus Christ, and His resurrection, allow us to enter into a personal relationship with God, the Creator.

I'm not quibbiling over their professions of faith. They have the right to assert whatever beliefs they want, and they have the right to publish whatever they want. My point is that this statement should hardly instill in us a sense of confidence in the impartiality of this particular work, the acceptance of its research standards by other researchers, or the reliablity of its conclusions, since clearly the point of any book from this publisher must be to convert people to their own "Biblical worldview". That's great for a Sunday School manual, but not if you want your research to be considered legitimate and reliable. This book by Griffin becomes Monnett's main source for his views of the 9/11 conspiracy (if all the ibid.'s at the end of the chapter are anything to go by).

The same could be said about Monnett's publisher, except that his publisher doesn't even have a website. We might well ask whether this book is being published out of some nut-job's basement - maybe even by Monnett himself. I note that you can't even buy it on Amazon, except through their used book sellers. On the author himself, I found this little blurb: "Jack D. Monnett holds degrees in education from Brigham Young University and a Ph.D. in the Historical Foundation of Education from the University of Utah." Whatever "Historical Foundation of Education" means, I'm guessing his PhD is from an Education department, not a history department. Hardly instills confidence in his ability to do historical research - again, not that he couldn't, just that all his credentials, which he flashes on the cover of his book, don't mean that he is qualified to do the research required for his book. Displaying one's credentials on the cover of a serious academic book is rarely reassuring, rather it suggests insecurity.

So much for Monnett's sources. I teach my research students that whenever you want to argue against some one, you need to present their side as fairly and completely as you can, so that you can say that you have accurately depicted their view and shown it to be lacking. Not only does Monnett fail to do this, but he doesn't even back up his own arguments with any hard evidence. This is D work at best.

Now let's look, just briefly, at his grammar. Hey, no one is perfect. (I'm sure I have a few booboos in this blog - but then I'm not asking a publisher to print this blog.). In my experience of grading papers, however, the ones with the most grammatical problems are usually the ones which demonstrate the shoddiest research as well. So, when Monnett writes, "But the planes were hijacked and flew into the World Trade Center, didn't they?", we must ask: Were the planes hijacked (presumably by the terrorists) or did they fly themselves (the planes 'were hijacked and flew' - subject of flew = planes, presumably by themselves since no other subject is offered)? He either needs to turn 'were hijacked' into an active verb with a clear subject who can both hijack and fly, or he can leave the passive voice, in which case he needs: the planes "were flown", again presumably by the hijackers. The 'they' at the end must refer to the planes, since no other subject was offered. By itself, this problem is minimal, but coupled with the lack of any hard evidence or reliable sources, it must force us to raise an eyebrow.

Now, on to my favorite aspect, which is the illogicality and hyperbole of conspiracy theorists. Follow along in the text with me. Now, I have not done much research into this 9/11 thing, but I did see it live on TV when it was happening (and note: it was the same on the every channel - that's one big media cabal!). So, my understanding was that the 19 hijackers were ON THE PLANES which crashed and burned. Thus, it comes as little surprise to me that these "alleged" (how about a source for that one, eh, Dr. Monnett?) hijackers that were interviewed had plausible alibis. The guys who did it killed thmselves in the act!! No wonder they're not getting the justice due to them - THEY'RE DEAD ALREADY! Now, I understand that Monnett is implying that they did not actually die in the crash - in fact it appears that he is suggesting that the planes did not actually crash into the WTC (one of the conspiracy theories from Steven Jones, see below, is that the towers collapsed from being blown up rather than crashed into). But didn't they convict the one guy who didn't get on the plane but was part of the conspiracy? And hey, let's be honest, this terrorist plot was clearly a conspiracy, and even a secret combination if you want. But he doesn't make that point, does he?

In the next paragraph, Monnett is almost willing to grant that AA Flt 11 was the one that crashed into the WTC. Um... there were only 4 hijacked planes that day, right? We ought to know their numbers... and we know what happened to all 4 - 2 crashed into the WTC, one crashed in PA, and one hit the Pentagon. Or am I misremembering? So "most researchers" (again, whoever they are - no citations) "feel" that this was the case. Good researchers don't "feel", they assert, argue, and provide some evidence. Even if it is hard to control a 767, these terrorists were at pilot training school, right? It might be tough, but how difficult is difficult? It would be nice to have a citation of a 767 pilot saying as much. Then I might accept it. Finally, there is a reference to "Raytheon's division of Electronics Warfare". I checked the index. This is apparently the only reference in the book - how about some explanation as to how this supports whatever contention he is alluding to (Monnett never comes right out and says what he wants to say or actually answers the question he poses). Raytheon is a defense contractor, so presumably they are part of Monnett's big secret combination out to rule the world (I feel like I'm watching Saturday morning cartoons here, sheesh).

Finally, Monnett's conclusions about the Air Force reaction to the 9/11 hijackings defy common sense. OK, the people involved were confused. No surprise there - this was a rather unprecedented attack on American soil. If people forgot to follow some of the regulations or weren't sure what to do, can we blame them? Likewise, we shouldn't be surprised if their after action reports display some confusion and inconsistencies either. No one knew what was going on. And the idea that jets needed to be scrambled to possibly shoot them down may be according to the book, but defies logic: yeah, they're going to shoot down 4 planes full of passengers to get these 19 terrorists - this is not how Americans operate. The biggest guffaw, though, is Monnett's assertion that "most researchers" don't think the jets that were scrambled were done to prevent the planes from hitting their targets. But, no one knew they were aiming at targets! The basic assumption with hijackers is that they want to make a political point, or something, and hold the passengers hostage until they get what they want. Again, these actions were unprecedented on American soil. No one was thinking,"We better keep these guys from hitting their targets." This is not grounds for discovering a conspiracy - this is normal human confusion at a bizarre situation. This all leads to my favorite line of all: "the only answer" is a conspiracy. The only answer?! I think I have already suggested a few other possible answers. I'm sure people who actually know something about all this could provide a few more. So, it is only "the only answer" in this conspiracy theorist's mind.

Now, I think that is enough on his research methods. Clearly the author has failed to grasp the basics of academic research, and so we must treat this book with the contempt we generally reserve for any amateur who thinks he is smarter than the professionals, simply because he wills it to be so, or has received special revelation that all the experts are not privy to. Again, I am not saying you have to be an expert or a PhD to do good research - but you do have to pay an initiation fee into the field by actually reading the primary sources and the best secondary sources (even if you are going to disgaree with them). Is that too much to ask, Dr. Monnett?

The book also includes a CD from the (in)famous Dr. Steven E. Jones. Jones is a Physicist, so maybe he is qualified to comment on the structural engineering of the buildings (actually, his specialty is nuclear fusion). I will simply refer you to the Internet at large if you want to learn more about this guy, but I will note that the Wikipedia (I know, not the greatest source, but I'm growing weary of talking about this book and writing this review) entry suggests that Jones has come in for the same kind of criticism that I am leveling at Dr. Monnett:

Jones' paper has been the center of controversy both for its content and its claims to scientific rigor.^[19] Jones' early critics included members of BYU's engineering faculty;^[20] shortly after he made his views public, the BYU College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences and the faculty of structural engineering issued statements in which they distanced themselves from Jones' work. They noted that Jones' "hypotheses and interpretations of evidence were being questioned by scholars and practitioners," and expressed doubts about whether they had been "submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."^[21]

Now, let me just say before concluding that, yes, the Book of Mormon has much to teach us about the devastating effects of secret combinations. They are undoubtedly all around us in one form or another. But let me also just suggest that the probability of there being one great secret combination out to rule the world, and which has been steadily working towards this end for several generations, seems highly unlikely on the basis of the Book of Mormon evidence itself. Notice that once the Gadianton Robbers got into power, they started killing each other for that power. Yes, they want money; yes, they want power; but that applies to everyone in the group. And the idea that we don't know about this great conspiracy because it is, well, "a secret"? The Gadiantons and those in Jaredite times were unable to keep it a secret - evidenced by the fact that we can read about them in the book! Why assume that modern secret combinations are more adept at keeping the secret?

In conclusion, I warn everyone, and their neighbor, and their neighbor's dog, to steer clear of this kind of drivel masquerading as "academic research". Dr. Monnett, PhD, simply preys on his faithful but unwary readers by wresting the scriptures in service to his personal agenda, and wrangling the facts to fit his bizarre conspiracy theory. If you buy this nonsense, then I know a guy from Nigeria who wants to make you a very rich person - I'll hook you up for a 10% cut of the profits.

Velociraptor Quiz

2008-10-19T19:32:00.002-06:00

I just couldn't resist... 9 second longer than my wife :)

60 seconds

Created by Bunk Beds Pedia

NYT Crossword, 1012

2008-10-19T18:44:00.004-06:00

This will probably be my last crossword post. If you've been reading my posts for a while this will probably come as no surprise. My regular complaints about the puzzle have crystallized into some conclusions: These puzzle makers live in a different world than I do, which is fine, except that I'm not so interested in joining their world. It is a world that ranges too widely - from high and classic culture to modern fringe and pop culture - whatever it takes to fill in the blanks. Then their cluing becomes annoying because their real audience needs a challenge. That's fine, too - I'm just not interested in their project it seems. It takes me too long to do these puzzles, time that could be better spent on my own project. I've done these puzzles because of the learning experience, but I'm finding that what I am learning is not what I most want to learn, and the inefficiency entailed in learning some of this drivel is clearly not in my best interest. So, after today... adieu NYT Crossword Puzzle. I won't say it hasn't had its moments...

Georges who wrote "Life: A User's Manual" = PEREC (Apparently, he once wrote a novel without using a single 'e' - that's cool!)

Conductor ____ -Pekka Salonen = ESA (See: this in the same puzzle with Dr. Dre and Lil' Kim)

Worked (up) = HET (Just what I thought: hokey slang words - het means heat as in heated up)

Study of natural animal behavior patterns = ETHOLOGY (I never would guess that there was a word for this)

Lepidopterous movie monster = MOTHRA (I kept racking my brain for a "butterfly beast")

Reagan adviser Nofziger = LYN (His name was Franklyn, and he chose to go by 'Lyn"? And he's a guy?? What a kook - the short form of Franklyn (notice the lack of orthographic awareness in his parents) is Frank!! Duh! (or Fran if you're feeling a little femmy.))

The award for lamest clue in the puzzle:
Numbers, at times = DENTISTS (get it - one who 'numbs' - *GROAN*)

Runner-up:
Ceylon's capital? = SOFT C (No - it's Colombo. I hate these little playful clues)

NYT Crossword, 1005

2008-10-14T21:32:00.003-06:00

This one was a killer puzzle. There's too much I didn't know to list it all, so I'll just hit the highlights:

Seafood dishes = PAELLAS (Doesn't look that appetizing to me.)
Lid attachment = LASH (?? - it must be referring to the eyelid)
What "matar" means on an Indian menu = PEAS (Not a big Indian food fan - I don't curry the favor of curry.)
Great Trek trekker = BOER (This one rang a bell once I got it.)
Bygone P.M. with a palindromic name = UNU (U Nu, Who knew?)
"Ville d'Avray" painter = COROT (Nothing stellar, but his stuff looks nice.)
Home of the Cadillac Ranch = AMARILLO (You never know what Route 66 will throw at you.)
Thomas Gray and others = ELEGISTS (He even has his own website!)
Sport for rikishi = SUMO (Fat guys, uncomfortable underwear... what else can you say?)
"Killer" program = APP (Nerd lingo that even I don't know!)
Small birds, in British lingo = TOMTITS (short for Tom titmouse)
Forerunner of the KGB = OGPU (The USSR was so good with acronyms, almost rivaled the USA)

Like I said... tons of stuff could be here, but this is the best of the lot.

Enuma Elish - The Epic of Creation

2008-10-12T19:11:00.004-06:00

The Epic of Creation

Synopsis:

The beginning of the gods is Apsu, who mated with Tiamat to create the race of gods. From them eventually descended Anu and Ea, who learned how Apsu plotted the destruction of the gods because their noise kept him from rest. Ea caught Apsu, killed him, and built his house on top of him (so that the home of the gods was called Apsu). There, Marduk was born.

Marduk was a storm god, and he stirred up such confusion that Tiamat now plotted to destroy the race of the gods. She created an army of monsters and made Qingu the leader of her forces, by giving him the Tablet of Destinies. Both Anu and Ea tried to fight against Tiamat but were unable to win. Then Marduk offered to be the Hero of the gods and defeat Tiamat, in exchange for the kingship of the gods.

Marduk met Tiamat's army and challenged her to single combat. Marduk defeated her and gained the kingship of the gods. He then used the body of Tiamat to create the world, and the body of Qingu to cerate mankind to free the gods from their labors. The end of the tale proclaims the 50 name-titles that Marduk won.

Analysis:

The purpose of this poem is not actually to recount the creation of the world, but rather to explain how Marduk came to be ruler of heaven and earth. It centers the world on Babylon, the heart of Marduk's worship. Incidental to this is the account of Marduk creating the world and mankind. The role of men as slaves to the gods is explained most briefly. The overriding theme of the poem, as in so many Mesopotamian poems, is conflict and strife, or the quest for peace. That is what Marduk's victory over Tiamat brings: peace and order.

The principle of names as the power to bring chaos into order is present throughout. In the beginning, the poem notes, there were no names for things. By the end of the poem, Marduk has been given 50 name-titles which explain and grant his powers over heaven and earth.

Conflict arises early and often in this poem. Apsu cannot quell the noise of the gods he has created, so he plots to destroy them. Tiamat dissuades him, only to later turn on her own offspring and create monsters to attack them. Marduk himself is a storm god, controller of the winds, which are forces of chaos when unleashed. His foes are often described as raging out of control. It is only with Marduk's victory that peace and obedience are fully brought to pass.

The quest for power and kingship is the main source of conflict in the poem. Apsu is overthrown by Ea. Tiamat grants the Anu-power and Tablet of Destinies to Qingu in an attempt at matriarchal power, which fails against Marduk, who uses the war with Tiamat to become king of heaven himself. We should of course be reminded here of the stories of Ouranos, Cronos, and Zeus in Greek accounts of the origins of the gods.

NYT Crossword, 0928

2008-10-05T17:55:00.003-06:00

I was going along so well, that I was really upset with myself for not being able to finish. It was like when you're cruising down the highway making great time and then whammo! road construction not only eats up all your gained time but adds on another hour. Ugh! I did put lots of question marks next to the clues - so let's see what kind of stretch they really were.

The Question marks:

X out = OMIT (Now, I understand omit to be a passive form of forgetting, whereas to X something out suggests actively excluding. I suppose the definition is broad enough to encompass general non-inclusion, but I still think of this as synonymous with forgetting not excluding).
Altercation = SETTO (OK, there was actually an entry for 'set to' and it does fit altercation, so I guess I have to give this one to the puzzler.)
Battery part = TEST (I guess this is referring to a 'battery of tests', whereas I kept looking for some word shorter than anode or cathode. A little hokey in my opinion.)
A large number = RAFTS (OK, so I was right - no one uses this anymore. I found the appropriate definitinon at Online Etymology.)
Score just before victory, maybe = ADIN (Presumably 'ad in' - but I've never heard of this. Ah . . . it's a tennis term, short for 'advantage in'. Not a big tennis guy.)

Regular stuff:

City near tel Aviv = LOD
Vinegar: prefix = ACETO (I'm not convinced this is actually a 'prefix', but it is used with vinegar)
Orbital point = APSIS (I so wanted 'focus', but this is more correct for the clue, so the puzzler wins.)
W.W. II gun = STEN (I guess right but now I know it is a submachine gun of British make.)
A leveret is a young one = HARE (This is the kind of educational stuff I'm looking for in a crossword.)
Like some eggs or cloth = SHIRRED (Rex Parker didn't like this one, but it seems good, if obscure, to me.)
City near Milan = LODI
St. Louis' ______ Bridge = EADS (I hate these localized clues, and I think I've even driven on this bridge.)
Rusty on the diamond = STAUB (Sounded vaguely familiar once I figured it out, a hold over from my baseball crazy youth, I suppose.)
Utah's lily = SEGO (I've lived in Utah, but this one got me - it's not sage, huh?)
Wahine's dance = HULA (I found you a video for this one.)
Hops kiln = OAST
Whine = PULE (I hate whiners!)

P.S.
The best clue was: Kind of difference, oxymoronically = SAME

P.P.S.
Second week in row: Mormons, initially = LDS

Anzu

2008-10-02T19:45:00.009-06:00

Anzu
(Late Babylonian, First Millennium BC)

Rather than a commentary, I am going to re-write this story. In the re-write I hope that some of the most interesting features of this story come out. This is a rich text, epic in nature. It is unfortunate that so much has been lost, because the language of the Akkadian (even in translation) is powerful and evocative.

My re-telling:

This is the story of Ninurta and Anzu, which took place in the early days, before even the creation of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.

Ninurta (whose name was sometimes pronounced ‘Nimrod’) was the son of Ellil, the king of all populated lands and the head of the younger generation of gods known as the Igigi. Ninurta himself was sometimes called the champion of Ellil and was famous for his victories over Anzu and the bull-man inside the Sea. Mami, the great mother goddess, also cherished her son Ninurta.

Anzu, a lion-headed eagle, was the offspring of earth and water, created to serve Ellil. Ellil made him the guardian of his chamber door. While in his service, Anzu saw with envy the emblems of Ellil’s power, including the great Tablet of Destinies, which contained spells and instructions for religious rites. Anzu’s desire to usurp Ellil’s throne and his power to command the other gods grew until Anzu seized his chance one day while Ellil bathed. Anzu grabbed the Tablet of Destinies and fled into hiding.

When Ellil learned of Anzu’s treachery, he was dumb-founded. No longer could he lead the gods in the religious rituals contained on the tablet. It was the Tablet that had made him Ellil. As the gods debated amongst themselves and sought a solution, Ellil’s father, Anu, issued a decree promising a great reward for whoever should find Anzu and bring back the Tablet of Destinies. But everyone was afraid of Anzu now that he possessed this great knowledge. By the power of his words, he could turn his enemies into clay. First Adad, controller of the canals, declined the task. Then Gerra, the fire god, refused the offer. Next it was Shara, the son of Ishtar and known as the hero of Anu, who refused.

The great god of wisdom, Ea, offered to choose the god who would go up against Anzu. He called upon Mami, who had created the assembly of the gods, had made Anu king of heaven, and assigned to Ellil his power, for help. Ea offered to Mami the title “Mistress of All the Gods” if she would commission Ninurta for this task. She agreed and all the gods reverenced her, for their fears were now abated. Ninurta accepted the task from his mother, as well her instructions. He was commanded to use tricks and disguises to combat Anzu, relying upon fog and light to help him get at his foe.

Ninurta gathered his forces, known as the Seven of Battle, along with the power of the winds to face Anzu. Anzu roared like a lion, raged, and attempted to wield his new authority, challenging Ninurta, “Who are you to come up against me, who controls the Tablet of Destinies?” Ninurta declared himself the avenger of Ellil. The fog of war descended upon the mountain where they faced each other. As their forces engaged, Ninurta drew his bow and fired a shaft at Anzu, but he simply turned the arrow around with a spell from the Tablet of Destinies.

Ninurta entrusted a messenger to relay what he had seen to Ea. Ea sent back instructions: “Don’t let up; press your attack! Strip him of his feathers, and when he attempts his spell, seize him by the throat and slit it! Let the wind carry those stripped feathers to heaven as a sign of your victory.” And so Ninurta wore Anzu down, stripped him of his pinion feathers, and finally pierced his heart. Ninurta recovered the Tablet of Destinies, and the gods rejoiced.

Ninurta was slow to return to the assembly of the gods, tempted by the ruling power contained in the Tablet. Eventually, he did return and Ellil pronounced his praise of Ninurta: “You have made all foes kneel at the feet of your father. For that you shall have dominion over all.” Ellil granted unto Ninurta a host of name-titles by which he would exercise his power over all.

Commentary:

OK, a few notes: This is a story about power, particularly the power of words, especially as encapsulated in writing. It seems that it is the Tablet of Destinies which makes Ellil powerful; he governs by its authority. And the name Ellil seems to be a name-title - the Tablet grants him the Ellil-power. Ellil is rendered, essentially, speechless by the theft of the Tablet. After Anzu steals the Tablet, Ellil does not speak again until the Tablet is recovered by Ninurta. The power of the Tablet is recognized by all the gods, who are too afraid to challenge Anzu. Only an epic battle of strength between Ninurta and Anzu can restore the Tablet to Ellil. It would seem that following the recovery, Ninurta becomes the real ruler of the world, although Ellil remains nominally in charge. Let he who understands, understand.

The Reading Odyssey hiatus

2008-09-28T20:50:00.005-06:00

This blog is starting to look like a crossword blog, and that is not my intention. I've been pretty busy reading for my classes lately (good stuff, too: Oedipus the King, Plato's Apology, and Antigone, as well as Josephine Tey's novel, The Daughter of Time.) But I want to get back to Mesopotamia... and soon! Look for a new post anon.

NYT Crossword, 0921

2008-09-28T19:39:00.002-06:00

This was a hard puzzle, made so in part because of a few quirks of the puzzle. It seemed that there was an inordinate amount of proper names in this puzzle and some really tricky, as in 'trick', clues. I'm also just not a fan of 'common phrasal' answers of which there were several (like 'on a tear', 'end it', 'cash in', 'CD rates', 'true to' etc. OK, I didn't even get close to finishing this on my own.

The thematic answers are particularly educational this time, so I'll got through them. The theme was 'It's a Mystery', and 109-Across provided a helpful clue: Ones in charge of a case . . . or a literal hint to the eight other longest answers in this puzzle = LEAD DETECTIVES:

School in Madison, NJ = DREW UNIVERSITY (reference = Nancy Drew. Family inside joke: "...A horrible Gorilla face!")
"The Divine Comedy." for Dante = MAGNUM OPUS (reference = Magnum PI. We used to watch this pretty faithfully when I was a kid.)
Don't believe it = FISH STORY (reference = Detective Phil Fish. From Barney Miller, played by Abe Vigoda. Got his own spin-off show for a while.)
Track-and-field event = HAMMER THROW (reference = Mike Hammer. Crime novels by Mickey Spillane - I think I saw a TV version once, with Stacey Keach.)
Dropped off = FELL ASLEEP (reference = Dr. Gideon Fell. Crime novels by John Dickson Carr. The name 'Dr. Fell' sounds familiar, but it's not ringing any concrete bells.)
Pantry array = MASON JARS (reference = Perry Mason. This may have started out as novels, but I'm sure what most people remember is the TV show. Raymond Burry goodness.)
Beloved figure in England = QUEEN MOTHER (reference = Ellery Queen. Eveyone who likes mystery stories has heard of him, but have they read him?)
Card game played to 61 = SPADE CASINO (reference = Sam Spade. I'm sure everyone who reads or hears this name thinks Humphrey Bogart, not Dashiell Hammett.)

Other goodies in the puzzle:

Poet whose last words were "Of course [God] will forgive me; that's his business." = HEINE
____ rancheros = HUEVOS (I know Latin and French, but not Spanish. And I don't eat breakfast at Mexican restaurants.)
Classic theater name = RIALTO (I'm assuming it is referring to the one in L.A. But there is also one in Tucson.)
Turned right = GEED (Say what? I noticed that the dictionary says this is of uncertain origin. Comforting.)
"On Language" columnist = SAFIRE (How appropriate for the NYT crossword. This looks pretty interesting. Maybe I'll have to start reading this column.)
City with the world's first telehone directory (1878) = NEW HAVEN (Useful to know for trivia games I guess.)
The shakes = DTS (Now I know why I didn't know this.)
Novelist who wrote "The Gravedigger's Daughter" = OATES
Italy's Reggia di ___ (royal palace) = CASERTA (Ok, my Italian's not so good either. And I kept wanting something like 'palacio'. But in the end was rather historical, so I should have known it.)
Quaint letter opener = TOSIR (Get it? 'To Sir.' I didn't. What kind of idiot opens a letter this way? I was looking for something akin to a pen knife.)
Extremely pleasing, in slang = FABU (Who actually says this? That is just dumb!)
Yemeni money = RIAL (I suppose every country has to have theirs. And dollar or pound was already used. Of course, this is just a version of the old Spanish real, I believe. And it is also used in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Brazil, and Cambodia. The Brazil I can understand.)
Loose overcoat = RAGLAN (The coat is described by the particular style of its sleeve. I found some pictures.)
Letters on a brandy bottle = VSO (Means 'very superior old')
Stewpots = OLLAS

Lastly, there is a fine line between clever and stupid. I'll let you be the judge (I have my own opinion about each - some clever, some stupid). Are these clever clues or stupid? Can you guess which one(s) I found stupid?

Had work looming? = WOVE
French subjects? = TENSES
Cover many subjects? = REIGN

And a P.S. nod to:

The Mormons, initially = LDS

NYT Crossword, 0914

2008-09-22T22:30:00.005-06:00

This was the hardest puzzle I've done in some time, but I was excited to finally figure out the puzzle theme all on my own - it was one of those 'put multiple letters in one square' things (in this case it was month abbreviations). I missed four squares, though. But halfway through I thought I would never finish it.

Native tongue of R&B singer Rihanna = BAJAN (I had to guess 'Fijan' - I know, dumb, but I had no clue. You can probably guess how much I like R&B, and based on the photos in Wikipedia, she dresses like a slut. So, double whammy for her! And one for me on the crossword puzzle :( Oh, and Bajan is short for Barbadian Creole).

Ear part = COB (OK, duh, after seeing it. I had 'ceb' because I got the down wrong, and I just wasn't thinking corn here.)

Prefix with sphere = ATMO (Again, the bad down gave me ATTO. I figured it was some funky geometry or metric term. I remain unconvinced that atmo- is really a 'prefix'. It is really just the first half of a compound word comprised of one Greek word (atmos = vapor) and one Latin word (sphere = well, sphere).)

Proust title character = SWANN (I'm just not very enamoured of modern literature. Still, I should probably know the titles of modern literary works at least. I have heard of his most famous work, translated either as In Search of Lost Time or Remembrance of Things Past.)

Sioux tribe member = OTO (How convenient, you can spell it with an -e or not. Crossworders have to love that! And they're related to the Winnebago - that's gotta be good for a clue sometime.)

State capital on the Colorado River = AUSTIN (Lame!!! I grew up in Arizona. I know where the Colorado River is. These Texans need to get their own name for a river that never even leaves Texas, and leave the name for the one which actually travels through Colorado. Sheesh! There are, in fact, Colorado Rivers in Colorado, Texas, Argentina, Costa Rica, and Chile.)

Langston Hughes poem = ITOO (As you can probably imagine, based on many of my other comments, I'm not into Langston Hughes poetry. I'm not really into any poetry besides Homer, but the older the poem, the more interested I may become. So, ol' Lanny H. here has a bit of time before getting on my interest list.)

___ Taylor, co-host of "Make Me a Supermodel" = NIKI (If I did watch TV, it certainly wouldn't be this kind of drivel! I actually guessed her name - how many names are there for your basic run-of-the-mill TV slut?)

Boils down = DECOCTS (You learn a new word everyday.)

Symptom of catarrh = HACK (OK, you learn a couple of new words every day.)

Samuel L. Jackson's character in "Pulp Fiction" = JULES (Clearly, this puzzle-maker and I have vastly different interests and tastes. No wonder it was so hard. I guess you can't always play a cool character like Mace Windu. Here's a tasty little titbit, though: 'According to the Guiness Book of World Records 2009 (released on 17th September 2008) he is the world's highest grossing actor, having earned $7.42 billion in 68 films.')

Wig = PERUKE (Boy, the new words just keep rolling in... and I'm only at the end of the acrosses.)

Basic travel path = ATOB (I kept asking, what the heck is a 'tob' or an 'atob'. Doh! A to B!! I often get stumped on the similar ABC in answer to a clue like 'Epitome of simplicity' or some such.)

First name in gossip = RONA (I'm not even interested in making a snide comment on this one. Moving on...)

Small African antelope = ORIBI (I don't think this guy is even in my National Geographic mammal books. But it's in Wikipedia!)

Polite disclaimer = NODEAR (How is this a 'disclaimer'? It's a stretch for the secondary definition on Webster's.)

White wine from Verona = SOAVE (I know where Verona is, does that count for anything?)

Design feature of many a viaduct = ARCH (I am happy to see that this word 'viaduct' is a modern derivation from the old 'aqueduct'. If they had just said 'aqueduct', I would have gotten it much more quickly.)

NYT, 0907

2008-09-14T16:36:00.003-06:00

Once again, I messed up three squares, and two of them I really should have gotten.

The unknown:

Bass _____ = ALE (Not being a drinker myself....)

Indians play it = RAGA (Not an instrument, but to certain kinds of melodies. The clue seems meant to be overly obscure.)

Pollster Roper = ELMO (Apparently, annoying fuzzy puppets aren't the only place you'll find this name.)

Analyze = ASSAY (I always think of this word in terms of definitions 5 & 6, but there it is, def. #1)

"Who _____?" (song from Les Miz) = AMI (Wasn't that hard to figure out, since this is a common enough answer in crosswords, but what kind of idiot abbreviates Les Miserables to "Les Miz" - ugh! I thought it was some dumb band out there making a play on the name.)

Commentator Myers = DEEDEE (I thought DEEDEL didn't look right)

____ Thomas, the Soul Queen of New Orleans = IRMA (Catchy title, but soul music is definitely not my thing!)

Michael of "Caddyshack" = OKEEFE (I can just tell that this movie must be dumb, so I have never seen fit to waste the time to see it - watching paint dry might prove more worthwhile, frankly.)

Control surface on a plane's wing = ELEVON (Now there I feel like I have learned something useful.)

Lady of Brazil = SENHORA (I guess the Portuguese can't be the same as Spanish.)

Michigan College = ALMA (At least it's not the University of Michigan.)

Actor Jason of the Harry Potter films = ISAACS (Not having the slightest interst in seeing these... apparently he plays Lucius Malfoy)

"All _____" (Tomlin film) = OFME (80s comedy - enough said)

Musical matchmaker = YENTE (From Fiddler on the Roof - Great musical, but I couldn't remember her name.)

The questionable:

All: Prefix = OMN (Although technically the root of the Latin word omnis is 'omn', in English we use omni-, as in omnidirectional, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibus, etc. So, 'omn' is not a prefix to anything.)

You might not be able to stand this = PAT (From the common phrase 'stand pat'. Sorry - you lose! This is just a bad clue.)

Isolate = ENISLE (Ok, it is a word (I had my doubts), but it is a dumb word!)

Tube lineup = SKED (Short for Schedule? No. The short form would be 'sched.' You can't just make stuff up in crosswords!!!)

NYT Crossword, 0831

2008-09-07T20:12:00.004-06:00

I got close again - missed three squares:

Colonial John = ALDEN (I figured it was Alden or Arden, and I guessed wrong!) crossed with
Stopping Place in a Carlo Levi title = EBOLI (Never even heard of Carlo Levi)

"_____ Mucho" (1944 #1 hit) = BESAME and
Maximum extent = HILT (a little misleading, since this is always a phrase: to the hilt) crossed with
Oscar winner Jannings and others = EMILS (First Oscar winner)

Other things I didn't know:

Jobs for some underwriters, for short = IPOS (= initial public offerings - I'm not a big stock market fan)
Humorist Sedaris = AMY (I have heard of her brother, David).
Blasts from the past, briefly = NTESTS (Add this to A-Test or H-Test - why didn't they just come up with one standard designation?)
"This Boy's Life" author Wolff = TOBIAS (Cool name.)
"Pagliacci" clown = TONIO (Opera - it gets me every time.)
Toastmaster General of old comedy = JESSEL (George Jessel did indeed declare himself Toastmaster General of the United States.)
Hungarian playwright known for "Liliom" = MOLNAR (Ferenc Molnar wrote this basis for the muscial Carousel)
Like a line, briefly = ONED (As in one dimensional - whose going to get that?)

One minor issue:
Home of the world's northernmost capital: abbr. = ICEL (Hokey. Is Icel. really an abbreviation for Iceland? I thought IS was the standard. You can't just abbreviate something wherever you want, especially crossing syllables. Although I guess people do that with Engl., but I still think that should be Eng.)

Review: Dumbing Us Down

2008-09-07T16:57:00.002-06:00

John Taylor Gatto, Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling. New Society Publishers, 1992.

John Gatto is an award-winning schoolteacher who has spoken and written extensively on what he perceives to be some of the major ills of our public schools. Of course, many people think there are a few small problems that should be fixed with their schools, but for some reason, most people seem satisfied enough with the system. Gatto believes that the system cannot be reformed and that the only solution is to scrap it and start over, and he offers some advice for how to do that too. Of course, we all know that he is fighting a losing battle. All the people who benefit, particularly financially, from the public school system will make sure that no serious reform ever happens. Look at No Child Left Behind. Sure no one seems to like it now, and many won’t admit that they liked it when it first came out, but everyone figured we needed something to fix our problems. But the problem, according to Gatto’s views in this book, is that that ‘reform’ simply further entrenched the teacher certification programs (reiterating that only people certifiably educated in a specific field should be teaching children regardless of their actual ability), imposed more rigid standards upon students, and never got to the heart of the problem, which is that schools have been created to supply us with networks that serve as false communities, letting us know that we are pseudo-members of something, but true members of nothing. For Gatto, the solution lies in families.

Now I was probably pre-disposed to appreciate and agree with Gatto’s views, especially since he praises homeschooling as a positive alternative to subjecting your child to the “system”. In reading the book, however, anyone should be able to get a sense of how his views have been shaped, not by some innate hatred of the system or by his own bad experiences in the system, but by his genuine love for his students. He sees, day after day, the harm that is done to the intellectual potential of many a young child. He recognizes the powerful forces (school and TV) which shape our children more than their home and family life.

My favorite essay is the “The Seven Lesson Schoolteacher”, wherein he reveals what his real job as a public school teacher is: to create confusion in students minds, to instill an ever greater sense of class position in all, to sow the seeds of indifference in every student’s young mind, to make students emotionally and intellectually dependent upon others (their superiors) so that they come to feel that their own worth can only be determined by others (again, their superiors), and finally to constantly remind students that they cannot hide or find any time for themselves outside of society as a whole. In other words, he works everyday to train the perfect Wal-Mart associate, all at the tax-payer’s expense, instead of Wal-Mart’s.

I obviously think everyone should read this book, especially those who send their kids to public school, but I know that most people are either willfully ignorant of the problems of schools (since they look at themselves and say, “Hey, public school worked great for me and most importantly I’m perfectly normal and not a weirdo like those homeschoolers” – yeah, hooked onn foniks werked fer mee!) or prefer to let the “experts” – and peer pressure – make the most important decisions about their child’s intellectual, emotional and social well-being. Either that or they just need the free daycare while they go to work at Wal-Mart – and someday their kid will be just like them! I plan to use a lot of Gatto’s stuff when people challenge me on the home school issue. Hey, if you can logically refute Gatto, then I’ll be happy to listen to you – but good luck on that - I teach the results of this system everyday!

Review: Eastern Philosophy for Beginners

2008-09-06T18:34:00.004-06:00

Jim Powell. Eastern Philosophy for Beginners (A Writers and Readers Documentary Comic Book). Illustrated by Joe Lee. Writers and Readers Publishing, 2000.

I needed a primer to help me better understand Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, and Taoism for my world civilizations course. I had hoped that this "comic book" approach would be right at the level of myself and my students - since all I needed was the basics. I can honestly say that I learned quite a bit from this book, but I was also disappointed in how disjointed that new knowledge feels. This book could really benefit from a more systematic approach to teaching the concepts and principles of eastern philosophy. Having said that, I realize that this is just not the series for such an approach. The idea here was to present these 'foreign' ideas through a conversation that a neophyte like myself might have with one who knows, and with the major thinkers and writers from this tradition. The problem was that I couldn't halt the conversation to get further clarification on principles that the writer assumed I now understood based on what was provided. Sometimes these concepts suffered from the age-old problem of how one who has explored the deeper meanings of the ideas teaches the novice at a level that doesn't distort, but doesn't insist upon every nuance either. This is the same principle that explains why I have more trouble teaching the Early Middle Ages than the Roman Republic - I just know too much about the complexities of certain issues to be satisfied with a simplified explanation for my students. And then I only succeed in confusing. But admittedly, what I think it really reveals is a knowledge that is deep, but not quite deep enough - I know enough to understand the complexities, but not well enough to fully explicate those complexities simply. That may be the problem in this book too.

Other criticisms of the book are in the actual content. I might debate the real value of introducing in a page or so the many varieties that have developed within Hinduism, Buddhism, or Confucianism, but I can accept that as an author's choice when he wants to offer a wide survey within a limited space and do some justice to the complexities of his subject. My major gripe is the presence of a certain bias apparent within some of the political commentaries that accompany (Chinese in particular) certain modern philosophies. Whether you agree or disagree with the Chinese occupation of Tibet, this beginners book is hardly the place to discuss its inherent brutalities, especially since the intended audience is unlikely to know much about it, and thus the author is simply taking advantage of ignorance to brainwash, or perhaps predispose to your position would be a less harsh phrasing of this idea, the reader into your point of view.

The other problem I had with the book was the inclusion of sexually explicit discussion and images of some aspects of certain of these philosophies. References to sex are probably unavoidable in a proper discussion of these philosophies, but I don't think they need to be discussed in such graphic detail, especially this aspect is usually just one amongst many of the concepts associated with the philosophy. So, at the very least if you choose to, and I'm not necessarily trying to dissuade you from reading this book since it has some merit, be aware that just because it has a "comic book" style does not mean it is appropriate for children.

Review: Monk's Hood

2008-09-03T21:31:00.004-06:00

I recently finished Book 3 of the Cadfael series. I don't think it was as good as the first two two books in the series, but it was enjoyable nonetheless. Part of this may be due to the lack of any real action in the book. The murder happens, so Cadfael investigates, overcomes some minor obstacles, and solves the case. I have to say also, that my first inclination of who the murderer was right, and I only wavered from that conviction for a short while during the book. What does 'happen' in this book is that we learn quite a bit more about Cadfael's past, since he encounters someone from that past. Character development is rarely very exciting, but it does make the series as a whole richer, so I'm not complaining.

The one thing to talk about this book, and I'm trying not to give too much of the book away as I do it, is Cadfael's intervention in justice. In the second book, Cadfael had taken a bit of the law into his own hands, but in the end, the workings of medieval justice were played out. In this book, Cadfael judges the murder, not necessarily excusable, but understandable, and the murderer to be undeserving of the penalty of the law (which would have been death, particularly given the premeditated nature of the murder). So, Cadfael essentially imposes his own punishment (or perhaps 'penance' would be a better word) on the murderer and lets him go. It's one thing to hide a suspect that you are convinced is innocent, and maybe even help him escape, as has happened in all the books thus far, but it is different when you are dealing with the proven guilty. The reader is supposed to feel good about this resolution because the murderer is indeed sincere in his repentance, and the good he can do will probably outweigh his evil deed, but we must conveniently forget that a man was murdered - perhaps not the best of men, but definitely far from the worst of men either.

This strikes me as the author imposing something of her own modern views of justice upon the story, rather than being true to her setting and characters. The author already has this problem with Cadfael the character anyway, as he always come off as a bit less than medieval, and a little too modern in his tolerant and unjudgemental attitude. One of the hallmarks of this series is its authentic medieval setting, but sometimes it feels as if we are following the story of a sympathetic detective from Scotland Yard who has been tossed through a time machine, rather than a former crusader and current monk. Peters is careful to keep him completely dedicated to his monatic vows, which I applaud as being wholly in keeping with the character as I understand him, and his experiences in the East certainly could have given anyone greater perspective on their world (although most who went on crusade, especially the first one, would hardly have changed their views about the world, but rather would have reinforced many of them from the experience). I'll be interested to see whether this trend continues in future books.

NYT Crossword, 0824

2008-09-01T18:29:00.002-06:00

This was a pretty doable puzzle, although in the end I did miss one square (the M):

24A Teensy bit = ATOM
19D Subgenre of punk rock = EMO

I think the across is a little iffy, and although I have listend to some punk rock in my day, I have never heard of emo, so I apparently never experienced the 'emotive hardcore' scene of punk rock (a 90s thing, whereas my punk exposure is more 80s).

Most of the puzzle was pretty straightforward, but there were a few other questionable clues, along with the regular stuff I have never heard of.

Agent Gold of "Entourage" = ARI (HBO show. The guy playing this part was Cupid from the old, and odd, TV show of the same name. I saw a few episodes of that, but I've never even heard of this show - just as well from what I can tell from the YouTube clips.)
_____ in cat" = CAS (You know, the old 'C as in Cat'. This is just plain dumb. The blank is too misleading in my opinion. Maybe if the blank encompassed the 'in', or better: 'C ____ cat' = ASIN. That I could agree with.)
Sequoyah, for one = CHEROKEE (I kept trying to make this into a Redwood tree, but I guess that would be sequoia.)
"____ et manus" (M.I.T.'s motto) = MENS (I knew this one, I just wanted to highlight it because it is so appropriate for that engineering school (you don't always see that in school mottos): 'mind and hand'. There were a couple of Latin clues in this puzzle, which I appreciated.)
Some corner stores = BODEGAS (Ah, that's what you call those little Mexican shops you see. I think this is a bad clue, though. Unless you live in some area where these are prominent, how are you going to know this? Maybe if they added something to indicate the Hispanic origins of the word.)
Author mentioned in the Beatles' "I am the Walrus" = POE (Common crossword answer, but I've never seen this clued this way. I am only vaguely familiar with this song, so I had no idea that it referenced Poe. After reading the lyrics and a little about the background to the song, I can surely say that I won't be becoming any more familiar with this tripe - once you're famous musicians you sure can get away with a lot of crap in your lyrics.)
Trillionth: prefix = PICO (I can just never keep these small SI prefixes straight. This one lies between nano- and femto-)
"Death in Venice" and "Of Mice and Men" = NOVELLAS (My wife got this one. I didn't realize that "Of Mice and Men" was a novella and not just a plain novel. Of course, I'm not a big fan of Steinbeck anyway.)
Experimented too much? = ODED (You mean the clue for this wasn't 'Just wrote a poem'? The problem with crosswords sometimes is their lack of punctuation or capitalization. I didn't even realize this was the shortened form of 'overdosed' until I looked up ODed in the dictionary. It was there, so I guess this clue was legit.)
Court figure = TRIER (Say what? I guess I would be more miffed if the clue was "one who attempts", but better would have been 'German name for Treves'. Still, his definition was in the dictionary.)
"Broom-___" = HILDA (This is a comic strip with an obvious play on the name Brunhilde.)
Commerce treaty starting in 1947 = GATT (I had heard of this before, and got it in the puzzle, but I wanted to read a little more about it. It stands for General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.)
"Oh, pooh!" = TISH (This puzzle had a bunch of these lame expression words (AHH, PUHLEASE, ERS, etc.). I think a better cue would have been something about the Hasidic celebration. Not that I would have gotten that either.)
"Stupidest thing I ever heard!" = PUHLEASE (see previous note).
Ottoman bigshot = AGA (This one is a regular crossword word, but I can never seem to remember it. What I never see is this used as the acronym for American Gas Association, American Gastroenterological Association, Association of Government Accountants, American Go Association, Arizona Golf Association, etc. (those two A's can make any American ___ Association, or even any Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas or Arizona Assocation). But instead we always get the Turkish title clue.)
Bygone TV control: Abbr. = HOR (As opposed to VERT. Don't new fangled TVs have this adjustment?)
"A Little Princess" heroine and others = SARAS (Never read this one.)
"____ Wedding," Alan Alda film = BETSYS (You know, that guy never did anything good outside of MASH - one hit wonder kind of actor. Maybe Hawkeye was just like him, so it was easy. Or maybe he just had better writers on that show. Ever seen Sweet Liberty? Horrible! But he's still going...)
"___ cried" (1962 hit) = SHE (Who the heck are Jay and the Americans? This was a 'hit'???)
Black-eyed legume = COWPEA (No comment.)
Comic Charles Nelson ____ = REILLY (It probably says it all that the clue had to provide 2 of his 3 names for us to get it. This guy must not have been that funny, since I've never heard of him :) )
Bide-____ = AWEE (OK, after some Internet searching, I still don't really know what this is referring to. Is it the pet adoption people? Is it the Curtis Strange designed municipal golf course? Is it the California motel? Who knows (who cares?)?)
Many-armed Hindu goddess = KALI (There are so many, how to keep track of them? My favorite is the elephant-head one. Isn't this the same cult as in the Beatles HELP!?) )
Old actresses Claire and Balin = INAS (Now there's a name no one uses any more. Maybe it will make a comeback, once we're done with all these McKenzies, Madisons, and Brittanies.)

NYT Crossword, 0817

2008-08-24T17:48:00.004-06:00

I have to say that I could not have gotten as close as I did (7 wrong squares) without the help of my wife. I liked the puzzle theme (movie titles minus the last letter), but found some of the puzzle (especially the top right corner) quite difficult. I've noticed that some of the crossword bloggers out there really like clever pop culture clues. I can't stand them. Rappers, TV actors, etc. ought to be banned from good puzzles. Apparently, from what I can tell, I'm part of one faction in the crossword world, but there is an opposing group who love the pop culture crap. I was glad to see that many of the toughies were challenging for Rex Parker as well.

Issues:
Another crossword pet peeve of mine: clues that could never be gotten until you fill in the crosswords - I think a good clue should be gettable just from the clue itself. Hence, I'm always annoyed by clues like "Direction", which could be ENE, ESE, WSW, ESE, NNE, etc... Today's irksome clues: 51A English 8-Down; 8D Latin 51-Across. Ugh!

26A Many a Turk = ANATOLIAN (OK, sure Turkey is mainly based in Anatolia, although Istanbul is not, and there are Turkish peoples scattered across other Central Asian countries, but Anatolian really should be used only for the original inhabitants of Anatolia, like the Hittites; even though they have lived in Anatolia for more than a millennium, I still think of Turks as Central Asian peoples. OK, perhaps the ancient historian is over thinking this one...)

The unknown:

It surrounds a lens = UVEA (I kept wanting something related to a camera.)
Oscar and Tony winner Mercedes = RUEHL (I haven't really seen anything that she's done.)
Movie Adaptation of "L.A. Law"? = CALIFORNIA SUIT (This was one of the theme clues, but I had never even heard of the movie California Suite. Based on the synopsis, it isn't one I'll be seeing either.)
2000 title role for Richard Gere = DRT (Dr. T and the Women - another winner it looks like.)
Former Voice of America Org. = USIA (Apparently the Unites States Information Agency is now defunct. I'm amazed that any bureaucratic office ever gets axed in our government, frankly.)
Der Blaue Reiter artist = ARP (Herr Arp was not one of the big names of this short-lived artistic group. But he was famous enough in his own right. More interesting to me is that since he was Alsatian, and lived during the time when this area went back and forth between France and Germany, he went by Jean Arp when he spoke French and Hans Arp when he spoke German.)
____-jazz (music style) = AVANT (I'm not all that interested in anything related to jazz, and especially not weird breakoff versions of jazz.)
George who was nicknamed "the man who owned Broadway" = COHAN (Interesting, and probably useful for crossword makers, that his name is not the traditional cohen with an 'e'.)
1985 Peter Yates-directed film = ELENI
Handle, in archaeology = ANSA (I'm embarrassed to not have known this, since I have a read a fair amount of ancient archeology stuff. But honestly, I have never seen this term in any of my reading. The authors probably just use 'handle'.)
Young salmon = SMOLT (I just couldn't get past the traditional young fish crossword answer: ROE)
Writer Buchanan and others = EDNAS (Ah, a purveyor of what I call "fluff fiction". That explains all.)
Strong cart = DRAY
"Deliver Us from ____" (2003 film) = EVA (LL Cool J. The hip-hop version of The Taming of the Shrew. Enough said.)
Keats's "The Eve of St. _______" = AGNES (Now, this is the kind of high culture that should be in a crossword. Of course, I didn't know this one, but I knew the movie A Hard Days Night. What can I say? I'm woefully uneducated!)
Schreiber of "The Manchurian Candidate" = LIEV (Essentially a pop culture question, especially since his version is the remake.)
Potty = DAFT (Desperately trying to obscure this word, the author went for British colloquialism)

Review: Last of the Jedi Series

2008-08-22T18:38:00.004-06:00

Watson, Jude. The Last of the Jedi. Scholastic, 2005-2008.

This series of 10 short novels (about 150 pages each) aimed at a teenage audience is not high literature. My personal complaint about the writing is that the author does not know how to use the pronoun 'whom'. At least once or twice per book I noticed this error, and I'm sure there were many others that didn't strike my attention. Despite the grammar problems, if you're looking for what I call "fluff fiction", you've come to a decent place.

The series follows the exploits of Ferus Olin, who had been a Jedi apprentice during the Republic before he left the Jedi temple to strike out on his own. Thus, he knew many of the Jedi masters and padawans of the age of the Clone Wars, including Obi-Wan Kenobi and Anakin Skywalker. These connections make him the perfect person to seek out any remaining Jedi who may have survived Order 66 - the order which saw the stormtroopers turn on the Jedi, depicted in Episode III of the films. This mission is what drives the overall plotline of the series, although there also many sub-plots to keep our attention, as we follow a nascent empire-wide rebellion against the empire, led by friends and acquaintances of Ferus. By the end, we are setup for a big showdown between Darth Vader and Ferus Olin, who has learned the true identity of Darth Vader.

What makes the series worth reading are the values-based concepts that form the heart of the series. Again this is not high literature, but there are important issues to contemplate, and with 1500 pages total, there is plenty of time to develop these issues. Perhaps what keeps the series at the teenage level is that the author eventually resolves all the issues for the reader. In the end, good is good and evil is evil, but in the meantime, we can explore the meaning of friendship, loyalty, good, and evil.

During the course of the series, Ferus, who spends much of the series trying to get back his force connection and become the Jedi he had failed to become before, is tempted by the dark side. We gain some understanding of how the Dark Side really works, and where some of its weaknesses lie. In this way, we come to understand more deeply Anakin's own path to becoming Vader. We are allowed to contemplate, along with Ferus, whether one can find any virtue in the Dark Side of the force and whether one can use those supposed virtues without completely giving oneself over to evil.

Another significant virtue that is explored in the series is trust and loyalty. By nature, rebel groups must be very careful in whom they place their trust, as it only takes one to betray the entire organization. And yet, for the group to become successful it must grow by bringing in new members and working together with others. So, whom can you trust, and how can you know that your loyalty is not misplaced? Appearances can be deceiving, in both directions (i.e. good appearances can mask evil intentions, and bad appearances can harbor one seeking to do good). In the end, we find that developing trust-based relationships is worthwhile, even if there is some heartache along the way as well - that is mortal life.

Dell Crosswords, October 2005

2008-08-21T18:34:00.007-06:00

What's That Up A Head? (p. 40-41) ***

It ain't the NYT, but what the hey. Big puzzle, only missed one square.

23A Versatile Coppola = SOFIA (Daughter of Francis Ford Coppola)
37A French military hat = KEPI (Oh, that's what those are called!)
59A Cofounder of GE = TAE (i.e. Thomas Alva Edison; I think we should get a better hint that they want his initials)
63A Capital of Yemen = SANA (I should really know this)
73A Composer Satie = ERIK (From his Wikipedia page, he was an artist too - NOT!)
98A Connected to the ear = OTIC (I kept wanting a Latin derivate, but it was Greek)
126 A Journal end = ESE (In today's world, how do you know if someone is using journalese or just the common bad grammar our society so adores - or whether they even know the difference?)
168A Saw = ADAGE (I had no idea there was a definition #3 for 'saw' akin to adage)
7D M director = LANG (Ol' Fritz Lang... whatever!)
13D Red Bordeaux = MEDOC (The real question was, what is an AOC?)
30D Dark-green lettuce = COS (Since Romaine wouldn't fit. These three letters pack a lot of meaning.)
35D Journalist Alexander = SHANA (Born in 1925 - I guess she'd be famous to old geezers.)
38D Nevada State Tree = PINON (Some one needs to add this precious piece of information to the Wikipedia page. I never could get into this "state" thing - the state bird, the state tree, the state pancake, whatever...)
53D Sun helmet = TOPI (I like the sound of 'pith helmet' better)
68D Urchin = GAMIN (I've heard this word in French, but it didn't mean 'urchin')
105D It comes in yards = ALE (Looks like 'beer' would be a better answer, but my real question is, can I get a yard of Dr. Pepper?)
113D Like some skirts = GORED (My first thought was ALINE, a common crossword answer, since I'm thinking 'hole by horn' when I see 'gored', which brings a frightening image when connected to a skirt.)
118D Painter Dufy = RAOUL (I sure like the way that name rolls off your tongue, definitely more than I care for his painting style.)
154D Diamond of old TV = SELMA (It's sad that the only role of hers I recognize is the old grouchy lady on Night Court)
162D ___ Bayou (1997 Film) = EVES (Never heard of it)

Etana

2008-08-19T21:10:00.004-06:00

Etana
(Lu-Nanna, 22nd century BC)

Notes

Etana is quasi-historical in that he does appear on later king lists of Kish.
An early cylinder (24th century BC) has been discovered which depicts a scene from the story.

Synopsis

After the gods design and build the city of Kish, Ishtar seeks a king to rule it and finds Etana. Once he is established on the throne, a poplar tree grows near the palace which soon houses a serpent at its base and an eagle in its top. The serpent and the eagle swear an oath of friendship to each other, and work together to provide food for themselves and their families. After a while, the eagle conspires to devour the children of the serpent, and despite a warning from one of his own sons, does so. The serpent then calls upon Shamash, god over oaths, to help him avenge this act of treachery. Shamash instructs the serpent to crawl inside a dead bull and wait for the eagle to come eat. When the eagle comes, again despite a warning from his son, the snake strikes, and throws the eagle into a pit to die. From the pit, the eagle cries out for help to Shamash, who decides to send Etana to help the eagle get out of the pit. In return for this deed, the eagle helps Etana seek a special plant which will help him produce an heir. At the end of the surviving text, Etana reports on a dream where he ascends into heaven. The eagle encourages him to make another ascension, which they do, and then the text cuts off.

Commentary

The gods, rather than men, are credited with creating the city of Kish, as well as establishing the kingship too. In particular, the Annunaki create the "four quarters of the earth" a general reference implying the entire world, used by later kings to designate "worldwide" rule. Is all this simply a royal legitimation tale, or is it a symbolic nod to a divine nurturing of their civilization?

Mesopotamian royal emblems include a two part crown (reminiscent of Egypt's united crown of Upper and Lower Egypt - any connection?), a sceptre decorated with lapis lazuli, and a raised throne (called a throne-dais). The king is, as in both Hammurabi's Law Code and the Gilgamesh Epic, equated to a shepherd of his people.

The oath between the eagle and the serpent is made "in the presence of Shamash." This suggests an interesting divine aspect to oath making: it is a god, specifically Shamash, who has the power to enforce oaths and punish oath-breakers. Note that the agreement is not a legal/contractual thing, but more of a divinely-based covenant. It recalls to my mind the swearing on relics during the Peace of God movement in medieval Europe. What is perhaps even more striking, though, is that it is not Shamash who actually acts to punish the oath-breaker. The text says that he would deliver the oath-breaker to the Smiter, but in this case, he simply advises the serpent on how to avenge himself. Later, the serpent informs the eagle that were he to relent in exacting the required punishment, he himself would be punished by Shamash. In the end, Shamash has pity on the eagle, sending a human to help him out.

In most other mythology I know, the eagle is a positive symbol. Think of Romulus seeing a flight of eagles (at least in some versions), or the use of the eagle symbol in Byzantine imperial iconography or American republican iconography. Here, the eagle is an oath-breaker, equated with Anzu, who is described as a notorious criminal.

It is striking that the eagle's son is noted for his wisdom, as usually wisdom is associated with maturity. Is this meant to stand out to the reader as odd or different?

One curiosity of the text was that before the eagle partakes of the bull, the text clearly says that the eagle was aware of the danger and would not eat the food like the other birds. But then, we see him heading down there, ignoring the advice of his son who seems to be real one to see the danger. The lines don't seem to fit with what follows.

When the serpent seizes upon the eagle, the latter tries to compensate the serpent for his loss. The offer is, curiously, related to a payment usually made by or to one's betrothed. Is this possibly related to the cutting off of the serpent's heirs? It seems to resemble medieval feuding composition - a payment to avert a vendetta. Hammurabi's Law Code certainly bases much of its punishment schedule on the payment of fines like this.

One gets the sense that Shamash is quite whimsical in his dealings with men. He seems to help the serpent, the eagle, and Etana, suggesting a genuine concern for mortal beings - in fact the very beginning of the poem seems to suggest this, with the creation of cities and kings. However, when we focus on his dealings with the eagle, he first arranges his punishment, and then later seems moved by pity for the creature, and finally, arranges to help Etana by helping the eagle. The question is, how whimsical, or how concerned, is Shamash towards men?

7 is definitely a magic number here. Kish is guarded by 7 warrior-gods. Etana nourishes the eagle for 7 months before he can escape the pit.

Etana is in search of secret knowledge: the knowledge of where to find the plant that will provide him with an heir - in a dream, he has seen the consequences of not providing Kish with an heir (presumably civil war). When the eagle cannot find the plant, he takes Etana to heaven. This suggests the Etana seeks knowledge directly from the source: the gods. Etana debates within himself, as he looks down on earth like a god in heaven, whether it is appropriate for a human to ascend to heaven. In a dream Etana is shown how he must act in order to pass the gate into heaven.

Reflection

At first, this seems to be a story about political legitimacy. The gods create the city and the kingship. Etana's great concern is to provide a legitimate heir to the kingship. However, most of the story has little to do with Etana, and focuses instead on the eagle and his friend/adversary the serpent.

So, what are to make of this eagle? He is an oath-breaker, but also a source of pity and aid. Are we to see the eagle and the serpent as stand-ins for humans? Is this a metaphor for two peoples or families living in a symbiotic relationship, strengthened by official ties of alliance?

For me, the real point of this story is the active role of the gods in mortal life. The gods are the source of civilization and order. The gods act to preserve that order, in the form of oaths. If the gods do not organize all this, humans will be forced to eke out an existence without these benefits. But these are not clockmaker gods who set up the world and then let it go. Shamash can and must act to enforce the oaths - the oath-makers have brought the god into this essentially mortal agreement. Likewise, when Etana cannot produce an heir, he must turn to the gods for help, or to be enlightened. Only through their intervention can he hope to find the plant that will enable his wife to get pregnant. In the end, he must ascend to heaven, or seek direct revelation, in order to procure what he needs. I find this story to be much more positive than some of the others I've read towards the gods' relationship with men.

NYT Crossword, 0810

2008-08-17T17:43:00.004-06:00

Even I had to agree with some of the other crossword bloggers out there that this puzzle was relatively easy, and that the theme was a little weak. But, hey, for a 98-pound crossword weakling like me, a win is a win! And there were a few things to learn:

Gilberto's partner on "The Girl from Ipanema," 1964 = GETZ (As in Stan Getz. The guy's name sounds even more familiar than this vaguely familiar title, but I've never seen it - oh, it's not a movie or a show, but a song. Doh!)

"Vissi d'arte" singer = TOSCA (I've never seen this opera, but I got it when I got enough letters because I have heard of it. And now I've read about it too!)

"New York State of Mind" rapper = NAS (You know how much I love rap.)

Cut made by a saw = KERF (OK, whatever. On a related note, I used my chainsaw this weekend. It's almost as much work as the axe!)

Ringo's drummer son = ZAK (Interestingly, he goes by Zak Starkey, since Ringo Starr's name was Richard Starkey).

Woes, to a Yiddish speaker = TSURIS (Not being a Yiddish speaker myself...)

Brightly colored fish = OPAH (Do scientists make up animal names so that crossword makers will be able to finish making their puzzles?)

Issues:
Cicero or Publius = SENATOR (No! Cicero, both the famous guy and his brother, was a senator, and really only refers to a single individual, but Publius was a first name, and there were plenty of Publii who were not senators. This is like saying Clay or Harry: Sure, the only Clay (Henry Clay) that most people know was a senator, although maybe that's not a good one since Clay could be Cassius Clay, but just because Harry Reid is a senator does not mean his first name is synonymous with the office. I'd think of Dirty Harry before I'd think of Harry Reid. Sorry for the rant.)

Breakfast spot, briefly = HOJO (Umm, isn't HOJO short for Howard Johnson's, a hotel chain. Who thinks of this place when they say, let's go out for breakfast? I'm thinking IHOP, which would have been a much better answer to the clue, except that it wouldn't have fit in the puzzle.)

Pet cat, in British lingo = MOG (OK, sure, it is from a British book series, but do people in Britain really call their pet cats 'Mog'? We don't call our pet cats 'Garfield', do we? Some people might name their orange pet cat Garfield, but that is not the same thing as genericizing the name into a term for pet cats.)

TTFN!

Adapa

2008-08-15T20:54:00.004-06:00

Adapa (Amarna, 15th century BC;
Assur, late second millenium BC)

Notes

Adapa is the first of the ancient seven sages.
Adapa is also known as Uan or Oannes.
Eridu is usually considered to be the first of the Sumerian cities.

Synopsis

Adapa is the priest of the Temple of Ea at Eridu. In this capacity, it is his responsibility to prepare the food and drink offerings for Ea. One way he does is through fishing. While out on a fishing trip, Adapa is caught in a storm and breaks the wing of the South Wind, causing it to stop blowing. Anu, king of the gods, then gets involved, wanting to know who has caused the South Wind to stop blowing. Knowing that Adapa will be summoned before Anu, Ea tries to prepare him by instructing him how to get the guards, Dumuzi and Gizzida, on his side and what to expect from Anu. In particular, Ea warns him not to eat or drink what is offered him, but to clothe and anoint himself with the clothing and oil that is offered him. Before Anu, Adapa reveals that he was about to be drowned by the storm when he cursed the South Wind, and the guards of heaven speak on his behalf. Anu becomes favorably disposed towards him, and offers him food and drink which will make him immortal, but Adapa refuses them, while accepting the clothing and oil. In the end Anu wonders aloud why Adapa has refused immortality and makes a wry comment about mortals. Adapa tries to explain, but is kicked out back to earth. We are then left to wonder whether Ea tricked Adapa out of immortality, or whether Anu's gift was unexpected.

Commentary

Ea is credited with creating Adapa and granting him wisdom, but not eternal life. Adapa has a special connection to Ea, a recipient of revelation from his god, perhaps? Later in the poem, Anu laments that Ea had "disclosed the ways of heaven and earth to mankind", perhaps comparable to Prometheus and the gift of fire.
Adapa is called "extra-wise", which is atra-hasis in Akkadian. Is this a possible connection with the Noah figure?
Adapa is depicted as a very capable priest - holy, pure, dedicated to providing offerings to Ea. His duties include baking, fishing, and setting up the offering table.
The mythopoeism of this story is portrayal of the wind and storm as a god or goddess.
There may be an interesting parallel here with Odysseus, whose defiance of a god leads to shipwreck.
I'm inclined to think of Dumuzi and Gizzida as "angels who stand as sentinels" at the gates of heaven.
Should we think of the food and drink offered by Anu as 'nectar and ambrosia'?
In the divine presence, Adapa is instructed to accept a special garment and an anointing by oil, an interesting comparison with the Israelite priests of the tabernacle and temple.

Reflection

To me, the central message of Adapa is that men must recognize and be satisfied with their lot in life - something akin to the lesson that Namtar learns in Nergal and Ereshkigal. Adapa gets himself in trouble through his defiance of a goddess, cursing the South Wind. It may be that Adapa has learned how to curse the gods from Ea, who "disclosed the ways of heaven and earth to mankind". Anu comments that such divine knowledge makes men sad, probably because they have learned about things that are beyond their access or control. Adapa has a special connection to Ea, and as such is more blessed than other mortals, but even though he seems to have a chance at immortality - ascending from a mortal to an immortal existence, the lesson here is humans should not aim at such gifts.

This brings up the big issue of the poem: Ea's trickery. Is Ea tricking Adapa, or is Anu essentially tricking Ea? On the one hand, Ea seems to be favorably disposed towards Adapa, and Adapa seems to give him faithful service. So, why would Ea want to trick him? It is possible that Ea likes Adapa, appreciates his faithful service, and just does not want to lose him, or simply does not think that a mortal should rise that high. Keep in mind that Adapa's "sin" is not against Ea, but the South Wind. Ea wants to bless Adapa to a point, but he doesn't want to give away the store. Of course, the other option is that Anu is unpredictably generous, which Ea could not foresee. Anu certainly appears quite angry at first, and from the other poems I've read, he never seems to be too kind towards men. Is it possible that Ea simply miscalculated? Thinking that he knows Anu, Ea tries to protect Adapa from eating or drinking instant death, but Anu decides upon a positive boon almost as whim - Mesopotamian gods are known to be whimsical. Of course, we shouldn't assume that even if Ea was mistaken that he is overly distraught about Adapa - man must know his place visa-vis the gods.

Review: Sailing from Byzantium

2008-08-13T20:47:00.009-06:00

Colin Wells, Sailing from Byzantium: How a Lost Empire Shaped the World (Delacourt Press, 2006).

Wells offers us three different tales emanating from a central source point: Byzantium. The issue that unites all three stories is the role Byzantium played in the civilizations of Renaissance Italy, Islam, and the Slavic lands.

The book begins with the Byzantine Greek influence upon the Renaissance humanists who wanted to learn Greek. The central conflict is the religious schism between the Catholic west and the Orthodox east. By the 14th century, Byzantium was in such a desperate situation that some were willing to accept western stipulations for re-union in an effort to secure help against the Turks. The envoys and diplomats sent back and forth between Italy and Constantinople over this issue played a key role in the reacquisition of Greek and Greek texts in the west.

Part II looks at how the Muslims embraced the Greek philosophical, scientific, and medical texts which had been preserved in Byzantium, and then further preserved them by translating them into Arabic. Once they had mastered ancient Greek knowledge, they were then able to expand upon that knowledge, making great advances, particularly in medicine, before a movement to reject reason and Aristotle in favor of faith and the Qu'ran. Throughout this story, the Byzantines make regular appearances, even though most of the history of Islamic-Byzantine relations amounts to steady warfare and conquest, although it took until 1453 and the rise of the Turks to finally bring down Constantinople.

In the last section, we see the passing of the Orthodox torch from Byzantium to Moscow, the Third Rome. A long narrative describes the Byzantine emperor's attempts to deal with the rising Slavic peoples in Bulgaria, Ukraine, Lithuania, and Russia. In eastern Europe, Byzantium's main role was as political legitimizer for the various Slavic states that arose. This role was expanded as the Slavs become Christians, and their metropolitans were subordinate to the Patriarch in Constantinople.

The three sections are tied together thematically, Byzantium serving to unite all three sections. Wells wants to clarify the central role that the Byzantine Empire played in three regions which remain significant today. The idea is that Byzantium passed the torch of the ancient world, as the remnant of the Roman Empire, on to the modern world, embodied in the states that developed out of Renaissance Europe, the Islamic Middle east, and Eastern Europe.

A sub-theme that makes the book particularly interesting is the regular conflict between faith and reason. The Byzantines themselves had to wrestle with this issue, particularly with the rise of Hesychasm, as did the Muslims, the Italians, and the Slavs. Of these latter, Islam retreated away from reason, the Europeans embraced it more and more, while the Slavs essentially ignored it, focusing more on political expediency. And in this way, Wells makes an interesting commentary on the bequest of the Byzantines to the modern world.

Note: I listened to the audiobook, rather than reading the paper version.

Nergal and Ereshkigal

2008-08-10T22:01:00.009-06:00

Nergal and Ereshkigal
(Uruk, 7th century BC; Amarna, 15th century BC)

Notes

Nergal may be etymologically related to Heracles, since his name is also pronounced Erakal.
The Underworld goes by several different names: Erkalla (Great City), Kurnugi (Land of No Return), and most interestingly, Ersetum (Earth).
The throne that Nergal takes down to the Underworld may be connected with the "ghost chair" of Mesopotamian death ritual.

Synopsis

The gods have a great banquet in heaven, to which Erershkigal, queen of the underworld, cannot come. She sends her vizier, Namtar, to bring her down her portion from the feast. While fetching the meal, Namtar is not treated with respect by Nergal. Nergal then plans to visit the underworld, bringing a throne down with him. He is warned by Ea, his father, not to participate in the underworld, i.e. he is not to eat or drink, bathe or engage in sexual activity. Namtar tries to keep Nergal out, but Ereshkigal reminds him that each god has his own domain, and one should not try to usurp the role of another. With this rebuke, she allows Nergal to enter. He withstands all the invitations to eat, drink and bathe, but he ultimately gives in to his lust and lies with Ereshkigal for a week. On the seventh day, Nergal extrictaes himself from Ereshkigal and returns to heaven. He then disguises himself so that when Namtar returns, seeking to bring him back to the underworld, he cannot at first find him. Ereshkigal appeals to her father, Anu, the king of the gods, to send Nergal back to her, threatening to unleash the more populous dead upon the living. Nergal returns on his own terms, defeating the guardians of the seven gates into the underworld, seizing Ereshkigal, taking her to bed for another week, and then ruling the underworld as her husband.

Commentary

Perhaps the most challenging aspect to this text are the constant gaps in the text. It seems to blank out right at crucial moments, making it difficult to always know what is actually happening. The regular repetition in the text does help the reconstruction, though.

The obvious parallel here is the Greek myth of Persephone who must stay, at least part time, in the underworld because she ate the pomegranate seed. There are also some connections with the Descent of Ishtar: the passing of 7 gates, although this time without the symbolic stripping of the world but with a conquest of the guardians of the gates on Nergal's second descent.

Again, I enjoyed the poetic characterization of death as "the house which those who enter cannot leave, On the road where traveling is one way only." In fact, the lines that follow seem to suggest, in keeping with one name for the Underworld, that death is close to the earthly experience: "Where dust is their food, clay their bread. They are clothed, like birds, with feathers."

Interestingly, at one point in the text, Nergal is referred to by a plural noun -- "gods" instead of "god", which the translator connects with a possible Phoenician (i.e. western Semitic) influence. She compares this with the use of Elohim in the Old Testament.

The Amarna version contains an interesting play on words, since the words for 'death' and 'husband' look quite similar. Thus, instead of bringing Nergal to Ereshkigal for death because of his insult, he will end up coming to be her husband.

Reflection

Even though, as is typical with Mesopotamian literature, the actors are all gods, they are portrayed essentially as human, or at least human-like in their daily life and interests. Nergal is to be a judge in the underworld, not of men but of gods, for example. Thus, there is something of value here in seeking to understand human nature. The text may serve some mythopoeic function (the translator suggests that it either explains the replacement of a queen with a king of the underworld, or it may serve to reconcile two separate mythical traditions that had come down), but it also explores human weakness.

Nergal is undone by his lust for a woman. He can withstand the temptations of food, drink, and comfort, but ultimately, not of sex. After his "sin", he is forced to sneak away and to try to disguise himself from her vizier. This is all a very human-like reaction to such a situation - perhaps even to the extreme of seeing the man trying to escape unwanted commitment (Ereshkigal claims to be pregnant by him later in the story).

Another typical human weakness is the desire for power. Namtar, the vizier, tries to overstep his bounds of authority to punish Nergal, while Nergal wants to get away with an improper deed - visiting the underworld and then leaving again. Both are eventually put in their place - they are to have power or authority, but only within a specific domain.

NYT Crossword, 0803

2008-08-10T15:48:00.005-06:00

I really enjoyed this week's puzzle, even though I was stymied in the end. I got the top two-thirds, whose clues were at what I felt was just the right level of difficulty. But, the bottom third had a couple of proper names crossing each other, which got me. Oh well.

Washington State airport: SEATAC. (or Sea-Tac (Seattle/Tacoma) - makes sense, but I've never flown there, so how could I know?)

Teacher: Var.: PEDAGOG. (Come on - you have to spell stuff right to give us a chance! The word is pedagogue!!)

Any ship: SHE (Huh? - The puzzle authors must have read this poem: "Why is a ship a 'she'?")

Mushroom variety: ENOKI. (Not a big fan of rubbery fungi.)

Potato pancake: LATKE (Why don't I know this?)

Al's is almost 27: ATWT (I like chemistry; I was a short-lived major, in fact, but all I could think of here was, who the heck is Al, and why does he have something that is 26.98154? Another thought was Al Gore = A twit?)

Japanese-born Hall of Fame golfer: ISAOAOKI. (This guy is a crossword puzzler's dream come true - all vowels, all the time. Sheesh!)

Fess Parker TV role: BOONE (As in Daniel Boone. 1960s TV show. Before my time. Frankly, I though Fess would be a girl's name.)

Related to on the mother's side: ENATE (OK, my dissertation was on medieval kinship, and I've never heard of this word! Agnate and cognate I know.)

Jazz cornetist Adderley: NAT (I don't like Jazz!)

NYT Crossword, 0727

2008-08-06T16:16:00.005-06:00

As a relative newcomer to these NYT crosswords, this one totally threw me. The theme involved a whole word (in this case a direction word like up, down, right, or left) fitting into a single space. I had a couple of them, except I couldn't figure out why there seemed to be a extra space. That probably contributed (although I can't say it completely explains it) to my inability to even get close to solving this one. There were some very obscure words in there though, and I will mention them at least.

portrays = LIMNS ??? (It even comes from Latin, but sheesh!!)

genus of poisonous mushrooms = AMANITA

pasta used in soups = ORZO

sphagnous = MOSSY

And of course the infamous proper names that probably few have heard of outside of crossword-dom or locals to the name:

City that overlooks a bay of the same name = HILO

old musical high notes = ELAS (The fact that I could only find this on a crossword explanation web page tells you that it is hokey.)

Tasmania's highest peak = OSSA

Construction porject that gave rise to the Ted Williams Tunnel = BIGDIG

Some crossword bloggers seemed to like the little self-referential plays on words, but I don't think they belong in a crossword puzzle. So no more trickery like "Hollow center?" = DOUBLEL, or Building component = SILENTU. Ugh!!

NYT Crossword, 0720

2008-07-27T18:59:00.004-06:00

Woah! So much that I do not know. Not only did I not finish the puzzle today, but I also had three wrong letters in the puzzle. Ouch. In my favor, however, is the observation that many in the puzzling community were stumped by the obscurity of some of these words.

The obscure:

Mocks = JAPES?
Trail to follow = SPOOR?
Eurasian ducks = SMEWS?
Natural bristle = AWN?
Go rapidly = SKIRR?
Bygone blades = SNEES? This appears to be a rather bogus clue.
Open court hearing = OYER?

The proper names:

"La Gioconda" mezzo-soprano = LAURA.
Dr. Zhivago role = PASHA.
Mrs. Woody Allen = SOONYI.
Illinois city, site of the last Lincoln-Douglas debate = ALTON.
Half-brother of Tom Sawyer = SID.
Manhattan part = RYE. Doesn't actually appear to be a part of Manhattan, but rather 33 minutes away.

My mistakes:

Across: November 5, in Britain/Down: "Venice Preserved" dramatist Thomas: GUYFAWKESNIGHT/OTWAY (not guyfaukesnight/otuay)
Down: Bossman or bosswoman/Across: ____ state: PREZ/ZEN (not pres/sen)
Across: La Scala cheer/Down: Capri, e.g., to a Capriote: BRAVA/ISOLA (not bravo/isolo). Clearly demonstrates my lack of Italian.

Descent of Ishtar

2008-07-26T21:16:00.006-06:00

The Descent of Ishtar to the Underworld (Late Bronze Age)

From the Introduction

This text seems to be an abbreviated Akkadian version of an older Sumerian text entitled, The Descent of Inanna.
This text is associated with the funeral rites associated with the god Dumuzi, known as the taklimtu.
It may be referring to a ritual carrying of a cult statue of Ishtar from Uruk, where she was patron, to Kutha, home of the gods associated with the Underworld.

Main characters

Ishtar: daughter of Sin, goddess of love and war (interesting combo, recalling the love affair of Ares and Aphrodite).
Ereshkigal: wife of Nergal, sister of Ishtar, queen of the Underworld (aka "Mistress of Earth").
Namtar: Ereshkigal's vizier, a god of fate, and thus a bringer of disease.
Dumuzi: Ishtar's lover, a god who spends half the year in the underworld.
Belili: Dumuzi's sister, who weeps for him (aka Geshtin-anna)

Synopsis

Ishtar decides to visit the underworld, known as Kurnugi, and approaches the gate with threats if she is not let in. Her sister is not pleased at this news, but Ishtar is granted entrance, but only as she passes through the gates and all her clothes and jewelry are removed. While Ishtar is there, Namtar afflicts her with various diseases forcing her to remain, and in Ishtar's absence, fertility among both beast and man halts. In response, Ea creates a really handsome guy to go down and trick Ereshkigal into letting Ishtar go. He succeeds, but is cursed by the goddess. After anointing her with the waters of life, Ereshkigal lets Ishtar depart, receiving back her clothes and jewelry. Dumuzi is her ransom, and he is prepared with funerary rites, while his sister weeps for him and makes it possible for him to return one day.

Commentary

If the synopsis seems a bit confusing, that's because the text itself is a bit confusing. And yet, there are some beautiful lines of poetry here, too. The main problem is that there seems to be no particular reason for Ishtar to descend into Kurnugi, besides her own hell-bent (literally) desire to do so. Lacking is the kind of motive found in the various Greek stories of visiting the underworld (Persephone, Orpheus, Hercules, Odysseus, etc.). This problem is compounded by a very confusing shift in focus from Ishtar to Dumuzi in the last few lines. The narrator does not make it clear why Dumuzi is to be Ishtar's ransom, or how the need for a ransom fits in with the trickery of the handsome guy to get Ishtar back.

This poem introduces us to Mesopotamian views of death, or perhaps rather the world of the dead, and the natural passing from life to death. Death is described as "traveling one-way" or entering a house from which you cannot leave. I think people who have experienced the loss of loved ones could relate to such sentiments about death. (Compare 2 Nephi 1:14) Belili's highly emotional reaction to her brother's funeral at the end of the poem perhaps demonstrates typical distress at the situation. The dead are not described in very positive terms, and in fact, there seems to be a real fear that the dead might come back to haunt people - in other words, the dead are meant to stay dead and gone, which of course is the problem with Ishtar's descent to the underworld. The powerful emotions connected with death, particularly untimely death, are put into Ereshkigal's mouth:

'I have to weep for young men forced to abandon their sweethearts.
I have to weep for girls wrenched from their lovers' laps.
For the infant child I have to weep, expelled before its times.'

There also seems to be a close association of disease with death, as Namtar is commanded to strike Ishtar down with 60 diseases.

Another important aspect of the Mesopotamian world is fertility. In a world so reliant upon agriculture and husbandry, and one in which people probably lived on the brink of starvation and death regularly, we can easily imagine that a goddess of fertility would be an important deity. While she is gone, there is no procreation. The solution is to entice Ereshkigal with an object of sexual desire (the translator calls him 'Good-looks the playboy'), and the ransom payment required is Ishtar's former lover. I think we should imagine that Ishtar is dressed like a prostitute, bedecked with alluring clothes and lots of jewelry up and down her body. Her priestesses, who perform the funeral rites for Dumuzi, are called 'party-girls'. So again we see a close connection between the sources of life (water and sex) and the effects of death (weeping, funeral rites, and the stripping away of the signs of living (i.e. jewelry)).

The figures of Ishtar and Dumuzi seem to recall, in particular, the descents of Persephone and Orpheus to the underworld, although the details are dramatically different. Orpheus is the handsome young man come to win his dead lover back through song and poetry, but in the end he learns that people were not meant to come back from the dead, and he is forced to lament his lost lover. Persephone is more fortunate, but the necessity of returning to Hades for half of the year creates the cycle of fertility and death. The mythopoeic connections should be obvious.

Reflection

I was definitely struck by the powerful descriptions of death, the dead, and the underworld in this text. Clearly death meant loss, accompanied by suffering. Of course, death is the thing that makes us humans mortal, and as such it is a vital part of our temporal experience - both to experience the death of those we love, and the to succumb to it ourselves one day. Perhaps the most poignant image from the text, though, was Ishtar's passing through the seven gates into the underworld. With each gate she was stripped of her most precious possessions: crown, earrings, bangles, beads, rings, and clothes. It represents a clear reminder that we will not be able to take any of our earthly possessions with us into the afterlife. It is also a very visual image of the stripping away of our temporal existence, one emphatic step at a time, for a more eternal existence.

Reflections on Atrahasis

2008-07-24T16:05:00.003-06:00

I'd like to go beyond the parallels between Atrahasis and the Biblical tradition, as intriguing as some of them are. I suspect that there are nuggets of truth embedded in there, which could enhance our understanding of Noah and Enoch, but I am not yet equipped to dig them out from amidst the rubble.

One of the things I teach my students about the Mesopotamians is that their literature tends to focus on the gods, with the humans more or less nameless slaves to the gods. Gilgamesh is an exception, but then he is also 2/3 god, 1/3 human. Here, Atrahasis is the only named human, and the only human who really acts, but even then he acts according to the behest of Enki. The real struggle in this work is between Enki and Ellil. Even when the flood comes, it is the gods' sufferings because of it that are discussed; the humans are merely victims of a great catastrophe. This provides a very interesting viewpoint for human literature, especially since this is one of the earliest surviving pieces of human literature.

For me, the question that all great literature answers is, what does it teach us about the nature of the human experience. If it answers such a question, then we can look to that work as a source of wisdom for our sojourn on this earth. On an emotional level, this work seems to portray a genuine feeling of helplessness vis-a-vis the supernatural, and perhaps even the natural (the two seem to be intertwined among the Mesopotamians). Atrahasis seems to be simply more fortunate than everyone else in surviving the flood - the beneficiary of a power struggle between Enki and Ellil. This is certainly a pessimistic view of human nature - even the creation of humans was simply a means of transferring the work load from the gods to a lesser form of being. I am compelled to wonder at the achievements of a civilization with such a view. Why make any great effort to build up cities and empires, produce music and art, write literature or keep records, when it is all so fleeting. I was particularly struck by the line "Reject possessions, and save living things." Not only is this a true principle, but for people who value humans so little, it is downright surprising. I would expect these people to say, "Hey, live it up now, because the gods could cause it all to come crashing down tomorrow." If they can value our humanity, we should definitely be able to do so.

Further to that thought is the end of the poem which reveals an attempt to understand something which is so much rarer in our world: infant mortality. I don't know what the infant mortality rate in the modern United States is, but I'm sure it is a lot lower than 33%. Perhaps seeing it as a decree of the gods made it less devastating to think about, but such notice in a text also suggests that they did value those infants and were sad to see them not survive.

My last thought on this book regards the times of famine designed to depopulate the earth. As the famine got worse and worse, the people devolved into cannibalism. I can only wonder how I myself might react to such a situation - how much food could have been available after 6 years of famine? If people didn't resort to cannibalism, then even more people would die - is the right choice then for everyone to give up and die, or should the strong do whatever it takes to survive? Of course, Abraham and Joseph lived during and survived times of famine, so perhaps we must simply learn to rely on the Lord.

Atrahasis, Tablet III

2008-07-23T21:18:00.004-06:00

Tablet III

Synopsis

Atrahasis prays to Enki (aka Ea), who sends him a dream, commanding him to prepare for a flood by converting his house into a boat. Enki tells him to prepare for 7 days in the boat. Then, Atrahasis goes to the elders and explains to them that since Enki and Ellil have fallen out with each other, he is being driven out of Ellil's territory, forced to go live in Enki's land, the land of the Apsu. The community appears to help Atrahasis build the boat, and then he loads up birds, cattle and wild animals onto the boat. Finally, he feasts everyone, loads up his family, and then seals them all up inside the boat. Then the flood hits, and it seems to be the gods who really suffer during the flood. They complain that Ellil and Anu have made a bad decision with this flood. Nintu weeps for the destruction of men, who clog up the rivers like dragonflies. The flood lasts 7 days. Then, Ellil notices Atrahasis' boat, and rages against Enki, who acknowledges that he has done it to preserve mankind. Ellil has to accept it, and orders Enki and Nintu to work out the problem with mankind. Their solution is to provide for their mortality. Now, a third of the children born to women will not survive infancy, and some women will become priestesses who may not give birth. In this way, the population of humans will not become over large, and the noise which had upset Ellil will be better controlled.

Commentary

Atrahasis is presented as a prophet, who can speak to his god, Enki, and receive dreams and understand portents. (Gen 6:9, 13, etc.)
Atrahasis has a different relationship with the gods than the people among whom he lives. He serves Enki, while they seem to serve Ellil. Their land is considered Ellil's, not Enki's. Is this an echo of monotheism? (Gen 6:5-8)
Is Atrahasis (perhaps at the behest of Enki) being sneaky here? He gets the locals to help him build a boat, and seems to be aware that a great flood is coming, but he doesn't seem to offer to save anyone else (because they belong to Ellil, who has ordered the flood?). (Note that the Genesis version does not say anything about Noah preaching repentance unto the wicked people. That information comes to us from Moses 8:20.)
Atrahasis' boat seems to be more of a barge or submarine, which is completely sealed up, "so that the Sun cannot see inside it." (Gen 6:14-16, note that Noah gets a window in his ark; Ether 2:17)
This tale seems to equate the flood with the fall of man into a state of mortality, which did not exist previously. (Gen 6:3 seems to suggest that the flood did mark a change in lifespan of humankind.)
The entire account is mythopoeic, explaining the origin of human mortality, especially infant mortality, and the classes of celibate priestesses. (Gen 6-7 is moralistic.)

NYT XWord - 7/20/08

2008-07-20T21:56:00.000-06:00

Success! Some of the clues seemed a bit too easy, and some a bit too obscure, but after completing the puzzle, I think most of the clues were pretty fair, even though there were still several clues or answers that I had never heard of before. I generally prefer the individual thematic answers to the kind of running quote found in this puzzle (since it takes a lot of cross-words to start to figure out the quote), but this quote was pretty funny. The puzzle was entitled 'Parting Thoughts', with the quote clue as 'Last request': "To die in my sleep like my grandfather, not screaming in terror like the people in his car."

Proper names I have never heard of:

John Ciardi ("Lives of X" poet)
Erica Jong (author of a book entitled Fear of Flying, which would seem to about something I am uninterested in reading about)
Lambert airport (the St. Louis airport, which I have actually passed through - didn't notice it was named 'Lambert' though)
Inge (William Motte Inge to be more exact; "Picnic" playwright, which apparently won a Pulitzer; and not to be confused with William Ralph Inge, aka "the Gloomy Dean")

Other unfamiliar words:

tercel (apparently, a male falcon (not a Toyota) - but this is the British spelling, the American being tiercel - that must explain why I didn't know it!)
penne (a tasty tube? - Ok, this has other names that I have heard of: ziti or mostaccioli; besides, it's not the pasta that is tasty, it's the sauce!)
spliff (slang for marijuana, comes from Jamaica, mon! - probably a good sign that I didn't know this one!)

Atrahasis, Tablet II

2008-07-20T18:00:00.000-06:00

Tablet II

Synopsis

Tablet II is less straightforward than Tablet I, owing to both the fragmentary and repetitious nature of the text. In the end, I am not sure how much weight we can place on a chronological account, but the overall account has a few important themes. Ellil again became annoyed at the noise of the people, and ordered a famine in the land. The people used the same technique as with the previous plague: they ignored the other gods and appeased Adad, with offerings and a temple, into lifting the drought. The famine lasted 6 years, which culminated in cannibalism in the last years. Then enter Atrahasis into the story. He communes with Enki, or Ea, who guides him during the famine. The end becomes even more confusing, but it seems that Enki and Ellil had an argument, and Ellil demands a flood. Ellil also seems to be upset with the Igigi, who created humans and are now destroying them.

Commentary

Is there a connection between the fact that the Bible reports Noah as being 600 years old at the time of the flood, and the Atrahasis discusses the passing of a period of 600 years? (Gen 7:6)
The realms of the gods are divided into heavens, earth, and sea. (Gen 1:6-10)
The Mesopotamians seem to have a notion that there are vast quantities of water below the surface of the earth, which recalls the Biblical flood which was not caused by the constant downpour, as much as by the rising of the depths over the earth. (Gen 7:11)

Atrahasis, Tablet I

2008-07-16T21:44:00.000-06:00

Ipiq-Aya, Atrahasis (1700 BC)

From the introduction:

Atrahasis is essentially the Noah figure of Mesopotamian literature.
Atrahasis means 'extra-wise'.
Atrahasis goes by many names: Utnapishtim, Ziusudra, Xisuthros.
Atrahasis may be connected with such figures as Noah, Prometheus, Odysseus, and Al-Khadir.
The Old Babylonian Version seems to date from 1700 BC.
The author named for the text is Ipiq-Aya, who worked during the reign of Ammi-saduqa, King of Babylon (1702-1682 BC).
The text may have been written in Sippar, for the priestesses of the temple of Shamash (the sun god), to explain why they were not allowed to have children.

Tablet I

Synopsis

In the beginning, after heaven (ruled by Anu) was divided from earth (ruled by Ellil) the Anunnaki made the Igigi work for them, building irrigation canals and rivers like the Tigris and Euphrates. After 3600 years of this, the Igigi were not happy with the situation, so they counseled with each other and decided to rebel against Ellil. Besieged by the Igigi, Ellil called a council of the great Anunnaki to discuss this war with his own rebellious sons. The council decided that the labor imposed upon the Igigi was indeed too great. Their solution was to choose one god to be sacrificed, and to mix his flesh and blood with clay to create primeval man, who would then labor for the gods. Ilawela was chosen to be sacrificed, but a spirit of him would remain as a reminder of his sacrifice. Now the womb goddesses created 7 men and 7 women and decreed that they should pair off as husband and wife. Specific rites for child birth and marriage are decreed. But the people multiplied themselves to overflowing, and they made a great noise which rose up to ears of Ellil, who was annoyed. He therefore ordered that a disease should ravage the people to reduce their numbers (and thus their noise). Atrahasis recieved instruction from his god, Enki, and ordered the people to rebel against the gods - making no more offerings unto them - and to make offerings to Namtara, a demon of the underworld who could end the plague. The people built a temple to Namtara and made a flour offering, which brought an end to the plague.

Commentary

This is clearly an ancient Mesopotamian document:

The canal-controller Ennugi
The labor of the Igigi is building irrigation canals, clearing channels, and digging out the Tigris and Euphrates river beds.
The teleology of the poem, which attempts to explain the origins of certain customs (marriage, birth) through this myth, and the mythopoeism of attributing disease to the gods.
Men are ultimately tasked with laboring for the gods - it is their sole purpose.
The round numbers are base 60: 3600 = 60*60; 600 = 60*10.

It presents several intriguing parallels to the Biblical tradition:

The beginning of creation is described as a division of heaven and earth. (Gen 1:6-10)
There is a Council in Heaven, followed by a War in Heaven. (Abraham 3:21-28)
Ellil cries tears, just as God weeped in the Enoch tradition. (Moses 7:29)
The notion of a god being sacrificed for humans. (Moses 6:62)
Specific days set aside for purification, like a sabbath. (Lev 23:3)
Purification through immersion. (Moses 6:59, 64)
Forms of existence seem to include fleshly bodies, spirits and intelligences. (Abraham 3:22)
Men are made of clay, which is simply a form of earth, the main component of man in the Bible. (Gen 2:7)
A token of remembrance is used to remember the sacrificed god - his spirit remains.
The 7 males and 7 females, paired off 2 by 2 sounds a lot like Noah loading his ark. (Gen 7:2)
Men and women are to choose each other (cleave unto each other). (Gen 2:24)
Atrahasis is described as a prophet - he speaks to his god and receives instruction from him for all mankind. (Amos 3:7)
The disease that plagues man seems to act like a curse (for sin?), which can only be stopped through specific temple rituals (a return to righteousness). Namtara could be viewed as a Satan figure who will end the plague when appeased.

I also observed other echoes:

Ellil is described as both a warrior and a counselor, recalling the ancient Greek principle of aretê so important to the Iliad and Odyssey, for example.
The names of the gods Alla and Ellil seem to echo Allah and El - semitic names for God.
The idea of the Anunnaki and the Igigi, and the rising up of the sons of Ellil against him seems to echo other mythical traditions where the younger generation of gods rises up against the elder (Zeus vs. Kronos, Kronos vs. Ouranos, etc.).
The gods are sometimes grouped together, as the Anunnaki, Igigi, and Apsu, echoing such groupings as the Titans, Aesir, Vanir, or Jötunn.
Humans are a combination of animal (they are flesh and blood creatures) and god (they are rational).
The days set aside for purification are the first, seventh and fifteenth of the month, which sounds a lot like the Kalends, Nones, and Ides in the Roman calendar.

NYT XWord - 7/13/08

2008-07-16T18:37:00.000-06:00

I am forced to admit defeat on this week's crossword, but I wish to challenge some of the clues and answers. Some seemed really forced or quite obscure. The puzzle seemed to rely a lot upon answers which weren't actually words (such as lines on a musical staff = EGBDF, kisses on paper = XES, or certain guy, in personals shorthand = SWM). I'm not saying they're not legit, just that I'd like to see real words in the puzzle.

First, the legitimate (from which I learned a few things I didn't know before):
Castle Bravo = H-Test
Penn station inits = LIRR (Long Island Railroad)
Swimmer Diana Nyad
Cambodia's money is called the Riel

Useless modern pop culture references:
1978 album: Q:Are we not men? A: We are Devo!, produced by Brian Eno
The Helen Reddy hit "Delta Dawn"

The questionable:
Although 'ameer' is an acceptable alternate spelling of 'Emir', it feels like a crossword stretch.
"Calls ones own" = Has? (I guess, but sheesh!)
"Stir" = the can (huh? I'm guessing it's referring to prison, but, please: one colloquial word to describe another colloquial phrase that law abiding citizens are unlikely to know?)
"derisive" = sneery (is that really a word?)
"detailed, old style" = itemed (whatever...)
"fully or partially: abbr." = adv (OK, both are adverbs, but that is a lame clue!)

I found another crossword blogger, and he had some of the same issues as me.

Reading Catchup

2008-07-14T20:41:00.001-06:00

Last week I finished several books - most of them were my texts for this semester, and since this semester is now winding down, it is inevitable that I would finish a few. I'll just offer a few comments on each.

Klaus Bringmann, A History of the Roman Republic

This was my core textbook for Roman History. I only do the Republic and there are not a lot of texts out there devoted to just the Republic, but the whole Republic (well, really from Rome's foundation to the principate of Augustus). This was a new, recently published, text that covered exactly what I wanted. I found it to be an interesting read, covering a lot of the more recent research on early Rome. Unfortunately, I think it was beyond my students' grasp, as they had no foundational knowledge of Roman History to help. Bringmann's narrative became more complete when treating the Late Republic, but he spent too much time analyzing and arguing and not enough just presenting a straight-forward narrative which is what my students needed. Again, it was perfect for someone with a decent knowledge of the narrative already - I learned quite a bit from his particular perspective on certain issues of the Republic. Perhaps also a little problematic was the fact that Bringmann wrote the text in German and this was a translation. I think the translator did a fine job, although there were a few rough spots, but inevitably there was a Germanic quality to the whole text that alienates your basic American reader a bit.

Maurice Keen, The Penguin History of Medieval Europe

This is the core text of my online Medieval History course. I like it because Keen takes a thematically similar approach to my own in presenting medieval Europe. He examines Europeans' efforts to create and sustain Latin Christendom from the eighth century on. In the end, he explains the end of the Middle Ages in terms of a shift from a Christendom-centric view of Europe to one dominated by national kingdoms. He also offers more information about central and eastern Europe than a standard text, so that even I learned a few things about the Middle Ages from it. It is by no means a perfect text, but it is quite accessible and not too long. I supplement it with a more scholarly text that takes a less narrative and more thematic approach.

C. Edward Good, A Grammar Book for You and I (Oops, Me): All the Grammar You Need to Succeed in Life

This is by far the most readable and yet useful grammar book I have encountered, so I have brought it front and center in my Research and Writing methods course. Good has an engaging style and focuses particularly on issues to make the reader a better writer. Since Good's mian job is to teach lawyers how to write better expository prose, it is perfect for a history methods course. What it lacks is the traditional textbook's exercises, but I am putting those together myself (mainly involving sentence diagramming). I actually picked this up on the Barnes & Noble "Bargain Books" shelf a few years ago (and I did see some more copies on a recent trip to B&N), where it came in a hard back version entitled, Who's (...Oops) Whose Grammar Book Is This Anyway? If you want to understand English grammar better and become a better writer, I highly recommend this book as a 'good' place to start.

Joseph Cummins, Turn Around & Run Like Hell: Amazing Stories of Unconventional Military Strategies That Worked

I got this book for my birthday, and I only just finished it, after getting sidetracked with a bunch of other stuff (mainly work). The nice thing was that since it is just a collection of individual accounts of various military battles, I was able to come back to it and just keep going even after a couple of weeks of no reading. I was probably already familiar with about half of the battles (mainly the ancient ones). Overall, though, each battle was retold in an entertaining style, and I found that each tactic was indeed new and unconventional (not much repetition of tactics in the author's choice of battles). This was not high scholarship, but I certainly learned a few things, and only found a few small errors in the battles I did know. I wouldn't mind writing a book like this someday.

Current Bookshelf :

Graham Priest, Logic: A Very Short Introduction
Anthony Everitt, Cicero
Hugh Nibley, Apostles and Bishops in Early Christianity
Garth Nix, Keys to the Kingdom #6: Superior Saturday
Ellis Peters, Cadfael #3: Monk's Hood
Jude Watson, Last of the Jedi #2: Dark Warning

NYT XWord - 7/6/08

2008-07-07T18:38:00.000-06:00

I got all but 3 spaces in Sunday's NYTimes Crossword [apparently there are other weirdos out there like me who comment on their crossword experiences - and one of them is even named Ryan. I also learned from their site that I get the puzzle a week late (guess that's why I get the answers with it)]. Not being a pen connoisseur, I did not get the clue "Cross stock" which apparently refers to Cross brand pens; not being an inhabitant of Minnesota or Georgia, I did not know that Edina was a suburb of Minneapolis, nor that there is a town near Atlanta called Villa Rica. I've never heard of an orfe, a kir, or an aril. [What did I do before Google and Wikipedia?] I suppose a handheld device called a 'palmtop' makes sense, but I had never encountered such a thing before, but apparently they are common enough for those in the know. Also of interest, El Al is Israel's national airline based out of Ben Gurion Airport, and apparently El Al means 'skyward' in Hebrew - amazing the things you can learn in the crossword (whether you wanted to or not). I'm embarrassed to say that I was unfamiliar with the Verdi opera 'A Masked Ball', so I was unable to identify the aria Eri tu - ['You will be...'?] (full title: "Eri tu che macchiavi quell'anima"). And finally, I have never seen the perfume brand Coty. Despite this wealth of ignorance, however, I remind my readers that I only missed three of the boxes. TTFN!

P.S. I have now gotten my Mesopotamian myths text, and as soon as I get caught up on my grading, I will embark on my odyssey. But do take a look at the lists I've added at the foot of my blog.

Cicero on Literary Pursuits

2008-07-03T20:22:00.000-06:00

I've never been much of a Cicero fan. This may go back to my difficulties in Latin 302 where we had to read [that is, labor through] his Catilinarian Orations. I found his periodic style very cumbersome and difficult to wade through. But this semester I decided to have my students evaluate a recent popular biography of the orator and statesman, since despite my general dislike, he was a central eyewitness figure in the fall of the Roman Republic, who also happened to leave us tons of primary source material for the period. For some balance I did have them read Sallust's account of the Catilinarian Conspiracy as well, which puts Cicero in a less favorable light, then he put himself in his own speeches.

So, now I'm reading this biography of Cicero, and I may have gained some new respect for him (although perhaps still not for his Latin style). He commented on his own educational training in his Pro Archias:

The time which others spend in advancing their own personal affairs, taking holidays and attending games, indulging in pleasures of various kinds or even enjoying mental relaxation and bodily recreation, the time they spend on protracted parties and gambling and playing ball, proves in my case to have been taken up with returning over and over again to . . . literary pursuits.

I find this statement to be just as applicable to our own day and age, and to me personally, as it was to the late Roman Republic (and probably also as meaningful as it must have been to Petrarch in the 14th century). In it, I think we find the key to Cicero's success - he was a country gentleman (read: bumpkin - his name means 'chickpea') who came to Rome as a young man determined to pull himself up by his bootstraps to the highest magistracies of the Roman Republic. He might have come to Rome, simply fit into this society, and promptly fell back into oblivion, but he did not. Instead he shunned the typical pleasures that most nobles wasted their time and money on in order to constantly improve himself and achieve his goal: the Roman consulship. Even if he was not the greatest orator in the history of Rome, he probably deserved to be, if we believe his own statement about his pursuit of education.

If we look at our own lives, how often do we feel that we have not achieved our full potential? And then, we might ask, how often have we come home at the end of the day and said to ourselves, "I'm so tired tonight, I'm just going to veg in front of the tube"; or how often do we plan to 'attend the games' [watch the football game] this weekend instead of toiling away at some chore that would see us nearer to our own personal goals? We live in a society focused on fun, and in that we have much in common with the people of the Roman Empire. Do we choose to wallow with the crowd in their entertainments, or do we seek the more lasting, even eternal, pursuits which will see us achieve immortality (however we choose to define that idea, which has been with us since the days of Achilles)?

Now, I am not advocating a life devoid of the simple pleasures of life, as I'm sure that Cicero did not avoid all the entertainments of his world (he seems to have been a fan of the theatre, for example). But we might well ask where our priorities lie, and those priorities might be best evaluated by an examination into our daily activities. How much time, or how much money, do we spend "taking holidays and attending games, indulging in pleasures of various kinds or even enjoying mental relaxation and bodily recreation, . . . on protracted parties and gambling and playing ball." Is it at a healthy level? How does that time and money spent compare to our "literary pursuits" - which might be more broadly defined in our day than in Cicero's? I write all this not to castigate anyone, as I know myself to be as guilty as anyone in my neglect of more substantial pursuits, but as part of my overall campaign to stem the tide of cultural decline in our civilization - a decline that I see everyday in my profession, and against which I fight a losing battle. It is not a question of if, but only when, our civilization will suffer a fate similar to that of the Romans. If it is any comfort, it took Rome almost 500 years from Cicero's day before it collapsed, but I would remind us that the last 300 years were far from pleasant.

Robin Hood

2008-07-01T22:43:00.001-06:00

I finished watching the first three episodes of the recent BBC Robin Hood series. I can't decide whether I like the series or not. Some of the casting, or at least the portrayals, for example, are a bit odd - especially the sheriff. The show has the general grittiness of modern Robin Hood films (which, being a great fan of the sanitized 1938 version, has never struck my fancy much), but tries to intermix a bit of humor into it (both Much and the Sheriff seem to want to play the comedian role), as well as including a black man playing a master-at-arms (whatever that is) and a strong, independent Marian (all slightly reminiscent of Costner's Prince of Thieves, which is something no work should want to be compared to). And yet, there is something likable and admirable about Robin that makes it difficult to completely dismiss this version.

I think my biggest issue with the series is their inclusion of certain anachronisms. Now, almost all Robin Hoods have this problem to some extent, especially any version which includes a friar during the reign of King Richard (that mendicant order was not even created until the reign of King John). But this series seems to treat the crusades as some sort of nationalistic war being waged in the Holy Land, and in one episode the sheriff portrays Robin as a terrorist. All this rhetoric is clearly meant to echo our own times, when we are sending troops off to the Middle East and worrying about terrorists at home. Of course, the Robin Hood legend is very malleable and has been reworked over and over again, always keeping Robin current and relevant, so this, in and of itself, shouldn't turn me off of the show. Is this Robin Hood for the 21st century? Perhaps I'll have to watch a few more episodes to decide.

On a more mundane note: Tonight I completed my first New York Times Crossword Puzzle. I've gotten close a couple of times, and this one took me three days, but I did it. And now I must ask, "What the heck is an eft, a sepal, a calyx, an amole, and a coho; and how does the word 'elate' fit the clue 'send' (since elate comes from the Latin ex-ferre meaning 'to bring or bear out of'), or why should I equate a 'mugful' with 'beer'? Perhaps I merely display my ignorance.

Salut!

In the beginning...

2008-06-30T21:42:00.000-06:00

Perhaps I should open this blog with an invocation to the Muses (which muse do you think is over blogging? Clio... Mnēmē...?), but I won't, since this is unlikely to prove very poetic in nature. I will, however, explain the title a little. The astute reader will notice that it comprises a Greek word (transliterated) followed by a Latin word (in the genitive form). It roughly translates to 'the Lyceum of the king' or perhaps better, 'a royal gymnasium' - a place for me to exercise my mind on the loftiest of thoughts and ideas. More mundanely described, this is where I plan to engage, react to, or analyze any of the significant literature that I encounter. Maybe I'll treat some of the films I watch as literature, as well (I have a Netflix subscription that keeps me supplied with interesting movies). Perhaps this blog might be compared to the old commonplace books of the early modern world (Thomas Jefferson 's commonplace books still survive).

Besides discussing the various books I read for work (I teach ancient and medieval history), or for enjoyment (in my line of 'work', these two categories often overlap), I have launched myself on an educational odyssey, which I will particularly chronicle in his blog: I am starting at the beginning of literature and plan to work through all the great literary works worth studying, in as systematic an approach as I can muster. I have not yet decided how much I will dip into works beyond the western world, but I suspect that I will at least tackle the major works of India, China, and Islam.

The Odyssey

First up: Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, the Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others (Oxford World's Classics)

On deck: Gilgamesh: A New English Version

Current Bookshelf [I am often in the middle of several books at once, for a variety of reasons - this is the list of what I'm currently in the middle of reading]:

Joseph Cummins, Turn Around and Run Like Hell
Graham Priest, Logic: A Very Short Introduction
Maurice Keen, The Penguin History of Medieval Europe
C. Edward Good, Who's (...Oops) Whose Grammar Book Is This Anyway?
Klaus Bringmann, A History of the Roman Republic
Anthony Everitt, Cicero
Hugh Nibley, Apostles and Bishops in Early Christianity