Hymn to Dionysos

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...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I could survive for 60 seconds chained to a bunk bed with a velociraptor

Created by Bunk Beds Pedia

NYT Crossword, 1012

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)