From the Inbox 21 October 2007

Some random items of possible interest.

First, from Townhall.com, Want Protection from Breast Cancer? Have Some Babies, by Miriam Grossman. You won't, she says, find the best lifestyle choice for preventing breast cancer

highlighted in women’s magazines or health websites, but it’s the mommy track that provides the greatest protection against breast cancer: giving birth before thirty, having a bunch of kids, and breastfeeding them—for a long time.

. . .Emphasizing the benefits of early motherhood could—gasp!—encourage some young women to give marriage more priority, and postpone their demanding career. They might decide it’s a diamond they most want now, not a PhD.

From the New York Times Book Review, Mobilizing the Religious Left, Alan Wolfe's reflection on Walter Rauschenbusch's Christianity and the Social Crisis, published 100 years ago and now being praised in a new book by Cornel West, Jim Wallis (whom he, surprisingly, describes as "one of the most astute of the contributors to this volume"), and others. Wolfe suggests, but does not say, that Rauschenbusch offered the windiest and most useless of ideological platitudes and generalizations, and that his uselessness is made obvious by comparing him with Reinhold Niebuhr and others, who had actually paid attention to what the world is like.

From The Tablet, the English sociologist (and practicing Anglican) David Martin reviews a sociological study of the Second Vatican Council and its effects in Backstage politics and the Council. It is an interesting review though he, and apparently the author, depend on the inadequate and biasing categories of "progressive," "fundamentalist," and the like, and he seems to read the Council through his own commitments, mainly that the Council failed to the extent it didn't turn the Catholic Church into the Church of England.

A sign of this kind of reading is its explaining failures to move left as political moves, or non-moves, as if no one involved might actually have believed in the traditional position. Contraception is the usual issue invoked here, always with a reference to the fact that much of the laity didn't obey the teaching, which is apparently intended as an indirect argument for change, though writers of this sort don't write like this when the laity refuse to accept some teaching they like. The Southern Baptists, conservative Presbyterians, and others get the same king of treatment from those who think they haven't moved in the right direction.

Also from The Tablet, Uncommon Overture examines the Islamic leaders' statement A Common Word Between Us and You. The writer, John Borelli, argues that

Despite . . . the not-so-subtle references to the oneness of God throughout, passages often used against the Christian doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation, "A Common Word" is not polemical like the centuries-long arguments and debates between Christians and Muslims. Some may feel that it goes too far in outlining common terms for agreement and interpreting Christian and Jewish Scriptures. Others may not agree with the way Scriptural and commentarial citations are used. Still, even with its traditional aspects, "A Common Word" is a new departure. It is a response to the urgent need for a united voice from Muslims on the essentials of their faith to counteract voices of extremists and those preaching violence and hatred.

For those of you interested in such things, the NYTimes reports on the battle over whether to publish the unedited version of Raymond Carver's stories in The Real Carver: Expansive or Minimal?.

Largely as a result of that collection [his "Breakout 1981 book," What We Talk About When We Talk About Love], which became a literary sensation, Carver was credited with popularizing a minimalist style. But many of his fans have been aware of reports that Gordon Lish, Carver’s first editor at Alfred A. Knopf, had heavily edited, and in many cases radically cut, the stories before publication to hone the author’s voice. At the time, Carver begged Mr. Lish to stop production of the book. But Knopf went ahead and published it, to much critical acclaim.

This I did not know, and it's nice to have evidence of what an editor can do for his writers (like make them famous, sometimes, besides making them coherent, often). I've only read some of Carver's stories, and wouldn't recommend all of them, but "A Small, Good Thing" is wonderful.

Something else from the NYTBR, the English novelist William Boyd's review of the latest collection of William Trevor's short stories, Show and Tell. I've been meaning to reread his collected stories, and this has spurred me to start. They are generally bleak, but they are often either quite moving or quite convicting.

I remember one about an Irish landlord spending Christmas day with an English family that were tenants of his, as he had for many years, and making some general remark about England's treatment of Ireland, and how their friendship quickly unwound and dissolved. Having grown up in an ideological world, it taught me much about the limits of politics and the nature of courtesy.

Again from the NYTBR, Guy Gone Wild, an amusing review of a biography of the ghastly writer Harold Robbins. The reviewer is obviously enjoying teeing off on Robbins. For example, his comment at the beginning:

doesn’t a hustling subliterate whose oeuvre changed American publishing deserve at least one kudo, to use a solecism Robbins himself would have been likely to commit to print? Crammed with moronic prurience, achieving logorrhea with the barest of resources, your average Robbins page turner read as if he’d clacked it out using 10, if not 11, thumbs, and his 20 or so engorged books sold more than 750 million copies combined. If you’ve ever wondered just when quality literature and commercial fiction parted ways for good with a shudder, call him Harold Rubicon.

And finally, supplied by regular reading James Altena, a discussion between Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky on The Lord of the Rings. I hate to have to say this, but experience has taught me I'd better: It is a satire. And a very funny one. For example:

Chomsky: Naturally, it's in Rohan/Gondor's interest to keep the Orcs obscured, to make everything as restricted and dehumanizing as possible. It's always the first step toward genocide. And is this — is there anything less than genocide being advocated in this film?

Zinn: I don't think so.

Chomsky: Is there any kind of idea that men should live in peace with the Orcs?

Zinn: Think of the scenes in the prologue with all the arrows hitting these thousands of Orcs. We're supposed to think that this is a good thing.

Chomsky: I think this is a tragedy, this story. Because it's about two cultures. And poor leadership. It's a human tragedy, and an Orcish tragedy.

Zinn: A perfect example of what you're talking about is right here, when Strider attacks the Black Riders, "saving" Frodo from them.

Chomsky: Think of it from the Black Riders' perspective. No doubt they arrived at Weathertop thinking, "Can we ask a few questions? We'd like to talk to you."

Comments

[DGP]

Religion is the pipeweed of the masses. Orcers of the world, unite! Long live Red Orctober! Long live Mordorist-Sauronism!

[Peter Gardner]

Get your facts straight!

[DGP]

>>Get your facts straight!

I never realized. And this just after learning that Dumbledore was gay! The world of wizardry turns!

[Nick Milne]

Additionally, that Merlin "lived backwards" is just a euphemism for a lifestyle too unspeakable to describe.

[Joe Long]

I must say, that was a fine example of the book reviewer's art. (A bit like Wolverine, of the "X-Men", in the old, heroic adventures: "I'm the best there is at what I do. But what I do...isn't very nice.")

"Making the beast with two hardbacks" - priceless. Florence King herself couldn't have said that better (or worse; take your pick).

It would be dismaying that Harold Robbins attracted a biographer at all - but that review was worth it. Thank you.

[Joe Long]

From "Mobilizing the Religious Left":

"A century ago, the case for the inevitability of inequality was made by secular thinkers strongly influenced by Darwin’s theory of evolution, while those who argued on behalf of social justice took their Bible reading seriously. Nowadays it is the reverse..."

Really? The reverse? Somebody tell me how Darwinism can possibly be any sort of tool for "social justice" (other than as a convenient club to swing at "fundamentalists"). She means, of course, that "leftists are secular, and secular folks accept Darwin" - but you can't follow evolutionary logic and wind up a leftist, any more than you can follow any other sort of logic there.

[luthien]

The Zinn and Chomsky commentary was brilliant; the sad thing is, I would only be a little shocked if it were real. Thank you so much for posting it!

Peter, thanks to your link I got nothing constructive done all morning. So in the hopes of inflicting similar idleness on you, I hereby present the link which led me to Mere Comments in the first place: Lord of the Peeps http://www.lordofthepeeps.com The LOTR movies as remade with Easter candy:-)

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>The Zinn and Chomsky commentary was brilliant; the sad thing is, I would only be a little shocked if it were real. Thank you so much for posting it!<<<

I passed it on to my parents, asking them to pass it on in turn to my academic aunt and uncle, and to my parent's best friends, a looney-left shrink and his "professional Hispanic" wife. I told my parents that my aunt and uncle would totally get it and be in stitches; my parents' friends would nod sagely at the profound insights of Zinn and Chomsky, while my parents themselves would be totally befuddled, having better things to to with their time than indulge the deranged musing of tenured academics.

[Judy Warner]

My far-left brother-in-law thought the idea was hilarious, though he thought it didn't quite capture Chomsky.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>.My far-left brother-in-law thought the idea was hilarious, though he thought it didn't quite capture Chomsky<<<

This works out well in my house, since my wife the linguist abhors Chomsky for what he did to the discipline of linguistics, while I despise Howard Zinn for being the Noam Chomsky of American History, Common loathing is a solid foundation for a lasting relationship.

[Will]

I never knew so many people had so much fun with Tolkien's writings. All those links have been great!

[Ethan C.]

I believe my favorite LotR fan piece an be found here:

How The Lord of the Rings Should Have Ended

(if that doesn't work, try here)

[Ethan C.]

My favorite theory from the page Peter linked to is the one that holds that Tom Bombadil is actually the King of the Nazgul. It all makes sense now!

[Peter Gardner]

The downside is that I haven't read LotR quite the same way since finding that site. I've almost recovered from the Bombadil bit; I still can't read about Grima without thinking "ringworm!"

[Ethan C.]

Oh, dear, it looks like I did mess up that youtube link after all. A new attempt:

How The Lord of the Rings Should have Ended

Unfortunately, my workplace blocks youtube, so I can't check to make sure it works from here.