Don Juan - a review

Don Juan by Lord Byron
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

This book was a TRIP.
Knowing little about Lord Byron, except he was a Romantic poet (“She walks in beauty like the night…”), and that Don Juan was a profligate womanizer, I wasn’t sure what to expect. Here’s what I learned.

Byron structures and writes his epic like Dante. The chapters are Cantos. He often refers to contemporary figures, criticizing or praising them, while telling a different story with a different point. Following a strict meter and rhyme (mostly), each stanza also has 8 lines. There over 100 stanzas in each of the 16 complete Cantos! The modern reader finds this tiresome, and I did at times. But there is also a freedom to the structure that lets you focus on other things he’s doing.

Unlike Dante, Byron is EXTREMELY self-conscious, referring to his Muse, reputation, giftedness, and humility (!) constantly. He compares himself to all the great epic poets, seeing himself as one of them, or striving to be. Juan is shipwrecked like Odysseus. The book is PACKED with literary references like Dante. You need good footnotes to make sense of much of it. But with Byron you get more the sense that he is showing off his knowledge. He says he is moralizing, but seldom does the way a preacher would (he likes to make fun of moralizing preachers). His long digressions on politics, women, society, religion, etc. are actually the point of the book, I think. Juan’s plot is just a device to hold it together and flip back and forth between.

Juan is set up as Byron’s hero, the paragon of what a virtuous man should be, and it is no Christian vision. Handsome, courtly, facing hardship head on as serenely as pleasure like a good Stoic. He goes from one beautiful woman’s arms to another, and there’s a fair bit of sexual innuendo, especially at the beginning. Byron does not criticize this at all, but comments on (and criticizes) women of high society, assuming it’s fine to pursue them outside of marriage. Juan is a hero for having women desire him. He has a fair number of chauvinistic lines about the capricious changeableness of women. He several times criticizes the institution of marriage outright, as the other Romantics did.

But Byron was a genius writer and not totally wicked. He was an apt social critic, with plenty of clever lines. Here is a sampling of some of his best.

‘Twas for a voyage that the young man was meant,
As if a Spanish ship were Noah’s ark,
To wean him from the wickedness of earth
And send him like a dove of promise forth.
II:8

Our hero (and I trust, kind reader, yours)
Was left upon his way to the chief city
Of the immortal Peter’s polished boors, [Rome]
Who still have shown themselves more brave than witty.
I know its mighty empire now allures
Much flattery, even Voltaire’s, and that’s a pity.
For me, I deem an absolute autocrat
Not a barbarian, but much worse than that.

And I will war at least in words (and should)
My chance so happen – deeds) with all who war
With thought; and of thought’s foes by far most rude,
Tyrants and sycophants have been are are.
I know not who may conquer. If I could
Have such a prescience, it should be no bar
To this my plain, sworn, downright detestation
Of every despotism in every nation.

It is not that I adulate the people.
Without me, there are demagogues enough
And infidels to pull down every steeple
And set up in their stead some proper stuff.
Whether they may sow scepticism to reap hell,
As is the Christian dogma rather rough,
I do not know. I wish men to be free
As much from mobs as kings – from you as me.
IX:23-25

It were much better to be wed or dead
Than wear a heart a woman loves to rend.
XIV:64

But more or less the whole’s a syncope
Or a singultus, emblems of emotion,
The grand antithesis to great ennui,
Wherewith we break our bubbles on the ocean
XV:2
[Here, like a good Romantic, Byron asserts that feeling/emotion is the best antidote to ennui / boredom / nihilism.]


But what’s reality? Who has its clue?
Philosophy? No, she too much rejects.
Religion? Yes, but which of all her sects?

Some millions must be wrong, that’s pretty clear;
Perhaps it may turn out that all were right.
XV:89-90


View all my reviews

Fellowship of the Ring - a review

The Fellowship of the Ring by J.R.R. Tolkien
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

Fellowship of the Ring

5 stars!

The usual critique of this trilogy is that it is too long on landscape. Sitting outside reading it during the late summer / early autumn, I disagree. Part of the point is to awaken a love for the outdoors again, and it worked for me, this time through.

Besides that, I heavily notated all the theologically laden comments Tolkien makes:
- Evil [the ring] can only be used for evil
- We need companions on the journey for good and against evil
- We are tempted to use power for good when that is not in God’s design
- Things are not always as they seem: Strider appears suspicious at first; Boromir seems kindly but seeks to take the ring. Discernment is needed.
- Do not assume those in charge and assumed to have great knowledge (Saruman) are to be trusted.
- Come together for counsel against evil and share your knowledge [Elrond’s council].
- Be aware of evil set against you, when you are at peace and unaware [Frodo before leaving the Shire]
- Understand the bigger picture, and don’t just stay in your little Shire bubble, so you can act properly.

Much more could be said in a preachy way, but the story is compelling in itself.
Tolle lege.


View all my reviews

That Distant Land - a Review

 

That Distant Land: The Collected Stories by Wendell Berry
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Berry is a gifted writer. He preferences the land, the world, and its value over all else. People are meant to belong to the land. The price of crops means less than value of work. A dying ancestor means more to his community than modern medicine’s care for him.

A collection of 2 dozen short stories, most of which can be read in an evening, I reread this after 15 years or so, and found it valuable.
It’s a good introduction to the Port William world, or a great way to fill in the story after reading Jayber Crow or Hannah Coulter.

Many points brought me to tears out of nostalgia, which critics declaim. Maybe they’re right. Berry longs for a world that has passed away. But the values of that world can reorient our moral compass in very helpful ways.

View all my reviews

Should we give the middle finger to idolatry, Doug?

A breakdown of Doug Wilson's defense of the recent NSA ad with the middle finger to idolatry.

Prologue

I remain a friend of Moscow and all its ventures to build Christian culture and to fight against the rising secular and pagan worldview.  I liked 98% of the NSA ad, and would recommend the school to friends.

However.  

(A critique of each section of Doug's post here.  The ad is here.)

"First, What it Was"

It doesn't help to say it was just a nano-second, and that we'd just be WILLING to go there (use the f-bomb).  If you're willing to go there, and show it, it's as bad as going there.  Showing the picture at all is as good as saying "eff you."

"Where We and Our Critics Disagree"
Doug bifurcates between friends of the college, and those out to get them. Respondents are effeminate wusses, library ladies, and sob sisters; or we are masculine, faithful, fighting friends. Most are in the middle, in neither camp. He is much more sensitive to those out to get them, and I don't discount there are many enemies of his doing that. But there are many like me who don't want to give Nate a pass, and also are not effeminate wusses. This is an ad hominem fallacy on Doug's part. (Any critics are sob sisters.) Also, in this section Doug downplays the gesture: "we didn't actually say the word out loud." This is casuistry. Finally, Doug plays the "who will fight?" card. If you criticize using the f-bomb you aren't willing to fight, in his view. Non sequitur. I've seen this before from him, first hand: if you don't agree with him, you're unwilling to put on your "big boy pants." He quotes Judges 15:11, but Samson and other judges never used the f-bomb, or used the enemy's sinful tactics against them.

"I'll Tell You What's Problematic"
Doug's critique of Strachan falls flat. Just because Strachan positively reviewed a film with several f-bombs in it, doesn't make it inconsistent to critique Christian platforms that PRODUCE it. His reference to "Evangellyfish" also doesn't fly, as Doug didn't use the f-bomb in it. I wouldn't call Doug a grifter, but the ad was definitely made to get attention. To say his critics are out for attention is just to siphon criticism off Moscow onto their critics.

"The Heart of the Difficulty"

This is a decent section, though it depends on inward intent. I believe Doug's intent is sincere and that he is not seeking fame for its own sake. He is seeking attention for a godly purpose. But he assumes his critics are seeking fame in an ungodly manner, which is uncharitable of him. Maybe they actually have a substantial case to consider. Assuming it is not so displays a lack of humility, uncharacteristic of the Doug I know. (I liked his appeal to DeYoung being our next standard bearer.)

Overall, I'd say including the middle finger gesture violates Scripture. We want to renounce idolatry like we saw in the Paris Olympics opening ceremony, but not say "eff you" to it. This tiny portion of the ad was a play to ungodly hatred of wickedness, which we ought to reject.

I urge you: reject both the wickedness itself, and the ungodly, hate-filled response to it.

Judas, Kamala Harris, and God's Providence

 Another great sermon by Doug Wilson, especially the last bit from 40:00 or so, on.

There's also a great passage on what Judas was trying to do, which applies to our political situation today.

https://www.christkirk.com/sermon/acts-of-the-apostles-3/

On the Trinity - Augustine - a review

On the Trinity by Saint Augustine of Hippo by Augustine of Hippo
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

Augustine breaks the rule that no one can talk for more than 15 minutes about the Trinity without committing some heresy. He takes 288 fine print pages to cover every aspect of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, with no major error. It is a stunning theological and philosophical accomplishment.

This book also proves CS Lewis’ rule of thumb right: read an old book between every 1-2 contemporary ones you read. The way Augustine writes is nothing like people today. It isn’t that he uses big words too much. His grammar and syntax, and way of argumentation is very different. But once you’re used to it, you see that his arguments are incisive, Scriptural, and compelling. My edition had a summary of every short chapter which helped my feeble brain a ton. It would be easy to skim, by only reading those chapter headings, and dipping in further where you want.

Part of his argument is to use an expected Scripture text, and then infer logically a truth of the Trinity. It’s a master class in going from interpretation of Scripture to systematic theology.

This is a challenging read, essential for seminary students, and very helpful for pastors to connect with “mother church,” and keep their minds sharp in this important area.

A rare 5 out of 5 stars!

View all my reviews