Tagged: reviews
Reading Log 7.11.2026
I have said it before and will say it again and again and again. Hobbes’ Leviathan is absolute must-read material. I am rarely more invigorated while reading than when reading Hobbes. I exhort you, brethren, find a copy and make time for it. You will not be disappointed.
A former professor from the seminary reminded me recently that as an alumni, I had access to an online theological library. So I tracked it down and joined, $10 a month. Around the same time as joining, the same professor told me his recommendation for a commentary set for a church—meaning lay people. I had asked his opinion because I wanted to start a library at the church I joined. His recommendation was the NIV Application Commentary, which uses three approaches to each passage and never or rarely mentions any original language issues in a manner that requires training to understand. The three approaches are, “Original Meaning”, “Bridging Contexts”, and “Contemporary Significance”. Anyhow, I do have training in the original languages and I hate reading anything about the Bible in which the author has made the decision for me, preferring instead to read authors who lay out the evidence from which to choose what to think for myself. That’s where the Anchor Bible Commentary set comes in to play. I am certain there are other solid academic commentaries, but Anchor is kind of the gold standard. By way of example, the NIVAC’s 1 Peter volume might include, “Peter wrote…” and the Anchor Bible might write, “The author of 1 Peter wrote…” I prefer to approach the Bible Indiana Jones-style. (Recall—there are no priests!)
Boring details of my life, I know, but while all this was happening, I had started to get anxious about the issue of accuracy in the digital realm. Specifically, I had seen a few examples of how streaming services are latently airing edited versions of beloved entertainment. Long story short, I determined that I did not want to ever be distracted by worry about whether the content I was reading on a screen was original or edited, so I started tracking down a used set of the Anchor Bible commentary volumes. And I found and bought one (not quite complete). Then, lo and behold, I got an email announcing that the online theological library was ending its availability to alumni—at least as accessed outside of a proper library. No real reasons were given, but I was very thankful and felt very wise in my decision to begin to purchase the actual books for my home library.
All that to say this: I have for many years struggled in my attempt to a good habit of daily Bible study. As I have mentioned, I always start with the Bible if I have time to read. But I never loved my plan of just reading it and I also have never enjoyed using a devotional which were always so clearly superficial and kitsch so as to distract me from the intent of Bible study. Around the time of all this purchasing and subscription-cancelling etc. I had been in Ezra and Nehemiah, so I, one day, decided to see what ol’ Anchor said about them. And, boy, was I ignorant. It’s actually fascinating to me how much I had never known. This was part of the reason I began to read them recently anyhow. (Yay me.) Anyhow, the main thing to share here is that 1 and 2 Chronicles and Ezra and Nehemiah are all contemporary to each other. And the date of writing may be as late 150BC (don’t quote me on the date). Also, Haggai and Zechariah are the prophets of that same time. So what’s that? Like 6 books, spread from after 2 Kings to the end of the OT, in the Christian canon’s arrangement. I had known the Jewish canon concluded with (1&) 2 Chronicles, but I hadn’t ever studied the other four books, or committed to memory anything about their dates at the least. I did know that Nehemiah is where the tradition of standing during scripture reading gets it start.
All that said, I am happy to report that I have my new way of daily Bible study. I just read a passage and its “comment”. I have even been able to interest my wife in listening to it as I try to rid believers, one at a time, of the notion that one can gain understanding of the Bible by praying. It just doesn’t work like that.
Onward.
Netflix made a Frankenstein movie. I couldn’t finish it. But then I watched Bride!, as you know. I mentioned this at work to a reader and she asked me if I had read the book. I had not. So here we are. I haven’t researched it entirely, but I get the sense that Shelley (married to the famous writer Percy Bysshe Shelley, and daughter herself to very famous writers) really did invent the “monster” story, which pervades all manner of entertainment to this day. Quickly, I do want to note here that Frankenstein is the name of the creator, not the monster. And, imho, the book itself isn’t that good. But the idea is—obviously. The idea being, what if the creature you bring to life is a devil, not an angel?
Farmer Boy was fun. My main criticism is that a city kid of today really and truly cannot use much of the information which is transmitted and which was conceivably useful to farmers back in the day.
GW continues to be great. He is now President, not exactly by choice. Also interestingly, the state of politics in America back then was so startlingly similar to today, that a new idea has formed in me. This idea being that while everyone who wishes America well can appreciate the “fighter” in Trump, the truth is that we really need a leader who knows how to gain respect of everyone. That is who George Washington was. People were as vehemently opposed in their desires, motivations, and methods as we are today. But when a decision was needed, they all agreed GW was the man for the job. How did he do it? Moral living and pure motivations. How can such a man be formed and found? Imho, by studying GW. And by providence’s intervention.
I can’t explain it, but any time I spend away from Shakespeare causes me to forget how great he is. Luckily, he is so abundantly great that merely reading a line or two is all that I need to fall back in love with him. What a writer. What stories.
Merchant of Venice is in the Great Books of the Western World’s Great Ideas Program guided reading on the topic of “Philosophy of Law and Jurisprudence.” This is because the character agrees to forfeit “a pound of flesh” if he can’t pay back his debt. To generalize this contract, the question Shakespeare raises is, “Can a person use the law to bind himself to commit an unlawful act?” The largest perspective being, “What is the name of the thing which prevents a person from freely entering into a lawful contract which has as one result unlawfulness? If the thing is ‘law’ itself, then where does it get its power, since a man freely made the contract? Doesn’t law come from man?”
In any case, Shakespeare toys with the language and big ideas as if they were nothing. And it is a whole lot of fun to read.
That’s all for today.
For Next Year’s ARC Conference: No More Hedging If You’re a Christian Speaker
I have been listening to a few of the 13-min talks from this year’s Alliance for Responsible Citizenship conference and, as with the past two years’, they are tier one models of conservative perspectives. And yet I cannot deny that when the speakers use the language “America’s past is not perfect” or similar, I shake my head. I hadn’t been able to pinpoint exactly why this phrase, and the concept behind it, bothers me so until just yesterday.
For context, please call to mind that I am reading volume 5 of Washington Irving’s Life of George Washington. Specifically, I am up to his decision to run for reelection. Let’s just say that since his birth and the legendary tree incident, a lot has happened. And after everything I have read, I conclude, “And all of it was the best thing for the future occupants of planet Earth,” full stop.
I know, I know. I can hear you. What about slavery? What about women’s rights? What about civil rights? What about ‘Nam?
Allow me to break some news to you. I am a Christian. Inherent to Christianity is the belief that all men are sinners (“They have all turned aside, altogether they have become worthless; There is no one who does good, not even one.”
Psalm 14:3 LSB) and that no earthly government—though instituted by the Living Triune God himself—is perfect (“Then Yahweh said to Samuel, “Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them.”
1 Samuel 8:7 LSB and “Be subject for the sake of the Lord to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do good.” 1 Peter 2:13-14 LSB). For me, a Christian, then, to hedge the character or accomplishments of people or governments with some seeming politically correct admission of unpleasant facts, is to betray my beliefs, exchange them, as it were, for someone else’s beliefs—and for what? For likes? For views?
No. That is not right. We can all just speak truth for truth’s sake. Speaking isn’t violence. Everyone knows, by virtue of the content, what we believe anyway as we talk. And the import of the speaker’s content is directly related to the integrity of the message. In short, it is weak when a Christian hedges their claims about men and government. It is weak because the Bible has, amongst many mysteries, essential and clear statements about the nature of man and government. Man is sinful. Government is inadequate.
Conversely, it is the game of the Woke, the Left, and the Commies, among others (hard to leave out the DNC) to believe man is perfect (without evidence) and government is adequate (without evidence). Christian doctrine does not support either.
So, ARC presenters, next year, as you continue to bravely, and at some risk to yourselves and your families, model for us plebes how to live, please step up your integrity on this topic. America wasn’t doing “the best it could while having some original sin”, instead America “is and has always been the beacon of freedom for the entire world”. George Washington didn’t “have faults”, instead GW “played the almost superhuman role of founder of America, played it well, and deserves our continued gratitude and attention”.
The events of the present and future are not improved or sustained by “bending the knee” to those who seek destruction. Time is limited. So use it all to accomplish any speaker’s goal: nourish and flourish.
(Let us pray.)
The Best List of the Top 13 Pieces of Source Material Copied by Avatar 3 that You’ll Ever Enjoy Reading
Growing up in Johnson County, the 30-plex cinema experience was the norm. Nearly every weekend I would look forward to spending my hard-earned money to see the latest best movie. Sadly, this is not the case anymore. Couple spending a lot of time in the Deep South where movies just aren’t the fashion with having a family of my own and there just isn’t time or money to go to the (oftentimes crummy) theaters every week. Add to that the severe reduction in quality of movies today, and there is usually just one movie a year which gets my derrière to the reclining theater seats. Last year it was Superman.
This didn’t mean that I didn’t want to see Avatar: Fire and Ash, it just means that I didn’t want to pay to see it.
Enter the world famous “co-worker’s Disney+ account” however, and I finally got the chance to see it on my own terms.
Here’s how this list is going to work. I took notes, starting about half-way through the movie, of aspects of A:F’n’A which are completely unoriginal. But once the wheels started turning, I also remembered things from earlier scenes and so not everything is chronological. Just the same, the point (besides simple reading pleasure) will reveal itself to savvy readers long before this blog post is finished. Let’s jump in.
1. To begin, the overall story is a simple re-telling of Dances with Wolves. Here again we see the White Man who as a group loves to explore and as an individual has a natural propensity for wanting to learn about PreHistory Man from PreHistory Men. But the collision of pen and paper with cooking-over-open-fires is inescapably destructive, so the life struggle begins. This is a perfectly fine storyline. But we’ve seen it before.
2. As a high point of the movie, the dialogue, nearly in its entirety, is great. That said, there are far too many “bro’s” dropped, and “My Jake’s” lines at the several major “you’re still alive!” reunion moments were uninspiring—as were the battle speeches. But the Colonel’s lines were on point and cathartic throughout. I personally credit the actor. Ever since we met in Tombstone, Stephen Lang just seems like a man who wouldn’t want to be heard saying stupid lines.
3. As I mentioned in my recent podcast recommendation blog, the next place A:F’n’A uses someone else’s source material blatantly is having the PreHistory Man be armed by the bad guy White Men. This is Russia giving Chinese communists weapons throughout the 20th Century; this is America giving the South Vietnamese weapons in the 60s; America-Afghani’s-80s; this is Iranians and Ukrainians wanting America to give them weapons today. Why can’t the PreHistory Man just lead the way in military technology? Or even hold their own?
4. Abraham’s unsuccessful sacrifice of Isaac makes an odd appearance as “Jake Sooly” determines to kill “monkey boy” for fear of some future genocide of the entire Na’vi. Sure, there was no mountain climb, no wood on the back that typified Jesus carrying his cross, and no ram in the bush. But, there was a father raising a knife and ultimately not killing the boy. That’s Abraham and Isaac through and through. (Bible)
5. Deepwater Horizon and Last Breath are two must-see movies, assuming accurate-seeming depictions of mazes of metal tubes and cables are your thing. In A:F’n’A, the White Man has been busy and built a compound which is basically a giant oil rig. Through, above, below, and, most importantly, between all these pipes and cables Mr. Cameron sends his PreHistory dragon riders flying. Star Wars IV is definitely the influence, but my main thought while trying to enjoy the action was, “Is this really all I get during my time on Earth? A repeat of same concept, just with different looking faces and vehicles?”
6. In the “strengths” column, the movie definitely creates men and women as separate beings. Men are men and only men. Women are something totally different. I don’t know that there is one movie which counts as the definitive example of this much-needed reality, but First Blood and Steel Magnolias might call to mind the right idea.
7. Unfortunately for my kids, there is a scene of attempted suicide by a spoiled pre-teen. So they won’t be watching part 3 anytime soon. But what really turns me off is that the messiah half-sister cheers him up by saying, “There’s greatness in you!” Yeah, right. That’s just what I’d want to hear after feeling so low that I don’t want to feel anything anymore. How about just tell me that I’m beautiful after the mirror cracks at my ugliness? No, Mr. Cameron, the answer to suicide is not lying. In any case, source material is What Dreams May Come, and just about every chick flick where a crying female is consoled with superficial platitudes.
8. In the main attempt at a Braveheart battle cry speech, which was so half-arsed that it is disrespectful to the concept, Jake says, “Many arrows can’t be broken!!!!” as he holds real arrows in the air, thus symbolizing what the PreHistory Man surely has concrete knowledge of. Source is, of course, Aesop’s Fables, but movie-wise, the line is so cheesy that it calls to mind Con Air and Cameron Poe’s southern-drawling, “My daddy taught me many hands make light work.”
9. As the White Man’s COO leads the water attack, he showcases absolute command over his forces. This brings to the fore the always intriguing notion of whether mercenaries (private) could ever be better soldiers than military (public) men. Sicario explores this topic, as does Miami Vice, to name a couple. (My own vote is for public servants, obviously. But I agree the jury is out, thus it is a fun debate.)
10. Of course, it goes without saving that despite every effort to offer profound commentary on PreHistory Man’s religions, the entire concept of an all-the-life-of-a-planet fighting some invading force is comprehensively introduced in War of the Worlds.
11. I want to keep this post safe for work, but I need to use a word that may not be. You see, taboo or not, we all know that there exist for many people something called fetishes. Many people have fetishes. These are unreasoned hungers that should never be publicly owned or expressed. Mr. Cameron’s fetish, that apparently no one had the gumption to tell him was his fetish, and was not some compelling, “me too” plot point, is pregnant women engaging in kinetic war. It is disgusting to think about and repulsive to watch. It is also a direct copy of One Battle After Another. (Interestingly, now that I think about it, both of these are BIPOC women to boot. He’s a sick one for sure, I tell ya!)
12. In the same category, “How did that make it into the movie?”, Sully actually says the words “My”, “You”, and “Wingman” in close proximity to each other. Source material anyone? Give me a break.
13. The supposed-to-be epic final, final, final fight scene takes place in stormy weather. It’s not a direct copy of the rain fight of Matrix Revolutions, or the lava fight of Revenge of the Sith, but it is the same—just the same. The main problem I have with Cameron’s copy is those other two movies’ environments were part of the story (a nuclear-cloud covered earth would necessarily result in rain many days, and Obi Wan only caught up to Anakin on Mustafar because that is where Anakin was completing a tasker). In Avatar, the Flux Devil plays no role in the story beyond creating stupendous visuals.
Speaking of visuals, if there is one “skill” Mr. Cameron possesses in an amount greater than anyone else on this planet, it is maintaining clarity in the pinch-zoom. I am a qualified judge of this skill, even more so than all of you, because every morning I peruse a digital copy of the newspaper, the funny papers in particular. (This keeps me sane.) I then screen capture any strips that I believe are worthy of sharing. Sometimes the formatting of the newspaper in the wonky app is frustrating and I have to take a picture of only a small part of the screen and then hope that when it fills the screen the text is still readable. What can I do if it proves to not be legible? I mean, the words are half the point. In any case, you get my point: I know pinch-zooming and Mr. Cameron is tops. Countless are the times he starts far away and rapidly zooms in, and all without losing any fidelity. Good job, Sir!
Finally, Avatar: Fire and Ash did introduce one topic that I had not previously considered. It is this. The only way to turn a mortal enemy into a friend is to save his or her life. On top of this, if we could get the leader of every tribe, clan, country, government, and family—simply put, all the leaders of the world, including future leaders—to fight and stay alive for so long that they each have a chance to return the favor of saving their previously mortal enemy’s life, then I truly believe, after seeing A:F’n’A, world peace would ensue, and endure, as the abstract formula would have been verified by experiment.
Museum Quality TDS, South Park Quality Indoctrination, and Food—My Trip to Rushmore and Crazy Horse
Anyone who has ever visited a custom framing store knows that the easiest upsell in the universe is museum quality glass. For the uninitiated, the glass companies, or whoever, provide this shadow box which holds an item—usually a yellow tassel—behind what appears to be one half of a pane of glass. That’s the gimmick. It appears like there is no glass on one half. But there is. And now you’re hooked. How could you ever cover any framed object with a dirty window?
Naturally, this museum quality glass gets its name from its use in museums—these carefully curated places of unfiltered history. Or at least that’s how I think of museums. Sure, there are going to be words of explanation besides the clear-glass-encased pieces and sure these words will naturally be written with an agenda of some sort. But the objects behind the unseen glass are the real communicators.
Luckily for us, this is still the case with Mt Rushmore. You see, I just took the kids to visit it—A- had learned about it in kindergarten. And all I can say is I am happy to report the museum piece was worth it. Because the description was sorely lacking.
The video presentation, which spent a lot of time on the importance of the right type of rock for such a project, had a line, “Years later, the artist (I can’t recall his name) was asked if there was enough room for another face and he said, ‘No’.”
TDS has infected a national memorial. Firstly, if Trump wants his face on it, he will get it done—and in gold. Secondly, the Left is somehow afraid of this man. What has he done to them besides disagree and name call? It’s incredible to witness their fear.
Oh, and did you know women and minorities helped create Mt Rushmore?
It is impossible—literally you can see both from the road—to not want to go to check out the Johnny-come-lately Indians’ effort while in the Rushmore area. Of course, I mean Crazy Horse.
Unfortunately, for anyone who has ever seen South Park, the experience is uneasy. Rushmore charges $10 to park. And the entire site is built to last—lots of stone and whatever that fake but permanent wood is called that decks can be built out of. Bathrooms are great. Viewing area is great. The whole experience is great.
But the Crazy Horse experience is embarrassing. They have a fee schedule—to include $10(!) to walk up. And a car load is $35. The entire monument (which will be epic at a LOTR level if they ever get smart and finish it) is very far away. Everything about the place is VHS in a world of 4K streaming—and I mean the kind of chasm involved in visiting your distant relatives whose TV/VCR combo unit isn’t flat, let alone do they have two bathrooms.
We watched a video (as recommended) to continue the post-parking lot experience which began with actually handing a just-received physical ticket to a gatekeeper. The movie was informative, and it contained the key flaw to the concept: the belief in adherence to unduly stubborn principles.
Again, back at Rushmore we were informed us that the artist and his son barely touched the mountain—instead they directed the many workers.
Crazy Horse’s artist was the sole worker, at least to start. And from Rushmore’s crew.
Rushmore took 14 years.
Crazy horse is 78 and no horse in sight.
I understand TTP (Trust the Process) and am living proof that it is true. Also, I cannot stress enough how cool the final monument will be. I am also totally fine with the tragic concept behind the project, that of an Indian pointing to where his home was—even though it necessarily carries the false idea that losers were participants in an unfair fight.
Back to the visit, we next perused what there was to peruse and noticed that in only 8 minutes there would be a proper drum and dance performance.
We took our seats and proceeded to listen to a real (looking) lady Indian dressed in real (looking) Indian gear lecture us for 50 minutes of an hour, on how the 600 tribes of Indians were living in perfect harmony, how they forecast Einstein’s E=mc2, and how the word “Sioux” means “snake”.
It was a family affair, we learned. So her 10 year old daughter came out and sang a short Indian song. And then her 19 year old daughter came out and danced two dances, accompanied by iPhone drums (probably not AI song) over loudspeakers, in a dress strung with hundreds of bell-looking things that sounded like kazoos jingling.
I need to emphasize here: I understand totally the concept of “talk before eat”. It is impossible to serve free food and then ask people to stay for a free lecture. Main attractions have to come last, I get it. But the lecture was 5/6ths of the allocated time and rife with inaccuracies—she even pointed out the brains of buffaloes were used to oil the hides.
(See Wilder’s settler’s written description of “butchering day” for context.)
Anyhow, after driving away, and while tearing down our campsite the next morning (have I mentioned I am an Eagle Scout and quite literally one of the Last Boy Scouts?), it hit me. These people need to, firstly, tell the truth about how tragic and brutal life was before civilization approached and conquered. Secondly, after starting with the depressing, they need to regain some face and their only way to do that is to highlight proudly (and most welcomed-ly) all the ways the Indian ways influenced and sustains the dominant civilization—like, say, Indian Guides, Boy Scouts, chief, army helicopter titles (blackhawk, kiowa etc).
Lastly, the food at Rushmore is exactly what I imagined food in communist countries is like—terrible. But guess what?! The entire restaurant facility is award winning in its “green”-ness. I mean, consider this. The restaurant which serves terrible food (except the ice cream of course) is award winning: “Feel good about how the preparation and housing of the terrible, and overpriced, food adheres to irrelevant, purpose-less government guidelines.”
This brings me to my concluding advice: the food at Crazy Horse smelled really good—even to a full stomach. So don’t let any of my criticism deter you from seeing both monuments. But skip Rushmore’s restaurant and donate your money to the Crazy Horse food crowd instead of the commies.
Finally, two illustrative pics.
“White Sinners”, A Review of The Bride!, by Maggie Gyllenhaal
Motionless pictures can be art, too. The Bride!, like Sinners, is art for the reason motionless pictures can be art. The trouble, the thing that has everyone ate up, is Ms. Gyllenhaal’s picture is in motion. Hmm.
Lucky for her, the door for this kind of post-post-modern, detached, boundary-less art was opened by Mr. Coogan (and I am sure others). Just the same, I have always heard about some people who are able to be captivated by a single painting for hours. That is the closest this wind-riding-knuckle-dragger-with-a-blog can use in describing how this movie works.
Is The Bride! a reimagining? I have no idea. The interwebs confirm that there is no book by Shelley. Apparently there is an early movie and some other movies and books of the titular concept (Bride of Frankenstein). But I am pretty sure this film is just an original continuation story—and it should have been marketed and reviewed as such.
The most striking part of the movie was the leading lady’s effortless range. I mean she goes from repulsively demonic to irresistibly infatuating in the blink of an eye.
The gore is realistic and nauseating—another instance of “I hope my kids never find out I watched this”.
There are scenes of obvious first wave feminism (…like I know what that distinction means to experts. What I mean by first wave is that some women don’t want to be stay at home moms). But unlike some reviewers, I didn’t see it as proselytizing or advancing an agenda. It’s just a movie, folks. At ease!
On the whole, in addition to Sinners, I place it alongside Joker 2. I would like to give it a second chance now that I know what’s coming. But I am not sure there will prove to be enough time.
The Briefest Review of Glenn Powell (After Watching Running Man)
He ain’t got it.
Arnold had it.
Sly had it.
TC has it.
Even the name “Glenn Powell” cannot be a part of the “it” that he so desperately seeks. Tragic, in a way.
(To be honest, the movie was actually better than I had heard. Preachy at times, but, on the whole, enjoyable and entertaining.)
Reading Log 4.17.2026
As the influencers and their adoring trolls say these days, “Don’t sleep on those math essay titles!” This is the first volume of a four volume set on the World of Mathematics and I wanted to include the contents so that you can see for yourself just how far-reaching mathematics is. I especially call your attention to an essay near the end on “Mathematics in Painting”.
You see, years ago I stumbled upon the notion that not every math idea has always been around. Specifically, even the seemingly simple concept of the number zero is relatively new. As I explored and validated this notion, I came to read that even our literate ancestors had silly ideas about the size of the sun, some notable philosophers of old speculating that it is only twelve inches in diameter.
This wildly wrong guess called to my mind the fact that early art lacked what we call perspective. The curious question came to mind, “What exactly are we talking about here? When people saw paintings of nature or portraits of people, which we now would never suggest look anything like the landscape or person, did they think, ‘Nailed it!’?”
More pointedly, we can still do this today when we see a kid draw a terrible portrait of someone and it almost physically hurts to ask the kid the simple question, “Do you really think that scribbling looks like me?”
What gives? I wondered. Did their eyes work differently? Do my children’s eyes work differently.
Well, before ever starting this four volume set, I had speculated that the increase in art’s ability to capture life accurately was probably somehow related to the increase in mathematical knowledge. I said to myself that the obvious increase of both was not coincidental.
Long story short: it’s not just somehow related. It was mathematicians who moonlighted as artists (or vice versa) who, with their unique abilities, developed perspective in art!
****
Upon starting Volume 3 of GW, I learned that it was actually a five volume biography by Mr. Irving that I had begun. Luckily eBay exists and I was able to track down the final two volumes before they vanished forever. I also have picked up a post-Revolutionary War map from which to teach my children (and any houseguests) the striking fact of how small a part of America was even involved in our infamous Independence-giving war.
****
Aquinas is simply the most methodical writer you will ever come across. You owe it to yourself to peruse at least one chapter.
****
Snodgrass is someone I learned about while reading Meier’s fifth volume of his Marginal Jew series (also on Jesus’ parables). Suffice it to say, I now have a decent depth to my understanding of Jesus’ parables. All I can offer in brief is, “Please do not loft an opinion or interpretation of a parable’s meaning until you read at least one book on them.” Either Meier or Snodgrass is a fine place to start. (Blomberg too.)
****
Sherlock Holmes author Sir Doyle wrote a fun little classic knights-in-shining-armor adventure tale in The White Company. Best part is a reminder that once we did things for glory. And it also has some super funny banter among knights.
****
And for fun (and more simply to be forthright) I have included the two bedtime story books I have recently completed with my children. These two have a few great moments apiece, but in moving to Farmer Boy, I have to say FB seems to have a much more compelling plot, what with the whole new teacher being the friend of previous teacher who was essentially murdered.
My sister had the yellow colored box set of these on her shelf all my childhood. I stared and stared and thought they were for girls only—like there was no way a boy could enjoy them. Ha. So stupid.
Beneta, A Review of The Accountant by Gavin O’Conner
Which is it? Do people with “autism” save the day Greta-style? Or do people with “autism” save the day, Ben Affleck style?
A co-worker recommended the film, casually, saying, “He plays someone with autism well.”
I will say this about the film. It held my attention. And it tied a nice bow, leaving very few, if any, plot points unresolved.
And yet. Who cares if someone, for tons of money, can convincingly not make eye-contact and recite lines methodically?
The real question for those in the “autism-as-superpower” camp, is can an “autistic” person act like a normal person? IE, Greta cannot be a Hollywood A-Lister. Shouldn’t that mean something?
(To be clear: No, my child, autism is not cool or a superpower or a much needed solution to the human’s dilemma on earth.)
SBVI (Speech for the Blind or Vision Impaired), A Review of Nuremberg, by James Vanderbilt
There used to be an option to turn on CC (closed captions). Now, that is pretty much always on by default. But for the deaf or hard of hearing, there is a new option called SDH, which is all that CC is, but also includes text descriptions like “intense music” or “dog barking” or “door slams”, if the sounds are off camera but deemed important to the story.
Well, I just turned off Mr. Vanderbilt’s Nuremberg, after a mere twenty minutes. Why? Because the script was terrible. In a word, the dialogue ran on as I had enabled some option to enhance a movie for people who are blind or vision impaired (SBVI).
In other words, the movie would show a man riding on a train, and then one character would say to another, “I am sitting here on this moving train, on a seat.”
Just terrible. What a waste. That I made it twenty minutes is embarrassing. First scene of some weird AI looking smoke blowing around behind abandoned cars was when I could tell it wasn’t for me. Oh well. Mortal Kombat II is only two months away!
Reading Log 2.6.2026
The reason Aristotle should be read and will be rewarding is simple enjoyment of compare/contrast of methods. He also forces you to abandon juhhhhst about every preconception about government and politics you currently hold.
****
GW never disappoints. What a life. I confess that sometimes my mind wanders as the descriptions of all the various messages being sent to and between all the many forts and camps are given. At the same time, what an exciting job, no? Perfect for a young man wishing to prove his worth, I say. What task of today compares with, “Your countryman’s lives depend on you successfully carrying this message through the forest undetected. Can you do it?”?
****
After I discovered Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla, after I found a portrait, and after I framed it behind museum quality glass and hung it on my wall, I realized that I didn’t really know much about him or his role in Mexico’s independence. There’s a brief entry in my 1910 Britannica set. And then there’s this book. Suffice it to say, now I do. In short, and probably fortunately, the word “legend” has to be applied. New Spain and the caste system it operated within simply didn’t have an established habit of written record. Another difficulty that can really only be appreciated if you read GW and Hidalgo simultaneously, is the scale of the geography upon which events unfolded. New Spain (future Mexico) was enormous, whereas GW was focused on New York and Long Island and a few other relatively minuscule locations along the Atlantic coast. In the end, however, for both legendary and historically verifiable reasons, Hidalgo does belong among the six men on my wall. Oh, and you’ll never guess the nickname he got after college. So go! Read and learn! (Even the internet won’t help you.)
****
How could I, American hero that I am, not like Alien vs Captain America? Just look at those covers. Rest assured, they do not disappoint.
****
Isaac Newton leads the way for humans—overall. But Aquinas leads the way for methodical writing. This man’s rigid adherence to a method is otherworldly. I won’t say it is commendable, because I am too interested in creative writing. But when I hear people talk and it is utter unfocused confusion, the easy fix is to show them Aquinas.
****
I knew Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea. (Read it too.) I did not know about The Mysterious Island. It is fun. A few chapters in and I found myself thinking, “Wait a minute! This is just a genre-establishing sci-fi version of Robinson Crusoe and Swiss Family Robinson.” Then it seemed like it was literally in the next chapter’s opening that Verne, or the narrator, detailed as much and offered a decide-for-yourself-whether-it’s-a meaningful distinction. In any case, compelling start, second act slowed a bit, but the third finished strong. It isn’t a must read. But if you have interest, it won’t disappoint.
Captain’s Log 