cogitation_station

Why I Love Reading

I started reading when I was four, mainly because my poor mother's voice gave out, and I was desperate for entertainment (this was long before TV in every room, smart phones, tablets and iPads), so I taught myself to read. (You try being in bed for a year when you're four going on five!)

Reading took me to places I couldn't go in reality, introduced me to people I couldn't meet; gave me insights and adventures I'd never dreamed I could take. It still does.

Because other demands enter my normal, everyday life, I rarely can sit and read through a stack of books by my chair, as I like. Most days reading is limited to a few minutes, or hours if the book cannot be put down, at night, when I should be sleeping. But I average two books a week, even so.

I recently was asked why I bothered reading fiction. I enjoy non-fiction, too, but I am a fiction addict--all kinds, all genres, except erotica (boring) and horror (not good for me). My favorite genres are: historical fiction--a pleasing blend of vivid characters, fact, and fiction which teaches me something and/or provides insight into parts of history and foreign cultures; literary fiction--I usually love the writer's use of language, the vivid descriptions, the sound of the words in my mind, and there's usually some larger topic--philosophical, spiritual--an individual's take on the world; mysteries, though I'm not a fan of the kind of mystery which plays gotcha with the reader; science fiction and fantasy--I know the technical differences, but they usually merge in good work which manages to convey truths, insight, a different way of seeing through the familiar unfamiliarity of their worlds.

Sometimes I'm after pure escape. After all this world can be too real and too horrific at times (Why would I want to read horror and nail-biting suspense? That's on the news every day), and a healthy dose of "other" is quite therapeutic.

Sometimes I want my brain stimulated. I love it when an author gets me to put the book down and think about what they've said. I want to pick up the phone (texting doesn't quite cut it) and talk with the writer! Since I am a writer, finding another kindred spirit through their words provides more fun and intellectual stimulation than I get in days, perhaps weeks, unless I get to talk with my close friends and family, who are always interesting. But then that they are friends and family usually guarantees that. The adventure in finding a like-minded soul in a book is rare. Out of 10 books, I'm fortunate indeed if I find one. Usually, that number decreases in frequency if I rule out anything written before this century.

I find that the average person these days has little patience with long paragraphs of any kind, and cannot seem to function without a nice slot to put a book in--mystery, suspense, horror, erotica, young adult, etc.. This last, I suspect, is a function of the technology we use--search engines have difficulty with non-specifics. So, in using these "labor-saving devices," we, the sentient people who use them, are being "conditioned" by the very machines we created. Tell me that's not a science fiction topic . . .

Which brings me to my final point: I love reading because, unlike gaming and hours spent on social media, my time is usually not wasted. I emerge from a good book more engaged with my fellow man, with ideas worth having and thinking about; sometimes my vocabulary increases along with my knowledge of mankind, God, and the workings of another mind.

Carson McCullers wrote The Heart is a Lonely Hunter, and so it is, but it seems that finding a true meeting of minds in this mind-numbing obsession with technology might be more unattainable even than love.

Need a Good Book? Try "Winter's Tale" by Mark Helprin

Mark Helprin's Winter's Tale, published 1983 by Harcourt, Inc.--yes, 1983!--deserves the title Masterpiece. That's a word I rarely use.

In the 19th Century, Charles Dickens became, arguably, the reigning English language author in Literature. In the 20th and 21st Centuries, Helprin became our Dickens. Argue with me if you will; I stand by my statement. But this is not intended to be a review.

So much of Helprin's work is quotable and read-out-loud-please great that to pick one passage becomes a challenge of mammoth proportions. However, given our current state of government affairs here in the United States, his message in this particular book is too pertinent to dismiss. I've chosen a few paragraphs to quote this morning.

Peter Lake, the protagonist of the novel, tries to retrace his first experience of New York City twenty years earlier near the turn of the 20th Century. At that time, Peter Lake saw a very young child, dying, alone in the hallway of an abandoned tenement. The sight haunted him so that he has returned to the site to find out what happened to the child--so damaged that he cannot tell you if it were boy or girl. His search leads him to the morgue of the hospital in Printing House Square and the doctor who performs autopsies on the dead, the nameless unclaimed poor of New York City. It is the doctor who speaks here:

"...'Maybe you're from some reform group, and you've come to gather evidence.' He glanced at Peter Lake and concluded from his expression and appearance that he was not. 'They come down here to snap pictures. They get a thrill here--that's why they come. They take stupendous joy in the indignation and compassion they feel on account of these mangled stiffs; it's their roller coaster. I know this,' he said, making a tragic incision across the abdomen of an adolescent girl, 'and I'll tell you why. Since I'm here all the time and take apart fifty of these things a day, I can't feel for each and every one of them. I'm not God. I don't have that much in me. The ladies' aides and the social critics sense immediately that I couldn't give a goddamn about all this inedible meat, and that's just what they want. They know they're better than the miserable bastards they try to help, but they really enjoy thinking that they're better than the rest of us, who aren't as "compassionate" as they are.' He turned to Peter Lake again, and said, 'You notice how often that very word escapes their lips? They use it like a cudgel. Beware.'

"What he did next, as a matter of routine, made Peter Lake close his eyes in horror. But the doctor continued, his hands glistening, as if nothing had happened. 'They come down here for their own benefit. It's as clear as day that they love it. The great irony and perfect joke is that the wretches on the bottom of the barrel get these self-serving scum as champions. Some champions! They feed off the poor--first materially, and then in spirit. But they deserve each other in a way, because vice and stupidity were made to go together.

"'I know this, you see, because I was poor. But I rose like a rocket, and I know how the whole thing works. The ones who are always on your side, or so they think, are the ones who keep you down. Everything they do keeps you down. They'll forgive you for anything. Rob, rape, pillage, and kill, and they'll defend you to yourself. They understand all outrages, and all your failings and faults, too. Perfect! You can go on that way forever. What do they care? Excuse me: they do care. They want it that way.'

"He bent over to make a short cut, as thin as a hair, across the chest of the emaciated blond girl that he had just eviscerated. 'How would they make a living, these servants of the poor, if there were no poor?

"'What enabled me to rise above all the people who don't know enough to come in out of the rain is that one day I looked face to face at a man who hated half of everything I was and had the courage to tell me so. I remember his very words. He said, '"What you're doing is hideous--a perfect way to die young. Unless you want to live sweetly only in the hereafter, you ought to learn how to do the right thing."' The doctor stopped what he was doing, dropped his hand to his sides, and looked directly at Peter Lake. 'I hate the poor. Look what they do to themselves. How could you not hate them, unless you thought that they should be like this.'"

This is an excerpt--a minor one in view of the enormous scope of this 748-page novel--from Winter's Tale and an example of the social commentary both Helprin and Dickens write. But the book is not pedantic; far from it. The novel is a beautifully realized love story about New York, human beings and their various conditions and characters, a white horse, and infinity.

Characters are richly drawn as are descriptions which refuse to be skipped over and ignored. Discription as a word pales beside the richness of Helprin's similes, language, color, olfactory teases or assaults. He is incapable of imprecision, whether dialogue, action, description or characterization. His humor is subtle, but at times you find yourself laughing out loud.

I usually refrain from superlatives even when discussing superlative authors. There are many writers I admire and recommend. But I use the word "genius" sparingly; Mark Helprin is a story-telling genius. Fortunately for his readers, Winter's Tale is just one of many beautifully told and compelling works. I urge you to read Mark Helprin. His writing informs and invites our generation to change for the better; I hope his message does not go unheeded in this time of "change" for the much, much worse.

Have you noticed how many oldies but goodies tactics are being used by our government? My favorites are "Never waste any crisis, no matter how small"; "infiltrate and pretend to be the opposition so that you can discredit them"--think Tea Party people who aren't. Spain, Germany, Russia, China must be so proud....

Why They Can't Understand

I don't know about you, but sometimes when I'm watching politicians who are trying to reach a meeting of the minds on something, I find myself screaming at the TV or tensing so I don't throw something at the tube.

Why? Because, as you probably already know, they cannot reach any kind of agreement or concensus because they haven't defined their terms. This seems a basic preliminary step to me, but 1) either they are unaware that differing definitions cause major communication problems, or 2) they know and don't care.

They posture, babble, and either quote from their favorite "hometown story," or cite well-researched facts and figures to colleagues who yawn and chat like high school students to their neighbors, oblivious to the C-Span cameras which catalog their disdain and lack of etiquette.

Yes, I'm talking about Thursday's televised presidential "health care summit." But Thursday's fiasco is no different from all the rest.

This "summit" purports a new and different approach in this administration--bipartisanship. Of course, as with all King Obama's court audiences,this one failed to achieve its goal.

Once more the American public watched, waiting for something to happen to change the dynamics in Washington. Nothing happened. Nothing that is unless you were listening to their actual words and watching their actions.

Once upon a time words had meanings. Most literate people knew them and shared a common vocabulary. Now lexicons of ideology have replaced the dictionary of the English language, and new set of professional politicians have replaced the "statesmen" of my youth. These place party above the people they were elected to represent and seemingly leave all independent thinking and ideas of service at the airport in Washington,D.C..

When did "public service" become "career politician"?

When did "reform" translate as "replacement"? When did "Republican" translate as "obstructionist" and "the party of no"?

When did "unconstitutional" become "constitutional" when practiced or proposed by the administration or his party?

When did "abortion" come to mean "choice"? When did "choices" become "rights"?

When did "health care coverage" for everyone become a "right"?

When did "human rights" trump "individual rights" and our Bill of Rights?

When did "President of the United States of America" become "the-person-who-is-much-smarter-than-you-("you" translates as "anyone who disagrees with POTUS")-and-who-will-try-to-defeat-you-at-any-cost-should-you-continue-in-your-ignorance"?

When did "summit" overtake "meeting" or "conference" as the preferred terminology? When did "transparent" replace the definitions of "opaque" and "secretive"?

"Arrogance" equals "tolerance". Once referred to as "disrepect," the "grin-and-call-you- by-your-first-name-in-a-national-forum" approach to peers is viewed as "acceptable" and "friendly" when practiced by POTUS.

The "exactitude" of basic math becomes "suspect" when applied to figures that contradict POTUS or his favorites among the courtiers.

"Federal budget" becomes "my money." The unpopular term "tax" dies and resurrects as "your fair share".

"Tax cuts" become "tax breaks for the very wealthy", as if only the wealthy benefit when tax rates fall.

The devil either no longer exists or shows himself as anything President Bush may have done since his birth.

"Christianity" is a bad word, as is "Christian". (Members of other religions are considered sacrosanct.)

"Tea Party" means "rednecks, radicals, and renegades assembled in one place."

"My administration" now means "anything-that-we-construe-as-good". Former "conservative administrations" are either defined as "precedents-for-actions-that-we-now-want-to-adopt-to-further-our-agenda" or "the roots of all evils."

"Talking points" is pejorative when used of the opposing party, but is used as "obvious factual statements" when practiced by your own.

"Threat" becomes the kinder, gentler "challenge."

When did "executive branch" branch out to include "legislative"? Can "judicial" be far behind? (I am reminded of the State of the Union address when the president rebuked the Supreme Court for their ruling in a particular case.)

The question arises: if this president has no regard for the electorate and no fear of the upcoming election, does he intend to do away with the 2010 election or influence it in some way? (I only raise this, because I have never seen such lack of regard for constituencies' wishes when an election is a few short months away. If I misunderstand,I'm sorry.)

I might ask, if I were the sort to ponder such things, which I'm not: When did "Obama" become synonymous with "leadership"? When did unelected cronies--many of whom are known radicals--reach the status of "czars"?

When did our soldiers and intelligence-gathering communities become enemies? (Perhaps it is that their name highlights the absence of any "intelligence" worth gathering in the halls of the current federal government?)

When did this "republic" short-change its people and replace it with whatever it is now. Whatever it is now, it is most certainly NOT acting or speaking as a republic.

When people speak different languages and use the same words to mean opposite things, can any truth or public good be reached? Of course not!

When one group convinces itself that all other groups are wrong and unqualified to lead, then no idea, no action on the part of those lying outside that group can or will be viewed as positive or constructive.

And so it proved.

No movement happened in either direction: the conservatives presented their ideas and objections to the current bills under consideration. The liberal spokespeople countered with their usual "everyone-but-Republicans-want-this" statements coupled with their assertions that if they could just get their bill/bills signed into law, then the deficit would disappear and everyone in America would have health care comparable to the plans the Congress and President enjoy.

(My only problem with this last point is that no one in the Washington power group wants to trade their health care programs for the so-called "reform" health care! I wonder why if their ideas are so great?)

Obama played to the cameras, attempted to look both engaged and engaging, and interjected his own opinions. When lunchtime approached, King Obama chided those with whom he disagreed that they were taking too much time with their remarks. (I suppose he was hungry.)

Though obsessed with time-keeping, Obama failed to notice that his own remarks took more time than was given to either party for the entire meeting. (Thank God that Obama refrains from hosting the Oscars!)

Of course being King Obama, this "summit" finished with a not-so-veiled threat, sorry, "challenge" that the House and Senate would simply pass health care without opposition support.

This measure of the elected few over-riding the wishes of the electorate many is called "reconciliation"--a misnomer if ever there was one.

So ended the bipartisan spirit of this meeting and, perhaps, of this era, which leads me to ask one final question: When did "black" become "white"?

Tidings of Christmas

Forgive me for being so long in posting, but I'm back now, and I wish all of you a very Merry Christmas! (I know; it's not PC, but I don't care.)

I thought I'd talk a bit about Christ's birth, so if you don't want to read further, it's time to stop--fair warning. (I've been reading a lot of English (literally) literature lately, so if I slip into UK spelling,forgive me.)

Some of you will know that December 25 is an arbitrary date picked by early Church fathers to soothe those disgruntled new Christians whose winter soltice celebrations had been curtailed. Many of the practices and symbols from that earlier time remain, adapted to fit the Christian festivities.

(It would appear that actual facts were exchanged for expediency much earlier than many think, and not only those pertaining to Christianity. I believe this practice began shortly after Adam and Eve's Fall and expulsion from Eden, but there are those who believe lying to please various groups is a relatively new wrinkle.)

One fact has not changed: Mary gave birth to Jesus, the Christ, in a manger in Bethlehem (as prophesied) during the reign of Caesar Augustus.

The Roman emperor, Caesar Augustus, had decreed that a census be taken "on all the inhabited earth"--that Caesar Augustus was emperor of said inhabited earth remains in dispute, but have you ever known a politician who did not exaggerate or seek as much power as possible during his tenure?

Mary was engaged to Joseph before she found out she was pregnant. (Oops!)

No, they did not "know" each other in the biblical sense, and Joseph had had a problem at first with Mary's obvious pregnancy--who wouldn't? But "an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for that which has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit." Matt: 1:20

(This must have been some kind of dream! I can't imagine any male, who actually believed his fiance was carrying another man's child, changing his mind about marrying her, because of some fuzzy "dream" or the girl's story that she was still a vergin! Can you? By-the-way,the actual procedure Joseph had contemplated to rid himself of Mary was "divorce," because engagement entailed contractual obligations back then.) But, because of what he'd learned in the dream,Joseph married Mary, but didn't touch her until after Jesus was born. ( Matt. 1:25). After that they had several more children together. (John 7: 3-5, etc.)

Anyway, during this time Herod was king in Jerusalem and Quirinius was governor of Syria--more facts that you can check. Since Joseph was of the line and city of the renowned King David, the newly married couple had to travel to Bethlehem, AKA "the City of David", because to register for this census, people (meaning males) had to travel to the city of their forebears, thus encurring the first Christmas travel bottle-neck. We know it was crowded, because when Joseph and Mary finally reached their destination, there was no room for them in the inn--presumably the only one--,and they were forced to take refuge in a stable.

So take note of their predicaments when you complain about inferior accommodations during the holidays and the discomfort of traveling home by air, car, or other mass transportation. I tell you, it could be much worse! You could be nine months pregnant, traveling on a donkey, from Nazereth to Judea to Bethlehem, all because of the government, just to find that you 1) have no room, 2) are in labor with your first child while still a virgin, 3)have to give birth without hospital, doctor or midwife, 4) in a stable--a smelly stable filled with animals at that!--and 5) only the guy you're "married" to for help!

Then, of course, they had to entertain. Oh, yes.

That night an angel appeared to shepherds in the region, who were watching their flocks of sheep. After scaring them nearly out of their wits, the angel told them: "Do not be afraid"--a bit late, don't you think?--"for behold, I bring you good news of a great joy which shall be for all the people; for today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. And this will be a sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped in cloths, and lying in a manger." (Luke 2: 10-12.)

So, these shepherds, armed with directions but no GPS, said, "'Let us go straight to Bethlehem then, and see this thing that has happened which the Lord has made known to us.' And they came in haste"--of course they did!--"and found their way to Mary and Joseph, and the baby as He lay in the manger."

Now all this happened within the span of a week! (Jesus was circumsized on the eighth day without...well, you can imagine.) Shortly afterwards, they're up and traveling to Jerusalem to present Jesus to the Lord in the temple. I'd like to see any newly married couple, with a new baby--even their own--deal with these kinds of things now!

With such a tough beginning, anyone might have second thoughts about Jesus being the Savior of the world. It just doesn't seem right, does it? That someone so kind and giving--literally laying down his life for us!--should have had such a rough life. But it seems that was the original plan, and many at the time recognized Him.

There was an old man named Simeon, who had been told by the Holy Spirit that he wouldn't die until he had seen the Messiah. When Mary and Joseph brought Jesus to the temple in Jerusalem that day, Simeon took the baby into his arms, "...blessed God, and said: 'Now Lord, Thou dost let Thy bond-servant depart in peace, according to Thy word; for mine eyes have seen Thy salvation, which Thou has prepared in the presence of all peoples, '"A light of revelation to the Gentiles,"' and the glory of Thy people Israel.'" (Luke 2: 28-32). (I'm not at all certain that Simeon spoke these words in King James' English, but since that translation was published,it seems that quite a few people who really shouldn't,do.)

Then there were the magi who traveled a very long way--by camel no less...talk about uncomfortable! Even the evil King Herod of Judea knew that the time was close for the Messiah to be born, and so he thought he'd learn more from these wise men from the East.

Milking them for all the information he could get, he found out that they had been following a strange star--astrology was big back then, even more than it is today--which they believed to be the star signifying the King of the Jews.

Another king seemed problematic to Herod. When the magi didn't return--an angel of the Lord had warned them--he got everyone to work on the timing and place and killed all the male children, two years old and younger, who were in Bethlehem and the surrounding area.

In the meantime, the magi had found Jesus, worshipped Him, left gifts, and traveled back home by another route. When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and told him to take Jesus and Mary and flee to Egypt, which they did. When Herod died,an angel of the Lord appeared again to Joseph and told him to return to Israel, then another angel came and told Joseph to move to Galilee. Then another angel told him to move again to Nazareth, all of which he did. (Angels are busy! They don't sit around on fluffy clouds all day, playing harps!)

And so the controversy began: Who is this Jesus?

There are many who will say that he is simply another prophet or worse--nothing new there! Many will say that since the dates are wrong, the events described did not happen, or because of myriad translations from the original Hebrew and Greek, the account is flawed. (Some, obviously Hebrew pre-King James characters, even seem to spout perfect King James English!)

I say: Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah, our Savior, our Lord, Who now sits at the right hand of God the Father, and is no longer a baby! Jesus is God the Son, who came "for the salvation of the whole world, and not for ours only." (John 3:16 ff)

Since I believe this, I can wish you and yours a VERY MERRY AND BLESSED CHRISTMAS! (And it doesn't matter one whit when you celebrate His birth, only that you celebrate it.)