Sir Arthur Conan Doyle: The Valley of Fear

It is a sad thing indeed that this, easily the most interesting of Doyle's four Holmes novels, is the one least remembered and adapted. Now, it is possible that I have simply grown used to the more fluffy elements of his writing by now, but this one seems by far the most tidy, both in terms of pacing and plot.

I do have one complaint, and that is the baldly revisionist insertion of Moriarty into the text. Doyle was prescient in his realization that Moriarty was far too interesting a character to die in his debut appearance. To hear modern Holmes enthusiasts speak, it would seem that Moriarty is a central figure in the canon, when he is plainly not. I wonder how many laypeople labor under that misconception in fact. This appearance, while serving to add to Moriarty's mythos, is clubfooted at best. Other than this brief stumble, Doyle is at his best in The Valley of Fear.

The real star of this New Annotated Norton edition is, however, editor Leslie Klinger. The "gentle fiction", as he puts it, of Holmes' reality, is a charming approach to the scholarship, which has the double virtue of winnowing down the available scholarship--which appears to be vast indeed--and contributing a narrative to what would otherwise be a sterile recitation of facts. Well played, Sir.

Acts II

8:5 so why is Peter the one with the metaphorical keys? It seems from this that Philip is the one to whom that honor should go.

8:13 Now here's an interesting metaphysical question. It is not said that Simon's power came from demonic sources, nor is it thought thusly or he would be painted differently. From what source, then?

8:17 So Philip does the work, and Peter and John rush in and get the glory.

8:29 In what sense did the spirit speak to Philip? Literally? Or in the sense that he simply knew what he had to do?

8:34 A good question, one that should be more seriously asked of many so-called prophecies.

8:39 WTF? This miracle is not often discussed, possibly because it seems to serve no obvious purpose. Was it teleportation? Or was Philip taken elsewhere in a trance, with no memory of it? Even more curious, what if Philip was only present in a vision in the first place?

9:1 This is an uncommon bit of figurative language from Luke.

9:2 Is the the first instance of this appellation, The Way?

9:8 Again with the light trope. So far we have in Acts: the tongues of fire, the glowing face of Stephen, and the blinding light from heaven.

9:10 A different Ananias, of course . . . or is it?

9:31 A nice contrast: the fear of the lord, and the comfort of the holy spirit--yet another argument for the femininity of the spirit. A little yin-yang action going on here.

9:35 Surely hyperbolic. I refuse to believe that every last resident of these two cities was convinced by this miracle.

9:40 A rather meaningless miracle in one way. What did it profit her to be resurrected? She had a beautiful life, clearly. Why release Dorcas version 1.2?

10:2 In what way was this man devout? More specifically, to what God did he give prayers?

10:5 It seems unlikely that he was a Christian, if he didn't know who Peter was.

10:26 Good thing he said this! He wouldn't want to end up like Moses and Aaron!

10:31 It is so far not clear what Cornelius prayed for. It is implied that he prayed for understanding, which makes him the second (after the Ethiopian) to have his prayers answered in this way.

10:35 I wonder if Peter was really this quick to learn the lesson, or if the process was edited down for sake of readability. If so, Peter has grown quite a bit since we last saw him.

11:3 This didn't take long. This is the first whiff of taint on the new religion. As William James observes, that which is necessary for the genesis of religion, namely authentic religious experience, is deadly to it once established. It took mere years for the first Christians to go from embracing the gift of the spirit to being afraid of it.

11:22 Thankfully, at this point it is only a whiff of conservatism. They are still quick to adapt.

12:2 It feels like a shame that we didn't get to know James better. He was clearly influential, and Jesus looked at him as closely as he did John or Peter.

12:7 I remain fascinated by every instance of this light.

12:15 And by "angel" here they clearly mean "ghost".

12:17 Waaaaaaaitaminnit. I thought James was dead. Which James is this then?

12:23 the only instance I can recall of this type of punishment--a fitting one to be sure. There is a Biblical pattern of hubris being punished immediately, rather than in the more roundabout, Greek style.

13:3 I wonder what purpose the laying on of hands did in this case. THey were already filled with the Holy Spirit.

13:5 Here, as throughout the book, John is an afterthought.

13:11 A rather poetic reversal of Saul's own experience. ALso interesting that it is at this point that Saul becomes referred to as Paul

13:15 Did they not know who Paul and Barnabas were? Or was this some kind of endorsement?

13:22 An interesting characterization, now that I think of it. In what way was David a "man after [god's] heart? In his love for music? In his humility? In his lust?

13:43 This is certainly no populist religion, as one might expect. In this chapter alone, there are Manaen, a member of Herod's court, Sergius Paulus, a frickin' proconsul, and now the entire synagogue of Antioch.

13:45 and it is not until it becomes popular with the Gentiles that this shifts among the Jews.

14:2 This time it is the Gentiles who are stirred up against them.

14:5 So, what is it that makes GEntiles and Jews alike plot against them? It just occured to me that when John was with Paul and Barnabas, they were PB&J.

14:15 I can't imagine a way to fit this into their paradigm. The Greek perspective of god was just so alien to what is being presented to them here.

Camelot

Although I have written dutifully about every book I have read for five years now, it is rare that a movie is either so perfect or so terrible that I feel compelled to write about it. Camelot is, sadly, one of the latter. From Richard Harris' blue eyeshadow to Vanessa Redgrave's warbling, flat singing, it is inferior to the stage production. Whose idea was it for Lancelot, the consummate Frenchman, to have a Scottish accent? Mon Dieu! It is all the more sad to think of the obscene amounts of money that must have been spent on the film. Everything about it speaks of excess--the sets may as well have been made of gold. Holy Mother Julie Andrews, what a shame that I feel compelled to finish it.

Jean de La Fontaine: Complete Fables

I don't know that it was really necessary to read the comprehensive version of this. Not only are many of the fables mere retellings of Ovid or Aesop, they pale in comparison to the originals, largely by vice of explication. De La Fontaine's work is not entirely free from entertainment value, however. He declares his intent to write "a drama in a hundred acts . . . Whose setting is the universe. Gods, men / Beasts play their parts, time and again, / And Jove as well" (V, 1). He falls just short of this lofty goal, but forgives himself when he writes, "I present a model flawed, / At least have I opened a path untrod / For others to perfect" (XI, 10).

And others have indeed played a part in the perfection of his work. I do not mean by any stretch to indicate that De La Fontaine's work is perfected, but translator Norman Shapiro's very nearly is. Verse translations are tricky, but Shapiro not only manages to create a rhyming version that feels natural, but also seems to capture the tone of the French: playful and winking. The translation is well suited to Fonatine's instruction: "Rather than plumb [these fables] through / unto their depth, best we but pluck the flowers" (VI, epilogue).

Acts of Apostles

1:1 Is it possible that Theophilus is not a real person, and that the book is really addressed to Those who love God?

1:4 Not so. By at least one account, Jesus told them to watch out for the moment to leave Jerusalem.

1:11 This is certainly unambiguous. No wonder many today expect a literal and visual descent from heaven, as opposed to the metaphorical interpretation of the Witnesses.

11:23 This reminds me of a cute anecdote from my childhood. I was probably 8 or 9, and even at that age a devout Witness. My Dad was conducting the congregation Watchtower study, a meaningless exercise wherein somebody read the paragraph, the conductor asked the question, and somebody from the audience of about 100 people to read the answer to the question from the paragraph. It was the lowest level of bloom's taxonomy--in fact, it wouldn't even measure on Bloom's taxonomy, that's how little learning or thinking was going on. Precocious little thing that I was, I took the liberty of making a comment that was not word-for-word from the paragraph. The comment was to the effect that Judas' sin was especially grievous since he forsook the immeasurable privilege of being called an Apostle, one of only thirteen that ever got that privilege.

My Dad thought that I had made a factual error, and felt obligated to correct me in front of the entire congregation. "Actually," he reprimanded into the microphone, "Paul wasn't officially considered an Apostle," thinking that Paul was the thirteenth apostle to whom I referred. I was not about to be humbled! I replied into my microphone, "Actually, I was thinking of Matthias." I was right, my dad was wrong, and a hundred people bore witness to the fact that a smartassed nine-year-old was smarter than his father.

I had a discussion yesterday with my father, and I wish I had remembered this episode to add to the conversation. My position is that it was frowned upon in the Witnesses to be too good at somethings. It was impossible to be too humble, of course, or to memorize too many scriptures, but most other types of excellence were inadvisable. I was looked upon as a showoff, for example, because I was a good singer and made no attempt to hide the fact. I even (gasp) harmonized during the hymns! By the same token, I was also seen as too smart for my own good, a trait of which the above vignette is a good example. True intelligence, it was thought, was the ability to accept whatever The Society said, and find some intellectual contortion to make it seem true. Lord, what a mess of mental lasagna that religion is.

1:25 It seems that Paul's proscription against divination was rather sudden news to the early Christians.

2:2 This reminds me of moments in Job and David's part of the Psalms wherein also God is seen as a divine wind. Perhaps this is less of a metaphor, and more literal.

2:5-11 A reverse Babylon. Pentecostals speak in gibberish, which has no resemblance to the experience at Pentecost.

2:17-21 This is a surprisingly accurate quote. So many times, "As it was written" refers to something that does not seem to be written anywhere. Of course, Luke does have a reputation as one of the more scholarly Bible writers.

2:25-28 This is more like the revisionist prophecy that I have come to expect from the Greek Scriptures. It is quite evident that David was referring to himself when he wrote this, not some future figure.

2:31-35 This is a little more unclear. I don't know where exactly these verses are, so I can't tell from context whether David was indeed prophesying, or merely reflecting.

2:36 At any rate, this is a first rate speech by Peter, and I'm sure I would have been convinced, were I in the audience.

2:45 Communism! Dios Mio!

3:6 This may be an act of faith even more impressive than walking to meet the aquambulatory Christ. How could Peter have been sure that he had this ability? And there was no Jesus there to save his bacon.

3:12 Thereby avoiding Moses' and Aaron's mistake.

3:15 Here's an interesting sobriquet to which I have not given much attention before: the Author of life. Interesting too that only the word Author is capitalized. The Greek here is ἀρχηγὸν, which is more properly translated "prince" or "leader". It certainly seems that the NRSV is taking a liberty here, not only with translation, but with punctuation. The word is clearly being used as a title, not as a name.

3:21 Peter's newfound confidence here is invigorating. He demonstrates a scholarly grasp of prophecy, and a politic use of rhetoric. Where did he get this piece of metaphysical knowledge? From The Comforter, no doubt . . .

4:3 On what charges? With Jesus' trial, they at least pretended to follow legal guidelines. The religious leaders are likely getting fed up with this so-called cult, to which they thought they had put an end.

4:13 How is John considered bold? He has yet to say anything.

4:19 So which is speaking? Is is unlikely that they shared these words. I propose that Peter was speaking here. This sidekick role complicates John's role in the scriptures.

4:22 The implication being that is the man were a minor, they would have committed some offense?

4:24-30 Again, words clearly spoken by one person are attributed to more than one, as though they had uttered them in unison--unlikely. Is this a nod to the communality of the early church?

4:32 . . . even their words.

5:1-6 This account is a bit terrifying. It does not say explicitly that Ananias' death was a divine punishment, but it is certainly implied, and I know that if I were a first century Christian, I would certainly have taken it that way. It's a bit Maoist to be killed for secretly holding onto some personal property. Of course, it is the lie, not the withholding that is the sin here, but is lying a deadly sin?

5:8 And knowing what happened, Peter sets the wife up. This is borderline evil.

5:11 This is not the good kind of fear that is seizing the congregation. Peter (as a divine agent) acts rather terrifyingly in this account.

5:15 And he develops a following of his own.

5:25 This more lighthearted miracle is a relief.

5:33 Gamaliel certainly comes out of this account much fresher than Peter does.

6:5 A nice mix of Hebrews and Greeks

6:15 Speaking of Moses . . . this glow is an interesting subject. It is too persistent, in many religious traditions, to be discounted as metaphorical. Even the Buddha was spoken of similarly. What is this glow? Energy of some sort? A partial transfiguration? Fascinating shit.

7:2 Of all God's homonyms, The God of Glory seems a very appropriate choice for Stephen to use.

7:30 This makes Moses quite a bit older than I had always picture him at the time of the Exodus, at least sixty.

7:30 This part would be especially moving if Stephen's face was still shining with the holy light that is described in v. 15

7:35 Although the resistance to Moses was rather incidental, it is relevant to the argument Stephen is trying to make.

7:60 If I were rewriting early christian History, I would make Stephen a more central figure--not Peter, at least not the way he has behaved so far.