Showing posts with label how to alienate a readership. Show all posts
Showing posts with label how to alienate a readership. Show all posts

Thursday, January 14, 2010

I am dirt

Consider this my apology. I've been gone a while. Sorry. This is the fruit of my spare time (and lack thereof), my thoughts these last two terms, my reading over summer break, and several lectures I've heard recently, most importantly a talk on Genesis 1 by Pastor James Jordan.

just so ya know: this post is long, ill-informed, and, like this note itself, startlingly self-important. welcome to blogging.

So I found this quote recently on the IMDB about the upcoming film The Hobbit, directed by Guilermo del Toro, everybody’s favorite Spanish director with a name that means “bull.” In said film, Ian McKellen will be starring as Gandalf the Grey. So, further ado aside, here ‘tis.

Not only will The Hobbit afford McKellen another chance to find his feet with one of literature’s greatest wizards, but the film will also allow him to return to the earlier incarnation of the character, Gandalf the Grey, who only appeared in the first of the trilogy, Fellowship of the Ring.

“Grey Gandalf is my favourite,” he told us. “Peter Jackson’s too, we always preferred Gandalf the Grey. Peter liked him because he got down and dirty. He slept in the hedgerows; he was closer to the earth and not quite so spiritual. He’s also funnier -- he’s got more variety to him. We thought there was more scope in that Gandalf.”

It struck me. I looked at it harder, and got struck a second time. Something didn’t seem right. Gandalf the White is without a doubt the greater, more powerful, and all in all stranger character in the Trilogy than Gandalf the Grey. Why is that?

I can’t accept the idea that it’s because he’s more other-worldly. That’s what McKellen is getting at here. Mostly we read Tolkien like the good gnostics the Enlightenment wanted us to be. We see Gandalf the Grey with stains in his beard and Gandalf the White as floating on a cloud. What we don’t realize is that Gandalf the White laughs more often, rides a better horse, and actually seems to use less magic than the old one. What gives?

I wonder if we can’t look at The Lord of the Rings as a struggle of elements. I mean, we can look at it as many, many things but I feel this is crucial. If we listen to Aristotle, the first are earth, air, fire, and water. The Nazgul ride dragons; they control the air. They themselves are vaporous spirits, and the evils of Mordor are described as “stenches” and “foul winds” coming from the place. What defeats the Nazgul? Water at the Ford of Bruinen, summoned by Elrond; fire, wielded by Aragorn at Weathertop and later at Bruinen by Glorfindel; and dirt. Aren’t the hobbits the people of the earth? And a hobbit (Merry) is the only creature who can break the spells holding the spirit of the Witch-King together.

Gandalf the White is no air-rider. He rides a horse, and the king of horses at that. He needs no spells to hold himself together (unlike his rival the Witch King); he is an actual living person with an actual body. He doesn’t really have epiphanies on the battlefield in which he hears angelic choirs going at it whilst he cavalierly looks at a moth (really, Jackson, really?). He fights and gets bloody and becomes tired and eventually gets in a boat to go off to the Western Lands, rather than floating out on a broomstick or some other such nonsense. In short, he is a very real, very earth-bound being.

What is it about dirt? I mean, what gives? We’re made out of dirt, right? And that has to have some significance. Wendell Berry discusses this a bit throughout the vast body of his writings, and in some poems especially. He talks about how it means that we are forever linked to this world, to the dirt under our feet; that it is like us because we are made out of it. This is good.

But as I read N.D. Wilson’s Dandelion Fire this summer, I started wondering if there was something more. In the world Wilson creates in the trilogy, those born with the second-sight, the seventh sons, all hold the power of some living thing (plants, as far as the series has gone). The protagonist Henry, for instance, has the power of the dandelion in his veins. And with that power comes the weaknesses and strengths of the plant. Just as the dandelion is easily broken, Henry gets knocked over again and again. But, like the weed, he gets right back up every time.

If you drop something onto dirt, granules of it go hither and yon. But it holds. Nothing goes right through dirt. It holds a 10 ton truck as well as it holds a feather. Even better, actually, cause most of the time you can’t get trucks out of pure dirt as easily as a feather. Dirt isn’t American. It doesn’t understand rugged individualism. A single grain of sand gets you nowhere. I can split it with a long fingernail. But get a few trillion or so of the whitest grains will hold half of Florida (and most of New York) on a hot summer day without breaking a sweat.

What happens when you burn dirt? Silicon, first. A weirdly silver sort of hard tinfoil that happens to conduct lightning really really well. We’re not too bad at attracting lightning ourselves. Except we don’t turn silver (what could have been, eh?). Keep heating that puddle of silvery goo in your crucible. Get it hot. Really hot. 2000 degrees is a good start. 4000 would be even better. Pour it on the end of a hollow stick. Breathe into it. You’ve made glass.

God calls us to remember that we are sons of Adam. Or, as we would say in English, Dirt-bag. God took the ground and shaped something in His image. He breathed into it. We are dirt. We have dirt’s weaknesses. Dirt gives way to everything. We have dirt’s strength. Dirt gives way to nothing. We have dirt’s ugliness. Regular old dirt ain’t much to look at. We have dirt’s beauty. Burn dirt and you get glass.

The world thinks dualistically. But be of good cheer. He has overcome the world.
“Did you mark how naturally – as if he’d been born for it – the earth-born vermin entered the new life? How all his doubts became, in the twinkling of an eye, ridiculous? … As he saw you, he also saw Them. I know how it was. You reeled back dizzy and blinded, more hurt by them than he had ever been by bombs. The degredation of it! – that this thing of earth and slime could stand upright and converse with spirits before whom you, a spirit, could only cower. Perhaps you had hoped that the awe and strangeness of it would dash his joy. But that is the cursed thing; the gods are strange to mortal eyes, and yet they are not strange.… He saw not only Them; he saw Him. This animal, this thing begotten in a bed, could look on Him. What is blinding, suffocating fire to you, is now cool light to him, is clarity itself, and wears the form of a Man.” C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
The princes of the power of the air look at us and sneer: “dirt-bag.” We laugh and say “sure.” We know the end of the story. Jesus already showed us. Life is full of torment and pain, but it ends with an emptied tomb. The water from His side keeps us from burning up in the crucible of life. He rose with a body that walked through walls but still knew good fish and good wine, and still wanted a good fire to keep warm by.

Out in the desert of the world, outside the gardens of Eden and Gethsemane, we get fires and knives. Trials and tribulations are as common as cole slaw at a Baptist church picnic. We’re burned by the fire, and shaped by the knife. We’re born dirt and sprinkled with water to keep us from becoming charcoal in the middle of it all. Then, like the apostles before us, we are showered in fire. Cover us in the Spirit. Call on God to wrap wet earth in tongues of flame like Elijah did on Carmel. Take even a child, cover it in water, and let the Spirit do His work, God says. And watch that child take on the world. Watch it all go topsy turvy.

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

I am just me

So. I start every post I write with "I . . . " followed by some action verb. Rob has indicated that this at times grates on his nerves, and asks me why I do it. Now I think this question answers itself, but I wanted to give a public defense of my habit because it says something about me and about how I blog. Here goes. 


Josh Gibbs' The Cedar Room influenced how I think about blogging more than I can really say (thus Rob's jab about copycat-etry). It was the first real blog I ever read, and I read it for nearly three years. It was cool, smart, well-written, and only rarely got above itself. Yet Josh always started his posts with the phrase "We are." At least, after he was married. Before that it was "I am." In a post I've long since lost track of, Josh talked about why he did this, and said that it reminded him of what he was supposed to be doing while typing away on the internets. 


I think this is very wise, and so I copied him. See, when I say "I ..." what I'm trying to do is make the reader realize that this is not some sort of encyclopedia, some vault of knowledge, some authority sitting in cyberspace. It's not even as trustworthy as Wikipedia isn't. It's just me, a very, very white freshman in college sitting in a two-bedroom apartment typing away just for the heck of it. My words are more often than not rash, foolish, and startlingly ill-informed. They're just that: my words.


Why is it "I" and not "We?" Well, like I said, when Josh used it it was because he got hitched, so I just avoided it cause that's not me. A friend of ours  already introduces us as "Rob and his partner Kaleb," so I get skittish around these sorts of things. And besides, if I make some absurd claim that Rob doesn't agree with, you can't expect him to go to the stake defending it. I've probably said or will say at some point that I believe that the death penalty should be used in America pretty much exactly like the Old Testament says it should be in Israel (yes, rebellious kids, witches, adulterers, and homosexuals all come under that). Rob doesn't agree with this, so I'd title the post "I call for blood" or something, because it's not "We call for blood." It's just little old me. But if this habit is indeed bugging everyone, I'll shut-up already and move on. What thinkest thee? 

Sunday, January 4, 2009

I answer my own question

So here's my answer. Why are there poor? Well, it's my fault. And it's yours. I hope it's the fault of every single one of you. It's President Bush's fault, it seems to be Obama's fault, Clinton claims it's his fault, but I'm not so sure that we can blame it directly on bin Laden, Hussein, or even the serpent. 

The poor are the Church's fault. I come very close to believing that when I stand before the Judgment Seat, God will ask me "And how about that guy you saw under the bridge and didn't stop for on January 6, 2009? What did you do about that? Hmm. Well, what about . . . " 

Most of us have heard Mr. Doug Jones's take on the gravity of economic sins. I'd agree with that. Too many preachers use the divorce rating among Christians as a barometer for the Church (this is not at all to justify or reduce the importance of marriage as holy and sacred; divorce is horrible, but we fail to realize that poverty and hunger are equally horrible tragedies). What about the number of people below the poverty line? What about the number of deaths by starvation in the US? What about the number of thefts carried out by desperate parents?  I'm not even touching Africa yet. I'm just asking you to look at what is happening in our own backyard. 

Christ said that it wasn't the healthy but the sick who need the doctor. The gospel dies in upper middle class Suburbia. It explodes in the projects. While popular European Christianity (and, some argue, even American Christianity) begins to die, the faith is growing by leaps and bounds in China, Pakistan, India, Africa, and the Middle East. Could it be because the Catholic church did so little to relieve the abject poverty of the natives that South America has never been stable and prosperous? 

What I'm saying is this: the Church is to disciple all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Trinity. We preach the Gospel and disciple the nations by living out the faith. We start living like Christians, and people will start noticing. Spurgeon once said, joy is our missionary. As Pastor Wilson said, you don't reach atheists by debating them; you get to them by having them over for dinner. Theology doesn't save people; the Gospel does. St. James applies this to giving when he says "If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, 'Go in peace, be warmed and filled,' without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that?" Too often Christians talk about God's love to an atheist as if it's this ethereal emotional thing that couldn't help anyone even though, deep down, it really wanted to. God's love is not a pretty, teardrop-eyed, softly-glowing-in-the-snowy-moonlight sort of thing. It's visceral, physical, and sometimes it looks like a toothless, legless, drugged up old man in a wheelchair who hasn't had a bath in a month. If an atheist looks over and sees a Christian volunteering at a soup kitchen every Thursday, when you start picking up homeless guys and buying them dinner, when he sees you sacrifice for those less fortunate, he'll be ready to hear about that love. That Love that will turn the world upside down. 

Giving to the poor is the Church's responsibility, its duty. We can't expect the government or other agencies to do it, however willing President Obama may be to do so. The poor are out there because we Christians are letting them be out there. Every family that starves to death is an indictment on Christianity; every homeless drug addict is condemnation. And who knows, perhaps the day the Church ends poverty will be last day of all? 

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

I Take an Open Poll

Go to the comments, and tell us your favorite movie of all time. If you can't pick one, pick three. That's all. In 48 hours or so, the three of us (right Swede?) will post our top one or three. The 6 or 7 most common movies will get put in that snazzy little sidebar poll thing, and so we will determine the movie most loved by the readership, so then we can bash it more than the rest, and so further alienate the people we enjoy.  Sounds like fun, eh? 

No but seriously, I think I'll do this once a year or so and then we can see if our overall tastes change. Also, we get to make fun of each other for our favorite movies. It will be amazing! 

Tuesday, September 9, 2008

Animal Rights

"Animal Rights" has always been one of my pet issues, hahahaha. But seriously now, these animals need some rights.

FACT: Animals can't vote

FACT: Animals don't have the right to free speech (suppose, for example, that a parrot tried to say something other than "Polly Want a Cracker?)

FACT: If I were an animal, I'd shoot myself - if only I had the right to bear arms.

This news video, gets at the heart of the issue.

NB: This video is an "Onion" news article. As with many other "Onions" there is some profanity, and some suggestive commercials at the end. The main video is completely harmless but the 20 sec. after it has a few words (or rather one phrase in particular) that aren't nice. Enjoy.


Should Animals Be Doing More For The Animal Rights Movement?

Thursday, September 4, 2008

A whole new meaning to "deadly"

By popular demand (sort of, not really), I am now going to write a post dealing with the issues raised by the movie "Seven". This is not a movie I would recommend to the weak of heart, and this is not a post I'd recommend to anyone avoiding spoilers. In other words, don't watch the movie if you don't like gory stuff, and don't read this post if you would be mad if I gave away the ending. This being said, let's just dive right into it shall we?

Actually, there's too much plot for me to adaquately explain it all. Therefore, you can disregard what I said earlier because I'm just going to assume that you've already watched the thing. What's that you say? Why not go back and delete what I wrote earlier? That's a stupid question. I'm not even going to answer that.

I thought the movie was well thought out, excellently shot, and masterfully acted. The contrast between the characters of Somerset and Mills is perfect. We know astonishingly little about their biography so we learn about them through their reactions to the events of the movie. Somerset (Morgan Freeman) is a calm character, an experienced detective who wishes to retire because he no longer wishes to view the filth of humanity under a microscope. Mills (Brad Pitt) is a young and cocky detective who is very quick to annoyance and anger. The story moves quickly through the murders and the movie leaves very little time for character development. I think this is, however, a device that is intentionally employed by Fincher and Walker. They force their audience to make the same kind of assumptions about the detectives that "John Doe" (the murderer) makes about his victims. Our knowledge of the characters is shallow in almost the same way as our knowledge of the victims and their sins. I think it's partly a critique of the narrow mindedness of people who appoint themselves as judges of other people's sins. Perhaps, the director is trying to make the point that judgment is not that simple.

The director leaves the audience in an awkward position when he ends the story with Mills killing John Doe, as Doe himself urged him to do. "Become Wrath." And Mills did exactly what Doe told him to do, he became sinfully wrathful and killed Doe himself, rather than let him be justly punished for his wrongs. So, the audience must fill in the aftermath themselves, and give a verdict upon the outcome of the movie.

Were the "ritual killings" just, based upon the victim's deadly sins? Was John Doe justly punished for his crimes and sin of "Envy"?

My answers would be no, and no. John Doe went wrong when he thought that he could act as God, it was not his job to punish the wicked. And I don't think that's what the Roman Catholic church means by "Deadly Sins."