Adam Bede, by George Eliot

 

He's in love with her, she's in love with him, he's mad at him for being in love with her, and she doesn't realize he loves her. Set in rural England in 1799, the hardworking well-respected carpenter Adam Bede falls in love with the dairymaid Hetty Sorrel, as the upper-class Arthur Donnithorne also falls in love with Hetty, and pursues a relationship with her in a classic tragedy of seduction and betrayal that ends with a happy ending for some but not for all.

First, this novel focuses on psychological realism. Eliot's free writing style allows us to inhabit each and every character, from Dinah, the preacher, to Hetty the dairymaid, to the old folks, the Church goers, the upper-class Donnithorne, to Seth, Adam's brother, and their parents. You get to live within the world of these rural English people. They may not be rich or have much, but they have values like church going, family, eating good home-cooked meals with the family, and hardwork. The other side of this realism is the inner mind of Hetty later with this novel, when she is charged with the crime of letting her baby die and eventually ends up being hanged.

Second, this novel has moral complexity. Hetty isn't exactly a crazed lunatic killer when she lets her baby die of exposure in the woods. She's a tragic character that didn't know where to turn. Arthur isn't exactly innocent when he finds out Hetty is pregnant and he ends the relationship and goes abroad to Ireland, only to come back to find that Hetty let the baby die after she ran away from marriage with Adam. Dinah the preacher seems to be the only true god-blessed person in the book, as she's a preacher and ends up marrying Adam at the very end. So there is some happiness.

Third, this novel has a lot of pastoral imagery of a rural England of old. From Adam working at his carpentry workshop business and working a farm, to Hetty doing chores around the house, to the Church dinner celebrating Adam Bede's success, even the scenery and backgrounds where the characters live in and interact in, is almost like additional characters in and of themselves. 

In addition, this novel includes a lot of Church and Methodist preaching, a lot of it by a character named Dinah. There are many preaching chapters in the novel. Oftentimes, this can slow down the narrative of the novel and prolong the novel. You'll find that Dinah's preaching often overrides the novel itself. This display of religious preaching fervor takes over much of the novel. However, this could be because that's the world in which these characters inhabit, and because that was the world of England in 1799, ultimately making the novel much stronger in its realism.

Ultimately, though, we find that in the end this is a very rewarding experience. We find that Adam's love interest in Hetty was genuine, but that doesn't mean that other men couldn't have been interested in her and courted her. Arthur's remorse after the death of the baby and Hetty's death is lifelong, and Hetty's tragedy is a reminder to society that poor women have no safety net; if they do something wrong and have no money or help like to say, raise a baby, they might have no choice but to give the baby up or worse, a sad reminder that poor women are often the most neglected members of society within any time period throughout history. 

Lastly, although written in 1859, Adam Bede reads like a modern literary novel, albeit even with all the Methodist preaching. I would also recommend reading Eliot's The Mill On The Floss, for a more biographical take also in a rural England setting. And of course, you should've already read Middlemarch, if you've read any of George Eliot's works. 

The Age of Voltaire by Will Durant

 

The Age of Voltaire is volume 9 of Will Durant's Story of Civilization series. So far I've read four of Will and Ariel Durant's Story of Civilization series of books: The Italian Renaissance, The Life of Greece, The Age of Reason Begins, and now finally I've read The Age of Voltaire. 

Closing this book, I felt that this was an extensive and comprehensive history of the age right up to and leading into the French Revolution, the Age of Enlightenment in France, roughly 1680s-1780. Voltaire was born in 1694, ensconced in education through the Jesuits. The Jesuits were the main educators in this period and had a lot of influence over schooling of children [boys and girls] and even sometimes in government and various occupations. They were known for being very educated and lenient towards their people, although they themselves were also quite dogmatic about Christianity and its spread throughout other parts of the world like in Latin America and even China. Despite this early great education from the Jesuits, Voltaire grew to increasing dislike the Church as he gained more fame and influence. He spent a lot of time running around to different homes and even the home of Frederick the Great because of his critiques of the church and nobility.  

However, there was a lot more going on in the Church other than Jesuits. There was the growing disputes between church, the peasantry, the aristocrats, the nobles, and the church's feuds with protestants [Jansenists], Catholics, and atheists from the philosophes, the intellectuals [writers, philosophers, scientists, artists, mathematicians, playwrights] like Voltaire, Diderot, Rosseau, Montesquieu, and d'Alembert. These named in particular would have the greatest influence on France and in the world. 

It should be named that being a philosopher in 18th century France isn't the same thing as being a philosopher in the 21st century. These intellectuals delved and wrote in a variety of fields and styles in order to reach their audience in the best ways they could. Voltaire didn't think much of giant books like the Encyclopédie [famous 18th century book from France by the philosophes], rather he thought that small books easily concealed would serve him better. So he ended up writing a lot of small works that contributed to his vast body of works. So Candide ended up becoming his most famous book.

But not every intellectual was an expert in a particular field. Rather a philosophe, was someone who was expected to know a little bit about every subject, even if they themselves weren't a master in each field. In order to write the Encyclopédie, the writers utilized and employed different philosophes for different phrases and words that they didn't feel adequate enough to cover themselves.

What caused the French Revolution? This book doesn't entirely aim to answer this question, rather it focuses more on historical detail. But after reading The Age of Voltaire, you can figure it out.

France was deep in debt from wars and the debt fell upon the peasants more and more, as the nobility became more and more corrupt. Tensions increased between the nobles and the church, and eventually even the Jesuits who had educated all the best minds of the time, were expelled from France. On top of that, the educated people were being more and more exposed to the works of the intellectuals of the time, the philosophes, and now, more than ever, people were more willing to become atheists, little by little, influenced by these great men with big ideas, ideas that changed the world, would eventually lead to the world we live in now. A world of more religious toleration, human rights, democracy, and equality.

Although the Age of Voltaire was published in 1965, it seems to somehow resonate in the scatter-brain afterimages of 21st century 2023. There's something there in this book that has an everlasting effect on the time it is describing, the time it was written in, and the time I live in now as I write this. It seems that now, more than ever, we're living in a world increasingly fraught with the same problems, plus a bunch of new additional ones, that weren't quite resolved from the French Revolution and perhaps never will be solved.

It has occurred to me after reading four volumes of Will Durant's Story of Civilization series, that the problems of any age seem to follow and recur in many others. There's always an endless cycle; renewal, back to the classic ages, onto a newer more advanced, more intellectual more philosophical more scientific less God, then an eventual regression back into a simpler mode of civilization, except we never really find out or perhaps we never can find out, that the civilization itself has already and always collapsed, only to be rebuilt by other people anew.

It is said that on his deathbed, Voltaire, when asked to return to the faith of his fathers and renounce the devil, responded with, “This is no time to be making new enemies.”

Lord of Light

Lord of Light is a terrific science fiction novel written by Roger Zelazny. It was awarded the 1968 Hugo Award for Best Novel. It is was easy to see why this novel won the Nebula Award in 1968. Why? 

Because shock and awe. 

What can I say? This is one of the best science fiction novels I've read in a while [over 6 months], and if you take a look at my reading list [look here] you can tell that I've read a lot of really great science fiction. Although I've read a lot of the science fiction golden age canon, I must add that there's still a lot of great science fiction writers I haven't read. 

Moving on, the idea of gods, Buddhism, Hinduism, was known to me through hippy rock and roll and the flower power generation, even Frank Zappa says in a song, "a book of Indian lore." Keep in mind that I've also read the Bhagavad Gita and a primer on Buddhism entitled What the Buddha Taught, written by a Buddhist monk. But you don't have to know any of that to actually appreciate this book and that's the brilliance of it. However, I will say that known those two other books helps give me somewhat more of an understanding regarding these religious doctrines. Knowing about actual Buddhist parables gave me a much greater appreciation for this book. Having read the Bhagavad Gita, you can clearly see that the Hindu gods and their actions aren't entirely based on imagination. 

I fancy myself as some sort of zen master type. I tap into it quite often as a way to help me get through my day. Seeing our main character, Sam, as a Buddha but without having him actually proclaiming to be a Buddha, or even a god, or even a lesser god, although we still aren't sure what he is, that is something exactly like a real Buddha would do! It's brilliant. Why? Because its simple, it works, and it stays true to how we perceive gods and or prophet-god. The idea of Sam taking over all the godly order, there's a Luciferian catch to it, but the way the book is written, he's nothing like the Bible's Lucifer, nor even Milton's Lucifer, who is a lot more endearing in a sense than the Biblical version. Although the story is all over the place and the fight scenes are mostly just cinematic metaphors with thunder and lightning, the story makes sense until almost the complete end around the 230 page mark, where things go all over the place. But that's okay. I'll forgive Zelazny because it's fun. 

Zelazny is a stylist. Here the book turns out amazing not because the idea is great, unique, or original, rather it is because it is written in Zelazny's true voice, or original style as I will call it here, and because the writing is simply put, shock and awe. The idea of a science fiction novel in 1968 that's inspired by Hindu and Buddhist ideas from the East was probably a novel idea at the time, but it isn't so original these days. If this book was written in the modern era it would have a completely different effect on the audience, the reader. Because ideas were still new back then, and because it is precisely because its original that it doesn't matter if a lot of it doesn't make sense. Why? Because the way its written, the style, it just works.

A lot of the fight scenes between the gods make no sense. But it doesn't have to. Such is the nature of the gods. Long live the Lord of Light. 

Human, Ghoul, Zombie [rewrite]

Been practicing my fiction writing. Here's a rewrite of my zombie apocalypse virus short story called Human, Ghoul, Zombie. Enjoy and thank you for reading. 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vRRIycTDqOtVFWEfjfPmufpDHivxuRDStb75Oep91NONu8_N0L2xsYgaBd5Ey_jlZj-aGEEAeFl5bTD/pub?fbclid=IwAR0KioquKiYor5rwHalbX8hF8hBaDN4KMi55s3gjkeKPfYcieUrXivVWHik 

Dune

Dune by Frank Herbert is one of those all time great novels that you read, and in many ways the book is more relevant (it was published in the 60s) now more than ever. Dune encapsulates many things; ecology, politics, religion, ideas of the messiah, science, government, space travel, intergalactic planetary systems, its got a lot going on. At over 500 pages (including an appendix, which is a must read to learn more about the world of Dune), this is a very thick novel that can take a long time. However, its such a great novel that reading the 500 pages was an enjoyable experience. 

I saw the theatrical released David Lynch movie before I read the book so I had a basic idea of the plot. Its complicated but I will attempt to explain it with as little words possible. 

House Atreides has governing power over a desert planet called Arrakis, home of a spice called melange, used to prolong life, and for the workings of intergalactic space travel; think petroleum and cocaine mixed in one. 

Shaddam IV, the Emperor of this galactic space opera organization,  secretly has a setup with the Baron Harkonnen, of House Harkonnen, and they setup a sting operation to attack House Atreides after they move to Arrakis. 

Duke Leto of House Atriedes realizes this is a trap but the offer is to good to refuse, after all Arrakis is home to spice. The Duke's concubine, Lady Jessica is a Bene Gesserit (witchy, part of a breeding program to create the 'chosen one', Kwisatz Haderach, a male Bene Gesserit). Paul Atreides becomes this messianic figure, who goes on to have powers to see through space and time, and act accordingly in the present. 

Lady Jessica and her son Paul end up going into hiding in the desert after the Duke gets betrayed, and murdered. The rest of the book is Paul and his mother planning in the desert, where they are presumed to be dead. 

However, they end up in the hands of the natives, called Fremen. There, they teach the Fremen the "weirding way" fighting technique. Paul proves himself in a duel to the Fremen, choosing his Fremen name of Muad'Dib. He becomes a messianic figure, and stops spice production via Fremen raids. Paul drinks the Water of Life and becomes the Kwisatz Haderach, a kind of messianic god-like being that can see through space and time. He senses that the Emperor is in space and about to come down to the planet. 

Paul leads a Fremen raid to attack the Emperor's troops and there's a big battle, the Fremen against the Harkonnens. Paul's only son Leo II dies. Paul threatens the Emperor, and says he will stop spice production forever unless he abdicates the throne. Baron Harkonnen's nephew Feyd-Rautha attempts to duel Paul in a knife battle but loses, thus the Emperor gives in, and even has to give his daughter to Paul's hand for a royal marriage! Paul realizes he's achieved his goal, but its too late to stop the Fremen jihad, because they have a powerful belief in him. 

What can be said about this book? Its a terrific novel, one of the best and longest science fiction novels I've ever read. Dune introduced a sense of ecology for me, something I was aware of but didn't think much about. The lack of technology in the story gives you a sense of primitiveness, something most science fiction lacks. You find this lack of technology in old historical fiction and in fantasy. 

The ideas of politics and religion are huge here. Here Herbert creates his own political philosophy and religious context. The appendix talks more about this, its a must read once you finish the story. 

In addition, there's tons of Middle Eastern references, mostly words. The native language of the Fremen is supposed to be mixed from Arabic and Persian. "Paul's messianic name (Muad'Dib) means in Arabic "the teacher or maker of politeness or literature", and the prophesied appearance of one known as the "Kwisatz Haderach", meaning "one who shortens the way" borrows the Hebrew term Kefitzat Haderech (קְפִיצַת הַדֶּרֶךְ), a Kabbalistic Jewish term meaning one who can "clench the way", i.e. the distance between two places - and teleport. The Fremen language is also embedded with Islamic terms such as, jihad, Mahdi, Shaitan, and the personal bodyguard of Paul Muad'Dib Fedaykin is a transliteration of the Arabic Feda'yin." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dune_(novel))

Lastly, I must mention that the women in Dune are powerful and have their feminist tendencies. This isn't your 50s science fiction where women are plain and simple. Here, the female characters are just as important as the main character. They are powerful and impact the story in their own way, especially Lady Jessica. She is just as important as Paul. Paul's Fremen wife also has a big role too. 

Dune is an important book in the science fiction genre. It took me a long time to read, but I'm really glad I did. Its an unforgettable book and I can see much to be gained in reading it again. The movie doesn't do the book justice, it lacks the eloquence and beauty of Herbert's literary sensibility. I won't be reading the sequels, that's too much man.

Fear is the mind killer.

Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan

Leviathan is an example of early social contract theory. Written by Thomas Hobbes during the English Civil War (1642-1651), Leviathan (which refers to the Biblical Leviathan), Hobbes argues for complete rule by a sovereign, arguing that civil war and the state of nature (war against all) could only be avoided by a powerful government, a monarchy. The book was published in 1651 and offended all parties, Royalists and Catholics, and supporters of monarchy mainly because his views differed from the Divine Right of Kings, for in Hobbes' monarchy system, the sovereign would rule by the consent of the people. 

The first part deals with politics and human nature. Good and evil are terms for peoples' appetites.In nature, Hobbes says:

In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain, and consequently no culture of the earth, no navigation nor the use of commodities that may be imported by sea, no commodious building, no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force, no knowledge of the face of the earth, no account of time, no arts, no letters, no society, and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

He goes on to explain all these laws of nature, and how the sovereign would represent the people even when they disagree with the sovereign.

This part of the book gets the political philosophy kicking, and you get a sense of Hobbes' language, and its been said that his writing style if of a particular humor, dry humor. I didn't get that from the reading, perhaps I missed that aspect. Looking back now, I can see what these book reviewers and bloggers are saying about it.  

The second part deals with the Commonwealth, he explains how the sovereign has some twelve principal rights. Subjects can't change a form of government. The sovereign can't be put to death. To prescribe the rules of civil laws and property. To make war and peace. To reward with riches and honor or to punish with corporal or pecuniary punishment or ignominy. And more.

He rejects a separation of powers but talks in detail about Monarchy (being the best form of government), Oligarchy, and Democracy. He says Monarchy is the best form of government because it leads to peace and prosperity for the people. Oligarchies and Democracies are corrupt, and civil wars can occur. Important to note that Hobbes wrote this during the English Civil War while in exile in Paris.

In addition, Hobbes states that the sovereign has control over matters of religious doctrines, and should do so always.

Part three is Of A Christian Commonwealth. He discusses the Ten Commandments and makes so many quotes from scripture, this part of the book gets quite dense, albeit important as to the Ecclesiastical studies of the time.

He talks a lot about the Catholic Church, how the people can't obey both the Pope, and the sovereign, for a leviathan can't have two heads. Hobbes wants the preservation of a life, a world where people would be happy and live nice lives. He thinks that living in and not rebelling against a strong state is the best way to make this happen. 

He states that the Pope and Clergy don't have the ultimate say over the people, that it is the sovereign Christian Kings are the supreme Pastors of their people. He talks about which scriptures we should trust, and why. The test is done by Hobbes examining scripture and saying its very trust worthy, and because the Bible is the most trust worthy when it comes to these things.

Part 4 is called The Kingdom Of Darknesse. Hobbes doesn't refer to Hell with this, but rather ignorance and the darkness in misinterpretation of scripture. There are four causes: Misinterpretation of Scripture, Demonology of heathen poets, Vain Philosophy (of the Greeks, especially Aristotle), and by mingling with both these, false or uncertain traditions, and feigned or uncertain history.

Hobbes finishes by inquiring who benefits from the errors he diagnoses:

Cicero maketh honourable mention of one of the Cassii, a severe judge amongst the Romans, for a custom he had in criminal causes, when the testimony of the witnesses was not sufficient, to ask the accusers, cui bono; that is to say, what profit, honour, or other contentment the accused obtained or expected by the fact. For amongst presumptions, there is none that so evidently declareth the author as doth the benefit of the action.

Hobbes concludes that the beneficiaries are the churches and churchmen.

Hobbes didn't seem to like the Church or Clergymen that much. In fact, when Leviathan was published it was publicly burned. People wanted to kill him because his ideas differed from the Godly Divine Right of Kings, instead saying the sovereign reigns only in the consent of the people, and has certain obligations under the social contract. We need the sovereign monarchy because without it we are left to the Laws of Nature, in which life is nasty, brutish and short.

This was quite a read for me, over some six-hundred pages long. I started it a long time ago, but it took me a while to finish reading it. The spelling loses consistency, (dry humor perhaps), and the professorial tone over the novel is also apparent. The old archaic English can take a while to get used to. I had to look up a lot of words online on the google dictionary (my favorite Hobbes words were corporeal and incorporeal) to make sense of certain sections, which made the reading process longer. The book is incredibly dense, and can take a lot of focus to make sense of. I can't say I got the complete understanding of this text, rather I had an astounding overview from Betrand Russell, and a hands-on approach with the original text. However, I got a lot out of it, from intellectual understanding, to pervasiveness argumentation, to English civil war ideology. Its one of those important texts, and it was an accomplishment to have read it. 

There's also a certain rhythm and logical conclusiveness there too. This appears to my post-modern millennial mind to be a treatise on a particular kind of conservatism, something that relates to modern government especially now more than ever.

I already knew what Leviathan was about when I read Betrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy, but reading the full text, I can see things straight from the source. Many of Hobbes' ideas have transcended time and are in use in today's governments. 

Read this if you like philosophy