Two interesting bits from Dr. Gene Edward Veith of Cranach today.
He links to an article by art historian Birgit Schwarz in Spiegel Online. She makes the interesting (and very intriguing, it seems to me) point that Hitler saw himself as an artistic genius. And we all know what modern western culture thinks about artistic geniuses, right? They aren’t subject to ordinary moral rules. They have a duty to themselves to express their genius in shocking and transgressive ways. I can’t see this analysis getting much traction in the media, but I think there’s a lot in it.
Dr. Veith is also kind enough to praise my work in this post, on bad bestselling writers (obviously I don’t qualify for that description, on at least one count).
Loren Eaton is out on his blog for a several days and has foolishly chosen to post something I wrote for him. It will be the beginning of the end of his credibility in the blogscape, I’m sure. I write about the truth in fiction, relating it, naturally, to zombies. If you wish to see the train wreck in action, go to I Saw Lightning Fall (which is a cool blog name, don’t you think).
I’ve made my first postover at Touchstone Magazine’s Mere Comments. Check it out if you like, but it’s pretty much a re-hash of my previous post here about the Evangelical Lutheran Church, the homosexuality issue, and the authority of Scripture.
Ron Hogan offers comments on his purpose for blogging and asks whether our blogs will come to anything in a few years (link defunct). What do you think? Why do you read a book blog, and what do you find most interesting or helpful on them?
Still more on book blogging: I updated the symposium list below with a post released today.
Here’s a round-up of posts on the current purpose of book blogging.
Elberry: “i don’t really understand why people read the blogs they do. i am often puzzled that anyone reads mine. Maybe they just look at the pictures.”
Mark Athitakis: “But in terms of them being inspirations and models, I largely looked at them as models for what not to do. Not because I disliked them, but because I figured that they had already claimed their particular patches of turf, forcing me to avoid their most common habits. (No knee-jerk whining about the contents of the New York Times Book Review, I told myself; no dutiful mentions of the death of a Syrian poet I’d never read and never heard of until the obit popped up in my RSS feed.)”
Michael Gilleland: “One could make the case that blogging, i.e. rushing into print, is bad for one’s style. Horace (Ars Poetica 388-9) recommended that writers postpone publication for nine years. Nevertheless, the discipline of writing something every day is salutary.”
Benjamin Stein: “Blogging has not only brought back the pleasure in writing. It liberated me as a writer.”
Frank Wilson: “In fact, book blogging seems to me to have restored to literary journalism a good deal of the passion and immediacy that had long been missing from it. It had become restricted to pretty much the same people writing pretty much the same thing about pretty much the same sort of books. Blogging has opened up the field immensely.”
Miriam Burstein: “. . . book bloggers aren’t necessarily tied to the rhythms of publishing and marketing: you can write about a book when it comes out; you can write about it several years later; you can write about it a couple of centuries later. (This is not to say that publishers don’t see book blogs as a marketing opportunity, however.)”
Terry Teachout: “To blog is to become a public figure. Ad hominem attacks go with the territory. If you can’t stand the flames, log off.”
Brad Bigelow: On how blogging differs from similiar material in newspapers or magazines “The simplest answer is that someone asks a reviewer to write about a book. Aside from a few well-known bloggers, none of the rest of us gets asked by anyone to write about any topic. The other main difference is time. Book reviews almost always have to come out just before or after a book first gets published. One can post about a book whenever one feels like it. A good thing, because some of us have missed the deadline by decades.”
Ron Slate: “Auden said a critic must differentiate between taste and judgment: I can know something is trash and still have a taste for it, and I can know something is well-made and not have a taste for it. Generally, attacks are perpetrated by nitwits who can’t tell the difference or who haven’t had a good breakfast.”
Nigel Beale: Quoting Jonathan Swift “A commonplace book is what a provident poet cannot subsist without, for this proverbial reason, that ‘great wits have short memories’: and whereas, on the other hand, poets, being liars by profession, ought to have good memories; to reconcile these, a book of this sort, is in the nature of a supplemental memory, or a record of what occurs remarkable in every day’s reading or conversation. There you enter not only your own original thoughts, (which, a hundred to one, are few and insignificant) but such of other men as you think fit to make your own, by entering them there.”
Levi Stahl: “. . . when I started blogging about books, I explained that I was starting a blog so that I would stop reading aloud at parties. I was only half joking”
James Marcus: “In my book, Amazonia, I actually anointed Emerson as the First American Online. I think he’s a better candidate than, say, Montaigne, since he was a small-canvas artist whose unit of thought was the sentence: that seems very bloggy to me.”
Patrick Kurp: “I’ve spent 30 years writing professionally, mostly for newspapers. This has instilled a fairly strict work ethic: meet deadlines, don’t wait for “inspiration,” write tight, humor editors but don’t encourage them . . . A blogger is a writer and a writer’s only obligation is to write well.”
D.G. Myers: “. . . I am encouraged by the wit, knowledge, and book sense on exhibition in a few well-tended parks of the literary blogscape. But I am also discouraged about the future of book blogging. I no longer believe, as I once did, that book blogs might revive a free-wheeling and raucous literary culture.”
Kudos to Dennis Ingolfsland of The Recliner Commentaries for thoroughly fisking a video making the rounds claiming that Barak Obama’s name proves him to be the Antichrist, based on Luke 10:18.
Fourth: Now comes the “slight-of-hand” so to speak. In Luke 10:18 Jesus says he saw Satan fall as lightening from heaven. The video doesn’t give you the Hebrew word for “Heaven.” The Hebrew word for heaven is pronounced like “Shamayim (Shamayah in Aramaic).
Obviously the words “Barack Shamayim” don’t work well with the slander this video is attempting to perpetrate, so instead, the video does a little bait-and-switch by referring the listener back to Isaiah 14:12-19 which refers to the fall of Lucifer (Satan).
If you hold a high view of Scripture, as the person who made this video apparently claims to, you should never, never, never, twist its words and falsify facts in order to make a political point. Shameful.
Kevin Holtsberry, who is a good writer and remarkable blogger and commentator, is finding it hard to post anything by Twitter posts lately. Feel free to give him some encouragement on this post.
Our friend Ori Pomerantz has started a blog called “Instructional Design.” I’m not entirely sure what it’s about, but since it’s his, it will doubtless be worth reading.