David and Goliath: The Advantages of Disadvantages

I’ve always had a good impression of Malcolm Gladwell’s books, but after reading David and Goliath: Underdogs, Misfits, and The Art of Battling Giants, I want to find Blink, Outliers, and all the others. They are bound to be just as insightful and transformational as this one.

Gladwell’s two-fold premise is that some perceived disadvantages are actually advantages in the right context and vice versa. He frames the book around the battle between David and Goliath. The army of Israel was terrified of the gigantic warrior Goliath, who could probably spear two men at once. Who could win a sword fight with a man like this? But David, inspired with a confidence from the Lord, changed the battle plan.

I was skeptical of this description at first, as you may be, but Gladwell backs it up beautifully. Goliath was prepared for a hand-to-hand fight. His arrogance probably kept him from considering potential threats like David’s sling, and his eye-sight may have been pretty bad due to the condition, pituitary macroadenoma, that made him a giant (height: “six cubits and a span”). One scholar suggests Goliath’s shield bearer, who stood in front of him when they first met David, was actually a guide, because the warrior’s sight was that bad.

The endnotes in this book hold many cool details like these, but the theme of the story is that Goliath’s considerable advantages on the battlefield became disadvantages with new rules of engagement. The same can be seen in many other situations:

  1. Class Size: Common wisdom says small class sizes are best for learning, but many school teachers have learned that their classes can be too small. They need a critical mass of curiosity and energy to work with.
  2. Top Schools: Getting into the best school you can isn’t necessarily your best choice. You actually want to pick a school in which you can excel. Being in the lower 50% of your Harvard class can kill your spirit, even if you graduate with a degree.
  3. Out-gunned: Ivan Arreguin-Toft says of all the wars over the last 200 years between large countries and small countries, the large counties won only 71.5% of the time. Of the remaining third of these conflicts, the small countries won 63.6% of their conflicts when they refused to fight as expected.

Gladwell tells many fascinating stories about the advantages of difficulties and the limits of advantages. Continue reading David and Goliath: The Advantages of Disadvantages

Is Christian Spec-Fic Too Restricted?

Last month, we talked about the place or lack thereof for language, violence, and sex in Christian fiction. Mike Duran was our source for that post, and now Mike says he has “learned of another fictional archetype that is, apparently, off-limits for mainstream Christian fiction — zombies.”
The reason is that a Christian worldview doesn’t allow for the undead. Since zombies can’t exist, then fictional zombies shouldn’t be in our stories.
Mike says, “Forcing fiction to neatly fit your theology is a losing proposition… at least, if creative storytelling is your aim.”
I agree with Mike. I wonder what imaginative cliches Christian fiction readers/publishers accept as normal but are just as unChristian (in worldview terms) as zombies and other creatures of the dead?

  1. God’s plan of prosperity for us?
  2. No one ever goes to Hell?
  3. Homosexuals as demon possessed?
  4. Hateful people repenting on the turn of a dime?

What do you think?
Other reading: Loren Eaton’s post on this question, “Is it legitimate to discover joy in works primarily intended to arouse fear?”

Five Writing Rules You Can’t Live Without Breaking

Editor Nick Harrison talks about the writing advice he dislikes, such as writing what you know and never using passive voice.

“Write even if you know you’ll never be published.” Apparently the idea is that a writer writes because he has to (which I agree with) and that writing is somehow its own reward (which I disagree with). I don’t know about you, but I’m writing to be published. I’m glad I don’t know whether or not I will have more books published in the future because if I knew my writing would never see the light of day, I’d probably be tempted to quit.

Anonymity Doesn't Promote Transparency

Some argue that anonymity promotes transparency, but it does not. Humility and love promote transparency. In a place where no one knows who you are, you can say anything for the attention you want. All the alcoholics in A.A. actually anonymous to each other? No. They are well-known to each other and anonymous to most people outside the group. The outsiders have proven themselves to be unsafe, prideful, and even hateful. The insiders prove themselves to be honest, humble, and loving.

In a post on Internet anonymity, Peter Leithart notes the problems with social networking:

Pressure to perform is one of the few constants of online conversation. We talk all the time, says sociologist Sherry Turkle in a recent interview, but “all of this talk can come at the expense of conversation.” Web communication “favor[s] showmanship over exchange, flows over ebbs. The Internet is always on. And it’s always judging you, watching you, goading you.”

It’s provoking you to market something, mostly yourself, and to talk at others instead of talking with them.

Making old bones

I have been thinking much of skeletons lately, specifically my own skeleton (I remember C. S. Lewis mentioning, somewhere, that he found it hard to believe he even had a skeleton. I used to feel the same way). If you missed my previous announcement, I’ve been diagnosed with avascular osteonecrosis (bone death), and I will be going in to have my right hip replaced tomorrow morning.

An unpleasant experience generally, but salutary, I think. I am now the old codger with crutches who blocks supermarket aisles, a character who’s always irritated me. Though no macho guy, I’ve always had strong legs, and it’s a shock to be unable to get around easily on my own power. Thus does God humble us.

If the worst should happen, which is always a possibility, what would I want my readers to remember as my final message?

I think it would be, “Don’t try too hard to be loved.” Love is important; love is central to everything (God is love). But real love comes as a byproduct of virtue. Seeking love for its own sake, out of a fear of being left alone, is not only wrong but generally counterproductive. Do what’s right, and you’ll attract the love of people whose love will enrich you.

This is what is wrong with the church today, I believe. It values being loved (by people) over being faithful. Remember, “Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things will be added unto you.” First things first.

But assuming this isn’t my swan song, I’ll probably be posting again sometime next week.

Why Are Tennis Balls Fuzzy and Other Questions

Q. Why are tennis balls fuzzy? Aerodynamics, baby.

close up of tennis balls
Photo by cottonbro studio/Pexels

The fuzzy felt that covers a tennis ball helps you control it when you bat it over the net. The bounce and spin you get with a fuzzy ball is lessened by the fuzz. You would notice a difference if you hit around a bald ball after practicing with a new, fuzzy ball. The bald ball would be a little wilder on the court.

Q. If blood is red, why do veins look blue?

This gets at the reason why anything has color. The light that reflects off an object gives it the color we see. Good light has all colors in it, even colors we don’t see (e.g. infrared and ultraviolet). For the blood in your veins, light must soak into your skin before coming back to your eye. Apparently, the light in the blue spectrum is most successful at this, so that’s what we see.

The label “blue blood” to refer to aristocrats comes from fair-skinned Spainish families who lived in the Land of Castles, Castile. They argued that they had the purest breeding in their country, which could be clearly seen from the blue veins on their skin. The truth is that their skin color made their veins more visible, not that their blood was bluer than the Moors or anyone else.

Q. Why are hot dogs sold in packs of 10 and buns in packs of 8?

Hot dog lunch

Businessmen do this to strong-arm you into buying 5 bun packs and 4 dog packs in order to have an even amount at your house. Just this week, President Obama has drafted an executive order to require dogs and buns to be packaged together in even quantities of 8, 12, and 33.

(Photo by alleksana/Pexels)

Actually, the packaging incongruity happened for practical reasons, which we have since overcome. Buns were baked in sets of four, because that’s how large the pans were. See? Practical. And buns are not for hot dog use alone. You could cradle any sausage in a warm, whole-grain bun and shovel chili over it, so the question loses its power when the two aren’t connected.

As for why hot dogs came ten to a pack for so long, it’s because that’s the way they are found in the wild. Obviously. Berk Foods claims, “Americans enjoy seven billion hot dogs between Memorial Day and Labor Day,” which is the reason so many school children are marked “obese” on their school papers, which is important for school funding because larger kids get more federal dollars because it’s easier to leave large kids behind than small, non-hot-dog-eating kids, and as you know, no child will be left behind in American schools.

Thanks for asking.

Should Your Kids Read Dark, But Truthful Books?

N.D. Wilson writes about “dark-tinted, truth-filled reading” for children: “I would understand if hard-bitten secularists were the ones feeding narrative meringue to their children with false enthusiasm. They believe their kids will eventually grow up and realize how terrible, grinding, and meaningless reality really is. Oh, well—might as well swaddle children in Santa Clausian delusions while they’re still dumb enough to believe them. But a Christian parent should always be looking to serve up truth. The question is one of dosage.”

He says Christians should be protecting their children, but not over-sheltering them from the real painful world. Christian kids need “stories in which murderers are blinded on donkeys and become heroes. Stories with dens of lions and fiery furnaces and lone prophets laughing at kings and priests and demons. Stories with heads on platters. Stories with courage and crosses and redemption. Stories with resurrections. And resurrections require deaths.”

Julie Silander has begun a list of such reading on StoryWarren.

'The Tourist,' by Olen Steinhauer

I had been reading for some time of Olen Steinhauer as a superior writer of espionage novels. So I bought a copy of The Tourist, one of his Milo Weaver trilogy.

My perception is that there are two major strains of spy novel. One is the rah-rah thriller, in the tradition of James Bond and Jack Ryan, where the emphasis is on action but there’s little or no question who are the good guys.

The other strain is the John Le Carré school, probably more technically realistic, where the tendency is to reduce the conflict between freedom and tyranny to a game played by cynical and generally dispassionate professionals. In this kind of story it’s hard to tell one side from the other; in fact, our side generally comes off looking worse, as we get a closer look at its transgressions.

Judging by The Tourist, Olen Steinhauer seems to belong to the second group.

His hero, Milo Weaver, is a former “Tourist,” a roving professional assassin for the CIA. Now he has settled down happily with a wife and stepdaughter. Then he’s recalled to join the hunt for a famous assassin, loose in the USA. Once he catches him he learns things that lead him to question some of his most cherished relationships. Caught in a power struggle between the CIA and Homeland Security, he must take the risk of trusting an old enemy, and take the chance of losing everything that has made his life worth living.

The writing’s good, and Milo is an engaging character. But I disliked the cynicism of the story, the assumption that there’s really nothing to choose between America and any other world power. There isn’t much hope in this book. Cautions for language and mature subject matter.

Holmes with too much heart

I’ve been watching the new series of BBC’s Sherlock, of course, and of course it’s very good. If you’re on Facebook, you’ve probably seen, as I have, a number of positive reviews.

And I don’t mean to pan it here. I enjoy watching it. I think it’s extremely clever and well done.

But I have to say I think the series has lost its way.

The first season was remarkable, in my view, for being an update and a reboot that managed to keep the spirit of Conan Doyle’s characters and stories to an amazing degree.

Last season, I think, was a little less so. And this season even less.

The failure (it seems to me) is an overdose of something I ordinarily like – excellent characterization. Cumberbatch’s Holmes and Freeman’s Watson are wonderfully alive and interesting. But they’ve moved too much to center stage.

Remember, these are supposed to be mysteries. This season’s stories have been mostly about Holmes’ and Watson’s friendship. In Episode One, the great question was, Will Watson forgive Holmes for going off and letting him think he was dead? In Episode Two, it was, How will Holmes manage to function as best man at Watson’s wedding, considering his personality problems? In each case, the mysteries were shoved off onto the periphery.

I don’t mean to complain – much. But it’s important not to lose focus on your primary task, whatever you’re doing. A Holmes story that’s more about relationships than mystery is not really a Holmes story.

Pynchon: Let the Non-Reader Beware

Are Pynchon and Dickens essentially the same writer? Alan Jacobs notes, “The Pynchonian and the Dickensian projects have a great deal in common [big rambling eventful tragicomic books featuring outlandish characters with comical names], and as time goes on I think it will become more and more clear that there is something truly old-fashioned about Pynchon’s career.”

Jacobs says Pynchon’s style appears to be to write long, complex books about people who don’t read long books at all. His characters are caught up in the Interwebs, the TeleVision, and commercial products of all types. He says Pynchon may be driving at a warning: let the non-reader beware.

Book Reviews, Creative Culture