Thoreau, Born Yesterday (so to speak)

Henry David Thoreau was born July 12 a while back. He’s thoughts on place can be transformational, not that I know anything about them. Here Thoreau talks about what appears to be enlightenment.

That man who does not believe that each day contains an earlier, more sacred, and auroral hour than he has yet profaned, has despaired of life, and is pursuing a descending and darkening way. After a partial cessation of his sensuous life, the soul of man, or its organs rather, are reinvigorated each day, and his Genius tries again what noble life it can make. All memorable events, I should say, transpire in morning time and in a morning atmosphere. The Vedas say, “All intelligences awake with the morning.” Poetry and art, and the faire stand most memorable of the actions of men, date from such an hour. All poets and heroes, like Memnon, are the children of Aurora, and emit their music at sunrise. To him whose elastic and vigorous thought keeps pace with the sun, the day is a perpetual morning. It matters not what the clocks say or the attitudes and labors of men. Morning is when I am awake and there is a dawn in me. Moral reform is the effort to throw off sleep. Why is it that men give so poor an account of their day if they have not been slumbering? They are not such poor calculators. If they had not been overcome with drowsiness, they would have performed something. The millions are awake enough for physical labor; but only one in a million is awake enough for effective intellectual exertion, only one in a hundred millions to a poetic or divine life. To be awake is to be alive. I have never yet met a man who was quite awake. How could I have looked him in the face?

We must learn to reawaken and keep ourselves awake, not by mechanical aids, but by an infinite expectation of the dawn, which does not forsake us in our soundest sleep. . . . To affect the quality of the day, that is the highest of arts. Every man is tasked to make his life, even in its details, worthy of the contemplation of his most elevated and critical hour.

Critic, spare that bird!

S. T. Karnick at The American Culture ably responds to Malcolm Gladwell’s recent attack on To Kill a Mockingbird.

Gladwell’s notion that To Kill a Mockingbird, first published in 1960, is insufficiently hateful toward white Southerners and is unsophisticated in failing to embrace radical politics is a truly breathtaking instance of ignorant bigotry. It is also not original, and it is wrong.

…and every postmodern family is a dead loss in its own way

Jane Austen's PersuasionOur friend Dale Nelson sent me a link to this New York Times column by Ross Douthat, all about why many “literary” authors are turning to writing historical novels, rather than setting their stories in contemporary settings. His interesting conclusion is that modern culture just doesn’t present the kind of conflicts that made the family sagas of old work so well:

You can write an interesting contemporary novel based on the “Anna Karenina” template in which the heroine gets a divorce, marries her modern-day Vronsky, and they both discover that they’re unhappy with the choices they’ve made — but the last act just isn’t going to be quite as gripping as Tolstoy’s original. You can turn the Jane Austen template to entertaining modern purposes, as Hollywood did in “Clueless” and “Bridget Jones’ Diary,” but the social and economic stakes are never going to be as high for a modern-day Elizabeth Bennet as they were for the Regency-era version.

I think he’s got something there. If you want to write a novel about, say, an unwed mother, you can suggest that your plucky heroine’s Neanderthal, Bible-thumping parents don’t want her to have an abortion, but there’s really nothing they can do to stop her. The only other problem her romantic passions are likely to get her into is that of sexually transmitted diseases. In that case, she either takes medication to get better, or she’s stuck with the problem for life. There’s little scope for her to heroically defy convention and shame the small minds; there is no convention to defy.
P. G. Wodehouse wrote stories about couples being kept apart by unsympathetic fathers and guardians, well past the point in history when such parental figures had “sunk to the level of a third rate power” (to quote “Uncle Fred Flits By”). He was able to get away with it because his stories were light confections, not intended to reflect real life in any serious way. If he’d been forced to be realistic, the fun would drained out like water from a lion-footed bathtub.
Is it an indictment of modern society to say that it doesn’t offer scope to certain forms of fiction? Probably not.
But I often think of the popularity of Amish stories in the Romance genre, as I’ve mentioned here before. I don’t think it’s unrelated to highbrow authors writing historical novels. I think there’s a hunger out there to be able to live in a society where people care enough about you to tell you when they think you’re messing up your life.
The autonomous life, in the end, is a pretty lonely one.

Updike on an Artist's Tension with His Audience and Creativity

circa 1955:  American author and Pulitzer Prize winner John Updike in a youthful portrait, seated on a bench outdoors, holding a cigarette. His novels include Rabbit Run, Rabbit Redux and Couples. He is also a long-time contributor and critic for The New Yorker magazine.  (Photo by Hulton Archive/Getty Images)

When did artists first begin to chafe with their audiences and feel irritated at the idea that their creations should be styled in a limited way so as to gain popularity? John Updike in 1985 wrote about this history, what happened to Herman Melville, and what a modern artist might do with this tension. He said:

By authentic I mean actual and concrete. For the creative imagination, in my sense of it, is wholly parasitic upon the real world, what used to be called Creation. Creative excitement, and a sense of useful work, have invariably and only come to me when I felt I was transferring, with a lively accuracy, some piece of experienced reality to the printed page.

I Lift Up My Soul to the Merciful Lord

How many times have you read verses like this and thought little of them?

“To you, O LORD, I lift up my soul.”

Those are the opening words of Psalm 25:1, not even the whole verse. I usually think of words like these as the Psalmist saying hello, but look at what Charles Spurgeon wrote about these words. Read more on cbmc.com.

A couple links for your edification

I’ve got a meeting tonight, so I’m in haste, but here’s a couple links worth reading.

An editorial in the Houston Chronicle examines how the Texas Education Agency could deem thousands of students to have passed a test on which they got not a single answer right. Strange times we live in. Tip: Grim’s Hall.

The unspeakable Hunter Baker (don’t buy his book) shares a puerile review of a biography of Time Magazine founder Henry Luce.

Have a good weekend! I’ll be in Minnehaha Park, Minneapolis, on Sunday, doing the Viking thing at Norway Day.

Would You Pay to Comment?

The Sun Chronicle hasn’t appreciated reader feedback recently and has now guarded its article comments with a 99 cent fee. So you can fill out the order form, pay almost a dollar, and comment freely thereafter. I don’t know if that system will apply to only this Massachusetts paper or also to the other two papers the D’Arconte company owns.

Mixed Metaphor Alert

From the previously linked article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (they should lengthen their name, don’t you think? How about Atlanta News Journal-Democrat Constitution Dispatch Herald?), here’s a bit common language abuse. Bobby Williams of Smoothie King is quoted.

“McDonald’s is the 900-pound gorilla in the room,” he said. “Whenever they roll with something, it creates a halo effect.”

Seattle's Best Coffee to be Sold at Burger King

BAD FALLINGBOSTEL, GERMANY - MARCH 05:  The signs of the fast food companies Burger King and McDonald's are seen side by side on March 5, 2009 in Bad Fallingbostel, Germany. Fast food companies notice more customers recently which is assumed to be a consequence of the global financial crisis.  (Photo by Joern Pollex/Getty Images)

Burger King of Canada and USA will begin selling Seattle’s Best Coffee in their restaurants this fall. The Canadians will get the deal a month or so before the Americans will, because, let’s face it, Canadians need a stimulus that will rouse them out of the years of malaise that has been dragging their country down. Their coffee is terrible. I’ve never tasted it myself, because it’s terrible.

So Burger King has looked across the street at McDonald’s McCafe, which has been offering Newman’s Own Coffee for a few years, hears the rattling whistle of the espresso being made, and believes it needs to expand its beverage line. This reminds me of a Consumer Reports test that ranked McDonald’s coffee over Starbucks, Dunkin Donuts, and Burger King. Did anyone go to Burger King for good tasting coffee back then? Now, they may have that option and be able to choose from unique flavors like Grease Fried Bean, The King’s Flamer, and Whopper Cafe Grande.

BTW, Burger King wanted to punish their customers for their loyalty and brand devotion, so they took the Whopper off the menu for a couple days. Naturally, they recorded the reactions.

Gourmet coffee companies may have lesson to learn from the fast food giants’ coffee decision, that their brew is a bit too pricey. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports McDonald’s has taken marketshare away from specialty coffee stores by offering less expensive drinks.

Will BK gain ground in the fast food market from McDonald’s with their new coffee options? Maybe. In the meantime, McDonald’s will begin offering fruit smoothies.

Book Reviews, Creative Culture