Friday sweepings

This was the first perfect day of the year, from a weather point of view (or at least from mine). It wasn’t just “sort of warm if you overlooked the frigid undertones.” It was genuinely warm, without any equivocation or small print. You probably would have preferred yesterday, since my thermostat is set a little warmer than most people’s, but I think you would have agreed that today was nevertheless the caterpillar’s overcoat (1920s slang cribbed from P. G. Wodehouse).



If you’re deeply conflicted
(like all good Americans) by my critique of reports on the Prince Caspian movie yesterday, and want a good reason to see the movie in spite of my carping, Dirty Harry at Libertas gives a strong argument here.

We are nothing if not openminded here at Brandywine Books. Our openmindedness is the same as that of America’s greatest educational institutions—we present a broad range of opinions stretching all the way from people who almost agree with me on the right to people who almost agree with me on the left.

It seems to have fallen off the news radar today, but I meant to mention this story yesterday. The wildfires described are located precisely in the area where I lived, when I lived in Florida. I had a mobile home in a park on US 1 in Malabar, and my parents lived in Palm Bay. I’m not actually in touch with anybody down there anymore, but I pray my old friends haven’t suffered any loss (assuming any of them are still in town).

It’s all Florida scrub down there, and from an ecological point of view a wildfire every twenty years is the best thing that could happen. I can say that, of course, because I don’t own any property there anymore.

“Susan is no longer a friend of Narnia”

I paged through WORLD Magazine yesterday, and saw that they published a big, vividly illustrated article on the new Prince Caspian movie.

The article was very positive, even boosterish, but it had the opposite effect on me than was intended. I’d been excited to see the movie, but after reading the article I made the sad decision not to go.

What set me off was a statement that director Andrew Adamson decided to make Susan Pevensey a warrior in the battle (in the film), though Lewis had made it a point to keep her out of it (in the book).

The more I think about this, the more it bothers me. I understand that I’m touchy and obsessive on the subject, but there are times when madmen (like me) can see the truth that sane people can’t, because we look where nobody else is looking. If it’s true that the truths that are most important to defend in any age are precisely those that are most despised, then madmen are sometimes the bloodhounds who smell out what the truth-hunters don’t see.

The decision to kick aside a plot point that mattered to Lewis, just because it’s unfashionable, is not a minor matter (or so it seems to me). In this situation it’s a declaration that there is no special calling for a man to be warrior and protector in the world. Nobody seems to see this, but to me it’s obvious—such a view has dangerous, catastrophic consequences, not only for boys and men but for society as a whole. It’s an assertion (one at which Lewis would have snorted in contempt) that there is no essential difference between men and women; that there are only interchangeable hominid units.

You think this doesn’t matter for society? Look at what happened at the California Supreme Court today, where the justices struck down the state’s marriage protection law. The court’s decision was based, at bottom, on the conviction that men and women are interchangeable. Marry a man. Marry a woman. Take your choice, it’s all the same.

If you think the court decision was good, you probably won’t understand what I’m talking about. But if it troubles you, maybe you’ll see what I’m trying to say.

Even if I’m nuts.

The bell tolls for Belle, the troll

Finally got in a walk tonight. What with bad weather and uneven health, I haven’t been able to do that for a month.

I spent the morning with a salesman for the company that provides our library cataloging software. We’re essentially in the Bronze Age in our technology, and it’s going to have to be upgraded. Unfortunately, I fear we won’t be able to go with these guys anymore, because I suspect our schools won’t spring for the price tag.

But it was an enjoyable few hours. The salesman was an Englishman, transplanted to America, and in the dead spaces caused by some wireless connection problems we found that we have shared enthusiasms for Norway, Monty Python and Patrick O’Brien.

It’s a rare pleasure for me to spend time with someone who wants something from me, and so is forced to act if I were good company.

Here’s a story the Sons of Norway won’t be highlighting anytime soon. One of the noted Norwegian-Americans we don’t talk about much was an Indiana farm woman named Belle Gunness. She was a celebrity in her time—one of America’s first known serial killers, and an example of the rare female variety at that. The University of Indianapolis has exhumed the body identified as hers after her house mysteriously burned down in 1908 (evidence is strong that it was another woman Belle murdered to fake her own death), along with Belle’s children (named Sorensen and Gunness due to multiple marriages), whom Belle probably poisoned to death before setting the fire. They’re going to do DNA tests to see if they’re all related or not. Continue reading The bell tolls for Belle, the troll

When words are eyes, Part 2

OK. Last night I pretended to know something about movies, and talked about the kind of subtle acting you used to see in good films—particularly the kind of acting that’s done with the eyes. The thing about eye acting (if I can call it that) is that it’s a sort of visual subtext. It’s not like in a script, where the directions say, “Rufus goes to the window and looks out.” The eye acting is something the actor himself adds, and it probably hasn’t been explicitly written out in the script.

So how can I claim that there’s an equivalent in fiction writing? If you can’t write it in a script, you can’t write it in a story either, right?

Well, not exactly. Continue reading When words are eyes, Part 2

When words are eyes: Part 1

I watched Once Upon a Time in the West on DVD again yesterday. As I’ve mentioned before, I’m kind of in awe of that film.

I have two options when I watch a film on DVD. I can play it on my computer monitor, which has higher resolution, but the speakers aren’t so great. Or I can watch it on my regular TV, where I run the sound through my stereo. (I haven’t sprung for HDTV yet.) This gives me the choice of good visuals or good sound, but not both at once.

This time I watched it on the computer, paying attention to the shapes and colors and people. And I noticed something I thought I could cobble into a couple posts. Tonight I’ll talk about movies and acting, and tomorrow I’ll stretch the point, in the manner of the Inquisition and the rack, and try to apply the principle to storytelling. Continue reading When words are eyes: Part 1

Tragic news: I’m not sick

Since I know you’ve been following my health avidly, I ought to tell you that I heard from my doctor, and she says I don’t have an ulcer.

This is actually a disappointment. Not only for the stupid reason I mentioned last night, but because I actually haven’t been feeling well, and I thought the treatment for the ulcer would improve my general wellbeing.

But I’m back to square one. Next week, another blood test, and then we’ll see what happens.

Beyond that, I got nuthin’ tonight. Have a good weekend.

Manifesto

Jared makes a good point on the Evangelical Manifesto released this week. “Evangelicalism won’t be reformed by a long document full of distinctions signed by a who’s who, particularly if that who’s who thinks signing this thing is one of the most meaningful things they can do.”

I wonder if this manifesto isn’t largely a reaction to the public statements of people like the Evangelical Environmental Network.