hgoodman's blog

Sometimes a line from a book or story makes me laugh out loud. (This can be embarrassing if I'm running while listening to an audio book.)

I'll show you what I mean.

There's this one, from "The Cheapjack," a short story by Frank O'Connor:

"Now, Carmody was a conceited young man who thought that everything about himself was of such importance that it had to be recorded for the benefit of posterity."

What would Frank O'Connor say about our blogging, twittering world?

Or this one, from The Moonstone by Wilkie Collins:

"My daughter Penelope has just looked over my shoulder to see what I have done so far. She remarks that it is beautifully written, and every word of it true. But she points out one objection. She says what I have done so far isn't in the least what I was wanted to do. I am asked to tell the story of the Diamond, and, instead of that, I have been telling the story of my own self. Curious, and quite beyond me to account for. I wonder whether the gentlemen who make a business and a living out of writing books ever find their own selves getting in the way of their subjects like me. If they do I can feel for them. In the mean time, here is another false start. What's to be done now? Nothing that I know of, except for you to keep your temper and for me to begin it all over again for the third time.

"The question of how I am to start the story properly I have tried to settle in two ways. First, by scratching my head, which led to nothing. Second, by consulting my daughter Penelope, which has resulted in an entirely new idea."

What would an editor say to a beginning like that? Also, I'd like to answer the gentleman's question: yes, we who make a living telling stories often find our own selves getting in the way of our subjects.

Then there's this tidbit from the poem "Change" by Louis Jenkins:

"It's more difficult nowadays to deal with
the speed of change, disturbing to suddenly find
yourself brushing your teeth with what appears
to be a flashlight."

That elicited a good belly laugh.

"This is the same daughter-in-law who stole your grandmother’s china right from your house?” a woman in the table behind mine says.

I dig my Nancy Drew notepad from my purse to jot down this tidbit.

A second voice chimes in. “Wait. She stole your china? Why?”

“To sell it on Craig’s list, if you can believe that.” This from the offended woman, apparently.

I consider asking my lunch partner to switch seats with me to better see the facial expressions and hand gestures. But I don’t think I could hear as well from her seat.

“Did she tell you that?”

“No! Get this—you know how I love finding odds and ends on Craig’s List, right? Well, I just happened to see this china that looked exactly like my grandmother’s, so I clicked on it out of curiosity. I didn’t even know mine was gone at that point.”

Read the rest at The Master's Artist.

I'm a little late on the up-take, but I'd like to offer the following verses to honor my biological mother and my spiritual mothers:

"Honor your father and mother" is the first commandment that has a promise attached to it, namely, "so you will live well and have a long life." Ephesians 6:2-3

Jesus responded, "Who do you think are my mother and brothers?" Looking around, taking in everyone seated around him, he said, "Right here, right in front of you--my mother and my brothers. Mark 3:33-34

Obedience is thicker than blood. The person who obeys my heavenly Father's will is my brother and sister and mother. Matthew 12:50

As a mother comforts her child, so I'll comfort you. You will be comforted in Jerusalem. Isaiah 66:13

[Jesus said,] "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killer of prophets, abuser of the messengers of God! How often I've longed to gather your children, gather your children like a hen, Her brood safe under her wings--but you refused and turned away!" Luke 13:34

Birds tweeting (in nature, not on Twitter) interrupt the Boardwalk sounds.

It's not a real Boardwalk carnival, mind you. The children at recess in the elementary school a couple of blocks from my house sound no different from children running around the wooden slats with dripping ice cream cones. The construction machines (at same elementary school) sound like roller coasters winding up, taking their cars to the top of hill before releasing them to adrenaline.

And the cars rushing down the major street four blocks from my house become the waves cresting, crashing, and rolling back into the arms of Mother Ocean.

In this carnival, I write today.

This is my backyard studio.

(Pretend you don't see the magazine that's not distracting me from my writing. Not at all.)

Butterflies, birds, and squirrels keep me company. (Yes, the squirrels and I have declared a cease-fire for the moment. That's how beautiful this day is.)

The morning dove who's taken up residence in our gutters

She's shy. I had a hard time catching this shot.

Red-breasted something-or-other: That's the official species name.

I just watched this little sheila grab an earthworm from my garden (no! I need those earthworms!) and swallow half of it. She bounced toward me with the other half hanging out of her beak as if offering it to me. Too bad the memory card from my camera was in the computer. 

This is my last blog post in the trilogy (because trilogies are a nice round series) of politically charged (shocking? electrifying? electrocuted?) blog posts (introduction--On Politics: Taking Christ to a Bull Fight--to my questions about the possibilities of a just war--Only War.)

Politically and historically speaking, liberalism means "leave me alone." It carries the idea that I can make better choices for myself than you can make for me. This implies that Republicans are liberal when it comes to money and business (we can make the best choices for ourselves for both our individual finances and our nation's businesses in a free market capitalist system with as little governance as possible) and conservative (to use what has come to be the antonym of liberal) when it comes to moral issues (such as abortion and marriage), meaning we prefer government to step in to help guide people in morals, and when it comes to military.

Democrats are conservative, then, in the issues of finance and business (businesses need regulations to keep them in check, and this has implications for personal finances) and liberal in moral issues (individuals have the right to choose whether they live in heterosexual or homosexual relationships, for example).

Of course, the lines are not cut and dry. For example, where does an individual's right to bear arms fall? If we say it is a moral right, meaning we prefer the government to step in to help guide people for their own safety and for the safety of others, then we can see how the Republicans and Democrats flip on this issue compared to how they would normally fall in regards to moral issues.

And several issues arise when Republicans and Democrats see the underlying problem as different. Democrats argue that in the case of business regulations (e.g. in the insurance policies lately put into place) it stems from a moral problem, namely that the businesses are doing moral harm to people. This, of course, has financial implications for the individual. Republicans, while agreeing that the medical insurance business needs fixing, would argue that government has overstepped its bounds when it comes to their role, which should be a minimal one in finances and business. Government should take on a more liberal approach here, according to Republicans.

And then there's the issue of immigration. In general, both parties agree that the system is broken. The Republicans I've spoken to don't begrudge immigrants; in fact, they want to welcome them with open arms, provided they come legally. These Republicans (1) want to be fair to the immigrants who have come over legally and (2) recognize that something in our system should change to help more immigrants be able to be here legally. They are conservative in this issue, interestingly enough, for both safety issues (to help protect the citizens and legal residents of the U.S.) and financial issues (immigrants should be paying taxes to help run the country whose services they use). So they ask the government to step in for these reasons.

Democrats want a more hands-off approach for moral reasons (we are all immigrants and we should welcome those who need better opportunities to provide for their families), but there may be a bit of moral liberalism in here as well (don't tell people what to do or how to live).

Or so the environment issue: Republicans call for a hands-off, or liberal, approach to give businesses more free reign to develop (believing that people will in general weed out that which is corrupt and choose that which is moral; or perhaps believing that that which is corrupt must ultimately fail; or perhaps believing that we shouldn't impose our morals here) while Democrats call for moral regulations (believing also, perhaps, that as we guide them morally it will bring about the best for our country financially, which also results in better financial opportunities for individuals).

Keep in mind that at this point, I'm not arguing if the policies being put into place are the best way to accomplish these goals. I only want to sort out what the goals are and which goals I should approve or work toward in light of my religious sensibilities.

If I have a somewhat proper understanding of this, I'd like to get to my question: Keeping in mind that how I vote will not bring God's kingdom to earth because God's kingdom does not come via America, how can I vote in line with God's kingdom? If my Christian values and morals come from an understanding of what God says is best for humans, humanity, and all creation on the one hand, but I also believe that these morals and values are empty and to some extent unachievable without the Holy Spirit (though I would also argue that the Imago Dei, corrupt though it may be, allows humans to act in good ways, too), how much should I impose my Christian values and morals on people who aren't Christians (whether for what I believe is their own good, for the good of those around them, or for the good of creation)? 

If I believe that my Christian value calls for hospitality toward the stranger and alien, shouldn't I err on the side that risks protection of country?

If I believe God calls humans to take care of creation, shouldn't I vote for government regulations on polution, what kind of cars we make, how we build our houses, even if it makes things more difficult for businesses?

If I believe that abortion is fundamentally killing another human being because life begins at conception, shouldn't I ask government to step in and limit rights here, much like I ask it to limit the rights of thieves and murderers? Shouldn't I ask them to also stem stem-cell research because of how it harms individuals? Shouldn't I ask them to outlaw certain infertility practices that harm individuals?

How extreme do we take this: Should we outlaw adultery? Divorce? After all, both of these moral issues affect families, individuals, children, and communities. Should government limit rights here to protect our nation's morals?

When do we correct people and businesses when they're wrong, and when do we step back and allow them to make their own choices?

Discuss.

 This week's Popinjay is being hosted over at Candid Karina's. Theme = content. So many choices.

Both pictures are from a recent trip to the Dallas Arboretum. The first, my husband took, but since we are one (see wedding vows for proof), I figure it's not cheating. Plus, I took the second picture, so it's all good. 

Nancy Drew is 80 years old this week.

Which makes the fact that she's still driving around in a convertible with blonde (or strawberry blonde, depending on which books you read) hair and wheedling her dad to get involved with cases just weird.

But I love Nancy. She's one of the women who taught me to stay up all hours of the night reading. And she taught me to break the rules. For example, there's a lot of looming in Nancy Drew books. That's a big no-no in today's writing world.

One of my biggest disappointments in life was discovering that Carolyn Keene was not a woman but a collection of writers, some of whom were men. I suppose that's what you get when you have a last name like Keene.

But I still reread my books. They were handed down to me from my mom (who still claims she lent them to me).

So here's to Nancy. May you live another 80 years to inspire little girls in new adventures.

It's not the first time it's been asked. In fact, I've seen the question floating out in the cyber world quite often.

What would you tell the 16-year-old you?

At first, I couldn't come up with a good answer. What if a simple statement to the 16-year-old me so altered my path that I ended up a completely different person?

Then I realized that even if I came up with something stellar, it wouldn't work anyway for two reasons.

First, the 16-year-old me would have been so shocked and disappointed that the thirty-something-year-old me isn't accomplishing the plans she so clearly laid out. Why would she listen to this hack?

Second, I had people in my life telling me what I would have said anyway--my parents, my youth leaders, my friends, my parents' friends. Sure, I could tell her to stress less, but so did other people (and clearly, I didn't listen to them very well).

Not everyone had this upbringing, I understand. Which is why, instead of asking what we would have told our 16-year-old selves, we should ask what should we tell the 16-year-old next to us.

So what would you tell the 16-year-old in your neighborhood?

A few words from writers today on novels and on writing:

But there is a certain diffidence about me, not very obvious socially, to my own mind, that prevents me from going all out, as you call it. I assemble the dynamite but I am not ready to touch off the fuse. Why? Because I am working toward something and have not yet arrived. I once mentioned to you, I think, that one of the things that made life difficult for me was that I wanted to write before I had sufficient maturity to write as "high" as I wished and so I had a very arduous and painful apprenticeship and still am undergoing it. This journeyman idea has its drawbacks as well as its advantages. It makes me a craftsman--and few writers are that--but it gives me a refuge from the peril of final accomplishment. "Lord, pardon me, I'm still preparing, not fully a man as yet."

- Saul Bellow (in a letter to David Bazelon about Bellow's novel, The Victim), emphasis mine

The burden of [Frank O'Connor's] criticism is that fiction has not been faithful to Stendhal's definition of the novel as a mirror dawdling down a road. Instead it has insisted upon going behind the mirror, becoming self-absorbed and indifferent to that crowd which it had once brilliantly particularized . . . On the whole, he regretted this development. What he longed for was candor, not circumlocution, cards on the table rather than held close to the chest. For this reason and others, he could not approve of Joyce, feeling that when artistic method had become so dominating life was lost. He liked and practiced a more open confrontation.

- Richard Ellmann about Frank O'Connor in his introduction to O'Connor's Collected Stories

War. What is it good for?

After a few silly days, I'd like to return to my political questions for discussion. Because right now, I have just that. Questions.

Question of the day: can or should Christians engage in war?

When Peter cut off a soldier's ear to defend his Lord, Jesus told him, "Put your back sword in its place! For all who take hold of the sword will die by the sword."

Earlier in that same evening, however, Jesus told them to make sure they had a sword as they went out into the world:

Then Jesus said to them, “When I sent you out with no money bag, or traveler’s bag,or sandals, you didn’t lack anything, did you?” They replied, “Nothing.” He said to them, “But now, the one who has a money bag must take it, and likewise a traveler’s bag too. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was counted with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me is being fulfilled.” So they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” Then he told them, “It is enough.”

Seriously, Jesus. Which one is it? Should I carry the sword or put it away?

And even if Jesus told them to take their swords, we have no evidence throughout Acts that they used them for protection. In fact, we see just the opposite. We see Jesus' followers persecuted and martyred unjustly and without physically defending themselves.

Let's throw another monkey in the barrel. Jesus and his disciples came into contact with soldiers in their ministry, but no where do we see them tell the soldiers to abort their office. In fact, when soldiers approached John the Baptist and asked him what they should do to prefer for the coming kingdom, he told them, "Take money from no one by violence or by false accusation, and be content with your pay."

In other words, do your job well and with integrity.

He did not tell them to stop being soldiers for the Roman empire.

Finally, in Isaiah 3, when Isaiah is talking about the future glory of Jerusalem, he says, "They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks." In other words, the instruments of war will be used for production. One might argue that this is a future time. It does not characterize today. But throughout the book of Isaiah, the prophet argues that we should live in light of the future. Our character should reflect what we know to be true about the future.

Does this mean we live as pacifists now?

The heart of this, I believe, comes from how we understand and live out two ideas: (1) Love your enemies and do good to those who persecute you, and (2) protect the helpless.

Here, in specific, are my questions regarding war:

Is there such a thing as a just war? If so, what constitutes a just war? What does this mean for the war in the Middle East, specifically against terrorists, especially since they oppress others in their own countries? (I admit that the reasons for this war are complex, and not all the reasons include protection of others. But for my purposes here, I'd like to examine only this reason.) Also, in light of the past and continuing terrorist attacks across the world, are we mandated to protect loved ones from possible threats? (If the Bible says to take up the case of the helpless, I would assume that his includes one's own children, as well as the children of strangers both in this nation and in other nations.) How far do we go to protect loved ones? How far do we go to free the oppressed? What does it mean to free the oppressed? Is God asking us to set up democracies across the world? 

Discuss.