Book review: The Essential It's a Wonderful Life by Michael Willian

The third book I read in 2020 is The Essential It's a Wonderful Life: A Scene-by-Scene Guide to the Classic Film by Michael Willian.  "It's a Wonderful Life" is one of our favorite Christmas movies, and this book walks through the film scene by scene, giving behind-the-scenes information and pointing out small mistakes.  There is also an extensive quiz to test your knowledge of the film.

If you enjoy "It's a Wonderful Life," you will enjoy reading this book.

Book review: The Beginning of Politics by Moshe Halbertal and Stephen Holmes

The second book I read in 2020 is The Beginning of Politics: Power in the Biblical Book of Samuel by Moshe Halbertal and Stephen Holmes.  Halbertal and Holmes address First and Second Samuel (and the first two chapters of First Kings) as literature, casting their anonymous author as a proto-Machiavelli, discussing the Israelite monarchy from the perspective of realpolitik.

The authors emphasize the unique quality of kingship in Israel: unlike virtually all other societies of the time, the origin of the monarchy isn't shrouded in myth; neither is it divinely ordained.  On the contrary, the book of Samuel presents a society that did not have a king and presents a mundane and historical account of how it came to have one, actually against the advice of the deity.

"In the Samuel narrative, both the shift away from the political theology of the Book of Judges and the initial appearance of monarchy in Israel are presented as events occurring in human history. They do not belong to the mythic past. The biblical king, enthroned before our eyes, is a thoroughly human being, not a God. He is not a pillar of the cosmic order. He plays a negligible and wholly dispensable role in religious ritual, does not convey divine commands to his people, does not maintain the order of nature, and is not the prime lawgiver." 

Halbertal and Holmes's assertion is that the very concept of politics was birthed when the people went to Samuel and demanded a king.  Surrounded by societies which declared that "the king is a God" and rejecting Judges's assertion, mostly explicitly stated by Gideon that "God is the king," the Israelites invent a third concept: "the king is not a God."  This revolutionary statement, no less than the Roman's rejection of Tarquin and invention of a res publica, laid the foundation for the modern world.

The author of Samuel presents an honest, demythologized account of the beginning of the monarchy which depicts, in Halbertal and Holmes's minds, the necessary evils endemic to all politics, particularly the reversal of means and ends: sovereign power is necessary as a means to accomplish the end of protecting the nation but ends up being an end in its own right to those desperate to hold on to that sovereign power (Saul) or pass it on undiminished to their chosen heirs (David). 

Book review: The Idol of Our Age by Daniel J. Mahoney

The first book I read in 2020 is The Idol of Our Age: How the Religion of Humanity Subverts Christianity by Daniel J. Mahoney.  The general premise of the book is that humanitarianism has become a secular religion which is not synonymous with Christianity.  I had hoped that this book would give me a better vantage point on an issue I have had with recent books by Christian authors published by Christian imprints which seem to arrive at the same ends as secular publications; i.e., that Christians should work toward the betterment of vulnerable minorities' earthly lives. 

Unfortunately, I was disappointed in this book. For one, it is quite dry and academic.  It surveys selected writings by Orestes Brownson, Vladimir Soloviev, and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (favorably)  and Pope Francis and Jurgen Habermas (unfavorably), but there is little if any argument why the former is better than the latter, save that the one agrees with the author and the other doesn't.

In addition, Mahoney fails to follow through on his subtitle.  How does humanitarianism subvert Christianity?  It's not until page 68 that he gets around to hinting at an answer.  I believe his point is that humanitarianism serves as a demythologized Christianity, leading culture to identify Christianity with "doing good" and, thus, ultimately to discard the actual beliefs of Christianity as unnecessary, irrelevant, and, in the modern mind, sometimes downright antithetical to the real work of Christianity, which is to make the world a better place.  I think this is what he's saying -- but it would be really great if the point promised in the subtitle received more than a glancing reference halfway through the book.

What vaguely justifies the price of purchase is Mahoney's reprint in the appendix of "The Humanitarian versus the Religious Attitude," a 1944 essay by Aurel Kolnai which served as an intellectual jumping-off point for the book and thus should really have been printed first with Mahoney's amplifications as an appendix.  Kolnai, while no less academic in prose, does provide distinctions between the two attitudes of the title and draws out the possible implications for societies based on one over and against the other.  It is interesting that, at the time Kolnai was writing, he saw the humanitarian society tending toward the general welfare of the majority over and against individual rights.  Today, of course, the rights of the distinct individual reign supreme -- but it's unsurprising, given the historical trends on display in 1944, that Kolnai saw the future as collectivism, and he does point out that both tendencies to both extremes are compatible with humanitarianism, that is, with making humanity and its perceived needs, whether collectively or individually, the basis for moral judgments.

It's a shame that this book isn't more accessible and clear, as I believe the distinction between humanitarian orthopraxy and religious orthodoxy is important to observers of society today.  It's an important concept to keep in mind, along with Will Herberg's Protestant Catholic Jew, in relation to statistics showing the "decline" of religious faith since the mid-twentieth century. For many in the 1950s, memberships in a religious institution had to do with "doing good" more than with supernatural beliefs (witness Dick Van Dyke's abandonment of organized religion because his church wasn't progressive enough in its policies); it's not clear that statistics of religious decline measure much more than people finding other socially-endorsed methods of charity without a supernatural belief system tacked on. 

The world is not lacking for those who identify religion with its material outcomes on human lives.  From Felix Adler, the Reformed Jew who "called for an end to the trappings of ritual and theology and for a universal religion steeped in morality" in 1874 to Jim Wallis, founder of Sojourners magazine, who says "that for him, being a Christian means taking care of the poor, immigrants, and other marginalized communities."  This is how Christianity (or Judaism) is subverted, by making them about what people do rather than about what God does.

The Anti-Family Culture

Motherhood seems to be having an anti-moment in popular culture this holiday season.  I was struck by this sentiment expressed by Jessica Hausner, director of a new woman-centric horror movie, in last Thursday's Wall Street Journal: "We're still living in a society where we all expect a mother to love her child, more than her job....  I think this needs to be adjusted."

My first thought was, "Yes, of course a mother should love her child more than her job.  How awful to think she might not."

My second thought was, "Why does gender come into this at all?  Don't we also expect a father to love his child more than his job?  If not, why all the furor that's been expended over workaholism, deadbeat dads, various Fatherhood movements?"

My third thought was, "Wait, this sounds familiar...."  Because I had just read a review of another current movie, starring two of the hottest stars in Hollywood, that claimed the movie expressed the same argument: "...the only way “equality” can work is if both parents can pursue their respective career ambitions, no matter the fallout."  

And I had also just read a review of an Emmy-winning TV show, in which the main character tearfully proclaims in divorce court, "I just can't be a wife right now."

In both movie and television show, a married couple with small child(ren) amicably divorce so that the woman can pursue her career.  Which I guess can be seen as believable in the short term, if you're a (checks fictional characters in question) research geneticist, actress/director, or stand-up comedian.  But that's definitely the 1% of women.  What if, instead, you're the nanny, school teacher, or day care worker whose job is to care for the children the 1% are too important and self-actualized to care for?  Are you then supposed to love your job (rich people's children) more than your own children?  

Or, at some point, somewhere far enough down the socio-economic ladder, is it okay for a woman to enjoy her family more than her job?  Or, for that matter, a man?

On the international beat

 A couple of items that grabbed my attention in the news today:

• For those who say one man can't make a difference, "since [Pablo] Esobar's death [in 1993], the homicide rate in Medellin has dropped 90 percent." Source: World Magazine April 27, "Mountain Movers"
• Following the Easter bombings, "[t]he Archbishop of Colomba, Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith, called on Sri Lanka's government to 'mercilessly' punish those responsible 'because only animals can behave like that.'"  Undoubtedly echoing Christ's words on the cross, "Father, mercilessly punish them because only animals can behave like that."  While making allowances for the heat of the moment, I can only hope that he's going to look back on that statement someday and cringe. Source: AP

Book review: The King of Attolia by Megan Whalen Turner

The twenty-second book I read in 2019 was The King of Attolia, the third book in Megan Whalen Turner's Queen's Thief series.  One sometimes hears it said of a book that the reader "couldn't put it down."  That is very nearly literally true of this book.  I began reading it last night, picked it up again this morning, and had to force myself to put it down long enough to go the grocery store and various other things I had to get done today.  I just wanted to keep reading and find out what happens!

By this point in the series, I have learned enough to trust that Eugenides has a plan and is on top of things, no matter what my appear to be happening around him, but it's still exhilarating simply to find out exactly how far ahead of the game he is and how he is going to triumph.

Book review: I'll Be There for You by Kelsey Miller

The eighteenth book I read in 2019 was I'll Be There for You: The One about Friends by Kelsey Miller.  The book is, as advertised, a look back at the hit TV show. 

Parts of it were fun, like information about the auditions and who might have gotten the iconic roles.  (At one point, it was conceivable it could have been a Facts of Life reunion, with Jo as Monica and Blair as Rachel.)  Unfortunately, after the first season or two, Miller stops mentioning specific episodes and moments and breezes over most of the on-screen product to focus on contract negotiations, which, yeah, I was there, and I know it was a big deal that the cast's solidarity wrung concessions from a network used to pitting actors against one another, but it's really not that interesting to revisit every time the actors demand a raise.

More frustrating, the author spends an inordinate number of chapters criticizing the twenty-five-year-old show for not being "woke" enough for modern sensibilities.  SHUT UP, Millennials; go stab each other in the back for thoughtcrime and leave GenX alone.