Friday, January 18, 2008

Ideas about Orthodoxy


I have some ideas about celebrating the 100th anniversary of the publication of Orthodoxy, but I wondered if you had any. What are your plans?

Will you:

1. Come to the conference?

2. Read Orthodoxy for the first time?

3. Re-read Orthodoxy?

4. Burn Orthodoxy?

5. Prepare a speech about Orthodoxy?

6. Write an article about Orthodoxy?

7. Join in a blog discussion about Orthodoxy?

What are your plans?

Thursday, January 17, 2008

Dr. Thursday's Post

An exploration of Orthodoxy: the beginning

One of my duties here in the E-cosmos, as in the outer, or Real world - yes, John Mayer, there really is such a thing, as I am sure he asserts every time he goes to cash his album royalty check. But then Chestertonians know that "No sceptics work sceptically." [GKC St. Thomas Aquinas CW2:542]

Sorry, I've wanted to say that for some time. (Incidentally I rather enjoy that song, but the philosophy is silly.) Ahem. I shall start again.

One of my duties here in the E-cosmos, as in the Real World, of which this blogg is just a small and unplottable fragment, is to provide an interesting counterbalance to certain topics. It gets me into hot water - but then (as GKC remarks) "I believe in getting into hot water. I think it keeps you clean." (ILN Mar 10 1906 CW27:142) Though it can be frustrating, for the audience as well as for me.

So, in keeping with this Chestertonian scheme of keeping clean by getting into hot water, I have decided to talk about 1908 and what happened then. Everyone knows that 2008 is the centennial of Orthodoxy, one of GKC's most important books - and I will begin my exploration in the usual Chestertonian way - by talking about something else. Like Father Brown.

Click here to continue reading.

You see, there is a very important centennial coming up in the Fall (I mean Autumn) of this year which may be slightly overshadowed by our celebration of the centennial of GKC's "slovenly autobiography". [CW2:215] That event was the Eucharistic Congress of 1908, held in London... or have you forgotten these stirring words?
Flambeau was in England. The police of three countries had tracked the great criminal at last from Ghent to Brussels, from Brussels to the Hook of Holland; and it was conjectured that he would take some advantage of the unfamiliarity and confusion of the Eucharistic Congress, then taking place in London.
[GKC, "The Blue Cross", The Innocence of Father Brown, emphasis added]
Yes, there really was a Eucharistic Congress in London - the nineteenth of such meetings, which are world-wide, and still being held - that one was held September 9-13, 1908. See here for some more about the amazing story.

Why do I start there? Because, though it may be hard to talk well about such a gigantic book as Orthodoxy, the one we shall examine closely throughout this year, it is necessary that we look into things in an upside-down, and a distant, an alien, an outsider kind of view. Otherwise, we shall get nowhere. We must imagine, in a sense, that WE are Flambeau. We are in England. Someone is after us. Actually two people. One, to arrest us and bring us to trial. (He, alas, shall face a different kind of trial before we do; but I cannot explain this allusion here.) Another, who is not so much following us, but in front of us, is trying to catch us with "an unseen hook and an invisible line"... for the Lord has made him a Fisher of Men. [See "The Queer Feet" in The Innocence of Father Brown]

Chesterton, in his own way, is also a fisher of men. And that is a distinctly Christian vocation. It is not only the priest who is called to this fishing. Nor does such fishing always involve nets! If we were proceeding to argue as Aquinas, we should indeed cite that Father Brown story about the thread.

Orthodoxy, you see, is one of the most potent of Chesterton's threads.

Our ACS president, Dale Ahlquist, and I have discussed the curious division of Chestertonians into those who seem to center on Orthodoxy and those who seem to center on The Everlasting Man. Some people read Orthodoxy first and then The Everlasting Man, and some do it the other way around. (Some haven't yet, lucky you! Get busy.) There is a debate - a silly, and rather half-hearted one - about which is "more important" or "more fundamental". (We do not debate it. We like them both.)

After some struggle, we have produced a shorthand explanation, to remove all doubt, and set the matter to rest:
Orthodoxy is about how GKC found it.

The Everlasting Man is about what he found. (Or, rather WHOM. Remember that "the Everlasting Man" is GKC's own title for Jesus Christ.)
So. Having settled another seeming paradox of "A OR B" by choosing "A AND B", as is my right, since I know Boolean Algebra, I shall now proceed to make a first examination of Orthodoxy. Every Chestertonian is going to be doing this during 2008. The whole Conference, according to last report, is going to be doing this. I can only hope to do it differently by trickery. I shall do it by NOT doing it, like Calvin (from the comic "Calvin and Hobbes") touching the "Opposite Pole", or as one sees the sun at night by its reflection from the moon. Or I shall do it like Valentin following Flambeau: that is, by following "the train of the unreasonable". I shall stop at odd things in the text, things others might stride past, and look at them by the light of the moon. So, let us begin, with the help of God.

Take, for example, the opening words of GKC's Orthodoxy:
This book is meant to be a companion to Heretics, and to put the positive side in addition to the negative. Many critics complained of the book called Heretics because it merely criticised current philosophies without offering any alternative philosophy. This book is an attempt to answer the challenge. It is unavoidably affirmative and therefore unavoidably autobiographical.
[GKC, Orthodoxy CW1:209]
First, we see that this book almost presumes that you have already examined GKC's earlier book, Heretics, in which he skewers some great names of his time - some still known, others forgotten except for their appearance within it. For example, the great playwright, George Bernard Shaw:
I am not concerned with Mr. Bernard Shaw as one of the most brilliant and one of the most honest men alive; I am concerned with him as a Heretic - that is to say, a man whose philosophy is quite solid, quite
coherent, and quite wrong.
[GKC, Heretics CW1:46]
Chesterton is not being a 21st century (or better, a 19th century) journalist, intent on throwing mud, or ink (since the streets have now been paved). He is being something far more amazing: a thirteenth century scholastic. He is aiming, not at the person, but at that person's ideas. GKC says GBS's philosophy (his ideas) are wrong - an important distinction.

In the same way, then, in Orthodoxy GKC is about to talk about some MORE ideas. But this time, those ideas which are RIGHT where those in his other volume were wrong - or perhaps I should be more precise to say these ideas are TRUE where the others are FALSE. (But we are not going to see an epistemological analysis here; do it yourself if you are that interested!)

It is important to note the strange humility here. GKC claims that the ideas we are about to see are "affirmative" - they state a truth. He immediately links this with himself - he uses that power-word "Therefore" and shows that (1) he is NOT setting forth a text on mathematics, which can be asserted by adherence to the learned rules; (2) he is not setting forth a text on "natural science" - on physics or such studies, which can be established by repetition of the experience of the matter being considered; (3) he is not setting forth a text on "theological science" which is a matter of contemplation (if not literal inspiration). He is not going to resort to an appeal to authority, which might turn into a fistfight. Nor is he doing the usual kind of writing which comes under the general head of Liberal Arts, which is usually just a presenting of excerpts from other writers on a given topic, and a reconsideration of the relevance or the accuracy of their work. (This may be just another form of the appeal to authority, which explains why so many lit'ry folk have black eyes. Hee hee.) All these things are good and worthy in their place, and GKC talks about all of them elsewhere, and almost always with respect.

No, here, GKC is trying to do something very difficult. He is going to tell us something about what HE believes, and how his thought got him to that particular belief. He is not, in the formal sense, "proving" something. He is giving an exposition of his own thought. It is therefore both affirmative and autobiographical.

Let us advance, just slightly, into the paragraph, skipping the mention of Newman - or I shall soon fill your hard disk with curiosities. Perhaps someday someone will explore the relation between Newman and Chesterton - it will be useful as well as inspiring. But let us go on, as there is one other blazing jewel to explore today:
It is the purpose of the writer to attempt an explanation, not of whether the Christian Faith can be believed, but of how he personally has come to believe it. The book is therefore arranged upon the positive principle of a riddle and its answer.
[GKC, Orthodoxy CW1:209]
People wonder about the link from GKC to JRRT - that is from the Master of Paradox to the Master of Hobbits and the Subcreator of Middle Earth, J.R.R. Tolkien. There are many points to explore (and topics for other days), and here is another point of contact. GKC sees the essential question of truth as a riddle. (remember Bilbo and Gollum?)

GKC had already begun pondering the marvellous Book of Job in the Bible - he wrote an introduction to it in 1907 - he begins it so: "The Book of Job is among the other Old Testament Books both a philosophical riddle and a historical riddle." [In GKC as M.C.] Even before that, in 1901, he knew it: "Every great literature has always been allegorical - allegorical of some view of the whole universe. The 'Iliad' is only great because all life is a battle, the 'Odyssey' because all life is a journey, the Book of Job because all life is a riddle." ["A Defence of Nonsense" in The Defendant] For Bilbo and Gollum, the Riddle game was considered "sacred" and "of immense antiquity"... it would be all too easy to explore this, and delay the issue at hand again. But I shall resist the Ring, the Ring-Maker, and all his works...

The riddle form, the question and answer, the challenge and response, the joke and the punchline... are these just the eastbound and westbound lanes of the turnpike, the systole and diastole, the input and output, the morning and evening terminators of the intellect? Or are they something more?

GKC means to find out. And we, please God, shall follow him as he explains his own study of his own experience, his own thought - and his own discovery.

Remember, the country of England is claimed to have been discovered by Gilbert Keith Chesterton. Yes, indeed. He claimed it himself. (We'll get to that line in a future episode.) Let us not be bothered by the dull history that others discovered it before him. Let us have the adventure, like Bilbo, and set off down the Road - which is also called the Way.

--Dr. Thursday.

PS. Come close to the screen, I have a secret to tell. I heard it as a secret; it was so written by a priest in a very rare newspaper. Here it is:

"One day while we were studying in Roma, we heard it whispered that the supreme joke of eternity consists of two parts - a question and an answer, like all the classic aphorisms - the two parts of course being the Old and New Testaments." [from "Humor and Its Basis in Reason" by Fr. A. Thomas, O.P. in Something Good to Read Vol. CXIV No. 230 (Feb. 11, 1998)]

So the next time someone asks you the silly old question about "Why did the Chicken Cross the Road" you will understand what the joke really is. And like GKC, you will feel the universe shift into rightness, even as it appears upside down! You will hear the song of the angels at Bethlehem, the cries at Calvary, the strange sounds of that Paschal Sunday which we now know are "Alleluias" - and the Great Noise which is the whisper of the Spirit. It's an adventure.

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Chesterton on the Cover of a magazine other than Gilbert?


I think I posted this already, but I can't find it. H/T: Joe G. Thanks, Joe!

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Chilly?


I wore my Chesterton University sweatshirt until it wore out. Almost every time I wore it, someone would stop me on the street, kind of pause and stare, and then say,
"Um, where is that? Because I'm from Chesterton [Indiana] and I didn't think there was a University there..."
I would reassure them it was about G. K. Chesterton and that it was sort of a joke about his writing being so universal and thorough, you could get a University degree just by reading him, etc.

But now, there is a new sweatshirt. A sweatshirt with Chesterton's name on it and a school's name, and the place is real. And by wearing this sweatshirt, you can really support the new school, and advertise for it to as you travel around the country.

It's only $32, and the proceeds go to help start up the school, a worthy cause. Buy one today and keep the winter chill away.

College Students: The Gilbert and Frances Scholarship

For entering and current students, especially those with a journalistic bent, please see the details here.

Deadline: March 31, 2008

Monday, January 14, 2008

Chesterton Academy Meeting: Opening Speech

It is worth taking the time to read this speech, and once again, I am envious of those lucky folks living in the St. Paul area. The Chesterton Academy is going to be a marvelous endeavor and blessing to those involved.

For those of us who cannot attend (because we're too old) or have children who cannot attend (because we live too far away) let's commit ourselves to praying for this worthy educational establishment, especially as it begins the journey.

A Tremendous Trifle: A GKC Pez Dispenser!

Thanks to John for alerting me to this very interesting Chestertonian Pez dispenser!

2 Chances to Win The Father Brown Reader: Stories from Chesterton


Love2Learn is celebrating it's 10th anniversary as a Catholic Homeschooling Resource website by giving away tons of books. This week, you have a chance to win my adaptation of the Father Brown stories, among many other books you could win. Entering the contest is so easy, just leave a comment in the comments box here (not here on this blog--sorry for the confusion).

Seton Hall University sponsors a very interesting set of talks

If you live in the New Jersey/New York area, you could get to these lectures.
How have different authors depicted Catholic life in their literature?

Seton Hall University will explore this question through “Saints and Sleuths II: Catholic Life in Literature.” The event, which spans two weekends in January, will feature dramatic readings of four literary works, along with commentary on each. Free and open to the public, it will be held at Theatre-in-the-Round in the Bishop Dougherty University Center. For more information, please call (973) 275-2431.

The event will include the following programs:

* January 18, 8 p.m. – Dramatic reading of The Chesterbelloc, by James P. McGlone. Commentary by Dr. John McCarthy.
* January 19, 8 p.m. – Dramatic reading of The Fallen Idols of Father Brown, adapted by John Dandona. Commentary by Reverend Ian Boyd, C.S.B., and Dr. Dermot Quinn.
* January 20, 2 p.m. – Dramatic reading of Newman’s The Parting of Friends, arranged by James P. McGlone. Commentary by Monsignor Thomas Ivory and Monsignor Richard Liddy.
* January 25, 8 p.m. – Dramatic reading of Canon Sheehan’s My New Curate, adapted by John Dandola. Commentary by Dr. Dermot Quinn and Monsignor Robert Emery.
* January 26, 8 p.m. – Repeat performance of My New Curate. Commentary by Monsignor Brendan Madden and Monsignor Kevin Flanigan.


“Saints and Sleuths II: Catholic Life in Literature” is sponsored by Seton Hall University’s Center for Vocation and Servant Leadership, G.K. Chesterton Institute for Faith & Culture, Center for Catholic Studies and Celtic Theatre Company.

The Surprise on DVD

I was just notified by EWTN that my order for The Surprise on DVD has shipped! Our family can't wait to see it again.

Our Man Chris Chan gets a mention

Chris's article criticizing the adaptations of Agatha Christie was noticed here.

Saturday, January 12, 2008

How to Be a Dunce--Part Two

I was thinking a little more about this post, and the comments people added, and I realized something I think is important that none of us mentioned.

I think Chesterton turned out OK because he had parents at home who loved him and stimulated his mind. So that even if he wasn't getting that at school, even if they all thought he was a dunce there in the school environment, at least at home, he was shining. He was brilliant. His parents treated him as if he had a good mind. They carried on nightly dinner table discussions. Gilbert and Cecil carried on lengthy debates and discussions. Mr. Chesterton read to them, did puppet theater with them, and, with his ever curious mind, was always tinkering with some new project of his own: Edward Chesterton wrote books, illustrated them, did photography (think: back then, photography wasn't the hobby it is today! He had a darkroom at home and everything), and his office was filled with every kind of invention.

Chesterton's mother adored him, and, like Edison's mother, believed in him even when the school didn't recognize his genius.

I think this home life is what saved Chesterton during his school years. And that, I believe is the difference between then and now. Now, if you have a child like Chesterton come through the school system, will he survive? There are precious few parents who engage with the children at home anymore. It's almost a relic of the past.

However, some children still manage. They discover, on their own, great writers or inventors or come upon something or someone that makes a difference in their lives.

Anyway, I just wanted to discuss the "home factor" in Chesterton's education.

Thursday, January 10, 2008

Another Chestertonian Health Update

Sean is doing much better, but keep those prayers coming. He is recovering from the infection, but must get a little better in order to have the surgery he needs to have. If he improves, he may have the surgery as soon as next week, so let's all keep him in our prayers for a speedy recovery from the infection. Thanks for asking about him.

Dr. Thursday's Post

Special Report - Boys' Adventures and a Second Christmas
I dedicate this essay to the memory of a truly great writer and adventurer, Bertrand R. Brinley.

In gratitude,
--Dr. Thursday
While I ought to continue the prolongation of Christmas by a special commentary on the upcoming (new-style) Baptism of the Lord, which is concurrently celebrated with the old-style Holy Family (First Sunday after Epiphany), I have had an interesting kind of Second Christmas, which, as you may see, might even play into the present liturgical scheme.

Just before the end of the year, I had to investigate something-or-other, and as all Chestertonians know about encyclopedias (TCM 240), one thing led to another. (Hmm, I think there is a rock song called that.) Yes, for me, it is as Bunny Watson (Katherine Hepburn) remarked to Richard Sumner (Spencer Tracey) in "Desk Set": "I associate many things with many things."

Ahem. This was somehow motivated by the discussion over in our bloggmistress's own blogg about children's literature, or (as GKC calls it) "Books for Boys". GKC's essay in The Common Man is very important to our topic - here is just a short excerpt:
The mental digestion of boys is as strong as their physical digestion. They do not heed the cookery of art any more than the art of cookery. They can eat the apples of the tree of knowledge, and they can eat them raw. It is a great mistake to suppose that boys only read boyish books. Not only do they privately revel in their sisters' most sentimental novels, but they absorb cartloads of useless information. One boy in particular, with whose career from an early age we have the best reasons for being familiar, used to read whole volumes of Chamber's Encyclopaedia, and of a very musty and unreliable History of English Trade. The thing was a mere brute pleasure of reading, a pleasure in leisurely and mechanical receptiveness. It was the sort of pleasure that a cow must have in grazing all day long. But when all allowance has been made for the omnivorousness of youth, we incline to think that there is probably a considerable amount of truth in the idea that boys' books have to some extent degenerated. They have degenerated probably for the reason that all forms of art degenerate, because they are despised. Probably they were less despised in the days when they still had upon them, as it were, the glamour of the great masters of historical romance. The spirit of Scott and Ainsworth and Fenimore Cooper remained in them even if it was only the reflection of a hundred reflections and each in a distorting mirror. No one will ever understand the spirit at the back of popular and juvenile literature until he realises one fact, that a large amount of it is the result of that enthusiasm of the young reader which makes him wish to hear more and more about certain heroes, and read more and more of certain types of books. He dowers the creatures of fiction with a kind of boyish immortality. He is not surprised if Dick Deadshot or Jack Harkaway renews his youth through a series of volumes which reaches further than the length of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. These books have the vital philosophy of youth, a philosophy in which death does not exist, except, indeed, as an external and picturesque incident which happens to villains.
[GKC, The Common Man 228-9]
Clearly, GKC liked and appreciated Books for Boys. In his other foundation-essay of this topic, he illuminates us further: "The essence of adventure stories, as Stevenson pointed out, is that the reader is himself the adventurer. He imagines himself sharing the combat and the comradeship..." [GKC, ILN Sept 23, 1922 CW32:450] These two elements, the seeming perpetual life, and the reader's sharing in the participation, stand at the foundation to this matter, and deserve some deep study - which I hope to return to. But for today I wish to go into another aspect of "Boy's Adventures".

Read more.

I claim that anyone - boy or girl - and this means readers of any age - can, should, and will delight in such stories. Rather than a sign of some distorted refusal to grow up, delight in "Boys' Stories" is far more a definite indication of authentic maturity. (Remember, "unless you change, and become LIKE little children..." - we can delve into THAT also another day!) Such books, when they are good, provoke a sharp, insistent interest. They motivate far better than those smarmy "Power" management posters one sees hung up in company lunchrooms. They display exemplars of honesty, confidence, chivalry, steadfastness, friendship - all the manly, Christian virtues - remember virtue derives from Latin vir = Man-the-male! Even a boy can "Be a man." (It is part of the paradox that a woman can be so without losing any of her innate femininity.) They hold up a mirror far more magical than Harry Potter's "Erised" or than that of the witch in Snow White - for this mirror shows a stark image of the Good Man, the Trusted Friend, the Honest Worker - all the virtuous and veiled heroes of the Heavenly Hall - and commands us to compare ourselves to them: how do we rank? It is a grave danger - but ought not be avoided, since its comparison is the safest path to improvement. (This "mirror" is nothing more than an examination of conscience in story-form.)

Not that such books are handbooks of Moral Theology! They are fiction, not scholarly texts. But then so are the parables of our Lord! Often there are unpunished crimes (the thieves in the Good Samaritan) unresolved threads (what the older brother of the Prodigal Son does) or other distasteful characters (the bad judge pestered by the widow)... But I am not here to argue the goodness of "Story" - whether given from divine or from human pens. I am simply trying to call attention to such things.

Nor ought the apparent bias of Boys (as distinct from Girls) be of concern. This is not that kind of matter. That particular subject which GKC considered one of the Great Secrets of All Humanity, because we ALL know about it, and yet do not ordinarily talk about its details in public (see ILN August 10, 1907 CW27:523 et seq for the whole discussion) is, by definition, out of bounds for such stories, except in the most distant, and always the most chivalrous, manner. Again, in our present day, there is far too much of this secret not being properly kept - and I need not mention it further. Which is one reason why such Literature is so good.

Another reason is the rightful placing of the "hard" matter of science and morality (yes, as Dorothy Sayers noted, there ARE six other deadly sins besides the one that has "adult" in its name!) Here's how GKC explains it:
...it was a mark of the old English school of boys' literature that the authors were full of scientific hobbies. Where they differed from the scientific futurists of to-day is that they never were tormented with the sceptical fancy that material changes must be accompanied by moral changes. The morality they expressed - or rather, assumed - was the sane and simple morality which is the soul of all adventures. Adventure involves loyalty because it involves purpose; it involves courage because it involves peril; it involves a certain receptiveness and readiness to be easily pleased because it involves making the best of anything. The modern story-teller is disturbed with a vague evolutionary notion that this morality can change. We can only say that, if it does change, there will be no adventure stories, and probably no adventures. Thus a real adventure story cannot be made on a certain moral or immoral model not uncommon in modern books. I mean the sort of story in which the hero is the villain. The hero need not be directly dealing in morality, but his own moral position must be by implication secure and satisfying; for it is the whole meaning of adventure that his soul is the fixed point in a wildly agitated world.
[GKC, ILN Sept 23, 1922 CW32:453]
Wow. But I seem to be drifting into a discussion of such Stories in general, and today I want to talk about some very specific stories. Specifically, the short stories by Bertrand R. Brinley, written in the early 1960s and first appearing in Boys' Life, about the Mad Scientists of Mammoth Falls.

These stories have been among my very favourites for decades. They were an important milestone along my path into science. Not that I haunted a house, or built a flying saucer, or dug up a dinosaur egg! But because they joined, in a very Chestertonian way, two ideas which would otherwise be seen as quite disjoint: the idea of science, and the idea of humor - or, even more general, the idea of having a Good Time with science. At first, you would expect that Chesterton, having died in 1936, could by no means have written anything at all on a story which first appeared in 1964 or so. But then, knowing our Mr. Chesterton as you should by now, you ought to expect that he did just about everything but name the book and its main characters. And behold: you would be right!
Some solemn and superficial people (for nearly all very superficial people are solemn) have declared that the fairy-tales are immoral; they base this upon some accidental circumstances or regrettable incidents in the war between giants and boys, some cases in which the latter indulged in unsympathetic deceptions or even in practical jokes. The objection, however, is not only false, but very much the reverse of the facts. The fairy-tales are at root not only moral in the sense of being innocent, but moral in the sense of being didactic, moral in the sense of being moralising. It is all very well to talk of the freedom of fairyland, but there was precious little freedom in fairyland by the best official accounts.
[GKC ILN Feb 29, 1908 CW28:53]
For, I regret to inform my friends who live in the Midwest area near the southwest end of Lake Michigan, Mammoth Falls is NOT in Illinois, or Wisconsin. it is in Fairy Land, and the boys battle the usual giants, sometimes with unsympathetic deceptions, and sometimes with practical jokes. But the point, as GKC lectures at length in his Orthodoxy, is that the Science (often termed "magic") of that land provides very little freedom. Perhaps this is why these scientists are "mad"...

It would be all too easy to construct parallels between the Seven Mad Scientists and their once-friend and arch foe, and GKC's Seven Members of the Council of the Days, and their opponent... but that is not the point here. Let the bible scholars sort this, as Ronald Knox sorted Holmes and the mystery of the variant Watsons. No, I am not trying that kind of literary exploration. It would be all too easy to critique the "science", the practicality, or the legality, of the antics of these young men. But that would be like trying to bring the Prodigal Son to the Sanhedrin for judgement... a silly and useless exercise, even for the moot of it. It would be all too easy to condemn, with all the fires of dragons, the explanations of how certain - er - technical tricks can be done - but any typical television show or movie provides far easier, and far more dangerous temptations.

No, I come not to critique, but to announce. I come with news of great joy. I am quite late at this, since it was old news even some years ago, but in this case, it is better late than never.

For me, 2007 was not only the year in which I read the final Harry Potter mystery, and learned the revelations akin to those of the Road to Emmaus (which I understand is JKR's favourite painting). It was also the year I learned that there were MORE stories about the Mad Scientists - more than the two books of short stories which I read long ago and keep happily on my Important Books shelf.

I said something about a second Christmas - it came last week, when I obtained the TWO OTHER BOOKS about the Mad Scientists - and they are full-length novels! The first is called The Big Kerplop! (referring to something which falls into Strawberry Lake from an Air Force jet). It is important because it gives the foundation of the Club, and many important details about the members, including the "casting out" of the enemy. The second is called The Big Chunk of Ice, and it has such a feel of Manalive and other Chesterton stories, it is hilarious as well as different - I can't easily give a good summary, nor do I want to, as that might spoil it.

Note - I am not connected with Purple House Press, the Brinleys, or anything related to these books - except as a reader and as one who delights in a friendship with the seven Mad Scientists. I would strongly urge you, whether you are a boy, have a boy brother, son, grandson, nephew, or neighbour, or have been a boy, or have known a boy - get these books, and read them. You do NOT have to be a scientist to like them, as you do not have to be a priest to like Father Brown, or a English journalist to like Chesterton. I think you will enjoy them - I hope you do. I did, and still do.

I said at the beginning of this ridiculously incoherent ramble that this topic of boy's books is connected to the liturgical epoch we are in. Well, that's a real stretch - or maybe it isn't. It sometimes seems quite misleading, as some may guess that Christ was baptised as an infant - but really! He was "about 30" at that time, and except for the glimpse at the Finding in the Temple, there is a good 18, if not 28 to 30 years about which we know nothing - or next to nothing. Hear again GKC on this, from his master reference to our Lord:
There are a great many things about it [the Gospel] which nobody would have invented, for they are things that nobody has ever made any particular use of; things which if they were remarked at all have remained rather as puzzles. For instance, there is that long stretch of silence in the life of Christ up to the age of thirty. It is of all silences the most immense and imaginatively impressive. But it is not the sort of thing that anybody is particularly likely to invent in order to prove something; and nobody so far as I know has ever tried to prove anything in particular from it. It is impressive, but it is only impressive as a fact; there is nothing particularly popular or obvious about it as a fable. The ordinary trend of hero-worship and myth-making is much more likely to say the precise opposite.
[GKC The Everlasting Man CW2:321]
It may be, as I have pointed out somewhere, that this was because He wished to be "full-grown" since the epiphyses of the clavicle do not fuse until then - the collarbone is the last of the long bones to "finish" being put together. Or it may be, as GKC continues in the above-quoted text, that "there is indeed something strange in the thought that the who of all humanity needed least preparation seems to have had most. Whether it was some mode of the divine humility, or some truth of which we see the shadow in the longer domestic tutelage of the higher creatures of the earth, I do not propose to speculate; I mention it simply as an example of the sort of thing that does in any case give rise to speculations, quite apart from recognised religious speculations." [Ibid CW2:321-2]

But the reason could be simpler. What was He doing? Well! As an embryo, a fetus, an infant, a toddler, a lad, He grew - and He learned. He was busy. And after he grew and learned, He was working - as we all do. He was with His family, doing the family things. And in the end, He like the Mad Scientists, went and "battled giants", sometimes with "unsympathetic deceptions" and sometimes with what were nearly "practical jokes". Yes, there are still giants to fight. Sometimes, laughter is the best weapon: "The child or the boy is quite right in believing that there really is a dragon somewhere, and that the harder he is hit the better." [GKC ILN Sept 23 1922 CW32:454]

Wednesday, January 09, 2008

Chesterton Monologue to Watch

http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=dc2a6340e258630febd5
I tried to get the video embedded, but I just couldn't do it. So, to see it, click on the above link.

How to Be a Dunce

Chesterton's case showed how he slunk through the educational system without much notice. One teacher claimed that under his skull was a big white lump of fat. And Gilbert seemed to make some effort at trying to hide his brilliance, trying to stay out of the range of official attention.

I wonder how many kids today are attempting this same path through our educational system.

What happens if they shine? They get put in "Superior Ability" classes and given more work. So why shine?

What happens if they're "getting it"? They are made to tutor other kids or do examples in front of everyone. So why admit you get it?

What happens if they're a good kid? They get made into a "mentor" for a not-so-good kid and have to hang with that person who doesn't want them to be with them. So why be visibly good?

What do teachers do with a student like Chesterton? What could they do? What should they do? Would Chesterton's life turned out better if the educational system had been different? Or, was it ok that he slunk through those years with his face hidden from the English teacher, who might discover his love of words and sounds?

Tuesday, January 08, 2008

Karen Edmisten: Recent Reading: The Father Brown Reader

Karen has a lovely review of the Father Brown Reader, thanks so much Karen, I'm glad you and the children enjoyed them!

Monday, January 07, 2008

Mixed Media

In general, the media tows the PC line, so it wouldn't be surprising that they would be in favor of a Democratic candidate. This year they have a double chance to be even more PC because they have the chance to support both a minority and another minority. They should be in their glory.

And so I find it curious that the story they want is that Hillary cries or shows emotion. Do they find that so amazing, that she's a woman and a person to boot? I mean, headlines because her voice quavers? Give me a break! Would they do this to a man?

So, they want her, but they don't want her to show her feelings. They want her to act like a man because she's tough. Sure she's tough, but think of the pressure she's under. Most of us would crack. I would. Of course, I'd be running for the other side.

Saturday, January 05, 2008

Dallas Optimistic about Mr. Huckabee and Iowa


Mr. Obama and Mr. Huckabee both have the potential to bring about a clean break with the hyper-partisan politics of the recent past. You could see this in their gracious, hopeful victory speeches. Quoting the English writer G.K. Chesterton, Mr. Huckabee said, "A true soldier fights not because he hates those who are in front of him, but because he loves those who are behind him." Mr. Obama's remarks were in the same generous spirit. It's thrilling to see two happy warriors prevail in such an important battle.

The presidential primary races are far from over, of course. But come what may, it's hard to shake the sense that a new era in American political history has begun. Dallas Morning News, 01/-5/08

Friday, January 04, 2008

Chesterton Getting a Lot of Press Today

Mike Huckabee quoted G.K. Chesterton last night in his victory speech, and so everyone today is talking about Chesterton. They may even be wandering over here to see what we think of it.

We think it is great that Chesterton is quoted and even better if the quote is understood, and even better if it leads to people reading more than just one quote of Chesterton's.

So, if you're here because of Mr. Huckabee, welcome! Sit down, grab a cup of coffee, and peruse the site. Take a look at our mother-site, the American Chesterton Society, and especially the quotes and extras. Buy a book, tape or make a donation. Thanks!

UPDATE: Well, I heard from reliable sources that my source wasn't reliable, so I'm glad to know that wasn't how he really sounded last night.