What are you reading?

[Technomancer]

The Black Dahlia by James Ellroy. I'd certainly recommend the book over the movie. I realize that in order to make it work as a film, a few changes had to be made and most of those changes worked. However, several changes were unnecessary (such as the wholly pointless musical number) and ultimately detracted from the feel of the movie. Plus, Ellroy's prose is gold.

[SnoringFrog]

Around the World in Eighty Days by Jules Verne.

[uc pseudonym]

JasonPratt: I like the way you read.

[quote="JasonPratt"]The author's thesis can be divided into three parts: that 16:8 was not the original ending (his best point, and frankly conceded by almost everyone but certain literary critics whose job is to get what meaning _can_ be gotten from the text as it stands)]
1) Old news, really, though not without merit. I personally don't feel this conclusion makes a great deal of difference to the central theme of Mark's Gospel.
2) Hm, this theory I have not heard. Is he the first one advancing it? I might have to look into the book out of curiosity, though again, I don't think it is critical to the overall message (I actually had to look up how Mark starts).
3) Also interesting. Is he making an ideological point with that or does he just think it happened?

[Sai]

I just read the communist manifesto. It was really good (sarcasm).

[JasonPratt]

1) Old news, really, though not without merit. I personally don't feel this conclusion makes a great deal of difference to the central theme of Mark's Gospel.
2) Hm, this theory I have not heard. Is he the first one advancing it? I might have to look into the book out of curiosity, though again, I don't think it is critical to the overall message (I actually had to look up how Mark starts).
3) Also interesting. Is he making an ideological point with that or does he just think it happened?

1) Not entirely sure what you meant by 'conclusion'--the conclusion of 16:8 as it stands? The inference drawn by N. Clayton Croy (the book's author) about the ending being incomplete?

Part of Croy's argument on this point (which has certainly been shared by most Markan commentators, pro or con, up through the first part of the 20th century), is that the 16:8 ending as it stands totally violates thematic expectations established by Mark in the work up to that point. This agreement is even largely shared by more modern commentators working from a presupposition to accept the text as it is, since they frequently then go on to derive some kind of useful (or at least interesting) meaning from the radical inversion of expectation. Personally, I never thought that much about it--and I pride myself on being fairly astute as a literary critic. {wry g} Having thought about it, though, I have to agree, the ending as it stands (whether intentionally done that way by John Mark, whom I readily take to be the author, though for reasons which I think are unique in scholarship so far) does radically reverse virtually every expectation he has managed to produce up to this point. If he did it on purpose, then we have evidence of a modern style almost as striking as finding that he had invented breakdancing as a genre--meaning it would be foreign to any but the most esoterically minded of his readers.

(Though I do have to admit, I think the Markan author _is_ trying to prep the reader to accept something under the radar, and against their current expectations, earlier in the book--something I myself suspect he tried to complete his account by _clarifying_, and was authoritatively nicked by someone for doing so. But that's another theory. {g})


2) I also hadn't heard of GosMark's beginning being truncated or otherwise mutilated. However, it turns out to be fairly common as a theory in the field, all across the theological spectrum. I don't think the evidence for it is _quite_ as good as for (1), but it's strong enough to be interesting and provocative, and I have to admit I don't have a better theory myself.


3) Croy's book is very free from making ideological points at all. (The closest he comes is when discussing how the current ending of GosMark ideologically reverses themes set up by John Mark; but that's a stylistic argument, not something for application by the reader.) I can see his conclusion being a serious problem for some kinds of inerrancy doctrines, though, especially ones involving as a corollary the protection of the texts by equally authoritative subsequent record-keeping.

(That kind of inerrancy theory, or doctrine, can survive the established facts of drifting material, by appealing to the notion that everything in the original autographs _is_ in fact available for restoration from preserved sources, even if the individual sources themselves cannot be entirely relied upon as being essentially duplicates of the original autographic works. But that particular type of doctrine would not survive either the intentional suppressioin or the accidental loss, apparently forever, of a piece of one of the original authoritative accounts. Other types of inerrancy theory, of course, would be able to deal with this as well. But this starts to lead into the question of just how far we should call something 'inerrant' when we're qualifying its accuracy. {s} Which I would rather not get into here.)


Croy does think it just happened, by accident as it were. Myself, I think there is internal evidence to support a thrust by Mark toward a conclusion that would be disconcerting to his readers (but which he felt honorbound to gently prep them for and correct them on); and that the account breaks off _precisely_ at one point where he would have clarified his intent on this. Croy discounts more-or-less out of hand the notion of intentional suppression of the end of the work, with barely any analysis; but then, he doesn't seem to have picked up on this aspect of GosMark's work, either. (Besides, super-early authoritative suppression admittedly doesn't square well, on the face of it, with the first part of GosMark also being perhaps missing.)


I don't have the _First Things_ review handy that initially tipped me off to the book, but I recall it being ambivalent on more-or-less the same spread as my own conclusion about Croy's work: (1) is very well done; (2) is pretty good; (3) seems to be hastier and overamped in its apparent strength (though not without some merit for consideration).

[JasonPratt]

Oh, and I did finish _The Ball and the Cross_ last night. I'm not very fond of the stylism (absurdist comic surreality), but that's an entirely personal taste I think. I would warn readers to skip the Foreword commentary by some "non-Christian theist", since his evaluation of the work is clearly faulty at several points (e.g. he thinks the atheist converts at the end due to a 'mere' 'miracle' of seeing two swords falling in the shape of a cross; when clearly the man converts due to seeing a saint walking alive out of a howling inferno in which no man should have been able to survive.) Unfortunately, I don't have the edition handy right now, so I can't be sure which one a reader may pick up. {lopsided g}

Fans of C.S. Lewis may find the work of some minor interest, as a possible inspiration for parts of _That Hideous Strength_. Otherwise, I would recommend it primarily for fans of Chesterton--and even then, it's going to depend on what you admire about his work. (The poetic description and clever turns of phrase, especially on theological points, are quite good. I suppose the aburdist stylism is quite good, too, if you're into appreciating that kind of thing. {shrug})

[fairyprincess90]

well, i read and finished (in twenty minutes)
tilly by frank e. perretti
good book.
couldnt put it down.

[uc pseudonym]

Not entirely sure what you meant by 'conclusion'--the conclusion of 16:8 as it stands? The inference drawn by N. Clayton Croy (the book's author) about the ending being incomplete?

I meant that I do not think concluding that the end of Mark was added by a later writer immensely effects the nature of the work, or especially our use of that gospel.

Part of Croy's argument on this point (which has certainly been shared by most Markan commentators, pro or con, up through the first part of the 20th century), is that the 16:8 ending as it stands totally violates thematic expectations established by Mark in the work up to that point.

That is a perspective I've heard before, but I disagree with the analysis. Though I couldn't cite sources on demand, I agree with the scholarship that suggests Mark was written as a meditation on Christ for the early church - not as a biography for those who were unfamiliar with Jesus. Thus, the intended audience would have been intimately aware of the oral tradition of the resurrection and the ending would not have been particularly shocking. Mark's gospel clearly believes in a risen Christ, so I don't feel that he is being particularly radical in not actually stating the event that has been forecast time and time again in his work.

(whether intentionally done that way by John Mark, whom I readily take to be the author, though for reasons which I think are unique in scholarship so far)

Pray tell.

Which I would rather not get into here.

That is just as well, because such discussion is probably not suited to CAA. We ban denominational arguments, after all, and I am fairly confident that inerrency is a hot enough topic to create one. Even our current discussion nears the edge, but I think the slightly academic nature is enough to avoid petty debate.

[JasonPratt]

I meant that I do not think concluding that the end of Mark was added by a later writer immensely effects the nature of the work, or especially our use of that gospel.[...] Mark's gospel clearly believes in a risen Christ, so I don't feel that he is being particularly radical in not actually stating the event that has been forecast time and time again in his work.

Certainly ditto enough here. {shrug} However, obviously _some_ significant number of people back in antiquity thought Mark's ending was too strongly negative. Let's see, we have the long addition]Thus, the intended audience would have been intimately aware of the oral tradition of the resurrection and the ending would not have been particularly shocking.[/QUOTE]

It would, at least, have been confusing. Sure, they know the women did in fact go on and tell after all--so why does Mark, to all appearances, say explicitly otherwise? Had he intended to end the whole account with the women going forth (and not even with a scene of reconciliation with Peter), Mark could have _precisely_ as easily written something like "and the women went away to tell the disciples, giving glory to God"--even including "with fear and amazement". i.e., Mark could have just as easily written something like the 'short addition' or GosMatt 28:8. Instead, he goes to the trouble to _emphasize_ "told no one, not a thing" before breaking off with an explainer for this "for they were fearing". The end. HUH!? {g}

Pray tell.

I think the author was prepping the reader to accept that there was a young man at the tomb and not an angel, because _he_ was the young man--and he feels bad about people thinking he was an angel. What young man do we know about who was familiar with the ministry group in the early days, and who would have been especially interested in the women making sure Peter knows that Christ is back and will be visiting them again? The author attributed to the work by early tradition, of course: John Mark, at whose family's house in Jerusalem the early church felt safe in hiding out, especially Peter, and who later becomes an aide to Peter in Rome. (i.e., hugely against Burton Mack's thesis in _The Myth of Innocence_, I do _not_ think the author of GosMark was a "Mr. Nobody". As the apocryphal Gospel attempts in later centuries demonstrated, "Mr. Nobodies" who write up documents with no _social_ provenance are immediately tagged by the authorities as suspicious, no matter how highly ranked the Nobodies attribute their texts to.)

Note, by the way, that even if this is true, it _doesn't_ actually preclude there being an angel at the tomb as well, whom the women _did_ see and hear (even though Mark did not). It is interesting that in Luke's account of the 'two shining men', the words the women heard are entirely different than what is said in GosMark (and GosMatt, for that matter, which uses the words of the Markan 'young man' but _very_ noticeably ramps up the angelic-ness of the single angel.)

I think the women saw a young man (whom they barely paid attention to) _and_ saw and heard an angel (who scared them out of their wits). But I think the Marcan author, who didn't see or hear an angel, worries about having inadvertently caused a misunderstanding and was trying to correct it--and then gets nicked on the topic by someone who has the authority to nick the autograph, and enough knowledge of Greek to think he's excising it at a grammatically appropriate spot, but _not_ enough knowledge of Greek (himself) to polish or snip it quite right; also someone who thinks along the lines of 'well, everyone knows the rest of the story anyway' and so doesn't bother to finish it out himself. {g}

And there's really only one person we know about who could fit that description--the fellow who later tradition reports as signing off (somewhat lukewarmly) on the text as being valid. Namely, Simon Kephas bar Jonah (aka Peter).


It would, however, take me a _very_ long time to go into the evidence for this (as well as how this all overlaps and interconnects with GosJohn, and the implications thereof.) So... {shrug} A book to-be-written someday perhaps.

[Radical Dreamer]

Eats, Shoots and Leaves. SO funny. XD

[uc pseudonym]

One of Croy's points is to closely examine just how _negative_ (not merely neutral) the ending (at 16:8, by itself) appears to be.

And it is definitely a legitimate one. This (referring to why the gospel ends not only abruptly but on a negative note) is an issue that I will admit I have not yet given sufficient thought.

I think the author was prepping the reader to accept that there was a young man at the tomb and not an angel, because _he_ was the young man--and he feels bad about people thinking he was an angel.

That's certainly interesting and indeed, I haven't heard it before.

So... {shrug} A book to-be-written someday perhaps.

Heh. And perhaps it may be listed here, too.

[DaughterOfZion]

The Shadow Warrior though i cant remember who its by.

[Kaori]

Most recently, Macbeth (which has lost none of its potency upon rereading the play), and Death in Venice, a collection of short and long stories by Thomas Mann. The two stories I have read so far from Death in Venice have been extremely well crafted but are distasteful in some of their content.

[mitsuki lover]

The local Friends of the Library are having their annual book sale on Wednesday and Thursday so will go down there at the Eagles and see what I can come up with.

[yukinon]

omy. My school library recently had a book sale. I got six books for 1.50. hooray!

[bigsleepj]

I finished Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrel and now I'm reading The Samurai by Shusaku Endo.

[Warrior 4 Jesus]

Just finished The Princess Bride. I'm now reading Operation Hellgate (a novel based on the '24' tv series universe.

[mitsuki lover]

I need a bookshelf to put everything on.

[bigsleepj]

I'm reading some tea-cup leaves. It seems that sometime in your life you're going to die. Be prepared.

(that was a joke by the way)

[Kokhiri Sojourn]

I need a bookshelf to put everything on.

Yeah. Me too. I just moved and couldn't bring my old one with me, as it would fall apart. But I haven't gone out to buy a new one yet, so they are all in boxes, save the ones I'm reading.

Finished the ones I had started. Beginning Putting Amazing Back Into Grace, by Michael Horton.

[JasonPratt]

Just finished _A Tolkien Compass_--which was not edited by Shippey (my bad. In my defense, he's quoted in a blurb at the very top of the cover, though, and so is nearer the title than the actual editor... {wry g})

A couple of good essays, many mediocre ones, a few jaw-droppingly awful ones. The basic concept was apparently to get people who aren't literary critics to apply their speciality in what amounts to literary criticism of the books. I recommend a pass.

Finished my most recent issue of First Things, too--yay, periodicals done for a while! On to actual books! {g} (Though 1stT was as good as usual.)


Have now skated through the introduction and first four chapters of _The Trinity_ by Robert A. Morey. If you're big into circular presuppositionalism, you'll eat it up like cake. If, like me, you think circular presuppositionalism is cheating (to put it bluntly), I recommend skipping the first five chapters or so and then taking what Dr. Morey presents afterward with a huge grain of salt. (Fortunately, I already accept the doctrine of the Trinity--though not as an a priori assertion--and know quite a bit about scriptural witness to that conclusion. I was only interested in a resource for more discussion of the scriptural issues than I myself may know about; and Morey does, on a fast thumb-through, seem to be able to provide that.)

[mitsuki lover]

Friends of the Library Book Sale starts tommorrow at Noon so it will be interesting to see what I can find there.I believe last year I found a 1948 version of the Book of Mormon and a collection of Buddhist writings.So who knows what I may find.

[rocklobster]

Re-reading Summer Sisters by Judy Blume.

[mitsuki lover]

Got down to the book sale and bought the following books:
The Bad Popes by e.R.Chamberlain(started reading)

The Treasury of Royal Scandals by Michael Farquhar

Robotech:Genesis by Jack McKinney

A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn

The Hero with a Thousand Faces by Joseph Campbell

[JasonPratt]

JC's work is something I need to eventually deal with, I suppose (for various professional reasons). I guess I'm happy to have had only distant secondary exposure to it, though: one of the finest compliments I've ever received, on an early draft of my first novel (note to self--must go kill the contractors this week for diddling around on something that should have taken only two months to do, costing me any hope of getting the thing marketed and into stores before Christmas... {seethe!}), was that it didn't fit into Campbell's 10 Stories paradigm. (And this is from a folk anthropologist who graduated with honors from Harvard... {beam!})

Thus, I have to admit that even though I really ought to be reading his work for professional reasons (among other things for purposes of critiquing his religious psychologizing), my main curiosity is whether my friend was right.

[mitsuki lover]

The title The Bad Popes makes one thing that the men portrayed in the book are some how more evil than some others who wore the Papal tiara.But after reading it for awhile I realized that the reason why they are designated the Bad Popes isn't because of personal wickedness so much as that they simply didn't make very good Pontiffs through no fault of their own.Indeed a few of them seem to have been very honest men who got caught in the corruption of their day.

[PigtailsJazz]

I am reading Tourette's Syndrome & Tic Disorders: Clinical Understanding and Treatment! ^_^

...it's for a music therapy research paper I'm doing.... hehe

I'm also about to start Shattered Dreams: God's Unexpected Pathway to Joy by Larry Crabb...because my roommate read it, liked it, and handed it off to me! weee!

[yukinon]

O wow, that book sounds like fun.

But then I AM a Psych major.

[Animus Seed]

Alternating between Plato's Republic (for school) and O.R. Melling's The Summer King when Plato overloads my mind.

[bigsleepj]

I'm reading "The Samurai" by Shusaku Endo. A very interesting read.

I also recently read Neil Gaiman's Sandman: Brief Lives. Another good read.