Bleak House - Charles Dickens

Bleak House is a significant and enjoyable book that, in many ways, is the quintessence of what a Charles Dickens novel is all about. This is the story of Esther Summerson, a young girl who is apparently orphaned. Esther is initially raised by an emotionally abusive aunt. Later, the benevolent John Jarndyce takes her in. Esther establishes close bonds with Jarndyce’s younger cousins, Ada Clare and Richard Carstone. She also encounters a host of additional characters and becomes enmeshed in their worlds.

As the narrative progresses, it becomes apparent that Esther’s mother is still alive. She is the aristocratic, haughty, guilt ridden and depressed Lady Dedlock.  This complex character steals the show, as the secrets of her mysterious past and her inner demons occupy much of the narrative. As Lady Dedlock’s early life begins to catch up with her, she becomes the victim of the prying and malicious lawyer, Mr. Tulkinghorn. Numerous additional developments ensue, including Esther’s permanent scaring as a result of smallpox.

 One of the most important plot threads is the unending saga of the legal case Jarndyce verses Jarndyce. The case, which at its root is the disposition of a large inheritance, is intricately complex, has dragged on for decades and has played a part in the ruination of lives. One of the basic themes of the book is the pernicious nature of the English court system.

In one of my favorite passages in the book, Dickens describes the history of the matter,

“Jarndyce and Jarndyce drones on. This scarecrow of a suit has, in course of time, become so complicated that no man alive knows what it means. The parties to it understand it least, but it has been observed that no two Chancery lawyers can talk about it for five minutes without coming to a total disagreement as to all the premises.  Innumerable children have been born into the cause; innumerable young people have married into it; innumerable old people have died out of it. Scores of persons have deliriously found themselves made parties in Jarndyce and Jarndyce without knowing how or why; whole families have inherited legendary hatreds with the suit. The little plaintiff or defendant who was promised a new rocking-horse when Jarndyce and Jarndyce should be settled has grown up, possessed himself of a real horse, and trotted away into the other world. Fair wards of court have faded into mothers and grandmothers; a long procession of Chancellors has come in and gone out; the legion of bills in the suit have been transformed into mere bills of mortality; there are not three Jarndyces left upon the earth perhaps since old Tom Jarndyce in despair blew his brains out at a coffee-house in Chancery Lane; but Jarndyce and Jarndyce still drags its dreary length before the court, perennially hopeless.”

There is a lot more plot here. Multiple parallel and interrelated stories, themes and  legions of characters abound. Like the aforementioned case, this book is too extensive and complex to summarize or analyze its themes in a single blog post. Suffice to say, it is in many ways typical Dickens.

 Such is a Dickens novel that characters are colorful and larger than life. Some are paragons of virtue, while others are insidious villains. A few inhabit complex and intriguing gray areas, particularly Lady Dedlock. The novel is also full of fascinating descriptions of London and its surrounding environs. Settings range from fabulous halls of the rich and aristocratic to the darkest corners of the vilest slums. The book also brims over with emotion.  At times, it is genuinely affecting, and at other moments, it is almost laughably too sentimental.

All of the above can be applied to Dickens elsewhere, but at least when it comes to the limited number of Dickens novels that I have read (A Tale of Two Cities, Hard Times, Great Expectations, Our Mutual Friend), it all comes together better here. The characters, both those who are simplistic and those who are more complex, seem to be better drawn out. The plot is well constructed and stays engaging over hundreds and hundreds of pages. Dickens’ wonderful prose as he describes nature’s interplay with humanity, when he takes a sarcastic and comical view of human folly and when he extolls the virtues of noble souls is at a high point here. Ultimately, this is a great novel. If one is inclined to like Dickens, it is a must read.

I will be posting one or more additional entries focused upon some points of the book that I find particularly interesting. This novel truly encapsulates both what is great about Dickens as well as his flaws. If one is prepared and desirous to step into the intertwined, fanciful, philosophical and complex world that Dickens weaves, this is a great place to begin or continue the journey.

Some Thoughts About Esther

Esther is an interesting character indeed. She puts the welfare of others first, and endures hardship for the benefit of those around her. The point of view of the novel alternates between the first person narratives of Esther herself and the perspectives of a cynical but compassionate third person voice.

When describing herself she is constantly and persistently putting herself down. She questions whether she deserves the love of others.  As a result, she harps upon the fact that her purpose in life is to make others happy.

At one point she comments upon a declaration of love by a suitor,

"it is a great thing to win love, it is a great thing to win love! I am proud of it, and honoured by it; and the hearing of it causes me to shed these tears of mingled joy and sorrow— joy that I have won it, sorrow that I have not deserved it better;  “

After her disfigurement, she observes to herself,

"And so Esther, my dear, you are happy for life. Happy with your best friends, happy in your old home, happy in the power of doing a great deal of good, and happy in the undeserved love of the best of men." 

These are just a few examples. I think that Esther’s self-deprecation can be attributed to her upbringing, in which her aunt constantly diminished her worth.

However, there may be something else going on here. When speaking in her own inner voice, Esther is a bit too focused on how selfless she is. There is so much insistent modesty that one gets the impression that Esther does not really believe it all. This gives her a hint of inner self-righteousness, perhaps self-deception, that she never shows to the world.

Without a doubt, Esther is an extremely virtuous and selfless person. In no way is Dickens portraying her as spiteful or pernicious. However, if I am correct, she is just exhibiting a little imperfection, perhaps human weakness, in her thoughts.

I have read no criticism or analyses of Esther’s character thus far (This was true when I wrote this). I may be mistaken about my impressions. It may be that I am seeing complexity that is not really there. Either way, Esther is a marvelous character.

Since I wrote the above I have read some criticism and commentary on this work. It seems that there are many interpenetrations upon Esther’s character. I am taking a stab at my own take on one aspect of her persona here. I ask my readers to indulge me and look upon the above as an impression; perhaps something of an educated guess, at what Dickens was trying to get at.

Two Years!

Today is Babbling Books’ second birthday. Looking back upon my one year post, I recall how I underscored how wonderful and dynamic the blogging community is. That aspect of this hobby is still what I appreciate most. I want to thank everyone who reads and who comments upon my site. It is still such great fun interacting with so many kind, thoughtful and intelligent people.

Last year I also mentioned how blogging has made me a better reader. I think that this goes hand in hand with being a clearer and more organized thinker. Outside of job related technical writing, I never wrote on a consistent basis before. It seems that as time goes by I have gotten better at formulating coherent thoughts and arguments. I attribute this almost entirely to blogging and the constant need to formulate semi - intelligible posts.

I have also become more disciplined and less likely to throw around ill - considered thoughts. After all, if I put out an idea here, I really need to make sure that I can support  and back it up that idea. Otherwise my friends and commenters might check me on it! I never censor my statements because they might be unpopular (But I always try to be respectful of other people and ideas, even if I disagree with them. However, this topic is for another post.). However I do think twice about writing something that may not be supported by facts or reason. I do believe that this way of communicating has seeped into my everyday personal and professional life. Blogging has been good for me in so many unexpected ways!

In the past twenty - four months I have posted 107 entries including this one. Hopefully the coming years will bring many more. Happy reading and blogging everyone!

Decision in Philadelphia: The Constitutional Convention of 1787 by James Lincoln Collier and Christopher Collier

In 1787, a group of the American elites got together in Philadelphia and fashioned what became the American Constitution. The impact that this document has had upon history cannot be overstated. The details relating to the creation of the blueprint of American government are both historically important and intellectually intriguing.

Decision in Philadelphia: The Constitutional Convention of 1787 by the brothers James Lincoln Collier and Christopher Collier has become, since its publication in 1986, something of a classic history book concerning the momentous but contentious event. This work effectively and coherently weaves together an enormously complex story. Multiple issues were debated and resolved by a bevy of great political minds, both famous and not so famous, including George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, Luther Martin, Charles Pinckney, James Wilson and many others.

The issues and disagreements that drove the Convention were rooted in the great controversies of the time. They included proportional representation versus the rights of each state to be equally represented, state versus federal power, the balance of power between the executive, legislature and the judiciary, national security versus personal liberty and an entire additional subset of issues relating to slavery. It is striking how many of these points are still being debated by Americans in the twenty-first century. 

Different groups sometimes had strong positions staked out on these various controversies, but were not always reflective of individual states. On the varying cultures and attitudes exhibited by the citizens of each state, the authors write,

“Their country had been formed piecemeal. The colonies had been created at different times under different philosophies of life, ranging from the hard bitten Calvinism of New England to the worldly hedonism of the Deep South.”

Adding to the complexity was the fact that various issues and the discussions upon them overlapped and intertwined. The Colliers observe, 

“The making of the constitution was a kaleidoscopic process in which shifts in one place often produced changes in seemingly unrelated places.”

The authors handle these convoluted circumstances very lucidly. Instead of telling a completely linear story of the Convention from beginning to end, they take each thread of contention, follow it from beginning to end, and then they move on to the next thread, which they follow from beginning to end. 

This is not just a legalistic and political history, as the personalities of the various participants are explored and analyzed in some depth. Some new angles on various famous people, such as Washington and Hamilton, are studied. Lesser-known personages, such as Charles Pinckney and James Wilson, both of whom played vital roles at the Convention, are cast into the light. How the particular traits of the individuals involved affected the final product is also explored.

As I often do I would like to discuss just one of many themes highlighted in this book. One thing that impressed me about this work was that while the authors acknowledge the remarkable accomplishment that the fashioning of this document was, they are not hesitant to criticize aspects of the final outcome. These days, many people, understandably, express an awe concerning the American Constitution.  Here the authors manage to exhibit some of this awe while at the same time displaying an analytical and critical hard headedness. This document, for all its virtues, was like anything as complex - a flawed document. 

 As is generally known, the Constitution implied the legality of slavery. Under the Constitution, the importation of slaves was permitted for twenty years, slavery was allowed to expand into the American West and slave owners were allowed to pursue escaped slaves into the North.  Historical commentators from every quarter often castigate these terrible facts. The Colliers dig a little deeper than most, however. While explaining that the Convention would surely have failed if the numerous opponents of this evil had insisted on total abolition, a plausible case is laid out explaining how the antislavery forces could have prevented the above provisions from being incorporated into the final document. Basically, the states that fought hardest for these pro-slavery provisions, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, threatened to not join the Union and become independent nations if the institution of slavery was not protected. The authors contend that this should have been considered an empty threat by the antislavery delegates, as at the time, these pro-slavery states were weak, under populated and beset by both internal and external threats. Thus, these states could never have gone it alone without the remainder of the country. Furthermore, the Colliers argue that had the pro-slavery provisions not been included, the institution of slavery would have been so weakened that it may have died out on its own and the American Civil War avoided. 

The authors do not shy away from highlighting other flaws. For instance, to this day the American presidential election system is much more complicated than it seems or it needs to be. On numerous occasions, the candidate with less popular votes has become President. The authors comment,

“the American Electoral Collage system of choosing a president is a Rube -Goldberg machine. It was jerry rigged of odds and ends of parliamentary junk, pressed together by contending interests. And the question that inevitably comes up is whether it ought to be abandoned.”

Finally, the authors take a look at America and its history. They starkly examine not only American successes, but also what they see as its flaws, including race relations, over-reliance on military solutions, etc., and they attribute a great many of both to the Constitution. Their ultimate conclusion is that despite its shortcomings, the American Constitution has been, in the past and up to the present, a triumph in both pragmatic accomplishment as well as democracy.

Of course, this book covers an event of unprecedented importance. It does so in an understandable and extremely satisfying way. The writing is also very good. There are so many important points covered in this work. As often is the case, I have barely scratched the surface in relation to these topics. This is highly recommended for anyone with an interest the history of government, this period or American history in general.

Charles Dickens's A Christmas Carol and the Ghost of Christmas Present

For the first time this holiday season, I have finally read Charles Dickens’s A Christmas Carol. The dilemma for me when composing this post was what to say about this ubiquitous Christmas tale that has not already been said millions of times over. Thus, instead of writing a comprehensive analysis or review, I decided to dig a bit and focus on a relatively small point. Though I doubt that my thinking here is unique, at least I will avoid general commentary on this tale, which from me, seems to be completely unnecessary.  Instead I will write a few words concerning The Ghost of Christmas Present.

When this apparition appears he is described as follows:

“there sat a jolly Giant, glorious to see; who bore a glowing torch, in shape not unlike Plenty’s horn, and held it up”

and then a little later,

“It was clothed in one simple green robe, or mantle, bordered with white fur. This garment hung so loosely on the figure, that its capacious breast was bare, as if disdaining to be warded or concealed by any artifice. Its feet, observable beneath the ample folds of the garment, were also bare; and on its head it wore no other covering than a holly wreath, set here and there with shining icicles. Its dark brown curls were long and free; free as its genial face, its sparkling eye, its open hand, its cheery voice, its unconstrained demeanour, and its joyful air. Girded round its middle was an antique scabbard; but no sword was in it, and the ancient sheath was eaten up with rust. “

Having read a fair amount of Dickens as well as little about him, I have a sense that his worldview usually reflects an easygoing, non - puritanical form of Christianity. I think that “easy going” is particularly important in this instance, as this most interesting spirit seems to exhibit pagan influences. 

It seems to me that there are shades of Dionysus with a sprinkling of the Santa Clause myth embodied in this figure. This ghost exudes celebration and good cheer in a naturalistic sense. His bear chest and feet, wreath and icicle adorned headgear, and free curls exude a sense of wildness. There is more then a hint of hint of hedonistic tendencies particularly connected with this character’s ever - present connection to food. The figure actually sits upon a throne of luscious foods and later shows Ebenezer Scrooge visions of even greater gastronomic excess. The ghost’s torch, which resembles “Plenty’s horn” has magical abilities to spread good cheer, and unsurprisingly, liven up meals. It seems to me that in the form of this ghost, Dickens is advocating a form of merriment and celebration that illuminates the Christmas Holidays connection with ancient winter festivals and feasts.

Obviously A Christmas Carol also champions an entire range of values including charity, empathy and kindness. Dickens is examining what he sees as the positive aspects of humanity in great and diverse variety here. Pious virtues are extolled alongside extreme merriment and even a bit of excess.

Without a doubt this remarkable character enlivens and adds spice to the famous story. It also adds an additional dimension to Dickens theme concerning the Christmas spirit. Of course the Ghost of Christmas Present is only a part of the tale that Dickens weaves here. His depiction reminds me that what we sometimes take as simple stories and lessons, are not always so simple.

Double Down: Game Change 2012 by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann

Double Down: Game Change 2012 by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann is a guilty pleasure for me. This is not something that I would normally read, nor is it a book that I would usually blog about. In fact, I even considered not putting up a post about it. Though I would describe myself of something of a political junkie, I never read books on current or political events (but I do read lots of articles and opinion pieces). As there is so much to read and so little time to do it in, I try to keep my reading of books confined to what I consider universal and timeless themes. Thus, this book constitutes a bit of “light reading.” Kind of like my Fifty Shades of Grey (OK, maybe that is a bit of an exaggeration:))

I just could not resist this one however. Having read and enjoyed these authors’ previous Game Change: Obama and the Clintons, McCain and Palin, and the Race of a Lifetime that covered the 2008 American Presidential election, I just had to delve into this foray on the 2012 contest. Both Halperin and Heilemann are pundits commonly scene on various American Public affairs programs. I must first comment that there is a stereotype that such programs are teeming with over opinionated talking heads propagandizing and/or yelling at each other. While such nonsense is indeed common, there are also plenty of programs, both on television and on the radio, that fly under the radar, where adults discuss, analyze and at times calmly debate issues. It is these types of programs that these particular authors frequent. 

This work is not about policy or substantive issues, instead it is about the art, perhaps better described as warfare, of politics. This book is almost entirely dedicated to the tactics and strategy of winning elections. Policies and ideologies are not judged here. To the extent that they are analyzed, it is done so in the context of how they effect elections. There is also a great emphasis on the personalities of both the candidates and the political operatives involved in the campaigns.

All the candidates, potential candidates and campaigns are put under the microscope. This includes not just the Barack Obama’s and Mitt Romney’s operations, but most of the Republican primary participants including Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Michelle Bachman and their respective campaigns are scrutinized. The book is wonky and is filed with all sorts of details regarding the foibles and triumphs of its subjects.

A key issue concerning a book like this is credibility. Every page is packed with information concerning conversations, strategy decisions, incidents, etc. that relate to the campaigns. There are mountains of really bad books concerning recent American politics out there. If it turned out that the authors included unverified or sketchy information the work becomes useless. Thus I would not read a book like this unless I knew a little about and researched a bit into its writers’ reliability.

Based my knowledge gleamed from television programs, articles, as well as some online research, I do think that these writers have played it mostly straight and honest.  For both this work as well as the first Game Change, Halperin and Heilemann conducted hundreds of first hand interviews. They also amassed numerous first had sources such as emails, memos, recording, etc. The authors’ research seems to have been thorough and scrupulously involved a lot of double - checking. In addition, as someone who follows American politics and its controversies closely, it amazes me how little denials or rebuttals have been made by the subjects of these two books, even from those whom the authors’ have been relatively hard upon (I must point out that there are a few exceptions to this. However I think a work filled with this much information about such controversial topics must inevitably draw some fire. Sarah Palin was extremely critical of her portrayal in the movie version of the first Game Change Book, though a little less so regarding the book. The entire movie thing really muddles the issue as I think that the film did display bias that the book did not. The film also only covered a small portion of the book, specifically the part about Palin. As for that book, I thought that it actually painted a mostly sympathetic portrait of Palin.) Furthermore, these authors show no discernable bias for or against particular parties or ideologies.

This book exhibits an interesting mix of cynicism and idealism. It is cynical in that it unsentimentally portrays a political world of bare knuckles brawling where all the stops are pulled out and little quarter is given. Almost all the participants are at times portrayed as doing questionable things. Furthermore, the influence of billionaires on American politics is shown to be pervasive and ubiquitous. All sides and candidates are shown to be unabashedly and openly dependent upon one faction or another of the super rich. The only good news in this respect is that the billionaires are not monolithic. There seems to be a group of billionaires that advocates for just about every position, including a few that want to reduce the influence of billionaires!

Deep down however, it seems that Halperin and Heilemann are oddly idealistic. Just as the authors show politicians as flawed people, no one is demonized. Instead, the players are depicted to be people who believe. Almost without exception, all the participants, despite their warts, are humanized. Personalities of all those concerned are delved into in complex ways.  Indeed, we are often confronted with overinflated egos, but this self - aggrandizement is based on a belief on the part of the egotistical, that they have amazing abilities to ultimately do good. 

Other times we see that these politicians will compromise smaller ideals for the good of the bigger picture and are thus accused of doing anything to get elected. There is truth to this, but a certain amount of compromise is also shown to be necessary. However, in the end, the name of the game is getting ideas implemented. Of course, this can be seen as a hunger for power, which, I think, is just another way of looking at it. The bottom line is that while plenty bad points of all the participants are revealed, so is a surprising nobility and virtue that manifests itself in both sides.

I must point out that I find Halperin and Heilemann’s writing technique to often be poor. The book often alternates between various campaigns and at times the voice of the book takes on the attitude and tone of the point of view of the particular campaign it is focusing on. Thus, for instance, when writing about the Obama campaign the prose will sound biased and dismissive of Obama’s opponents. Conversely, when the focus shifts towards the Romney campaign, the opposite tone is assumed and the prose becomes biased and dismissive of Obama. Though the authors are scrupulously fair about this, I find this awkward and inappropriate. 

At other times the tone of the book is over the top snarky and filled with colloquialisms and slang that make the work seem sophomoric. This is a pity since this dilutes what in many ways is a fine chronicle of historical events.

For instance, at one point when explaining how many of his supporters felt Romney was falling behind, the authors write,

“For many members of the Republicans smarty pants set, one thing was clear: Romney needed a game changer”

Similarly, when describing how at one point Obama’s team were considering what they believed to their own bleak prospects,

“The economy was still dreadful. And more then two thirds of voters thought the country was on the wrong track – which if history was a guide, meant that he was hosed.”

Though it is clear that the writers were trying to liven up the narrative and make the book fun, the above just does not work for me in a work such as this.

Despite its flaws, I must admit that I could not put this book down. I am so easily enticed by a work filled with all sorts of insider information relating to American politics and the personalities that drive it. If one is expecting either side to be excoriated or glorified one will need to look elsewhere. Readers who absolutely despise pure political strategy will find this book frustrating but informative. For those very interested in American politics, and who are looking for hard, but at times refreshing truths, this is a very informative and entertaining read.

John Milton - Paradise Lost - Free Will and Predestination

In Paradise Lost, John Milton takes a stab at the seeming paradox of predestination versus free will that is inherent in Christian theology. The classic question is as follows: if God is omnipotent and knows the future, can it be reasoned that the future is set? If the future is indeed locked into place, how can humans have free will? Since free will is an integral component of most Christian belief systems, there is, on the surface at least, a problem.

In a passage where God himself is speaking to Jesus, God explains that even if he foresaw Satan’s rebellion, there was no abrogation of Satan’s and his followers’ free will.  In referring to the Satanic Rebels,

So were created, nor can justly accuse 

Thir maker, or thir making, or thir Fate; 

As if Predestination over-rul’d

Thir will, dispos’d by absolute Decree 

Or high foreknowledge; they themselves decreed

Thir own revolt, not I: if I foreknew, 

Foreknowledge had no influence on their fault,

Which had no less prov’d certain unforeknown. 

So without least impulse or shadow of Fate, 

Or aught by me immutablie foreseen, 

They trespass, Authors to themselves in all 

Both what they judge and what they choose; for so 

I formd them free, and free they must remain, 

Till they enthrall themselves: I else must change 

Thir nature, and revoke the high Decree 

Unchangeable, Eternal, which ordain’d  

Thir freedom, they themselves ordain’d thir fall.  

The first sort by thir own suggestion fell,  

I find that Milton’s God’s reasoning makes sense, at least intuitively. Even if God can see the future, and thus the future is cast, individuals (this includes the character of Satan as well as ourselves) are, from our own point of view, creatures moving and acting in linear time. We still freely make our own decisions. When God says,

Foreknowledge had no influence on their fault,

It seems to mean that even if the future is set, it is the individual (in this case, Satan and his followers) who sets it. Thus, the mechanism of free will is still operating.

Another way I look at it is like viewing the actions of creatures that exercised choice in the past.  If I know a person robbed a bank last week, it is an inconvertible fact that the person robbed the bank; it is set into the universe that he robbed the bank. This does not alter the fact that the person exercised free will when choosing to rob the bank.

Assuming that God is talking for Milton here, the conclusion is that the paradox of free will versus predestination is a false paradox. The two are not mutually exclusive. Though this is all a bit mind bending to me, I concur with Milton here. There are some scientific models that relate to the fields of physics and neuroscience which suggest that certain events and actions are set into our natures and the  Universe and in a way are pre - determined, and that brings into question the role of free will in humans (These are neither universally accepted nor have they been proven.). Though not entirely congruous in comparison to Milton’s universe, in regards to these models, I find Milton’s reasoning enlightening and thought provoking.

The other striking thing about the above passage is how eloquently and artistically Milton is able to communicate what are complex philosophical and metaphysical concepts. I find that one way sublime art is made is to take these big questions that are inherent to life and existence and express them in aesthetically satisfying forms. Even if one ultimately disagrees with what the author is getting at, the results here are still sublime.