Category Archives: Issue 2

A Few of My Favorite Christmas Things

Christopher Rush

This issue has sprinkled the occasional Christmas topic throughout, including a few gift ideas for people you love: Genesis albums, quality video games, and books you should get and enjoy (and one you shouldn’t).  We’ve looked at Shakespeare’s Christmas play and even explored other aspects of the Incarnation.  As we conclude this issue, we’d like to examine some of the delightful aspects that make this holiday season so enjoyable.  True, we all have far too many reasons to be sorrowful this time of the year, too many heartaches, and too many painful memories that will never go away — I, too, have had more than my share.  But Christmas is about Life: the gift of abundant life God gave freely to us, whom He loves, incarnate in a Bethlehem manger so long ago.  And we want to celebrate that life and the gift of living this holiday season.  Though it may not seem like the things below have much to do with this gift, believe me — they do.  On behalf of the Scholarly Journal staff, I wish you all a joy-filled Christmas season.

Christmas Tunes

We can all agree on the importance of singing at Christmas time: certainly the birth of baby Jesus was heralded with songs (Mary’s song, the angels’ song, and many more).  Singing the songs we sing only this time of year is an obvious tradition and a key aspect to the season and holiday feel, but are we enjoying the best of what’s available?  I hope so.

Christmas time does not officially begin until you hear Mannheim Steamroller’s “Deck the Halls.”  The entire Mannheim Steamroller Christmas is must-listening several times each season.  Their second Christmas-related release, A Fresh Aire Christmas, is also quite good; their successive albums are good though none of them reach the superlative brilliance of the first album.  Their live album, Mannheim Steamroller Christmas Live, is good, especially for the unsurpassable ending: the one-two combination of “God Rest Ye, Merry Gentlemen” and “Stille Nacht” is the best pairing of Christmas song versions of all time, and the finale of “Going to Another Place” is a great emotional experience, especially if enjoyed in the right setting.

Further essential listening is The Time-Life Treasury of Christmas (especially volume one; volume two is good, though not as good).  It has a great sampling of diverse artists and versions from days gone by.  The best are there: Bing Crosby’s “White Christmas” (of course), Dolly Parton’s “Medley: Winter Wonderland/Sleigh Ride” (a personal favorite), “Home for the Holidays” by Perry Como, “Feliz Navidad,” and Burl Ives’ quintessential “A Holly Jolly Christmas.”  The collection also has a fine selection of Roger Whittaker numbers, another “those were the days” voice of Christmases long ago when times were easier and life was simpler.  There isn’t much Julie Andrews, though her “Joy to the World” is on the second volume.  Admittedly, “Joy to the World” is not about Christ’s first advent and has nothing to do with Christmas, but neither does “The Hallelujah Chorus” or “My Favorite Things” from The Sound of Music, though many radio stations think it does (which makes the allusion of the title of this piece ironic, yes).  It might be interesting also to know that “Jingle Bells” is about Thanksgiving time, despite common usage and perception today.

Other important Christmas listening includes the Beach Boys tunes, especially “The Man with All the Toys” (Beach Boys’ harmony at its finest), “Merry Christmas, Baby,” and “Little Saint Nick” (all of which and more are available on their Ultimate Christmas release).  John Denver and the Muppets: A Christmas Together is good family fun, as with everything Muppet, pretty much (seriously, Muppet Babies — time to come out on dvd).  The Trans-Siberian Orchestra releases are fine, though not as mandatory as Mannheim Steamroller.  They have some fine songs, though their lyrical numbers are sometimes pretentious — their instrumental numbers are better, though you have to be ready for lots of electric guitar.  Christmas with the Chipmunks, volumes one and two are more family favorites (and another show that needs to be released on dvd) — definitely get the classic Chipmunks, not the recent releases, at least at first.

Boston Pops Christmas albums are important, the Arthur Fiedler and John Williams releases, like “Sleigh Ride.”  The Robert Shaw Chorale is standard listening, though perhaps in smaller increments than the Boston Pops.  The standards of Bing Crosby (beyond “White Christmas”), Nat King Cole, Perry Como, Sinatra, Mel Tormé, Doris Day, Rosemary Clooney, and the gang are certainly worth your time — especially if you want to add nostalgia and sentimentality to your holiday.  I’m probably alone on this one, but I think Judy Garland’s “Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas” is the saddest Christmas song of all time.  There’s just something about her voice in it that does not make me believe we will all be together again next year and that we will be doing more muddling than merrying for a long time.

Probably the best compilations of the recent artists doing Christmas tunes of old and new (still no AC/DC Christmas album? still?) are the Very Special Christmas albums created to benefit Special Olympics.  The first album has a lot of good songs, including U2’s “Christmas (Baby Please Come Home)” and Run DMC’s “Christmas in Hollis,” but Christmas 3 has some of the best of the recent Christmas releases: “Christmastime” from The Smashing Pumpkins, Natalie Merchant’s bluesy “Children, Go Where I Send Thee,” Dave Matthews’s sweet “Christmas Song,” Tracy Chapman’s soulful “O Holy Night,” and probably the best new Christmas tune of the last century (yes, even better than “White Christmas”), Blues Traveler’s “Christmas.”  If you haven’t heard that, you need to go get it right now.  Finally, if you can also get ahold of “Do They Know It’s Christmas?” from Band Aid, do it.

Christmas Films and Episodes

I’ll just come out and say it: A Christmas Story is a stupid movie.  It’s not funny, it’s not clever, it’s not witty, it’s not insightful, it’s not charming.  Moving on.

Of course we have the standards: Miracle on 34th Street, The Bishop’s Wife, White Christmas, and Santa Claus Conquers the Martians (MST3K edition).  I’m not a huge fan of It’s a Wonderful Life, but I’m willing to watch it every other year or so.  My personal favorite used to be Die Hard, but now that I’ve matured it’s definitely The Lion in Winter, with Peter O’Toole and Katharine Hepburn.  I haven’t seen Holiday Inn yet, but maybe someday.  Mixed Nuts is a forgotten gem.  Love Actually is fairly good, though it has a generous dose of sauciness that certainly earns its R-rating.  The Liam Neeson and Colin Firth storylines are great; the Alan Rickman storyline is the most upset I’ve gotten at a movie probably ever.  Laurel and Hardy’s Babes in Toyland is probably the scariest Christmas movie ever.  Lethal Weapon is also technically a Christmas movie, using the same standards as the rest of these movies, none of which have anything to do with celebrating the birth of Jesus, which probably occurred in the springtime anyway.  The ’80s were big on goofy Christmas movies: Scrooged and National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation, for examples.

I’m not as big a fan of The Muppet Christmas Carol as others, mainly because I prefer the Muppet movies in which the Muppets are themselves not literary characters.  Similarly, The Nightmare Before Christmas is not for everyone.  What truly is for everyone is A Charlie Brown Christmas, probably the only Christmas special that bothers to identify what Christmas is really about.  Mr. Magoo’s Christmas Carol is a good version of Dickens’s story.  The Christmas Toy can be very upsetting to young children, seeing their favorite toys “die,” but the resolution is a great relief.  The classic Rankin/Bass specials are hard to argue against: Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer, Frosty the Snowman, The Little Drummer Boy, and The Year Without Santa ClausHow the Grinch Stole Christmas! is fine, too.  What the world really needs is the return to popularity of Will Vinton’s classic A Claymation Christmas Celebration.  Rex and Herb’s quest to find out the true meaning of wassail, with special appearances by the California Raisins, should never have gone out of style.

Most of our favorite television shows have Christmas specials that sort of make sense if viewed at Christmas time of out chronological sequence.  The best are, of course, the M*A*S*H episodes “Dear Dad” (season one), “Dear Sis” (season seven), and “Death Takes a Holiday” (season nine).  The Newsradio, Monk and Psych episodes are good, along with the X-Files’ “How the Ghosts Stole Christmas” in (season six).  The ’70s had a lot of Christmas episodes: from Mary Tyler Moore, The Bob Newhart Show, and Barney Miller, for examples.  These short episodes are nice ways to spend Christmas Eve, if you aren’t up for a long movie and need something to do before pretending to fall asleep (especially if your brother is playing Final Fantasy VI on the only video game system in the house).

Christmas Traditions

You don’t need me to tell you about your family Christmas traditions.  Growing up in a part of the country that has four seasons, an annual tradition back home was shoveling snow on a regular basis.  One slightly more enjoyable thing we started doing somewhere along the line was to start going to a movie (in the theater) on Christmas Eve.  When young, you don’t appreciate watching Perry Como or Andy Williams’s Christmas specials on TV as much as you should, so we started going to movies.  Usually the movies we saw had nothing to do with Christmas, and the theater was never too crowded.  When the snow got bad one Christmas, we stopped doing it — and, like all traditions that come to a sudden halt, it never really returned, until that one time in 2002, many years later when everything had changed and was to change some more.  After the movie we would come home and get to open one Christmas present — it took us too long to realize that the Christmas presents we opened on Christmas Eve were always ornaments for the tree.

Like most trees, ours bore an eclectic collection of Avon Nutcracker ornaments, miscellaneous Disney cartoon movie fuzzy ornaments (Oliver and Co., Cinderella, and Little Mermaid, mostly), as well as a few American Tail, Star Trek, and other Hallmark™-related decorations here and there.  Of course there were the hand-made public school ornaments, the photos-of-church-nativity-play ornaments, the nice and classy glass bulbs and figurines, and tinsel.  We weren’t big on lights, but my wife enjoys putting strings of lights on our tree now.  We used to have real trees, back in the day, and my wife and I had a real tree our first Christmas together, but when we moved to Virginia, it became simpler to have a plastic tree: fir trees have nothing really inherent to do with Christmas anyway, people — it’s just one of those things, no sense in fighting over it.  Our tree now is dominated by snowmen, miniature wooden sleds, lighthouse figurines, and the typical family-oriented ornaments.  Most of the ornaments near the bottom now are soft and unbreakable.

Another tradition, one that many of you probably already enjoy, is driving around town looking at lights on peoples’ homes and in their yards — it is a little cheaper than going to botanical gardens and arboreta that charge entrance fees, and it also gives you strong feelings of relief that at least you don’t live there and have to put all that stuff up and take it all down (and pay that electricity bill).  We haven’t  put many lights around our house lately, but there’s always a chance we will again.

One of the great ironies of the Christian life in contemporary America is that while we don’t often mind too much “going to church,” when Christmas day falls on a Sunday it is one of the most unbearable burdens this world affords (like having to do laundry or going to school on your birthday).  Thus, most likely, the birth of the “Christmas Eve service,” often advertised as a “candle light” service — which means that you pick up a cheap candle when you go in, wait through thirty-eight minutes of extra-special music and preaching, then the ushers come light the candles and you sing “Silent Night,” blow out your candle after eighty-five seconds, and then go home.  Strange the patterns we fall into.

Following this Christmas Eve service, for our family in recent years as well as some of yours, apparently, comes the other tradition of going out for Chinese food, since that is one of the few kinds of places open on Christmas Eve.  In recent years this tradition morphed into picking up Chinese food and bringing it home, still as a family, to then relax with hot cocoa, Chinese food, and a Christmas movie or series of Christmas episodes.  Accompanying this tradition in my new family is the annual “opening of the See’s® boxes,” the west-coast chocolatier that has recently worked its way to mall kiosks out east.  Not being a west-coast guy, I prefer chocolates (mostly milk chocolate-covered caramels) from Dubuque’s own Betty Jane Candies (Home of the Gremlins).  If you have never had any chocolate from Betty Jane Candies, you are missing out on some of the fine confectionary treats that help make life worth living during these troubled times.  Accompanying Betty Jane Candies in our house back in the day was the never-ending magical jar of M&M’s® that  never ran out, no matter how many times you would walk by and take out a handful or three of M&M’s®.  I miss that jar.

As intimated above, we always open our presents on Christmas morning (except for the ornament the night before).  I don’t have anything to say to or about the families that open their presents on Christmas Eve.  Nothing can be said to or for them, really.  True, my wife does enjoy opening Christmas cards from family and friends as they arrive — that is acceptable; if they have gift cards or other pecuniary treasurelets within, well, so be it.  Such is the price of filial devotion.  Back in the day, we opened our stockings first (my brother and I, that is — mainly to keep us occupied long enough for our parents to wake up and come down for presents; I never understood why they didn’t wake up as quickly and eagerly as we did, though I do now).  Our stockings were stuffed with various things and usually had one “major” present as well, which was nice.  My wife’s family always opened their stockings last, though they were usually filled with small, miscellaneous goodies like candies, toothbrushes, maybe a gift card, or other mostly consumable delights.  Now, we compromise.  We open our stockings last, but they also have at least one major present in or next to them, a win-win situation all around.  My family used to open all our presents simultaneously, finishing in a very short amount of time.  My wife’s family went around in a circle, one at a time, after reading the Christmas story and drinking cocoa and eating delicious bacon and caramel rolls.  We now do the same as they used to, as my wife has continued the tradition of Christmas breakfast.

How to Enjoy Christmas

The Scholarly Journal provides a variety of didactic and pragmatic articles for your edification.  As such, were you to copy your Christmas habits along the practices and events described above, you will undoubtedly enjoy a delightful, joy-filled Christmas.  Other ways to enjoy Christmas break include staying in your jim-jams as many days in a row as possible, never leaving the house; playing various high-quality video games for at least twelve hours a day (preferably in the Final Fantasy or ChronoTrigger families or other RPGs — no offense, Tanner); watching episode after episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000; listening to Mannheim Steamroller; emptying boxes upon boxes of Wheat Thins with Hickory Farms cheese balls; imbibing dozens of hot cocoa packets; popping endless bags of microwave popcorn with generous portions of parmesan cheese on top; and generally doing genuine leisure rightly with those you love.  There are the keys to enjoying Christmas.  From the Scholarly Journal to you, we wish you a merry Christmas and a happy new year.

Book Review: “On Fairy-Stories,” J. R. R. Tolkien. The Tolkien Reader. New York: Ballantine Books, 1966.

Christopher Rush

Content Summary and Author’s Perspective

J.R.R. Tolkien’s early essay “On Fairy-Stories” summarizes (in seventy pages) Tolkien’s conception of the nature of fairy-stories, their connection to myths, their audience, and their three main functions of recovery, escape, and consolation.  Fairy-stories, according to Tolkien, are not the safest of places, since they contain “beauty that is an enchantment, and an ever-present peril; both joy and sorrow as sharp as swords” (33).  Tolkien creates a unique definition of fairy-stories, furthering his distinction from lesser tellers of tales: “fairy-stories are not … about fairies or elves, but stories about Fairy, that is Faërie, the realm or state in which fairies have their being.…  Most good ‘fairy-stories’ are about the adventures of men in the Perilous Realm or upon its shadowy marches” (38).  Throughout the essay, which is an apologia sans remorse, Tolkien defends fairy-stories as if they are important literature, as valuable and life-relevant as the poems of Homer or the novels of Proust and Stendahl.

Early in the essay, Tolkien describes various elements of fairy-stories, as just mentioned, such as their danger and characters.  Tolkien also contrasts them with other kinds of stories for clarification: a genuine fairy-tale is always presented as “true,” never as a dream or with similar machinery (42).  Beast fables, like the Three Little Pigs or The Wind in the Willows, while good stories, are not fairy-tales (42-3) according to Tolkien.  Myths and fairy-tales are similar, but Tolkien ascribes to myths an element of divinity and worship in the tales that are lacking in fairy-tales (49-51).  Similarly, contrasting Joseph Campbell’s monomyth conception, Tolkien doesn’t compartmentalize fairy-tales by a standard pattern of events, but instead a “colouring, the atmosphere, the unclassifiable individual details of a story” (46) is what make a fairy-story what it is:

An essential power of Faërie is thus the power of making immediately effective by the will the visions of “fantasy.”  Not all are beautiful or even wholesome, not at any rate the fantasies of fallen Man.…  This aspect of “mythology” — sub-creation, rather than either representation or symbolic interpretation of the beauties and terrors of the world — is, I think, too little considered (49).

Tolkien denigrates the pervasive attitude that fairy-stories are the domain of children.  If a story has quality, it is a good story regardless of who is reading it and why.  The main reason most people think fairy-stories belong to children is because that is the only kind of story available to them in the nursery.  If young ones appreciate fairy-stories, it is because the stories are intrinsically good, not because they are fit only for children.  Similar to that is the notion of “suspension of disbelief” — if a story is told as “real,” like good fairy-stories need to be, according to Tolkien, audiences won’t need to suspend any belief or disbelief: “if [adults] really liked it (the fairy-story), for itself, they would not have to suspend disbelief: they would believe — in this sense” (61).  A fairy-story, if it is a good story regardless of its genre, is good enough for any reader regardless of age.  If it is a good story, it can be analyzed as well as appreciated.

The pattern of “recovery, escape, and consolation” is as close to Campbell’s monomyth as Tolkien gets.  “Recovery” assumes some conflict has beset the community of the story as well as “a re-gaining — regaining of a clear view.…  I might venture to say ‘seeing things as we are (or were) meant to see them’ — as things apart from ourselves” (77).  Escape “is one of the main functions of fairy-stories, and since I do not disapprove of them, it is plain that I do not accept the tone of scorn or pity with which ‘Escape’ is now often used.…  In what the misusers are fond of calling Real Life, Escape is evidently as a rule very practical, and may even be heroic” (79).  The consolation “of fairy-tales has another aspect than the imaginative satisfaction of ancient desires.  Far more important is the Consolation of the Happy Ending” (85), what Tolkien coined “eucatastrophe.”  The purpose of all this is, for Tolkien, to emphasize the importance of a happy ending, or eucatastrophe, after much believable and serious conflict: what makes a good fairy-story worthwhile is because real life has its own eucatastrophe, Jesus Christ.

Critical Response and Evaluation

“On Fairy-stories” is almost as important to studying Tolkien’s world as reading The Silmarillion and The Lord of the Rings.  It provides great insight to his thinking about the nature of stories, and why he wrote fantasy; it closely resembles fairy-story, especially since his definition of Faërie is beyond the silly supernatural creatures found in poorer-written stories.  Even though the essay never mentions hobbits or dwarves, and only briefly mentions elves and dragons, it is an important place to begin any examination of the world of Middle-earth.

Mentioned above, Tolkien gives a fair amount of freedom to what constitutes fairy-stories.  Joseph Campbell did give a fair amount of leeway in what is a hero, but his focus in The Hero with a Thousand Faces is on what the hero does, not who he is.  Tolkien’s fairy-stories follow the basic “recovery, escape, and consolation,” but they have more variety than mythic heroes according to Campbell, since the authors can change whatever else happens, and to what degree mythic, fantasy, and magical elements appear in the tales.

Tolkien’s conclusion, that mankind has had its universal eucatastrophe in the work of Jesus, overtly betrays his Christian perspective.  I wonder if Tolkien’s declaration in “On Fairy-stories” is in part responsible for so many critics (of diverse skill) finding Christian symbolism throughout The Lord of the Rings that really isn’t there.  It is possibly the best defense of the “happy ending,” in contrast to the last few decades of critics who posit tragedy and destruction as superior and “more real” than happiness and true love.

In addition to Tolkien’s interesting concept of the “eucatastrophe,” his general defense of the worth and value of fairy-stories and their like is very refreshing.  He does not apologize for enjoying this kind of narrative, nor does he try to make a case for it being as valuable as other kinds of literature; instead he just analyzes and summarizes as if he is clarifying the misconceptions of the confused.  Like C.S. Lewis, he enjoys what he enjoys and has no qualms about it, but when he tries to convince others to enjoy it, he reasons his arguments lucidly and respectfully to the opposition (unlike the critics who denigrate Tolkien and Lewis).

“On Fairy-stories” provides an important beginning for understanding Tolkien’s creative processes when reading The Silmarillion and The Lord of the Rings.  We can understand these tales through formalist criticism, but this essay gives a deeper perspective behind Tolkien’s motivation and intention.  The Silmarillion and The Lord of the Rings are not “fairy-tales” exactly, even by Tolkien’s definition of them, but they are close cousins, like the fantasy genre of which he speaks highly in this essay.  His eucatrastophe concept explains why, after much loss and suffering, The Return of the King has a “happy” ending, one that fulfills the expectations of the heroes and sees evil conquered: life is like that because of Jesus, according to Tolkien.  Non-Christian critics and audiences might disagree with him theologically, but it would be difficult to fault the coherence and believability of the trilogy because of external religious differences.  The trilogy’s end is not forced or through an unbelievable deus ex machina (it is a slight deus ex machine, but is consistent within the reality of Middle-earth), fulfilling Tolkien’s ideas of great stories (whether or not they are fairy-tales) found in this essay.

Book Review: “The Quest as Legend: The Lord of the Rings.” Modern Critical Interpretations – J.R.R. Tolkien: The Lord of the Rings, Katharyn W. Crabbe. ed. Harold Bloom. Philadelphia: Chelsea House, 2000.

Christopher Rush

Content Summary

Crabbe’s essay analyzes Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings from the perspective that its mythic/epic qualities can be accurately interpreted as a connection to the past.  Obviously, the concept of “myth” is greatly past-centered, and for Crabbe, the success of characters and themes in Lord of the Rings depends in part on how well those characters and themes adhere to the “legends” of the past.  Highlights of ideas presented by Crabbe include the nature of a hero, especially in the hero’s connection to the past; the nature of creation; and the natures of good and evil within the framework of Lord of the Rings, again related to how the “good” and the “evil” maintains its connection to and appreciation for the past.  Crabbe’s overall emphasis, though, under which she uses the aforementioned subtopics for support, is what the title of her essay implies: The Lord of the Rings is a quest story with semi-archetypal quest-like heroes, and the plotted quest of the novels and the character quests of the heroes are connected to the legends of Middle-earth’s past, especially how language distinguishes the “good” from the “evil.”  Crabbe apparently approaches her analysis simply as formalist textual criticism, observing the text itself and understanding it from the perspective mentioned above, focusing on the elements in their connection to Middle-earth’s past.  Though not strictly formalist, in that she does demonstrate an understanding of previous ages of Middle-earth’s history not strictly recounted within the text of The Lord of the Rings proper, her analyses do not extend beyond Middle-earth, except in the application of broad, universal concepts of myths, heroes, quests, legends, and the like.

Author’s Perspective and Purpose

Crabbe does not present any overt biases within this essay, other than her apparent affinity for Tolkien’s sub-created world.  By connecting The Lord of the Rings to “classical” things that matter (myths, heroes, quests), she places a fairly high importance on the story and text itself.  She treats it all seriously, unlike other Tolkien critics who only want to ridicule and denigrate Middle-earth and its inhabitants (especially in Bloom’s collection).  As mentioned above, Crabbe seems to apply only a formalist textual criticism; she does not describe heroes in how they treat or mistreat female characters as a feminist critic might do, nor does she draw parallels to real-life overtones or symbols, as a Christian critic or an eco-friendly critic might do.  She is concerned with what is presented in the text and how that text can be understood in its own relation to Middle-earth’s past.  I have never heard of Katharyn W. Crabbe outside of this essay (though that doesn’t necessarily mean anything), but the edition notes she “has been the Associate Dean of Undergraduate Studies at the State University College in Geneseo, New York” and has some other publishing credits, so she does have an academic and critical background and is not just a Tolkien “fan.”

Since Ms. Crabbe analyzes The Lord of the Rings from the perspective of language and its relation to quests, myths, and heroes, she probably has some background in linguistics, if not just on a personal-interest level: she does not use within the essay any technical terminology in linguistics or mythology, but that could just be her intention of allowing for a wide readership of her essay.  She does demonstrate quite well, though, through the essay a clear understanding of the unity of Tolkien’s work, and her ideas about language, mythic quests, and heroes are very lucid and helpful.  Her other points about the natures of heroes and how they relate to the past of Middle-earth are very well done.  She clearly connects her ideas about language and the (legendary) past and how they are important throughout The Lord of the Rings, both as distinguishing the races of characters broadly, as well as distinguishing elements in heroes and villains within those races finely.

Critical Response and Evaluation

Ms. Crabbe’s overall thesis of language as a unifier of peoples and past in Middle-earth is insightful, if not thoroughly helpful, though I do find many of her other insights very helpful.  Her thirty-page essay was one of the longest and most cohesive essays I have read recently.  Many other essays from, perhaps, more scholarly sources, seem to pad the length through digression or bald topic changes without much relevance to the guiding thesis; Ms. Crabbe’s essay, however, is unified throughout.  Her essay is well-written enough that the ideas most helpful, especially concerning the nature of heroes in The Lord of the Rings, are inherently meaningful and consistent even if separated from her thesis of language’s importance in the legendary past and culturally distinctive present in Middle-earth.

When reading The Lord of the Rings, it is possible (especially in the post-movie version era) to focus only the plot, as it is with any novel.  Crabbe’s essay helps remind us that Tolkien’s purpose is not just to spin an exciting yarn about days gone by, but that he was recalling an extended episode of a place that had a beginning, a middle, and an end, and so did its peoples.  Her idea, “the trustworthiness of traditional and intuitive knowledge is a part of the larger value of respect for the past,” is very helpful in seeing this.  Many other critics have noted Tolkien’s penchant for nature and opposition to technology (in fairly heavy-handed arguments), but Tolkien’s Middle-earth is not just a yearning for a return to Rousseauean/Wordsworthian Natural idolatry — it is, as Crabbe says, a world that values and respect its past.  The most successful, most internally unified heroes in The Lord of the Rings are those who are attuned to that past.  Another good example is her comments about Faramir: “The difference between Boromir and Faramir is an expression of the difference in what they have inherited from their Númenórean past….  It is not only knowledge of the past but reverence for it and understanding of it that set Faramir apart, and that knowledge, reverence, and understanding are his links to the golden age….  By exemplifying a hero who values the spiritual life of a culture as well as its physical life, Faramir links the Rohirrim to Aragorn, King of the Númenóreans.”  Aragorn is obviously one of the main heroes of the novel, but Faramir, according to Crabbe, has similar heroic qualities, in that he, too, understands and reveres his past.  This, more than his father’s love according to Peter Jackson’s movies, is what truly sets him above his brother Boromir, who, unfortunately, has a limited perspective concerning his people and his role in Middle-earth.

Katharyn Crabbe’s essay is a very useful examination of Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings.  Even though she has a seemingly-narrow focus for her thesis, how language relates to people groups of Middle-earth and their connection to its legendary past, Crabbe has enough examples well-explicated that make it worth reading for a variety of purposes.  I found many of her insights useful to me almost despite her perspective of the role of language.  Her ideas on heroism and the mythical past of Middle-earth are helpful, even beyond the pair of specific quotations referenced above.  Though other essays I’ve read that describe the heroes of Lord of the Rings in more detail provide more ideas, the wide range of examples from Katharyn Crabbe distinguish her essay as useful to all Tolkien enthusiasts or critics, regardless of their linguistic backgrounds.

Book Review: Tolkien: New Critical Perspectives, eds. Neil D. Isaacs and Rose A. Zimbardo. Lexington: UP Kentucky, 1981.

Christopher Rush

Content Summary and Author’s Perspective

Isaacs and Zimbardo’s collection of Tolkien criticism, their second compilation since the completion of Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings, offers a variety of essays about diverse issues and themes of Tolkien’s trilogy.  Because of the variety and wealth of critical possibility in Tolkien’s Middle-earth, I will concentrate here on three of the more important and useful essays.  Since the essays were brief, I will summarize their content and discuss the author’s perspective together.  All three of these essays were recollected in the editors’ more recent Tolkien collection Understanding The Lord of the Rings: The Best of Tolkien Criticism from 2004, but the page references are to the 1981 collection.

Lionel Basney’s “Myth, History and Time in The Lord of the Rings” presents in twelve brief pages a look at three crucial though often neglected aspects to Tolkien’s Middle-earth.  Basney is quite literate concerning mythological structure, teleology, and social progression, which becomes clear quickly in his brief essay; however, Basney subsumes his knowledge for the less-educated reader well, allowing the lay reader (who, though, should be more than a passing Tolkien fan) to get a sort of beginning look at applying teleological analysis to Tolkien’s Middle-earth.  Basney is also conscious throughout that a design in the Middle-earth universe, with a consistent and coherent cosmogony, might lead certain readers to posit a Christian/Biblical worldview or design upon Middle-earth, but Basney cautions against such a reading.  To Basney, Tolkien has explicit, coherent design and natural progression from age to age and people to people but also a “causal vagueness” (16) that should warn readers away from reading too much into it as a work of God or divine providence.  (Certainly The Silmarillion is more explicit about the supernatural powers at work in and around Middle-earth, but that is beyond Basney’s focus; The Lord of the Rings is much less explicit or dependent on Tolkien’s “God” Eru/Ilúvatar or “angels” the Valar.)

Verlyn Flieger’s essay “Frodo and Aragorn: The Concept of the Hero” does what its title implies, in that it examines the two major (obvious) heroes of The Lord of the Rings, from both their characters and actions.  Flieger draws on medieval and fairy-tale criticism to distinguish these two heroes, implying more than declaring that Tolkien did the same when he created them.  Aragorn is the typical medieval and mythical hero, the lost/forgotten king on his quest to restore his throne and marry his princess.  Frodo is the typical fairy-tale hero, an unusual creature who becomes embroiled in gargantuan tasks but survives and succeeds through cunning, luck, and magic.  Flieger’s key insight, though, is noticing that Tolkien inverts the culmination of both of these heroes’ quests: Frodo, the fairy-tale hero, suffers the loss of his finger and estrangement from the world he once loved; Aragorn, the medieval/mythic warrior who travels through the underworld and reunites the nations against the evil one gains the more typical fairy-tale ending of the restored kingdom and happily-ever-after marriage to the princess.

Third is Patrick Grant’s essay “Tolkien: Archetype and Word.”  Obviously Grant uses archetypal criticism: “Frodo moves through a process equivalent to Jung’s individuation, which is charted by the main action of the book” (93).  Grant also looks to Jung when analyzing Gollum’s role as Frodo’s shadow.  Throughout Grant’s analysis, he finds Tolkien’s counterpoint of light and darkness symbolic of identity: “Saruman’s multicolor, like the facelessness of the riders, indicates a dissolution of identity.  White is whole; fragmented, it is also dissipated” (98-9).  Grant’s conclusion relates somewhat to the “Word” component of the title, finding, like Basney, design in the archetypes of the story: “Tolkien plainly indicates throughout The Lord of the Rings that on some profound level a traditional Providence is at work in the unfolding of events.  And in a world where men must die, where there are no havens, where the tragedy of exile is an enduring truth, the sense, never full, always intermittent, of a providential design, is also a glimpse of joy” (103); the archetypes and design lead through the darkness into a saving light.

Critical Response and Evaluation

It is not surprising that these three essays were reprinted in the editors’ “best of” collection, since they were the cream of the crop from 1981’s collection.  Basney’s essay has great potential, given his obvious understanding of the interpretive framework by which he analyzed The Lord of the Rings.  I would have appreciated a longer, more advanced analysis from him; as it was, the essay provides only a few useful ideas — very useful, definitely, but not as many as the title suggested before I read it.  I appreciate Basney’s underlying perspective that, despite the pervasive teleology of Tolkien’s world, Tolkien was not creating an allegory of the Biblical story of creation nor was the “God” of Tolkien’s sub-creation, Eru/Ilúvatar, causing everything to happen, but instead was allowing growth and choices.  Basney’s insights, few though they were, are helpful: “One of Middle-earth’s governing cosmic conditions is the growth of legend into history” (16).  Structural repetition is essential in demonstrating how heroes in The Lord of the Rings, especially Aragorn, are types of the heroes that came before them discussed in The Silmarillion.  Another of his good quotations, “It is through the transformation of certain myths into experience that the free peoples recognize each other, and their common destiny and enemy” (13), helps us understand the mythical foundation of The Lord of the Rings.

From what we know of Tolkien’s reading habits, Verlyn Flieger is almost undoubtedly correct, at least in her analysis, if not the implications that Tolkien consciously created two discrete heroes both necessary to the completion of his tale.  Perhaps he was not consciously utilizing a medieval and fairy-tale hero, but Flieger’s analysis fits well.  She is, after all, probably the leading voice in Tolkien criticism, especially concerning the History of Middle-Earth series.  One somewhat lengthy quotation from her is worth the entire essay, and worth more than most of the essays in the collection:

Aragorn’s is a true quest to win a kingdom and a princess.  Frodo’s is rather an anti-quest.  He goes not to win something but to throw something away.…  Aragorn’s is a journey from darkness into light, while Frodo’s is a journey from light into darkness — and out again.…  To Frodo come defeat and disillusionment — the stark, bitter ending typical of the Iliad, Beowulf, and Morte d’Arthur (42).

She develops those ideas very well.  Like Patrick Grant, she highlights the importance of Gollum, with his role in the story more psychological than physical even though he leads Frodo and Sam through Mordor.  He is what Frodo could become, and Frodo must fight the psychological battle against the call of the Ring as well as fending off his own devolution into another Gollum.

Grant seems to discuss his archetypal approach to the trilogy more than the “Word” component, but at other times “Word … is a primary archetype” (88) throughout Tolkien’s work, so it gets a bit confusing.  Other than that, Grant’s Jungian archetypal analysis is quite interesting — were one to focus more on the archetypes of Tolkien, one would definitely need to read more Jung, but Grant’s introduction here is helpful — elaborating more than Flieger on Gollum’s role in the book.  Frodo and Gollum are opposites, but Sam is the stalwart center.  Another opposite crucial to Grant’s Jungian approach is Galadriel and Shelob, a connection I had never thought of before.  In addition to the generalized opposites, Grant emphasizes that characters aren’t really either good or evil but have components of both, and, as Galadriel’s scene by the mirror and Frodo’s entire journey illustrate, must choose to be either good or evil.  His comments and viewpoint are different from how I’ve read the books before and are quite useful even to Tolkien fans who are not interested in psychological or archetypal criticism.

Two Kinds of Wisdom: James 3:13-18

Christopher Rush

This year, during our consecrated times together, we will be exploring the cardinal virtues: wisdom, courage, justice, moderation, as well as the three foundational Christian virtues of faith, hope, and love.  While it might appear to a cursory examination that these will be disparate messages relating in no way to one another, that is certainly not true.  When I say that this message concludes the subject of wisdom and that next week we will discuss courage, do not think that you will be allowed to forget about wisdom.  As Mr. Moon said earlier, wisdom is the foundation of all the virtues we will examine throughout the year.

In math class, when you have advanced so far as to leave even numbers behind, regardless of the complexity of the calculations you and your calculator will be computing, you will never leave the basic principles of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division.  In English class, when you have advanced so far that you can analyze patterns and themes from any literary era or movement, interpreting metaphors, ironies, and symbols with the ease of an Inkling, you will never leave the basic principles of grammar, mechanics, and usage.

Wisdom is the goal, as well as the commencement.  Last week Mr. Moon exegeted for us the Beatitudes from the Sermon on the Mount.  Perhaps the most interesting aspect of that list is the fact that the first and last categories of people both receive the same reward.  “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven” (Matthew 5:3).  “Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:10).  Eternal life is the beginning of the Christian experience; it is also its end.  Even so, wisdom is the beginning of these virtues and will also be their end.  So do not think that while we are talking about courage or justice or faith that we aren’t talking about wisdom — we are always talking about wisdom.

As we sort-of-but-not-really conclude our time with wisdom, it occurred to me that a practical passage on wisdom would be of great benefit to all of us.  This is an odd occurrence, since I usually despise practical sermons.  In my day I have visited a diverse panoply of church bodies and heard a variety of speakers.  Often, in my experience (which, if it differs from yours, good for you), practical sermons and series do not require the church attendee to open a Bible.  An odd thing, isn’t that, for a gathering of Christians in an official “body of Christ” situation to neglect?  If I had to pick one thing that I hoped of all graduates of Summit Christian Academy after they leave my humble tutelage — just one thing — it would not, I must admit, be the chiastic structure of The Iliad, or great symbols of the Mississippi River in Huck Finn, or even that they purposed to commit the Shakespearean canon to memory.  The one thing, if I must choose only one thing, that I hope for all students of Summit, is that you love the Word of God (both written and incarnate), and cling to it desperately as you go out to a world that passionately hates you.  So today, without apology, we will be reading from the Word of God.  And, conveniently enough, it is both doctrinal (my personal favorite) and practical.  Bonus.

The Book of James is a superbly practical book.  Last year, the Men’s Ministry Team spent much quality time reading this book, and we examined its dozens of explicit commands on how to live the Christian life.  Throughout his letter, James makes many of his points using a great literary device known as juxtaposition.

Juxtaposition places two opposite ideas or characters next to each other to compare and contrast their attributes.  This technique has been used throughout time in many areas, from literature to music to general entertainment.  Homer places the greatest warrior of Greece sulking in his tent; next to him, Homer places Hector, Troy’s last, best hope for victory.  Taking both of his works together, we see the warrior mentality of Achilles contrasted with the strategic guile of Odysseus.  When opposite characters aren’t enemies but friends, they are sometimes called “foils.”  Hamlet has his Horatio, Darcy has his Bingley, and Holmes has his Watson.  I didn’t realize it when I first thought of these three examples, but upon further reflection it occurred to me that Hamlet, Darcy, and Holmes are all silent, brooding thinkers, while Horatio, Bingley, and Watson are all resolutely loyal to their often-sullen friends.

Many songwriters have also employed juxtaposition to get across their points, usually within about three minutes:

Well I would walk a million miles

To give her all that she needs

She would walk a million more

To do well as she pleased

Once upon a time I was fallin’ in love

Now I’m only fallin’ apart

So, so you think you can tell Heaven from Hell,
blue skies from pain.
Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
A smile from a veil?
Do you think you can tell?
And did they get you to trade your heroes for ghosts?
Hot ashes for trees?
Hot air for a cool breeze?
Cold comfort for change?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage?

Back in the day when comedians were funny because they were funny and not because they were vulgar, some of the greatest comedians of the 20th-century came in pairs — not pairs of comedians, but pairs of entertainers.  One was the comedian; the other was the straight man, often, but not always, a singer.  If you don’t know Abbott and Costello, Martin and Lewis, or Hope and Crosby, then you probably don’t actually know what comedy is.  No offense.

Though many of the previous examples of juxtaposition were opposites, they were complementary opposites (except for the music — funny how that happens).  Holmes and Watson and Abbott and Costello needed each other for success.  The juxtapositions James puts forth in his letter, however, are not complementary.  Most of his juxtapositions are either one choice or the other.  One choice is for life, the other for death.  And, like Romeo and Juliet, life and death can’t really spend a whole lot of time together.

In chapter 3, James gives the classic exhortation on taming the tongue.  He concludes by pointing out the inconceivability of the same water source producing both salt and fresh water and the unimaginable situation of a fig tree producing olives or a grapevine producing figs.  From those logical impossibilities James turns to the subject of wisdom.  And, as his wont, he juxtaposes two kinds of wisdom in James 3, verses 13-18:

13Who is wise and understanding among you?  By his good conduct let him show his works in the meekness of wisdom. 14But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast and be false to the truth.  15This is not the wisdom that comes down from above, but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic.  16For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice.  17But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere.  18And a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.

(English Standard Version)

As we have seen throughout this month, wisdom, according to the Bible, has nothing to do with self-aggrandizement.  Pride, boasting, and self-serving behavior are not acceptable by-products of wisdom.  In his classic commentary, Matthew Henry says, “[t]hese verses show the difference between man’s pretending to be wise, and their being really so.  He who thinks well, or he who talks well, is not wise in the sense of the Scripture, if he does not live and act well.  True wisdom may be known by the meekness of the spirit and temper.”  People who boast about their knowledge may in fact know a great deal of information.  Wisdom, however, they lack.  Wisdom is meek and allows the wise to live well.  Of the two kinds of wisdom, let us focus on the negative then turn to the positive.

Earthly wisdom is, in fact, no wisdom at all.  We may think we are being wise or intelligent when we plan and perhaps even succeed under our own strength or ability.  When we focus on ourselves, though, we can’t but help to think that all people are focusing on themselves.  So when we succeed, as James intimates, on our own power we boast and brag since it is something we have done by ourselves — no one helped us, not even God.  “Look at what great things I have done,” we say, perhaps only to ourselves.  Maybe our boasting is internal, and the world around sees nothing but a smug smile on our faces.  But James warns us that we have not in any way actually succeeding at anything.  We are, in fact, “being false to the truth.”  When we are consumed by selfish ambition and boasting about our accomplishments, we completely fail to see who has done the actual work or given us the ability to accomplish anything.

Also, as I mentioned earlier, when we are so wrapped up in selfish ambition, leaving no room for thoughts about others, not even God, we are forced to assume that all people around us are succeeding on their own merits and abilities.  This does not allow us to be glad for other people when they succeed, especially if it is against us.  If we are trying to win even something so inconsequential as a game with our selfish ambition and we lose, do we feel glad for our conqueror?  Of course not!  Our skills and abilities fell short, so we are deficient.  James readily acknowledges that a mind of selfish ambition cannot think positively about others.  Instead, as he says, we regard others with bitter jealousy.

Too many churches and too many Christians despise each other not because of doctrinal error or truly abhorrent practices, but because we are ensconced in selfish ambition and so are bitterly jealous of others when they succeed.  “Oh, well, if we lived in California and had Rick Warren as our head pastor, of course we’d have a huge, growing church!  Obviously if we had Chris Tomlin as our worship leader no doubt our worship times would be alive and meaningful — but we don’t have them!”  Utter preposterousness, as if God made a mistake when placing you here and now and not then and there!  Envying other churches because they have a success outreach campaign and we don’t?  This is certainly not admirable.  We aren’t to be jealous of Christians as if their success came from their strengths and abilities.

Selfish ambition is not new to the church.  Moments after Jesus restores Peter three times, according to the rule of three, Peter has the supreme dullness to look back at John and ask the Christ about what is going to happen to him.  Based on Jesus’ emphatic response, we can believe that Peter was not asking out of genuine concern for his fellow believer.  He was asking out of selfish ambition.  Jesus, knowing that could only lead to bitter jealousy, responded wonderfully.  “What is that to you?!  Don’t you concern yourself with what I have appointed for him.  YOU FOLLOW ME.”  Selfish ambition is lost in its focus and has no possibility of success or glorifying God.  The cure is to change our focus.  Follow Christ and His purposes.  Realize that we can do nothing on our own for good.  Any intelligence, any physical ability, any skill or talent we have did not originate within us!  Sure, we may have practiced and honed those skills and talents, but we did not endow them into ourselves when we were born.  All these things — our reasoning abilities, our strength, our very life — have come from above.  When we think we have done something we are mistaken and are being “false to the truth.”

Verse fifteen helps to clarify the nature of this selfish ambition.  When we believe that we are capable of success or goodness on our own, we are not truly employing wisdom.  The “wisdom” that enables bitter jealousy, boasting, and falsehood is not a heavenly wisdom; it is of this sinful earth — perhaps James is making the point that this kind of thinking is akin to the level of thinking done by a rock or a tree (not very complimentary).  Matthew Henry says of this verse

Those who live in malice, envy, and contention, live in confusion; and are liable to be provoked and hurried to any evil work.  Such wisdom comes not down from above, but springs up from earthly principles, acts on earthly motives, and is intent on serving earthly purposes.

Not only is it of this world, but James continues to describe its true origin: it is an unspiritual kind of thought process.  I would doubt that he is arguing for Monism, as if thoughts are merely chemical reactions to external stimuli and are simply mechanical functions of a material brain.  Instead, I believe he is trying to say that this kind of thinking is as far from God’s thinking as can be, a point he drives home in the last of his list of three: this thinking is demonic.  Now we get to the source of this “wisdom.”

Most people I’ve met, at one time or another, tend to get confused.  Well, about many things, but in particular, we all seem to believe that there is this thing that exists we like to call “what I want to do.”  Perhaps we phrase it like, “when I graduate and move out I’m going to start doing what I want to do, and my parents can’t do anything about it.”  “As soon as I get to college, boy, I’m going to do what I want to do.”  Unfortunately, though, and while I may be mistaken, I’ve come to believe that this thing we like to call “what I want to do” doesn’t actually exist.  There are really only two choices: what God wants me to do and what Satan wants me to do.

Now, please don’t misunderstand.  I am not in any way arguing, and I don’t believe James is arguing, for aggregate Dualism.  There are not, as some faiths posit, two eternal superpowers one we call “Good” the other “Bad” or “God” and the “Devil” (or both called “Lazarus”) constantly at war and neither is stronger than the other, but they are both equal and locked in mortal combat and we sometimes get caught in the crossfire.  That’s not what I’m saying: Satan and God are not equal in power or authority.  I’m saying that those are the only two alternatives we have by which to live our lives: God’s way or Satan’s way.  James, as mentioned before, does not give us a third option, usually.  We have a dilemma: whom will we follow?  What kind of wisdom will we employ?  There is no “my wisdom” or “what I want to do.”  Perhaps seeing the outcomes of both wisdoms will aid our choice.

Verse sixteen shows us the end of demonic wisdom: if we wrap ourselves in selfish ambition and jealousy, what do we find at the end?  Happiness?  Prosperity?  Never-ceasing fountains of root beer and skittles?  No.  We find “disorder and every vile practice.”  Selfish ambition and bitter jealousy are not easily sated.  In fact, I doubt they ever are.  Has Satan grown tired of doing what is evil yet?  I don’t think so.  And he’s very adept at it, too.  Jealousy can’t wish well-being on others and is not content to watch others succeed.  Selfish ambition does not promote harmony and cooperation but disorder and every vile practice.  I think we have all had enough experience at being alive that we need not go into detail about that phrase.  James, too, knows it is enough to say it before he moves on.  And so shall we.

The only other option before us is “the wisdom from above,” in verse seventeen.  This wisdom is “first pure.”  Have you ever had a cold glass of filtered water?  It is remarkable: no color, no taste, no additives — simply unadulterated refreshment.  It is no wonder that the best food and drinks that enable us to live a salubrious life are those that are pure.  Purity is essential.

Wisdom is peaceable.  Opposed to the disorder of selfish ambition and bitter jealousy, genuine wisdom is calm, quiet, serene, and harmonious.  The purity of a single glass of water expands to the tranquility of a placid lake in the cool of the late afternoon, sitting in a chair sipping fresh water reading Ivanhoe.  Peaceable wisdom acknowledges that God is the author of ability, intelligence, and success and needs not be jealous of others, since God is doing His work through others.  Peaceable wisdom knows that any achievements we do are because He has allowed and enabled them, not because we are self-sufficient.

Wisdom is gentle.  Certainly there is the time for righteous indignation accompanied by swift and concentrated justice.  Yet, wisdom is habitually gentle.  There is no boasting or bragging with wisdom.  College professors who bludgeon you with their lectures and ignore queries do so because they do not have wisdom.  They merely have a repository of knowledge and have no idea what to do with it.  Wisdom is calm and tender.  Jesus is the Lamb who was slain, silent before His shearers, benevolently taking the malevolence of sin upon Himself for us all.  Wisdom is honey to the lips, sweet and soothing.

Wisdom is open to reason.  Unlike the professors who allow for no argument or diverging opinions, wisdom from above seeks rational, intelligent discourse.  “Come, let us reason together,” calls the Lord.  We were created by and in the image of a rational Being who desires reasonable responses and interactions.  We could have been made mindless automatons who know of nothing but worshipping God, yet we have the choice and ability as Christians to reason with Him, to understand Him and His ways as much as we can.  God desires that.  Your teachers desire rational discussions and interactions with you because wisdom is open to reason.

Wisdom is full of mercy and good fruits.  Not Fruit Snacks, but real, pure fruit.  A pure, peaceable, gentle, reasonable attitude might be good enough from our perspective but not for the wisdom from above.  A bounty of mercy is almost too good to be true.  Wisdom from above understands the nature of fallen beings and the being-sanctified-but-not-yet-glorified nature of justified beings.  We need mercy, not just at the cross, but frequently, yea, daily.  Moment by moment, in fact.  Mercy does not obviate justice.  Just as the gentleness of wisdom allows for anger in its time, mercy does not let things go just to let things go.  Mercy has already paid the penalty for our transgressions, and mercy rebukes the Accuser when he tries to bring up forgiven debts.

Wisdom’s “good fruits” are the subjects of the remainder of our chapels this year, in the remaining cardinal virtues and the Christian virtues.  No doubt, too, they are the “fruit of the Spirit” Paul recites in Galatians.  James possibly also has in mind what he said in verse thirteen, that wisdom is shown in action.  Wisdom, some have said, is the right application of knowledge.  Having previously discussed earlier in chapter three that the same water source cannot produce both salt and fresh water, neither can the wisdom from above produce anything but good fruits.  The actions of the wise are good fruit.  Have you ever picked fruit from trees or vines?  It doesn’t take much effort to collect ripe fruit.  Actions done from wisdom are no struggle to perform and only benefit those who receive them.  Matthew Henry says this: “Those who are lifted up with such wisdom, described by the apostle James, is near to the Christian love, described by the apostle Paul; and both are so described that every man may fully prove the reality of his attainments in them.”

Wisdom is impartial and sincere.  According to Matthew Henry, “It has no disguise or deceit.  It cannot fall in with those managements the world counts wise, which are crafty and guileful; but it is sincere, and open, and steady, and uniform, and consistent with itself.”  Wisdom pays no attention to nationalities or gender.  It is consistent regardless of who needs it because it is pure.  In sincerity, wisdom never does anything “because it has to,” because it was assigned as homework, or “if it feels like it.”  Wisdom does what is right fully and whole-heartedly every time — all the time.

Then the good fruits of wisdom become an entire harvest of righteousness, and the peace that passes all understanding sows a bountiful reward for those who are blessed by the wisdom from above.  Genuine wisdom makes peace — how could it not?  It is pure, peaceable, gentle, reasonable, merciful, impartial, and sincere.  It does not “keep” the peace, placating tempers and symptoms while ignoring the sin and contention.  Wisdom solves conflict by bringing resolution, often by exposing sin and leading one to repentance and then, ultimately, peace.

How do we know which of the two kinds of wisdom we follow?  Our deeds will show us.  It is that simple.  If we are sowing a harvest of righteousness in peace, if we are pure, gentle, reasonable, merciful, impartial, sincere — we are wise with the wisdom from above.  If we are selfishly ambitious, bitterly jealous of others, always looking down and thinking about the things of this world, we are suffocating in the wisdom of this world, which is, in truth, a demonic distortion of wisdom.

The goal is wisdom, yet it is also the beginning.  I am reminded of the words of a not too-old spiritual, perhaps you may have heard it before.  This version I’m thinking of, though, is not the original, but the occasional live rendition performed years after its initial composition, done by the same artists, perhaps modified to reflect the growth and introspection after several years of performance and life:

You broke the bonds and

You loosed the chains

You carried the cross

You took my shame

You took the pain

You know I believe it

But I still haven’t found what I’m looking for.

Just as in the Beatitudes with the kingdom of Heaven being the initial and final reward, just as eternal life is something we can have now and can have in greater fullness in the next life, so, too, is wisdom the beginning as well as the goal.  While it may seem like we are done talking about wisdom and that we are moving on to another topic, we will find throughout this year that the more we talk about courage, justice, moderation, faith, hope, and love, we are really talking about the “good fruits” of wisdom.  It is always what we are looking for, no matter how much we may find it, no matter how well we experience it and live it out.

As a benediction, I will close with one final quotation from Matthew Henry’s insightful commentary on James chapter 3:

May the purity, peace, gentleness, teachableness, and mercy shown in all our actions, and the fruits of righteousness abounding in our lives, prove that God has bestowed upon us this excellent gift [of wisdom].

This essay is adapted from a chapel address given September 28, 2007.

Visions of Angels All Around — Trespass: Gabriel’s Genesis Retrospective, pt. 2

Christopher Rush

Moving into the ’70s (Sort Of)

Genesis had parted ways with Jonathan King.  John Silver had been replaced by John Mayhew on drums.  The band was now signed with Charisma Records, a major source of progressive rock in the early 1970s.  With Charisma came Paul Whitehead, the graphic artist who would create the covers of Trespass, Nursery Cryme, and Foxtrot (as well as several other covers for Charisma).  Free from the constraints of Jonathan King, and having some studio recording and live performance experience under most of their belts, Genesis was poised to become one of the premiere prog-rock band of the ’70s.  But first…

Trespassing Between Folk and Prog

Trespass has suffered slight disrepute and ignominy for years (though, perhaps even a bad reputation might be better than the near-total absence of a reputation that their clandestine debut album has), though the final song “The Knife” became the first real hit of the band, both critically and live on stage.  Despite this, the album as a whole is the second part of their maturation process (their “teenage years,” if you will) — on the precipice of full-grown development.  Some may argue that their third album, Nursery Cryme, is the culmination of their maturity, leading to the high-water greatness of Foxtrot, Selling England By the Pound, and The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway before their next great self-reinvention after Peter Gabriel’s departure.  To a degree that is true, and we will discuss Nursery Cryme more in our next issue, but it is an underappreciated album that bears more connection to the three great albums just mentioned than it does to the hybrid-like electric folk and mellotron-powered prog rock of Trespass.

Instrumentally, Anthony Phillips, Michael Rutherford, and Tony Banks have more diversity on this album: the acoustic twelve-string guitar is prevalent, as well as the dulcimer, nylon bass, and Banks’s mellotron (made most famous by the opening sound of Foxtrot).  Without the synthesized strings and brass that mostly plagued From Genesis to Revelation (mainly because the band didn’t want them), the sound of the album is more genuine as a Genesis album.  It has a folksy feel throughout, undeniably, but that isn’t necessarily a detrimental thing.  Peter Gabriel’s vocal abilities shine through far more than they did on the limitations of their pop debut, reaching great emotional peaks during the album, especially in “Visions of Angels,” “Stagnation,” and “The Knife.”  His flute work (and tambourine work) helps create the diverse woodsy, almost Tullian feel scattered throughout.  Many critics consider the sound of the album as invoking the part-Romantic, part-Victorian idyll — though the end of “The Knife” is more of a police riot as the idyllic loss of innocence and natural purity comes to a dramatic conclusion.

The Paul Whitefield cover may not capture the essence of the album as overtly and succinctly as his covers for Nursery Cryme and Foxtrot do, but once you have listened to the album a few times (with the lyrics in front of you some of those times, though not necessarily the first time through) the relevance to the songs will make sense — it’s not a direct representation but a satisfying pastiche of many of the album’s major ideas.  The dull blue/gray dominance of the cover art might account, in part, for the general dissatisfaction with the album as a whole, but the prevalence of the empty grayness has a great deal to do with the album’s general tenor: the vital, natural days of happiness are disappearing, only to be replaced by empty nothingness.  The panoramic natural view from the window capture the idyllic aspects of the album, while the royal couple gazing upon it provide the narratorship for most of the songs here.  The Cupid-like cherub could be one of the angels all around from “Visions of Angels,” and the floral curtains could be from any song.  The mysterious face in the upper-right corner sometimes looks like a demon, sometimes a faun — perhaps you should figure it out yourself.  The most obvious connection from the cover to the album content is the giant knife cutting a swath through the entire painting — though, of the several different bladed objects mentioned during the album, to which one it is referring (if not a combination of them) is the real question.  Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the cover is the knife itself, clearly a “real” knife cutting through the painting, adding an additional layer of reality to the complexity of Genesis’s transformation.  Just as “The Knife” is about the end of life as we know it (at least the way we are used to it), the knife cuts through the final, forlorn gaze of the noble couple on the life they used to love (perhaps being blanketed by an angel and demon); superimposed on all of that Genesis itself is both cutting ties with its pop roots while also about to sever ties with the overt folk rock of Trespass in favor of all-out prog rock for the remainder of the Peter Gabriel era.

“Looking For Someone”

Genesis’s re-creation begins with an appropriate lyrical comment and attitude: “Looking for someone, I guess I’m doing that.”  The band is definitely looking for a new beginning, certainly looking for an audience, and the lack of certainty in the narrator (“I guess”) fits the transitional nature of the album as a whole — better than From Genesis to Revelation but not yet the level of Nursery Cryme (definitely not Foxtrot or Selling England by the Pound).  The narrator continues with “Trying to find a mem’ry in a dark room / Dirty man, you’re looking like a Buddha / I know you well — yeah.”  The collage of unrelated images is confusing at best, but the “mem’ry” trying to be found for this album is an early glimpse of the antique scene depicted on the cover: the memory of days long ago, better days that have been destroyed by various factors — poor memory not the least of them.  Doubtful it is that we are to associate the “I know you well” with the “Buddha,” as if the narrator has spent time searching out the mystical paths to Enlightenment and inner tranquility; one would suspect the narrator to be more self-assured were that the case — unless, of course, the narrator has spent time with Buddhism and is still confused.  The uncertainty of the narrator continues as the need to “Keep on a straight line, I don’t believe I can” is followed by more difficult tasks ahead: “Trying to find a needle in a haystack / Chilly wind you’re piercing like a dagger / It hurts me so — yeah.”  As mentioned above, the dagger is a pervasive image throughout the album, introduced here.  The brief musical force of the previous line is dimmed subito for the great ironic line, “Nobody needs to discover me / I’m back again” — this is exactly what the audience must do!  Genesis does indeed require the audience to discover them now that they are back again, now with an album more akin to their forthcoming mature sound and style.  The melodic tendency to rapidly crescendo to dramatic hits is next demonstrated by the remainder of the chorus-like section: “You see the sunlight through the / Trees to keep you warm / In peaceful shades of green. / Yet in the darkness of my mind / Damascus wasn’t far behind.”  The king and queen surveying the remnants of their territory on the cover of the album do behold a forested landscape that may well remind them of warmer, brighter days, roaming through forests free from care.  If this album is an English idyll, perhaps the reference to Damascus places the time period of this opening song after the Crusades and Richard I’s defeat (of a sort) of Saladin at the close of the twelfth century, when the king and queen on the cover remember periods of both carefree days (“sunlight through the trees”) and days of war and loss — yet both of those periods are so long ago no one can remember them clearly today.

The time period jumps ahead.  “Lost in a subway, I guess I’m losing time,” he says.  “There’s a man looking at a magazine. / You’re such a fool, your mumbo-jumbo / Never tells me anything — yeah.”  Not even periodicals and modern technology can restore the innocence and intelligence lost so long ago.  The return of the chorus, now in its modern-day dress, brings more resolve on the narrator: no one needs to discover him because he is ready to be his own man.  Genesis did not need the tutelage that led to From Genesis to Revelation, since they wanted to be their own band with their own style — perhaps that cry for independency continues through the rest of this version of the chorus: “You feel the ashes from the / Fire that kept you warm. / Its comfort disappears / But still the only friend I know / Would never tell me where to go.”  All the direction given before has lead nowhere; it is time to be autonomous, to create one’s own style.  The musical interlude that follows, the first real forceful musical outburst of Genesis’ album career, is the beginning of that autonomy (with rare tones from Peter Gabriel’s flute sprinkled throughout).

In Genesis’s attempt to find direction (“Looking for someone”), it has now found itself: “And now I’ve found myself a name” — the name of the band is the same, but the sound and direction are different (though still with the motifs and foreshadowed bits mentioned in the previous article), and the name “Genesis” is starting to become what it will mean during the rest of Gabriel’s direction.  The rest of the lyrics of this song, “Come away, leave me / All that I have I will give. / Leave me, leave me / All that I am I will give” remind the audience of their initial invitation to join them in From Genesis to Revelation, but now that the band is breaking out on its own, it is willing to give of itself all it has, provided it is left alone to be itself.  They are starting to trust their own musical and lyric instincts (still maturing though), and we are to do so as well.

“White Mountain”

“White Mountain” is as close to an E. J. Erichsen Tench fairy tale as rock music will ever get.  The opening music of the piece is mildly reminiscent of medieval Christmas ballads, furthering the pervasive Victorian-idyll mood Trespass emits.  From the opening verse (an inaccurate way to describe the narrative progression of Genesis’s material) we get the first reference to the title of the album: Fang, the traitorous wolf, has trespassed where only the leader of the wolves may go and learned of the secret crown and scepter of, perhaps, the king depicted on the cover of the album, placing the events of this song somewhere between the time periods covered in “Looking for Someone” (from the perspective that the songs on this album are connected).  One-eye, the rightful ruler of the wolves, and his followers are out for retribution, and Fang is surrounded by a web and a sleeping fox: no matter how cunning he can be, it won’t be enough; he will soon be caught, trapped by his own importunate curiosity.

Fang soon encounters the steep path of the mountain, knowing that only descent will save him — but in this, too, he betrays his wolfish nature and clan rules: “A wolf never flees in the face of his foe,” and this is exactly what Fang does, cementing his guilt and forfeiting his life.  One-eye and Fang face off in their climactic duel, but Fate has already decreed against Fang the usurper.  One-eye is said to raise the scepter and use it against Fang, blurring the lines between animal and human — adding a lycanthropic aura to the characters and song.  The next morning, the white mountain stained with Fang’s traitorous blood, One-eye buries the unlawfully uprooted crown and scepter of the gods and peace is restored in the wolf kingdom, the laurels of victory proclaiming One-eye’s rightful authority.  The idyllic twelve-string strums and haunting whistling through the deserted blood-dimmed mountains send this unusual song into the ether.

“Visions of Angels”

The theme of lost innocence and lost youth returns here, straining against musically delightful tones.  The narrator tries to look at the trees “but there’s not even one.”  He runs to the smiling stream nearby “but the water’s dry.”  He looks to his girl’s face and tries to take her hand but “she’s never there.”  Why?  We’re never told.  “I just don’t understand / The trumpets sound my whole world crumbles down.”  That’s pretty serious.  After this realization of the complete absence of life-giving nature and love, the chorus proclaims “Visions of angels all around / Dance in the sky / Leaving me here / Forever goodbye.”  Based on the propinquity of the declaration of the nearby dancing and utterly uninterested angelic realm to the declaration of the narrator’s world crumbling down, the cosmology of this world is getting increasingly desolate.  The music accompanying the talk of angels is fitting for a heavenly realm, but the irony of the angels’ disinterest in the affairs of men is inescapable.

Desperation and despondency continues in verse two: “As the leaves will crumble so will fall my love / For the fragile beauty of our lives must fade / Though I once remember echoes of my youth / Now I sense no past, no love that ends in love.”  The sentiment is clear enough.  If the narrator is the king from the cover (which would make sense, but we are not here to force a thorough-going structure onto the album — even if the narrator of this song is unrelated to the cover or any other song on the album, the interpretation is similar enough), we are back in the decline of the Middle Ages.  Not only are the warm, happy days gone, but also hope itself is fading quickly.  The situation is becoming increasingly embittering to the narrator: “Take this dream the stars have filled with light / As the blossom glides like snowflakes from the trees / In vengeance to a god no-one can reach.”  The impotent angelic realm is joined by an equally uninvolved deity.  Happiness and hope are so far gone the king’s dreams are now just vitriolic attrition against the god that has allowed this destruction to occur.  Musically, the song is part military cadence, part ballroom dance number — the confusion of sounds and styles is fitting for a song about conflicting emotions and reactions.

After another chorus reveling in the angelic realm’s disinterest in the affairs of men, the final verse sees the melancholy nostalgia of the narrator morphed into anger: “Ice is moving and world’s begun to freeze / See the sunlight stopped and deadened by the breeze / Minds are empty bodies move insensitive / Some believe that when they die they really live / I believe there never is an end / God gave up this world, its people long ago / Why she’s never there I still don’t understand.”  Does the king think God is a woman?  Perhaps — or that his thoughts have returned to his wife and her distance from him as well.  His whole world has indeed crumbled down — and the angels keep dancing all around.

“Stagnation”

The preamble to this song returns us to the present age: “To Thomas S. Eiselberg, a very rich man, who was wise enough to spend all his fortunes in burying himself many miles beneath the ground.  As the only surviving member of the human race, he inherited the whole world.”  I’m pretty sure they made this guy up, but if not, he’s one of those eccentric rich British guys from a century or two ago; in other words, a rich British guy.  The song itself is one of the more diverse and impressive on the album: it is probably getting tiresome to read comments about Genesis foreshadowing their future greatness, but this song, even more than the more popular “The Knife” at the close of the album, is a sign of the burgeoning diversity and musicality of the band.

The album thus far has been about stagnation: final glimpses of what is being lost and fading memories of what once was; yet, “Stagnation” is not about giving up and letting go.  By the end of “Stagnation,” the king (again, assuming the narrator of this song is the king from the cover) is determined, like the narrator of Dylan Thomas’s most famous poem, not to go gentle into that good night.  The song as a whole is Gabriel’s best lyrical work to date, unquestionably: “Here today the red sky tells his tale / But the only listening eyes are mine / There is peace amongst the hills / And the night will cover all my pride.”  The synesthesia is delightful, coupled by the few moments of peace in the album; instead of another angry tirade against Fate, impotent supernatural beings, and Nature, we have the quiet acceptance of one’s downfall as so often brought about by hubris.  “Blest are they who smile from bodies free / Seems to me like any other crowd / Who are waiting to be saved” ends the first verse-like section of this song.  Is he referring to the stars smiling down, free? or the previous angels vindicated for their indifference? Perhaps — just as distant and uninvolved as people, waiting to be saved, too passive.  And then comes the great turn.  Musically the song has been fast, almost careering out of control.  The realization of his connection with the natural world, and the fate of others, yields a pause in thought.  The musical interlude is more Pink Floyd than Genesis, but only temporarily.  When the hit comes again, powered by impressive sounds from Tony Banks, the king has a better self-understanding.

“Wait, there still is time for washing in the pool / Wash away the past. / Moon, my long-lost friend is smiling from above / Smiling at my tears. / Come we’ll walk the path to take us to my home / Keep outside the night. / The ice-cold knife has come to decorate the dead / Somehow.”  The knife returns again, promising to destroy all that is known — but now the king will not idly give in.  The queen whose fidelity has been questioned throughout may be back, though the king referring to it as “my home” might belie that — it matters little; what matters is the return of the resolution of the king to live and enjoy the day and keep the night of death at bay for as long as possible.

“And each will find a home / And there will still be time / For loving my friend / You are there / And will I wait for ever beside the silent mirror / And fish for bitter minnows amongst the reeds and slimy water.”  This interlude, both emotionally and musically, is the real highlight of the album.  It is a fine example of Genesis’s ability to becalm a situation and then build up to a powerful climax.  “I, I … said I want to sit down. / I, I … said I want to sit down. / I want a drink — I want a drink / To take all the dust and dirt from my throat / I want a drink — I want a drink / To wash out the filth that is deep in my guts / I want a drink.”  The climax of “Stagnation” rivals later Gabriel-era Genesis songs: Peter Gabriel’s vocal performance here is surpassed only by the unsurpassable finale of “Supper’s Ready” on Foxtrot (though, the greatness is comparatively short, and many other later songs as wholes are better than the whole of “Stagnation”).  His flute work after the climax leads to a satisfying march-like resolution supplied by the ethereal chorus: “Then let us drink / Then let us smile / Then let us go.”  The song winds down — though it certainly doesn’t stagnate — and dusk falls.

“Dusk”

“Dusk” is a good example of the band’s need to grow, especially Gabriel’s need to tighten up his lyrical creations.  The song is simple enough, though hard to place in the dual chronologies of the previous songs.  The Victorian idyll sound dominates with no break or contrary theme, which is not bad, since the song is so short it needs little variety.  It is almost a call-and-response song, with Gabriel’s voice dominating the initial verses and the ethereal chorus replying with an impressively parallel pair of choruses (and a third chorus unlike the first two).

“See my hand is moving / Touching all that’s real / And once it stroked love’s body / Now it claws the past” is verselet one.  The tone of Gabriel’s voice does not sound like the voice in previous songs, making the narrator of this song most likely a different persona from the album thus far.  The thought of the lost past continues, as the hand that once touched the body of a loved one now can only claw at the past (a good verb, though the song as a whole reminds us clearly of Gabriel’s youth and relative inexperience at creating lyrics).  The ethereal chorus responds with “The scent of a flower / The colors of the morning / Friends to believe in / Tears soon forgotten / See how the rain drives away another day.”  The disjunction of the ideas is more reminiscent to us today of any typical contemporary “Christian” chorus of seemingly unrelated Bible words than the depth and brilliance of more mature Genesis lyrics.  The musical interludes, though, help distract us away from the near-inanity of the lyrics, reminding us again of the maturing skill of Banks, Rutherford, and Gabriel (Phillips and Mayhew are maturing as well, but since they depart the band after this album, it almost doesn’t matter — Phillips has a very successful career later, but Mayhew sort of disappears into the mist).

Verse two: “If a leaf has fallen / Does the tree lie broken? / And if we draw some water / Does the well run dry?”  The questions seem deep … but they aren’t, not really, especially since the connection to the ideas that begin the song is tenuous at best.  The most impressive part of the song comes from the second chorus/response and its parallel to the first one, at least initially: “The sigh of a mother / The screaming of lovers / Like two angry tigers / They tear at each other. / See how for him lifetime’s fears disappear.”  Are the sigh and scream the two angry tigers tearing at each other, or just the screaming of the lovers tearing at each other?  I really don’t know, but I suspect neither does Peter Gabriel, so it’s okay.  Another enjoyable yet brief musical interlude sets us up for the final vocals of this brief, ambivalent song.

“Once a Jesus suffered / Heaven could not see Him. / And now my ship is sinking / The captain stands alone.”  We don’t need to get up in arms about Gabriel’s notion about Heaven unable to see Jesus — the brief references to a worse-than-deist god earlier in the album are far worse than this speculation; besides, it may be partially true that Heaven could not see Christ on the cross while He was bearing the sins of the world.  The later couplet is more pertinent to the general direction of the album (since we know Jesus recovered far better than Gabriel could imagine — either of them, really).  Instead of the kingdom sinking and the king standing alone as it has been thus far, now the narrator is a captain of a sinking ship, alone on the bridge.  The chorus’s response is enigmatic but strangely fitting for this song: “A pawn on a chessboard / A false move by God will now destroy me / But wait, on the horizon / A new dawn seems to be rising / Never to recall this passerby born to die.”  Despite the brief optimism, it is nothing like the strong renewed resolution in “Stagnation.”  Here it is another aspect of Gabriel’s lyrical growing pains.  A final twelve-string/piano chord-dominated finish leads us to the final (and one of Genesis’s most frenetic) song of this part-idyll, part-maturing transitional album.

“The Knife”

The original album jacket provides this dedication on this song: “For those that Trespass against us.”  This is the only direct reference to the album’s title other than the lyrical reference to Fang’s trespass crime in “White Mountain,” but the “knife” reference has pervaded the album, leading to this modern metaphorical usage.  Not since the ending of “Looking for Someone” have we been clearly in the contemporary time period on this album, but that changes with a stark reappearance of gun-shooting chaos by the close of this song.  Moments ago, I mentioned that “The Knife” is one of Genesis’s most frenetic songs in its entire oeuvre, and that’s true — that’s not to say they never play fast-paced songs, they do; but the pounding nature of this song, mimicking a growing cacophonous riot between constabulary and a demagogue’s posse, is rare for this band.  Even the pounding opening of “Watcher of the Skies” on Foxtrot (and sections of “Supper’s Ready” on the same album) does not reach the malevolent frenzy of “The Knife.”  The previous “knife” references on the album have been about destroying and ending.  Now, it is personified as a seemingly well-intentioned revolutionary who, essentially, is only using force to establish his own tyranny at the expense of others, bringing life as we know it to a more malicious close than the simple outright destruction of other daggers and knives.  Additionally, it may be about law enforcement representatives who are likewise readily willing to use violence to solve problems and quell disturbances.  Knives allow for little stagnation after all.

The danger of young radicals and their philosophies is delineated in the otherwise fine-sounding lyrics that spring forth with the rapid organ pounding of Tony Banks: “Tell me my life is about to begin / Tell me that I am a hero / Promise me all of your violent dreams / Light up your body with anger. / Now, in this ugly world / It is time to destroy all this evil. / Now, when I give the word / Get ready to fight for your freedom / Now — / Stand up and fight, for you know we are right / We must strike at the lies / That have spread like disease through our minds. / Soon we’ll have power, ever soldier will rest / And we’ll spread out our kindness / To all who our love now deserve.”  Such is the rallying cry of most would-be tyrants and despots who, like Marius and Enjolras, think they are doing the right thing for the right reason.  The problem with this line of “thinking” comes in Gabriel’s pointed couplet at the end of this tirade: “Some of you are going to die — / Martyrs of course to the freedom that I shall provide.”  The motivation is clear: it is about power, not about justice or right — isn’t that often the way?

Any grip on morality is lost by the time verse two comes around: “I’ll give you the names of those you must kill / All must die with their children. / Carry their heads to the palace of old / Hang them high, let the blood flow. / Now, in this ugly world / Break all the chains around us / Now, the crusade has begun / Give us a land fit for heroes / Now —.”  The “stand up and fight” chorus returns after this.  It is clear the narrator does not truly want a land fit for heroes, since real heroes will in turn displace this power-motivated revolutionary, like Robespierre’s fate.  The lyrics of this section were changed slightly during live performances, but those emendations are irrelevant here: the point of the song is the same on the album and live on stage.

Both of those verses come out in a rapid pace, and though the audience probably thinks the song is almost over based on the number of words Gabriel has just sung/chanted at them, we are barely two minutes into a nine-minute song.  Suddenly the speed evaporates and the words disappear, and we are waiting for the mob of “freedom fighters” to attack the police barricade.  Soon a quiet and menacing chant of “We are only wanting freedom” begins, supported by other chants the attentive listener will hear, followed by modern police/riot squad responses: shots are fired over their heads and the battle commences, slowly at first, then forcefully and rapidly.  The pulsating tones during the “battle scene” help one realize why this song was so popular during early live concerts (though it sounds nothing like the “Battle of Epping Forest” forthcoming on Selling England By the Pound).  Soon the rioters win, and we can only guess how many “martyrs of freedom” have suffered for this would-be patriot soon-to-be-dictator.  Though we have come a long way from the idyll reverie of the medieval king from the cover, the pervasive knife of destruction was worked its way along the entire tapestry of the album.

“Tell Me My Life is About to Begin”

Though “The Knife” ends somewhat pessimistically, the album as a whole is a fine beginning to the real initialization of Genesis’s career.  It is an optimistic album, with a sound unlike most albums of its time and certainly unlike most albums created today.  Many more changes were about to occur in the life of the band: “The Knife” was soon released as a single, though the cover of it is anachronistic (an odd charge for the album just discussed, admittedly).  The cover bears the five-member line-up of the “classic years” of Genesis: Peter Gabriel, Phil Collins, Mike Rutherford, Tony Banks, and Steve Hackett — even though Collins and Hackett did not play on “The Knife” or Trespass and only came on after its release to replace John Mayhew and Anthony Phillips, respectively.  This line-up would create the seminal albums of Genesis’s Gabriel-era career: Nursery Cryme, Foxtrot, Selling England By the Pound, and The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway.  Having gone through their lyrical and musical pubescence, Genesis was about to become what it wanted to be: the culmination of progressive rock in the 1970s, and one of the best rock bands of all time.

25 Creative Things to Do with Your Friends

Alice Minium

We were all in such a hurry to grow up — so much so that now we have completely forgotten how to be children.  The world is not an adventure anymore.  The death of your imagination is the death of your lifeblood.  It is a living fact that you cannot learn without an active imagination.  However, while growing up is a necessary evil, monotony is not.  Don’t let adulthood wear you down.  Don’t sentence yourself to a lifelong stretch of ordinary.  Don’t ever be boring.  And don’t ever, ever completely grow up.

1. Agree upon a genre/category (Disney classics, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, people you know & like to laugh at, teachers, etc.) and each of you choose a character.  Don’t tell anyone who your character is.  Go to school the next day and ACT LIKE THIS PERSON in every situation; you must maintain character at all times.  After a few hours, you all try to guess each other’s characters.  This can be done outside of school as well.

2. Play dubstep music without words and invent a rap to it as it comes to you.  Must be improv.  Insert beatboxing as needed.  Do not interrupt the beat — you and the beat are one.  Nobody is watching you.  Just kidding: you’re taking a video, ’cause this is going to be really funny in the morning.

3. Create a cardboard sign that says FREE HUGS and go stand on the sidewalk in the city.  Give free hugs.  Make somebody’s day.  (Leave your wallet in the car while you are distributing hugs.)

4. Videotape your fish tank and create different personas for each of the fish.  Each one of you creates a fish’s character and does the voice for it.  Create a sitcom about their lives with spontaneous dialogue and narration.  On YouTube™, there is a man who created a seventeen-episode soap opera about his sea monkeys.  It’s literally him just sitting there doing voices and videotaping his sea monkey tank.

5. Buy a bouquet of flowers and go to the cemetery.  Choose a gravestone and guess the entire person’s life story, ending in the cause of their death.  Then say a short prayer for them and leave a flower at their grave.

6. Crack five glow necklaces.  Leave them as sticks and do not apply connectors.  Toss them onto the ground.  Have each person say what the pile of glowsticks resembles (example: three different people looking at the same pile could all see a bowl of noodles, a campfire, and a pond of fish).  Pick them up again and repeat.  Forty-five times.  You have to do this one forty-five times.  It’s like the game that never ends.

7. Next time you and your friends hang out, invite someone completely random that you would never really talk to.  Hang out with them like everything’s normal and you’re perfectly good friends.  It’s like that movie Dinner for Schmucks, except not really.

8. Create a complex mega-city out of Legos® or a house/neighborhood out of Play-Doh.

9. Make a list of twenty things and send your friend on an Internet scavenger hunt.  Google or other search engines not allowed.  (Example: something “cursed” that is for sale on eBay®; a picture of somebody that looks like someone famous; an article about a REAL conspiracy involving the government that you’d never heard of; an unintentionally funny blog or website preaching on the evils of something totally ridiculous; etc. etc.).

10. Play Beatles™: Rock Band™ until your neighbors file a noise complaint.

11. Have a Candy Land/Uno/Apples to Apples/Hungry Hungry Hippos championship.

12. Play Guess Who? and answer all the questions in the voice you think your character would have.  Play Charades or Pictionary but come up with your own ideas — don’t use cards.

13. Host a dance competition and rate each other as a panel of judges.

14. Consume caffeine and hold a contest to see who can jump on the trampoline the longest.

15. Buy a cactus.

16. Go out and about your regular plans wearing a cape and/or top hat.  Bonus points if you carry around a copy of The Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde at all times.

17. Create an improv duet on the piano/keyboard.

18. Go on an expedition in the woods and pretend to be explorers or characters in an adventure/horror movie, keeping in character the entire night.

19. Invite someone you don’t know very well to hang out with you and your friends.  All of you go out to dinner and pretend you’re in a horror movie, keeping a dismal tone and pointing out omens you see everywhere, always acting with a sense of frantic urgency or impending doom.  Seriously freak that person out.

20. Put lollipops in all your neighbors’ mailboxes.

21. Reread your favorite books from your childhood, or watch the tv shows you loved as a kid.  (This will be a much weirder experience than you think.)

22. Watch each other’s home movies from when you were kids.

23. Create a secret society and make t-shirts for each other (Tie-dye/fabric paint/fabric paint pens/stencils/glitter/iron-ons/whatever).

24. Plan your own funeral in the event that you might die — make it awesome, write it down, and entrust the plans unto the care of your friends.

25. Make cookies and deliver them to all your friends’ houses for no apparent reason; extra credit if you include a teacher, enemy, or anyone that would make the delivery extremely awkward.

Most of you wouldn’t actually try most of these ideas.  They do sound really silly.  You may be sitting there thinking to yourself that you are honestly too cool for such silly things.

I would like you to know that you are not.

Centennial: Their Story is Our Story

Christopher Rush

Introduction

The mini-series (perhaps more accurately “maxi-series”) reached its perfection with 1978-79’s mighty Centennial, the 12-part adaptation of James A. Michener’s novel of the same name.  Not as long as War and Remembrance, not as culturally shattering as Shōgun or Roots, Centennial is nonetheless everything that television mini-series adaptations/original stories could be.  This is its story.

Only the Rocks Live Forever

The mini-series opens with a panoramic shot of the mighty landscape of Colorado, and James Michener himself steps forward to introduce the story: in essence, the story of Centennial is a story of the land and its inhabitants – perhaps more the land itself, though its inhabitants are an integral and changing aspect of how the story is constructed.  The Platte River, the farmland, the open plains; trappers, settlers, farmers, cowboys, shepherds — the land and its people create this story of America.  Under Michener’s direction, the mini-series contracts the first three chapters on the formation of the land and the evolutionary progress of the animals into a brief visual effect and David Jannsen voiceover.  What will become northern Colorado is populated by the Arapaho, including a young boy named Lame Beaver (played, eventually, by the powerful Michael Ansara), who, raised by his uncle, learns, among other key lessons, that human life is frail and temporary: only the rocks live forever.  Lame Beaver makes a name for himself by stealing horses from a rival tribe and bringing them to the Arapaho for the first time.  With the new form of transportation, the Arapaho lifestyle is changed forever, as they join the plains horse culture.  Soon Lame Beaver and the audience are immersed in the pelt-trapping days of the mid-18th century through the French Canadian fur trapper/trader Pasquinel.

Pasquinel (played by Robert Conrad with what always appeared to me to be a believable French-Canadian accent — some may disagree, but that is their right as citizens of the world) is the main character of parts one and two of Centennial — though a trapper and trader, Pasquinel knows the land, the rivers, and the animals, which makes him in one sense the ideal inhabitant according to the novel.  Pasquinel embodies the simplicity of living off the land, not taking too much simply for profit but utilizing the cycles of life without disrupting the balance of nature (unless you count selling guns to various tribes), but he is no thoughtless tree hugger.  He sells guns to competing tribes to gain access to more pelts and safe travel.  After being wounded by the Pawnee, Pasquinel is robbed and assaulted by river pirates who take his pelts after months of work.  Returning to St. Louis (“San Looiee”), Pasquinel is forced to partner with Bavarian silversmith Herman Bockweiss (Raymond Burr without a wheelchair) as his financial backer.  With the Pawnee arrow permanently stuck in his back, Pasquinel furthers his ties to St. Louis by marrying Bockweiss’s daughter Lise (Sally Kellerman) — he does love her, in as limited a fashion as he is capable of, but he never hides the fact he is mostly interested in financial support for his fur trading life.

Back in the field, Pasquinel meets the naïve yet thoroughly honest (and, frankly, totally awesome) young Scotchman Alexander McKeag (the one and only Richard Chamberlain, king of the mini-series).  Rescuing him from his own nemeses the Pawnee, Pasquinel trains McKeag in the ways of the American fur trade, and they become life-long friends … of a sort.  Like all epic heroes, McKeag is soon wounded rather drastically, primarily because he doesn’t listen to Pasquinel during an Indian coup.  Pasquinel saves McKeag’s life and helps him regain his confidence, just in time for the major schism in their friendship to occur: her name is Clay Basket (Barbara Carrera); she is Lame Beaver’s daughter.

Clay Basket falls for shy, gentle McKeag, naturally; Lame Beaver, however, demands that she marry Pasquinel, ensuring both her financial security and the continual supply of guns to the Arapaho.  Lame Beaver settles his plans for his family before ending his life-long feud with the Pawnee — but not before he discovers gold in a nearby riverbed, though he doesn’t know its future significance; to him, it is a shiny malleable metal useful for making bullets to kill his enemy.  When McKeag and Pasquinel return the following season, Pasquinel marries Clay Basket and learns about the gold, believing she would know where her father found the gold.  McKeag, knowing his friend does not love her, recognizes the motivation behind Pasquinel’s actions, and their friendship starts to fray.

The Yellow Apron

Years pass and Clay Basket gives birth to Jacques and Marcel.  Pasquinel continues to spend time both in the field with McKeag and his Arapaho family as well as time in St. Louis with Lise.  McKeag does not approve, of course, but remains loyal as long as he can, in part because he cannot part from Clay Basket.  Jacques senses the tension, though he does not understand it.  Pasquinel, upon his return, foolishly determines to take his family to St. Louis; at an army fort, drunken soldiers deride Pasquinel and his half-breed family, resulting in a serious wounding of Jacques, who never forgives the White Man for what happens to him; later, Jacques is also wounded by a Native arrow, cementing his (and his brother’s) isolation from both worlds.  Pasquinel spends time with Lise, letting her know about his Arapaho family (though, being a wife, she had suspected so for a long time, just as Clay Basket does); McKeag tries to teach Jacques and Marcel how to trap in the meantime, though Jacques soon grows tired of his substitute father.  Eventually Jacques takes his frustration out on McKeag, stabbing him nearly to death.  McKeag retaliates briefly but he restrains himself; after all, Jacques is Clay Basket’s son, but he is also “twisted” with rage, and McKeag knows he can no longer stay.

Though Pasquinel salvages a temporarily successful family life with Clay Basket and the boys (and his future daughter), he soon becomes obsessed with discovering Lame Beaver’s gold strike.  Meanwhile, McKeag becomes an isolated mountain man, trapping alone and almost going mad from the lack of community.  Eventually he learns of a Rendezvous of mountain men (one of the many historically accurate events Michener includes throughout his grand saga) and decides to go, if only to see his former friend (and Clay Basket) again.

At the Rendezvous, McKeag releases some pent-up frustration, even wearing the Yellow Apron to show off a classic Highland dance — during which he reunites with Pasquinel, and they are able to set aside their differences and enjoy some time together as old friends.  One of the key traits of Centennial is that noble, generous people often have both a second chance at love and the time to amend past wrongs — not everyone does, but most of the “heroes” of the tale do, primarily because of their goodness.  By this time, Jacques (Jake) and Marcel (Mike) have grown up to be angry young men, though Jacques is far angrier than Marcel.  Jacques can shoot better than most white men, even with their muskets.  The reunion is short-lived, however, as the old arrow wound acts up and causes Pasquinel to pass out.  At Pasquinel’s request, McKeag cuts out the arrowhead, giving it to Jacques as a souvenir.  Pasquinel asks McKeag to join them, at least to see Clay Basket again (who is away, tending their young daughter Lucinda), but McKeag refuses.

Years later, McKeag makes his way to St. Louis and meets Lise and her daughter Lisette, telling Lise the truth about Pasquinel and his life.  Lise in turn convinces McKeag to follow his heart after all these years and confront Pasquinel and try to win Clay Basket for himself (though not out of selfishness to have her husband all to herself — it is too late for that).  McKeag does so, in part because Jacques and Marcel are no longer with their parents.  Pasquinel finally finds Lame Beaver’s gold, only to be mortally wounded by Arapaho warriors.  McKeag and Clay Basket come upon him in his final moments, and Pasquinel entrusts her to McKeag, knowing he will take far better care of her than he ever did.  Not knowing the gold is around them, McKeag leads Clay Basket and Lucinda away to a new life.

The Wagon and the Elephant

Part three sends the story in a new direction while (like Les Misérables) also rejoining the original storyline already in motion.  Parts 1-5 are a loosely unified story about Native Americans and other early inhabitants of the land (trappers, mountain men, and prospectors); parts 3-8 are also the extended story of Levi Zendt, a Mennonite runaway, and his industriousness helping turn the land from its rugged, natural beginnings to a bastion of civilization (with other sub-stories about the land and its inhabitants along the way).  Parts 9-11 resolve some of the other storylines already developed midway through the series, bringing the land into the 20th century.  Part 12 takes place a couple generations later, acting more as a dénouement than a direct resolution, eventually leading to the tale of Centennial being told., bringing the series full-circle (in a Roots-like way).

Levi Zendt (Gregory Harrison) is a young, hardworking, honest Mennonite growing up in Pennsylvania in the middle of the 19th century.  Despite the strenuous and strict lifestyle, Levi finds himself interested in young Rebecca who, unbeknownst to him, is also sought after by his elder brother.  Rebecca knows this, and being one of those girls, coquettes Levi in front of the orphanage, then, as girls of that ilk tend to do, shifts the blame upon Levi, whose reputation is ruined.  He is formally shunned by his family, except his intelligent mother who gives him money and the family horses, telling him to leave and start a new (real) life for himself.  He begins his new life by buying the eponymous wagon and then picking up Elly Zahm (Stephanie Zimbalist at the precipice of her Remington Steele fame), his friend at the orphanage who knew Rebecca was making up the story.  Together, they embark for the west, totally unprepared yet vital and enthusiastic.  Their first stop (after getting married) is St. Louis.  There, they join a group following the Oregon Trail with young and authoritative Captain Maxwell Mercy (Chad Everett) and his wife Lisette Pasquinel Mercy.  Also on the trip is naïve English author Oliver Seccombe (Timothy Dalton before his hardened James Bond days) trying to prove Native Americans derived from Welshmen.  This ragtag group is led by the thoroughly repugnant (both physically and morally) mountain man Sam Purchase (Donald Pleasance in one of his least pleasant roles, which is saying quite a bit for his storied career).  Without Levi’s knowledge, Purchase sells Levi’s family horses for cattle, ending Levi’s last tie with his old life (he’s sort of a mix of Marius and Aeneas, really).  Captain Mercy is on deployment to a frontier army fort (at which McKeag and his family live) in part to set up connections with the western tribes, hoping his wife can make emotional ties to Jake and Mike Pasquinel, now grown up terrors on the plains, since she is their half-sister (to the extreme).

After meeting McKeag, Clay Basket, and now-grown Lucinda, Levi and Elly continue west without the safety of Captain Mercy.  Soon into the trip, Purchase tries to rape Elly, though Seccombe and Levi prevent it (and then Seccombe prevents Levi from killing Purchas).  For Levi and Elly, this is the last straw, the eponymous “elephant” (something so big and devastating that it destroys all hopes for the future and ends their plans in failure).  Upon their forlorn return east, they team up with McKeag and his family to start a new settlement and trading post away from the army fort and closer to Clay Basket’s Arapaho home grounds, in part because Elly is now pregnant and she doesn’t want to head too far in their old wagon in her condition.  Before they can begin this new phase of their life, Elly is bitten by a rattlesnake and dies instantly.  Devastated, Levi leaves the McKeags and their trading post for McKeag’s old mountain man isolated fort, mourning for Elly and their unborn child.

For as Long as the Waters Flow and The Massacre

After what may or may not be an appropriate mourning period, Lucinda McKeag goes to console Levi in his isolation and grief.  Furthering Centennial’s trope of second-chances for love, Levi and Lucinda begin their romantic relationship shortly thereafter.  As that begins, the story adds another element: Hans Brumbaugh (Alex Karras) and his farming.  Brumbaugh does not begin as a farmer; in fact, he begins as a prospector who runs into Spade Larkin, another prospector looking for Lame Beaver’s gold.  Larkin pesters Lucinda too much about the gold, believing she would know where her grandfather’s gold came from, but she obviously doesn’t.  Without her help, Larkin and Brumbaugh find the vein but have an altercation resulting in Larkin’s death.  Brumbaugh feels guilty about Larkin’s accidental death, leaving the gold behind for a new life as a potato farmer, buying land from Clay Basket.

The major focus of parts four and five is the conclusion of the “Indian Problem.”  McKeag’s role in the story comes to a conclusion during Levi and Lucinda’s wedding.  Though she has spent time back in St. Louis developing her literacy (and fending off the romantic pursuit of young Mark Harmon), Lucinda has committed her heart to Levi.  Jake and Mike, taking a break from harassing settlers and farmers (though they believe they are defending their territory from interlopers, and they are probably right), come to see their mother and sister again.  Jake and McKeag even lay aside their life-long grudge for the sake of Lucinda’s happiness and the potential reconciliation of Indian and white settler.  During a revisit of the Highland reel that helped reunite him with Pasquinel, McKeag has a heart attack and dies in Clay Basket’s arms.  With him dies as well any real chance of formal unity between the Indian tribes and the westward-moving American settlers/army.  Major Mercy returns as well to further the negotiations.  Jake and Mike are willing to listen to him, knowing his integrity, and eventually some treaties are signed, granting the Arapaho and other nations certain lands “for as long as the waters flow.”  Levi, having taken over McKeag’s trading post and role as peacemaker, can only do so much to stem the tide of governmental deception concerning the Indian nations.  We all know that despite Mercy’s integrity and willingness to ensure his promises, it is only delaying the inevitable expansion of post-colonial America.  The burgeoning Civil War also marks the end of peaceful cooperation with the Indians.

“The Massacre” is probably the saddest episode of the entire series, bringing to a close all the major storylines and characters that began this saga as well as showing, in a remarkable degree of honesty, the lack of integrity and humanness of 19th-century American governmental and military policy and action.  Centennial really has only two major villains: Frank Skimmerhorn here in part five and Mervin Wendell in parts nine through eleven (three, if you count Wendell’s wife Maude), but Skimmerhorn (played frighteningly well by otherwise-nice guy Richard Crenna) is clearly the worst character in the entire saga.  With the army presence on the frontier decreased due to the Civil War back east, the Pasquinel brothers have been causing a great deal of disturbance.  Playing upon settlers’ excited passions, Skimmerhorn (who already has a preternatural hatred for all-things Indian based on things he experienced back in Minnesota) gathers a militia with official army support and leads a raid on the remnants of the Arapaho people, who by now have no weapons, no warriors, and virtually no horses.  Mark Harmon’s character, Captain McIntosh, returns as a member of Skimmerhorn’s army, though he refuses to join in on the massacre and is temporarily discharged.  The arrant perniciousness of Skimmerhorn is exemplified in his line “nits turn into lice,” when referring to two Arapaho infants being held by one of his acolytes.  The “soldier” assassinates the two infants, revolting young Private Clark who joins Captain McIntosh’s dissenters.  The massacre becomes public knowledge but as a victory against Indian aggression.  During McIntosh’s court martial, adjudicated by General Asher (Pernell Roberts sans stethoscope) who had earlier assisted Mercy’s negotiations with the tribes, Private Clark’s testimony about Skimmerhorn’s actions and comment about the baby Arapaho sway public sentiment against Skimmerhorn, and McIntosh is restored to honor (though he has, of course, forever lost Lucinda to Levi).  Despite the temporary backlash, Skimmerhorn rebounds back into popularity enough to gather a militia to lynch the Pasquinel brothers.  Stephen McHattie’s performance as Jacques (Jake) has been sterling for several episodes, but his performance at the end under Skimmerhorn’s abuse is stellar.  Once they learn of Jake’s death, Levi and Lucinda convince world-weary Mike to turn himself in to the “real authorities,” since only then can he get a “fair trial.”  He never gets one.  On the way to turning himself in, Mike is shot in the back by Skimmerhorn.  Mercy is so enraged by Skimmerhorn’s actions that he challenges him to a duel, willing to abandon his military career to end Skimmerhorn (even though it is essentially too late).  Skimmerhorn’s son John arrives in time to see Mercy beat him nearly to death — though Levi prevents him; sickened by his father’s behavior, John rejects him outright.  Skimmerhorn is banished from Colorado, the damage already done.  The Civil War ends, the army returns, the Indians are gone, and so are all the original characters and storylines from the beginning of the saga.  It is time for a new focus.

The Longhorns and The Shepherds

The new focus comes dramatically and starkly with episode six, “The Longhorns.”  Only a couple of the new stars of the series make brief appearances, and the focus shifts to the new diverse inhabitants of the land: this time, the cattlemen.  Oliver Seccombe returns, having failed as a writer, now giving cattle baron a try on behalf of the Earl Venneford estates of England.  Utilizing the Homestead Act in a rather shady way, Seccombe and the Venneford Ranch eventually overtake over six million acres — in part by claiming the right of contiguity: their cattle can also roam on land contiguous to their own.  Though Seccombe is still trying to be an amiable and honest business man, the pressures of his role and his own lack of experience in cattle ranching eventually overcome his integrity, though not for some time.

Hans Brumbaugh is one of the main opponents of the Venneford, but his antipathy is only touched on here in a brief confrontation with Seccombe.  The majority of the episode is turned over to a new set of characters led by Dennis Weaver as R.J. Poteet.  John Skimmerhorn returns to live down his father’s shame by doing good for the community by assisting Seccombe with a cattle drive from Texas up to Colorado, where the location of the series takes place, in what is now called Zendt’s Farm in the Colorado Territory.  Skimmherhorn gets the assistance of Poteet, the best trail boss in the business, as well as the typical rag-tag group of experienced cattlemen who know all the old jokes; the typical youngster who needs to settle a family debt and become a man, Jim Lloyd (soon played by William Atherton much less smarmy than he is in Die Hard one and two); and even the typical Mexican cook Nacho.  The drive features all the stock Western cattle-drive movie elements: Indian skirmishes, lack of water, internal conflict with the loner, Jim’s struggles coming of age on the drive, losing a few guys we’ve come to love from injury and sickness, and the eventual success of the trip.  Along the way are the occasional Natty Bumppo-like messages about the greatness and grandeur of the natural world, the open range, and how these days are never going to come again, due, ironically enough, because of the very things the cowboys are doing: establishing mega-ranches and centralized townships of power along the frontier, turning it from an untamed, natural wilderness into civilization itself — an irony the Poteet himself wistfully realizes and laments.  Though the episode has all the attributes of a stereotypical treatment of the “ol’ West,” it escapes the syrupy-sweetness of what it could have been and is rather an enjoyable episode, despite having almost no connection to the episodes and characters (and scenery) that have come before.  The characters, though typical, are real and engaging, the conflicts, though typical, are likewise believable, tense, and entertaining.  The message of the episode, as so often occurs throughout Centennial, is present without being heavy-handed, and we end up believing the cowboys and, despite the hardships, miss the days and freedom of the open range.

The ever-changing nature of the passage of time and life is furthered by the next episode, “The Shepherds,” which acts in part as a dénouement to “The Longhorns” as well as another transition to the next few episodes, as the saga of the land and its inhabitants takes on new guises and new conflicts.  Though it is called “The Shepherds,” it is more about the conflict of the land’s new inhabitants: homesteaders, farmers, shepherds, and cattlemen.  The land can only sustain so much, and the arrival of Messmore Garrett and his sheep is the last straw.  As Seccombe and secret agents of the Venneford start gobbling up farm land, Seccombe’s financiers force him to descend into hiring gunmen to drive off homesteaders and shepherds, despite the fact some of the men attacked and killed are former cowboys he hired to bring the cattle to the Venneford in the first place years ago.  Time passes rather quickly between episodes, sometimes confusingly so, but the theme of time passing does not affect our emotional attachment to the new characters, especially as they sometimes meet tragic ends at the hands of other characters we care about.  Adding an extra layer to Seccombe’s character is his romance to Charlotte Buckland (Lynn Redgrave), daughter of one of his visiting financiers.  Their romance continues Centennial’s theme of second chances for love, but we also have the sense that Seccombe is becoming a cattle baron version of Macbeth, despite his growing amour.

The uncontrollable passage of time is shown clearly in this episode during David Jannsen’s voiceover: Zendt’s Farm is now called Centennial, and the Colorado Territories is now a state in the union (called Colorado).  The Arapaho, like most Indian tribes, have been removed to reservations (in a great symbolic scene).  The lawless frontier days are no more, and this new structure and civilization is embodied in husky Sheriff Axel Dumire (Brian Keith in a role that won’t surprise you).  The range war is his major target, and though it reaches an unusual end with a unique amalgamation of the warring factions for a matter of vengeance, Dumire closes the episode by scolding the various warring parties: this battle is over, and time moves on; if one wants to live in a civilized town, one has to comport oneself in a civilized way.  It’s time to bury the dead and let life move on.

The Storm and The Crime

At this point of the series, the character role call has grown rather large, and it is time for both flashbacks of key events and a bit of a clearing out.  Calling “The Storm” another “Longhorns” dénouement would be partly correct, in that we see more of the Poteet cattle drive characters make a brief (and tragic) return, but the episode serves more as a continued transition to the character conflicts of the final episodes.  The timing of this episode is a bit confusing, in that Levi is visiting his Pennsylvania kinsman for the first time in decades, and that trip supposedly only takes a few weeks, but back in Centennial it appears a few months (or more) have passed (the spring of “The Shepherds” has been replaced by an early winter).  The recent theme of the inevitable passage of time is set in stark contrast to the unchanging (stagnation?) of Mennonite Pennsylvania.  Levi is able to finally reconcile with his family and tell Elly’s old friend about her death, but the entire trip is unsatisfactory for him — this is not his home; his home is in Centennial with Lucinda.

Oliver Seccombe’s financial troubles escalate throughout this episode, despite the efforts of Charlotte to encourage him and help him see his good qualities.  Though we completely believe Oliver’s love for the land and his sacrificial tactics to provide for Charlotte, we also know he has engaged in dubious practices to maintain the patina of prosperity for the Venneford backers in England.  The arrival of accountant Finlay Perkin (Clive Revill) furthers Seccombe’s concern, since British accountancy does not align with American-range bookkeeping.  The eponymous storm by the end of the episode destroys the crops, the cattle, and Oliver’s hopes.

Though the episode begins with some of the funnier moments in the series (especially in the later group of episodes), it does not end very humorously.  In addition to the destruction of Seccombe’s hopes and dreams, the storm brings the end of one major story and the beginning of the last story: after his return from his Pennsylvania visit, Levi makes some weighty and impressive (though theme-heavy) comments about man as an individual and his responsibility in the face of Time and History … only to be killed shortly thereafter in a railway accident, filmed in a heartbreakingly perfect way, for all of the irony involved.  Lucinda is still around for awhile, true, but the death of Levi really concludes all ties to the characters and struggles from the beginning of the saga: and appropriately enough, the episode ends with a brief flashback tribute to the characters that had come before, characters who cared more about the land than the people who inhabit it now seem to do.

The last character arc/story begun at the end of “The Storm” is further developed in “The Crime,” and that is the story of the Wendells, travelling actors (con artists more like) that have prior acquaintanceship with Sheriff Dumire.  Though they are struggling actors trying to be honest and make a living at first (or so it appears), their shady past catches up to them and Dumire impounds their earnings, leaving them penniless and homeless — until the gullible preacher comes by, rescues them, and soon falls for Maude Wendell, allowing them to pull the ol’ “badger game” on him, blackmailing him out of a home and steady income.  Soon the Wendells get cocky and careless and the badger game backfires, resulting in the death of a businessman by Maude — their son Philip, witness to the whole event, hides the body in an underground cave in the same area that houses Lame Beaver’s gold strike, though he doesn’t notice.  The Wendells take the businessman’s wealth, but they realize he can’t spend it for that would arouse Dumire’s suspicions.

The last of the old characters ends his story in “The Crime” as well, as Oliver Seccombe, saddened by the loss of the land more than the loss of his cattle empire, commits suicide on the range, leaving Charlotte alone.  She soon returns to England.  The Indians are gone.  The fur traders and mountain men are gone.  The pioneers are now industrialists and businessmen.  Nothing’s the same anymore.

The Winds of Fortune and The Winds of Death

With very little connection to the beginning of this saga, some might find these final episodes dull and irrelevant, but that would be a great disservice to what Michener’s entire purpose is: reminding us that time passes, things change, but the land remains, and we need to be wise stewards of it.

Charlotte returns from her England trip and soon falls for the older Jim Lloyd, though their romance, like all romances in this saga, goes through its initial hiccoughs.  By now Jim is essentially the last of the old cattle drive people; the shepherds have had their way, the cattle are almost no more, and even Brumbaugh and his new beet empire reach their zenith as he, too, has to adapt to new ways of living.  Homesteaders are likewise a thing of the past and the civilized land Dumire helped to establish is quickly becoming the modern world of the twentieth century.

The Wendells’ conflict with Dumire reaches an interesting plateau, as young Philip has to balance his admiration for the strong, noble lawman with his commitment and filial obligations to his shady parents.  Dumire never gives up his suspicions that the Wendells are connected to the mysterious disappearance of that businessman, but before he can prove anything, the previous unsolved mystery of the range war murders from “The Shepherds” comes back to destroy him.  With Dumire out of the way, the Wendells are free to spend their ill-gotten money, investing in land development and real estate — assuredly in ways opposed to Levi Zendt, McKeag, and Pasquinel.

As its name indicates, “The Winds of Death” brings a lot of these later conflicts and characters to a sad conclusion — such is the way of life.  The implication that the 20th century is the worst era of the history of the Platte lands is there for the audience to see, but Michener is always optimistic that we can learn from these mistakes and decisions and return to wise stewardship without expecting the land to do what it cannot do.  The horrible consequences of demanding too much from the land is displayed during the scariest scenes of the entire series at the close of this episode.  Despite warnings from quite old Hans Brumbaugh and almost as old Jim Lloyd, Earl and Alice Grebe buy dry prairie land from the Wendells and try to farm there.  Despite his guilt about his family’s past and his association with Dumire, Philip Wendell soon involves himself in the family business of shady real estate banditry, foreclosing on farmers during the crises of World War I and the Dust Bowl — almost making one yearn for the days of Seccombe and the Venneford, which by this time is much smaller than it used to be but has become its most successful in its new incarnation, thanks to industrious Jim and Charlotte Lloyd.  During the height of the Dust Bowl, and perhaps the scariest incidental music in the history of television, Alice Grebe goes insane, killing most of her family and is then killed by her husband who then commits suicide.  Shortly thereafter, unrelatedly, Jim Lloyd dies and we know the story is almost over.

The Scream of Eagles

By the late 1970s, Centennial, Colorado is barely recognizable from what it once was and now looks very much like a modern American city, still suffering from the Western travails of racial discrimination, opportunism, and the pressures of ecological remediation.  Philip Wendell (now played by Robert Vaughn) is, likewise, no longer recognizable from the morally impressionable young boy he was to the late-middle-aged entrepreneur he has become under his parents’ tutelage.  In contrast is Paul Garrett (David Janssen on screen, finally, after narrating 11 episodes), current owner of the Venneford Ranch and descendent, somehow, of most of the major characters in Centennial’s history: Messmore Garrett, Jim Lloyd, Levi Zendt, Pasquinel, Lame Beaver, and more.  Eventually, Garrett is persuaded to run against Wendell in the upcoming election for Commissioner of Resources, an office that will be responsible for managing the region’s economic growth and historic preservation: the ideologies clashing through the entire saga reach a clear climax.

Meanwhile, Sidney Endermann (Sharon Gless — Cagney, not Lacey)  and Lew Vernor (Andy Griffith) arrive to capture the history of Centennial, finding a valuable resource in Paul Garrett.  Their inquiries into the land and its inhabitants convince Garrett to run for office against Wendell, in part, because of his growing frustration with governmental treatment of, well, everyone and everything.  Instead of giving up or just complaining, Garrett can become part of the system and work effectively to bring about change and restoration: again, the optimistic message of Centennial is clear.  During their investigation, Vernor discovers the old cave that houses the corpse of the man Wendell’s mother murdered years ago, frightening Wendell.  He, in turn, does his best to smear Garrett during their competing campaigns, but it appears by the end (though never explained explicitly) that Garrett wins, furthering the optimism of the saga.  With the future looking bright, provided wisdom and ecological responsibility win out over unbridled acquisitiveness, Vernor and Endermann start writing the history of Centennial, bringing the saga full circle.

Their Story is Our Story

Perhaps you are wondering why I told you the whole story, and why, perhaps, you should bother watching the series now that you know what happens (or why, even, you should read the almost thousand-page novel).  Though it might not seem like it, I certainly did not tell you the entire story.  A saga like this has many more characters, plotlines, conflicts, and themes that can be adequately summarized here — even the main characters and storylines are much more interesting and enjoyable than the treatment given above.  The novel, especially, has a great deal more content than the mini-series has, particularly about the early prehistory of the land and Brumbaugh’s beet industry.  The differences between the versions are not terribly important, though Morgan Wendell is a better person in the book than in the mini-series.  It is a full, involving, quality story (in both versions), and it should be enjoyed be everyone simply because it is a great story: the characters are real, the history is true, and the ideas are engaging and relevant.  Finally available on dvd, though the people who wrote the summaries on the dvd cases sometimes sound like they haven’t seen the episodes, we can watch Centennial whenever we want.  Additionally, the retrospective bonus feature is an enjoyable look back with some of the major actors, sharing memories and interesting tidbits of filming this mega-masterpiece; it’s always nice to hear key actors in major roles talk appreciatively of their parts, their fellow actors (especially the kind things Robert Conrad and Barbara Carrera have to say about Richard Chamberlain), and the cultural significance of the work itself.  Essentially, though, you should read the novel and enjoy the mini-series for the same reason James A. Michener created the story in the first place.  As he says in his introductory monologue

I suppose my primary reason for writing the book Centennial was to ask us, you and me, if we’re aware of what’s happening right now to this land we love, this earth we depend upon for life.…  It’s a big story about the people who helped make this country what it is and the land that makes the people what they are.  And it’s a story about time, not just as a record but also a reminder: a reminder that during the few years allotted to each of us, we are the guardians of the earth.  We are at once the custodians of our heritage and the caretakers of our future.

Centennial is the great adventure of the American West, and this story, their story, is our story.  Its message is as true and relevant today as it was thirty years ago.  That is reason enough to read it, watch it, and treasure it again and again … for as long as the waters flow.

Twelfth Night

Emily Grant Privett

Twelfth Night is an example of Shakespearean “Saturnalian/Satyric” love comedy.  This play is a love comedy.  Comedies usually have aspects of love.  Often in these plays, two lovers must overcome some sort of obstacle; in the end, they often end happily with a marriage or two.  Saturnalia is when characters are released from inhibitions.  It is often based around a holiday.  Satyr is involved in a story that has darkness to it.  It often includes a theme of doomsday.  Also, it may involve foolery or folly.  Characters are often abused, physically or verbally.

Above all, Twelfth Night is an example of a love comedy.  One obvious reason for this is because it ends with marriages and an announcement of love to one another.  Olivia and Sebastian get married, even though Olivia is marrying someone she didn’t intend to.  Sebastian promises to love her and be true to her, and they marry, whether Olivia knows who Sebastian really is or not.  It also ends with Viola and Orsino realizing and expressing their true love for one another.  After this is done, they agree to get married.  These two marriages are followed by a third when Sir Toby Belch and Maria also decide to “tie the knot.”

It is also a comedy because Shakespeare involves several aspects in the play.  He uses twins to have mistaken identities.  Both Sebastian and Viola are mistaken to be someone else.  When Viola dresses up as Cesario, she has a very similar likeness to her twin brother Sebastian, later to be mistaken for Cesario.  Sebastian is confused with his twin sister, dressed as Cesario, when Olivia finds him and confesses her love for Cesario/Viola.  Shakespeare also uses Viola dressed as Cesario to serve as a go-between with the duke and Olivia causing a love triangle to erupt.  It includes romance in the fact that several marriages occur.  Shakespeare also involves several characters such as Sir Toby Belch, Sir Andrew Aguecheek, and Feste the Fool to provide slight comical interludes in the play.

Twelfth Night is an example of a Saturnalian love comedy because of the cross-dressing aspect.  Viola disguises herself as a man, Cesario.  The Saturnalian aspect comes into play here because she doesn’t act like herself.  She is free from inhibitions.  She doesn’t feel self-conscious about the way she acts.  She felt free to do as she wished with no hatred or distaste toward her.  Viola finds herself dressing up as a man after washing ashore after a shipwreck.  It is necessary that she makes a name for herself in this new strange land of Illyria, so she dresses up in men’s clothing to make her way in a man’s world.

This play is also an example of a Saturnalian love comedy because it is based around a holiday.  Saturnalia often is based around a holiday.  In this case it is based around Christmas.  The twelfth night is the last day of Christmas.  This is the day in which everything is revealed.  It is on the twelfth night of the Christmas holiday that Sebastian is recognized as Viola’s brother.  It is also the day that the true identity of Viola/Cesario is revealed.  The true feelings of both the duke and Viola are expressed, causing them to get married, alongside other characters in the play.

In addition to being a Saturnalian love comedy, Twelfth Night is also a Satyric love comedy.  This play involves several aspects of Satyr.  One example of this is the use of death.  The entire story begins when Sebastian and Viola are shipwrecked.  Both believe the other to be dead.  Viola, being the first to arrive on land safely, and thinking that her brother is dead, strives to make a new name for herself and dresses herself in men’s clothing.  Sebastian isn’t found for a number of days and eventually finds himself in Illyria, the same place his sister resides.  The entire play is centered on death in the way that both siblings thought that their sibling was dead.  There is an obvious sense of mortality throughout the play.

Twelfth Night is also considered a Satyric love comedy because it involves trickery, foolishness, and folly.  Malvolio is the sort of character that lives to spoil the fun of other people.  He enjoys revealing plans that were meant to be a secret.  Sir Toby and Maria then strive to take the joy Malvolio gets from this away from him.  They concoct a plan to write a false letter from “Olivia” expressing her love for Malvolio.  Malvolio’s character completely changes.  He does anything in his power that will attract Olivia and draw her attention, thinking that she loves him.  He is in pursuit of something that he believes is true but everyone else knows is false.  He acted as a fool, as Maria and Sir Toby acted in ways of folly.

Finally the play is a Satyric love comedy because it ends with the warning of doomsday.  Twelfth Night ends with a song by Feste.  This song discusses life.  He sings about how life progresses.  It talks about how things in life change and don’t make sense.  It is a reflection on the play that precedes it.  It discusses the wind and the rain and how some things matter but others will always remain the same.  It talks about the mortality of man and how everyone is going to grow up, and therefore, everyone will die.  Once again, the theme of coming death has weaved its way into the play.

Twelfth Night not only possesses the characteristics to be a love comedy, but it also involves the aspects of Saturnalia and Satyr.  The Saturnalian aspects come into play when Shakespeare weaves in the idea of the holiday and the ending of the Christmas celebration.  The Saturnalian aspects also include Viola’s dressing up as a man and being free from inhibitions and contempt.  Satyr is involved because Shakespeare uses many dark elements in his comedy.  The theme of death and doomsday is recurring.  There is also a use of foolery and trickery.  Because of these different aspects, Twelfth Night is considered a “Saturnalian/ Satyric” love comedy.

Secession, Not Slavery

Tanner Rotering

The article in the Richmond Times-Dispatch by Charles F. Bryan, Jr. entitled, “Yes, Slavery Caused the Civil War” (published August 15, 2010) presents a very poor case for Bryan’s point of view.  Bryan argues that without the issue of slavery, the South would have no reason to secede from the Union.  While this is true for the most part, this does not mean that “Slavery Caused the Civil War.”  In reality, the war was primarily concerned with the issue of secession from the Union.  The South fought the North because the North was infringing upon (as the southerners viewed it) their right to secede from the Union and form their own confederacy of states.  While the issue of slavery was the cause of secession, which was the cause of the war, to say that slavery caused the war is taking a logical liberality that is not fully warranted.  It is logical to say that without slavery, the Civil War would have never happened, but it is not logical to say that slavery was the cause of the Civil War, because it was only a motivation behind the cause.  To prove this point, imagine if the North and the South had still disagreed concerning slavery, but the South had not seceded.  Would there have been a war?  Of course not!  Slavery had existed for years beforehand, but no war had resulted.  The instigating factor that caused the war was secession.

There would not have been a civil war if the North had not desired to take back the South, and the North would not have wanted to take back the South if the South had not seceded from the Union.  In his first inaugural address, Lincoln says

I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws, the Union is unbroken; and to the extent of my ability I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States.…  I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that will constitutionally defend and maintain itself.…  The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion — no using of force against or among the people anywhere.

This clearly illustrates that Lincoln in no way intended to show aggression toward the South except for the purpose of preserving the Union.  In Lincoln’s second Inaugural address he expresses the same notion.

While the inaugeral [sic] address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war — seeking to dissole [sic] the Union, and divide effects, by negotiation.  Both parties deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war rather than let it perish.  And the war came.

One might consider this point to be a contradiction to a point made above concerning the differentiation between a cause and a motivation behind a cause.  Slavery motivated secession and secession motivated the North to take back the South, so wasn’t secession simply another motivation behind the cause of Northern aggression?  Once again, here is a slight misinterpretation of the issue.  The North trying to take back the South was not the cause of the war; it was “the war.”  In general the most immediate and fundamental motivation of the initial aggressor can be considered the cause of a war, and in this case it is secession.  While the North was not technically the first to take military action directed toward the South, it was the first to aggravate the other side by not removing its forces from enemy territory, but instead, sending supplies into aid these forces.  Regardless of whether these actions were justified, the North was the first aggressor and its aggressions were indeed intentional.  Lincoln knew that the conflict would break out between the Union and the Confederate States of America, and he wanted to justify his military actions by allowing the South to take the first shot at Fort Sumter.

Lincoln did not initiate the war to eradicate slavery.  Lincoln began to pursue Emancipation for the slaves only after the war had already begun.  He decided that, in order to put the South at a tactical disadvantage, he would emancipate the slaves in the states that had seceded, but again, this was not the cause of the war; it was a reaction that occurred because of the war.  In 1862, Lincoln said, “If I could save the union without freeing any slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”  Also, in his first inaugural speech he says, “It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you.  I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that ‘I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists.  I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.’”  Congress also had no intention of interfering with the institution of slavery but only of maintaining the Union.  In 1861, Congress adopted a resolution which stated, “This war is not waged … for the purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the established institutions of those States, but to maintain the States unimpaired; and that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war should cease.”  Clearly the North did not begin the war because of slavery but because of secession.

All of Charles F. Bryan, Jr.’s arguments are essentially proving that the South seceded to preserve slavery, but this does not prove that slavery caused the war.  The conflict concerning slavery caused the secession and secession caused the war.  Many people may consider this a trivial distinction, but understanding the cause of the Civil War is a fiery issue today, and if one is going to argue for hours about it, one ought to  pay close attention to this important distinction.

Because of Southerners’ reliance upon slavery they considered states’ rights an important issue.  The Confederate States of America was based upon the idea that states have a right to secede from the Union because the Union was a voluntary organization formed by the consent of the states themselves.  Lincoln, along with many other Northerners, believed otherwise.  He considered the Union to have been formed by the consent of the people, as a perpetual, never-ending institution.  This debate was at the heart of the issue of secession, and this was the real philosophical conflict that lead to the martial conflict known as the Civil War.