A book for pessimists?

Happy Halloween, my friends.
I finished the book quite a while ago and haven't gone back to it since, though I have thought about it from time to time. I thought the author was quite skilled with her descriptive language, which made things quite enjoyable as she described the land and people, but made things almost unbearable as she described the ravages of the plague. I don't have a whole lot to say about the book, so I guess I'll list some questions that I had as I read the novel, and then I'll offer up my own answers.

1. What lesson(s) are to be learned from this book?
2. why do we isolate ourselves
3. freedom lost with marriage?
4. How did your view of the rector change after you learned the secrets of his marriage?
5. why do some trials seem to erode faith in some people and build faith for others?
6. what are your thoughts about the mental and spiritual unravelling of the village over the course of the year
7. what do you say to those who are mourning?
8. why the epilogue? The story would have ended well for me with her galloping away from the village on the horse.

1. I think the lessons I learned from the book are primarily found in the questions I listed.
2. I think that people usually isolate themselves because of fear, to protect themselves from others. Interesting that in this book the village agreed to the isolation in order to protect other villages from themselves, though there were characters that isolated themselves from others within the village.
3. One of the Gowdie ladies talked to Anna about marriage, essentially saying that she didn't want to marry because she didn't want to lose the freedoms she enjoyed. Of course, women probably had fewer freedoms in that time period; interesting though that the women characters were some of the strongest in the village. And though there may have been different reasons in the dark ages for marriage to be viewed by some as an end to certain freedoms, there are probably some people today that feel that "the ol' ball and chain" is figurative but well representative. Marriage back then probably could have potentially given women greater security, if they were wise in whom they chose to marry. Likewise, the careful choice of a spouse in our times is important, though I think patience, humility, and communication are perhaps even more important.
4. Speaking of marriage, the relationship between the rector and his wife was a surprising one. Many parts of the book gave me the impression that he truly loved his wife, while the revelation of their marriage and how he viewed her made it seem like an abusive relationship. But I had already lost most of my respect for the rector by that point in the story. I wonder if Elinor felt trapped in the marriage.
5. Trials and faith. I think a lot of how people react to trials is due to how they have unknowingly prepared themselves for the trial. I also wonder if pride or ill-formed preconceived notions (fatal optimism?) set them up for a harder fall than those who are humble and/or prepare for the worst. One last thought here: the scriptures tell us that we will not be tempted above what we are able to bear.
6. I think part of the mental and spiritual degradation of the people is related to the topic in question #5. I also think that an awful lot of fear and ignorance and paranoia poisoned the mental and spiritual health of the people.
7. This is a difficult one. My wife lost her dad while she was a senior in high school, in fact he practically died in her arms. Needless to say, I think she is better qualified to answer this question than I am. I am grateful for the knowledge of God's plan. We still mourn the loss of our loved ones, but as Joseph Smith said, "We do not mourn as those without hope."
8. I think the ending was dragged out further than it needed to. I had the same problem with the movie "Second Hand Lions." Perhaps the author had a clear purpose for the ending, but I just didn't get it.

Overall, I enjoyed the book, it had some greatly developed characters and some wonderful imagery through language. The emotion of it was a little heavy at times and had me feeling sorrowful. I think it is a good book, but I'm not sure it's one that I will plan on reading again.
Tell me what you think.

New addition to the family ... still working on the basement

Girl number 4 arrived last night. Jump over to my blog to have a look.

PVS Book Club -- Going Forward

So...

We've reached the end of the original book club rotation. I think it's been a lot of fun, and I want to continue it if others are still enjoying it.

I'm inclined to assume that all those who have been participating somewhat regularly (Paul, Alvin, Karl, Jesse, Glenn, myself) will be in the rotation for choosing the next set of books. If some of you who haven't been contributing to the book club (Eliot, James, Scott, Dave, Ron, Ryan, Christopher) want to choose one of the books, just respond and let me know, and I'll factor you in to the rotation. I'll choose the new rotation sometime in the next two weeks, though, so if you want in, let me know sooner rather than later. That counts for if you want out as well; i.e. if you're in my rotation list but don't want the responsibility of choosing a book this next time around.

If anyone has an alternate suggestion, or comments in general on the book club side of the symposium, let me know.

Meltdown

I'd like to here Jesse's thoughts on the current economic sitch, and the changes that should/shouldn't be made in the context of the debate about the role of government.  I don't understand enough to have a real opinion here

Ramblings and overdue comments

All of the following items probably should be comments on various posts (like Karl's), but I find it easier to write one post than 5 comments.

To Glenn

Congratulations is way overdue. The baby pictures were nice, but I especially enjoyed the pictures from the "Hair Raising Experience" blog entry. Today I was reading some articles by Steven Landsburg, including one called Do Daughters Cause Divorce? (Landsburg has written a series of interesting articles for slate.com about Everyday economics: How the dismal science applies to your life.) Anyway, when I read this article, I thought of you Glenn and hope that you can beat the odds.

Glenn, I also enjoyed your post on the Joseph Smith presidential candidacy. We just finished reading the D&C/History of the Church picture scriptures with our daughter, but the bid for the presidency was not a topic that was covered. I understand that it doesn't build testimonies to talk about Joseph's run for the White House, but it doesn't hurt testimonies either.

I'm listening to this book called "Lies My Teacher Told Me". Most of it deals with how our Euro-centric history text books omit or misrepresent the history of people of different races (starting with the Indians) and social classes. The author also has a section on heroification and how he thinks it does people a disservice to talk about historical figures as real people with real struggles that made mistakes. I know there is a limited time in church, so it is important to focus on the most uplifting things. Still, I can't help but feel the church does a bit of a disservice by not talking more about the whole Joseph Smith and things like his presidential bid.

Speaking of books, did anyone else volunteer to be part of the book club core or is it my turn to choose again? If it's my turn, books I have been kicking aroung include one's that I've already read "An Ordinary Man" (About the Hotel Rwanda story), books I've half read "Rough Stone Rolling", and books I plan to read in the near future "The Omnivore's Dilemma". Let me know if you have any opinions.

The Dismal Science and the Environment

So a while back I asked Jesse to post his half finished post on the environment because I wanted to comment on it. I decided that if economics and environmental science are indeed comparable, then I have been underestimating environmental scientists because I have a lot more faith in economic predictions than environmental predictions. Also, I liked Karl's point that you don't have to know when the smoker is going to die to know that smoking is bad. (Aside: I think a more apt analogy than thinking of the US as a smoker would be if the country were a '50's coal miner. Both are eventually going to suffer lung disease, but the coal miner needs the job in a different way than the smoker needs a cigarrette.)

I still feel like environmental scientists have not come up with a viable solution to the problem. Most of the "cures" are worse than the disease. I don't understand why most environmentalists aren't quicker to embrace nuclear power, as it is much more proven than wind, solar, and biofuels. If someone can explain it to me, I'll be one step closer to accepting Obama (our next president?), who often repeats the wind, solar, bio mantra, as the thoughtful person he has a reputation of being.

The Lost Cause

I still haven't come to a firm conclusion about the rightness or wrongness of Lost. In retrospect, watching 3 seasons in 3 months was probably a bit much. My wife has definitely concluded that she won't be watching it, and I definitely feel that I shouldn't spend that much time watching stuff without my wife. So by default, I guess I won't be watching the rest of Lost.

I am starting to look more into devices that can help filter out a lot of the bad stuff because, as Karl pointed out, most episodes of Lost aren't that different than the commercials or other media. Personally, I don't feel offended by most commercials or most episodes of lost, but that may be more of a reflection on me than the media. I don't know. Either way, I figure if there is technology available to help me access cleaner media, then I should try to utilize that technology. I've heard some success stories, but if any of you have had any success, let me know.

A "Lost" Cause

I know there are multiple Lost enthusiasts out there, and I need your help. My wife has been watching Lost with me (2.5 seasons in the last 2.5 months), and while she enjoys the show, she has had, from the beginning, some misgivings about the violence and sometimes the sexual innuendo in the show. Well, a combination of General Conference and an episode that was particularly bad pushed her over the edge, and she has decided to stop watching, despite the large investment of time we have already put into the show. Now I'm in a fix because I still want to find out what happens. Here's what the conversation inside my head has been like. The two participants are Good Alvin (GA) and Not-So-Good Alvin (NSGA).

NSGA: This sucks.

GA: Good thing the kids didn't hear you talk like that.

NSGA: Don't start with me.

GA: She's right, you know.

NSGA: Maybe.

GA: Maybe? Have you forgotten all those lessons on the media you received as a young man? If there is anything virtuous, lovely, of good report, praiseworthy,...

NSGA: Praiseworthy! Lost is a genius piece of work, and it's received critical acclaim.

GA: You're grasping at straws.

NSGA: What about interesting? Shouldn't interesting be in that article of faith somewhere?

GA: Nice try.

NSGA: It's not THAT bad. We fast forward through the worst parts.

GA: So you're admitting that there are bad parts.

NSGA: A few.

GA: Don't you remember the lessons on justifying 'just a little sin'.

NSGA: Yeah, yeah, yeah.

GA: Would you let your kids watch the show?

NSGA: No, but Miriam's only 3.

GA: What if they were teenagers?

NSGA: 18 is still a teenager, right?

GA:Look, if you were honest with yourself, you would admit that the show is against your principles, and you would stop watching.

NSGA: OK, Mr. Goody-Two-Shoes, you want to be honest? Tell me, do you intend to obey all of God's commandments?

GA: Naturally.

NSGA: You ready to start driving the speed limit? How about the Word of Wisdom? There's no way all of those snacks we've been eating are legal.

GA: Now, that's not fair. I never said I was a saint. Just because we're not perfect in all things doesn't mean we can't be better in some things.

NSGA: I'm just saying that not even you can avoid those chocolate mint brownies in the fridge. Eating them may not be part of treating our body like a temple, but sometimes it's OK to enjoy something that's not good for you.

GA: But TV is different, it stays in your mind longer.

NSGA: Longer than those brownies stay in your gut?

GA. Fine. You want to eat brain sugar...go ahead. Tammy never said you couldn't watch Lost on your own. You have your free agency.

NSGA: Maybe I will.

GA: Fine. [Storms off]

NSGA: [Sigh] Brownies are much more enjoyable when you have someone to share them with.

the other candidate

Last Thursday at our ward's monthly fellowshipping fireside, I presented the topic of Joseph Smith's 1844 presidential campaign. Not too many people attended, perhaps because of the vice presidential debate, though I did get home in time to hear Palin ask, "Can I call you Joe?"

Alvin had asked a while back if I would share what I glean from the book that I had on my list of potential October reads. So here is a summary of how Arnold Garr presents Joseph Smith's move into the political arena.

• Oct. 1838 - Gov. Boggs issues extermination order
• March 1839 - while in Liberty Jail, Joseph Smith (JS) receives a revelation (D&C 123); verses 1-6 are instruction to take details of persecutions to the gov't for appeal
• Oct 20, 1839 - Nauvoo High Council select JS as a delegate to take grievances to the president and congress of the United States
• Nov 1839 - journey to DC; JS stops a runaway stagecoach and is declared a hero; presents documents to President Martin Van Buren, who says, "What can I do? I can do nothing for you! If I do anything I shall come in contact with the whole state of MO."
• Dec 1839 - present to congress petition for assistance in bringing justice for the Mormons
• March 4 1840 - Judiciary Committee declines the Mormons' petition, essentially stating that it is a matter for MO
• Dec. 16, 1840 - IL state legislature approves the Nauvoo Charter; JS said, "I concocted it for the salvation of the Church, and on principles so broad, that every honest man might dwell secure under its protective influence."
• Feb 1, 1841 - JS elected to the Nauvoo City Council
• Feb 3, 1841 - JS introduced bills to organize the militia (the Nauvoo Legion) and the University of the City of Nauvoo. JS is named a regent of the University
• Feb 4, 1841 - JS elected lieutenant-general of the Nauvoo Legion
• Jan 22, 1842 - JS elected Vice Mayor of Nauvoo
• May 19, 1842 - JS elected Mayor of Nauvoo after John C. Bennet is ousted from the office for many acts of gross misconduct
• Summer of 1842 - multiple attempts to arrest the prophet, including one by the former Gov. of MO, Lilburn Boggs. The IL refuses to help JS, instead offering a $200 bounty.
• Mar 3, 1843 - IL House of Reps. vote to repeal the Nauvoo Charter. The Senate votes to retain it.
• Oct. 1843 - editorial in "The Times & Seasons" titled "Who Shall Be Our Next President?"
• Nov. 1843 - JS wrote letters to 5 leading presidential candidates, essentially asking, "What will you do for the Mormons?" He received 3 replies but no pledge of support. In fact, John C. Calhoun said, "[The Mormon case] does not come withing the jurisdiction of the Federal Government, which is one of limited and specific powers."
• Jan 29, 1844 - local leaders in Nauvoo meet; Willard Richards motions that JS should run for President of the United States. JS works with W.W. Phelps to draft "General Smith's Views of the Powers and Policy of the Government of the United States," which outlines much of his presidential platform.
• JS political platform includes the following: increase the power of the presidency, especially to be able to suppress mobs, reduce the number of members in the House of Representatives by approximately one fifth (2 reps per 1 million people) and reduce their pay from $8/day to $2/day, abolish slavery by 1850 and "pay every slave owner a reasonable price for his slaves." reform the prison system, abolish court martial for desertion, form a national bank, annex OR and TX
• March 11, 1844 - JS organizes the Council of 50, to help with the campaign
• April 9, 1844 - call for volunteer electioneer missionaries to preach the gospel and spread JS campaign message
• June 7, 1844 - Nauvoo Expositor publishes articles with hostile charges laid against JS
• June 10, 1844 - The Nauvoo City Council sees the Expositor as a threat to the peace of Nauvoo and orders its removal
• June 27, 1844 - JS is martyred
• July 1, 1844 - State convention held in Boston, delegates are chosen for nat'l convention
  

Some people doubt JS ability to win the election or even his own perception of a real campaign. The author does a decent job of defending his view that JS was serious about becoming president. He also mentions various informal polls, which indicated that JS and his proposals had high popularity. JS antagonists were concerned enough to say that even if JS "did not get in the presidential chair this election, he would be sure to next time."

Joseph Smith said of President Van Buren, "[our interaction shows] … he was an office seeker, that self-aggrandizement was his ruling passion, and that justice and righteousness were no part of his composition." He was frustrated by the lack of desire and ability that the president and the candidates had to help the Mormons. He was determined to do something about it. He said, "If I ever get into the presidential chair, I will protect the people in their rights and liberties." He was sincere in his desire to help the injured innocent, regardless of faith.

I enjoyed the book, it was a quick read, but it provided a good detail of the campaign. There are several interesting tid-bits of history in there. Let me know if you would like to borrow the book, or if you have any questions about details that my brief summary left out.

No Flannel in Vegas

Mental Health

I think the book’s tone was really effective in communicating that underlying theme of mental health—I felt like I was reading the business world’s version of Crime and Punishment until halfway through. In fact, I read the first half of the book without thinking much about it, and I felt like I was reading a 50’s self-help business/financial book like Good to Great or Rich Dad, Poor Dad. I was upset to see the feelings I had in common with Tom Rath—the desire to succeed in the business world, the unhappiness we sometimes have at work, desire to keep up with the Joneses., etc. It made me think about what my real priorities are.

Not only my feelings, but my thought patterns are often similar to Tom’s: every time something difficult happens to me, I have similar phrases to Tom (I say, “what’s the worst that can happen?” The answer is never as bad as eternal damnation or the like). I find it interesting that Tom had more difficulty coping with “normal life” than with the war. I half expected Tom to go from mentally unhealthy to mentally unstable. Is it because war has so many absolutes? or is it because the war left so many questions up in the air, while day to day life had more questions he was able to answer?


What is your goal in life: Striving for success at home and at the office

I really believe that to run General Electric, you have to be General Electric. I don’t envy any CEO of a large company, especially now, and I’m glad I don’t really have to climb a corporate ladder. But I don’t believe that in order to own a successful business, you have to be obsessed with it. I have three friends that started a business in their late twenties. They provide a valuable service in a niche market, make very good money, and haven’t worked more than 30 hours a week in the last three years. I agree that the world progresses faster because of extremely dedicated people, but I believe you can be dedicated to more than one thing—I felt like one of the themes of the book was choose between being successful in business and being successful as a husband and father. I don’t think that there always needs to be a choice. I have to drag myself away from the office, but once I’m gone, I don’t think about it any more. My time becomes my own and my family’s. I really don’t feel bad not being a Paul Farmer—I’d much rather be a full time dad than a full time engineer. Part of that may be that I don’t feel capable of solving the world’s problems, but it may be just selfish.


Honesty

I love Tom’s honesty decision. It is so refreshing a change mid-book, I felt like finally I had got to the book I had wanted to read. Also, dealing with his skeletons didn’t pose a challenge for him once he got straightened out. Hopefully we can be as honest. I have a friend at work who is uniquely honest who reminds me of Tom—I value his opinion more than most people I know, because he doesn’t play the game—he gives it to me straight up. It hurts more, but I’d rather have my pride hurt than produce crummy work. When Tom chooses family over career, the author is generous—Tom still has a job and doesn’t need to worry too much about money.

My Choice

What if Tom’s boss had fired him when he said he didn’t want to work in California, Betsy left and took the kids when Tom told her about his past, and he lost the house because he didn't have a nice Judge doing leg work for him? Would he have the same bright outlook, or would he return to skepticism and sarcasm? I felt almost cheated of the answer—I wonder if Wilson was tempted away from a challenging conclusion by hopes of a great Hollywood picture with Gregory Peck. I hope, like Peter said, that “acting with integrity and honesty just has to be its own reward”.

Controlling Your Own Destiny

Peter, great book choice. Man in the Gray Flannel Suit (MGFS) was as entertaining as a Chicago Cubs playoff implosion. (see picture) I read the version of the book for legally blind people. It was the fastest 550 pages I've ever read.

The Everyman

Given that the title of the book suggests that Tom was just like every other working man, I shouldn't be surprised that I too (like Glenn and Peter) saw similarities between my life and his, though perhaps for different reasons.

• Like Tom, I'm not a big risk taker. I am comfortable in my government job, and I'm not really looking forward to buying a home in the current unstable market, even though the right time to do it would be in the next year when my job moves locations.
• I liked how the author described the inner thoughts of Tom and his wife. They'd often start with these over dramatic 'What if scenarios' and slowly calm themselves down with more rational thinking. I'm more unstable in my thoughts than I am on the outside.
• I don't think my wife realized exactly who she was marrying when she married me. She does now, and things are great. But there was a long time where I tried, unsuccessfully, to hide my weaknesses from my wife.
• I had great empathy for Tom when he got shot down by Ogden after the first draft of the speech. MGFS says, "Ogden and Hopkins had simply told him the same thing in two different ways: to rewrite my speech. In spite of this, Hopkins had somehow left him eager to try." My PhD advisor is an Ogden, telling me to rewrite without giving suggestions for feedback and definitely not making me eager to try.

The Hippy Message (or lack thereof?)

Note: I'm a little unsure of the authors intentions or other readers interpretations, and I realize that this book was written in 1956.

Tom mentions on multiple occasions that he thinks it is strange that it is deemed worse for him to have fathered a child with a woman that was not his wife than it was for him to have killed 17 people. I agree that it is a strange paradox that the context of war justifies the killing and destruction of life but not the creating of life (at least not outside of marriage). Tom feels more guilty about his dishonesty with his wife than his actions with Maria, which would seem to say he agrees with the '60s slogan 'Make Love Not War'. However, I didn't feel like MGFS was promoting a promiscuous or immoral lifestyle. It seemed to be saying that a lot of crazy things happened during the war, and it is difficult to understand or justify any of them. And the paradox of taking life versus creating life is just that, an interesting paradox. Just like you might learn about the Mpemba paradox and say, 'Hmm, isn't that interesting.'

Mpemba paradox: Hot water can under certain conditions freeze faster than cold water, even though it must pass the lower temperature on the way to freezing.

From my understanding, there was a hippy culture in the '60's that said do whatever you want, whatever makes you feel good. MGFS, on the other hand, derides the philosophy of Hopkins' daughter in her efforts to simply entertain herself. In fact, MGFS promotes taking responsibility of your own actions, like Tom taking care of his son in Italy. I imagine Tom's initially cynical approach to the business world as being very popular in the '60's, and MGFS says it doesn't have to be that way. Be honest and take chances and you can succeed.

Speaking of Paradoxes

As I was Googling paradoxes to find one that fit my point, I also found this one

Petronius' paradox: "Moderation in all things, including moderation."

MGFS seems to be saying that the ideal life is the 9 to 5 version, balancing work and family, but at the same time we need the Hopkins of the world. (I agree on both counts.) In the church we seem to say that the ideal is the ideal for everyone, and while sometimes the ideal doesn't work out (some people never get married, get divorced, etc.), it doesn't alter that ideal. So in the ideal world (in heaven?), would everyone work 9 to 5 and have a good home/work balance or would the ideal world have some Hopkins?

I know that we are each blessed with unique characteristics and talents. Each ward needs a balance of these characteristics, and the scriptures tell us that the body can't say it has no need for the eyes, etc. So I'm sure in heaven we won't all be identical, even though we will be one. Still, I'm having a hard time deciding what I think Hopkins should have done. Clearly, I hoped that he would have had a better home life, but if he would have been unhappy building that home life and if he could make a real difference for good in the world by sacrificing that home life, would the world be better off if he had spent his time at home? Ugh, I think I'm just rehashing my Paul Farmer questions. Nevermind.

The happy ending

Peter seems to not like how the book had a nice happy ending. However, I found that this is what makes the book so great. I think Peter makes a great point about how we should do what is right no matter what the consequences, and I agree that telling the truth doesn't always work out well. What I like about the happy ending isn't that Tom got the job he wanted or that the housing project was going to work out. The great part is the transformation of Tom and Betsy from this hopeless couple without direction just riding along in the current to a more unified couple with a sense of purpose and determination to dictate their own future. There is nothing more depressing than the feeling of not having control over your own life, and I think the real happiness at the end of the book is that Tom and Betsy have taken responsibility and now control their own destiny.

Final Notes:

Glenn, I also found the mental health subplot ironic. I kept thinking the final speech would involve some personal experiences to drive home the message.

And speaking of destiny, the Cubs' destiny will once again be put in the hands of Kerry Woods, who pitched the game after the Bartman game. Having personally watched Woods blow a game, I wouldn't get your hopes up, Peter.