The Fellowship of Narnian Austenites in Mossflower
A comfy home for lovers of Catholicism and fiction.
Thursday, January 4, 2018
A Eucatastrophe
Friday, June 30, 2017
There's Only One Superman
Have you ever wondered why a flying alien with impenetrable strength and x-ray vision would be so popular? It's not that he's an alien, or even that he has such amazing abilities (although it does amp up the cool factor). It's because he uses them to defend the defenseless and right the tipped scales of justice. What about an Amazonian demigoddess who wields a lasso of truth and bulletproof gauntlets? She defends truth, goodness, and beauty--the things humanity innately loves and which make life worth living.
While Clark Kent and Diana are noble examples of our responsibility to protect human dignity and obey natural (moral) law, we don't actually need them to save us. The real superhero came some 2,000-odd years ago, and he only had to save the world once.
He did it paradoxically: without lifting a finger to stop his own horrifically unjust, unimaginably torturous death. He was--seemingly--weak instead of strong. He bled for us. He died for us. And then he proceeded to do what no other superhero could ever do: feed us with his very body, giving his own life to us so that we can live eternally with him.
There's only one Superman, and he doesn't wear spandex or a cape. He is a king, crowned with thorns, showing us his bleeding heart burning with love for us. He forgives us before we even know we need to ask his forgiveness. He pours an endless ocean of mercy from his wounded heart. And all he asks is that we freely choose to love him.
How could we not?
Sunday, May 21, 2017
How Reading Fiction Helped Me Better Appreciate Struggling Through "Theology of the Body"
I didn't answer the questioner right away. How could I condense over a hundred audiences written by a theological genius into a single phrase? I could not, and admitted as much.
The conversation ended quite a while later, and my conversation partner at least seemed satisfied to some extent. The question got me thinking, though. I could never boil down what JP II is saying. Pshaw, I have trouble even remembering what we talk about from session to session. And that thought led to another question. Why do I continue reading and talking about "Theology of the Body" (TOB) if I never remember any details?
I'm a member of a Theology of the Body discussion group. The group has been meeting for three years now, and I'm blessed to have been a part of it for the last two. We meet once a week, start reading an audience aloud, and pause and discuss points of interest or confusion. It's great fun and has provided some quality fellowship time, but those perks can't conceal my inability to coherently articulate what we talk about in any depth.
So why do it? Why keep studying and talking and thinking about something if it's just too far beyond one's thinking abilities?
There are many reasons, but one in particular stands out to me. It is neither lofty nor noble, but I think it still relates to the truth, beauty, and goodness JP II talks about at times in TOB. It happened when I recently reread a favorite book from a beloved childhood series, "Redwall," by Brian Jacques.
Every book in the Redwall series contains riddles that the characters must solve. Sometimes the riddles reveal the location of hidden objects, while others pertain to key events in the story. The author obviously enjoys crafting elaborate riddles and walking his characters through a bewildering maze of methodical madness. I, on the other hand, am no good at solving riddles. They are frustrating. They take too long. They distract from the action that's coming up in just a few pages. And when I reread the books, I almost never remember how it was solved from the first time I read it. The characters inevitably come against the same frustration I feel.
And I, like the characters, sometimes feel frustration while reading TOB. JP II is just so brilliant. I don't know half the things he talks about, and when reading, I'm glad if I can come up with just a guess at what he's just said in a particular section.
But, like the Redwall puzzle-solvers, I know the joy of having made a breakthrough. Someone brings up a connection; another is struck with an idea; a third analyzes the grammar and gives a different perspective; a fourth looks up a confusing term in the back of the book; somehow, some way, the pieces start to fall into place.
We smile. We dig deeper into the text. We thank one another for helpful contributions. And, at the end of the meeting, we leave feeling that we have accomplished something - that we have struggled with something difficult, and made at least a little progress on the way to understanding Truth.
A random thought - but I hope you enjoyed reading it.
Thursday, March 2, 2017
Will the Real Princess Zelda Please Stand Up?
Did you know that the famous Nintendo character Princess Zelda is named after Zelda Sayre Fitzgerald? True story. And Zelda Fitzgerald was the princess of the Jazz Age in her own right.
Hailing from Montgomery, Alabama, Zelda Sayre met F. Scott Fitzgerald--then a young soldier from St. Paul, MN--at a country club dance. They were together briefly, and then he was stationed in New York. They continued to write each other, but Zelda had refused to marry him until his first novel, This Side of Paradise, was published. It was, in 1920, and a week later they were married. What neither Scott nor Zelda seemed to understand was that they were two sides of the same coin, romantically egotistical in the firm belief that they were born to do great things.
Their rise to fame and the subsequent descent into alcoholism and the slow crumble of their marriage are infamous events, but Zelda's true role in Scott's life and writing is perhaps less well-known.
Zelda was an avid diary-keeper, and she had shown her journals to her husband. He promptly used these journals, as well as their own lives and characters, to complete his semi-autobiographical novels. Zelda is, in parts, Rosalind Connage, Daisy Buchanan, Gloria, and Nicole Diver.
In fact, Tender is the Night is essentially seen as Scott's take on the marriage, while Zelda had her own opinion published to little acclaim in her book, Save Me the Waltz. Scott had not wanted her to publish this book because he felt it would detract from his own work, for which he was drawing on the same shared experiences as she.
The picture more recently painted of the Fitzgerald's life is one of an alcoholic, jealously controlling husband who was envious of his wife's talent and routinely plagiarized her private writing, and that of a talented wife who chafed under the pressure of her husband's fame and whose creative literary spirit was oppressed. Whatever the case, it is certainly true that their turbulent marriage was fraught with passion--both good and bad.
No matter what else may be said about Zelda Fitzgerald, she was a force to be reckoned with, and she had talent that her husband was intelligent enough to recognize. Her life was filled with struggle and pain, but she left behind the memory of a life lived with voracity.
"Her face was sad and lovely with bright things in it, bright eyes and a bright passionate mouth, but there was an excitement in her voice ... a promise that she had done gay, exciting things just a while since and that there were gay, exciting things hovering in the next hour" Gatsby 33).
Sunday, February 26, 2017
Stress Scale – Nerdy Edition (LOTR)
Sunday, February 12, 2017
Singles Awareness Day: A Satire
Causes of Disappearance
In the News
Why it Matters
What YOU Can Do
There are many ways you can support the cause, such as donating to organizations that support Single People (business models that discourage having a life outside of work) and boycotting those that imperil them (every dating website and app ever).How to Identify the Sola Persona
There are many indicators that you have found a single person. This list is not inclusive, but bulleted below are some of the major clues:Monday, February 6, 2017
The Gift of The Giver
Within the established society of Lois Lowry's The Giver, the wrongness of the world is simply failed humanity that must be corrected. The way in which they choose to perfect their society, however, is immensely disturbing.
The reader learns right along with Jonas, the 12-year-old protagonist, just how twisted his society has become. It begins with little, suspicious things: they teach "precision of language" in school, but do not have words like "home," "marriage," "baby" or "love." It is quickly apparent that his community is ruled with an iron fist, in a way that prevents any type of diversity or individuality so as to eliminate the possibility of conflict. The teenagers and adults take emotion suppressants that dull anything but surface emotions, effectively eliminating any emotional desire.
Parents are also not allowed to procreate. Adults may apply for a spouse, and after they are matched with another by the governing body of the community, they may apply--after a period of three years--for a child. They are assigned an infant to care for, and they are only allowed one boy and one girl. The birth mothers are artificially inseminated and not allowed to see their children. It is exceedingly important to the rulers of the community that any kind of deep, lasting, emotional attachments are not allowed to form, especially regarding children. For example, when Jonas' father--who cares for newchildren--brings one home to aid its development, "Each family member...had been required to sign a pledge that they would not become attached to this little temporary guest, and that they would relinquish him without protest or appeal when he was assigned to his own family unit" (Lowry 42).
When Jonas becomes the Receiver of Memory, he begins to experience--through memories from The Giver--free will. His first memories are of snow and sun, things he has never experienced in his climate-controlled world. In fact, when he begins to discover color, he and The Giver have a very important exchange: "'It isn't fair that nothing has color!' 'Not fair?' The Giver looked at Jonas curiously...'If everything's the same, there aren't any choices! I want to wake up in the morning and decide things!...I know it's not important, what you wear. It doesn't matter. But--' 'It's the choosing that's important, isn't it?' The Giver asked him" (Lowry 98).
Perhaps most importantly, Jonas learns what it means when the elderly or underdeveloped newchildren are 'released.' This knowledge is so overwhelmingly disgusting to Jonas that he can no longer sit idly by and let it continue. It has been made clear to Jonas that the community exists because, in the distant past, there was an event of apocalyptic proportions, and it could never be allowed to happen again. The solution, Jonas realizes, was to 'fix' humanity by taking away free will.
Jonas is unique in his community because, as the Receiver of Memory, he is the only individual with any experience of free will. Thus, he takes it upon himself to restore free will to at least one person. He is able to do this because The Giver gave him more than just memory--he also gave Jonas the ability to feel deeply. Through The Giver, Jonas has experienced joy, pain, wonder, and injustice. With his experience of these emotions, he is able to develop a conscience and determine the difference between right and wrong.
With the gift he received from The Giver, Jonas is able to save a pure, innocent life and possibly change his community forever.
Lowry, Lois. The Giver. Bantam Doubleday, 1993.