Additional Review of "In the Blink of an Eye"

Andrew Parker’s book In the Blink of an Eye was the subject of an earlier review post on this blog. I had intended to come back and do two more posts. Alas, way led on to way and I never got back. I’m finally circling round, however, and will do at least this one more post about it.

The premise of Parker’s book is that the evolution of the eye, long thought to be a very weak link in the evolutionary chain, because of the length of time that it would take, could in fact have happened in about 500,000 years. Which is, in evolutionary terms, just the blink of an eye. He says this happened at the beginning of the Cambrian Epoch, which would have been approximately 543 million years ago.

Well, actually, according to Parker there’s no approximate about it. Dating of fossils is so exact that he says it took place exactly then, give or take a million years. This corresponded with what scientists call the Cambrian Explosion, which was a rapid increase in the number of species in a short amount of time (evolutionary speaking). Other things taking place at that time, in addition to species suddenly having eyes, is the sudden appearance of hard body parts and eyes. All the phyla we know now are found in fossils know to be after the explosion, but not in fossils known to be before the explosion. Parker says this happened precisely 543 million years ago. It was the sudden evolution of eyes, he says, that caused the need for animals to evolve hard body parts, which in turn gave rise to the explosion in the number of species, all because eyes changed the whole relation of prey and predator.

The book goes on, in great detail, to state what happened at that time, as determined from the fossil record. Finally, toward the end, Parker gives us his view on the why: “Why it happened is the puzzle this book sets out to solve.”

Those who doubt evolution say this explosion would correspond to certain parts of the Creation account in the book of Genesis. Parker and his peers would reject this (though see his book The Genesis Enigma for a lengthy discussion of the Genesis account of creation), saying that God, if He really exists, had no part in any creation of all things animal, vegetable, or mineral. Everything had to happen by natural causes.

On page 224, Parker begins his discussion on the rapid evolution of the eye. First a patch of light-sensitive skin occurs, for whatever reason. Mathematical modeling done has shown that, from that small patch of light-sensitive skin, 364,000 generations would be needed for a fully developed eye to evolve if the rate of evolution were just “0.005 percent from one generation to the next.” He then says this is pessimistically slow, and that a much faster rate of evolution is likely. Based on the life span of the species living 544 million years ago, those generations would pass in about a half million years. The 0.005 percent change per generation was based on a light-sensitive patch of skin changing in length, width, or protein density by 1 percent for each generation.

But, what I don’t get is why evolution should happen at 0.005 percent from generation to generation. Does evolution happen from “adaption”—that is, the slow process of survival of the fittest then breeding offspring who are even more fit—or does it happen by “mutation”—the sudden, unexplained occurrence of a change in the animal that just happens to be fitter than a non-mutated offspring?

Say that a larger animal is fitter than a smaller animal, because it will win a fight between the two. Or it will have more success in predation, and thus will live longer and breed more often, and it’s offspring will be more likely to be like it than like those smaller/weaker members of the species at the opposite side of the bell curve. In any species I suppose no two critters are exactly alike. There will be a range of sizes, for example, with some kind of distribution around a mean or average. Those few of the species who are a standard deviation or more above the mean will have greater success at predation and living and breeding. After some generations of this, the mean will change; it will be larger/stronger/fitter. But the species preyed upon will be adapting too, and will have a new mean after those generations and be fitter to fight off the predation of the other animals.

Now, the animals in question don’t will this to happen, as I understand evolutionary theory. The stimulus to adapt must come from external pressures, not internal causes. They don’t say, “Our species has to grow larger and stronger or we won’t survive. Let me produce larger and stronger offspring.” It takes place through natural selection based on success and failure of the various members of the species. Over a long period of time the specie changes or, as evolutionists believe, a whole new species develops.

This idea that evolutionary change by adaption should take place in nice 0.005 percent steps seems to me to be ridiculous. It assumes that at each change the species is fitter than it was before the change. Parker says that is obviously true, but it’s not obvious for me.

So, while I enjoyed this book and took in a lot of information, I am not persuaded by the conclusions, which are:

• The eye evolved precisely 544 million years ago
• The eye evolved in a period of 500 thousand years in a series of tiny steps, with each step producing a species mean that was fitter than the one before
• That the impetus for this natural process was probably a rapid increase in the intensity of sunlight

Parker’s book is good. It is, however, neither a practical, popular book nor a scientific text. It is somewhere in between these two species, too non-academic to be used as a text, and too full of scientific terms to speak to the common man. It is an interesting experiment, but I predict this species will find itself extinct somewhere down the road.

Book Review: In the Blink of an Eye - Part 1

Some time ago I read and wrote a review of Andrew Parker's The Genesis Enigma. I asked a man at church if he wanted to read it. He said yes and I brought it to church, but he said he checked his library and found he had it, but hadn't yet read it. He offered to lend me Parker's earlier book, In the Blink of an Eye [2003, Perseus Publishing], which he had read. I jumped at the chance, and began reading it in August. I finished it last night.

Since I had read the later book, I had an idea of what the first book was about even before I read it, since Parker mentioned it frequently. Parker's premise, based on his research as a...I'm not exactly what to call him. Wikipedia describes him as a zoologist. The book jacket says he worked in marine biology. Essentially he's an expert in ancient biology—the biology of evolution. His interest is animals, not plants.

But back to his premise, which relates to what is called the Cambrian Explosion. That was a time when the number of species in the world, based on the fossil record, increased rapidly (i.e. exploded). At the same time the nature of animals changed as they acquired hard body parts, either exoskeletons or internal skeletons. What caused that explosion, Parker wanted to know. The dominant species of this time is the trilobite. But his research was in other species. He says what it is, but I'm not going to go back into the book to lay it out.

It had to do, however, with colors in animals. Why were there colors? Why did they evolve? He tied this to the evolution of the eye. The eye has always been a stumbling point for those who doubt the theory of evolution. It's too complex a system, some say, to ever have evolved. It must have been created. And, it would require too many steps and too long a time to evolve into a functioning sense and organ

Parker disagrees. The main premise of his book is that the eye could have evolved in a mere 500,000 years, a nanosecond in evolutionary time. I'll get to that part of his theory in a supplemental review. For this post, it is sufficient to say that Parker's theory, which he calls the Light Switch Theory, is that the relatively sudden development of vision is what caused the Cambrian Explosion. Because of eyesight, those pesky trilobites could see their prey, and became dominant hunters. So other species had to evolve ways and means of camouflage and stationary and mobile defenses. As a result, you "suddenly" had many species.

Without getting into the merits of the theory, just discussing the merits of the book, I have to say that it was a good book, though very tedious to get through. Parker attempted to write what I call a popular book that will appeal to a non-academic readership, rather than a scholarly scientific book. However, in my mind he has way too many names of species, way too much text, and way too few illustrations to make the book "popular". I'm no dummy, but I got bogged down in the scientific names.

He also mentions existing species of animals that I've never heard of. I know; I can go to an encyclopedia or go on-line and find something about them. Parker assumes a significant zoological knowledge of his readers. This book may not be a scholarly work, but it was written for someone with a degree in zoology. I don't have that, have never taken a course in zoology, or in whatever the name of the science is that studies evolution (paleontology?). Hence, while I completed the book, it was of less value to me than I hoped.

At Goodreads I gave the book 4 stars, though in my review I said it was really 3.5 stars. In a couple of follow-up posts I'll go into more of why I gave it that rating. For now, I'll say the book is worth reading, but be prepared to do a lot of outside, supplemental reading or read through a lot of stuff you don't understand.

Review of "The Genesis Enigma" – Conclusion

As I said in previous posts, The Genesis Enigma explains how science and God are not incompatible. Scientific advances have described how life and its diversity have happened, and how the first chapter of the book of Genesis exactly follows the scientific discoveries. One only needs to read that chapter without the word "day" meaning 24 hours, and it all works.

Andrew Parker also says that animal life, from the earliest single-cell animal, can be explained without any input from God. But, it is energy that resulted in the conditions that allowed those single-cell animals to come into being and then to differentiate themselves over several billion years, or maybe just a billion. But, there is no explanation of where that energy came from except for the big bang, and that big bang has no explanation except God.

God, though, deals with humans in non-scientific areas of their lives: the intellect, the emotions, etc. But creation, diversity, and sustaining of life? No, God had and has nothing to do with that.

Parker tried to write a popular book, rather than a scholarly book. He doesn't give a lot of documentation, and he doesn't fully explain the why behind his statements. That left me kind of flat. I'd like to have footnotes, I'd like to have better explanations. So from that standpoint I lower my rating of the book.

I found his explanation of the so-called Cambrian Explosion, wherein all the 37 phyla of animals showed up at more or less the same time, to be insufficient. He said it was the acquisition of sight that allowed the diversity explosion to take place, and that the eye suddenly appeared more or less intact. I'm sorry, but he didn't make the case. Maybe there's more to the story than he included in the book. But in the book he didn't make the case.

The appendix, wherein Parker explores who wrote Genesis—which I guess he thinks he must do since he believes whoever wrote the first chapter must have had knowledge that can't be explained by intellectual development—is woefully lacking. As I said in a previous post he seems to be echoing the work of a religious scholar, but the various statements in the appendix really don't prove anything and are not documented. Again, that's causing me to mark down the book.

I am not a young earth person. I see no reason to believe in the six days of Genesis chapter 1 to be literal 24 hour days. They surely refer to epochs of development, to steps that God used in the creation of everything.

Yes, I believe in God and that He did it; he created life. He set the phyla in place, probably in one event, probably 500+ million years ago if not before that. I believe God was an integral part of this, not a bystander after having created the energy that set everything else in motion.

So, I give The Genesis Enigma only three stars. While I agree with a lot of Parker's conclusions, the book doesn't make the case, and leaves me somewhat flat.

"The Genesis Enigma" and God and the Bible

In The Genesis Enigma, Andrew Parker makes his case that science and religion don't contradict each other. Science gets down to the nitty-gritty about how the universe and life in it came to be, while religion stands back and looks at the big picture. At least that's what I believe he's saying.

But at times he talks about how this or that scientific discovery gave religion a black eye. And by "religion" he's essentially referring to Judeo-Christianity. He says, however, that the black eye occurred because Christianity clung to a rigorous interpretation of Genesis chapter 1, rather than realizing it should be interpreted figuratively. The specifics of that are: young earth vs. old earth; and whether a supreme being had any part at all in creating life. He, of course, comes down on the side of an old earth. He also says God was unnecessary for the creation of life.

Interestingly, however, he seems to believe that God was necessary for the creation of what came before life, that is what created the universe. He says that science has no answer—other than the Big Bang—as to what created all the energy necessary for the universe to have formed and then for life to have formed from natural processes. But that energy had to have come from somewhere; he says God is as good an explanation of that as any.

He also, in the last chapter, talks about what God is, and what he isn't. He doesn't like the anthropomorhic God that is seen in Christian art, man-like in appearance. The God that deals with so many things that science can't—emotions and intellect, for example—need not be confined to the shape of humankind's body. He could be much different.

Since Parker says that Genesis has it right as to how life began and diversified, he wonders who wrote Genesis and where he got his information. Parker deals with this in the lengthy appendix. He subscribes to the biblical scholarship of Richard Elliot Friedman [Who Wrote the Bible?, 1989] in saying Genesis had four authors, and that these authors can be somewhat known by the style of the writing and how they deal with Moses vs. Aaron and Levites vs. priests. His conclusion is that most of the words in Genesis were written by two authors, Jermiah the prophet and Ezra the priest.

I personally think Parker is on shakey ground with this. I'd have to read Friedman's book to know, but Parker doesn't give us enough information to make a convincing case.

I'm going to do one more post on this book, more of a "where I come down on the debate" type of post. Stay tuned for this.

"The Genesis Enigma" and the Certainty of Science

Wikimedia Commons, author Nobu Tamura,
user "ArthurWeasley"

The Genesis Enigma by Andrew Parker, I should stress that Parker is a scientist, not a theologian. His background is impressive. In the Preface he goes into some of his accomplishments, specifically to discoveries he made which filled in a major gap that needed to be filled in for evolution to be true. I had trouble following his explanation of exactly what he discovered and how that discovery was made and how it filled the gap, but it appears the scientific community must think it did so.
Continuing my review of

Parker has no doubt whatsoever that science knows how life formed, and knows that from a single cell somewhere in the primordial soup the entire breadth of life that we now has evolved. Parker is certain of this. Throughout the text he gives many examples of geologists, archaeologists, astronomers, paleontologists, chemists, and others who used the scientific method to come up with critical theories and then conclusions concerning the origin of life. I found some of this hard to follow, some of it boring, and some of it unnecessary to the premise and discussion of the book. Some of it, however, was excellent.

 

He references experiments in the 1950s in which some professor created an apparatus and a mixture that represented what scientists think the early earth was like, and was able to create amino acids. To Parker, this is evidence that God was unnecessary for life to begin. Other reviews posted at Amazon state that these experiments have been widely discredited, and had been so discredited before Parker wrote his book, i.e. he ignored the issue. I don't know the correct answer to this, and have noted it for further research.

 

Parker comes out strongly and says evolution is no longer a theory. It has been proven beyond any doubt, and should be considered a fact.

The "theory of evolution" has become "evolution, the fact." ...By definition, all "theories" allegedly solving the same problem must begin with equal standing—in which case, anyone could invent a theory to account for the diversity of life...and be given equal standing on a stage with Darin and Wallace. ...As I said, evolution is a fact. [page 192]

Parker spent a lot of time on the Cambrian Explosion, which is the point in time, perhaps 510-520 million years ago, that number of life forms on the earth really grew, to the point where all phyla known today have been found represented in the fossil record from that time. Parker says science's explanation of why the Cambrian Explosion took place was the sudden and rapid evolution of the eye. He calls it the Light Switch Theory, e.g. somebody turned on the lights for these animals, and once they could see they could evolve quickly into many, many life forms.

Since then, says Parker, it's all been evolution. God had no part in it. God wasn't needed. Parker also says this is all very certain. Also, he's certain that science has it right. To him, new science never conflicts with older science. It just builds on itself. So what science learned in 2005 simply built on what it thought was correct in 1932, which was nothing but gap-closing from what Darwin said in 1859. He has no concern that scientific discoveries yet to be made will contradict scientific "facts" from years gone by. So certain is he.

So where does Genesis come in, then? I'll cover that in my next post, but here's Parker's lead-in.

Science came to its account of the history of the universe and of life through centuries of painstaking research, engulfing the life's work of many vigilant and impartial thinkers, forever fine-tuning the story until it fitted the facts. But how did the writer of Genesis come to his conclusion? [page 182]

 

Book Review: "The Genesis Enigma"

For once I'm reporting on a book I didn't buy at a thrift store or yard sale. The Genesis Enigma by Andrew Parker [Plume Books, an imprint of Penguin; ISBN 978-0-525-95124-7] is a good book. I'm glad I spent the money on it at Barnes & Noble (the remainders table, of course). The subtitle of the book is Why the First Book of the Bible is Scientifically Accurate.

The premise of Parker is that science has all these tremendous discoveries; they seemed to go against church teachings; science learned even more that was against church teachings; the church dug in their heels before grudgingly yielding; the church's recalcitrance was due to a literal interpretation of the earliest part of Genesis; and when you read the creation story in Genesis figuratively rather than literally, it exactly aligns with the last 400 years of scientific discoveries.

The general format of his chapters is to first state something from Genesis chapter 1, then discuss something learned by science, something that he says worked to destroy the message of the church, but that it only did that because the church held too strongly to literal interpretation of what was figurative. He starts with "And God said 'Let there be light' and there was light." He then deals with the creation of everything, including our sun.

Actually, he starts with a chapter about the Old Testament record as being true based on various archaeological findings, and how the more they find the more true it becomes. In this first chapter be brings the scientific personalities into it, trying to tell something not just about the discoveries but also about how they went about their work and even something about them. It's a little distracting, but it does break up the purely scientific information.

Parker then goes through the steps of Genesis one by one, chapter by chapter in his book, showing how what Genesis says came next was exactly what science says comes next. He says if only the church had realized that at the time, how great it would have been.

I think Parker makes a fair case. He will make a statement something like "and this discovery was devastating for the church." If so, it was only because the church was trying to make the Bible say something it didn't say. I don't think he says that all that well. That could have been brought out more.

I have much more to write about this book, so I think I'll end this now and pick it up in a day or two. Right now I think I'll need two more posts to tell all I want to about this book.

Book Review: "Letters from an American Farmer"

This is another of my thrift store pick ups. And it's actually two books in one volume—I think. The full title is Letters from an American Farmer and Sketches of 18th-Century America. The original author is J. Hector St. John de Crevecoeur (I'll call him Crevecoeur), and the editor of this volume was John Seelye. Albert E. Stone, a professor of English and chairman of the American Studies Program at the University of Iowa, wrote a long introduction.

The book was originally published in 1782 as Letters from an American Farmer. As such, it is one of the oldest history books written and published in America. For it is a history book, a contemporary one to the times it was written. It seems that Crevecoeur realized that America was something special, and he wanted to document what was happening around him. The Sketches part of the book was published much later, in 1925, having been overlooked or purposely left out.

I picked this up thinking it would be good as part of my American history studies, and that some part of it might feed into a future volume of my Documenting America series. Alas, after reading it, I'm not sure that will be possible. It's kind of hard to tell how much of this book is fact and how much is fiction. As Stone said in the introduction: "That it is fable and not essentially history, travelogue, or autobiography seems clear, not only from the details of the author's own life already recited but also by contrast with other works on the America of the Revolutionary era." So much for using it as an historical reference.

It's quite interesting how Crevecoeur puts his book together. They are supposedly letters to an Abbe Raynal, a Frenchman of some renown, telling him about conditions in America. But were these real letters, or just a literary technique? I'm reminded of Robert Southey's book of letters, allegedly from a Spaniard (I think), telling of conditions in England. It was all just Southey's fabrication. I wonder if Crevecoeur's letters are fabrications as well.

Crevecoeur was not sympathetic to the American Revolution. I've read that the colonies were evenly split. About 1/3 of the people wanted independence, 1/3 wanted to stay under Britain, and 1/3 didn't much care either way. I'd put Crevecoeur in the latter category, but leaning slightly to the British monarchy. It seems he simply didn't like the effects of war: destroying homes and farms, tearing families apart, dividing towns. I can understand that and sympathize with that sentiment. Here's a telling paragraph concerning the Revolution.

No European can possibly conceive the secret ways, the great combination of poisons and subtle sophisms which have from one end of the continent to the other allured the minds, removed every ancient prejudice, and, in short, prepared the way for the exhibition of this astonishing revolution. From restlessness, from diffidence, from that jealous state in which free men always live, to pass in the course of four years to the implicitness of belief, to passive obedience, is indeed a melancholy proof that if slavery is often extended and cherished by kings, the people, in the hour of infatuation, will sometimes become the artificers of their own misfortunes.

All in all, this wasn't a great book. The lack of historical accuracy, the old-time language, and the choice of subject matter make me unlikely to ever pick this up again. I didn't read the last 30 or so pages, a play-like dialog. I think this is garage sale material.

Book Review: "Cracking the DaVinci Code"

When The DaVinci Code by Dan Brown reached the stratosphere in book sales, and when Dan Brown was so audacious to say that the book was mostly based on facts, even though it total it was fiction, it wasn't long before a series of books explaining TDC or taking issue with it hit the book stands. We picked up a couple of them from thrift stores. They were okay, but had all the characteristics of books rushed to market.

Sometime later I found another one at my local thrift. Simon Cox published Cracking the Da Vinci Code: The Unauthorized Guide to the Facts Behind Dan Brown's Bestselling Novel. I picked it up for 50 cents, figuring it was another like the others I'd read (in whole or in part). However, once I got into the book I found out it is different.

It is arranged "encyclopedia" style. That is, significant subjects in TDC are given in alphabetical order, and an explanation given about how the subject is treated in the book, and why it is important. If it's a case where Cox found a reference from which Dan Brown probably drew his material, he gives that reference. I found this to be particularly helpful. Dan Brown supposedly claimed his book was mostly based on truth. Where did he find that "truth" to write about?

According to Cox, the 1982 book Holy Blood, Holy Grail by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln was the source for much of Brown's material. This book claims to be an authority on the Priory of Sion. It includes the idea that Mary Magdalene was Jesus' wife and had his child, thus establishing his bloodline for all time. These are, of course, major themes in TDC.

Since the book was so different from others I'd read, and what I thought I was buying, it took me a while to get into it. What I finally did was keep it in the front seat of the pickup and read it during times at red lights. Some of the entries were short, and I knocked them out in one sitting. Others took the whole commute home, which includes 15 traffic signals, of which on any given day I might have to stop at 6 to 8 of them. Some entries were longer or didn't hold my attention, and might take a week to get through. I'm not advocating this as the right way to read this book, or any book, but it seemed to work for me.

I found the first dozen entries in the book almost comical, though I'm not sure why. It seemed to me that Cox couldn't be serious, in that things that were obviously fiction in TDC he was treating as if they were true. The seriousness on obviously fictional issues (obvious to me, that is) was what seemed comical, I suppose. However, the further I got in the book the better it seemed. Some of the entries actually helped to clarify things in TDC.

I give this book three stars. It was okay, not outstanding. I'm glad I read it, but I won't be keeping it to take up valuable shelf space, not even in a box. On to the yard sale pile it goes.

Book Review: "Not A Fan"

I posted a little about this book before, how our church was involved in a study of this while our pastor did a series of sermons on it and the concepts behind it. Not A Fan: Becoming a Completely Committed Follower of Jesus, by Kyle Idleman, published in 2011 by Zondervan, is supported by a video study and, I suspect, pastoral notes. This review is of the book only.

As is my habit, when the church first gave me a copy of this book I went straight to Amazon to check the reviews. I read the 1-star reviews first. There were only a handful out of hundreds. The complaint of these reviews is that the book, if taken to its implied extreme, will result in legalism and tearing down the body of Christ rather than build it up. That concerned me, even though it was only a few reviews. I began reading it with my senses for legalism turned on.

I'm happy to say I didn't sense any of that in my reading. I found the book to be just what it said it is in the title and subtitle: intended to encourage people to deepen their walk in Jesus. We do not have a shortage of such books in the world, either modern or old. Why have another? A book, a study, a string of paragraphs and chapters describing concepts will speak to different people differently. One book speaks to one person while another person is turned off by it and finds similar information in a book written from a different perspective. Through the two different approaches more people are reached and led into a deeper walk with Jesus. That seems a good thing to me.

Idleman writes well, clearly lays out his premises and discusses them. I found no legalism in the book. In fact, my observation of Christians in the world is in accord with what he says. Many, probably even most, are not truly committed to the One whose name they bear, live exactly the same after their "conversion" as they did before. Their language is the same. Their coarse joking is the same. Their use of mind-altering substances is the same. Their outlook on life is the same. There were literally no change in their life. They made a statement of faith, then lived as they did before. As James said, "Can such faith save you?"

As I said, I found no trace of legalism in this book. To the one who wants to be named among the Christians but doesn't want to change their life, any call for a deeper commitment will seem like legalism. Be prepared to be challenged.

Book Review: "The Nature Of The Book"

The Nature of the Book: Print and Knowledge in the Making by Adrian Johns
My rating: 2 of 5 stars

I picked this book up four or five years ago while on vacation, but just got around to reading it in the last month. I want to like this and recommend it, I really do. But alas, I cannot. It's 650 pages of small font text, very difficult to read. I love books about books and printing (my dad was a printer), but this is so difficult I can't read it. I struggled through to page 46 before quitting. On page 45, in close proximity, were the words interlocutors, prolix, and otiose. I'm not stupid, but I only knew one of those words without looking it up. And other pages are pretty much the same.

The introduction runs through page 58. I'm stopping at page 46. I read the words, try hard to concentrate, but the writing is so involved and the concepts so difficult to grasp, that I'm not comprehending.

I shall put this on the shelf, and revisit it in my retirement, when, hopefully, my mind will be able to concentrate and, with The Nature of the Book and a good dictionary in the other, and with my mind less cluttered than it is now, I'll be able to make more sense of this. On to something else.


View all my reviews

Book Review: "The Eye of the Story"

In a previous post I mentioned how I was having trouble with Eudora Welty's book The Eye of the Story. I must report that the book seemed to improve as I got further into it. The first part, Welty's analysis of of the body of work of several writers, was incomprehensible. The second part, seven essays on writing, was not quite as bad as the first part but almost. She talked about several aspects of a story, and how to use them in fiction. Unfortunately I didn't learn much.

The third part of the book was criticism of specific works by a number of writers, including Washington Irving, Faulkner, Virginia Woolf, and E.B. White. I found this part quite well done, and very understandable. Of course, I found it to have limited enjoyment, as I do most literary criticism.

The fourth part is called "Personal and Occasional Pieces". This is a series of essays about things of interest to Welty. At least, I think that's what it is. I only read the first two. They dealt with travel to Mississippi, Welty's home state. They were good, but I'm afraid right now I'm not interested in reading travel pieces from the 1950s, 60, and 70s.

So all in all, I count this book a bust, and declare the 50 cents I spent on it to have been wasted.

Although, on the chance that the problem might be my comprehension and not her writing, I'm going to stick this on my writing bookshelf. I may pull it out in a few years and read it again. For those interested in Welty's works, you might check back here in about twenty years and see if I read more and wrote more about this.

Non-understandable Advice from Eudora Welty

For the last three weeks I've been slogging through The Eye of the Story, which is a collection of essays, critical reviews, and writer career evaluations by Eudora Welty. I must admit to never having read anything of hers; at least I don't remember doing so. For sure I've never read one of her novels, but I suppose it's possible that I read one or more of her short stories during my school years. If so, they didn't make a lasting impression on me.

I first read her short memoir One Writer's Beginnings, which I found quite informative. No two writers' paths are the same, so I didn't read that to serve as a model for anything, but rather to learn something about this icon of American 20th Century literature about whom I knew nothing.

Then, when I saw The Eye of the Story and saw what it was about, I bought it. Used, of course. The first part of the book, the shortest, is five essays about the literary careers of five writers. The middle part, the part that most interests me, is essays on the writing process. The third part is Welty's literary criticism of specific works, maybe as many as fifteen of them.

I thought I should read the book from the beginning, rather than jump right into the writing advice part. However, I found the writing almost impossible to follow. The sentence structure is fine—you would expect nothing less from a Pulitzer winner. But I read the sentences and don't have a clue what she's trying to say. I got through two and a half chapters of that, and decided I would skip ahead to the writing advice part.

Unfortunately, I found this to be just as difficult to understand. Welty must have been an uber-intellectual. This non-fiction sure reads that way. I wish I could adequately describe it. I'm writing this from work; the book is at home. I don't know why I didn't pick it up this morning and bring it with me, knowing I was going to write this blog post. Maybe tonight I'll edit some examples in.

It didn't help trying to read this sitting next to my wife while she wanted the television on. But this last week, while she's been gone, I tried reading it in the quiet of the evening. I tried in the quiet of the morning, when my mind was fresh. Nothing seemed to help.

For now, I'm going to put this on the shelf. I'm not giving up on it fully. I think Welty has something to say to me, if I can ever figure out what it is.

Trial by Ordeal by Craig Parshall
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

This is actually a little better than 4 stars, maybe as high as 4.5 stars. It is easy reading; the plot kept moving, with the protagonist getting in escalating problems, mostly due to his own actions. He made a poor choice with his lawyer, though that was really based on a bad recommendation.

The things I thought could have been handled better:
- The meeting the protag has with his eventual love interest wasn't clear. I would have liked it to be better.
- The unraveling of the protag's legal problems seemed almost unbelievable. I don't want to reveal what happens. Let's just say too many things that happened seem improbable.
- Parshall on occasion explains things that the reader should be smart enough to understand. When some Mafia goons come after the protag with baseball bats, the author tells us they are wielding baseball bats, then that the protag didn't want to be beaten with Louisville Slugger baseball bats. Really, Mr. Parshall? You didn't think your reader would understand what a Louisville Slugger is?
- The Mafia people are presented in a stereotypical way, as you would expect mobsters from the 1950s and 60s.

This is certain worth the read.


View all my reviews

Book Review: "C Through Marriage"

I'm two-thirds of the way through C Through Marriage: Revitalizing Your Vows, by Jim Hughes. Normally I'd wait until I finished a book to review it, but life is about to remove my reading time for me, and I don't want to leave this book hanging.

Rev. Jim Hughes has hit upon a unique concept. C Through Marriage [Tate Publishing, 2009 ISBN 0978-60696-419-4]. He found 46 words beginning with "c" that apply to marriage. From "calamity" to "cuddle", Rev. Hughes takes us through a marriage. Bill and Barb's situation is briefly described at the start of each chapter. In chapter 1 they face a calamity. Hughes then uses the word and how it affects a marriage, how it can weaken a marriage or how the marriage can be strengthened through it.

The theme that I drew from the book, however, begins not with "c" but with "w": Work. You have to work at a marriage to make it last and make it satisfying. It doesn't happen by chance, and it doesn't happen by neglect. In virtually each chapter Hughes tells us to work at our marriage. Don't take it for granted.

Before I read the book, I was expecting it to be a reference type of book. Since the chapters were arranged alphabetically, I figured it didn't follow a marriage from its beginning through its maturity. The didn't seem to mesh with the alphabetical arrangement. However, it's not a reference book. You wouldn't have this on the shelf and, when faced with say a "conflict" pull the book out, turn to that chapter, and find help. This is a book that should be read from the beginning all the way through. After that, it's possible that some of the chapters can stand alone for crisis guidance or closeness building. But it's a read-through book, not a reference book.

And I will complete it, just as soon as my life circumstances and my publishing schedule permits. This will be the first of the three I'm reading that I'll pick up again and finish.

C Through Marriage is not yet available as an e-book. It's a good paper book, well worth the modest cost.

Book Review: War Letters: Extraordinary Correspondence from American Wars

When I visit a used book store, thrift store, or yard sale, I'm always looking for an addition to my already over-stuffed collection of books. I've cut back a lot on my purchases of late, but still pick up some. I'm especially vulnerable to collections of letters of any kind. Sometime in early 2011 I found War Letters: Extraordinary Correspondence from American Wars, edited by Andrew Carroll [2011; ISBN 0-7432-0294-5; Simon & Schuster]. I bought it and quickly adjusted my reading pile so that it was near the top.

This book was written for me, the letter lover. It's 493 pages contain approximately 200 letters, from the Civil War, World War 1, World War 2, Korea, the Cold War, Vietnam, the Gulf War, Sudan, and Bosnia/Kosovo. For each letter Carroll provides some descriptive text about the war circumstances and the correspondents, then gives the letter, then, when required, tells something of the fate of the writer.

The book is the result of the Legacy Project. Founded by Carroll after an earlier book of American letters, the project was mentioned in a Dear Abby column in 1998, and the results were phenomenal. Letter poured in, and the all-volunteer staff at the project had their hands full.

As can be expected, letters from those at the front convey a mixed sense of optimism, fear, despair, hope, and longing. The worth of the war is often a topic. What are we fighting for? Only in the letters during the Vietnam War is there a sense of the futility of the conflict. In all other wars pride in what our servicemen were doing, and the aims of our government that put them in harm's way, superseded all.

Most of the letters in War Letters were published therein for the first time. This was intentional, as Carroll wished to demonstrate the vastness of the material available (i.e. if he could put this book together with only previously unpublished letters, image how many of them were out there). Again, most of the letters are from those who are not famous. He has one from Schwartzkopf, one from Colin Powell, one from Richard Nixon, from Eisenhower, from Pershing. The rest are from enlisted men, non-coms, and junior officers, who took the brunt of the fighting and casualties.

War Letters is well worth reading. Those who aren't in love with letters as literature may have to take this a few pages at a time. I'm going to keep this as a part of my letters collection, though I don't know that I'll ever read it again. If I don't it will be because of so many other things to read, not because of any fault of War Letters.

Interview: Joe Pote, author of "So You are a Believer Who has been through a Divorce"

Joe Pote is a fellow Arkansas writer who I've come to know over the Internet. He has a book out titled Are You a Believer Who has been Through a Divorce?:

A Myth-Busting Biblical Perspective on Divorce. Let's have Joe tell us a little about his book.

AATTA: Can you give us a brief description of what this book is about?

JP: Sure.  This book discusses God’s heart toward Christians who have experienced divorce. The church has developed a system of biblically unsubstantiated myths encouraging legalistic attitudes toward believers who have experienced divorce.  These myths act as barriers, distancing relationships with both God and fellow believers.

In this book, I address seven of these misconceptions, discussing both the basis for the myth and what the Bible actually says in context of the complete scripture.

Readers will experience the liberating joy of lifted guilt and renewed intimacy with God as each myth is exposed in the light of God’s truth.

AATTA: We would normally expect a book on this topic to be written by a pastor, a theologian, or a Christian counselor.  You’re a structural engineer, one of my professional kinfolk.  Why did you decide to write this book, and what qualifies you to write a book on this topic?

JP: Yes, I am a structural engineer.  I have neither a seminary degree, nor a psychology degree.  I do, however, have a strong background in biblical study and inductive interpretation of scripture.  As a child, I was literally raised in church, attending multiple church services and Bible studies each week, and I have continued to study the Bible throughout my adult life.

Several years ago, I went through a divorce.  It was a devastating experience, at many levels.  As a child, growing up in church, I had been taught that Christians don’t divorce; that Christian married couples find a way to work through any issues, without ever even considering divorce as a potential option.  Yet, here I was, a Christian with deep convictions and a strong love for Christ, going through a divorce.

In processing that reality, I began studying what the Bible teaches on the topic of God’s heart toward His children who have experienced divorce, and was surprised by what I learned.  I began to realize that much of what I had believed about God’s view of divorce was simply incorrect. I had accepted certain myths as truth, based not on scripture, but on words, actions, attitudes and impressions observed as a child, growing up in church.

In the years following that divorce, in conversing with other Christians with similar divorce experiences, I discovered that I was not alone in those misperceptions. In fact, these same myths are widely believed and accepted as truth by many people within the Christian church. For believers who have experienced divorce, these myths directly interfere with our relationships, acting as barriers as we seek to draw close to God, as well as to our fellow believers.

AATTA: There are a lot of books on the market discussing divorce from a Christian perspective.  What makes your book different from any other book on this topic?

JP: The Bible really doesn’t talk very much about the specific topic of divorce of a marriage covenant.  Most books on this topic pull their information from a few of the passages that do mention divorce, while ignoring other passages that don’t support their viewpoint.  Then they lift a few sentences out of context, using them to create an inflexible set of rigid legalistic rules, which they attempt to apply to every situation.

Although the Bible says relatively little on the specific topic of divorce of a marriage covenant, it has much more to say on the broader topic of covenants, in general.  In this book, I draw from this broader scope of rich illustrations of God’s heart in regard to covenant and redemption. 

I also review passages that specifically reference divorce of a marriage covenant, discussing them within the context of the entire passage in which they are presented, as well as within the context of the broader body of scripture.

AATTA: You have titled the first chapter of your book, “Myth 1 ~ Divorce is Sin.”  By calling this viewpoint a myth, you clearly indicate disagreement with the position that divorce is always sin.  Does that mean you believe God approves of anyone suing for divorce, for any reason at all?

JP: No, not all!  In fact, I spend far more pages of this book explaining the importance of honoring covenants than I do explaining that divorce is not sin. 

However, I think it is very important to make a clear distinction between violating covenant vows, and choosing to justly end a covenant that has been repeatedly violated.  The Bible is very clear that violating covenant vows to love, honor, cherish, protect, and forsake all others is sin.  The just dissolution of a covenant that has been repeatedly misused as a tool to enslave or abuse is not sin.

AATTA: I’ve noticed that you use the phrase, “believers who have experienced divorce,” rather than simply saying, “divorced believers.”  Is there something you don’t like about the word “divorced”?

JP: Yes, there is, when used as an adjective.  In fact, I discuss this topic in the chapter titled, “Myth 4 ~ Divorce is a Perpetual State of Being.”  To summarize, we tend to categorize people as being married, single, widowed, or divorced.  Within the church, we often extend these categorizations to also include divorced-and-remarried. 

We affix the label “divorced” to people, and never remove it no matter what happens, for the rest of their lives.  That’s just not scriptural.  Divorce is an experience I have lived through, not a defining characteristic of who I am.  My covenant relationship with God through Jesus Christ defines who I am.

AATTA: The very first sentence of the book’s Introduction asks a question, “What does Jesus look like going through a divorce?”  What is your answer to that question?

JP: Well, I obviously wrote an entire book in answer to that question.  It is difficult to answer without first providing all the background contained within the book.

However, as a concise answer to a concise question, I would say that Jesus, going through a divorce, looks much as He did leading the exodus of His people out of Sheol, the place of the dead.  He walks with His child, justly redeeming them from their covenant of bondage, and delivering them through the divorce.

AATTA: In this book you target seven myths held by many people within the church, today.  People tend to hold very strong opinions about matters of faith.  In writing this book, are you intending to stir up controversy?

JP: No, it is not my intent to be controversial; though I’m sure some will take issue with my position.  Actually, as a writer, I am more concerned about whether or not I have adequately explained my position.  If someone understands my position and chooses to disagree, I am completely fine with that.  I just hope they will take the time to first read the book and understand the position, before disagreeing with it.

My intent in writing this book is to share a message of hope and healing with people who have suffered the devastation of a failed marriage.  I pray that God will use this book to liberate fellow believers who have experienced divorce to a greater fullness of joy in the love and redemption of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Author Interview: Susan Todd and "Five Smooth Stones"

My cousin Susan Todd is also a writer. She has both fiction and non-fiction published, and recently started a blog titled, No Rhyme or Reason. She and I have discussed writing for many years, and have read each other's writing. She recently served as a beta reader for me on my second novel, providing me with excellent character feedback in addition to proofreading.

Among Sue's books is one titled Five Smooth Stones. It sounds like it would be a non-fiction work about a biblical theme, but let Sue tell you about it.

AATTA: Give a short summary of what book is about.

ST: It’s about five women who start out thinking that they are each unique in their own way, and they are. But they soon learn through an unexpected prolonged stay at a Bed and Breakfast just how much they have in common and the commonalities bond them together.

AATTA: How did you choose the characters?

ST: The characters really chose themselves out of a rich abundance of human nature. Just looking around us at the variety of people we meet, friends and often times family, we probable know someone like these ladies.

AATTA: What was your intention is writing this book?

ST: It was an interesting challenge personally to interact with characters that I had to create with personalities that differed from my own. I started out, as I hope the reader will, having likes and dislikes in the beginning. After all, not everyone is our cup of tea. But the more I got into each quirk the more I began to shelve some of my own judgments. As I wrote I began to see a link between their differences. I began to write from the perspective that possible what one saw in the other, that they didn’t like, was either a similarity or something they lacked. Then I began to wish these charming characters could see what I was seeing. And so they did.

AATTA: What do you want the reader to take away from Five Smooth Stones?

ST: I hope that if they see themselves or someone they know acting like these five, and that they will take another look. . Because in the end we are not really all that different in the area of basic needs. There is something to be said about reconciliation. Everyone has some redeeming quality. I once worked with a very contrary lady that I thought that God had not given one good quality. Even though I could not find one on a personal note about her, I came to appreciate the fact that she knitted beautifully!

You can find Five Smooth Stones at CreateSpace, an Amazon company, and on Amazon as well.

Her other published books are:
God said, "Tell Them I Am"

Eternity's Portal

Whales in the Pond

"I Love To Tell The Story" by Susan Barnett Braun

I met Susan Braun at the Write-to-Publish Conference in Wheaton, IL in June 2011. We are writers more or less in the same place in our careers: struggling, trying to find an agent or publisher for a completed book, unsure of our place in the market. At that time I had already made the move into e-self-publishing (though still hoping for commercial publishing for other works), and Susan was not far behind me.

She has now published her memoir, I Love To Tell The Story: Growing Up Blessed and Baptist in Small Town Indiana. It is available as an e-book and as a paperback at Amazon.com.

But let's let Susan tell us something about the book.

AATTA: Give us a one sentence summary of what your book is about.

SBB: It's possible to grow up in a Baptist church and emerge unscathed (and actually blessed) by the experience.

AATTA: Why did you decide to publish your memoirs rather than just writing them down for your kids?

SBB: I enjoy reading memoirs. However, I noticed a pattern in so many memoirs where the protagonist has a terrible childhood, full of abuse or events that she later construes as very negative. Looking back at my childhood, I have wonderful memories. I wondered why no one was telling the positive stories, and I decided to publish mine as a way for those of us who've had happy childhoods to celebrate our heritage. A pleasant childhood, by the way, doesn't necessarily mean a childhood with no conflict. A happy childhood can also be pretty darn humorous.

AATTA: The title of the book, and of each chapter, comes from a hymn. How does music play into your memoir?

SBB: Growing up Baptist, we sang a lot of hymns. They didn't mean a lot to me at the time: they were just a fact of life. But now that I've grown up and go to a church that has largely given up on hymns for "praise and worship" music, I've come to realize just how meaningful hymns were and still are in my life. Their lyrics and melodies are so rich, and many of the words sustain me to this day. Each chapter in the book is titled for a hymn that ties in with the theme of that chapter -- it just seemed appropriate.

AATTA: I notice lots of references to things you remember from the 1970s -- TV shows, music, etc. What was it like to relive those years?

SBB: It was cool and groovy, to be sure! As I immersed myself in my childhood again, I mentally lived for months with The Love Boat, The Flintstones, bell-bottom pants, President Nixon, and baloney with the red strip along the edge ... it was nostalgic, and also made me think about how much has changed in our culture.

AATTA: Groovy? I guess that's an expression that's coming back. Many of the memories you document are pretty specific. Do you really remember those things in such detail?

SBB: Actually, I do remember my childhood in more detail than many others do, perhaps ... I've spoken to folks who say they have no memory whatsoever of who their second grade teacher was, for instance. This floors me, because I most certainly remember Mrs. Gebhart :) Seriously, though, I'm not sure why I remember childhood details so well. Part of it is probably that I kept diaries for a decade or more during childhood, and I still have those. Also, I'll admit to a bit of creative license: perhaps I moved an event that happened when I was 12 to age 10, just so the story flowed better.

AATTA: What do you hope a reader will take away from your memoir?

SBB:I hope he will come away feeling good about life! I hope she will have memories that return from her own childhood, and that there will be many "Oh yes -- I'd forgotten about that!" moments. I hope that any reader would see the book as a pleasant escape to a time that was simpler in many ways, and that, really, it's okay to have had a happy childhood!

 

Book Review: "Mr. Baruch"

Among the 2,100 or so books (give or take 100) that were in Dad's house when he died was Mr. Baruch by Margaret L. Coit [1957, LOC no. 56-10289]. The book was republished in 2000, and maybe in 2005 No doubt that was updated. Baruch died in 1965; hence the book I read was written during his lifetime. I think it could be considered an authorized biography, as Coit appears to have had access to all of Baruch's papers.

In the Preface, Coit compares her work of writing Baruch's biography with the earlier one she wrote about John C. Calhoun. Both were South Carolinians. The two lives together spanned almost the entire American period from the American Revolution to the Cold War. Both men had an impact on America, in Calhoun's case as an elected official and in Baruch's case as a capitalist, advisor to presidents, and elder statesman.

I had vaguely heard about Baruch, in my adult life, as he was mentioned in a novel I read, but I could not, before reading this book, have told you anything about him. His parents were Jewish, his father a doctor who began practice during the slavery days in South Carolina, but who moved the family to New York City shortly after Reconstruction. Bernard, upon graduating from college, became a Wall Street speculator, though primarily in commodities rather than stocks. In sugar, copper, mining in several areas, and knowledge of industrial processes, Baruch made millions several times over between 1895 and 1915.

When America joined the belligerents in World War 1, Baruch was tapped by President Wilson to run the War Industries Board. Tasked with making sure American industries put out enough war materiel to supply our troops and aid the French and British in beating the Germans and Austrians, Baruch successfully tackled the problem. By the end of the war, his was a household name, the rich Wall Street man who had organized the war production effort, supplied the troops, and made the world a safe place again. He was part of the US delegation at the peace talks in Paris.

Given his close association with Wilson, it was understandable he was not tapped by later presidents. A lifelong Democrat, the three Republicans who followed Wilson had little need for him. He and Roosevelt didn't see eye to eye over the public debt, so Roosevelt used him sparingly during the New Deal days and then in World War 2. Baruch chaired study committees and drafted recommendations, but took no administrative positions. Truman used him early on as an advisor, and then as the chief US delegate to initial talks on controlling atomic energy.

Despite his relatively thin government service in later years, those who remembered him from WW1 seemed to have latched on to every little piece of news about him. His legend and reputation grew. By 1948 he was as popular as Truman. He was considered America's leading citizen, called her "elder statesman", and had the good opinion of the entire nation.

Coit does well to show all this in accessible language that is, at the same time, scholarly. Her many footnotes, all of which deal with sources and not extra explanations, are impressive. My only gripe is that she sometimes went off on tangents. Who cared how the office of a senator with whom Baruch worked was decorated? She did that quite a bit, which slowed down the work. On the other hand, she did a good job of showing important and essential information about with whom Baruch dealt. If she had just avoided the tangents, I think my praise of the book would be unqualified.

This book cost me nothing, except travel expenses round trip from Arkansas to Rhode Island (which, spread among 2,100 books, isn't much) and the 10 square inches of shelf space it's occupied these thirteen years. This is a keeper. I'm going to use it to write some articles on Baruch, then it will go on my shelf. Perhaps one of my descendants will, some day, discover this volume among my possession, and learn about this great man from it.

More on "The Savage Nation"

Since I savaged Michael Savage's The Savage Nation in my last post, without giving much in the way of specifics, I thought I should come back for another post and explain a bit more and give some examples. I also should say that the way I read this book probably wasn't the most conducive to reading for comprehension.

My commute home, the way I normally go, takes me through 15 stop lights (or, if you prefer, go lights). The first nine of those are in Bentonville, the last six in Bella Vista. To slightly engage my brain during the drive home, to further multitask in addition to the driving and the radio, I keep track of how many stop lights I have to stop at. That gets old, however. Eight one day, nine the next, six the next (a good commute), ten the next (a lousy commute). I needed a different multitasking activity. Some of those lights are long ones, and the wait is long due to Bentonville traffic, and counting is at best intermittent.

So I put The Savage Nation in the pick-up and read it during time sitting at stop lights. I found this was a way to make the commute go faster. If I picked the book up as soon as I stopped after the light turned read, it would turn green quickly. If I forgot to pick it up, distracted by something, the light would stay red forever. Then I'd think, oh, I'm missing an opportunity to read, pick up the book, and immediately the light would change. So I picked up the book often.

Admittedly, this is not the best way to read for comprehension, nor for enjoyment. I was disliking the book so much I decided I needed to give it a better chance, so I took it into my office and read it in longer chunks on noon hours or breaks. Unfortunately, it was any better reading in bigger chunks. Here's a sample from it.

Listen to what this lunatic is saying. She and her human-hating buddies clucked over how we process chickens, but they show little concern for the flight attendants who had their throats cut by Arab and Middle Eastern hijackers. No such sanctimony came from the mouths of those psycho nutcases with green hair and nipple rings. No. They're only concerned about a chicken having its throat cut.

Even without the full context of what Savage is talking about, I think you can see that this is not a passage designed to inform. It is designed to inflame. But it's not well enough written even to inflame. This is poor stuff from a man with a PhD. Let's try one more example.

Women are afraid of angry men. Particularly in this homosexualized, feminized America. An angry man frightens a woman. If a boyfriend can't be like a girlfriend (with the exception of a male appendage), she doesn't want him. If a boyfriend can't be like a sister putting on nails with her, she's offended by him. If a boyfriend doesn't look like an emaciated model on heroin, she's afraid of him.

Just as Savage, on his radio show, runs between very good and ridiculous statements, this book of his sprints between the reasonable and the absurd. I have a feeling much of the book if probably pretty good, but getting through the junk is impossible for me. So, as I said in the previous post, I'm not going to finish it, nor will it take up 5/8 inch on my valuable bookshelf space. No, it's going in the garage sale pile. I'll give it two sales. If I can't recoup half my investment, it's going to recycling.
Generalization. Sensationalization. Ranting. It's like that through the book.