Posts

Posted on

Teasing out Harry Potter’s Christian elements

I’d love to quote the conclusion of Nancy’s Apology: Harry Potter and the Eerie Silence, but that just wouldn’t be cool. It’s longish for a blog post, and worth every moment spent.

I don’t think it was the pagan or magic aspects of the Potter books that drove the conservatives nutty: I think it was the Christian elements.

Rowling, who is not a professed Christian, took 2000 years of christendom–in the form of symbols, legends, archetypes, allegories, and values–and put it into a new story.

(Hat tip to Johan Maurer and QuakerQuaker.org)

Posted on

A tree for Barbara

Yesterday I planted a Korean Mountain Ash (Sorbus alnifolia) in memory of Barbara at Jan and Ken Hoffman’s house in Amherst. It’s in the back pasture, not far from the copse, nicely positioned to get plenty of sun. The Korean Mountain Ash has very pretty leaves (“alnifolia” means alder-like leaves), dark green and serrated, that look like they’re going to be hard and stiff, but are actually rather soft. It has decorative blooms and fruit, as well as nice bark. Ken (the tree enthusiast) was happy with my choice.

Posted on

Trollope

No, not trollop! I’m reading Anthony Trollope’s Chronicles of Barsetshire, in a very nice 1950 hardbound pocket edition from The World’s Classics, published by Oxford University Press. The binding is 3/4 red cloth with gold fleur-de-lys, with a cream spine and red title inset on the spine. And there’s a little ribbon bookmark. I have this fantasy of sitting on the T reading and having a church lady ask if I’m reading the Bible, so I can say, “No, Trollope.”

I’ve now finished Dr Thorne and Framley Parsonage. The Framley one finally begins to tie together major characters from the earlier novels (although I’m not sure if that continues). These two, certainly, form a sort of a pair, though not so much as the first two, which definitely have a complete story between them.

Next up: The Small House at Allington.

Posted on

An insufficient analysis

Andrew Sullivan posts about “a challenging analysis” of the U.S. position in the Middle East with reference to gas and oil sources, but I don’t think that’s sufficient. The pertinent sentence from the portion of the Star-Telegram article he quotes:

Any group, nation or coalition of nations able to dominate this region would hold the keys to domination of a world economy dependent on these fuels.

As soon as any nation becomes independent of these fuels (which we all, eventually, must), they escape this domination. Instead of focusing on being the dominant force in the world, the United States would do well to ensure that we are not subject to the vagaries of oil and gas production, in the Middle East or anywhere else.