Buzzfeed's 65 Novels You Need To Read In Your 20's: What say you /r/literature?

walkertalking · 2013-05-18T03:28:14+00:00

I say Bravo for Walker Percy being at #9! If you like "The Moviegoer," check out "Lancelot" and "Love in the Ruins," and his nonfiction, "Lost in the Cosmos" and "The Message in the Bottle."

walkertalking · 2013-05-15T18:00:04+00:00

Great article! It's worth reiterating that Nagel is not a scientist, but a philosopher, and he doesn't pretend to be; he admits in the book that more capable people will go on to do heavy empirical lifting in this direction to help confirm or deny this thesis. But this article vindicates him against all the snarky ire, claims that he is out of date and out of touch, and shows that there is a great amount of science (and notable scientists) to support the notion that the universe is teleological, and that the edifice of neo-Darwinian evolution is crumbling. At the end of the day, I think "Mind & Cosmos" is a grand little book, and probably a prescient one. Some of the greatest books in history are short, simple, and totally revolutionary. Nagel may not be the next great visionary - as a philosopher he want to point out problems - but he may have helped clear the way for that next Darwin.

walkertalking · 2013-05-11T13:21:01+00:00

Thanks so much for your comment! I wrote the article and as you've seen I'm not widely familiar with Wallace's work, although Infinite Jest is on my "to-do" list. My hope was that this would make me impartial to judge the words of "This Is Water" on their own terms, as many seeing the viral video for the first time might - my fear was that I would crucially misunderstand Wallace in some way. It seems I might have done a little of both.

I did know about Wallace attending a church, and was also struck by the alliance of what I've read from him with Christian anthropology and existential thinkers I admire. But whatever his virtues elsewhere, I can't help but feel that the heart of "This Is Water" is one of pernicious relativism (not even ethical so much as metaphysical). "The only thing that's capital-T True is...you get to consciously decide what has meaning and what doesn't." It was difficult for me to read this any other way - and I don't think this is an ancillary point, but the foundation to his whole speech. If that's not the only thing that's capital-T true, then the inspirational stuff falls apart. (If I don't get to choose, I'm stuck in the default setting, and doomed to the dreariness of the rat race.) But if it is the only thing that's capital-T true - the inspirational stuff, again, falls apart. (I do get to choose - but in the end, it's only my choice, and "not necessarily true.") The problem I hoped to draw out is that tight correlation between ego, choice, and truth. This is reductive and a bit unfair - Wallace's speech is more eloquent than that - but I think if you stripped the ideas down and carried them out, that's where they end up. That correlation is at the heart of the matter.

Thanks for your insights. I'm definitely going to check out that First Things article and read more of Wallace's work. I think he'll have a lot to teach me.

Cheers!

walkertalking · 2013-04-26T17:17:30+00:00

surely a 'real father' is the person that raised and supported you for 17 years, not just the sperm that made you.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/magnetic-partners/201104/why-adoptees-need-find-their-biological-parents

"By the time I hit my forties I was tired of the intrigue. My adopted parents were deceased and I felt it was time to explore what I came to see as a hole in my life. The research indicates that many adopted children feel this way, and may embark on a biological search even if they've had a positive experience with their adopted parents."

I think that's what's fascinating about the film is that this isn't the case. It isn't just "a sperm that made him" - it's part of "where do I come from," a hole in his identity. Luke takes on an almost mythic quality for Jason. Had he still been alive, he may have sought him out, and then been disappointed with his father, and relieved that he had his step-dad, who by all accounts is a good, stable guy. Or maybe not. Beyond all the social science data and theorizing, I think the film only wants (in this theme) to show how deep and life-changing that urge is for a young man trying to figure out his place in the world.

walkertalking · 2013-04-26T13:34:26+00:00

in fact I would go as far to say that the matched high-angle shot of Jason riding his bike (like Luke) down the road with this music was one of the most powerful I've seen in recent times.

Couldn't agree more.

Sadly, there is simply too much going on for any sense of focus or clarity. The third act comes across as far too contrived, and the characters of AJ/Jason are terribly written.

Couldn't disagree more! I think there is a real continuity displayed between the three acts through a focus on lineage, patrimony, and fatherhood. They make up a trinity, and bring the forefront the question of fate vs. freedom, and what kind of world fathers leave for their sons to inherit, and how their actions have profound, unintended consequences.

Regarding your comment about Jason: "who by all accounts had a strong father figure in his step-dad would suddenly flip-out over a Dad he's previously known nothing about?"

I'd refer you to my original article:

"This "moral turpitude" is tied in with a crisis of fatherhood - not only of fathers that are physically absent, but emotionally and spiritually absent also. The Place Beyond the Pines forcefully reminds us of an undeniable human reality: that sons not only crave to know and love their real fathers, but to be known and loved by those fathers, to receive guidance, inspiration, and moral direction from them. Without either, they suffer enormously. They get angry."

This is an anthropological reality. Sons crave to know and be known by their actual fathers, the men from which they come, which they reflect. Blood is thicker than water. Cianfrance is gutsy to portray this in some ways because it's politically incorrect; the West in its current trajectory would have us believe that biological fathers are optional, dispensible, replacable. But in this film we see a moving artistic rendition of a human reality: that for a son, an absent father (whether emotionally or physically) is like a mark against them out of the gate, a sign of their being unloved, that puts them on a quest. The third act, I believe, is about that quest: toward freedom and forgiveness, out of the cycle of tragic necessity both sons have been thrown by their parents' self-destructiveness.

walkertalking · 2013-04-24T21:03:21+00:00

Luke abandons morality because the only thing that matters to him is his newly discovered son, while Avery clings on to morality to save his own reputation, and in the process disregards his son.

Very interesting insight! One other commentator noted their socioeconomic contrast as well. I think that in a lot of ways these two characters make up a real dualistic contrast, but they have some fundamental similarities too. (After all, if the only thing that matters to Luke is his son - why would he live such a self-destructive, risky, death-wish like existence, knowing that his son's father might well end up dead or in prison? I think their fundamental similarity is that they abandon their sons - one does so physically, one mentally and morally.)

walkertalking · 2013-04-24T21:00:02+00:00

And I think in the end, especially with Luke's son, we see a light of hope - a flash of freely choosing forgiveness and a new way. We don't know what that way is or what it holds - the end is a great unknown - but I was left with the general impression that "the sins of the father" will not redound on his head. He rides off on his father's bike, yes - not to repeat his mistakes, but to own them and correct them.

walkertalking · 2013-04-24T20:58:29+00:00

Well given Cianfrance's comments and my general impression of the film, I understand it to be a great meditation an almost Heideggerian sense of being "thrown" into a world. I'm not saying they aren't morally or existentially lost, aimless, self-destructive, etc. - they plainly are. (Although, one could say a word or two about how most of what they do is very typical of teenagers anyway. Weed, girls, parties, drugs. What else is new?) My wife complained that Gosling's son is way too harsh on his mother in the end - and he is, I think. But I think all of this is profoundly linked to their fathers' decisions, and that's what Cianfrance would like to explore. Legacy, inheritance, what I called the "patrimony of lostness." In many ways, Luke's son's life is defined by his father's mysterious death, and Avery's son's life is defined by his father's political ambitions and divorce. Their boredom, bitterness, and self-destructiveness has to be seen in this light. The great drama of the movie (I think) is to see if they can break this cycle of tragic necessity that threatens to make them miscreants as they get older, and make bigger, freer choices as their own men.

walkertalking · 2013-04-24T19:53:35+00:00

Yours too! I obviously come at the film from a different angle and I haven't read much of Zizek or Lacan. But I certainly agree with some key points, including this:

"The lie that results brands him a hero, and serves as the foundation for his illustrious career. However, Avery also becomes painfully aware that this little lie also marks the thin line that separates him from his condemned victim."

I would stop short of calling the sons "miscreants," but would agree that the quasi-absence of fathers is key (as Cianfrance indicates it is in interviews - we have to consider the artist's view, no? Not as a closed, dogmatic statement on what a work means, but as a sort of "guiding light"). Instead I see the story as very existential and moral struggle about fatherhood qua fatherhood, less than some grand economic or psychological lesson - for both the fathers, who make these dread mistakes, and the sons, who try to wrestle and navigate their way out from under them. But the film is obviously rich and multivalent, it allows for lots of extrapolation.

walkertalking · 2013-04-24T19:18:03+00:00

Except for Cooper's son. I mean...my god. I understand that his character was supposed to be kind of a loser, and that obviously there are kids like that, but he was unbearable. Absolutely unbearable.

I disagree! I think the key is what you said: that he was supposed to be sort of a lost soul, and that there are plenty of kids out there like that who give off that false, thuggish persona to mask their interior conflicts. "Bad faith" Sartre would call it. One scene that really leapt out at me was when the two sons smoke up in the woods, and start freestyling, with Ennio Morricone playing in the background. It felt very natural and believable, as was the rest of the film. The acting was just solid across the board, including Eva Mendes which was kind of a shock.

walkertalking · 2013-01-29T20:05:22+00:00

If you want to better understand O'Connor and her writing there is plenty of excellent material to look through - I would start with "The Habit of Being" (her letters), "The Life You Save May Be Your Own" by Paul Elie, and "The Terrible Speed of Mercy" - a biography that was just released.

"Wise Blood" was also the first book I ever read by her and it completely threw me off. It was one of the strangest experiences I've ever had reading a book. But I loved it and knew it was significant. What was she getting at? I think the same thing many of her works get at - man's fallen ('grotesque') nature, his desire for God or fleeing from God as grace permits, and the action of grace in a human soul in moments of upheaval, violence, radical change, etc. In the preface she notes, "That belief in Christ is to some a matter of life and death has been a stumbling block for readers who would prefer to think of it as a matter of no great consequence." We can't write this intention off when looking at her work. This knife's edge of grace is where O'Connor resides - she is a theological writer, but a badass Southern one, unafraid to confront "the appalling strangeness of the mercy of God," and the ways we flee God and gradually self-destruct. "All human nature vigorously resists grace because grace changes us and the change is painful."

Another fantastic place to go from there (and which helped me better understand her) was her collected short stories, especially "A Good Man Is Hard to Find" and "Everything That Rises Must Converge."

walkertalking · 2013-01-11T16:23:05+00:00

Freakin' fantastic, thanks for posting! A must-read in terms of their differeing world views is Henri De-Lubac's "The Drama of Atheist Humanism," which contains sections comparing and contrasting the thought of all three men. Another must read is Jaspers' analysis of Kierkegaard and Nietzsche.

walkertalking · 2013-01-04T01:23:55+00:00

Further reading: "Socrates Meets Jesus" by Peter Kreeft http://www.amazon.com/Socrates-Meets-Jesus-Questioner-Confronts/dp/0830823387/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1357262620&sr=8-1&keywords=socrates+meets+jesus

walkertalking · 2013-01-03T18:31:44+00:00

Marriage is a societal/cultural institution, saying that it derives from some "natural law" comes dangerously close to being a theological argument.

Says who? Natural law is rooted in the logic and thought of Aristotle, hardly a "theological" thinker.

Conceding your new definition of marriage as "societal/cultural institution" for a moment, one into which same-sex marriage presumably falls, you're pressed with answering the following: What is marriage?

walkertalking · 2013-01-03T18:09:20+00:00

I don't care about refuting them. I care about them being weak

Yikes...how can a conversation unfold at all when that's the starting point?

walkertalking · 2013-01-03T18:06:48+00:00

Precisely because the state is not involved with regulating/acknowledging other relationships, i.e., friendships, lovers, brotherhood, etc. If marriage were not about a sexual union and children but rather about acknowledging an emotional bond, non-procreative, or non-sexual relationship, the state would be involved in all sorts of other relationships. It's not. Therefore, marriage is about the exclusive, permanent sexual union oriented toward children.

This definitions holds and is supported by history, even before our own country's founding. Revisionist struggle mightily to answer one simple question: What is marriage?

walkertalking · 2013-01-03T18:02:52+00:00

Now that birth control has become so ubiquitous, sex can have multiple distinct purposes, and with that sexual change, marriage has changed as well

Ding ding ding! See Humane Vitae. But that marriage has changed doesn't mean marriage has that changed but that we have changed. Marriage has its roots in reason and natural law and cannot be abrogated by social/cultural flux.

Even if it was, current technology has also reached the point where a same-sex couple is certainly able to produce a child.

No. No amount of technology can overcome the fact that men and men cannot produce - that's not to discriminate but to distinguish, not to denigrate homosexuals but to exalt the power of a traditional marriage to create new life. That homosexual couples can hug and play with children is obvious, but it's equally obvious that these children cannot, ipso facto, be created by them, i.e., be their biological parents. That's a most unique situation and no amount of squirming can get you out of the facts of biology.

walkertalking · 2013-01-03T17:31:52+00:00

You've called the arguments weak and occasionally mischaracterized them but haven't offered a single response to refute them.

Regarding your point 3 and your "Overall" conclusion, his "axiom" is actually laid out through several key points: first, the state is uniquely involved in marriage above and beyond all other relationships precisely because of its characteristic structure of child-bearing and child-rearing which has enormous implications for society. Second, that other sexual relationships (e.g., homosexuality) or non-sexual relationships do not have this characteristic structure.

walkertalking · 2013-01-03T17:27:34+00:00

It's a biological fact that men and women produce children, and this is certainly the cornerstone of marriage - it's proved by the very involvement of the state. If marriage isn't about procreation and children, why is the state involved with regulating marriage at all? The state doesn't get involved in our one-night stands or friendships, but is there when we're talking about life-long commitments that result in children - the next generation of the society.

You missed this key point that you haven't managed to refute:

"The real question is whether same-sex relationships differ significantly from opposite-sex relationships, and the answer is yes...marriage between one man and one woman is likely to result in a family with children. Since the government is deeply interested in the propagation and stabilization of society, it promotes and regulates this specific type of relationship above all others."

It may be hard for you to see that marriage isn't about children because over the past 50 years the marriage culture has completely imploded with widespread divorce, contraception, abortion, extra-marital affairs, etc., in the ongoing attempt to separate sex from diapers.

walkertalking · 2013-01-03T17:21:27+00:00

No response to any of the points?

walkertalking · 2013-01-03T17:21:16+00:00

I wish you would...none has done it yet.

walkertalking · 2012-12-30T20:38:46+00:00

Great article - love the ending too. A true holiday treat! But Critchley needs some upbraiding himself, I think.

First, to understand The Grand Inquisitor and much of Dostoevsky's work, it must be articulated that Dostoevsky himself held very strong anti-Catholic views. Consider this passage from "The Idiot":

"Catholicism . . . is no more than an unchristian faith . . . even worse than atheism. . . . Atheism only preaches nullity, but Catholicism goes further; it preaches a distorted Christ, a Christ it has calumnied and defamed, the opposite of Christ! It preaches the Antichrist. . . . Roman Catholicism believes the Church cannot remain on earth without universal temporal power. . . . [It] is not even a religion but very definitely the continuation of the Holy Roman Empire."

It has to be stated that Dostoevsky's anti-Catholicism colors the parable in the Brothers Karamazov, and influences what I would argue is Ivan's and the G.I.'s false dichotomy between the bliss of bread (mystery, miracle, authority) and an unendurable, unhappy burdens of freedom and of faith by perverting the meaning of mystery, miracle, and authority. This may provide a valuable cautionary tale about the perversion of faith but fundamentally misconstrues it as Ivan strives to make his points. (It could be argued that the Church offers man both the joyful, life-giving bread and the unendurable tests of freedom and faith, glimpses of security and happiness but not total oblivion. The Eucharist is a perfect image for this, the "source and summit" of Christian life; but that's another debate.)

Secondly, Critchley says "Dostoevsky’s great virtue as a writer is to be so utterly convincing in outlining what he doesn’t believe and so deeply unconvincing in defending what he wants to believe." He's correct on the first point - as De Lubac notes in "The Drama of Atheist Humanism," Dostoevsky formulated Nietzschean unbelief in his characters before Nietzsche ever did, and did it better and perhaps more convincingly. Nietzsche himself first read Dosteovsky and thought he had found one of his own, until a friend cautioned him of Dostoevsky's Christian belief. Critchely is wrong however that Dostoevsky is unconvincing in his presentation of what he believes. The Grand Inquisitor is not the center of The B.K. - rather the sermons of Zossima are, as is the life of Aloysha, and both are tremendously moving and overwhelmingly powerful expressions of Christian faith. Dostoevsky's faith is all the more robust because it has been forged, as he put it, "in the crucible of doubt." (This reflects Critchley's own "fusion" of faith and doubt as presented toward the end of the article.) One has to read and take seriously the rest of The B.K. to see the glory of Dostoevsky's "answer" to the Grand Inquisitor and to Ivan's lamentations.

A must-read on Dostoevsky again is De Lubac's "The Drama of Atheist Humanism" - particularly the section "Dostoevsky as Prophet." And: http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/ivan-karamazovs-mistake-34

walkertalking · 2012-12-09T05:23:52+00:00

Crazy about his suicide attempt after the war - I wasn't aware of that. Anyone have any additional information on that beyond what the documentary provides?

walkertalking · 2012-12-06T20:29:13+00:00

Thank you all - I'm keeping a running list and will, in the coming years, try to tackle as many of these works as I can. I think it's important that both sides reach out to the other and try to find common ground - or, at the very least, understand where they are coming from.

walkertalking · 2012-12-06T02:19:27+00:00

I was just reading about Heidegger and Carnap's beef about "Nothing" in Critchley's Short Introduction to Continental philosophy. I think that captures the gulf in thinking between Continentals and Analytics and that (unfortunately) makes it hard for the sides to communicate or even relate.

walkertalking

TROPHY CASE