I'm wondering this with regard to the argument that the publication, by Risen and Lichtblau, that the NSA had been conducting illegal wiretaps since 2002 somehow constituted a violation of national security laws.
Um, the program's illegal, right? How can an illegal program be protected by declaring it to be classified? (I ask this as a question for legal experts, not as a practical question. I mean, duh, the government has to classify anything that it's doing beyond its legal mandate, if it wants to pursue an action contrary to the law.)
Seriously, which is closer to treason, breaking the law or talking about somebody else who broke the law?
Well, if you believe in the restitution of Divine Right, which I thought had gone out of fashion hundreds of years ago, it all comes down to which person is the Republican.
Those wacky American supremacists!
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Censure Bush!
At the very least.
Word is that the Democratic leadership is mulling over their options about censuring Bush. I'm really trying to see the political downside. Because the moral necessity appears to be quite apparent.
Bush has been the worst President in living memory. The White House has not had such an undistinguished occupant since the dreary days of the late 19th century. A short list of the reasons why Bush should be impeached, or at least censured:
The Democratic leadership, aside from Feingold (and sometimes Dean), appears to believe that their role in the process is to constantly gauge what the public wants and to go with that. Or perhaps they are afraid of opposing Bush on any matter related to security at all.
Why they should have no fear:
Word is that the Democratic leadership is mulling over their options about censuring Bush. I'm really trying to see the political downside. Because the moral necessity appears to be quite apparent.
Bush has been the worst President in living memory. The White House has not had such an undistinguished occupant since the dreary days of the late 19th century. A short list of the reasons why Bush should be impeached, or at least censured:
- His administration has willfully violated the FISA law, and violated the Constitutional rights of American citizens.
- His administration lied to the American public to get its backing for a war in Iraq that would have otherwise been unpopular. (WMDs? Ties to Al Qaeda?)
- His administration regularly practices kidnapping and torture, in Iraq, Afganistan, Cuba, and parts around the world.
The Democratic leadership, aside from Feingold (and sometimes Dean), appears to believe that their role in the process is to constantly gauge what the public wants and to go with that. Or perhaps they are afraid of opposing Bush on any matter related to security at all.
Why they should have no fear:
- Bush is a freaking incompetent. While the treason-mongers will hate you for saying this, the fact remains that Bush has managed the military and intelligence communities about as poorly as humanly possible.
- Bush has a 33% approval rating.
- Standing up for the rule of law is going to inevitably be popular. Politicians have to understand that instinctively.
- Regardless of whether there's ability for the White House to retaliate, there is an imperative to at least try to do something to stop the Republican consolidation of power.
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
the Howell nonsense, and Shafer's lame response
Howell's original comment:
"Schmidt quickly found that Abramoff was getting 10 to 20 times as much from Indian tribes as they had paid other lobbyists. And he had made substantial campaign contributions to both major parties."
The second sentence is a lie planted in the discourse by Republicans. We expect better from an ombudsman.
Howell's followup. She admits that this statement about Abramoff is untrue (and it's easily shown to be untrue, which makes us wonder how it got into her column in the first place), but insists on setting up a line of defense on another lie that makes it seem like the point was essentially true.
"But there is no doubt about the campaign contributions that were directed to lawmakers of both parties."
There certainly is plenty of doubt.
This has been blogged aplenty in the past week, by Kos, Firedoglake, Media Matters, and the rest of the usual suspects. Jack Shafer's response at Slate is disappointing.
Even though the bloggers were correct and Howell was in the wrong, Shafer still finds room to throw a dart at the bloggers, portraying them as whiners. The phrase he uses is 'perpetually aggrived'. Is it realy appropiate to say that about somebody who brings up a valid complaint?
My response to Shafer. Shafer said:
had given money to Democrats.
This is what she said on January 15:
where does this 'factoid' come into the public discourse? It's
fairly clear that this is a lie put out by the Republicans trying to
water down the impact of the Abramoff scandal. Many have complained
about Sue Schmidt's willingness to pass on Republican stories into
her reporting without a real effort at challenging or verifying them.
In this case, the story is a lie, an easily debunked lie.
What outrages Howell's critics, and ought to outrage you if you care
about journalism, is that Howell is purportedly an _ombudsman_. She
is supposed to represent the views of the readers (and not the GOP
establishment). So what is her response when readers challenge
Schmidt's reporting? There is no effort to contact people who know
the facts in this column. Instead, she simply repeats what Schmidt
wrote. I.e, she repeats a lie.
There are different levels of outrage when a lie is spread. At the
first level, there is the primary liar. One understands that lying
is a part of politics. Yes it is annoying, but it happens. Some
outrage is held in reserve for the primary liar.
The second level is the reporter who uncritically passes on the lies.
Apparently this is the Post policy these days, and it is widespread
in 'journalism' as it is commonly practiced. My personal opinion is
that a person who facilitates the spread of lies into the wider
community is doing that community a disservice. The reporter
invovled here is either a dupe, in which case she merits our contempt
for her reporting skills, or an active participant in the lie, in
which case she merits our contempt for her morals.
But the ombudsman who responds to reader complaints by throwing the
lie back in our faces, again uncritically? It's hard to see that
she's not a huge part of the problem. Again, she's either
incompetent or malicious. It has been said that one should not
presume malice when incompetence is an equally likely possibility,
but in this case, the incompetence required is staggering. How does
one rise to the position of Post ombudsman, one of the most visible
journalistic positions in the country, with such a feeble grasp of
the basics of fact-checking? And it is one thing to miss a fact
check as the primary reporter, who is dealing with a large number of
facts and possibly mendacious sources. But we expect a higher level
of performance when a disputed claim is singled out to the ombudsman.
In the current instance, the higher level of performance only
occurred when she was criticized heavily.
And even the higher level of performance was not terribly high. Ms.
Howell moved from the obviously debunked lie of 'Abramoff gave
substantial campaign dontations to both parties' to the less easily
debunked, but still mendacious, claim that he had 'directed his
clients' to make donations to both parties.
It is true that Abramoff's Indian clients gave donations to the
Democrats. Other things that ought to have been mentioned include:
- the Indians had been giving donations to Democrats long before they
had any association with Abramoff
- the tribes with the closest relationships to Abramoff significantly
reduced the amount of money they gave to Democrats when they came
under his influence
- Abramoff has been quoted mocking the decisions of his clients to
give money to Democrats
- nobody involved in the Abramoff criminal investigation is alleging
that there is any criminal connection to Indian tribes' dontations to
Democrats.
In the larger picture, we have an effort on the part of the GOP to
drag down the Democratic party in the scandal that centers around a
prominent Republican activist. A news media that was doing its job
properly would point out the falsity of this spin. Ms. Howell,
instead, passed on the canard dutifully, and seems instead to feel
that her critics, who correctly point out that she's passing on lies,
are somehow to blame.
Back to your point that I cite at the top: to all appearances,
Howell has been willing to carry water for the Republicans, at least
until she is held up to a firestorm of criticism.
Howell has at best a lazy attitude towards the responsibilities of an
ombudsman. Her behavior is much more like a water carrier than like
a serious journalist.
And finally,
donated substantial sums of money to the Democrats, or you have no
business whining about the people who correctly took her to task for
her role in perpetuating the flow of misinformation.
Update:
Shafer responded to my letter.
Well, I'm glad that no defense of Howell is intended. But I'm not seeing the analog to window smashing.
"Schmidt quickly found that Abramoff was getting 10 to 20 times as much from Indian tribes as they had paid other lobbyists. And he had made substantial campaign contributions to both major parties."
The second sentence is a lie planted in the discourse by Republicans. We expect better from an ombudsman.
Howell's followup. She admits that this statement about Abramoff is untrue (and it's easily shown to be untrue, which makes us wonder how it got into her column in the first place), but insists on setting up a line of defense on another lie that makes it seem like the point was essentially true.
"But there is no doubt about the campaign contributions that were directed to lawmakers of both parties."
There certainly is plenty of doubt.
This has been blogged aplenty in the past week, by Kos, Firedoglake, Media Matters, and the rest of the usual suspects. Jack Shafer's response at Slate is disappointing.
Even though the bloggers were correct and Howell was in the wrong, Shafer still finds room to throw a dart at the bloggers, portraying them as whiners. The phrase he uses is 'perpetually aggrived'. Is it realy appropiate to say that about somebody who brings up a valid complaint?
My response to Shafer. Shafer said:
"I'm no Howell fan, but blogger accusations that she is carryingIt's not merely that she made a factual error claiming that Abramoff
water for the right or peddling some bias are completely
unwarranted."
had given money to Democrats.
This is what she said on January 15:
"Schmidt quickly found that Abramoff was getting 10 to 20 times asJack Abramoff has never made any contributions to Democrats. So
much from Indian tribes as they had paid other lobbyists. And he had made substantial campaign contributions to both major parties."
where does this 'factoid' come into the public discourse? It's
fairly clear that this is a lie put out by the Republicans trying to
water down the impact of the Abramoff scandal. Many have complained
about Sue Schmidt's willingness to pass on Republican stories into
her reporting without a real effort at challenging or verifying them.
In this case, the story is a lie, an easily debunked lie.
What outrages Howell's critics, and ought to outrage you if you care
about journalism, is that Howell is purportedly an _ombudsman_. She
is supposed to represent the views of the readers (and not the GOP
establishment). So what is her response when readers challenge
Schmidt's reporting? There is no effort to contact people who know
the facts in this column. Instead, she simply repeats what Schmidt
wrote. I.e, she repeats a lie.
There are different levels of outrage when a lie is spread. At the
first level, there is the primary liar. One understands that lying
is a part of politics. Yes it is annoying, but it happens. Some
outrage is held in reserve for the primary liar.
The second level is the reporter who uncritically passes on the lies.
Apparently this is the Post policy these days, and it is widespread
in 'journalism' as it is commonly practiced. My personal opinion is
that a person who facilitates the spread of lies into the wider
community is doing that community a disservice. The reporter
invovled here is either a dupe, in which case she merits our contempt
for her reporting skills, or an active participant in the lie, in
which case she merits our contempt for her morals.
But the ombudsman who responds to reader complaints by throwing the
lie back in our faces, again uncritically? It's hard to see that
she's not a huge part of the problem. Again, she's either
incompetent or malicious. It has been said that one should not
presume malice when incompetence is an equally likely possibility,
but in this case, the incompetence required is staggering. How does
one rise to the position of Post ombudsman, one of the most visible
journalistic positions in the country, with such a feeble grasp of
the basics of fact-checking? And it is one thing to miss a fact
check as the primary reporter, who is dealing with a large number of
facts and possibly mendacious sources. But we expect a higher level
of performance when a disputed claim is singled out to the ombudsman.
In the current instance, the higher level of performance only
occurred when she was criticized heavily.
And even the higher level of performance was not terribly high. Ms.
Howell moved from the obviously debunked lie of 'Abramoff gave
substantial campaign dontations to both parties' to the less easily
debunked, but still mendacious, claim that he had 'directed his
clients' to make donations to both parties.
It is true that Abramoff's Indian clients gave donations to the
Democrats. Other things that ought to have been mentioned include:
- the Indians had been giving donations to Democrats long before they
had any association with Abramoff
- the tribes with the closest relationships to Abramoff significantly
reduced the amount of money they gave to Democrats when they came
under his influence
- Abramoff has been quoted mocking the decisions of his clients to
give money to Democrats
- nobody involved in the Abramoff criminal investigation is alleging
that there is any criminal connection to Indian tribes' dontations to
Democrats.
In the larger picture, we have an effort on the part of the GOP to
drag down the Democratic party in the scandal that centers around a
prominent Republican activist. A news media that was doing its job
properly would point out the falsity of this spin. Ms. Howell,
instead, passed on the canard dutifully, and seems instead to feel
that her critics, who correctly point out that she's passing on lies,
are somehow to blame.
Back to your point that I cite at the top: to all appearances,
Howell has been willing to carry water for the Republicans, at least
until she is held up to a firestorm of criticism.
"Attacking somebody as if they are your enemy when they clearlyI would dispute your usage of the word 'clearly' here. Clearly Ms.
aren't makes no sense."
Howell has at best a lazy attitude towards the responsibilities of an
ombudsman. Her behavior is much more like a water carrier than like
a serious journalist.
And finally,
"Unless, of course, you're among the perpetually aggrieved and you've tired of flogging the usual villains."Either you agree with Howell's original statement, that Abramoff
donated substantial sums of money to the Democrats, or you have no
business whining about the people who correctly took her to task for
her role in perpetuating the flow of misinformation.
Update:
Shafer responded to my letter.
"I intended no defense of Howell. I think what the bloggers did to the post site is a little sick. Would you defend the smashing of Post windows?"
Well, I'm glad that no defense of Howell is intended. But I'm not seeing the analog to window smashing.
Friday, December 23, 2005
spying on Americans
OK, let's discuss the two many issues here:
The legal defense put forward has been inconsistent and absurd. Others have commented upon this in depth, so I don't feel the need to.
Point 3 is the only thing that the administration has going for it. But here's the problem, and where Point 4 is important: this attitude misreads what the purpose of the police is. The police's purpose in life is not to constantly hold everybody in suspicion. This is why the Constitution protects Americans against "unreasonable search and seizure". If the police were given the power to search private residences at their own whim, there would likely be an increase in the arrest and conviction rate. But what is the cost?
From a statistical standpoint, the phenomenon can be viewed in the prism of false positive and false negative rates. Increasing police powers will (allegedly, at least) reduce the false negative rate; i.e., reduce the crime rate (and/or rate of terrorist attacks). But they also increase the false positive rate.
This is where the debate about torture becomes relevant. Torture has the potential to push the false positive rate up significantly. The problem in this instance is that the police, once they have taken a person's liberty away, have the incentive to maintain that denial of liberty. If it becomes apparent that an innocent person has been seized, or spied upon, the reaction of the police is generally to be insensitive and uncaring about the plight of the person whose rights have been violated.
I can understand that the police want more power, but I tend to think that the police will always want more power. I'm not convinced that giving the police more power is the answer to the problems that society faces.
- The legality/Constitutionality of the Bush NSA surveillance program
- The mendacity of the Bush administration's defense
- The effectiveness of data mining surveillance
- The wisdom of this approach to law enforcement.
The legal defense put forward has been inconsistent and absurd. Others have commented upon this in depth, so I don't feel the need to.
Point 3 is the only thing that the administration has going for it. But here's the problem, and where Point 4 is important: this attitude misreads what the purpose of the police is. The police's purpose in life is not to constantly hold everybody in suspicion. This is why the Constitution protects Americans against "unreasonable search and seizure". If the police were given the power to search private residences at their own whim, there would likely be an increase in the arrest and conviction rate. But what is the cost?
From a statistical standpoint, the phenomenon can be viewed in the prism of false positive and false negative rates. Increasing police powers will (allegedly, at least) reduce the false negative rate; i.e., reduce the crime rate (and/or rate of terrorist attacks). But they also increase the false positive rate.
This is where the debate about torture becomes relevant. Torture has the potential to push the false positive rate up significantly. The problem in this instance is that the police, once they have taken a person's liberty away, have the incentive to maintain that denial of liberty. If it becomes apparent that an innocent person has been seized, or spied upon, the reaction of the police is generally to be insensitive and uncaring about the plight of the person whose rights have been violated.
I can understand that the police want more power, but I tend to think that the police will always want more power. I'm not convinced that giving the police more power is the answer to the problems that society faces.
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Weisberg: I'm a dumbass
Oh, I'm sorry, that should read 'I'm a contrarian'.
Weisberg, unbelievably, makes the argument in Slate that there's no big deal with the Plame outing, and that the law is bad, and no malice was intended, and that liberals are foolish to want to see Rove prosecuted.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2128301/
It's amazing on how many counts he's wrong!
For starters, there's the issue of whether a crime has been committed. Fitzgerald, a career prosecutor who has taken on Al Qaeda, the Gambino family, and the Daley family in his past, may or may not think that a crime has been committed. We don't know yet! But by appearances, this is the case. Weisberg's argument appears to come down to "Jack Shafer says so." http://www.slate.com/id/2127824/
Weisberg bases his argument on a faulty reading of the IIPA, and also of Shafer, who relays the (fairly obvious) possibility that other laws may come into play. Weisberg appears to be passing on RNC talking points here.
Weisberg moves forward straight into the realm of speculation.
"But in the hands of a relentless and ambitious prosecutor like Fitzgerald, the absence of evidence that you've broken a law just becomes an invitation to develop a case based on other possible crimes, especially those committed in the course of defending yourself, like obstruction of justice and making false statements."
Excuse me, but what the f*ck are you talking about? What 'absence of evidence'? At what point, Mr. Weisberg, did you become privy to the grand jury proceedings? How much do you know about Fitzgerald's case? Nothing? That's what I thought. Sit down and shut up.
"Already, Fitzgerald's investigation has proved a disaster for freedom of the press and freedom of information."
At what point does the phrase 'classified information' become relevant, Mr. Weisberg? Either the government should have the power to keep some information or it shouldn't. The general consensus is that there is a need for this kind of secrecy from time to time. Certainly a person working on the proliferation of WMDs would occasionally need this kind of cover. Right?
So, now that we're stipulating that it's reasonable for some people to have non-official covers, let's ask what should happen if somebody breaks that cover. Well, that would appear to be a case where the law has been broken. Right? Certainly the CIA thinks so, or they would not have referred the matter to DoJ.
So, what 'freedom of press' has been broached here? I'm not seeing it. Apparently the freedom to reveal state secrets qualifies?
"Should Fitzgerald win convictions under the espionage law or Section 641, any conversations between officials and journalists touching on classified information could come become prosecutable offenses."
Uh, duh. That's why it's called classified information, moron! Jesus Christ, this is a stupid argument. Are people inherently so stupid when their own profession is brought into line?
"Why did the Times make this mistake, especially after criticizing the out-of-control independent counsels who went after Henry Cisneros, Bruce Babbitt, and Bill Clinton?"
Is Mr. Weisberg advancing the argument that prosecutors are no longer needed? That, because of the abuses of a number of prosecutors, no crimes should ever be investigated?
"In that context, Libby's comments don't look anything like retaliation against Joe Wilson—especially now that we know that Libby first mentioned Wilson and his wife to Judith Miller three weeks before Wilson went public with his op-ed piece. As for Rove, so far as we know, he spoke to only a single journalist—Matthew Cooper of Time. According to Cooper, Rove didn't even know Plame's name. If that's a White House smear campaign, Rove's skills are getting pretty rusty."
Weisberg is making the classic fallacicious mistake of equation "what we know" with "what is". We "know" somebody was talking to a lot of members of the press. We have been told that more than one person talked to Novak. Do we know who those people are? Curiously, no. We know that Rove talked to Matt Cooper on the very same topic. The argument 'Rove didn't even know Plame's name' seems be be the usual canard of finding some escape from guilt by saying 'Wilson's wife' is somehow a less guilt-worthy phrase than 'Valerie Plame'.
Whether the revelation of the name was a smear calculated to destroy Plame's career really isn't the issue. I've always thought it was mentioned more to discredit Wilson than anything else. In the macho world of Bush, Cheney and co., relying on a wife for a favor is very emasculating. The fact remains that these people broke the law. For that, they should face the wrath of the prosecutor, no?
What is the #1 threat to American security? Here's a hint: it's not a oil-rich gulf state in the Middle East. Another hint: think 9/11. Right, you've got it. Nuclear terrorism. WMD proliferation is the single most important thing that our intelligence services need to work on. So, what does the Bush administration do? They compromise the secrecy of an agent for political purposes. So let's talk about chilling effects for a second here.
There's one chilling effect in the press, when classified sources dry up. There's an opposite chilling effect when classified sources start getting identified in the mainstream press. Namely, potential sources become less likely to talk to American operatives.
Why on Earth doesn't Weisberg understand this?? Blowing Plame's cover not only exposes any people she's had dealings with, but it also makes it that much harder for the US to find new sources in this vital field.
Weisberg, unbelievably, makes the argument in Slate that there's no big deal with the Plame outing, and that the law is bad, and no malice was intended, and that liberals are foolish to want to see Rove prosecuted.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2128301/
It's amazing on how many counts he's wrong!
For starters, there's the issue of whether a crime has been committed. Fitzgerald, a career prosecutor who has taken on Al Qaeda, the Gambino family, and the Daley family in his past, may or may not think that a crime has been committed. We don't know yet! But by appearances, this is the case. Weisberg's argument appears to come down to "Jack Shafer says so." http://www.slate.com/id/2127824/
Weisberg bases his argument on a faulty reading of the IIPA, and also of Shafer, who relays the (fairly obvious) possibility that other laws may come into play. Weisberg appears to be passing on RNC talking points here.
Weisberg moves forward straight into the realm of speculation.
"But in the hands of a relentless and ambitious prosecutor like Fitzgerald, the absence of evidence that you've broken a law just becomes an invitation to develop a case based on other possible crimes, especially those committed in the course of defending yourself, like obstruction of justice and making false statements."
Excuse me, but what the f*ck are you talking about? What 'absence of evidence'? At what point, Mr. Weisberg, did you become privy to the grand jury proceedings? How much do you know about Fitzgerald's case? Nothing? That's what I thought. Sit down and shut up.
"Already, Fitzgerald's investigation has proved a disaster for freedom of the press and freedom of information."
At what point does the phrase 'classified information' become relevant, Mr. Weisberg? Either the government should have the power to keep some information or it shouldn't. The general consensus is that there is a need for this kind of secrecy from time to time. Certainly a person working on the proliferation of WMDs would occasionally need this kind of cover. Right?
So, now that we're stipulating that it's reasonable for some people to have non-official covers, let's ask what should happen if somebody breaks that cover. Well, that would appear to be a case where the law has been broken. Right? Certainly the CIA thinks so, or they would not have referred the matter to DoJ.
So, what 'freedom of press' has been broached here? I'm not seeing it. Apparently the freedom to reveal state secrets qualifies?
"Should Fitzgerald win convictions under the espionage law or Section 641, any conversations between officials and journalists touching on classified information could come become prosecutable offenses."
Uh, duh. That's why it's called classified information, moron! Jesus Christ, this is a stupid argument. Are people inherently so stupid when their own profession is brought into line?
"Why did the Times make this mistake, especially after criticizing the out-of-control independent counsels who went after Henry Cisneros, Bruce Babbitt, and Bill Clinton?"
Is Mr. Weisberg advancing the argument that prosecutors are no longer needed? That, because of the abuses of a number of prosecutors, no crimes should ever be investigated?
"In that context, Libby's comments don't look anything like retaliation against Joe Wilson—especially now that we know that Libby first mentioned Wilson and his wife to Judith Miller three weeks before Wilson went public with his op-ed piece. As for Rove, so far as we know, he spoke to only a single journalist—Matthew Cooper of Time. According to Cooper, Rove didn't even know Plame's name. If that's a White House smear campaign, Rove's skills are getting pretty rusty."
Weisberg is making the classic fallacicious mistake of equation "what we know" with "what is". We "know" somebody was talking to a lot of members of the press. We have been told that more than one person talked to Novak. Do we know who those people are? Curiously, no. We know that Rove talked to Matt Cooper on the very same topic. The argument 'Rove didn't even know Plame's name' seems be be the usual canard of finding some escape from guilt by saying 'Wilson's wife' is somehow a less guilt-worthy phrase than 'Valerie Plame'.
Whether the revelation of the name was a smear calculated to destroy Plame's career really isn't the issue. I've always thought it was mentioned more to discredit Wilson than anything else. In the macho world of Bush, Cheney and co., relying on a wife for a favor is very emasculating. The fact remains that these people broke the law. For that, they should face the wrath of the prosecutor, no?
What is the #1 threat to American security? Here's a hint: it's not a oil-rich gulf state in the Middle East. Another hint: think 9/11. Right, you've got it. Nuclear terrorism. WMD proliferation is the single most important thing that our intelligence services need to work on. So, what does the Bush administration do? They compromise the secrecy of an agent for political purposes. So let's talk about chilling effects for a second here.
There's one chilling effect in the press, when classified sources dry up. There's an opposite chilling effect when classified sources start getting identified in the mainstream press. Namely, potential sources become less likely to talk to American operatives.
Why on Earth doesn't Weisberg understand this?? Blowing Plame's cover not only exposes any people she's had dealings with, but it also makes it that much harder for the US to find new sources in this vital field.
Saturday, October 15, 2005
the Chronicles of Narnia
A brief review of the series, which I read this summer. The books are of varying quality, and though they are beloved, and particularly good as children's books, ultimately I don't think they achieve the quality level of The Lord of the Rings. Book by book, in order of date of publication.
The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe: If you are going to only read one book from the series, this is the one to read. It combines clever escapism, moralism, and hardly-subtle-at-all Christ imagery involving Aslan. To think: when I first read this as a child, the connection between Aslan and Jesus completely escaped me! Amazing! The good aspects of the book: Lucy the curious girl, Edmund the selfish boy, the Witch, and Aslan. The older children are undeveloped in comparison, and the creatures of Narnia are pretty uniform. For me, the aspect of the book I dislike the most is how these four children are suddenly the kings and queens of Narnia. And we thought 'a moistened bink lobbing a scimitar' was a poor way to decide upon supreme executive power! If you are intent on reading the stories in chronological order, the prequel should be read first. But I recommend reading this book first.
Prince Caspian: This is one of the weaker books. It reads like a sequel, with not a heck of a lot of thought given to developing the world more. It's a few years later in England, but centuries later in Narnia, and the kids are needed to put things right, including putting in Prince Caspian on the throne. Lucy is again the beloved child, and Susan is starting to become less reliable (a plot development that seems to be completely unnecessary). The ending is an exercise in deus ex machina, but without the religious lessons of the first book.
The Voyage of the Dawn Treader: possibly the best of the books, certainly the best of the four featuring the English kids. (I'm not counting The Last Battle.) This books decides that Peter and Susan are too boring to bring back, so they are replaced with Eustace Scrubb, who appears to be a child of freethinkers or modernists or something, in any case the kind of person who earns C.S. Lewis's scorn. :) The general story line is that Lucy, Edmund, and Lucy are on the Dawn Treader with Caspian and Reepicheep, and they have adventures sailing to the edge of the world. There are a number of different stops along the way, and they provide for interesting separate episodes. Lucy has her final interesting adventure in this book, and the evolution of Eustace is pretty good. All in all, I'd say Eustace is the series' most interesting character. The end of the story introduces the edge of the world and Aslan's country, which will become more important in later books as Lewis fleshes out his ideas of Narnia's structure. But the better parts of the book are simply the adventures.
The Silver Chair: No more Lucy and Edmund, but we still have Eustace and a girl who goes to the same school, Jill Pole. Jill really never gets developed well, either in this book or in The Last Battle. The two kids are set on a quest by Aslan to find the Prince and heir to Caspian's throne. Aslan spells out exactly what they should do, but they still manage to mess up his instructions. They go North with the 'Marshwiggle' Puddleglum, have adventures with giants and eventually find the prince underground in a cave network run by a witch who is suspiciously like the White Witch of LWW. The adventures are decent, but then the book gets into examining dilemmas of considering belief and reality. It doesn't do well with them. It reads like a diatribe against atheism, which would be one thing, but it goes to the extreme of saying 'well, we don't care if our beliefs are true or not - since they make us happy we'll stick with them'. This little bit nearly ruins the whole book.
The Horse and His Boy:
Instead of recycling yet another story about English children in Narnia, like the first four books, this one concerns a boy and a horse native to Narnia. (This raises the side question: why are there no humans in Narnia at the beginning of the series, but starting with the third they start being quite common and, by the last three books, they are all over the place?) The story is pretty good, and works well as a standalone book, even though Edmund and Susan make an appearance to tie the book into Narnia. Still, the series is starting to get a bit creaky.
The Magician's Nephew:
Apparently C.S. Lewis was getting tired of Narnia so he decided to wrap of the series with a creation myth and an end-of-the-world story. The creation myth is this book, and it's far better than The Last Battle. As with most of the books, the story follows the path of children, in this case a boy and a girl named Digory and Polly. Digory's uncle has made magic rings that allow one to travel between worlds, and this leads to the discovery of a number of different worlds, and eventually the discovery of Narnia as it was being created by Aslan. The manner of inter-world travel was quite clever, and the introduction of the woman who was to become the White Witch is pretty well done. On the whole, one of my favorites of the series.
The Last Battle:
I'm trying to decide why I dislike this book so much. First off, there are two parts of the story: a conflict involving an ape and a donkey undermining faith in Aslan, that ends up leading to the invasion of Narnia by foreign forces. But then the story takes a turn into a world destruction myth that appears suddenly and without much need or sense of being there. What's the moral to be learned? Hard to tell. As a story, the first half is tolerably good. It's a reasonable investigation of what happens when people use religion to bamboozle. The ending is just uninteresting. It seems to be an explication of Lewis's theology of Shadowlands. The world we inhabit is merely a shadow of true reality, and after we leave this one, if we have the spiritual fortitude to hold onto our faith, we start climbing into greater and greater realms of reality. So the last fifty pages or so consist of Lewis waving a wand and creating his own heaven. 'Everything is increasingly wonderful' - it is a simple theme and not of Lewis's better ones.
In summary, I would put MN and VDT at the top, with HB and LWW, followed by SC and PC, with LB the least interesting or compelling.
The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe: If you are going to only read one book from the series, this is the one to read. It combines clever escapism, moralism, and hardly-subtle-at-all Christ imagery involving Aslan. To think: when I first read this as a child, the connection between Aslan and Jesus completely escaped me! Amazing! The good aspects of the book: Lucy the curious girl, Edmund the selfish boy, the Witch, and Aslan. The older children are undeveloped in comparison, and the creatures of Narnia are pretty uniform. For me, the aspect of the book I dislike the most is how these four children are suddenly the kings and queens of Narnia. And we thought 'a moistened bink lobbing a scimitar' was a poor way to decide upon supreme executive power! If you are intent on reading the stories in chronological order, the prequel should be read first. But I recommend reading this book first.
Prince Caspian: This is one of the weaker books. It reads like a sequel, with not a heck of a lot of thought given to developing the world more. It's a few years later in England, but centuries later in Narnia, and the kids are needed to put things right, including putting in Prince Caspian on the throne. Lucy is again the beloved child, and Susan is starting to become less reliable (a plot development that seems to be completely unnecessary). The ending is an exercise in deus ex machina, but without the religious lessons of the first book.
The Voyage of the Dawn Treader: possibly the best of the books, certainly the best of the four featuring the English kids. (I'm not counting The Last Battle.) This books decides that Peter and Susan are too boring to bring back, so they are replaced with Eustace Scrubb, who appears to be a child of freethinkers or modernists or something, in any case the kind of person who earns C.S. Lewis's scorn. :) The general story line is that Lucy, Edmund, and Lucy are on the Dawn Treader with Caspian and Reepicheep, and they have adventures sailing to the edge of the world. There are a number of different stops along the way, and they provide for interesting separate episodes. Lucy has her final interesting adventure in this book, and the evolution of Eustace is pretty good. All in all, I'd say Eustace is the series' most interesting character. The end of the story introduces the edge of the world and Aslan's country, which will become more important in later books as Lewis fleshes out his ideas of Narnia's structure. But the better parts of the book are simply the adventures.
The Silver Chair: No more Lucy and Edmund, but we still have Eustace and a girl who goes to the same school, Jill Pole. Jill really never gets developed well, either in this book or in The Last Battle. The two kids are set on a quest by Aslan to find the Prince and heir to Caspian's throne. Aslan spells out exactly what they should do, but they still manage to mess up his instructions. They go North with the 'Marshwiggle' Puddleglum, have adventures with giants and eventually find the prince underground in a cave network run by a witch who is suspiciously like the White Witch of LWW. The adventures are decent, but then the book gets into examining dilemmas of considering belief and reality. It doesn't do well with them. It reads like a diatribe against atheism, which would be one thing, but it goes to the extreme of saying 'well, we don't care if our beliefs are true or not - since they make us happy we'll stick with them'. This little bit nearly ruins the whole book.
The Horse and His Boy:
Instead of recycling yet another story about English children in Narnia, like the first four books, this one concerns a boy and a horse native to Narnia. (This raises the side question: why are there no humans in Narnia at the beginning of the series, but starting with the third they start being quite common and, by the last three books, they are all over the place?) The story is pretty good, and works well as a standalone book, even though Edmund and Susan make an appearance to tie the book into Narnia. Still, the series is starting to get a bit creaky.
The Magician's Nephew:
Apparently C.S. Lewis was getting tired of Narnia so he decided to wrap of the series with a creation myth and an end-of-the-world story. The creation myth is this book, and it's far better than The Last Battle. As with most of the books, the story follows the path of children, in this case a boy and a girl named Digory and Polly. Digory's uncle has made magic rings that allow one to travel between worlds, and this leads to the discovery of a number of different worlds, and eventually the discovery of Narnia as it was being created by Aslan. The manner of inter-world travel was quite clever, and the introduction of the woman who was to become the White Witch is pretty well done. On the whole, one of my favorites of the series.
The Last Battle:
I'm trying to decide why I dislike this book so much. First off, there are two parts of the story: a conflict involving an ape and a donkey undermining faith in Aslan, that ends up leading to the invasion of Narnia by foreign forces. But then the story takes a turn into a world destruction myth that appears suddenly and without much need or sense of being there. What's the moral to be learned? Hard to tell. As a story, the first half is tolerably good. It's a reasonable investigation of what happens when people use religion to bamboozle. The ending is just uninteresting. It seems to be an explication of Lewis's theology of Shadowlands. The world we inhabit is merely a shadow of true reality, and after we leave this one, if we have the spiritual fortitude to hold onto our faith, we start climbing into greater and greater realms of reality. So the last fifty pages or so consist of Lewis waving a wand and creating his own heaven. 'Everything is increasingly wonderful' - it is a simple theme and not of Lewis's better ones.
In summary, I would put MN and VDT at the top, with HB and LWW, followed by SC and PC, with LB the least interesting or compelling.
Friday, October 07, 2005
It's October!
and I'm not poor anymore! Huzzah!
BTW, Howl's Moving Castle was excellent. Perhaps not as great as Spirited Away, but nevertheless a great movie. What next?
BTW, Howl's Moving Castle was excellent. Perhaps not as great as Spirited Away, but nevertheless a great movie. What next?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)