Sci-Fi Friday: 2010
I toyed with the idea of going with Sci-Friday or Science Fiction Friday, or Sci-Fiday or some such, but ultimately went with something both pithy and easily understood.
We spent last week at the beach, and I don’t know about other folks, but I don’t get much reading done while on vacation. I didn’t pick up my Bible once, though the fact that I’m about three months ahead in my read-through softens the blow somewhat. I really only read about half of a book. Something about being at the seaside makes me want to read science fiction. Normally I’ll just bring along Speaker for the Dead and call it good. But since I had a sci-fi title on my To Be Read list, I figured I’d give it a go.
(BTW, sometimes one sees interesting wildlife at the beach. Baby seal: very cute. Dead adult seal and sea otter: not cute. Cool, though.)
2010: Odyssey Two, by Arthur C. Clarke, is the sequel to the inimitable and enigmatic 2001: A Space Odyssey, the film
version of which has been confusing people and causing less-than-honest people to lie about understanding it for about forty years now.
Somehow I expected 2010 to be its own story, but it’s really not. I’m not saying it’s a bad thing. 2001 left a bunch of unanswered questions behind, and 2010 does a nice job of at least hinting at answers to most of them. You find out a bit more of what happened to Dave Bowman,what happened with HAL, where the monoliths come from, and what the folks who sent them were trying to do. So in that sense the book is a complete success.
More than anything, you really get a sense in this book of what an undertaking space travel would be, and all the variables that go into getting from one point to another. Of course, it’s even more of an undertaking than Clarke imagined, seeing as how we don’t have bases on the moon or missions to Jupiter. Bummer about that.
The book follows a joint United States/USSR team (Clarke wasn’t quite spot-on on his geopolitical futurism here) as they journey to find out what happened to the Discovery and try to salvage the failed mission. The prose is nice and clear, the new Russian characters are quite enjoyable, and the suspense and mystery are solid. I really have nothing bad to say about it.
My dad recommends that I don’t read the rest of the series. And since he recommended another Clarke title, Childhood’s End, I think I’ll take his word for it. I’m actually fine with reading only part of a series. In fact, I’m so comfortable with stopping in the middle of something that I
(I kinda liked my little joke there. But seriously I have very little else to say. Except that I’ve started The Battle of the Labyrinth and it will probably be my next review. Try to carry on until then. Now, in the comments, you can tell me honestly if you thought my cutting off in the middle was deliberate or not.)
Wonky Wednesday: Your Flying Car Awaits
If I’d posted this last Friday, I was going to go with Futurist Friday, which would’ve been awesome since from the standpoint of Christian Theology, I’m not at all a futurist. (Partial-Preterist, for the record.) But it’s not Friday (I’m finishing this up on a Monday and scheduling it for Wednesday), so I can’t do it. But I had to tell somebody.
Of course, Futurism isn’t limited to the realm of theology. In fact, there are scientists and sociologists who make it their business to predict the future. I even read a geopolitical futurism book not long ago. (I also read a dreadful theological futurist book so nobody else would need to. But that was three years ago.)
Sometimes, futurists get things spectacularly right, but at other times, they spew out things like “Heavier-than-air flight will never be practical as a means of transportation.”
(I wonder if there’s a book of failed theological predictions? 88 Reasons Why the Rapture Is in 1988 ring a bell?)
In Your Flying Car Awaits: Robot Butlers, Lunar Vacations, and Other Dead-Wrong Predictions of the Twentieth Century, Paul Milo presents his personal favorite off-the-mark pontifications from the last century or so, from people who might’ve known better. It’s a delightful stroll through the graveyard of past prognostications.
One problem, Milo points out, is that futurists will often take a recent trend and extrapolate it out into the future, never realizing that it might only be a short-term trend, or there might be a game-changer afoot. For instance, there was a prediction that the world would run short of key minerals, particularly metals, due to demand for things like telephone infrastructure in poorer countries. The futurists didn’t count on cell phone technology, however. Many poorer countries skipped directly from no phones to cell phones, avoiding the mineral-intensive wired phone technology.
Another problem is predicting that change will occur quickly, when it’s always safer to be on the gradual. Many of the predictions about space travel and underwater cities and such definitely could’ve used a bit of the gradual mixed in.
The book goes through predictions about the human body (natural childbirth will be outlawed; we’ll live to two hundred and clone ourselves at will), modes of transportation (flying cars!), scarcity and disasters (worldwide famine; Global Cooling), space travel (lunar and Mars bases; spaceflight isn’t possible), technology (atomic physics is nonsense), future dwellings (megacities and smart homes), living and loving (learning pills; see-through clothing), and the global perspective (an end to war!).
The final wrong-prediction chapter is on predictions of the apocalypse, and he has quite a bit of fun with Christian theologians who’ve been predicting the return of Christ for a couple of millennia now. Of course, I had a problem with his notion that the Gospels predicted Jesus’ return within the first century. (The prediction was for the Destruction of Jerusalem.) There’s also a bit of “chill-out about 2012” in the final chapter, which was nice to see.
After the author spends most of the book flogging the futurists for their brutal predictions, he sums up with some of the good calls that got made, including Jules Verne predicting spaceflight and moon missions, and H.G. Wells predicting the atomic bomb. He even goes back to some of the worst offenders from the previous chapters and points out some of their hits.
I’m at the beach this week, so maybe I’ll get some reading done. Though vacations don’t always work for reading. But I’m a bit of a gimp (recovering from torn ACL/dislocated kneecap), so maybe some reading while enjoying the sound of the surf will be just the prescription.
I’m not sure what’s up next. I’m doing Peter Pan as a read-aloud, and I’ve got a couple of other books in the works, including one I’m specifically bringing along as vacation reading.
Why It’s Important to Read the Whole Bible: Manasseh
I’m actually a bit shocked I haven’t written about this before. Seriously. Shocked. I mean, I’ve been doing theology posts since 2006, here. My control panel tells me I’ve written more than a hundred and fifty theology posts. How could I not have written about Manasseh?
Quick recap: Hezekiah, one of the best of the “good kings” of Judah (second perhaps to Josiah), was told by Isaiah that he was going to die. Hezekiah went all emo and begged for a reprieve. God listened and extended his life by fifteen years. During that time, Hezekiah fathered his heir, and one of the worst kings of Judah, named Manasseh.
During Hezekiah’s reign, all the vestiges of pagan worship had been stripped from the kingdom. Manasseh brought it all back, including the worship of Molech, which involved placing babies into scalding bronze pots. Manasseh did this with one of his own sons. Not a good dude. One of the summaries of his reign was this:
2 Kings 21:16 (ESV)
16 Moreover, Manasseh shed very much innocent blood, till he had filled Jerusalem from one end to another, besides the sin that he made Judah to sin so that they did what was evil in the sight of the LORD.
In fact, Manasseh did so much wrong that he was basically the straw that broke the camel’s back. God had had enough and warned that because of everything Manasseh did in exemplifying the consistent idolatry of Judah (with rare exceptions like Hezekiah and Josiah), the kingdom would be going down:
2 Kings 21:10-15 (ESV)
10 And the LORD said by his servants the prophets, 11 "Because Manasseh king of Judah has committed these abominations and has done things more evil than all that the Amorites did, who were before him, and has made Judah also to sin with his idols, 12 therefore thus says the LORD, the God of Israel: Behold, I am bringing upon Jerusalem and Judah such disaster that the ears of everyone who hears of it will tingle. 13 And I will stretch over Jerusalem the measuring line of Samaria, and the plumb line of the house of Ahab, and I will wipe Jerusalem as one wipes a dish, wiping it and turning it upside down. 14 And I will forsake the remnant of my heritage and give them into the hand of their enemies, and they shall become a prey and a spoil to all their enemies, 15 because they have done what is evil in my sight and have provoked me to anger, since the day their fathers came out of Egypt, even to this day."
Manasseh’s reign was so disastrous that even Josiah’s reforms could not overcome God’s wrath on Judah. (In fact, Josiah’s tenderheartedness earned him a reprieve, in that he died before the disaster struck.)
What does this have to do with my post title for today? (Theology Thursday would normally be up there, but I left it off for brevity.)
As you probably know, I’m a Bible reader. I read the whole Bible once per year (last year I read the OT once and the NT twice), and have for the past five or six years. The really great thing about reading the whole Bible is that you start to notice parallels and passages that fill in more information on a particular topic.
Because in the case of Manasseh, there’s some major information almost completely missing from the Bible!!!! Thankfully, there’s at least a hint of what that information is:
2 Chronicles 33:18-19 (ESV, emphasis mine)
18 Now the rest of the acts of Manasseh, and his prayer to his God, and the words of the seers who spoke to him in the name of the LORD, the God of Israel, behold, they are in the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel. 19 And his prayer, and how God was moved by his entreaty, and all his sin and his faithlessness, and the sites on which he built high places and set up the Asherim and the images, before he humbled himself, behold, they are written in the Chronicles of the Seers.
Manasseh’s son Amon continued behaving badly after his father’s death, but Manasseh clearly ended on a positive note. For some reason, the author of 2 Kings omitted any mention of Manasseh’s repentance, and the author of 2 Chronicles didn’t feel that recording any detail about it was necessary. Granted, they were both writing in a time in which other sources existed. Still, it might’ve been nice to have more detail.
Interestingly, there’s an apocryphal book that records the supposed prayer of Manasseh. Authentic or not, it’s a good prayer:
Prayer of Manasseh v. 11-15
11 And now I bend the knee of my heart,
imploring you for your kindness.
12 I have sinned, O Lord, I have sinned,
and I acknowledge my transgressions.
13 I earnestly implore you,
forgive me, O Lord, forgive me!
Do not destroy me with my transgressions!
Do not be angry with me for ever or store up evil for me;
do not condemn me to the depths of the earth.
For you, O Lord, are the God of those who repent,
14 and in me you will manifest your goodness;
for, unworthy as I am, you will save me according to your great mercy,
15 and I will praise you continually all the days of my life.
For all the host of heaven sings your praise,
and yours is the glory for ever. Amen.
And that’s all I have to say about that.
Wordful Wednesday: The High King
I love that Lloyd Alexander finished The Prydain Chronicles in a strong way. In fact, The High King was the most appreciated of the five books in the set, taking home the Newberry Award in 1969. It’s also my favorite of the series, and I get the impression from the Author’s Notes that Mr. Alexander preferred reader opinions to Newberry Awards. I consider myself a friend of the Companions.
In this book, the war between Arawn Death-Lord and the forces of the Sons of Don finally breaks out, with Arawn delivering the first devastating stroke, capturing the sword Dyrnwyn. Gwydion must rally his allies to invade Annuvin and recapture the blade, believed to be critical to defeating the Death-Lord.
Taran finally comes into his own as a War Leader under Gwydion, leading men he developed relationships with in Taran Wanderer. Once again he’s joined by the Companions, including Fflewddur Fflam, Eilonwy, Gurgi, and Doli.
The author wasn’t afraid to produce real peril in any of his books, and he’s pretty brutal in the characters killed off in this final volume (though not nearly so brutal as a certain David Weber tends to be).
I love this book. I love the finality of it. I love the way the mystery of Taran’s heritage is finally revealed, and the fact that the previous volumes were pretty tight-lipped about the whole thing. I love that Dallben finally gets to flex his magical muscles, giving a certain traitor a major beat-down without even touching him.
I read this book for the first time in the sixth grade, and I can still remember the way I regretted having finished the Chronicles. I wanted to live in that land just a little longer, and even though the story paid off really well, I wanted to keep reading. It’s similar to the way I feel any time I finish The Last Battle.
The Pancake-Eater once again enjoyed the book, both on audio and as a read-aloud. I think I’ve mentioned before that the volume I’ve been reading is a hardbound all-in-one volume of the five books, plus The Foundling and Other Tales of Prydain. The Boy isn’t sure he wants to read the other tales, and we’ve already started Peter Pan, so maybe I’ll leave The Foundling for him to read on his own down the road.
Next up, it’s Your Flying Car Awaits. And two more books just came in on my hold requests. Both about gas, oddly (though only one of them is about petroleum).
Physics Phriday: Why Does E=mc2?
I think it’s possible that I could have figured out how to make that “2” up there look more like an exponent, but I’m not a perfectionist. Except with respect to the loading of dishwashers. And other people’s driving.
I’ve written a lot about how much I enjoy short-topic science books, and physics is right up there in terms of topics of interest to me. One of the ways I typically find a science book to read is by watching a science program on the Idiot Box(TM).
I first encountered Brian Cox on the Science Channel, doing a program called “Can We Make a Star On Earth?” (BTW, I found it online and will embed it at the end.) The program was fascinating, with Dr. Cox running down the current possibilities for creating a successful fusion reactor. He’s a young-ish guy, with a cool Manchester accent, and he reminds
me for all the world of Cillian Murphy in Sunshine (which I maintain is an awesome movie, despite a certain other hairy runner’s disagreement). What I really love about him is how much he exudes love for nature and science.
After enjoying him as a TV personality, I figured I’d find out if he had any books out. And that’s how Why Does E=mc2? (And Why Should we Care?), by Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw, came to show up on the Hold Request shelf at the Library along with four other books. (This is book review four of five.)
The book attempts to walk the reader through the concepts of spacetime and Einstein’s theories of relativity, with some success. Ultimately, I found some parts of the book to be a bit too brainy (or myself not brainy enough). But it definitely whet my appetite for more science learning. (I took a lot of science classes in college, but I’m definitely rusty.)
The portions of the book detailing the scientific discoveries leading to Einstein’s famous equation were quite interesting. The parts attempting to explain distances in spacetime and the mathematical derivation of the equation…not so much. I appreciated the authors’ efforts to make it all accessible. I just couldn’t completely follow it. And it’s quite possible that the fault is mine.
The last quarter or so of the book was the “Why Should We Care?” part, and that was definitely interesting. The fact that our GPS technology is entirely dependent on general and special relativity really blew me away. Just really good stuff. And the chapter on the Standard Model of Particle Physics was quite enlightening if not completely accessible.
So it’s a bit of a mix bag here. The book is well-written and fairly easy to read, for the most part. But you will need your thinking cap.
Next up, The High King.
(Video embedded, so you can hear Dr. Cox’s cool accent. Or watch it on your own time here.)
Theology Thursday: About Jesus’ Baptism
First off, thanks to JonV for the topic suggestion. And to clarify, under discussion today is the fact that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist (as opposed to a post about the baptizing that Jesus’ disciples did).
It’s a puzzling question, really. Why was Jesus baptized by John? Recall that John’s was a baptism of repentance, and that when Jesus came to him to be baptized, John objected:
Matthew 3:13-17 (ESV)
13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him. 14 John would have prevented him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?" 15 But Jesus answered him, "Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." Then he consented. 16 And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him; 17 and behold, a voice from heaven said, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased."
It’s tempting to attempt to shove a bunch of doctrine into Jesus’ reply that it was “to fulfill all righteousness” that he was baptized. Does Jesus mean he needed to be baptized for some reason? Or was he just setting an example for Christians?
This latter theory is pretty popular, but I doubt anyone who espouses it thinks all Christians should be baptized into John’s baptism. Neither do they think that Jesus needed a baptism of repentance.
The long and the short of it is that we’re never really told why Jesus needed to be baptized or how it was righteous for him to do it. But John does give us a hint at a larger purpose behind the event:
John 1:33-34 (ESV)
32 And John bore witness: "I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him. 33 I myself did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, 'He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.' 34 And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God."
So basically, the events of Jesus’ baptism were used as a sign to John so he could know who the Lord was. What’s really interesting to me is that John (in prison) later sends his disciples to Jesus asking if he’s really the one he’s been waiting for.
Feel free to chime in if you’ve got a better answer. Or any answer at all, actually.
Frankenstein: Lost Souls
I started reading the Dean Koontz’s Frankenstein series a couple of years ago on my sister’s recommendation. Well, to be more accurate, I listened to the first two books. But when the third came out, I had too much invested in the story to wait on somebody else’s reading it for me. So I picked it up in print from the Library. And it was awesome, and I thought I was done.
And strictly speaking, that series did end. Because the latest Koontz is just called Frankenstein: Lost Souls, losing the Dean Koontz’s description. And the first series had a definite end to it.
Still, Lost Souls is definitely a sequel, inheriting the same principal characters and universe.
I was prepared, going into it, to be disappointed if Koontz was just going to retread the same basic story as in the first series. But he didn’t, and I should’ve had more faith in him, since I’ve now read twenty-one of his novels.
Of course (minor spoiler alert), Victor Frankenstein is a somewhat different Victor in this volume. And his plan differs from his previous plans to populate the world with his New Race. I have to say that the one part of this book that I found somewhat disappointing was the chapter that described his plans. I’d rather have not had his plans explicitly stated when they were already strongly implied. But it’s a minor gripe.
What I really like about the first book in this new series is that the tone is a bit less darkly humorous than the previous series. Sometimes the New Race characters in the previous series came off as a bit silly (though since they were usually Gone-Wrongs, it made sense). This new series is a bit more chilling, though not overtly frightening.
Something else that surprised me in a good way was that I really enjoyed the new characters introduced in this book. Nummy and Mr. Lyss were delightful, and Travis and Bryce were another strong pairing. Of course, Carson and Michael were delightful as always, though different in a good way.
Anyhow, I’m looking forward to the rest of the series. Mr. Koontz is a machine, with another Frankenstein due out next spring and another bit of Koontzy goodness due out around Christmas. Time to get my Hold Requests in!
Next up: Why Does E=mc2 (And Why Should We Care?). Or maybe The High King.
What the World Cup needs to learn from Isner and Mahut
Right away I should say that I appreciate the World Cup. I even dig soccer a bit. True, baseball is a better sport, but that really goes without saying, since it’s better than all other sports. But soccer is certainly more popular than all other sports the world over. Keep in mind, though, that Lady Gaga is popular. Popularity isn’t everything.
But I like the drama of the World Cup. What I don’t like is seeing games decided with penalty kicks. Finish. The. Game.
For those of you who don’t know who John Isner and Nicolas Mahut are, you probably don’t watch either Wimbledon or Sportscenter. Isner is American, Mahut is French, and they’re playing an entire tournament in one match. Neither of them is really highly-ranked, but the match they’re still playing is going to be famous.
You see, they started this match two days ago. Isner won the first set 6-4. Mahut won the second 6-3. They then went to tiebreaks in sets three and four, with each man winning one. And then the match was suspended for darkness (there’s only lights on Centre Court).
So yesterday they picked up the match in the fifth set.
And.
They.
Played.
All.
Day.
At Wimbledon, a five-set-match can’t end on a tiebreak. Which means you have to win the fifth by two games. Which means you must win a game on the other guy’s serve (called a service break). And these guys can’t do it anymore. (They could in sets one and two, but then they both started serving incredibly well…more than 200 aces combined for the match.)
The fifth set has now gone on longer than any other match in the history of Wimbledon. Nearly eight hours. And it was suspended a second time. As I write this, the match has resumed, and Isner just won a service game and leads 65-64 in the final set. Maybe he’ll break and this thing’ll be over.
(Update: Isner wins the final set 70-68. Think he’ll have anything in the tank for his next match?)
Keep in mind here that in a total blowout, 6-0, 6-0, 6-0, we’re looking at eighteen games. The fifth set has gone more than a hundred and twenty games.
It’s awesome. Soccer needs to learn from this. Make somebody win it in regulation. I understand ending matches on a draw at least until the championship game, and I would even argue that Wimbledon might be well-served in removing the “no winning on a tie-break in a five-setter” rule until the final match. But the World Cup should never, ever, ever, ever be decided with penalty kicks. There’s just no excuse for it. Go sudden death and make them play it out.
non-Fiction Friday: To Hell on a Fast Horse
I’m still working my way through my epic Five Books in Three Weeks feat. Well, okay, it’s not epic. And it’s not really a feat. I’m sure I’ve read five books in a three week period before. But I’ve never actually set out to.
Ten days to go and I’ve got two books left. It’s doable, but I’m not sure it’ll happen (on account of another Hold Request coming through that I’ve been waiting on for several months. And it’s a Koontz. Thought you’d understand.)
Long story short, I’ve finished my first non-fiction title of the five, in Mark Lee Gardner’s excellent To Hell on a Fast Horse: Billy the Kid, Pat Garrett, and the Epic Chase to Justice in the Old West.
The book is essentially a dual biography of Billy the Kid and Pat Garrett, with the narrative shifting between the two figures at logical points. I admit that in the early going, I had a much easier time getting into the Kid chapters, but as the work progressed I saw that the structure of the book made sense.
The funny thing is that even though I understood the structure, I had a difficult time figuring out why the narrative should continue after Billy the Kid’s death. And then I remembered the whole dual biography thing.
Of course, reading this book brought back memories of seeing Young Guns in the summer before my tenth grade year. I wasn’t yet sixteen, but I had a friend who was eighteen, and he took me to see it. My first Rated-R movie without a real adult along (my friend was legally an adult, but he was just another kid, you know).
For the record, a good deal of creative license was taken by that film, which depicted the events of the Lincoln County War, which just happens to be detailed rather nicely by Mr. Gardner in To Hell on a Fast Horse.
In high school, I took a Lit course titled Frontier Literature, and a History course called Westward Movement, so I’ve long been enamored of the Old West. I’ll have to revisit the genre again soon.
This book was a title pick-up, meaning I saw the title on the New Materials RSS Feed for the Library and had to get it. It really didn’t need a thumb-through, either, given the topic and length of the work. One really cool thing about the book is that though it’s fairly brief (~250 pages), it’s not just a popular history. It’s heavily end-noted for anyone who wants to have that greater detail. As for me, I enjoyed the core narrative and didn’t find myself looking all that much at the end-notes. But it was nice to know they were there.
Next up, Why Does E=mc2 (And Why Should We Care?), by Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw. (Or maybe a Koontz.)
Theology Thursday Lite: The Not-so-Lost Tribes of Israel
If you google “Ten Lost Tribes of Israel,” you’ll get more than 400,000 hits. It’s a popular topic, and there are fanciful imaginings aplenty about where they might be.
The problem is that the tribes were never lost. Recall that the Kingdom was divided in the days of Rehoboam and Jeroboam, and that ten of the twelve tribes sided with the Northern Kingdom of Israel. And this Northern Kingdom was subsequently sacked and taken into exile by the Assyrians in the 700s BC. And the Assyrians repopulated the area with other ethnic groups, and they intermarried with the Israelites who were left behind, leading to the mongrelized Samaritans.
But the crucial fact that’s often missed is that there were members of the Ten Tribes living in the Southern Kingdom of Judah. We know them as the faithful remnant of Israel. Check it out:
2 Chronicles 11:13-16 (ESV, emphasis and clarification mine)
13 And the priests and the Levites who were in all Israel presented themselves to [Rehoboam] from all places where they lived. 14 For the Levites left their common lands and their holdings and came to Judah and Jerusalem, because Jeroboam and his sons cast them out from serving as priests of the LORD, 15 and he appointed his own priests for the high places and for the goat idols and for the calves that he had made. 16 And those who had set their hearts to seek the LORD God of Israel came after them from all the tribes of Israel to Jerusalem to sacrifice to the LORD, the God of their fathers.
And this wasn’t the only time faithful Israelites fled from the Northern Kingdom. It happened again when Rehoboam’s grandson (Asa, a good king) was reigning.
2 Chronicles 15: 9 (ESV, emphasis and clarification mine)
9 And [Asa] gathered all Judah and Benjamin, and those from Ephraim, Manasseh, and Simeon who were residing with them, for great numbers had deserted to him from Israel when they saw that the LORD his God was with him.
Just some food for thought.