Reading

A little bit of serendipity in my reading life: I snarfed the new translation of Elie Weisel's "Night" within a few hours of picking it up. And days later, another testament from that era is unveiled for the world at large: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070604/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_holocaust_diary. The relapsed English major who lives inside me was spinning a few alliterative comments ("courage and cravenness", "humanity and horror"), but, on second thought, that would be like pasting rhinestones on a priceless work of art. Rutka and Elie do quite well without my embellishment.

Speaking of books, I stayed up until nearly two in the morning a couple weeks back to polish off "Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell". I'd been gape-jawed enthralled with Strange at the Battle of Waterloo, and the Venetian meeting of Strange and Drawlight was nearly as powerful. The denouement was quite well-done, with everything coming together to its bittersweet ending. Yet, oddly, the sense that the story is truly "over" is missing. Mind you, there's not much wiggle-room for a sequel; still, "Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norell" had the feel of being merely a chapter in a larger book not yet finished. Apart from too much ink given to the incredibly tedious gentleman with the thistle-down hair, it's a glorious read. If I hadn't been running short on lucidity at that hour, I probably would have sniffled a few times at the victory of love over pettiness and ego.

And, lastly, a link to an LA Times article about a (re-)re-discovered manuscript of Archimedes. Science nearly stifled by religion and chicanery...until science comes to its rescue: How apt. And, by the bye, if the git who forged the paintings that covered part of the text is still alive, I'll pay to be first in line to smack the effin' twit into his/her next incarnation. Moron.)

I left it too long between the essay-chapters of "Why I am not a Christian," so I'm missing some of the full effect. I personally think that Russell uses an ever-so-slightly oversized hammer on religion, even making allowances for the historical context. I'm not sure whether Marx and Engels could have more deeply despised the poison-laced Ovaltine the bourgeoisie claim as "morals" than Russell. Yet, surprisingly, the "Nice People" chapter wasn't nearly vicious enough--not for me, at least. I like Bertrand Russell because he is spot-on in calling out Fascism and Communism as competing religions, not outgrowths--and especially not the "logical" conclusions--of atheism itself. Once the Church is dismantled as an obstruction to the revolution, the wrecking crews can't seem to resist building a similar structure on the site, can they? The state is merely swapped in for God, its bureaucracy for the priesthood, and its perpetrators for prophets. Perhaps Russell speculates on the "why" of this elsewhere. Sadly, I haven't encountered this yet (and I'm almost finished with the book). Perhaps between different covers...

That's all the book-related goodness I have at my to pass along just now. Further reading will have to wait until after this coming weekend, when people with DNA similar to mine will be congregating some three hours away. I have promised to be among their number, and will be hosting a few fellow pilgrims besides.