My Favorite Agnostic

I could have called this post “My Favorite Martian” but I believe that title has already been taken.  And besides, Valentine Michael Smith, or just plain “Mike”, the Man from Mars in Robert A. Heinlein’s Stranger in a Strange Land wasn’t my favorite character in the book.  His agnostic Earthly father figure, Dr. Jubal Harshaw, was.

I’ve seen this book in bookstores since I was a kid hanging out in the science fiction section but never had a clue as to what it was about.  Last summer, a friend recommended Heinlein’s The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.  I read it and enjoyed it enough to read another of his novels this summer.  I’ve also heard good things about Starship Troopers (the novel, not the movie).

For the book to be published in 1961, Heinlein had to cut around 60,000 words.  My understanding is that the publishers simply didn’t want the book to be as long as it was; it didn’t have anything to do with the subject matter.  In 1990, the novel was published as Heinlein originally wanted it published.  With that publication, Kurt Vonnegut wrote an interesting review of the uncut version in the New York Times.  The version of the novel that I read included those 60,000 words.

I have to admit that the novel itself was a little bizarre for my tastes.  Mike technically is not a Martian, he is a human born on Mars and raised by Martians.  Actual Martian creatures are discussed but never given a concrete description.  A human expedition brings Mike back to Earth as an adult; however, he seems more a child until he learns earthly ways.  He still maintains his Martian “powers”.

Harshaw, an attorney and doctor, rescues him from the world government and brings Mike back to his household to tutor him.  His household includes several adult employees who all take a liking to Mike.  Harshaw reminds me of Wolf Larsen in Jack London’s The Sea Wolf  although with significantly more compassion.  He’s extremely knowledgable in art, philosophy, history, religion and literature and enjoys debating ideas from all of these fields with his employees, whom he treats as both his children and friends.  He’s comfortable with doubt if he cannot come to a hard and fast conclusion.  He’d rather live with doubt than come up with a pat answer that somehow doesn’t ring true.   He’s not afraid of tough questions that cannot be immediately answered.

As Mike finishes his human education, he moves into the world to spread the Martian “gospel” in the form of a circus cult commune.  According to Vonnegut’s article, Heinlein’s wife indicated that he considered monotheism and monogomy to be our society’s “sacred cows”.  This strange Martian cult throws both of these “cows” out the window.  Many of Harshaw’s employees join the cult to his disappointment.  Ultimately, Harshaw lives with them physically but never quite gives in to their beliefs emotionally, mentally or spiritually.

The novel uses a device that I sometimes find annoying:  to enjoy the story, the author feels the reader must be familiar with religious, historical and philosophical ideas that are not necessarily known to the average reader; therefore, the author gives mini lectures and writes mini essays through “conversation” among characters to bring the reader up to speed.  If the author wants to inform the reader, he could give a lecture or write an essay.  Including it in a novel seems awkward.  This device could possibly be why Heinlein hasn’t gotten his due from the literary critics Vonnegut refers to in his review.

I enjoyed the ideas that Heinlein throws out in this novel, I’m just not sure I agree with his conclusions.  I prefer Harshaw’s ability to live without a conclusion if a “real” one doesn’t seem to exist.

Jack London by Earle Labor

I picked up Earle Labor’s book Jack London thinking it was a biography; however, it was actually more of a literary analysis of London’s work with a little biographical information thrown in.  It wasn’t exactly what I was looking for, but because it was short, I read it and gathered some interesting facts and insights.

1.  According to Labor, The Call of the Wild was London’s “masterpiece”; however, I was surprised to find that he wrote numerous novels that I had never encountered:  Martin Eden, Burning Daylight, The Little Lady of the Big House.  He also mentions The Scarlet Plague, an apocalyptic, dystopian science fiction novel.  I’ve only  heard of it within the last few weeks as Jay, over at Bibliophilopolis, recently read this.

2.  Critics have generally loved Wolf Larsen of The Sea Wolf but have hated the inclusion of Maud Brewster toward the end as a sort of love interest for Humphrey Van Weyden. While I didn’t necessarily hate her, I thought her popping up in the middle of the ocean seemed a little too coincidental.  London indicated that he felt his “fans” would want a romance included in the novel.

3.  London was not the starving artist like some authors.  He gained a considerable amount of success and fame in his relatively short life (he died when he was 40).  The fact that he was successful has always been a source of contention with many critics and has kept him from being considered truly great.

4.  He ran for mayor of Oakland, CA as a Socialist candidate twice and lost both times.  The fact that many of his protagonists or heroes were rugged individualists and London himself pulled himself up by his boot straps more or less, he considered himself a Socialist and many of his lesser known works have a bit of propaganda included in them.

5.  Many have believed that London committed suicide when he was 40; however, according to Labor, London was in bad health, due in part to alcohol and in part to working too hard, and died as a result, but it was not suicide.

Jack London’s “The Water Baby”

Unlike many of London’s short stories (at least many of the ones I’ve read so far), “The Water Baby” takes place in warm, tropical Hawaii.  John Lakana, whom I presume is a relatively young, native Hawaiian, is fishing in a lagoon with his seventy-something friend, Kohokumu, who is also a native Hawaiian.  Their discussion takes a philosophical turn.

Kohokumu tells Lakana the tales of Maui, a Hawaiian equivalent to Hercules, and Maui’s battle with the sun.   The sun is “evidently a trade-unionist” and only wanted a six-hour day.  Maui was more of an “open shop” kind of guy and wanted a twelve hour day.  They compromised – the sun got winter and Maui got summer.

On a more serious note, the two of them briefly touch on both Christianity of the Hawaiian Bible translated by missionaries and the more naturalistic ideas of science.  However, Kohokumu continually talks of  stories of the island mythology from his youth.  In the course of this conversation, Kohokumu concludes that “Man does not make truth.  Man, if he be not blind, only recognizes truth when he sees it.”

The discussion continues with a story about “The Water Baby” who lived a long time ago when the island King grew angry with his subjects.  Everyone knew the King loved lobster.   The Water Baby, who could talk to fish, came up with an ingenius idea of getting lobster to appease the King.  He could understand the plans the sharks were making to eat him when he tried to dive to get the lobsters.  The Water Baby threw lava rocks into the lagoon deceiving the sharks while he jumped in after on the other side.  He did this 39 times getting 39 lobsters.

After the story, Lakana is skeptical that this actually happened.  Kohokumu “proves” that this is true by stating that he has seen the 39 lava rocks when diving to the bottom of the lagoon.  Of course, Lakana’s thinking is that the lava rocks don’t prove that the story is true, the story is a way to explain the lava rocks.  A slight difference.

London’s writing is as beautiful as ever in this story (his last one, published in 1916).  I thought that the story seemed to be broken up into too many parts, though.  There was the Maui story at the beginning, Lakana and Kohokumu’s discussion, then the Water Baby story.  They all tied in to the same theme but just made the whole story a little disjointed.

The Buzz About “The Mother Hive”

Last week I read Jack London’s short story, “The Strength of the Strong”, which was a reply to Rudyard Kipling’s attack on Socialism in the form of his short story, “The Mother Hive”.  This week I read “The Mother Hive” and liked it just as well as London’s story.

As the title would suggest, the story’s setting is a bee hive with a certain working order that maintains the life of each individual bee.  One day, a negligent guard bee lets in a dreaded Wax Moth.  Throughout the hive’s existence, the bees have been warned that a Wax Moth that infiltrates their world will destroy their working order and eventually will destroy their world.  The Wax Moth begins to tell the bees that their work and order isn’t necessary, that the traditions of the hive are simply outdated and that the bees could have just as much of a good life by rejecting the traditions with which they have been living.  One bee, Melissa, sees the error of the Wax Moth’s ideas but is unable to prevent the majority of the hive from buying into them.  As a result, the bees end up eating parts of the hive that are not meant to be eaten and giving birth to strangely shaped baby bees which continue to eat the hive.  Melissa is able to persuade only a few bees to secretly raise up a Princess Bee to replace the current corrupted Queen Bee.  As the hive becomes increasingly decayed, the Bee Master eventually burns it while Melissa, the Princess and the few bees in Melissa’s camp “swarm” to the Oak Tree to start a new hive and a new life.

The story is written as a fable, almost a fairy tale, and stands up with the best of them.  It’s beautifully written and is probably one of the best stories by Kipling that I’ve read.  The way he is able to take the natural world and infuse it with a battle for good and evil is amazing.  The burning of the hive by the Bee Master is painted brilliantly in sweeping apocalyptic prose.  I have a feeling that perhaps the politics involved may have in some way kept it from being thought of as a great story in some circles.  I have not done exhaustive research as to the specific circumstances or events that may have prompted Kipling to write this story.  The only information I could come up with was that the story was his attack on Socialistic ideas that he thought were infiltrating his society.  The story itself does not specify the Wax Moth as a Socialist; it simply shows the Wax Moth undermining the traditions that have kept the hive going.

If I would recommend these two stories to anyone, I would probably suggest reading “The Mother Hive” first and then read London’s “The Strength of the Strong”.  The idea that Jack London would stand up for socialism was a little surprising to me.  His characters all seem to be rugged individualists that pull themselves up by their boot straps.  It’s difficult to imagine Wolf Larsen in The Sea Wolf as a socialist.  At the same time, I’m reminded that many of London’s rugged individualists end up dead.  I plan on reading biographies of London and of Kipling in the near future, perhaps this will shed some light on their lives and political beliefs.

Top Ten Tuesday: Top Ten Favorite Quotations from Books

Top Ten Tuesday is a weekly meme created by The Broke and the Bookish.  It’s a fun way to share thoughts about books and get to know other bloggers.  This week’s topic is favorite quotations from books.  It was easier than I thought to come up with these.

The first two are fairly well-known as famous final lines (1) and first lines (2) from novels, maybe even a little cliché, but I like them so I included them:

1.        “So we beat on, boats against the current borne back ceaselessly into the past.”  From The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald

2.        “It was the best of times.  It was the worst of times.”  From A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens

I’m still amazed at how much mileage Hemingway could get out of this line:

3.       “Brett was damned good looking.”  From The Sun Also Rises by Ernest Hemingway

On a personal note, I was going through somewhat of a “down” time in 2009 when I read this and thought “Someone actually knows how I feel!”:

4.       “Often I have not known where I was going until I was already there. I have had my share of desires and goals, but my life has come to me or I have gone to it mainly by way of mistakes and surprises. Often I have received better than I have deserved. Often my fairest hopes have rested on bad mistakes. I am an ignorant pilgrim, crossing a dark valley. And yet for a long time, looking back, I have been unable to shake off the feeling that I have been led – make of that what you will.”  From Jayber Crow by Wendell Berry

One of the more powerful lines from one of the more powerful novels I read in 2011:

5.        “I pray you will grow to be a strong man in a strong country.”   From Gilead by Marilynne Robinson

You have to read the whole short story to fully appreciate this line – one of the funniest lines I’ve read in a long time:

6.       “My days are peaceful now, and my nights sleep deep.”   From “Moon-Face” by Jack London

Since I’ve never sat down and talked to Stephen King, I don’t know for sure, but it seems like this line from one of his more recent novels sums up his view on life:

7.        “…where mortals dance in defiance of the dark.”  From 11/22/63 by Stephen King

I loved this variation on Lao Tse’s proverb from this brilliant book of essays on philanthropy:

8.       “Give a person a fish, and we feed him for a day. Teach a person to fish, and we feed him for a lifetime. Share with a person the joy of helping others learn to fish, and we enable him to participate in a goodness that transcends any particular lifetime.”   From We Make A Life By What We Give by Richard B. Gunderman

A great quote I’ve been carrying around with me for years from one of my favorite authors:

9.        “…it is as important to learn the important questions as it is the important answers.  It is especially important to learn the questions to which there may not be good answers.  We have to learn to live with questions…”  From In The Beginning by Chaim Potok

And the last one is from The Bible:

10.  For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known.  From New American Standard Verision, 1 Corinthians 13:12

HONORABLE MENTIONS

I read this novel in both high school and college and this line always stuck with me, as well as everyone else in the classes:

11.  “Mother died today. Or, maybe yesterday; I can’t be sure.”  From The Stranger by Albert Camus

And since my wife and daughter are huge Jane Austen fans, I’ll include this one:

12.   It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife.  From Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen

“Bees are not men.”

Since I’ve been reading the works of Jack London and Rudyard Kipling, I’ve wondered whether they knew each other and what they may have thought of each other’s work.  As they lived and wrote during approximately the same time period (turn of the twentieth century), I’d be curious as to whether they would have anything to say to each other.  After reading London’s short story, “The Strength of the Strong”, I have an inkling of what might have taken place if they had met.

The anthology I’ve been using to read London’s short stories has been Jack London: Short Stories edited by Earle Labor; Robert C. Leitz III; I. Milo Shepard.  The notes for this short story indicate that London wrote this as a reply to a short story that Kipling wrote called “The Adventures of Melissa” (originally published as “The Mother Hive”) in which Kipling attacked Socialism.  According to these notes, London also told a fellow writer that “No one was in the slightest way aware of the point of my story”.

“The Strength of the Strong” is told by a prehistoric grandfather to his prehistoric grandsons.  The grandfather explains that people used to live in trees by themselves and they only had the strength of “one”.  When they realized that together, they might have the strength of “ten”, people moved from the trees to caves.  Then they discovered that some of them could hunt, some could protect, some could cook.  After a while, some of the people became stronger than others and took all the land.  Some of the people learned how to hunt better and took all the food.  Eventually, the majority worked very hard for very little, while a select few didn’t work at all and had tons of food and land.  At one point, someone decides they need “money”, so they string sea shells together and call it “money”.  For some, all they did all day was (literally) make “money”.  After reading the story, I had to agree with London’s own assessment.  I’m not really sure what point he was trying to make.  It was difficult to figure out which political and economic ideals he was satirizing and which ones he was embracing.

However, London brilliantly satirizes Kipling’s writing style and story-telling methods.  All the characters in London’s story have Kipling style names with a slight twist that pokes fun of them.  The grandfather’s name is Long-Beard while his grandsons are Deer-Runner, Yellow-Head, and Afraid-of-the-Dark.  Other characters had names like Strong-Arm, Three-Clams, One-Eye, Little-Belly, Dog-Tooth, Pig-Jaw, Big-Fat, Twisted-Lip.  My favorite was The Bug.  He went around making up songs and stories about bees to calm people down whenever anyone got too riled up and distraught over their circumstances.  I have a hunch that The Bug was supposed to be Kipling.

In previous posts, I’ve mentioned that, while both London and Kipling extensively used animals in their stories, London’s animals were more like animals whereas Kipling’s animals were more like humans (anthropomorphic – there’s that word again).   London seems to make a very clear point in what he thinks of this aspect of Kipling’s writing when, in the last line of “The Strength of the Strong”, he states “all that will come to pass in the time when the fools are dead, and when there will be no more singers to stand still and sing the ‘Song of the Bees.’  Bees are not men.”

Tune in next week when I’ll let you know what this story of Kipling’s, “The Mother Hive”, is all about.

“…for the price of a bull and on Baloo’s good word.”

I read Rudyard Kipling’s short story “Mowgli’s Brothers” last night – it’s a part of Kipling’s The Jungle Book.  I confess that in reading this story I can’t help but picture the Disney animated movie that I’ve grown up with.  The real story is a little less tame than Disney’s, but I think Walt Disney and his associates must have at least read the Kipling stories to create the characters in the movie.  One note of interest (at least to me) is that Disney’s movie version was the last movie that Walt Disney worked on, himself.

The story is the opposite of the novel I just read, Jack London’s White Fang.  In that novel, a wolf goes to live with “man”.  In this story, Mowgli, a child, goes to live in the jungle with wolves.  Bagheera, the panther, while ferocious to the rest of the jungle displays a firm gentleness in protecting and befriending Mowgli.  Baloo, the bear, teaches Mowgli all about how to find food – without a lot of effort.

When the wolves are at their council to determine whether Mowgli should stay, Bagheera offers a dead bull to the pack.  Because the council needs two members to speak up for Mowgli (other than his wolf parents), Baloo offers his affirmation of Mowgli.  Therefore, Mowgli is allowed to stay with the pack “for the price of a bull and on Baloo’s good word.”

As Akela, the wolf leader, grows old, the question comes up again as to whether Mowgli can stay.  Sheera Khan, the tiger that originally chased Mowgli into the jungle as a child, continues to hold a grudge against him.  As he has planted seeds of doubt into the minds of many of Mowgli’s “brothers”, they try to hand him over to the tiger.  Mowgli uses “Red Flower” (fire) that he’s stolen from the man-village to ward off his attackers on the council and then decides it is his time to return to his village, though it’s not without much grief and tears.

The animals in Kipling’s stories are more anthropomorphic ( I like using that word) than in London’s novels.  While there is still talk of the “Law of the Jungle”, it’s a law that is made up by Kipling himself for his stories; whereas, London’s “law” seems to be based more on nature in “real life”.

“…god and mystery and power all wrapped up…”

To man has been given the grief, often, of seeing his gods overthrown and his altars crumbling; but to the wolf and the wild dog that have come in to crouch at man’s feet this grief has never come.  Unlike man, whose gods are of the unseen and the overguessed, vapours and mists of fancy eluding the garmenture of reality, wandering wraiths of desired goodness and power, intangible out-croppings of self into the realm of spirit – unlike man, the wolf and the wild dog that have come in to the fire find their gods in the living flesh, solid to the touch, occupying earth-space and requiring time for the accomplishment of their ends and their existence.  No effort of faith is necessary to believe in such a god; no effort of will can possibly induce disbelief in such a god.  There is no getting away from it.  There it stands, on its two hind-legs, club in hand, immensely potential, passionate and wrathful and loving, god and mystery and power all wrapped up and around by flesh that bleeds when it is torn and that is good to eat like any flesh.

Something about Jack London’s novels, particularly White Fang and Call of the Wild, make me think of nature movies I used to watch as a kid.  The animals were not anthropomorphic – it was simply live animals on film with a narrator (like Morgan Freeman) telling the story.  Even though I would typically think of these films as less than entertaining,  the beauty of the scenery and the animals, along with the story-telling, pulled me into the movies in spite of myself.

While an aspect of London’s novels have some similarities to these movies, he always takes me by surprise with his insights and writing as in the paragraph I quoted above from White Fang, which I just finished reading.  White Fang’s references to man as “gods”, both in wrath and in love, gives a unique perspective to the relationship between man and animals and an insight into London’s view of the world.  I continue to get the impression that London sees a difference between humanity and the animal kingdom; however, he wishes there was not a difference.  He sees animals as having a straight-forward, less complex life that I think he finds appealing.  Sometimes I find it more appealing, too.

White Fang‘s plot is the opposite of Call of the Wild.  White Fang is born in the wild and comes to live with men – both men who are good to him and men who are not.  While Buck, in Call of the Wild, lives with men and then finds himself in the wild.  I may have to read Call of the Wild again, sometime soon.

“We’re quits now.”

I ‘ll put a SPOILER ALERT on this post although I’m not sure it’s necessary.  I read Jack London’s short story, “Semper Idem” this weekend.  It was only five pages and while the ending wasn’t exactly surprising, it wasn’t what I was expecting.

A man called Semper Idem is taken to the hospital after he tries to kill himself by cutting his throat.  A calloused doctor at the hospital is able to “miraculously” heal the man.  According to the doctor, his ability to heal the man was due to the position in which Semper Idem was standing when he committed the act.  After Semper Idem regains consciousness, the doctor explains to him how he should have positioned himself to “finish the job”.  Not long after Semper Idem is released from the hospital, he returns after another suicide attempt – this time he is dead.

At the beginning of the story another hospital staff is bemoaning the fact that a different patient had died.  After Semper Idem returns to the hospital, the doctor tells the other staff member “We’re quits now”.  As though there is some sort of competition between the two of them.  The question arises to me as to whether they are competing to save patients or competing to kill them.  I’m not sure.

The darkness in this story didn’t seem to work as well as the darkness of “Moon-Face”, the Jack London story I read last week.  It still has many of the themes that have become familiar to me in reading London’s work.  It just wasn’t as satisfying as “Moon-Face”.

“My days are peaceful now, and my nights sleep deep.”

I think “Moon-Face” by Jack London is my favorite short story that I’ve read so far this year.  Who knew that London would be so good at writing black comedy?  The story reminds me somewhat of Edgar Allen Poe’s “The Cask of Amontillado” in it’s brevity and creepiness.  The comedy puts a slightly different spin on the tale of “getting even”.

The narrator’s only complaints about his acquaintence John Claverhouse, is that he has a moon-shaped face and a positive outlook on life.  Oh, and he also doesn’t like his name.

…but Claverhouse!  I leave it up to you.  Repeat it to yourself – Claverhouse.  Just listen to the ridiculous sound of it – Claverhouse!  Should a man live with such a name?  I ask of you.  “No,” you say.  And “No” said I.

The narrator begins to belittle Claverhouse and then plots his financial demise.  Claverhouse continues to be the bright and sunny optimist throughout all this.  The narrator eventually decides there is only one way to permanently put an end to Claverhouse’s maddening happiness.  The development and implementation of the narrator’s scheme to squash Claverhouse’s sunny disposition is one of the funniest things I’ve read in a long time.  But afterwards, the narrator is able to say that “My days are peaceful now, and my nights sleep deep.”

The story is only about five pages…so go read it.  You’ll get a good laugh out of it.  Unless of course you are an eternal optimist…then, maybe not so much.