Showing posts with label blog culture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label blog culture. Show all posts

Thursday, January 21, 2016

Inspiration?

Has this blog been the inspiration for great artwork? or even mediocre artwork? I have no idea. However there is a painting by some artist named James Shipton with the title Est Quod Est. Funny. Here's a safe-for-work detail; go to the link to check out the "full monty".


Personally I would have named this painting KMWA. But that's just me.

Other possibilities for titles would include Back View of Some Chick Dropping Trou or, seeing that she has her hair in a bun, Bun and Buns. The title Est Quod Est gives absolutely no description of what this picture is about. And that could be said of the blog Est Quod Est as well.

Wednesday, July 15, 2015

A note to the commenters Anonymous

We have at least two Anonymous commenters over here at the moment. And I can't really blame them, I mean if I were them I wouldn't want to be caught hanging out with me. But I'm pretty sure their not me. Pretty sure that is. Does that make sense?

Anyway I think to clear this whole thing up, I think a tag at the bottom of each comment post would help. One of you two has been great at fetching old things from different places on the web, or pointing out new pertinent articles. I think of you as my archivist. So you could sign things "Archivist", whoever you are. Just an idea.



Or... you can be creative and call yourself Hemingway. Or Bruce or Caitlyn or whatever.

Monday, September 15, 2014

No need for facial tattoos...

...when a prospective employer can just type your full name into El Goog along with the name of your former employer and have a post featuring these "thoughts and rantings" returned. Short excerpt:

So, I will just write the truth and tell you all what happened.

Basically, I was screwed out of a chance to work for a rather nice trucking company.

Why, you say?

Because of a baseless and vicious accusation by a black lesbian woman.

I wouldn't think the blog author would mind my labeling this bit of over-sharing "thoughts and rantings" seeing that this is the title he has chosen for his blog address.

I wouldn't spend any time on CPA, but he did call my friend Keith a "clueless blowhole" yesterday which I wanted to counter by noting that Keith is not any type of hole, nor is he clueless.

CPA doesn't appear to be clueless either, but perhaps he should read this advice.

Monday, September 9, 2013

Priestly Prudence

Dymphna asks the question Should priests blog?, and then she answers it.

Nope. Not unless the blog doesn't allow comments and is strictly homilies, apologetics, or a collection of the priest's writings like this or this.

I've seen priest blogs that were too worldly, waspish to anyone who didn't slobber over them like a big happy dog, and well.... dangerous because they showed bad judgement, and did not show the priesthood in a respectable light. A priest blog should not be like a pop star writing to his fans.

This is a succinct but strong argument against priests having chatty, kitchen sink blogs, and the sites she links to are excellent. As St. Josemaria Escriva put it, "[H]ow do I serve our Lord? By talking to souls about God and only about God."

Monday, June 24, 2013

Musings on a "Third Way"

Allow me to relate a small part of my weekend musings here. I recently received a short yet hysterical email which tacitly accused me of using a pseudonym so as to conceal my identity. But as I've said before, Pauli isn't a pseudonym; it's a nickname. Most people here know my surname and generally where I live. These things are not hard to figure out if you read enough of the blog and follow the links, and I often send emails to readers—and sometime would-be readers—which reveal my actual name. I'm really not worried about people discovering it.

Some bloggers who are in the habit of using their full name are a bit obsessed with those who choose not too. They'll talk about how pseudonymity encourages excessive carelessness and insensitivity when expressing opinions due to an immunity from any consequences. Others advocate the importance of pseudonyms, and how they facilitate free speech which is otherwise gagged for fear of repercussions. The false dichotomy that some of these bloggers perpetuate is that you're either boldly announcing in neon your name, address, what parish you belong to, how many kids you have and pets you own, etc. or you are living a double-life, hiding behind a wall of deception and hurling bombs from the pseudonymous online bunker you've constructed.

A third way avoids both the neon and the bunker. You could call it the "nickname way" if you feel you must call it something. This way of presenting your ideas is probably not available to someone who writes for a major media company or is a published author. If you are already a public figure when you start a blog, and you don't have an established moniker, then you might be perceived as using a pseudonym unless you use your real name. And you'll probably be expected to identify yourself anyway, being a public figure.

Here's the thing: most of us aren't public figures or columnists and we'd rather not have the trouble that goes with that. If you get interviewed by the local rag because you found a lost puppy does that make you a public figure? No. If you speak up at the town council meeting about bad zoning decisions does that make you a public figure? No. If you witness a crime and give a recorded testimony to the police does that make you a public figure? No. Then why should running a free online newsletter, AKA a blog, give you all the responsibilities and burdens of being a public figure? It doesn't, and if you think it does, you might want to check your ego, man. Or woman.

None of this is to say that I'd be necessarily against someone going ahead and going the anonymous/pseudonymous route. That may be harder than people realize, as we know from recent blog history. Like I've said before, there's enough info within the pages of my blog to "out" me for who I am. Just be aware of this fact: nobody cares.

And here's another interested point to consider. The most pseudonymous commenters on my blog, people like The Man from K Street and our own blogger Pikkumatti, are some of the best commenters on the site, and they never indulge in scurrilous attacks or over-the-top accusations. Likewise for our first-name bloggers and commenters like Keith, Kathleen, Diane and Silicon Valley Steve. These anecdotes agree with the latest statistical findings on this topic, by the way.

Thursday, June 20, 2013

Important SCCB News Items

Erin Manning/Red Cardigan has a couple of news items everyone should be aware of. First of all, her lawnmower died. So if you have an extra one, please ship it to her primary residence immediately.

Secondly—and she begins this one with the word "CAUTION", so pay attention—she is going on sort of a summer blogging partial semi-hiatus vacation kind of thingy. So I'm designating myself to pick up the slack for And Sometimes Tea here at Est Quod Est. If you've been reading her blog and you need an extra dose of blogginess, kick in on over here where we're just getting started with Summer Party 2013, 24/7.



So "clench up" everybody!

Refresher course.

Tuesday, April 10, 2012

All the Blogs Which Might Have Been

It's too bad I don't have an infinite amount of time. If I did, I would no doubt spend waste most of it creating random blogs of senseless beauty. Or perhaps, meaningful blogs of random accuracy. I’d probably make some place-mats also and weave some baskets. But my blogs would be so unique, so full of fantastic assertions, so solipsistic and so pointless so as to make the mind reel and stagger and pour itself another drink. They would feature many uses of the word “so” both at the beginning of sentences and in the middle so that no one would mistake them for anything other than authentic blogs.

Here are a few of the blogs which I would pen. In reading these, you will no doubt weep that they should never be, for alas, I have better things to do with my time. But perchance they will inspire you—yes, even you, dear reader—to aspire to the beautiful random senselessness to create something on your own. After all, you are already wasting time reading this post. Please feel free to plagiarize from these awesome ideas.

1. Frodo did not offer her any tea. This would have been an incredibly deep and satisfying read for the brainy, know-it-all English literature types. The title is, of course, a rather obscure sentence from a mundane passage in J. R. R. Tolkien's Fellowship of the Ring.
The tagline would be "A journal about religion, culture, humanoid scaled economies, home-made beer, fancifulness and living at peace with the furry animals in this Middle Earth." It would explain how to make the cities of the world more like the Shire described by Tolkien in his writings using a minimal amount of bulldozers, wrecking balls and cultural displacement. Comments to each post would be greatly encouraged, however anyone misusing the comment boxes to poke fun at or to question the serious ideas presented would have their comments deleted IMMEDIATELY, as would anyone suggesting that the Lord of the Ring series was a work of fiction.

2. My House Is So Cool. If you've ever read a few pages of the now defunct Cottage Living magazine, you might be able to prepare yourself for the tremendously irritating combination of pretentiousness, self-importance and domestic narcissism presented in this would-be blog. The upside for me would be advertising; Cottage Living—sample copies of which were sent to my business address before its demise circa 2007—basically contained 140 pages of advertising. Of course, it is curious that all that advertising didn't keep them in business. I think you also need readers for that. But, hey, I probably would at least get all the readers of the also defunct crunchy blogs by including words like craft beer, conviviality, bungalocity and chestertonianistical . (By the way, I do have a cool house, and the fact that it is usually beat all to hell by kids just makes it cooler.)

3. “Will I still suck at math in Heaven?” – These would be my musings on the ultimate questions about the meaning of life. They would be set forth in a question and answer format, the questions being from kids ranging in age from 4 to 11. I would try to balance the outright heretical ideas by including a number of passages directly plagiarized from the Catechism so it would contain some correct answers. The posts about where babies come from will be the most interesting, but I’ll have to look up a lot of that material; I’m always forgetting how that stuff works.


4. How Green and Orange was my Valley. Tagline: "Oooh, I'll take that crispy little one!" Yes, this would be the crown jewel of all my theoretical blogs, and it would contain nothing but the inside jokes my wife and I have come up with since 2000 when we started dating. The explanations would be tedious, oblique, self-referential and unfunny to most. They would also be especially embarrassing to my wife if she found out I was publishing these. But she would only be embarrassed for a short time before fierce anger set in as she realized I was doing this instead of hacking into the long list of projects she has assigned me. I have no doubt that if I were to do this blog, it would truly be my swan song and that I might never publish another blog again after I, ummm, got caught redhanded.

So there it is—my list of so very excellent and so-so blogs. So. If you do decide to steal any of these ideas and start pouring your imaginative energy into it, good for you! I certainly won’t read it, but a bunch of other idiots will. And you will be well on your way to blog-awesomeness.

Monday, June 6, 2011

The Truth Will Set You Free

I have a number of new readers here at Est Quod Est. Some no doubt are under some sort of illusion that this is a good blog and that I am a good blogger. Those of you fitting this description should read one of my many feeble attempts at humor Why I am a Bad Blogger from two years ago. You may find it illuminating and slightly funny.

Monday, April 12, 2010

I make me laugh

I was researching my blog's appearance on a search engine result for a phrase which approximates what is referred to in the medical profession as diarrhea when I came across this old post from last summer. So funny—I'm still laughing. I'm sure there's something terribly wrong with laughing at your own jokes; it probably bespeaks some degree of amateurishness. But I did witness John Cleese do it in an interview when he was shown an old clip. On the other hand, Steve Martin supposedly hates his old material...


...so I guess we shouldn't remind him how many more laughs it generated than his new Pink Panther vehicles.

Monday, October 5, 2009

That last blog post

That last post was number 1,111. Just thought you should know.

Monday, July 20, 2009

Why I am a bad blogger

In reading many other blogs in the last few years, I’ve decided that I’m not a very good blogger, at least not very authentic. What I do seems like real blogging, but it isn’t really. What’s more, I don’t intend to do anything to remedy this, for better or for worse. Following is a Top Ten list containing eight sins of omission detailing why I am a bad blogger, in case you didn’t notice or maybe you thought "He's not a very good blogger", but couldn’t quite put your finger on the concrete evidence. They are in no particular order, at least none that I know of.

1. No stated commenting policy. A lot of the big-time bloggers have these. They say things like “Don’t use threatening language toward other commenters or their expensive pets.” Or things like that. I suppose if I had a policy it would read something like “Not responsible for suicides. Please bring your own ropes and petards.”

2. Not enough posts beginning with the word “so”. Maybe I'm being picky here, but it sounds unnatural when I read it and hear it in my head. However I've noticed that this is a common way for real bloggers to start a post or even every paragraph. Example: “So my wife and I went to a nightclub the other night.... (next paragraph) So it turned out that the main act had been canceled due to severe diarrhea, so we had this big dramatic discussion about what we should do.... (next paragraph) So we finally decided to go drink a six-pack in one of the city parks and then go squirrel-flailing...." I don't know; maybe this style sounds perfectly fine to most people.

3. No apologies for not blogging. I seem to be obsessed with the notion that my readers were never charged for the pleasure of reading my work, rather than feeling the immense burden of producing content for the masses of addicts I’ve created.

4. No “true confessions”. Example: “We really did want to kill the entire litter of kittens painlessly, and at first drowning seemed like it was out of the question....” I've always been of the mind that these touching moments are best saved for family reunions where drinking and hugging can heighten the effect of catharsis. But real bloggers far and wide have obviously taken a “why wait” point of view, and just let it all hang out on their blogs as a routine.

5. Lack of misspellings. Just as rabbits produce their trademark pellets, I've noticed that real bloggers leave beaucoup misspellings in their wake. But I use a spell checker, plus I try to read my posts before publishing. I use all the tricks we learned in school, too; if you're amazed that I spelled diarrhea correctly above, I always remember “Two R's for Really Runny”.

6. No announcements of vacations or other times when I won't be home. This annoying omission makes it very hard for net-savvy criminals to loot my residence. I suppose if I ever decide to initiate this dubious practice that I should also announce where the gun traps are.

7. Shortage of one word sentences. I think the medical term for this common blogging tendency would be perioditis. But unlike real bloggers, I haven't indulged in it that much. My guess is that it is sort of like eating potato chips—it easily becomes addictive. Period. End. Of. Story. See?

8. Top ten list only has eight entries in it. Yes, I can count. I'm just done. Call it a top eight list if you must, Mr. Beancounter. I'm simply not a big fan of lists; you can rejoice that you'll never read something like "25 Things You Will Soon Wish I Hadn't Shared About Myself" on my blog, yet another mark of my blogging inauthenticity and maladroitness on these here internets.

These are all very general reasons, but I have future plans to give examples from really good bloggers to support my thesis of how bad I am. I will only accomplish this if my extreme laziness is permitting and my record of following through on promises improves dramatically.

Monday, June 8, 2009

Information Flow and the "Transcendence Deficit"

The blogosphere is sort of like a fun house with a vast array of forked paths which defy normal architecture. You'll start reading one thing, but jump to a link in the middle of a paragraph and you might never go back. This is why I think the term web-surfing as derived from channel surfing is a shade inaccurate; channel surfing with a TV remote is merely a sequential scan of options whereas the following of links from one page to another has a logical connection or at least some sort of subjective relationship in the reader's mind.

This is true even when no explicit link is provided. I was reading a post by Amy Welborn last week called "Coming to you from Yale" about her daughter's application interview to the Ivy League school. At some point she completely removed the post, most likely due to comments which were candidly discussing the pros and cons of attending a prestigious university which is terribly expensive and not terribly friendly to the claims and moral principles of Christianity. One of the readers brought up the infamous smeared fetus art exhibit as an example of the poison ivy league culture.

Another comment pointed out a piece by Walter Kirn called "How I lost my mind at Princeton" which I found by Googling. It was certainly worth wading through the banalities of Welborn's temporary post to find Kirn's nightmarish recollection of his mental breakdown.

Twenty-five years ago, at age 19, I lost my mind at Princeton University, the place where I'd gone to find my mind (and, if possible, enlarge it) after sailing away from my rural Midwestern home on the magic carpet of high standardized-test scores. My breakdown was social and intellectual rather than narrowly psychological, triggered by two great sources of grinding stress: a class system dominated by the wealthy that kept me in the shadows of campus life and, No. 2, the mental confusion bred by the baffling new academic fashions known as “Deconstructionism” and “Theory.” The clubby rich descendants of the old guard, with their scuffed-up Topsider shoes and sun-bleached polo shirts, their guaranteed jobs at family brokerages, and their spiffy BMW coupes for weekend jaunts to Nantucket and the Cape, made me feel marginal and shabby, while the lofty proponents of Theory made me feel dumb.

I always feel like a marginal and shabby writer when I read prose this great. But then I remember that I'm a blogger not a writer. Duh.

This was my favorite part, about his hitting bottom in terms of intellect.

And ultimately, once my alienation had festered, I could barely communicate or think. At the low point of my breakdown, spoken words sounded like globs of sonic mud, while written words writhed on the page like dying spiders. I could still speak, but I knew not what I uttered. I merely moved my lips and hoped.

Note that Mr. Kirn must have gotten his mind back to be able to write this, so that's good news. Unfortunately not every acid casualty Humpty Dumpty kid gets put back together again; I personally know examples to the contrary and I'm sure you do as well. He does admit that a lot of his troubles were "of his own making", but it does seem like the backdrop of cultural vacuity didn't help him any. Here's his attempt to define the cause of this intellectual breakdown.

The nemesis we'd confronted, our common adversary, was an impoverished definition of human intelligence itself—one that inevitably, I came to think, molded and deformed our spirits. To young people born under the weird planet of the SAT (the Scholastic Aptitude Test) and raised on the pseudo-scientific notion that mental worth can be ranked in cold "percentiles," intelligence was equated with agility, with raw acuity. It was an empty vessel, void of content and void of passion, too.

I think he comes close to the problem here; I'd suggest the problem goes much deeper than a realization of the crassness of SAT scoring, a measuring method to which the alternative is to let wealth and nepotism dictate admissions entirely. Modern science has completely bought into and promoted this "impoverished definition of human intelligence" with evangelistic fervor. The latest evidence of this pervasive materialistic attitude is an increasingly common attempt to analogize our consciousness with computer components. For example, Kurzweil has recently stated on NPR that we'll be able to "upload" our entire consciousness onto an electronic platform in the near future. This kind of thinking represents what I call a transcendence deficit which I believe is what Kirn experienced as a young man, a moment in which he incarnated the first chapter of Ecclesiastes. Young people still hope for meaning. As they get older they acquire coping mechanisms that allow them to become functional in their quiet desperation devoid, as Kirn writes, "...of content, void of passion, too."

Of course, religion has classically provided the answers to transcendent and ultimate questions of life. The problem is that everyone is afraid religion might offend somebody. Therefore we will continue to accept insanity instead as the lesser of two evils, even among the best and brightest among us. I guess "a mind is a terrible thing to waste" is old hat in the modern world. Welcome to Princeton; here's your straight jacket.

Monday, April 6, 2009

The "Fail Whale" Rocked


Twouble with Twitters from wolkanca on Vimeo.

Also loved it when that bird got killed.

Sunday, February 8, 2009

Funny list

Way back when I started this blog (remember?) I didn't expect to take it even as moderately serious as I have, posting an average of 10 pieces of stuff per week for the last 2 years. This in fact is my 799th post, a milestone that some people never get to in their blogging life even when, like me, they cheap out by posting time-wasting youtube videos rather than substantive commentary about Ann Coulter's new black dress et suchlike.

Some of you might remember one of the many annoying things I used to do "back in da day", i.e. changing the title to the blog every few posts. It really messes with people who use feed readers, whatever they are. Anyway, I just found a list of some of the erstwhile titles of my blog before I settled on Est Quod Est which translates roughly to "yo 't be wha''t be, ma dog". Here's the list.

Lundi Gras
Marty Graw
Parce, Domine, Parce populo tuo
Ours go to Eleven
Gimme that old time religion
Happy Birthday Chelsea Clinton
He Shall Give His Angels Charge Over Thee
The Whole Enchilada
Sorry, I'm Feeling Ambivalent
Isn't it bliss? Don't you approve?
Sacramentum Caritatis
Let the Wookiee Win

In retrospect, my favorite is "Isn't it bliss, don't you approve" a line from Send in the Clowns. But the most utterly random is probably "Happy Birthday Chelsea Clinton".


Isn't it rich. Yuk, yuk.

Tuesday, February 3, 2009

Great comment thread over at Vox Nervosa

More inadvertant comedy from big Catholic Obama supporter, Morning's Minion. Come join the pile-on.

Even if you can't bear to comment on a topic that's as old and stale as Arnold's Hummer joke, the comment thread is a great read. It's also more evidence of why Vox Nervosa can only be taken seriously about 3% of the time. I don't know why Mr. Minion doesn't just tape a kick me sign to his back.
Thanks for reading my blog. For current commentary and what-not, visit the Est Quod Est homepage

Thursday, January 15, 2009

765

This blog post is my seven hundred and sixty fifth (765th) post since I started this blog seven hundred and twenty-four (724) days ago. In honor of this milestone, I'm inviting everyone to become a follower of this blog. Diane has already done this, shaving her head and donning a white toga. Don't worry―it's not so bad―you get used to it after a few weeks.


She's got the chant down:

Pauli Rama Pauli Rama
Rama Lama Pauli Dingdong

Something like that. Anyway, it's easy to follow Est Quod Est or Contrapauli―or whatever this blog is called―just click the link on the right. Like smoking cigarettes, you can quit whenever you want to.

Hey, check it out... I'm following myself!

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

Pikkumatti's Comment

Pikkumatti's comment deserves a post of it's own.

I was wondering what it is about Dreher that gets all of our danders up. Pauli's blog is relatively quiet, but then we have a Dreher-related post and blammy.

And then Pauli nails it. It isn't so much that the crunchy One left our Church -- that happens all the time. It isn't so much that he is a conservative poser -- we've got plenty of those around, esp. in Congress.

It is that he poses as a conservative somewhat-Orthodox Christian to the non-believing or fringe-believing "intellectual" world (think Franklin the pagan), and trashes the Church in front of them. (Ditto for conservative issues, but that hits a duller nerve.)

As I wrote back at the time of the Great Orthodox Conversion, it was as though he tossed a stink bomb into a party that he just left. And then called a crowd outside the house to watch the mayhem through the windows. We couldn't help but defend the Church, but to the outsiders, that defense couldn't help but appear ungracious at the least.

And the pagans et al think that Dreher himself plus the harsh words of the defenders are what the Church is all about. Either we are snobs who claim to care about Truth but will change our views for issue-convenience (Dreher) or we are just a bunch of touchy nutcases.

As Pauli said, we appear as believers in a system with no internal logic. And that unfair and incorrect appearance is not only annoying, but in fact is the deepest cut -- made by someone who should know better. That is what gets to me about him, anyway.

I think that's a good summary of what infuriates the infuriated.

Another reader remarked on the phenomenon of Rod Dreher being the one topic causing the most comments on the blog. That was about a year ago. I laughed at the time, and I still do. Although I don't post things merely for the sake of comments, it's obvious that comments―among other indicators―serve to demonstrate the interest level on the topic being blogged. But here's something else interesting to note. Over the last few days, a good portion of the hits on my humble blog have been coming from a google search of "dreher neuhaus", so it's not just the usual suspects driving up the interest level, outsiders―those not involved in the original discussions―are interested in this topic, too.

Also, I suppose I should find someone to blame for using a big nasty bowling word in said comment section. Well, I was watching this and this along with other Steeler-related material which might account for a spike in testosterone levels. This is not to mention 4-hours of Jack Bauer to kick-off the week. But it's possible that I'm just a crude human being who's prone to crudeness now and then. So let that be a lesson to me.

BTW, Tom, the Ravens are going down, mutha.



Update: To be fair, not everything that goes on over here makes Christianity look good to all people either, and maybe I ought to think about cleaning up my act a bit (burrrp.)

Friday, June 13, 2008

Pearl of the Blogiterranean

I've been invited to join a group blog called Alexandria: Crossroads of Civilization. Disregarding the words of a wise man, I accepted the offer. I don't know what I have in common with the folks over there except approximate body temperature, but that's probably enough for a blog whose founding post waxed amusedly on blogging as the "entropic heat death of thinking".



We'll see what happens.

Friday, May 23, 2008

Instant Blogging Gratification

I'm pleased to announce my new blog site, Cyber Comment, the site that lets anyone and everyone post to it. The way it works is you just send an email to cybercomment at gmail.com and voila! a blog entry is posted with the email subject as the title. You can include links, pictures, tables -- anything you can send via your email program.

There are many great things about Cyber Comment, other than the fact that it's free. One is that you can blog whenever you want and you don't have to feel guilty for not posting everyday. I know a lot of blog owners suffer under this incredible burden of guilt, even non-Catholic ones. I don't because I don't owe any of you anything. (Except my wife... Hi, Honey! uh... of course I'll do the dishes, heh, heh....)

Another great thing is that you can remain anonymous if you wish. You don't have to sign your name, obviously you may if you wish. Just remember that I know who you are and I'm saving all the emails in case I get a call from a lawyer.

So have at it. Just remember to spell check it before you send it, dog.

Thursday, April 10, 2008

"You can't figure out the bag l'm in"

Rod Dreher and I had a rare exchange in the combox over here. I commented on someone else's reporting that Wendell Berry was kind of a globetrotter before he became a staunch localista. My original comment was this:

It's funny that Wendell Berry lived all over the world and writes romantically about people who live in one place their whole life. Not right, not wrong, not good, not evil, not "hypocritical" -- whatever that means... just FUNNY. I hope he makes millions of dollars selling his books and farm produce and has a very happy life. To me he's a very funny guy.

To which Rod responded:

Pauli, I don't think that's fair to Berry. He did live elsewhere as a young man, but chose to move back to his family home in rural Kentucky and take up farming and writing. He could have had a great career had he chosen to stay in New York or in some academic center -- but he had the conviction that he should return home. Why is that wrong? It's an overblown analogy, I concede, but isn't this the same logic that would damn the repentant sinner for urging people to choose to follow Christ, on the grounds that he had his fun, and has no grounds on which to deny the same experience to others?

Anyway, I'd be real surprised if Berry was getting rich off his books, or doing much more than breaking even, if that. The overwhelming majority of books published today lose money.

For what it's worth, Rod Dreher is a much better writer than Wendell Berry. But this was my response to his comment in multi-part format with his remarks in Italics:

Pauli, I don't think that's fair to Berry. He did live elsewhere as a young man, but chose to move back to his family home in rural Kentucky and take up farming and writing.

And there was nothing wrong with what he chose to do.

He could have had a great career had he chosen to stay in New York or in some academic center -- but he had the conviction that he should return home.

Well, it sounds to me like does have a great career. And insofar as he followed his own personal conviction, great.

Why is that wrong?

Re-read my post. I specifically stated that it's not wrong, whatever he did or does.

It's an overblown analogy, I concede, but isn't this the same logic that would damn the repentant sinner for urging people to choose to follow Christ, on the grounds that he had his fun, and has no grounds on which to deny the same experience to others?

It's an overblown analogy because living a bunch of places and then moving back home isn't repenting simply because you haven't sinned to begin with.

Anyway, I'd be real surprised if Berry was getting rich off his books, or doing much more than breaking even, if that. The overwhelming majority of books published today lose money.

OK — my overblown remark was talking about making millions of dollars. My bad. What I mean is that Wendell Berry should live and be well and ride horses and roll his own smokes and have a kick-ass farm. That is his choice.

Judging from what I've read, his material is chock full of over-the-top condemnation of people's lifestyle choices and a tendency to manufacture pharisaical moral dilemmas in a kind of pre-Christian cult of blood and soil. So my main point is still that it is funny to me that he went Bilbo-like off on adventures elsewhere and returned home enlightened. He should certainly suffer all others to choose the same path, or those equally licit.

I then apologized for saying "cult of blood and soil" because of the connotations. But if you want to talk about overblown analogies, the "bloom where you're planted" is a good place to start. Everyone know what it means generally, but the fact remains that people aren't plants. We are made to move around. Some people don't have a family farm to move back to and others are called to serve their fellowman elsewhere.

Well, anyway, this explains it all: