Two New Reviews

One of the casualties of the exciting Dante project which we are chronicling here is that the new proposed book will draw a lot of attention away from The Little Way of Ruthie Leming. This is really too bad; this monumental tome needs to be read and appreciated by all those interested in the life and times of Rod Dreher and will forever stand as an inadvertent exposé of his high self-regard, his vindictiveness against perceived enemies, his insufferable contempt for those not sharing his patchwork political ideology and his tendency to use other people as objects.

So it well to look at two recent reviews which are not meant to pan the book or dismiss it, and yet do not read like book-club cheerleader effervescence. They are also short and to the point, which is a positive feature in any review. The first was from August 13 by a reviewer named Kim Strong.

This book inspired me to want to love others more selflessly. Ruthie, though not perfect, was a good example of living the Christian life. I marked it down slightly for portraying her brother as a serious student of the Bible, but he didn't seem to grasp it well.

I suppose the author of the book might point out that, well, she has obviously bought into the idea that "there is no conflict between being a faithful Christian and living within the American system" unlike the enlightened Americans (of means) who are able to jet over to Florence for a cultural-political chinwag and have pictures taken of them putting food into their mouths. That's why Ms. Strong wouldn't recognize him as a student of the Bible as she (and practically all normal Christians) have understood it.

Here's the most recent one as of this moment, from September 12 by Bruce L. Taylor.

I know this is based on a true story so I wish the story of Ruthie's life would have told in more detail, emotions, etc. I wanted to know her better. We are told over and over what an amazing person she was but the personal touch was missing. I felt I never got to know her the way I wanted to so I could feel the difference she made in everyone's life. Something was missing in the story that I needed to draw me more personally into the story.

Something was missing. I agree; in fact, I'd point out that there was a lot missing from many of the episodes in the story that would have explained said episodes better. Oengus pointed that out about the bouillabaisse incident—that was the one about the time Rod made bouillabaisse at a family dinner and Ruthie not only refused to eat it, but persuaded everyone else in the family to abstain from it. Oengus spoke my thoughts in his comment:

I kept getting the feeling that RD had left out some critical piece of information which would have explained the motives that the other people had. It is easy for me to imagine that had I been there I would have come away with a different impression of why what happened happened.

I also remember pointing out somewhere that the first story in the book about Ruthie was missing something. This story—the first "proof" of her saintliness—was about how, when they were children, she wanted to take the punishment for something that her brother was about to be punished for. We're never told about the nature of the infraction because Dreher claims to have forgotten what it was. But I'm not so sure about this. It's nice to be the one to write history. Mr. Taylor's review received one comment.

I found that he was too wrapped up in his own experience which blocked his depicting Ruthie in a personal, real way. Perhaps that's what was missing?

Perhaps.

Guns don't kill people; Democrats kill people

Another reason the media would rather talk about gun control laws than the murderers who commit gun crime: the perps are Democrats and/or come from Democrat families.

Ft Hood: Registered Democrat/Muslim.

Columbine: Too young to vote; both families were registered Democrats and progressive liberals.

Virginia Tech: Wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff.

Colorado Theater: Registered Democrat; staff worker on the Obama campaign; Occupy Wall Street participant; progressive liberal.

Connecticut School Shooter: Registered Democrat; hated Christians.

Common thread is that all of these shooters were progressive liberal Democrats.

This shouldn't surprise people. The left is always ginning up hatred against Christians, conservatives and other groups. Oh, yes, also hatred against America is a pretty big theme on the left. So that's a skip and a jump from hating Americans in the mind of an unstable brute.

Yeah, Einstein I know that not all Democrats kill people. But the media pipe dream is that a serious NRA member is going to pull a Lanza and there is very little chance of that. Hang around us for a short time and you would know this.

Incidentally, please consider joining the NRA. I recently renewed my membership which I had allowed to lapse a few years back.

Donohue on Pullman's "Fervid Imagination"

William Donohue from the Catholic League points out how Pullman's serious non-fiction is more interesting and fairy-tale-like than his "Dark Materials" adolescent fiction, which is thinly-veiled anti-Catholicism.

Philip Pullman's new book, The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ, is available in the U.S. on May 4; it is published by Canongate U.S. Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on it today:

The publisher was kind enough to send me an advance copy of Pullman's new book, no doubt hoping I would give it some free publicity by hammering it. They may be disappointed: it's an interesting fable and not in the slightest degree anti-Catholic.

My beef with Pullman's trilogy, His Dark Materials, and more specifically with the movie based on the first book, "The Golden Compass," centered on the attempt to seduce young people into thinking that atheism is the answer and the Catholic Church is the problem. But this book has no hidden agenda—it's a fanciful account of the Gospel story, one that displays the author's fervid imagination. Pullman's fairy tale sees Mary giving birth to twins: Jesus, a figure who bears resemblance to the Son of God known to Christians, and Christ, a less admirable character who is preoccupied with institutionalizing his legacy.

The most important statement about the book is not its contents, rather it is the decision to write it in the first place. Why would England's most famous atheist storyteller find it necessary to repair to the Gospels to write this book? What is it about Christianity that Pullman can't live without? And why does his fascination with religion not extend to other religions? To be sure, had Pullman taken liberties with Islam, he would have been a marked man. So much easier to deal with those Christians, most of whom are very nice.

The real issue remains. Christian novelists are not known for finding material in atheistic accounts of human existence—they simply ignore them—but the contra is not true. Perhaps Pullman can write another story explaining why.

This echoes my sentiments exactly. How is this different than every cafeteria-style religionist from Ghandi to Fr. Richard McBrien with regards to Jesus and Christianity, i.e., picking what you like and discarding what you don't? Donohue's mention that he felt like maybe the publishing company was looking for some promotional wind for the sails of this book made me think of another likely irony: the Holy Name of Jesus and Christ will be the main sales engines for a tome which would otherwise be titled "Some Ideas by Phillip Pullman".