Tuesday, March 25, 2025

Rereading Anna Karenina

I reread Anna Karenina. The book didn't live up to the hype I gave it the first reading. Below is my review from 2019 when I first read it. Since reading AK for the first time, I have reread War and Peace twice and read more of Tolstoy's nonfiction. I also finished reading The Neapolitan Quartet by Elena Ferrante prior to rereading AK. It might be unfair to any book to have to follow Ferrante's Quartet!

Overall, I dropped AK from 5 stars to 3 stars. I still liked it, but the characters all kind of sucked in one way or another. I think this was very intentional by Tolstoy. Tolstoy thought the elites sucked. It's clear to see now after learning more about Tolstoy.

Below is my original 2019 5 Star Review

Anna Karenina has all the drama and philosophy of War and Peace. Pending a reread of War and Peace, I like Anna Karenina better.

The relationships, character perspectives, and descriptions are perfect. Most books I read now, I can critique and find problems with. Tolstoy is flawless. His descriptions don't drag. The ideas are still fresh and relevant; it's hard to believe it was written 150 years ago. From feminism to class issues to existential crises, the book keeps you engaged and caring about all the characters and relationships. It's hard for me to care about rich people, but Tolstoy pulled it off!

The juxtaposition between the main characters and two main relationships provide a lot of food for thought both literally and philosophically. The story was originally called Two Marriages. Good call changing it, that titled sucks.

Thursday, March 13, 2025

2025 5 Star Rereads

Update on a previous post. I want to reread all my favorite books. My friend AJ joined me. We were on a roll for a few months and then fell off. We are currently almost done with Anna Karenina.

5 Stars Leftovers from 2024 Reread
  • Half a Yellow Sun
  • Waiting for the Barbarians
  • Zen in the Martial Arts
  • Dispatches
  • Song of Solomon

5 Stars Reread Results

Here are my five star rereads that kept their five stars:

The following are still really good, but not five stars after rereading:

Here are the nowhere near five stars:

Friday, March 7, 2025

Reigning in Hell

Background

I'm slowly reading The Odyssey with a friend. There is a great line by Achilles that reminded me of John Milton's Satan from Paradise Lost. These literary giants have opposing ideas about what it means to rule in hell.

Introduction
 
Is it better to reign in hell or serve in heaven? How important is having glory if the cost is dying young/younger?

Milton's Satan on Reigning in Hell
"The mind is its own place, and in it self
Can make a Heav'n of Hell, a Hell of Heav'n. [ 255 ]
What matter where, if I be still the same,
And what I should be, all but less then he
Whom Thunder hath made greater? Here at least
We shall be free; th' Almighty hath not built
Here for his envy, will not drive us hence: [ 260 ]
Here we may reign secure, and in my choyce
To reign is worth ambition though in Hell:
Better to reign in Hell, then serve in Heav'n.
But wherefore let we then our faithful friends,
Th' associates and copartners of our loss [ 265 ]
Lye thus astonisht on th' oblivious Pool,
And call them not to share with us their part
In this unhappy Mansion, or once more
With rallied Arms to try what may be yet
Regaind in Heav'n, or what more lost in Hell? [ 270 ]"
Homer's Achilles on Reigning in Hell
"βουλοίμην κ᾽ ἐπάρουρος ἐὼν θητευέμεν ἄλλῳ,
ἀνδρὶ παρ᾽ ἀκλήρῳ, ᾧ μὴ βίοτος πολὺς εἴη,
ἢ πᾶσιν νεκύεσσι καταφθιμένοισιν ἀνάσσειν."

"I would rather be a laborer working for another man—some poor man who has little to live on—than rule over all the dead who have perished." GPT Literal Translation

A Brief Look at Milton's Interpretations

One way to read Satan is as the hero of Paradise Lost. Satan is the individualistic, defiant hero representing personal freedom. "The mind is its own place." Even if in Hell, in Paradise Lost, Satan has freedom to choose.

The flip side is that Satan is a tragic figure. Satan has deluded himself into thinking the ideas from the previous paragraph are great. His love for his personal freedom creates his downfall. Satan is delusional about the reality of his situation.

Another interpretation that blends the previous two ideas is that Satan is a political allegory for Milton. Milton was a political activist who supported Oliver Cromwell in the Puritan revolution against the monarchy. The monarchy was abolished and King Charles executed. After Cromwell's death, the monarchy was restored and Charles II became king. Milton was arrested, briefly imprisoned, and placed on house arrest. Milton is the fallen and tragic hero. Satan is an allegory for Milton.

Obviously, readers can choose for themselves how to interpret Satan's statement.

A Brief Look at Homer's Interpretation

In Homer's Illiad, Achilles is given the choice between two fates. In book 9, Achilles tells Odysseus, Phoenix, and Ajax:
"For my mother the goddess, silver-footed Thetis, tells me
that two fates sweep me on to my death. If I stay here and fight,
I shall not return alive, but my glory will be undying forever.
If I return home to my dear fatherland, my glory is lost,
but my life will be long, and death will not come to me quickly."
According to what Achilles says, he gets to choose. He eventually chooses kleos (glory) after his friend Patroclus is killed in battle by Hector. Achilles dies young but his glory lives on. (He was played by Brad Pitt in Troy!)

In The Odyssey, when Odysseus goes to the underworld, Achilles has a change of heart or mind, or whatever the dead possess. As the dead, Achilles regrets his kleos. Not only would he have preferred his long peaceful life, he would even prefer the life as a servant of a poor man.
 
The literal reading is Achilles thinks kleos is overrated: life is greater than kleos.
 
Another idea, is that The Iliad and The Odyssey are different stories with different main ideas. The Iliad is a story about the heroics of war and glory of dying in battle. Where The Odyssey is about life and nostos (homecoming). Achilles is a foil character for Odysseus.
 
Another reading is that death striped Achilles of his identity. All his strength, power, and agency are gone. Achilles went from being the baddest dude on the planet to just another dead guy. He has no power or agency. He's just dead, so he is bitter. A interesting note, the other characters in the underworld do not share Achilles's dread, bu they other characters were Achilles.
 
The funnest interpretation is that Achilles is just an angry asshole. If you continuing reading the passage, Achilles seems like his angry self from The Iliad. Achilles is rage and anger, so why shouldn't he be mad and bitter in the underworld?
 
 
Conclusion
 
I love all the passages and lines shared above. I love Miltion's take on Satan. I love Satan's desire for freedom. I love his defiance. I also love how Achilles possibly regrets his kleos.
 
It's not an easy choice for me. I want to be remembered when I'm dead. I do not like the idea of being forgotten, but I don't like the idea of dying either.
 
If given Achilles original fates, I'd choose a long forgettable life. I agree with Satan that the mind is a place. We can create a heaven of hell or a hell of heaven. I'll take my chances with a long life.

 
 
The Odyssey Book 11 lines 489-491 Translations

Samuel Butler (1900) – More Direct, Readable
"Say not a word," he replied, "in death’s favor; I would rather be a paid servant in a poor man's house and be above ground than king of kings among the dead." 
Robert Fitzgerald (1961) – Formal and Poetic
"Let me hear no smooth talk of death from you, Odysseus,
light of councils. Better, I say, to break sod as a farm hand
for some poor country man, on iron rations,
than lord it over all the exhausted dead."
Richmond Lattimore (1965) – More Literal, Preserves Greek Structure
"O shining Odysseus, never try to console me for dying.
I would rather follow the plow as thrall to another
man, one with no land allotted him and not much to live on,
than be a king over all the perished dead."
Robert Fagles (1996) – Lyrical and Poetic
"No winning words about death to me, shining Odysseus!
By god, I’d rather slave on earth for another man—
some dirt-poor tenant farmer who scrapes to keep alive—
than rule down here over all the breathless dead."
Emily Wilson (2018) – Modern, Iambi
"Odysseus, don’t try to sell me on death.
I’d rather be a hired hand back up on earth,
Slaving away for some poor dirt farmer,
Than lord it over all these withered dead."

The Iliad, Book 9, lines 410–416 English Translations:
 
Richmond Lattimore (1951):
"For my mother the goddess, silver-footed Thetis, tells me
that two fates sweep me on to my death. If I stay here and fight,
I shall not return alive, but my glory will be undying forever.
If I return home to my dear fatherland, my glory is lost,
but my life will be long, and death will not come to me quickly."
Robert Fagles (1990):

"Two fates bear me on to the day of death.
If I hold out here and I lay siege to Troy,
my journey home is gone, but my glory never dies.
If I voyage back to the fatherland I love,
my pride, my glory dies…
true, but the life that's left me will be long,
the stroke of death will not come on me quickly."

Friday, February 28, 2025

Things I've Changed My Mind On (Rough Draft/Running List)

Introduction

I like to think of myself as a critical thinker who is open to changing my mind based on evidence and better information. I acknowledge that I most likely delude myself into thinking I am more rational, open minded, and critical of myself than I actually am. So I admit, I must be less critical and rational than I think I am.

Most people think they're open minded. But I see most people very closed off to differing ideas. We all use my side biases, selection biases, confirmation biases, etc. Changing our minds is a good indicator of our open mindedness. It's very unlikely that we knew or know everything at 20, 30, 40 years old, or anyone other age of our lives.

This is going to be a running list of examples of when and how I've changed my opinion about topics of at least some importance.

College was a huge change for me ideologically. Then learning about economics has transformed the way I think. For the most part I feel I haven't changed much at all. When I read things I wrote 10-20 years ago, I'm surprised how much I agree and or think the same. I would say I'm just a lot better informed.

I'm not sure my values have changed. I've always valued freedom, honesty, and generally being a good person.

THE LIST 

Vegan- I stopped eating animals in 2008 as an experiment. I kept it up (on and off, somewhat because of traveling) for environmental reasons. Around 2013, I recommitted for animal welfare. I eat mostly vegan to minimize the suffering of animals.

Evolution- I thought evolution was nonsense until I went to college (~2006-7). I don't remember learning about it, but, eventually I learned the theory in biology. Since then, I have read or listened to multiple books on evolution. 

Environmentalism- in college (~2008) I took a sustainability course. The professor taught us and played a lot of the alarmism. I remember arguing with people about all the forests being covered in cities in 50-100 years. I think my initial motivation was my love for the outdoors. As I learned more over the years the alarmism wore off. During the pandemic, I read a couple books that made me realize how the issue has been politicized and used by the media to sell fear. I still think it is a big issue, but not the biggest, probably not top five. 

Abortion- (college ~2007-2008) I was against abortions until I learned more about human development. When I learned how often women naturally abort/miscarriage and how long it takes for a fetus to be physically distinguishable from other mammals, I quickly altered my opinion. Over the last few years (~2022), I've had a growing sympathy for pro life arguments.

America- (2001) I was an extremely patriotic young man. In college, again (~2005-9), I grew more and more disgusted with America. I flopped again. I'm an American apologist now (~2024). I think American is one of the greatest countries in human history for multiple factors, even considering her many horrors. People vote with their feet.

Capitalism- (~2008-2018) in my idealist phase, I blamed capitalism for many of the problems in the world. Around 2016, I started informally studying economics. I completely flopped my opinion. Capitalism is awesome!

Exploitation of Factory Workers- (~2008-2018) I used to think corporations exploited workers. But factory jobs are way better than farming, That is why you don't see factory workers running back to the fields. People want to move to cities and provide more opportunities for their family. Back to the beauty of capitalism. If you do not have two consenting parties agreeing, it isn't capitalism. US companies go to other countries for cheaper labor (among other factors), but the workers go to those companies because the wages are worth it.

Racism in the US (~2016-2021)- I used to think America was super racist. After trying to prove how racist America is, I found the topic very difficult to prove. The evidence exists, but it isn't as strong as I thought. I'm not saying America isn't racist, but it's not 1968. Too many American act like it's still 1968.

Police Brutality- (2018-2021) Similar to racism. As I argued with other people and got more informed, I changed my mind. I believed a lot of the media about policing. Now I think police have an extremely difficult job. The bad apples, who are few, make a bad name. The police union helps protect bad cops because local governments do not have the funding to pay higher wages. I would personally make the use of force less strict, but I don't think the main narrative is correct.

US Constitution- I thought it was so outdated. Now I admire the achievement, and it's ability to evolve (slowly) and keep the US thriving. The separation of power and checks and balances have been great. Being hard to change is a feature not a bug.

Free Will- I used to love free will. I first encountered serious free will discussions in the early 2010s. Now, I like the idea and live my life as if it is true. See post here.

God- I grew up believing there was a God as a default position. I seriously didn't know it was optional. I never believed in any religion. I remember thinking the idea of only one of the religious being correct and all others being wrong was very unlikely. As I learned and experienced more, the idea of a God became less and less likely. Depending on how God is defined, I doubt there is a God, especially not a God anything like one from a religion.

Jesus- (~2013) I was a more militant atheist for a while. While arguing with a friend about mostly Jesus, I let my confirmation and selection bias get the best of me. For a short while, I believed the person Jesus was completely fictional. It's hard to maintain such a crazy idea, and I quickly realized that Jesus was a Jewish man crucified by the Romans with a group of followers who became the Christians.

Helping Others- I used to think you could help people change by caring and trying. If I gave them the right argument or information or showed them something, they would change a bad behavior. I still think people can help others, but I realize now it is really hard and most importantly the person has to want to change. Not just say they want to change, but want to change. People can help nudge others.

Following Your Passion- terrible idea alert! I believed my teachers and adults who said follow your passion. After trying to follow my passion and failing to find anything close to happiness, I reevaluated. Don't follow your passion! Analyze and evaluate many options and make an informed choice based on realistic probabilities and statistics. Follow likely and reasonable outcomes. If you want to shoot for the stars have a deadline and backup plan.

Having Kids- I used to think having kids was dumb because of environmental reasons. Then I figured less people would have better lives because there would be more resources available. After studying economics more, I see population differently. Higher populations have many benefits, economic growth and technological innovations for name two. As stated above, I think depopulation is a bigger concern. Ties to capitalism and economics.

Over/de population- In college during my environmentalism phase, I thought that humans were going to ruin the planet (we still might), I thought there were way too many people. If we had less people, everyone alive would benefit. Due to a few ideas and topics already mentioned above. I think depopulation is a biggest risk than overpopulation. People and growth improve human quality of lives. Unless robots can step up.

Rationality- I used to think people were extremely irrational. Now, I've realized more that people are very rational when you adjust for their backgrounds, education, environment, etc. I, or you, might think a person is being irrational, but we don't know how they feel or think.

Death Penalty- I've gone back and forth on this too. 

CONCLUSION

I feel like I've changed my mind a decent amount. Still, I don't think I have changed much as a person.

For most of the ideas above, I've just become more moderate. My media has also become more moderate. So maybe, I've just adapted to my media consumption more than I've actually changed my mind.

I don't see any of these topics having influenced my values. Most of my ideas have swayed to what creates a world with less suffering. I was more of a utilitarian well before I knew what utilitarianism was.

Thursday, November 21, 2024

"Tell the truth, Lila."

Background

I've been listening to The Neapolitan Quartet by Elena Ferrante. Each novel is ~500 pages. Ferrante has completely enthralled me with her series. I could easily blog about it everyday. See my response to the first novel in the series, My Brilliant Friend here.

Occasionally, there are scenes in the book that I must read. Here is one. It is from the fourth novel titled The Story of the Lost Child. 

Excerpt

Tell the truth, Lila.”

“The truth.”

I pressed her, often I provoked her, and she reacted but never to the point of losing control and
letting go.

It occurred to me that it was now a linguistic question. She resorted to Italian as if to a barrier; I tried to push her toward dialect, our language of candor. But while her Italian was translated from dialect, my dialect was increasingly translated from Italian, and we both spoke a false language. She needed to explode, lose control of the words. I wanted her to say in the authentic Neapolitan of our childhood: What the fuck do you want, Lenù, I’m like this because I lost my daughter, and maybe she’s alive, maybe she’s dead, but I can’t bear either of those possibilities, because if she’s alive she’s alive far away from me, she’s in a place where horrible things are happening to her, which I see clearly, I see them all day and all night as if they were happening right before my eyes; but if she’s dead I’m dead, too, dead here inside, a death more unbearable than real death, which is death without feeling, while this death forces you to feel everything, every day, to wake up, wash, dress, eat and drink, work, talk to you who don’t understand or won’t understand, to you who even if I just see you, all set, fresh from the hairdresser, with your daughters who do well in school, who always do everything perfectly, who aren’t spoiled even by this place of shit, which, rather, seems to do them good—makes them even more confident, even more arrogant, even more sure they have the right to take everything—all this makes me more furious than I already was: so go, go, leave me in peace, Tina would have been better than all of you, and instead they took her, and I can’t bear it anymore. 

I would have liked to lead her into a conversation like that, jumbled, intoxicated. I felt that if she made up her mind she would extract from the tangled mass of her brain words of that sort. But it didn’t happen. In fact, as I think back, in that phase she was less aggressive than in other periods of our story. Maybe the outburst I hoped for was made up of my own feelings, which therefore hindered me from seeing the situation clearly and made Lila even more elusive. Sometimes I wondered if she had in her mind something unutterable that I wasn’t even capable of imagining. (pages 362-363)

Spoiler Free Analysis

Lenu is the narrator. She wants Lila to open up. Lila is the "Brilliant Friend" from the title of the first novel. The opening pages describe how Lenu is telling the story of their lives and friendship, which started when they were children.

"Tell the truth." A combative phase. Lenu wants Lila to explode. Lila doesn't. The reflective narrator Lenu sees how her aggressiveness may have created the opposite response from Lila. 

Their language is a barrier to truth. The characters are thinking in different languages, Lenu Italian, Lila dialect. They are speaking different languages, Lenu dialect, Lila Italian. both translating. This brings them further from the truth and further from Lenu's goal. The language is a symbol for how distant the characters have traveled, figuratively and metaphorically, from each other.  

Lenu imagines a powerful response. She shifts the narrative from her reflection to the response and perspective she was hoping to get from Lila. In her reflective state, Lenu remembers that Lila is capable of thoughts that Lenu, herself, cannot imagine. Solidifying the greatest barrier between Lenu and Lila, the greatest barrier between Lenu and the truth.

Spoiler Analysis

The series is constantly shifting everything (moods, emotions, attitudes, varying qualities, etc) between Lenu and Lila. Both Lila and Lenu come off as the smarter, wiser, neurotic, selfish, loving, manipulative, naive, and so forth character. The story is told by Lenu, so readers have to trust Lenu to tell the truth. How much of these shifts are shifts in Lenu. 

Then, the author Ferrante, does something brilliant (Ferrante is the ultimate brilliant friend). Lila tells Lenu to never write about her, Lila. Lenu questions Lila. Lila threatens to know and destroy anything Lenu writes about her. The older narrator, Lenu, hints that Lila could be secretly editing, revising, and changing the story that Lenu started writing; the story us, readers, are reading. Damn! Later in the series, Lenu more overtly repeats this suspicion

By the time readers get to the except above, the suspicion and likelihood that Lila is involved in telling the story is high. We can now read "Tell the truth, Lila," as a direct message to Lila from Lenu. Leun may be telling and directing Lila to take over this section of the story.

Lenu is a novelist in the story. Her novels are her life. Characters in the story get upset with her because her novels are too real. Another layer is added. Tell the truth, Lenu!

Conclusion

I really look forward to rereading this series!

I don't want the story to end, it probably will today for me. But, more than any other story, this story has an extremely high reread appeal.

I think I'll reread a chapter a day next year.

Thursday, October 31, 2024

Essays to Read

This will be a running list of mine. Here are the first essays on my hit list. The order will be as I add and read them. Some of the essays I've read, but I need to reread.

I occasionally hear or see references to influential essays, and, of course, I always say I'm going to read those later. But, of course, I rarely do and, more likely, forgive about the essay altogether.

For now on, I will stop and update my list here. Hopefully, this list will remind and motivate me to read the essays. I'll make some type of response for each essay. Links in the To Read section will be for the essay's text. Links in the Read and Recommend or Do Not Recommend will be to my reviews.

To Read/Reread

  • "The Use of Knowledge in Society" by Friedrich A. Hayek (1945)
  • "Essays on Bentham and Coleridge" by John Stuart Mill
  • "Civilization" by John Stuart Mill
  • "Self-Reliance" by Ralph Waldo Emerson (1841)
  • "The Second Sex" (Introduction) by Simone de Beauvoir (1949)
  • "We Should All Be Feminists" by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie (2012)
  • "Notes of a Native Son" by James Baldwin (1955)
  • "Civil Disobedience" by Henry David Thoreau (1849)

Read and Recommend

Read and Do Not Recommend

Why the Arts Are Not Progressive (Essay Review)

Here is my first essay review for the essay "WHY THE ARTS ARE NOT PROGRESSIVE" by William Hazlitt.

Overall I agree with the main idea. Art, unlike other scientific and technological areas, do not progress with time. 

I'm not sure I accept the supporting claims and ideas that Hazlitt uses to defend his main idea.

Specifically, he suggests that geniuses create new art forms and that determine the peak of the art. Hazlitt uses examples of art that I'm not qualified to comment on. I don't know anything about sculpture or painting. I know literature well for a high school English teacher, but I don't know Shakespeare that well. I started a lecture series on Shakespeare by Harold Bloom last night. My daughter and I have been reading the Shakespeare Can Be Fun series by Lois Burdett. It is a lot of fun. The three book we have are all written in rhyming verses. So I'm not finished learning Shakespeare yet.

Bloom makes some very strong claims about Shakespeare. It's difficult to judge these claims because Shakespeare takes a lot of work to read and understand. This barrier of entry to Shakespeare makes me suspicious of Bloom and thus the same applies to Hazlitt.

I see the barrier to Shakespeare, and potentially other art forms that require a significant amount of front loading, as a possible brainwashing phase.

As I mentioned, I'm not very well read in Shakespeare. I took a lower level college literature course on Shakespeare's later work. I really liked the class and learned a lot. Then I taught Romeo and Juliet and Hamlet as an English teacher. That's about it. I don't see Shakespeare as the GOAT. I never read Shakespeare on my own until I started with Burdett's series.

I know I don't have the background to fully engage in Shakespeare without a structured course and or guide. But then I wonder how much that structure and guidance is reinforcing the greatness claim.

Is Shakespeare truly the greatest, or is the idea contagious. The more you try to understand why Shakespeare is the greatest the more likely you'll believe he is the greatest.

Don't get me wrong. Even I can see Shakespeare is great. His use of language alone proves his greatness. His productivity supports it. His range of writing speaks for itself: poems to comedies to tragedies. But the greatest? I don't know. How much time do I have to spend before I can tell? How much time do I have to spend before I get brainwashed?

I recommend the essay.