Ryan, Debi, and Toren Cragun's Blog

Adventures of a Church Historian

Author:
Leonard J. Arrington

Publisher:
University of Illinois Press

Date of Publication:
1998

ISBN:
0252023811

Rating:
8

Summary:
The book is an autobiography of Leonard Arrington who was primarily a historian, but also an economist. Along with serving as Church Historian during the mid 1970s, Arrington was also highly influential in the creation and perpetuation of several early organizations interested in the scholarly study of Mormonism, including Dialogue and the Mormon History Association.

The book focuses on Arrington’s scholarly work and his time spent as Church Historian, but also incorporates brief sketches of his family life and some of the things he did outside of work – though they are mostly Church related.

Review:
Should be required reading for Mormons!!

This book is a fascinating look inside the Mormon Church, specifically its Salt Lake based hierarchy and their policies concerning history and scholarly analysis of Mormonism. For the most part the book is well-written. The biggest problem on this front is that the book could have used at least one more editorial pass as there are numerous typos and even one section where Arrington describes an event in almost identical fashion within three paragraphs (p. 87 “After the session where we were sustained, many friends and former associates came up to congratulate us and shake our hands…” repeated on p. 88).

There are only two other critiques I would level at the book. First, the book jumps around quite a bit, from his academics to his family and back again, sometimes from paragraph to paragraph. I understand the difficulty in trying to report both dimensions of one’s life in a coherent picture, but it made for difficult reading at times. Second, there are several points when the normally lucid writing turns into a bibliography. This probably would have been better presented as a chronological bibliography in the back of the book to which the author could have periodically referred as he covered that period. Though these things are a bit distracting and can even make for dissonant and boring reading at times, the majority of the book is not in this vein.

As for positive elements of the book, there are three quick ones that should be noted. First, the book can serve as a primer for a novice of Mormon history. There are numerous allusions to fascinating periods in Mormon history, but they are brief. It will whet the appetite, but does not satisfy; for that you need to read the author’s other books (and those of D. Michael Quinn, among others). Also, Arrington has a sense of humor. Though it is a bit spread out, he can be very funny and even a bit satirical. You may have to look closely if you are not familiar with Mormon intellectuals and the ‘New Mormon History’, but the humor is there nonetheless. Finally, there are pictures! I love pictures. They help the people come to life. There aren’t many and they aren’t in color, but there are a few.

There were several other things that I really liked about this book. First, it shows that you can intellectually and intelligently examine Mormonism and remain a Mormon (even though I didn’t choose that route). I think a lot of people are afraid to do this because of the fear of apostasy (my route), but I don’t claim to know even a hundredth of what Arrington learned during the course of his life about Mormonism and he remained a faithful member. I would think this book could function to encourage more Mormons to seriously study their religious history and beliefs so as to be more tolerant of differences of opinion and other religions. This is part of the reason why I would recommend this book for every Mormon.

I also found Arrington’s subtle critiques of the Mormon hierarchy to be about as kind as you can possibly be while still recognizing the rampant anti-scientism many of them espouse. Arrington does his best to justify the behaviors of some of the leaders of the Church and is very fair in balancing the ignorance of some (Packer), with the enlightened thinking of others (Kimball). One point I found particularly interesting here was the positive depiction of Bruce R. McConkie, who is rather notorious for encouraging orthodox Mormon views, but apparently was wholly accepting of the work Arrington was trying to do. Point for McConkie!

Overall, as noted before, I think every Mormon and scholar of Mormonism should read this book. It is a marvelous contrast of two opposing forces: (1) the faith-affirming approach of Mormonism in particular and religion in general that does not always advocate fair and objective scholarship, and (2) the attempt at objective and unbiased scholarship of the modern secular academy. Leonard Arrington apparently found a way to walk a very fine line between the two and, frankly, I applaud his success. However, I recognize that the line is very fine and can understand why more people don’t walk it (myself included). Nevertheless, this book can serve as a model for how that line can be negotiated and I would highly recommend it.

Atwood, Margaret. 1998. The Handmaid’s Tale: A Novel. 1st ed. Anchor.

Rating:
8

Summary:
The book is primarily made up of the first-person account of one woman’s life as a ‘handmaid’. But before I summarize her story, let me describe the environment in which the book takes place. The setting for the novel is the fictitious ‘Republic of Gilead’, which is the new name for the United States following the takeover of the government in the late 1980s by Christian fundamentalists. The new leadership increased its power subtly and over a long period of time until they had the resources in place to make their move to power. In a coup d’ etat, Christian fundamentalists killed the President and machine gunned the Congress, blaming the murders on militant Muslims.

With the democratically elected government gone, the Christian fundamentalists were able to usurp authority and power without the citizens of the U.S. realizing what was actually taking place. The ultimate goal of the new leadership was to institute a Biblical-like form of social organization that included the complete subordination of women by men. By replacing the military with their own forces and slowly but decisively changing laws to enact their new social vision, the Republic of Gilead was formed.

The basic social and power structure of the Republic is as follows. The highest leaders are ‘commanders’ and are all men. Underneath the commanders in the hierarchy are several other groups of men, including: ‘eyes’, who are the intelligence and internal police; ‘angels’, who are the soldiers; ‘guardians’, younger or older men who do not fight on the battle fronts but help to police the cities and otherwise maintain order. There are also some other, unnamed roles for men, including doctors and shop keepers. Men who sin (or have sinned) against the government/religion (a.k.a. breaking a law) are executed and hung for all to see.

There is also a hierarchy of women, but of course their only real power is over other women, not over the men. The hierarchy places two groups near the top, with one group, the ‘wives’, having minimal authority over women other than those employed in their homes, but are presented as figureheads of authority. The ‘aunts’, on the other hand, are involved in the training of ‘handmaids’ (see below), and while they do not fall anywhere in the male hierarchy of authority, are probably the most powerful women in the Republic. Below the ‘wives’ are the ‘marthas’ or maids who cook and clean in the households. Finally, there are the ‘handmaids’. Handmaids are fertile women who, for one reason or another (usually having to do with their lack of faith in the ‘state religion’ or lower social status), have not been given husbands. Their sole purpose is to be assigned to a commander and be impregnated by him. The only other activity in which they engage is a daily walk to pick up groceries for their household, which duals as exercise to keep them fit for their primary responsibility – bearing children. Their role as ‘wombs’ is justified by the government due to the declining fertility rate, which also results in great value being placed on healthy babies.

There are some additional women who are wholly outside the hierarchy. There are the ‘jezebels’, women who are kept locked in a social club and basically function as prostitutes for visiting dignitaries (keep in mind the rest of the world is not like the Republic, though it is insinuated in parts of the book that some countries may have followed suit to some degree). There are also the older women who are sent to ‘the colonies’, a euphemistic reference to forced labor camps, which often include cleaning up toxic sites, a short-term position as the toxicity of the sites kills the laborers quickly.

So, that’s the basic structure of the Republic of Gilead. As far as the story goes, it is basically the account of one handmaid, Offred. Offred is not the woman’s real name, it is the name given to whichever handmaid happens to be with a commander named ‘Fred’. Ergo, the handmaid is then called ‘of Fred’. Offred never reveals her real name. Offred was born before the creation of the Republic and had even had a daughter prior to her abduction. Because she remembers life before the Republic, she can insightfully critique what happens to her. Basically, because her husband was previously married (a sin) and she is a woman, she was going to end up oppressed, like all the other women. Realizing what was happening after the fall of the government, Offred and her husband, Luke, made a run for the Canadian border with their daughter. But they were caught, Luke was seemingly shot (this point isn’t very clear), and Offred was returned to Massachusetts (the name was later changed) where her daughter was taken away from her and she was placed in a handmaids’ training camp (under the supervision of the ‘aunts’). There her mind was basically reprogrammed and her will was, to a large degree, broken. She was then instructed on the new rituals, rules, and behaviors that had been instituted for handmaids.

While in the training camp (a former high school converted into a sort of prison), she did run into an old lesbian, feminist friend of hers, Mora. Mora, unable to take the retraining, eventually escaped, but was caught and became a jezebel. Offred, however, finished her training and was placed with two other commanders before landing with Fred (after three without a pregnancy, you’re considered ‘used up’ and sent to the colonies). The book actually begins with Offred arriving at Fred’s home, but through flashbacks, tells the rest of the story.

Offred starts out fine in Fred’s home, following the rules and doing her best to appear pious. However, things quickly change as Fred begins to bend the rules by inviting her to see him alone (usually she only sees him in the presence of others, including while Fred tries to impregnate her). This small trespass quickly cascades into additional infractions of the rules. Fred takes her to ‘the club’ one night dressed in a revealing pre-Gilead costume. During that visit she is briefly re-united for the last time with Mora and finds out how Mora ended up a jezebel. The climactic infraction of the rules comes when Offred bows to the pressure of Fred’s wife, Serena Joy, and has sex with one of their male servants, Nick, in order to get pregnant so she isn’t sent to the colonies. It doesn’t work, but Offred finds pleasure in her relationship and begins seeing Nick regularly. When Serena Joy finds out about some of Offred’s infractions, she is furious, but before she can call for the ‘eyes’ to take Offred away, Nick arranges an escape for her. An epilogue written by the historians who uncovered Offred’s account indicate that she did, at least temporarily, escape from her life as a handmaid. Her ultimate fate is uncertain, but, thank Darwin, humanity eventually came to grips with the barbarism that is Christianity and overthrew the Republic of Gilead. All of this is explained in the epilogue.

Review:
insightful dystopia; just one more reason why you should be very afraid of fundamentalist religion

For anyone unfamiliar with the book, it is explicitly a commentary on the chauvinism and barbarism of fundamentalist Christianity. As an atheist who also finds fundamentalist Christianity appalling, I can’t help but find a book like this appealing. It isn’t a perfect book, but it is compelling.

My primary problem with the book is in how often it jumps around. Granted, it is revealed at the end that the format is supposed to be that of a retrospective diary, but that doesn’t make the book any easier to follow. Another small problem I have with the book is that, while it is clearly a commentary on fundamentalist Christianity, it could have been more critical of religion by deconstructing it and illustrating how it is a social construction. Also, clearer connections to the Christianity of the time period when the book was written (1985) would have made the book even more compelling.

Criticisms aside, this is a well-written and powerful book. The author presents a number of insightful thoughts buried within the meandering narrative. For instance, in describing the life of a woman in a harem, the author makes the point that all of the 19th century paintings of harems present just one emotion – boredom. Offred, in her account of her life as a handmaid (or pro bono whore), reflects on just how boring her life is. Women aren’t allowed to read or otherwise better themselves, leaving her with hours and hours of empty time between trips to the market and being screwed by the commander. In her retrospective account she realizes that this must have been how women in harems felt; objects, bored objects, who were used only on occasion, and without any sincere sentiment. It truly would be an awful life.

But the author’s insights aren’t limited just to female sexuality. The author also brilliantly critiques society. For instance, the author makes the point that, “Better never means better for everyone; for some it means worse.” She says this when exploring the motivations of the commanders in creating the Republic of Gilead. They truly believed they had created something better. But Fred, who makes the above statement, is smart enough to realize that in making things better for some, they had obviously made things worse for others – but that is a price the creators of the Republic were obviously willing to let others pay.

Another powerful social comment was the following, “People will do anything rather than admit their lives have no meaning.” This statement was made in reference to the wives, who found ways to keep themselves busy because their lives had no meaning. Their sole purpose was to supervise the maintenance of the commanders’ homes, but not actually do any of the maintenance. Because their lives had no meaning, they found ways to demean the women below them so they could feel important and also developed ridiculous rituals that allowed them to feel as though they were participating in the creation of the children they would steal from the handmaids once they were born (e.g., laying underneath the handmaids when they were being penetrated by their husbands and sitting behind them when they gave birth).

Overall, I wish more people would read AND understand this book. As it so happens while I was reading this book I happened to be visiting some friends in North Carolina who have neighbors who are fundamentalist Christians. The husband treats the wife like, well, a combination of a martha and a handmaid. I wanted to give the wife a copy of the book, but then realized that, rather than recognize the barbaric treatment of women in the book, she would probably wonder why some of the women objected to their treatment. The ability of fundamentalist Christianity (and most other religions and fundamentalisms for that matter) to convince people to subject themselves to abuse and oppression is truly astonishing. In light of the inability of some people to get the point of this book, I’m going to have to recommend it primarily for women who have a spine or men who recognize women’s spines (and their right to have them). If you truly believe that women should subject themselves to men, perhaps this book will shock you into awareness of your idiocy. Hell, you need to start somewhere…

(Note: I listened to this book on cassette.)

Sedaris, David. 1998. Naked. Back Bay Books.

Rating:
8

Summary:
well-written and funny

The book is a collection of short stories, most of which I believe are based on the author’s actual experiences. Most of the stories are about his family and growing up, but the final story, Naked, is about his experience going to a nudist colony/resort.

Review:
All of the stories are well-written, engaging, and entertaining. As is the case with ‘Holidays On Ice’, the author never reveals when a story is fictitious or not, but I was inclined to believe most of these were non-fiction (though there might be an embellishment here or there).

I was impressed by the author’s candor about his personal life. To be willing to reveal one’s quirks and even poke fun at them takes either a lot of money or a lot of self-security. I’m not sure which is Sedaris’s motivation, but whatever it is, it’s nice to hear someone being frank about life.

Though the stories jump all over the place and don’t really seem to have a common thread, I don’t think anyone can argue that Sedaris has a gift for telling poignant and humorous short stories. The stories are a bit outlandish and the author is blunt, meaning they probably aren’t for everyone, but I would definitely recommend this book.

Kafka, Franz. 1998. The Castle: A new translation based on the restored text. Schocken.

Rating:
1

Summary:
A guy named ‘K’ (yep, that’s his name, maybe short for ‘K’afka?) arrives in some town on the pretense that he is a surveyor and was requested by the town/castle authorities. Once he arrives he proceeds to embroil himself in all sorts of problems and intrigues, including: finding a wife (one of the town authority’s mistresses), getting a job, and finding a way to survive (as the school janitor). For some reason K is obsessed with meeting the local authorities, something he rarely achieves; and he never makes it inside The Castle. And, well, that’s it. Yep, that’s it.

Review:
As it turns out, the book is supposed to be about the difficulties of bureaucracy. As a sociologist, I’m familiar with Max Weber’s analysis of bureaucracy and his pessimistic view that it was an iron cage with no solution (i.e., it is too effective to be done away with but is often inefficient). Despite my familiarity with the classic analyses of bureaucracy and its problems, and even given the fact that I am somewhat sympathetic to Weber’s claim, not even bureaucracy deserves a book this tedious as a “tribute”. The only way I could possibly consider this book good is if the unending and pointless conversations were intended as symbolic representations of the sometimes unending and pointless formalities of bureaucracy. Otherwise, this book is simply excruciating. In fact, it was so excruciating to listen to (I listened to it on tape), that I finally just turned it off about half way through (that’s close to 8 hours of listening).

The book basically consisted of K deciding to do something (without explaining why to the reader or anyone else; and it certainly never made sense) and then engaging in page after page of dialog with whomever he happened to encounter on his pointless endeavor. The dialogs wend intricate paths to nowhere, and carry the reader/listener down said paths. All the while, the reader/listener is hoping that, like the end of a rainbow, there will be a pleasant surprise when the dialog concludes. Instead, just like the end of the book (it’s unfinished, so you never find out what happens to K), the end of the dialogs are abrupt cliffs without vistas or even anything interesting to see – and then you’re pushed off the cliff, injured, battered, and bruised, only to land on another ledge that… leads to another boring cliff. In short, the book is boring, pointless, and tedious. I hate to say it, but perhaps this is one of Kafka’s manuscripts that should have been burned as he requested. If you have a penchant for masochism, this is your baby. Otherwise, run, run I say, run!

Madrid, Patrick. 1998. Pope Fiction: Answers to 30 Myths and Misconceptions About the Papacy. 1st ed. Basilica Press.

Rating:
1

Review:
Apologetic Trash!

I guess I should have realized it before reading this book (well, before buying it), but I didn’t. I actually thought this was going to be an intellectual account of the commonly cited misdeeds of the Catholic Popes. Well, it isn’t. What it is, is an apologetic work that contradicts itself from chapter to chapter in trying to make an argument for why the Roman Catholic Papacy is legitimate. In so doing the book attempts to refute all of the arguments made against the legitimacy of the papacy, including such things as: the pope’s involvement (or lack thereof) in World War II and the murdering of the Jews; whether or not the pope has a tiara with 666 on it, etc.

As with most apologetic work, the author stretches arguments, pushes logical fallacies out windows, quaintly misquotes (while accusing detractors of doing the same), and butchers history. And I can make that accusation without being an expert on Catholic history. As a matter of fact, I wouldn’t claim to know a lot about Catholic history. But what I do know is that this book really isn’t worth your time or money. Having studied history, read academic books on history, and studied some philosophy and logic, this book is a poor excuse for an argument.

If you are Catholic and like to argue with Protestants or other detracting groups and don’t care whether or not your arguments make logical sense, then this might be a good book for you. If not, the weak attempts at historical accounting don’t even make it worth reading. There are better books out there than this for studying the history of the popes. Don’t waste your time.

Addendum: I guess I am being a bit harsh here and am not really backing up my claims, am I? Well, I apologize. I would just suggest, in the end, that you look for an academic book on the popes, like ‘Saints & Sinners: A History of the Popes’ by Eamon Duffy.