Death in the Old Testament

 Thanks for joining today’s study. I appreciate my loyal readers and welcome newcomers. My goal is to simplify Bible topics and concepts so as not to intimidate those with little biblical knowledge or no faith. This is an interactive study where comments are encouraged to enhance the discussion, since the Bible is complex, open to interpretation, and shaped by one’s faith walk or tradition.

I am always thrilled to receive emails from readers, especially those who have returned to the Bible or are beginning to read it because of this study. Keep sending them.

Moving on, today’s topic affects us all. Regular readers know that God is my “assignment editor.” I felt “called” to write about death immediately after learning of the untimely passing of Sen. Lindsey Graham and what he said shortly before. While reportedly experiencing severe chest pain, Graham “joked”: 

“I can’t die now. I still need to do the Russia sanctions, get Iran sorted out, and do Israeli-Saudi normalization.”

The senator’s “I can’t die now” quote was widely reported. Initially, I saw it without the second sentence. My first thought was that God’s timing is beyond our control. Graham’s “joke” confirmed my favorite saying: “How do you make God laugh? Tell him your plans.”

Only God knows when our time on earth will end, and those with faith in Christ hope to spend eternity with Him. In the meantime, we must strive to glorify Him by using the gifts and talents He has given us, while also loving our neighbors and helping those less fortunate.

Now let’s review some verses that address this uncomfortable topic, starting with the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible and continuing with the New Testament next week. 

The first biblical mention of death appears in the second chapter of Genesis, where God warns Adam not to eat from a certain tree in the Garden of Eden:

“But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die” (Genesis 2:17). (Dig deeper in Vol. 110.)

Two chapters later, the first human death (a murder) was recorded when Cain, out of jealousy, murdered his brother, Abel (Genesis 4:1-15). Cain, a farmer, was angry that God partially accepted his harvest sacrifice but fully accepted his brother Abel’s sacrifice, which “brought fat portions from the firstborn of his flock.” The verse reads:

“Now Cain said to his brother Abel, ‘Let’s go out to the field.’ While they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him” (Genesis 4:8).

A few chapters later, the Bible records the first of three mass-casualty events: the death of all earthly human and animal life, except those saved on Noah’s ark. Humankind’s wickedness grieved the Lord, so He took drastic action, granting Himself a “do-over”:

“So the LORD said, ‘I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.’ But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD” (Genesis 6:7-8).

The second event with massive death, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, was also due to wicked behavior. 

Third came the Plagues of Egypt, most notably the 10th plague, which killed all the firstborn Egyptian boys but “passed over” the firstborn of God’s people. Led by Moses, they were saved by the blood of the lamb on their doorways, as God instructed (Exodus 12:23). (See Vol. 214 for more details.)

Obviously, God determines when death will occur and spares those He chooses. His reasons are sometimes harsh and difficult to understand, especially in tragic circumstances involving children, entire families, war, and, most famously, God’s Son.

Returning to Moses, here is his death passage, which many consider unfair (in bold below) given his leadership as a faithful servant of God:

“Then the Lord said to him, ‘This is the land I promised on oath to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob when I said, ‘I will give it to your descendants. I have let you see it with your eyes, but you will not cross over into it.’  And Moses the servant of the Lord died there in Moab, as the Lord had said. He buried him in Moab, in the valley opposite Beth Peor, but to this day no one knows where his grave is” (Deuteronomy 34:4-8).  

Do you know why God forbade Moses from entering the Promised Land? (See Vol. 86.)

Next, we explore the most popular death-related Psalm, number 23. Written by King David, it offers a comforting message often read at funerals:

“The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want. He makes me lie down in green pastures. He leads me beside still waters. He restores my soul. He leads me in paths of righteousness for His name’s sake.

“Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me. You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies; you anoint my head with oil; my cup overflows. Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life, and I shall dwell in the house of the Lord forever” (Psalm 23).

For those who believe in the Lord, no words better summarize death: it is not to be feared, and if you believe in Him, you “shall dwell in the house of the Lord forever.”

Finally, two verses from Ecclesiastes beautifully frame death (if that is possible for someone in mourning). First is a famous passage, incorporated into the classic 1960s pop song “Turn! Turn! Turn!” that I wrote about in Vol. 102. Boomers will enjoy watching The Byrds’ 1965 performance on the Ed Sullivan Show, singing:

“There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under the heavens: a time to be born and a time to die, a time to plant and a time to uproot” (Ecclesiastes 3:1-8).

Second is a profound verse that explains an important concept about death for those who believe that our earthly life does not end but takes on a new form:

“…and the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it” (Ecclesiastes 12:7).

To fully understand this verse, we must read the Genesis account of human creation:

“Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.” (Genesis 2:7).

God created us from dust, and to the ground we shall return, while our immortal spirit returns to the Creator. 

Due to length restrictions, this study reviews only a handful of death-related verses, but I hope you have been comforted or even enlightened by my selections.

Tune in next week for a discussion of death in the New Testament, focusing on the promise of eternal life through Jesus. Here is a preview of the most important verse:

“For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). Amen to that!

God’s Name in the Declaration of Independence

 

Today, I am honored to write about God’s Word in the Declaration of Independence. Our Founding Fathers recognized the importance of “Divine Providence,” and the United States was born and still stands, with “In God We Trust” on all our coins and paper money. For the record, “In God We Trust” was added to coinage in 1864 during the Civil War and first appeared on paper currency in 1957.

Therefore, amid all the fireworks and flag-waving, Americans must never forget that the Founders relied on God to help them defeat what was then the world’s strongest military. With France’s help, after seven long and bloody years, it was nothing short of miraculous when, on September 3, 1783, our fledgling nation won its independence. Equally miraculous is that, in a blink of history, only 156 years later, in 1945, the U.S. emerged—and continues to be—the global superpower.

It all began on parchment: “The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America”—a new God-reliant nation sought to separate itself from rule by a tyrannical British king.

God is referenced four times in the Declaration, but only once is God specifically named “God.” The first paragraph is a single long sentence:

“The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them…”

The Founders declared and justified their political independence by appealing to “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” They believed these were inherent, universal natural rights emanating from God, to which people are entitled. Those rights establish a divine moral order in which humankind can thrive, achieve, and create using their God-given talents. Moreover, the talents of those “one people” can glorify God.

The second mention of God (unnamed) appears in the Declaration’s most famous sentence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

The most famous and revolutionary phrase in the Declaration was that human rights were “endowed by their Creator.” Whereas traditionally rights emanated from kings, in this new nation, God’s power granted “unalienable Rights.” It was the Creator who reigned supreme over human kings. If you are interested in this “revolutionary” topic and a fan of Ronald Reagan, read what he wrote about the “great truth of July 4th.”

In the Declaration’s final long paragraph, the third and fourth mentions of God are referenced, but again, not named. The third mention, “Supreme Judge of the world,” appears in the closing salutation:

“We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown…”

Recognizing God as the “Supreme Judge” of the Founders’ “intentions” and appealing to Him to grant those intentions, I believe, was pleasing to God. After all, the Founders were birthing a nation in which their leaders were secondary to Him—the Creator who endowed the people of this new nation with their human rights.

The fourth and last mention of God appears in the Declaration’s closing sentence.

“And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

The Founders sought God’s support and firmly relied on “the protection of divine Providence.” They placed the Lord at the tip of their spear, both philosophically and militarily, harnessing His Almighty power to ensure they would emerge victorious in what was clearly a David-versus-Goliath battle.

Note that no Scripture was quoted in the Declaration of Independence. However, the Founders’ belief that God reigned supreme over all creation, including royal rulers, served as their guiding light. Based on the Founders’ referencing God four times, I imagine, given the forthcoming battle, they found comfort in the following verse:

“Jesus looked at them and said, ‘With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible’” (Matthew 19:26).

Whether you are birthing a nation or facing an insurmountable challenge, trust in and depend on the Almighty Lord Jesus Christ.

Happy 250th. Like our Founders, we must pray today for “the protection of divine Providence” over our nation. Amen to that!

God’s Greatest Quotes From the Old Testament

 

Back from memory lane… if you missed reading Vol. 325 because you were busy buying fireworks or a new grill for next Saturday’s festivities, you are excused. But now, take five minutes to catch up, because the Torah quotes I selected permeate both the Old and New Testaments. They are foundational to understanding who God is and His relationship with humankind.

The following two paragraphs from last week also frame today’s study. Therefore, humbly, I quote myself:

“What blows my mind and is difficult to process is that Almighty God, who created the universe and spoke to Old Testament leaders and prophets, is the same God who speaks to us now. Is that because He appears so great, powerful, and unapproachable?

“Conversely, Jesus appears so approachable because He is both human and divine, as God’s plan intended. And today, His Holy Spirit is in us and with us. Always remember that Christianity is the only religion in which God came to man.”

We are now ready to review what I consider the greatest quotes from the rest of the Old Testament, in biblical order, starting with the Book of Joshua.

God chose Joshua to succeed Moses and lead the “chosen people” into the Promised Land. Joshua had great faith, was a brave military leader, and trusted God for the difficult tasks ahead. God said to Joshua:

“Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be frightened, and do not be dismayed, for the Lord your God is with you wherever you go” (Joshua 1:9).

The next God quote is one of my favorites because it illustrates that God allows suffering in our lives, but within boundaries.

Job was a man who had all the blessings and success one could have in ancient times, including great faith in God. But through a challenge dialogue between God and Satan, the extent of Job’s horrendous losses, suffering, and pain was arranged and defined after this eye-opening conversation. The following jaw-dropping verse stands out when God told Satan that he could torment Job as much as he wanted, but could not kill him:

“The LORD said to Satan, ‘Very well, then, everything he has is in your power, but on the man himself do not lay a finger.’ Then Satan went out from the presence of the LORD” (Job 1:12).

Later, in Job chapters 38 and 39, God speaks to Job about His power and the intricacies of His creations. What follows is a brief excerpt. However, if you have time, read both chapters because God’s voice and His Almighty authority are beyond human comprehension as He describes His handiwork to Job:

“Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me. ‘Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone—while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?

“‘Who shut up the sea behind doors when it burst forth from the womb, when I made the clouds its garment and wrapped it in thick darkness, when I fixed limits for it and set its doors and bars in place, when I said, ‘This far you may come and no farther; here is where your proud waves halt?’’’ (Job 38: 3-11).

This next short Isaiah verse is a personal favorite for those who seek to serve the Lord. Isaiah repeats God’s question:

“Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, ‘Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?’ And I said, ‘Here am I. Send me!’” (Isaiah 6:8).

That inspiring action verse, “Here am I, send me!” has lifted the spirits of untold millions of believers worldwide who are motivated to do God’s will and are waiting on Him to direct their path. Are you engaged in that ongoing process of seeking His guidance to complete a task or life mission? Pray that God will “send you.”

For extra credit, read the context in Isaiah 6:1-8, titled “Isaiah’s Commission.” God’s mission for Isaiah was to warn the Israelites of the judgment that would befall them as punishment for their rebellion against Him. More details in 6:8-13.

More powerful God quotes, channeled through Isaiah, are familiar as Messianic prophecies. The passage describes John the Baptist, who prepared the “highway” of the world for the coming of Jesus the Messiah. God said:

“A voice of one calling: ‘In the wilderness prepare the way for the LORD; make straight in the desert a highway for our God. Every valley shall be raised up, every mountain and hill made low; the rough ground shall become level, the rugged places a plain. And the glory of the LORD will be revealed, and all people will see it together. For the mouth of the LORD has spoken’” (Isaiah 40:3-5).

If some of those phrases sound familiar, it is because they are lyrics sung in Handel’s musical masterpiece, the “Messiah.” Read more about “Messiah” in Vol. 194, 246, and 298. (Hint, I really like it.)

Our last Isaiah great God quote is reassuring for those under duress:

“So do not fear, for I am with you; do not be dismayed, for I am your God. I will strengthen you and help you; I will uphold you with my righteous right hand” (Isaiah 41:10). See Vol. 125 for more about the “right hand of God.”

We now turn to two God quotes in Jeremiah. The first is among the Bible’s most quoted:

“‘For I know the plans I have for you,’ declares the LORD, ‘plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future’” (Jeremiah 29:11).

In this quote, God is speaking to and reassuring the Jews who are living in exile as captives in Babylon after being forced out of Jerusalem.

Obviously, a God-quotes study could go on for pages, but due to space constraints, I will conclude with a second verse from Jeremiah that is taped to my computer and glance at continuously. I love this verse because it reminds me that God is in charge when my life does not go according to my plan, which, to some degree, happens nearly every day. So, I read:

“I am the Lord, the God of all mankind. Is anything too hard for me?” (Jeremiah 32:27).

I recommend that you also tape this verse somewhere you will see it often. It is extremely comforting because the answer to God’s question is a resounding “no.”

Amen to that, and blessings be upon all who have read this far.

What the Bible Says About Gifts

 

First, we must always acknowledge that God is the Greatest Gift to humankind.

Second, humankind’s greatest gifts come from God. These include eternal life through Jesus, and the list continues: the gift of life, the gift of love, the gift of family, the gift of healing, good health, including all our senses, and the gift of talents.

There is also God’s gift of natural beauty, such as sunrises, oceans, rivers, babbling brooks, mountains, forests, and canyons. Additionally, animals must be included on that list, especially pets.

In our busy and challenging lives, we forget to recognize all the above as gifts from God. I suspect He would greatly appreciate our thinking that way. In fact, Thanksgiving Day began as a day to give thanks to God, not to mark the official opening of Christmas shopping. However, every day should be celebrated with thanksgiving for the gifts He has bestowed upon us.

Let’s turn to the Bible to deepen our understanding of those gifts.

In Exodus, skilled craftsmen were needed to build the tabernacle, the earthly dwelling of God. In passages 35:4-40:33, God specified the exact details. Clearly stated, the skills were given by God to certain people so the complicated and magnificent construction project could be built to honor Him: 

“Then Moses summoned Bezalel and Oholiab and every skilled person to whom the Lord had given ability and who was willing to come and do the work” (Exodus 36:2).

The key point is that God-given talents are blessings from God, and He expects us to glorify Him through them. Those talents are in your hands, your voice, your body, and your brain for numerous highly skilled tasks.

For example, consider the brains and hands of surgeons. In 2016, I had a detached retina, and my surgeon restored sight to my left eye. Later, we discussed the blessed talent he had been given, which he fully credited to God. If you have an extraordinary talent blessed by God that results in a great gift to others, be sure to let God know you recognize it comes from Him.

Turning now to the gift of the Holy Spirit, Jesus said in Luke’s gospel:

“If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!” (Luke 11:13).

And in John:

“But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, He will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you” (John 14:26).

And then the gift was delivered:

“When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place. And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance” (Acts 2:1-4).

About the Holy Spirit, Peter said:

“God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it. Exalted to the right hand of God, He has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear” (Acts 2:32-33).

There are seven gifts within the gift of the Holy Spirit: wisdom, understanding, counsel, fortitude, knowledge, fear of the Lord, and piety. All seven embody who Jesus was, is, and taught. Read more here.

St. Paul wrote much about gifts, and famously the gift which lasts forever:

“For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 6:23). And what follows is also powerful:

“For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” (Romans 11:29).

The concept “gift of God” is so pleasing to my soul. It means by design, He is actively giving something He knows can make the world a better place. And because God is God, He gives humankind so many different gifts and talents:

“Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith; if service, in our serving; the one who teaches, in his teaching; the one who exhorts, in his exhortation; the one who contributes, in generosity; the one who leads, with zeal; the one who does acts of mercy, with cheerfulness” (Romans 12:6-8).

Paul writes how God’s grace is a gift:

“For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9).

You should feel some pressure from this verse if you are not using your gift:

“Each of you should use whatever gift you have received to serve others, as faithful stewards of God’s grace in its various forms” (1 Peter 4:10).

If your gift is dormant, crank it up because:

“Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows” (James 1:17).

I saved the best gift quote for last because the gift of all gifts from God is His Son, Jesus: 

Finally, “Thanks be to God for His inexpressible gift!” (Corinthians 9:15).

And what is the meaning of that inexpressible gift?

“The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us. We have seen His glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14).

I pray this study has inspired you to be in tune with the gifts God has given you. Amen!

What the Bible says about Blood – Old Testament

 

Old Testament), blood symbolizes life and death. Blood is also used as a sacrifice to God for the atonement of sin in one’s life or among His people.

Blood sacrifice, the slaughter of animals, is recorded numerous times in the Old Testament. Later, in the New Testament, after the death and resurrection of Jesus, those who followed Him believed, and we believe today, that His blood was shed as atonement for our sins and for all humankind. More on the “blood of Christ” next week. Today, we read how blood in the Old Testament lays the foundation for Christ’s sacrifice.

The first mention of blood in the Old Testament appears in Genesis, after Cain killed his brother Abel out of jealousy because God favored Abel’s offering. (Read Genesis 4.)

When God asked, “Where is your brother Abel?” Cain lied and, famously, answered, “I don’t know, am I my brother’s keeper?” And then:

“The Lord said, ‘What have you done? Listen! Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground’” (Genesis 4:10).

The second time blood is mentioned is in the passage my study Bible subtitles “God’s Covenant With Noah.” God says: 

“Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being. Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind” (Genesis 9:3-6).

That passage is a launching pad for much discussion, especially because killing in war and against one’s enemies is frequently recorded in the Old Testament. Read the rest of God’s covenant with Noah in Genesis 9:7-17.

The book of Genesis is followed by Exodus, in which God uses blood in the first and tenth plagues. Afterward, the Pharaoh frees God’s people from Egyptian bondage. To begin the plagues, God turns the Nile River into blood:

“Moses and Aaron did just as the Lord had commanded. He raised his staff in the presence of Pharaoh and his officials and struck the water of the Nile, and all the water was changed into blood. The fish in the Nile died, and the river smelled so bad that the Egyptians could not drink its water. Blood was everywhere in Egypt” (Exodus 7:20-21).

The tenth plague involved the slaughter of unblemished lambs. God commanded that their blood be spread on the doors of the Israelites to save their firstborn sons from the angel of death, whom God was sending to punish the Egyptians and to free His people:

“I am the Lord. The blood will be a sign for you on the houses where you are, and when I see the blood, I will pass over you…” (Exodus 12:12-13). That “pass over” is why the annual Jewish holiday commemorating Passover is so named. (More in Vol. 107 and Vol. 214.)

This final and most powerful plague is regarded as a Messianic prophecy. When John the Baptist first saw Jesus, he declared, “Behold, the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29). Like the slaughtered Passover lamb, Jesus was without “blemish” (sin). He was sent by God to save His Jewish people and all humankind from sin and to offer eternal life. God’s plan for salvation led Jesus to the cross, where His death was followed by His resurrection.

Still in Exodus, 12 chapters later, animal blood was present at a powerful event that confirmed God’s Covenant with the people of ancient Israel:

“And Moses took half of the blood and put it in basins, and half of the blood he threw against the altar. Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it in the hearing of the people. And they said, ‘All that the Lord has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient.’ And Moses took the blood and threw it on the people and said, ‘Behold the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words’” (Exodus 24:6-8).

Following Exodus, the Book of Leviticus records God’s ordinances regarding the use of animal blood in sacrificial offerings and forbids human consumption. It begins in Leviticus 3, which ends with God declaring:

“It shall be a statute forever throughout your generations, in all your dwelling places, that you eat neither fat nor blood” (Leviticus 3:17). God repeats Himself in Leviticus 7:26-27 and again, in case His people missed it:

“For the life of every creature is its blood: its blood is its life. Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any creature for the life of every creature is its blood. Whoever eats it shall be cut off” (Leviticus 17:14). Next time I am tempted to order a juicy extra rare prime rib dinner, refer me back to Leviticus.

Our last passage concerns the blood ceremony for Yom Kippur, the Jewish calendar’s holiest day, known as the Day of Atonement. (See Vol. 28 and Vol. 287.) For extra credit, read Leviticus 16. For this study, the pertinent verses spoken by God to Moses:

“Then he [Chief Priest Aaron] shall come out to the altar that is before the Lord and make atonement for it. He shall take some of the bull’s blood and some of the goat’s blood and put it on all the horns of the altar. He shall sprinkle some of the blood on it with his finger seven times to cleanse it and to consecrate it from the uncleanness of the Israelites. When Aaron has finished making atonement for the Most Holy Place, the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall bring forward the live goat” (Leviticus 16:18-20).

Spoiler alert: That “live goat” is freed into the wilderness, “escaping” with all the sins and wickedness of the Israelites that Aaron placed on its head. Thus, the word “scapegoat” entered our lexicon (Leviticus 16:18-22). Again, see Vol. 287 since Jesus was the Passover “scapegoat,” who shed blood, was crucified on the cross for the sins of His people, and then freed us from sin for those who believe in Him.

See you next week for more about the blood of Christ. Amen!

Is It Time to Stop Funding Libraries?

 Have you been to the library lately? I bet you haven’t. I bet, unless you have young kids, you haven’t been there in 10 or 20 years, at a minimum. Why would you go when you have everything they offer available to you at home, either delivered immediately digitally, or the next day physically? It begs the question: why are we still paying for them?

Yes, the things in libraries are “free,” but sometimes free is too high a price to pay for something.

There are two types of libraries: the small ones in rural communities, and the large ones in major cities. The small ones are cesspools of left-wing propaganda – go to one and look at the children’s book section and you’ll see “graphic novels” that would put the Penthouse letters section to shame. There are drawings for kids that, if they were photographs, would be a crime.

But these are done under the banner of “diversity,” so they’re important and good…or something.

The big city libraries are glorified homeless shelters. It would be child abuse to bring your kid there without an armed guard. The smell of body odor and weed has tattooed itself to the books and walls, and whispers of “Quiet, please” have been replaced by grunting junkies if you happen to disturb their high.

What does the library offer that people need?

Used books are basically given away online and in local shops or garage sales, and they have no due date. Anything new can be bought cheap online or just digitally, requiring no space to store them.

I remember when they started carrying VHS tapes and DVDs, giving Blockbuster fits over the “free” competition. It was just a ploy to get people to go into them again. It worked for a while, then it worked out about as well as it did for Blockbuster.
Recommended
The Fantasy House of Mark Carney Victor Davis Hanson
Could the Kennedy Center Be Demolished? What We Know Right Now. Cameron Arcand

Now, libraries are meeting places for Drag Queen Story Hour and deviant art that couldn’t make it anywhere merit mattered.

Librarians get taxpayer money to put on events, and they all end up being left-wing events. Why do conservatives vote to fund our opponents? Is it simply because voting against library funding would trigger some kind of nostalgia in people that doesn’t exist otherwise? They’re there, they exist, and people are free to go to them, but we don’t. Still, the prospect of them going away maybe triggers something in people they don’t want to let go of, even though they have no practical use for them.

It's the mentality that fills boxes in basements with things we can’t get rid of but never see the light of day – sentimental value does not create usefulness or shelf space.

My wife will kill me for this, as she absolutely loves libraries, but even she comes away from trips with the kids there full of disgust over what the kids’ section is full of.

We should not be paying for it.

Sell the books, sell the buildings and the land, use the money to pay off debt or lower taxes, and recognize that the days of libraries are over. They weren’t necessarily rendered useless by the Internet, but by the people hired to run them.

The problem isn’t the concept; it’s the people. The politicians who must bring a left-wing agenda into everything they do and the librarians who can’t have a desk without a seizure-inducing “progressive” rainbow flag on it. The 40-year-old single white women angry at the world that all their abortions didn’t pay off with love, riches and happiness who’ve decided to take their pending fear of dying alone out on the societal norms they think they’re courageously standing up to. They’re the type of people who view agreement and conformity to a radical left-wing agenda as an act of rebellion.

We should stop paying them by eliminating the need for their jobs.

Shut it all down. History is full of things – businesses and organizations – that have outlived their usefulness. The library absolutely had its time and place, but that passed long ago. It’s time to call it a day and stop wasting money by funding our opponents. Maybe a new, online model can be created by the private sector – if there’s one thing to know about life is if there is an actual need or want, the private sector will fill it – or some left-wing billionaires can step up and pay for them. Otherwise, close them down, end the subsidized indoctrination and drug centers (watch this video for one example) and enjoy the savings.

Helicopter Parents Could Learn From Their Trad Moms and Dads

 Helicopter parents are getting worse.

The Wall Street Journal reports that a growing number of Gen Z parents are actively intervening in their children’s job searches, interviews, hiring processes, and even early career issues.

According to the Journal, parents are calling companies about their adult children’s performance reviews, benefits choices, and even calling in sick for them.

According to one survey, 20 percent of Zoomers had a parent attend a job interview with them.

One staffing executive had to fire a 24-year-old twice — once to the employee, who failed to show up for meetings four times, and again to his irate mother who demanded her son be given another chance.

Needed: Trad Parent Wisdom

Ironically, the parents who are hovering over their children now grew up two or three decades ago under trad parents who raised them in an opposite manner.

Not only did our trad parents not obsess over us, they made us go outside to play and not come home until supper, and we knew we had better not be late.

We were free to roam, invent, and discover on our own. We learned how to socialize, make friends, and deal with some of the jerkier kids without a parent anywhere to be found.

True, families were bigger back then and there was always an older sibling around to help us get out of scrapes.

When a big bully busted up my hand-built go-kart, my big sister kicked the tar out of him — he was two years older and 70 pounds heavier than she, but I will never forget the image of her sitting on his back, pounding her fists into his sides as he cried like a baby.

Trad parents didn't give us unwarranted praise. Rather, our parents specialized in admonishing us for the millions of things we were doing wrong — not getting to school on time, not getting high enough grades, not keeping our beds made.

In fact, if we were ever accused of any wrongdoing by other adults, our parents sided instantly with the accusers.

“What did you do now, Tommy?”

We had to prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that we were not at fault — though, truth be told, we usually were at fault.

Adults Must Figure Life Out on Their Own

When my parents dropped me off at college, they didn't worry about the life challenges that awaited me. They could barely contain their glee that I wouldn't be eating everything in their refrigerator or racking up auto repairs on our Ford Pinto with Jim Rockford maneuvers (don't ask).

They gave me a big jar of peanut butter and some crackers and advised me there was no point in writing home for money — as there wasn't any.

I admit my blue-collar father did intervene in my studies. Worried I would never find a job as an English major, he insisted I minor in something practical.

Thanks to his meddling, I became the only person to ever graduate from Penn State with a major in English and a minor in air-conditioning and heating.

In any event, our trad parents knew that the process of becoming a well-functioning adult required us to figure most things out on our own.

Looking back, that is the greatest gift they gave us.

End Helicopter Parenting Before It’s Too Late

As I said, it’s ironic that so many of today's parents, who enjoyed a trad-parent upbringing, are suffocating their kids’ development by endlessly meddling in their affairs.

It has gotten so bad, reports the Journal, that employers increasingly view heavy parental involvement as a red flag — a signal that Zoomers with especially meddlesome parents likely lack independence and the ability to make their own decisions.

I sure hope these kids figure out how to function on their own before their turn comes to run the country.

Or one day, during a live White House press conference, the president will be asked a tough question and his mother will grab the microphone.

“I don’t appreciate the tone of these questions!” his mom might say. “And for the record, it’s not his fault he was late to the NATO summit — the traffic was terrible and his alarm didn’t go off!”

I am glad I put in the hours.

 I am glad I played 25 of my 50 playstation 5 games. I am glad I wrote 580 internet movie database reviews. I am glad I wrote 290 album reviews at Discogs since 2011. I am glad I was on bluray.com and had 1090 posts since 2011. I am glad I uploaded archive.org memories in 100 videos and 7000 JPEGs. I am glad I wrote 500 game reviews and 300 blog entries on my blog and gamespot blog. I am glad I wrote 100 book reviews at Goodreads and have 4900 friends. Now people can be friends with me or marry me someday.

Aztec , New Mexico UFO

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1N8tQzqvUnAXNrVhpDPJUJkIaxwHAfcA5/view?usp=sharing

Celebrating the King James Bible

 

With another school season gearing up, debates about the content of curriculum arise. Should the Bible be included in any way?

Several years ago, TIME magazine (April 2, 2007) had a cover story on why the Bible should be taught (with caution) in the public schools

TIME’s David Van Biema wrote: “Should the Holy Book be on the public menu? Yes. It’s the bedrock of Western culture. And it’s constitutional---as long as we teach but don’t preach it.” 

He also notes: “Simply put, the Bible is the most influential book ever written. Not only is the Bible the best-selling book of all time, it is the best-selling book of the year every year.”

One man who would agree was the late Reid Buckley, brother of the late William F. Buckley, Jr., who used to train professional speakers. Reid said this about the world’s most beloved book: “Any born English-speaking son or daughter of the Christian West, who has not savored, indeed, soaked him- or herself in the King James Version of the Holy Bible is irreparably ignorant and culturally deprived.”

The Bible is the best-selling book in the history of the world. And the King James Version (1611), in particular is the most widely published and distributed book of all time.

For our Coral Ridge Ministries television special, “What If the Bible Had Never Been Written?” (based on the eponymous book by Dr. D. James Kennedy and me), author Bill Federer observed, “If they were to [include it in] the New York Times bestseller list every month, all top ten would be the King James Bible. It is the world's bestselling book ever…It made a tremendous impact on Western civilization.”

Ironically, King James I set out to publish a new translation of the Bible---in order to dethrone the Geneva Bible which was popular with the Puritans and other dissidents.

But the king did an excellent job in producing this book. There were six different translation groups, two from Westminster Abbey, two from Oxford, and two groups from Cambridge. And they were assigned different parts of the Bible to translate into English.

They ended up producing the greatest masterpiece in the English language.

Indeed, to this day many common idioms and phrases in the English language get back to the King James Version of the Bible. Such as:  

• “Let there be light,”
• “The golden calf,”
• “Chariots of fire,”
•  “Seek and ye shall find,”
•  “The straight and narrow,”
•  “The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak,”
• “All things to all men,”
• “The blind leading the blind,”
•  “The keys of the kingdom,”
•  “Love thy neighbor as yourself.”

And so on.

Several years ago, the leading book promoting atheism by a prominent skeptic was Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion (2006). The retired Oxford professor doesn’t believe the Bible is the Word of God because he doesn’t believe there is a God. But he nevertheless says you are culturally illiterate if you don’t know the Bible.

Dawkins writes, “The King James Bible of 1611---the Authorized Version---includes passages of outstanding literary merit in its own right, for example the Song of Songs, and the sublime Ecclesiastes (which I am told is pretty good in the original Hebrew too). But the main reason the English Bible needs to be part of our education is that is a major source book for literary culture.”

Dawkins goes on to cite scores and scores of phrases from the Bible, similar to the examples I listed above, that are common everyday idioms that come from the KJV.

This does not mean he in any way respects the Bible as holy writ. He wrote: “We can give up belief in God while not losing touch with a treasured heritage.” Obviously, I don’t agree with him. But I mention it to say that even atheists can appreciate the Bible as literature and even view it as “a treasured heritage.”

In the aforementioned television special on the impact of the KJV, Tim Goeglein of Focus on the Family commented, “I think it's fair to say that without the King James Version of the Bible, the Book of Common Prayer, the cadence, the language, the beauty, we would never really understand the creation of America and the political rhetoric and oratory and life of our great nation.”

Advertisement

The Bible as literature and the Bible as history should have a renewed place in our schools. Back when it was the chief textbook in one way or another, literacy was widespread.

As author and former Yale professor William Lyons Phelps observed: "Our civilization is founded upon the Bible. More of our ideas, our wisdom, our philosophy, our literature, our art, our ideals come from the Bible than from all other books combined."

Is Cultural Marxism America's New Mainline Ideology?

 

Another name for the neo-Marxism of increasing popularity in the United States  is cultural Marxism.” This theory says that the driving force behind the socialist revolution is not the proletariat — but the intellectuals. While Marxism has largely disappeared from the workers' movement, Marxist theory flourishes today in cultural institutions, in the academic world, and in the mass media. This “cultural Marxism” goes back to Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937) and the Frankfurt School. The theorists of Marxism recognized that the proletariat would not play the expected historical role as a “revolutionary subject.” Therefore, for the revolution to happen, the movement must depend on the cultural leaders to destroy the existing, mainly Christian, culture and morality and then drive the disoriented masses to Communism as their new creed. The goal of this movement is to establish a world government in which the Marxist intellectuals have the final say. In this sense, the cultural Marxists are the continuation of what started with the Russian revolution.

Lenin and the Soviets

Led by Lenin, the perpetrators of the revolution regarded their victory in Russia only as the first step to the world revolution. The Russian Revolution was neither Russian nor proletarian. In 1917, the industrial workers in Russia represented only a small part of the workforce, which mainly consisted of peasantry. The Russian Revolution was not the result of a labor movement but of a group of professional revolutionaries . A closer look at the composition of the Bolshevist party and of the first governments of the Soviet state and its repressive apparatus reveals the true character of the Soviet revolution as a project that did not aim at freeing the Russian people from the Tsarist yoke but was to serve as the launchpad for the world revolution.

The experience of World War I and its aftermath showed that the Marxist concept of the "proletariat" as a revolutionary force was an illusion. At the example of the Soviet Union, one could also see that socialism could not function without a dictatorship. These considerations brought the leading Marxist thinkers to the conclusion that a different strategy would be required to establish socialism. Communist authors spread the insight that the socialist dictatorship must come in disguise. Before socialism can succeed, the existing culture must change. Control of the culture must precede political control.

Cultural Control Rises in Tandem with Political Control

Helping the neo-Marxists was the fact many of their efforts in taking control of culture happened parallel to the encroachment of the state on individual liberties. Over the past decades, at the same time when so-called political correctness has been on the rise, the American government obtained a vast arsenal of repressive instruments. Few Americans seem to know that the U.S. is still under emergency law that has been in force since George W. Bush used the executive privilege to declare a state of national emergency in 2001. In the same year, 9/11 opened also the path to push through the Patriot Act . From a score of around 95 points, the Freedom House "Aggregate Index of Freedom" of the United States has fallen to 86 points in 2018.

Moral Corruption

The way toward the rule of the cultural Marxists is the moral corruption of the people. To accomplish this, the mass media and public education must not enlighten but confuse and mislead. The media and the educational establishment work to put one part of the society against the other part. While group identities get more specific, the catalog of victimization and history of oppression becomes more detailed. To turn into a recognized victim of suppression is the way to gain social status and to obtain the right to special assistance, of respect and social inclusion.

The demand for social justice creates an endless stream of expenditures deemed essential — for health, education, old age, and for all those people who are "needy," "persecuted" and "oppressed," be it real or imaginary. The flood of never-ending spending in these areas corrupts the state finances and produces fiscal crises. This helps the Neo-Marxists accuse "capitalism" of all evils when, in fact, it is the regulatory state that provokes the systemic failures and when it is the excess of public debt that causes the financial fragility.

Politics, the media, and the judiciary never pause at waging the new endless wars: the war on drugs or against high blood pressure or the campaigns that assert the endless struggle against fat and obesity. The list of the enemies grows every day whether racism, xenophobia, and anti-Islamism. The epitome of this movement is political correctness, the war against having one's own opinion. While the public tolerates disgusting expositions of behavior, particularly under the cult of the arts, the list of prohibited words and opinions grows daily. Public opinion must not go beyond the few accepted positions. Yet while the public debate impoverishes, the diversity of radical opinion flourishes in the hidden.

The cultural Marxists drive society morally into an identity crisis by the means of the false standards of a hypocritical ethics. The aim is no longer the "dictatorship of the proletariat," because this project has failed, but the "dictatorship of political correctness" whose supreme authority lies in the hands of the cultural Marxists. As a new class of priests, the guardians of the new orthodoxy rule the institutions whose power they try to extend over all parts of the society. The moral destruction of the individual is a necessary step to accomplish the final victory.

Opium of the Intellectuals

The believers of neo-Marxism are mainly intellectuals. Workers, after all, are a part of the economic reality of the production process and know that the socialist promises are rubbish. Nowhere was socialism established as the result of a labor movement. The workers have never been the perpetrators of socialism but always its victim. The leaders of the revolution have been intellectual party politicians and military men. It was up to the writers and artists to conceal the brutality of the socialist regimes through articles and books and by films, music, and paintings, and to give socialism a scientific-intellectual, aesthetic and moral appearance. In the socialist propaganda, the new system appears to be both fair and productive.

The cultural Marxists believe that someday they will be the sole holders of power and be able to dictate to the masses how to live and what to think. Yet the neo-Marxist intellectuals are in for a surprise. When socialism should come indeed, the "dictatorship of the intellectuals" will be anything but benign — and not much different from what happened after the Soviets took power. The intellectuals will be among the victims. This was, after all, the way as it had happened in the French Revolution, which was the first attempt of a revolution by intellectuals.  Many of the victims of the guillotine were prominent intellectuals who had earlier supported the revolution — Robespierre among them.

In his play about "Danton’s Death," the dramatist Georg Büchner famously had a person say: "Like Saturn, the revolution devours its own children." Yet more appropriately one should say that the revolution eats its spiritual fathers. The very same intellectuals who nowadays promote cultural Marxism will be the first in line if their project of conquest should succeed.

Conclusion

Contrary to what Marx believed, history is not pre-determined. The march through the institutions has gone far but there is not yet been a full take-over. There is still time to change course. To counteract the movement, one must note the inherent weakness of cultural Marxism. To the extent that the neo-Marxists altered classical Marxism and eliminated its basic tenets (deepening proletarianization, historical determinism, total collapse of capitalism), the movement has become even more utopian than previously socialism ever was.

As the successors of the New Left, the "democratic socialists" of the present time propagate a hodgepodge of contradictory positions. Because of the character of this movement as a promoter of group conflict, neo-Marxism is ineffectual to serve as an instrument of gaining coherent political power as it were necessary for a dictatorship. Yet this does not mean that the neo-Marxist movement has no impact. On the contrary: because of its inherent contradictions, the ideology of cultural Marxism is the main source of the profound confusion that has grabbed almost every segment of the modern Western societies and which is about to swell into even more dangerous proportions.

Published my first book

Free Download (updated) I didn't see myself making any money off my first book so it's entirely free to promote my blog! It was quick and easy. I think I'll advertise it on Goodreads.com

The Malazan Book of the Fallen by Steven Erikson

I’m going to state it right out – The Malazan Book of the Fallen by Steven Erikson is the most ambitious epic fantasy series ever written – this is both its greatest strength and greatest weakness. Rather than ambition, fans of epic fantasy are much more likely to honor tradition and nostalgia, but the genre has come far from where it was effectively defined by The Lord of the Rings and fans have grown as well. These days gritty and subversion seem to be the buzz words of fantasy fans, and while The Malazan Book of the Fallen certainly meets both in numerous ways, it really is much more.

It’s been ambitious since the start when Erikson proposed Malazan to be a 10-book series back in the 1990s – there was never any trilogy-creep, this was always going this long. But of course it isn’t so simple – the series is not Erikson’s alone. The Malazan world was co-created with Ian C. Esslemont who has written three books of his own that support the series, with three more to come. While Erikson’s 10-book series is complete, once Esslemont finishes his parts it will be more complete, perhaps making this review a bit premature.

The Malazan world has its origins in Dungeon’s and Dragons and GURPS role-playing campaigns played out by Erikson and Esslemont and has since grown in ambition. In many ways the series is meant to be more of a response to epic fantasy than a part of it. Not in the same ‘FU’ manor as The First Law by Joe Abercrombie, but again as something more. Ultimately, it’s about the human condition and the cost of civilization, but again it’s more. The series is also about deception in something of a post-modern, meta-fictional way. While the foreshadowing is present, and even a rubric to the whole series buried in one of its volumes, it’s still difficult to see beneath surface. It’s all light, darkness and shadow with more than a bit of sleight of hand.

However, don’t let me mislead you into thinking that it’s not epic fantasy, because it is. Like most epic fantasy, this is a book of war and magic. And the magic plays an incredibly important role – it’s powerful…all-powerful. The scope and horror of magic is laid out from the beginning, while the mechanics of it remain an enigma. In every book we meet a hidden power that rises to tremendous, spectacular heights. Of course that’s the point of it – readers may want to call foul, may want to shout dues ex machina, but they miss the point.

The series begins as a tale of a conquering Malazan Empire that has overextended itself. In Gardens of the Moon (Book Depository, Powell’s Books, Indiebound) the reader is dumped strait into the middle of it all without the typical build-up. This can be exhilarating, overwhelming, and off-putting, though I found it immensely rewarding. We get a feel for a mix of races and species that is huge and a rich world history with gods and other powerful immortals that literally walk the land, interfering with mortal lives. Though some mortals interfere right back, for gods can die too. It’s through this complex tapestry that Erikson focuses on humanity. Every soldier is a philosopher, every person an everyman (or everywoman, though even with numerous female characters, the series has an overwhelming male-ness to it), with the view of it all is just as often through pawns as kings and queens.

‘These Malazans, they shame the gods themselves…’

An important point the series is put right in the series title, perhaps the most important point: The Malazan Book of the Fallen. It’s the word fallen that focuses it all. For this series is not (necessarily) about those that live to fight another day, to see another book, who survive the ultimate convergence of power – this series is about the people who fall along the way. The price, the toll, the compassion, the sacrifice, and eventually, the reward. This is a series where the dead tend to not go away and the fallen may not die. Each book itself shows something new, a new style, a new theme within the overall series, but in the end there is a method to the madness of it all.

I will remember this. I will set out scrolls and burn upon them the names of these Fallen. I will make of this work a holy tome, and no other shall be needed.

Hear them! They are humanity unfurled, laid out for all to see – if one would dare look!

There shall be a Book and it shall be written by my hand. Wheel and seek the faces of a thousand gods! None can do what I can do! Not one can give voice to this holy creation!

But this is not bravado. For this, my Book of the Fallen, the only god worthy of its telling is the crippled one. The broken one. And has it not always been so?

I never hid my hurts.

I never disguised my dreams.

And I never lost my way.
And only the fallen can rise again.

It’s in his ambition, this response to epic fantasy that Erikson gets in trouble. Yes, it’s epic fantasy in the extreme – the magic and powers overblown, the gods both more and less than they should be, the grunt suffering through it all somehow becomes the most powerful of all. It chafes fans of epic fantasy. It’s supposed to. Fans often decry the seeming over-emphasis on suffering, marching, the camp-fire conversations, the little people. While the action is incredible, it is interspersed with long and tedious ramblings that become philosophical and at times down-right didactic. While Erikson certainly over-indulges himself, many fans seemingly miss the point. Or perhaps they don’t care about the point. Many will fail to complete the journey of the series, many will be upset, disappointed, even angry with Erikson for what he writes. The criticisms often wielded only show Erikson how much they missed the point. Erikson plays with this in the text – often proactively for areas he knows that will bring especially pointed criticism. He knows these books aren’t for everyone, and that if everyone likes what you are doing, you are doing it wrong. But it clearly it stings, and sometimes Erikson seems to lash out in response.

‘Sad truth,’ Kruppe said – his audience of none sighing in agreement – ‘that a tendency towards verbal excess can so defeat the precision of meaning. That intent can be so well disguised in majestic plethora of nuance, of rhythm both serious and mocking, of this penchant for self-referential slyness, that the unwitting simply skip on past – imagining their time to be so precious, imagining themselves above all manner of conviction, save that of their own witty perfection. Sigh and sigh again.

Ultimately, there is a hope to it all – this is not the nihilistic proclamation so many claim. It’s a grand plan for the better of humanity. Only at times the darkness, the faults and flaws, and humanity itself seemingly deserve no hope.

‘Hedge was waiting, seated on one of the tilted standing stones. ‘Hood take us all,’ he said, eyeing Fiddler as he approached. ‘They did it – her allies – they did what she needed them to do.’
Aye. And how many people died for [it]?’

…’Little late to be regretting all that now, Fid.’

‘…They used all of us Hedge.’

‘That’s what gods do, aye. So you don’t like it? Fine, but listen to me. Sometimes, what they want – what they need us to do – sometimes it’s all right. I mean, it’s the right thing to do. Sometimes, it makes us better people.’

‘You really believe that?’

‘And when we’re better people, we make better gods.’

Fiddler looked away. ‘It’s hopeless, then. We can stuff a god with every virtue we got, it still won’t make us any better, will it? Because we’re not good with virtues, Hedge.’

‘Most of the time, aye, we’re not. But maybe then, at our worst, we might look up, we might see that god we made out of the best in us. Not vicious, not vengeful, not arrogant or spiteful. Not selfish, not greedy. Just clear-eyed, with no time for all our rubbish. The kind of god to give us a slap in the face for being such shits.’
…’Ever the optimist, you’

This review both coincidently and intentionally reads like the series itself – perhaps full of insight, perhaps full of bullshit, always seeming a bit of mess. It’s overly long (at least compared to what I tend to write), it’s defensive, dismissive, disagreeable and likely to piss a few people off. The review is journey, a misinterpretation, and it gets it right. And it’s ever self-aware, perhaps to a fault. It’s the most ambitious review I’ve ever written.

The Malazan Book of the Fallen isn’t for everyone, and in many ways it may not be for fans of epic fantasy. While it is absolutely for the fans. And it’s the most ambitious epic fantasy out there – period. Though the Malazan series by Erikson is over, something of an epilogue remains to be written by Esslemont and Erikson has promised two more trilogies and a continuation of the novellas set in the world. The dead don’t stay dead. The fallen may not be who you think they are and can rise again. Perfect.

And now the page before us blurs.

An age is done. The book must close.

We are abandoned to history.

Raise high one more time the tattered standard

Of the Fallen. See through the drifting smoke

To the dark stains upon the fabric.

This is the blood of our lives, this is the

Payment of our deeds, all soon to be

Forgotten.

We were never what people could be.

We were only what we were.

Remember us

Song of Ice and fire book review

Tags: George R R Martin To say I’ve arrived late to the George R R Martin party would be an understatement. At their height, I think it’s fair to say these books were as popular as it’s possible to be without crossing out of the genre audience like Harry Potter or (eventually) Ender’s Game did. Fourteen years after the first book, A Game of Thrones, and almost five years since the most recent volume A Feast for Crows was published these are still very popular books. This is really a two-for-one epic, in that by reading it you experience not only the epic storyline, but also participate (albeit as a bit player) in Martin’s epic struggle to actually complete the series. The series is well over a million words in length already, but even more words have been written about it online, so I will dispense with both the plot summary and the recap of Martin’s authorial adventure and instead relate my experience coming to these books in 2010.
I’ll begin by answering the most obvious question: given that I obviously read a fair amount of fantasy, why haven’t I read these before? Some people who had read a lot of my reviews will know that I almost always wait until series are finished before starting them. Although this was prompted in part by lapsed series that never paid off (Chtorr for example), the main concern was time. Whenever a series tells a continuous story, I don’t feel like I’m getting the full effect of the later books unless the preceding stories are fresh on my mind. This led to me reading the first book in a series, then the first book again before the second, then the first two before the third, and so forth. For trilogies this was barely acceptable but as I only have a limited time for reading it becomes quite inefficient for longer series. So I swore off incomplete series right about the time that A Game of Thrones was soaring in popularity.
But I’m sure this only raises a further question: why read them now? There are again a couple reasons. The first came when HBO greenlit a TV adaptation of A Game of Thrones. I’m one of those people who goes out of their way to read a novel before its screen adaptation, and I was definitely interested in the HBO series, which struck me as at last the appropriate way to adapt a complicated novel: spending a whole season on it instead of cramming into a movie or even miniseries. Then there was the increasing chance that the series would never in any case be finished. It has grown in projected books faster than Martin has written them, and cruelly Martin himself ages at the same rate as the rest of us regardless of how quickly the series moves forward. Who knows whether he will live to finish it? Even if he does, while I’m considerably younger than Martin, nothing is certain in life and I might not make it that long either. Tolkien founded the modern fantasy genre with a trilogy he said was about death, so I guess it’s only fitting that series like this one and Robert Jordan’s Wheel of Time have themselves unwittingly become grim memento mori for authors and fans alike.
But the final straw was the feeling that I had already read A Song of Ice and Fire by reading other books. Just as Tolkien spawned countless imitators, Martin is widely credited with sparking a flood of hard-edged, cynical fantasy, and I’ve read my fair share of it. For instance, Wikipedia cites no less than four prominent authors as being heavily influenced and although I wouldn’t call myself extremely well-read I’ve already read all four (Scott Lynch, Joe Abercrombie, Steven Erikson, and R Scott Bakker). I’ve also read Glen Cook, whose Black Company books are thought to have influenced Martin, and indeed this influence was probably the reason Cook has remained prominent enough for me to seek out his work. I even make comparisons to Martin’s work when reviewing fantasy on this site. Well, not his work itself, but to perceptions of it at least. This is starting to get ridiculous, I told myself. My first real contact with epic fantasy was reading Lord of the Rings, after all. Wasn’t I grateful that I hadn’t first waded through imitators like David Eddings, Robert Jordan, and Tad Williams that, whatever their actual quality, fall short of Tolkien’s masterpiece?
So I started reading A Game of Thrones for the first time in the position of someone who had never read the series before but thought he had a pretty good idea what it was like. I knew nothing about the plot or characters for I had avoided all such details knowing I would eventually read the books, but from countless asides in conversations with friends and reviews of other books, I primarily associated two attributes with Martin’s work: First, an unromantic approach to fantasy that emphasized intrigue and realism over magic and elevated prose. Second, the implacable and ruthless slaughter of major characters. Beyond that, while I’d heard some criticisms of Martin’s prose and the decision to split the fourth book into A Feast for Crows and an as-yet unpublished fifth book, the overall extremely positive reception of the series made me expect an exciting, even addicting, set of books.
Having now finished the extant series, I can say that despite this apparently detailed foreknowledge, the series Martin wrote was quite a bit different than the one I had expected to read.
Let’s start with the gritty realism. It’s not Martin’s fault, but here my exposure to later writers has probably completely changed my reaction from what it would have been had I read the series as it came out. Plenty of authors have tried to imitate Tolkien’s archaic yet evocative style, yet no one has come close to equaling it. It was reasonable for me to suppose that Martin’s realistic style would work the same way. Reasonable, but wrong, and obviously so in hindsight. Tolkien’s work hasn’t been matched because he was uniquely suited both in temperament and profession to write the way he did. Throwing out the excesses of epic fantasy in favor of gritty realism is not nearly so challenging. In fact, it’s easier than trying to stay the course. It’s no surprise then that Martin’s work was not the apogee of this trend but just another stop along the way. Compared to Joe Abercrombie, just to pick one name out of probably a dozen, Martin seems like a hopeless romantic. It’s interesting that these days the people impressed with Martin’s grit and realism are the people writing about the HBO series (“It’s like the Sopranos in Middle-earth”), since when it comes to epic fantasy in television and movies Lord of the Rings is still very recent and the natural benchmark.
Then there’s the character slaughter. For me, the textbook case of this is in the film Serenity. Before that film I have to admit I thought of killing characters as cool and subversive, but afterward I started thinking about how a work of fiction has an unwritten contract with the audience. In some modes, I decided, killing a character might be an effective move while in others it is a betrayal of audience expectations. The fact is, A Song of Ice and Fire does indeed kill off characters, a great deal of them. But contrary to my expectations, I argue that it does not, in fact, kill off major characters. Rather, the reader is understandably mistaken about who is a major character and who is not, for reasons I will get into at length in a moment. So while it’s true there’s a lot more death in Martin’s series than in most fantasy (including many, like Tolkien’s, where theoretically lots of blood is shed yet almost no named characters die), it didn’t nearly live up to its reputation in this respect either, although that’s nothing to be ashamed of.
This leaves the most important issue. Is this the masterpiece of modern fantasy literature that it’s made out to be? No, not even close. I’m genuinely disappointed about this. Like anyone, I sometimes start reading a book or watching a film with some bias one direction or another (for instance, all the hype made me go into The Matrix looking for a fight, so while I didn’t think it was very good, a lot of that reaction is probably my fault), but in this case I was definitely hoping to love these books. For years I’ve checked up on Martin’s progress hoping he’d hurry up and finish so I could find out what the fuss was about. I thought there was a great chance I’d love it, along with certainly some fairly small chance that I’d hate it, or at least strongly dislike it.
I never expected to end up saying: Well, I guess it’s not bad. It’s okay.
The highlight is probably the worldbuilding. Tolkien and his imitators have emphasized the landscapes of their fantasy worlds. Even the Thomas Convenant series, which seemed at first glance like a rejection of everything Tolkien brought to the genre, spent a lot of its time (and won a lot of its fans, I suspect) on landscapes. Although there are some maps to be found of Westeros and its surrounding countries, Martin’s efforts in geographical construction and detail are merely adequate. Instead, more than any author I can recall, he has constructed a social landscape. Looking now at a map of Westeros, the names of cities, rivers, and castles bring to mind the characters who live in or near them. I can’t really tell you anything about what Casterly Rock looks like, for example, but just mentioning it evokes the wealth of detail that Martin has invested in the Lannister family and the twists and turns of their fortunes. The Lannisters are perhaps the series’ most prominent family, but by the end of the fourth book well over a dozen noble families have been sketched out in impressive detail. The variety in personality, character, and history is impressive and gives Martin’s Westeros a different and possibly greater sense of solidity than the traditional naturalistic approach.
The other aspects of the world are considerably weaker. The society seems reasonable enough, but various references to the ancient past ask us to believe that technology levels have been roughly unchanged for thousands of years, and further that not just one but almost every society is historically self-aware of their progression throughout this time. Each of the four seasons lasts for years, but after the first book it is hardly mentioned and I frankly almost forgot about it. Agriculture and economic planning don’t seem to be any different from generic feudal despite this massive climatological difference.
Although initially confined to a few children, the series rapidly expands to encompass a large set of viewpoint characters, and this works better than in most pluralistic narratives, probably because Martin is more willing to kill off minor characters and thus prevent his cast from becoming too unwieldy at least until the fourth book. After a seemingly good guy/bad guy approach, Martin shades in a surprising degree of nuance as the series progresses. That Tyrion would be a fan favorite character was obvious from the start, but I was particularly impressed by the handling of Jaime Lannister. Not every character is a success, to be sure (if I never read anything more from Cersei’s viewpoint I won’t complain) but I don’t have many complaints with the characterization. Except for the youngest, the Stark children all act about five years older than they actually are, but that’s par for the course (I’m looking at you, Ender’s Game).
Then there’s the plot. Ah, the plot. Goodness. Where to begin?
I think most of the series’ fans would point at the plot as being its strength. I can see why they might like it, but I’m going to call it a disaster. Oh, it’s not an unmitigated failure, but a tragic one, for there’s a good story somewhere in all this quicksand trying to claw its way out. It pulls the reader in, keeps them going through the four massive books that have been published so far, and amounts to nothing. To understand this, think about just what it is this series is about.
You see, in the prologue of A Game of Thrones, some throwaway characters venture past a great wall to patrol the wilderness of the far north. For millennia, we learn, the Night’s Watch has manned this wall against evil, but for long centuries this threat has been dormant, the people shielded by the wall have become decadent, and the Watch is now too weak to reliably stand against bandits, much less a terrifying supernatural evil. But now there are signs that evil might be stirring! Kill the throwaways and bam, cut to chapter one. I think it’s safe to call this an extremely conventional way to begin a fantasy novel. The ur-epic fantasy, Lord of the Rings begins with the shadow of the past stirring once more, and its Mordor was once carefully guarded before its watchers became lax. Since then thousands of fantasy books have begun this way, and I have read dozens of them, as have most of Martin’s audience. But I don’t think any of those books took Martin’s approach to developing this story in the rest of the first book: never mention it again in any way.
All right, that’s a slight exaggeration, but not by much. He spends more time on Daenerys, a young princess in exile who must overcome all manner of obstacles both internal and external before she can start walking down the road toward reclaiming her throne, but this well-worn storyline is also strictly a sideline item. The second book, A Clash of Kings, even spends a little time on a King who is increasingly led down dark paths by a foreign sorceress, but this too gets only a little space in the ongoing story. Any one of these stories, properly developed, would be enough for a fantasy novel and probably an entire trilogy. Incorporating them all would definitely make for a lively fantasy series. Mind you, anyone who has read a reasonable amount of fantasy can sketch out roughly how these stories will evolve. For example, although a few people sound the alarm most deny the existence of the ancient evil despite increasingly clear evidence, then it sweeps down and everyone is very sorry they didn’t listen earlier, and it seems like it is too late and all civilization will perish, but just at the bleakest moment some enterprising individuals manage to win an unlikely victory. Despite his reputation as an innovator, Martin doesn’t appear to be deviating from the standard storyline here. Yet by the end of the fourth book, after 1.3 million words and nine years, the ancient evil has only just begun to sweep anywhere, and the other plotlines are even further behind. And no wonder: I don’t know how much of all those words went into developing them but I think fifteen percent would be a very generous guess.
Instead, most of the series has been devoted to the titular game of thrones as countless nobles struggle for power in Westeros. Unlike the plotlines I just described, this main thread does not follow normal conventions. It is almost completely without structure. Events happen one after another without any kind of cohesion. It’s not that they don’t make sense…everything seems fairly logical and Martin proves to be a very inventive spinner of intrigue and conspiracy. Yet this all proceeds outside of the narrative structure that has characterized western literature for centuries. There is no development, there is no sense of progression of any kind, there is no climax. It’s the plot equivalent of someone banging an endless series of chords, each unrelated to the next, on a piano. Now I readily admit to being far more interested in the way stories are constructed than the average reader, but I think this has many important downsides even for those who aren’t consciously aware of the dissonance.
What was immediately noticeable to readers of the first book in 1996 was the way they had no idea what was coming next. Why should they? Long experience has taught us how plots work in almost all fiction, but here was a book that was resolute in ignoring these conventions. To be sure, the immediate result is a fairly refreshing feeling of suspense. But these narrative conventions exist for a reason. Although A Feast for Crows has other shortcomings, I think one of the biggest reasons it wasn’t as well received as the first three books was that without a sense of where the narrative is going, the reader doesn’t feel any momentum. Since there’s no plotline developing and advancing towards a climax, the reader realizes there’s no reason why the intrigue surrounding the throne of Westeros can’t go on indefinitely. And if the plot goes on indefinitely, then the individual events are completely deprived of meaning. In particular, one realizes that the characters can’t win any victory that won’t just be undone by further events two hundred pages later, so why bother rooting for them at all? When all is said and done, whoever is left standing in the ruins of Westeros will be swept aside by Daenerys and Jon Snow as they confront the evil out of the north, so isn’t this something of a waste of time?
Incidentally, I believe this was also how Martin got the reputation as a killer of main characters. Floating in a vacuum of story, readers latched on to what they assumed were main characters only to have them unexpectedly swept aside. Initially, Eddard Stark and his son Robb seemed like central characters, yet with the benefit of hindsight even from a position only halfway through the series, it’s obvious they are bit players. In a typically sized fantasy novel, they’d have a page or two of screen time. In fact, the actual main characters of the story, like Daenerys, are just as bulletproof as any normal story’s protagonists.
The unpredictable and unstructured nature of the central plotline has a literal realism to it and I’m tempted to see it as a bold artistic statement on Martin’s part, but alas all the evidence points to this being an unintended effect. This was originally supposed to be a trilogy, after all, but has defied every prediction its own author made regarding its eventual length and publication schedule. Martin surely was writing a conventional fantasy novel about an ancient evil and an exiled princess but somehow got distracted by what probably was summed up in some original one page outline in about one sentence (“Westeros monarchy weakened by infighting and succession problems”). Having fallen in love with what was supposed to be a bit of window dressing, he has continually expanded its role within the series even though it threatens to completely drown out what the series was supposed to be about in the first place. Is it any wonder that he has suffered from the contemporary genre’s most famous case of writer’s block? I’m sure that long ago he planned what would happen to Daenerys and the Night’s Watch, but now he feels obligated to give equal time to characters like Brienne who are likable yet serve little purpose to the central narrative and are instead dragged through increasingly arbitrary make-work scenes to keep them available for some later bit of relevance.
Although I’ve been critical, I will defend Martin of one charge frequently lobbed at fantasy authors. I don’t think he’s stretching things out to make more money. The typical pattern for fantasy series is to start out with an exciting and action packed first book and then to become ever more bogged down in extra viewpoint characters and minutiae. Although it’s true A Feast for Crows is somewhat bogged down like this, really Martin deeply invests himself in the minutiae right from the start, and even the fourth book moves at a faster clip than typical doorstop fantasy. Likewise, where typical slow fantasy seems to get stuck always approaching but never reaching some critical point, Martin blasts through critical points all the time. The central plotline is a meat grinder that constantly chews up minor characters, spits them out, then pulls in more. If there’s a record for the fictional work that kills the most named characters then this series is right up there with the Iliad.
I’m glad I read A Song of Ice and Fire but less because of the story itself and more because I find it interesting how unbalanced the story is. On one hand, it’s probably a testament to how a work that does one or two things really well can become extremely popular even if it does other things very poorly. Writing about Wheel of Time, Adam Roberts attributed some of its popularity to “fans who want to know every atom of the imagined world” and I think something similar is at work here. On the other hand, I think that the series’ weaknesses get magnified as the story goes on even if the quality of the books remains constant, leading me to suspect the series will never be again be as popular as it was when A Storm of Swords came out. Unfortunately for Martin, I think the series will only get harder and harder for him to write as he tries to provide some sort of climax and closure that justifies the endless profusion of aimless detail he’s provided so far. I’m even a lot more skeptical that HBO can successfully translate it into an effective television show, although being forced to provide an abridged version might end up being beneficial.
Hopefully I’m wrong and Martin eventually manages to both finish the series and somehow produce a satisfying second half in the process, but I won’t be holding my breath. Fortunately, looking back at the writers bearing Martin’s influence who I mentioned before, it seems like they have each taken something good about the series, amplified it, and then coupled that with a more conventional narrative structure (“conventional narrative” sure sounds like an insult, but that’s why reading Martin has been so helpful…breaking convention is a risky thing). Even if I never read any more of this series (the most likely possibility I’m afraid) I will at least be able to read other books that continue down the trail Martin blazed.