Peter Sean Bradley

Lysistrata and Other Plays by Aristophanes

Please give my Amazon review a helpful vote - https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R37VPH4RF4JKGB?ref=pf_ov_at_pdctrvw_srp

I have reviewed the Acharnians and the Clouds separately, so this review will be on this text and Lysistrata.

Lysistrata is fairly famous. It has repeatedly been made into movies, including a Spike Lee movie called “Chi-Raq.” The trope of war-weary women refusing to engage in sex with their husbands until the men call off a war, in this case, the Peloponnesian War, hits a few buttons including, ironically, both anti-war and the war between the sexes.

The play is funny. A modern reader could see this making a revival on the Catskill circuit. It has a vaudevillian quality. The jokes are in no way sophisticated. I would be censored by Amazon if I were to share some of them. Let's just say that “Spartan Walking Stick” is the punchline to one.

The translation in this text is excellent. The translator has done a lot to liven up the play by making it current and relatable. A cook is a cordon bleu and Spartans have a surprising Scottish accent.

I read this for the Online Great Book program. I am glad I did. I got a different view of Athenian society from these plays. Aristophanes was not afraid to slander other Athenians. He appears to have been a member of the “peace faction.” His plays also feature the technique of “breaking the fourth wall.” I wouldn't have expected any of these things, which goes to show how things really haven't change so much over the millenia.

https://smile.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R2JIJMEGPC2WMD/ref=cm_cr_getr_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B07DMMC2XG


The past is a different country and I may need more of a roadmap.

My previous experience with Dashiell Hammett is with watching the Bogart classic, The Maltese Falcon. The charm of the movie is really the odd characters - Peter Lorre's oleaginous Joel Cairo, Sydney Greenstreet's pompous “Mr. Guttman” and, of course, Humphrey Bogart's “man's man,” Sam Spade. The movie marches through its paces with these different odd characters vying for the “McGuffin” of a fabulous gem-encrusted statue, while Spade plays catch-up without letting anyone know that he doesn't know the whole story.

The movie maps onto the book in an almost - but not quite - one for one relationship. I listened to the book as an audio book and the reader gave Cairo and Guttman the famous Lorre/Greenstreet voices. From the book, I found a real sense of Hammett as a scriptwriter for movies. His novel reads as a movie script, which is to say it is all superficial, objective movement, description and dialogue with no internal thoughts or reactions of the characters. (The audio book was an excellent presentation, by the way.)

For the rare person who doesn't know, the story is set in San Francisco in the 1930s. Sam Spade is a private detective hired by a very hot redhead to find her little sister. Spade turns over the simple job of trailing the cad who ran off with the sister. Then, Spade learns that Archer was shot and killed on the job, and that the cad, a man named Thursby was also shot and killed, and that he is being fitted for at least one of the murders. Then, no longer than it takes to strip Archer's name off the firm's door, and try to cool an affair with Archer's wife, Spade learns that there was no little sister, that his client's name is really Bridget O'Shaugnessy, and that she is competing with some very odd characters to find a McGuffin, but what it is and what it all means is something that Spade needs to figure out.

have to say I don't understand why this is such a classic. Was it the romance of the exotic - San Francisco in the 1930s, a treasure dating from the Middle-Ages, and a crazy bunch of characters so different from the American middle-class? For myself, reading this book as a piece of literature at a remove of 100 years, I don't quite understand. None of the characters were likeable. One reviewer has described two of the characters - Spade and O'Shaugnessy - are sociopaths, which is honestly an apt description. Were people in the '30s really indifferent to what an immoral louse Spade was, much less that O'Shaugnessy is lying conniver who would frame Spade in a red-hot second if it could net her a steak dinner? Did Americans of 100 years ago believe that the relationship between Spade and O'Shaugnessy was real or attractive in any sense? There is a lengthy conclusion where O'Shaugnessy keeps telling Spade that he loves her and keeps saying that maybe he does, and though it all, I was annoyed because of the absence of any “chemistry” between” the two.

Was there chemistry on the movie? I don't think so, but I was kept amused by Lorre and Greenstreet, so I had no cause to complain.

Another odd feature is the “screenwriting” style of the book. Spade does things and says things because he just knows to do and say those things. The reader isn't let in on Spade's reasons because the reader doesn't learn anything that isn't something that can be objectively witnessed from the outside. This leads to some unexplained behavior and developments, as well as the occasional bit of laughably inept exposition to bring the reader up to speed.

The other bit of awkwardness is how everything just seems to come to Spade. I didn't notice it in the movie, but in the book, Spade really doesn't discover anything by sleuthing. Instead, he gets approached - usually by people holding guns - by O'Shaugnessy, Cairo, Wilmer and, finally, Captain Jacoby (played in the movie by Walter Huston) with the McGuffin. OK, fine, it moves the story along, but for a writing style that is based on “show, don't tell,” it seems that Spade's insight and cleverness is all “tell, don't show.”

Finally, one wonders how long before this book gets the same treatment as Huckleberry Finn for its fossilized sexism. Women are treated as children or sex objects by Spade. He chucks them on the chin and calls them “angel” and discounts their views as if they were children. Perhaps the attraction of the book was that in a culture that treated women as children, Bridget O'Shaugnessy is depicted as a woman willing to murder like any man? I am not someone interested in listening to contemporary grievances about paternalism, but you can see in this book how much things have changed.

A plus feature for the book is that occasionally Hammett will toss out a line of classic dialogue or insert a phrase that became a classic of the detective genre. This is the book that taught America that “gunsel” was a hired “gun” rather than a “homosexual.” Likewise, at one point, Spade mentions that Wilmer was on the “gooseberry lay,” which I naturally assumed was obscene, but in fact involves stealing clothes.

However, because of my idiosyncratic interest in history, I found The Maltese Falcon interesting as a piece of history. There is a view of a slice of American Culture in The Maltese Falcon which is fascinating. Likewise, for anyone who knows San Francisco, the references to locations in old San Francisco are fascinating (and tempt me to make a visit to them the next time I am in San Francisco.) If this was a contemporary mystery book, I would probably find it to be too cliche, too confusing, with too many fortunate accidents for Sam Spade, and unattractive characters, and give it a soft three, but as a bit of history, I give it a four.

Please give my Amazon review a helpful vote - https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/RPFDUR27E989G?ref=pf_ov_at_pdctrvw_srp

Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist: Unlocking the Secrets of the Last Supper by Brant Pitre

I am a life-time Catholic and I am a deep and extensive reader of theology and the early church fathers, but this book was chock-a-block with facts, insights and observations that were right under my nose all along but which I never suspected to exist.

Author Brant Pitre's chief claim is that the Jews of Jesus's time were waiting for a new Exodus. This new Exodus required a new Moses, and what is more, a return of the miracle that chiefly defined the Exodus, namely, Manna.

We all know about the Passover-Last Supper parallel. Pitre sharpens our understanding of that connection by providing insights about how first-century Jews would have understood Passover, to wit, that God gave precise instructions about how to select a lamb for sacrifice and how to mark the houses with the blood of the lamb on the lumber of the lintels but that this rite of the original Passover would not have been over until the lamb had been eaten.

From there Pitre explains the miracle of Manna and its continuing cultic significance in Judaism. I knew that Manna was kept in the ark of the covenant, but Pitre explains the importance of manna as the quintessential miracle of Exodus. Manna had a place in the Jewish cultural imagination as the bread of life or the bread of angels. Some thought that Manna had existed in Heaven before the creation of the world.

What I knew but didn't know was the importance that Jesus assigned to manna. I knew that the Bread of Life discourse in John 6 starts with a question by skeptics about Jesus providing manna, and I knew his answer, but I didn't know the context of that discussion, namely whether Jesus was the Messiah would bring back manna. Jesus's answer was “yes” and he declared that he was that manna.

Pitre then discusses the obscure and mysterious “Bread of the Presence.” I never knew that Moses and the 72 elders had a banquet with God where they saw the “face” of God. I definitely did not know that the Bread of Presence was also called “the Bread of the Face” because it was in the presence of God or that three times a year the priests showed the people the “face of God” by showing the Bread of the Presence and announcing this is God's love.

Of course, this all gives deep insight into the original Christian understanding of the Eucharist. Concerning the Bread of the Presence, Pitre summarizes:

“The Bread and Wine of Jesus' Presence In books about the Last Supper, scholars are often puzzled by a peculiar feature of the meal. If it was in fact a new Passover, then why didn't Jesus take the roasted flesh of the Passover lamb and identify it as his body? Why did he focus instead on the bread and wine? Moreover, why would he choose to identify the bread and wine so intimately with himself? Where could he have gotten the (admittedly strange) idea that bread and wine could somehow represent a person?
To be sure, one can see how the breaking of the bread and the pouring out of the wine could be visible signs of his imminent death. The broken bread symbolizes his broken body, and the outpoured wine symbolizes the shedding of his blood. But you have to admit that when you think of common symbols of a person's presence, bread and wine are not the first things that spring to mind.
That is, unless you are a first-century Jew, and you are talking not just about the presence of a human being but about the presence of God. However, as we have seen, the notion that bread and wine could be signs of the divine presence was something that would have been driven home at least three times a year, at the feasts of Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles. As we just learned, at each of these festivals, the golden table of the Bread of the Presence would be brought out for the pilgrims to see, and the priests would declare: “Behold, God's love for you!”
In light of everything we've seen so far in this chapter, I think the case can be made that from Jesus' perspective, the Last Supper was not merely a new Passover; it was also the new bread and wine of the Presence. Although most readers don't look at the Last Supper in terms of the bread and wine of the Presence, I invite you to look again:...“
Pitre offers an explanation of the Jewish Passover Seder and the significance of Jesus drinking the fourth and final cup of Passover after he utters “It is finished,” thereby making the Last Supper into a sacrifice with sacrifice, priest and liturgy.

In sum, this was a challenging, insightful and interesting book.

The Player of Games (A Culture Novel Book 2)

Please give my Amazon review a helpful vote - https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R1S5C83IT0YGFR?ref=pf_ov_at_pdctrvw_srp

This is the second installment of Iain Banks's The Culture series. Moid Moidelhoff of Media Death Cult calls this book nearly perfect.

I don't know if this book is perfect, but it is very good. The background, characters, and plot are very engaging. The background setting of “the Culture” is a character in itself.

The Culture was introduced in Banks's “Consider Phlebas.” It is very high tech, wealthy, almost transhuman society. The society is wealthy enough to create its own planets and orbital artifacts. Its military operations are handled by “Contact” and “Special Circumstances.” The society treats humans and machine intelligences as equals. The society seems to be run by artificial intelligence “Minds,” which are super-intelligent and virtually immortal. The economic structure works as a functioning socialist economy where ownership is unknown and people change genders at a whim.

The problem is that the satisfied population is bored. Playing games is a major occupation (just as it seems to be in our culture.) Gurgeh is a preeminent game player. He is blackmailed to represent the Culture in a game tournament in the Arzad Empire, located in one of the satellite galaxies around the main galaxy (which may not be our galaxy - it's not clear.)

The Arzad Empire is structured around the game of Arzad. The winner of the tournament becomes the emperor.

The Arzad Empire is brutal. Its elites thrive on entertainment involving torture and executions. The master species consists of three sexes - male, apex, and female. The Apex are the master sex of the species. They can swing both ways with a reversible vagina and they treat their males and females as second class citizens.

But it is not clear that the Culture is all that much better. The Culture seems to be an imperialistic and colonial power in its own right. It sweeps aside lesser cultures and imposes its egalitarian, socialist ethos on others. Given the choice between Arzad and the Culture, I'd go for the Culture, but that doesn't relieve the Culture of its own form of totalitarianism.

The story is tightly plotted. It reveals enough of the Culture to give the book a grand sweep. The characters are empathetic. There is action and tension. I recommend this book as fun and entertaining.

The Hot Country by Robert Olen Butler

Please give a helpful vote to my Amazon review - https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R23LGXRB0T4FCG?ref=pf_ov_at_pdctrvw_srp

Christopher Marlow Cobb is a journalist assigned to cover Wilson's occupation of Vera Cruz in the spring of 1914 along with Jack London, Richard Harding Davis and others who were on the cutting edge of journalism at the beginning of the American century. Cobb has more on the ball than those hard-drinking legends of history and he runs across a beautiful Mexican sharpshooter, runs afoul of a German plot to weaponize the Mexican revolution into a distraction for America and runs cross country to meet Pancho Villa.

Cobb is an interesting character. His mother is a famous actress. He grew up on the stage. His view of the world remains that of an actor. He is accordingly a literate man of action.

And this really is an action-adventure, not a mystery. The plot motivations are laid out in the open, taking Cobb from Tinkers to Evers to Chance without much sidetracking. Along the way there is plenty of action, enabling Cobb to show his derring-do and the reader to become invested in his fate.

I particularly liked the historical angle as the author, Robert Olen Butler has Cobb interact with historical events and historical personages. I have a low tolerance for historical mistakes, so I was pleasantly surprised to find that Jack London - who does not have a “speaking role” unfortunately - was a reporter during the occupation of Vera Cruz. That surprised me because London died of a debilitating illness at age 40 in 1916.

On the whole, I enjoyed the story as a fun adventure. The plot was fairly shallow, and the ending was nigh on preposterous, but by that time, Butler had made his sale to me and I was willing to forgive it.