The Christian online (online?) magazine FIRST THINGS, talks PAST MASTER, and DEAD LADY OF CLOWN TOWN, MANSIONS IN SPACE, and a few others.
Hey, they got the essential theme right!
As usual I am reviewing the introduction and, maybe, later reviewing some of the stories, or the book as a whole.
But probably not. I never do seem to get back to it.
And I usually see no reason to when I get into the book. It is a collection of Lafferty stories, nearly all I will enjoy immensely, and a few I will understand.
So far the only failing of this series (for me anyway) is in the choices for who writes the introduction. So far it is following the opposite of the Star Trek movie rule. The first and third introductions were good, the second and fourth were told by two men who mostly talked of themselves.
However Harlan Ellison had the advantage of having some relation to the man. And took a paragraph or two to relate something about Lafferty from his experience and not himself.
Richard A Lupoff spends most of his introduction talking incoherently about Lafferty being a practitioner of Orwell’s doublethink. And questioning how someone as smart and educated as Lafferty could believe in something as profoundly stupid as Catholicism. It should be noted that Lupoff has no real knowledge of Catholicism.
At the beginning of the introduction Lupoff confesses he only had a passing acquaintance with Lafferty – handshakes and a ‘how do you do?’ at conventions. At the end he goes into this bucket list fantasy about his friend Lafferty and Jack Vance.
I rarely, if ever, read introductions. No one buys a book for the introductions. But I read the Lafferty introductions because Lafferty is my favorite writer and I would like to read of the man. I hope, in future volumes of this series, they will get some writers (or editors or publishers) who had some interaction with the man – something real to relate.
And, perhaps, one who did not wonder how “someone so smart could believe in something so stupid.”
What can I say? My favorite author also drank my favorite beer. Specifically Budweiser in a can. One could say that having that particular beer in that particular photo was just random and he could just as well had a Miller Lite bottle in his hand the next day, I prefer to think he liked Budweiser in a can.
Alright, enough of that, onto the series.
I am not done with it yet. Goodnite!
Kidding. But I am not done with it yet. I am several pages into Tales of Midnight which is the second of the books that make up the third volume of the Argo series, More than Melchisedech.
When I was about two-thirds the way through Tales of Chicago, the first of the volumes that make up More than Melchisedech, when I was really worrying. Is this just all just going nowhere? Except for some character overlap, there wasn’t (at least to my eyes yet) much holding through between the volumes. It seemed to have a cast of characters that would appear here and there but I couldn’t see any particular reason why these people would be held together any more than chance meeting in real life would hold such people together (looking at things just on a eye level sequential sequence viewpoint).
The first book, Archipelago, was just that, the cast were treated, largely, as an archipelago of people. Each one occupied it’s own (to a large extent) vignette/archipelago. The second, The Devil is Dead, centered mostly on a single character, Finnegan, i.e., John Solli, but no relation to most of what went on before was discernible. Then Tales of Chicago shifted the main character again to one Melchisedech Duffey and we hear no more about Finnegan, i.e., John Solli until-
And then SPOILERS!!!!!! the relation of Duffey to the others is revealed (although I think I was daft not to get it quite earlier in Tales of Chicago (perhaps even earlier? a question I will ask myself when I read it again) but one doesn’t often read this level of meta-fiction)). And even the title of the first book, Archipelago makes self-referential sense.
I really felt lost at sea (even that is self-referential to the series and one wonders if Lafferty designed that for his reader to experience as well!) before the reveal. And when I say reveal, I do not mean it as sort of must see tv – character secret revealed on Entertainment Tonight! I mean it as more of a gradual unveiling.
Right now they are gathered all in St. Louis but Duffey has not found Finnegan. It is a beautifully written scene (all of it is really) and I know its significance won’t dawn on me until it is a memory.
If it was any other author, I would not have made it this far. But I often stumble through Lafferty’s worlds (which is really just one) deaf to half that is going on around me the first time around. The prose itself can suffice until the other part of me (the slower part) catches up! Loving it!
I am on the Beatitudes in my online catechism class now. I am not sure how long I should spend on such a thing. I could spend a day and answer the questions at the end correctly. I could probably answer the questions correctly without needing to read (or reread as I have read the beatitudes and some commentary on them before) the material. But these are things that men have studied and wrote about and applied to life’s various realities for centuries. When is it enough?
Of course just because you cover a subject once does not mean you cannot cover it again. I didn’t really mind finishing up Christ’s baptism in a day or so. A few points are covered in that event, but it is not essential. The beatitudes are quite important and I am not sure what I gain by a day’s study although it has already been more than that.
I’m on Tales of Chicago of Lafferty’s Argo tale SPOILERS!!! – But not too badly now. I know the general theme, or at least one of them, of the whole tale as it was in the first book. But as far as narrative flow goes, this is a tough Lafferty read. Meaning I am not sure if all the events are going to be linked and sewn together in the end. We get a little taste of each of the characters and their lives after WWII and the second book follows the other life of a John Solli – Finnigan. He is the focus at the end of the first two books, but those endings are open-ended, they are not concluded, but pick up at a different point of a different life.
The third book, Tales of Chicago, that I am now on, so far hasn’t visited Finnigan at all, and I am not even sure if we will see him again. We have to see him again don’t we?
SPOILER!!! For those that may be reading and have travelled this tale (that would be very small window of people) I believe at least one of the themes is expressed by Mr. X to Abselom Stein at the end of Archipelago. I could be wrong, but the statements he make seem significant enough to be thematic.
I also hope to be posting some writing here in the very near future. Huzzah!
I am trying to get further into my catechism class, although January has been a bitch to get things started. One of the problems is the lengthy portions of the Thomas’ Summa you have to go through.
It is not that the sections of the Summa are necessarily difficult (although you do have to keep aware of the structure of his arguments, if you let your focus lapse you’ll get lost), but most of the points raised would never have occured to me. For instance I am on the baptism of Christ and John the Baptist. In the related Summa reading material there are questions (articles) that are stated thusly: Should He have been baptized with the baptism of John? Was that dove a real animal? Whether those who had been baptized with John’s baptism had to be baptized with the baptism of Christ? Was it right for him to be baptized when he was (at 30 instead of as a baby)? Etc, etc.
Now, I suppose that by the 13th century these questions had not only all been brought up a number of times, but were probably argued over a great deal. But, to be truthful, I have read the Gospels, and most of these questions never occured to me. Of course I can’t expect myself to ask the questions accumulated by over a millennia of men. I am just not creative enough to have thought to ask: Was that dove a real animal?
It is not a bad question. Is the wafer really the body of Christ? Is it really, or is it only symbolically and is really only a wafer?
In order to not simply fall asleep, I have to, before I tackle his argument, recognize some significance to the question being raised. Sometimes the objections will provide it, sometimes the replies. But sometimes I have to sit there and ask: what difference does it make?
Also, they sometimes have you read sections from the Baltimore Catechism which is literalist in a lot of places. For instance:
Q. 345. How many years passed from the time Adam sinned till the time the Redeemer came?
A. About 4,000 years passed from the time Adam sinned till the time the Redeemer came.
Eh, are we sure about that one? I would rather have a larger number range. How about sometime between 4,000 and 50,000? Do we really want to say specifically when man was first man? Man to be the first man in the Bible? Man to be responsible for sin before the sight of God? If we are going to take some parts of Genesis as non-literal, then I also think it wise to make all time measurements in the loosest possible sense.
So, I finished Archipelago last week. What can I say? It’s Lafferty! It is hard to say anything definitive about the story although the thesis of it is contained in a letter from Mr. X to Absalom Stein:
“There is Pride in all of us, Absalom, and it must be broken. We all come to the passions and are shaken by it; Finnegan who goes to his many deaths; Casey who was dead and lives again; Hans and Henry who were born to balanced power and will both be broken to gibbering weakness before they die; Duffy who must find Him who is more than Melchisedech; Vincent who made peace with the world and will find that the world will not keep it; Dotty herself, and the Urchin, and Margaret the bonfire.”
Archipelago ends in a shoot out and Finnegan and Dotty (was it Dotty?) laying shot on the ground but their fates undecided. The Devil is Dead, presumably, picks up at an earlier time in Finnegan’s journeys. Although this is Lafferty, we cannot be sure if his journey in The Devil is Dead is before he was shot, after, concurrent, or even post-mortem.
The easiest character line to follow in the series (such a word to use for these works) is Finnegan. Finnegan, says Mr. X goes to his many deaths, and that we all come to the passions and are shaken by it. Finnegan is a vagabond drunk. His line is easy to see… for the moment. The others are harder to see. But they may get their time to line their paths plainly in the sand for us to see.
The Devil is Dead, so far, is a much more straight ahead piece of work; whereas Archipelago is very much like its name if you consider each character an island. After the surprise ending of Archipelago, we find Finnegan in a black-out state entangled with a group of people and a situation he has to figure out. He soon ends up on a voyage on the sea with the Devil himself. So far the story is mainly in the horror vein.
[I just realized the title for this post makes no sense. Upon the Archipelago? It is not a singularity. Can you be “upon an archipelago?” You can be upon one of its islands, but you can never be upon ‘it’ in the singular. Cast Amongst the Archipelago? No, that doesn’t work either. Into? That would be closer. Just as you are not “upon” America or Europe (unless you are talking specifically of being on its soil) but are in America or Europe.
Thus, you can be cast amongst the islands of the archipelago as you are cast amongst the states that make up America. But you would be cast into the noun or proper name that stands for its constituents.]
I got my CPC-A certification certificate (diploma certificate? sounds fancier) in the mail today. So I am technically qualified to work in the field. Seeing postings on the AAPC website of people frantically posting about having the same qualifications as I and getting nowhere, leaves me no less anxious.
Now all I got to do is find some work. That will be the hard part. From what I have heard, it can be the very hard part.
I did, however, take the exam a month after graduating my course and I have absolutely no medical experience. 50 – 60% (or so a variety of sources tell me) fail this test on the first attempt. And that includes people with years of experience in the field of coding and billing.
I hope that counts for something.
I started this most interesting tale Sunday night. As usual, I am at a lost to explain this work thus far. It may be far too early to grasp what is going on. So far we have had introductions to several characters, some conversations, and a legendary drinking contest (you never enter a drinking contest cold, mate!)
As usual the prose is a delight in itself, and Lafferty is pulling no punches in toying with etymologies. It is a little more restrained (mature?) than the unbridled flair of other works; earlier or contemporary with the Argo series.
I am hoping I will not be too distracted with other things (like the continued study my new “career” demands) to pay this the attention it deserves. Lafferty is subtly metaphysical writer. You may think you are reading a simple paragraph describing a man’s walk to the market, but you can actually be knee-deep in the ontological speculation.
Also present here as elsewhere in his work is tiny excursions of historical fact (usually delivered as quips from a character) that you wouldn’t ever think to look up or even question.
For instance early on a character over coffee remarks how the beverage was Christianized under Clement VIII. I have consumed copious amounts of the beverage in my lifetime. I even grind my own extra dark roast beans and brew in a press – I even make cold brew coffee (yummy!).
But it never occured to me to look up a single historical fact about it. It was simply something existing in the constellation of the plenum. But the sentence was so off the wall. How do you Christianize a drink? And before I knew it I was again, thanks to Lafferty, acquiring another piece of arcana.
Is it arcana?
I find the value of knowledge to be a little scrambled today. If it has no direct, physical application, or monetary value – why bother? Or without the flair of shock and awe. After all, no one would actually watch The Mythbusters if they were really doing science. They do the scientific method in spirit, but science (most science) isn’t about blowing stuff up. Like every job, there is a lot of BORING you do not see.
So arcana. Is it?
Having finally finished school and acquired my certification, I am eager to get back a few thing things I have been putting off. Probably most pressing is getting into R.A. Lafferty’s Argo cycle:
[Note: this is not a pick of my Argo collection, but a pic I lifted off of the esteemed Mr. Daniel Petersen from his site, The Ants of God Are Queer Fish.
I hope he does not mind.
My collection is only partly hardcopy. Tales of Midnight and Argo I only own digitally, the rest I own hardcopy.Hard to get all of them in a line up when they are not simultaneously on the same plane.]
Anyway, I am eager to get this series read because I do not know how long these digital copies will be functional on what machine for how long. I could get an update on my ePub reader tomorrow that makes the two books incompatible with the new software.
That, and I am eager to take the trip!
The next back burnered project was this:
I had only reached (in the Adult Formation course I was taking) Finding of the Child Jesus in the Temple before I had to put it on hold for the demands of school. It remains to be seen whether my internship and two jobs (hopefully a job in the medical field, no?) make this a project taken on even further in the future.
At the end of this course you get a certificate and I think I would be prouder of this one than any other. They also added a level two which is more generally theological/philosophical. The course curriculum for level 1 is here.
And, last but certainly not least, my writing. This has suffered a big-gloved, bitch-slap, crotch grab since January 2015. But I have been building back my finger muscle and coordination on my new typewriter for the last month. And when the job hunt is over, I am going to come on a swinging.
Having been with the typewriter for a month I can say it was no nostalgia that brought me back. I love the fact of having a first draft (alright I did a little writing…) that is as physically unique as the words themselves (as unique as I can make them anyway…). And if you look at the words on the paper, they are unique. No two people, except for perhaps two perfect secretaries from the 50’s typing at 90 words a minute without error, would type the same thing the same way. And since it is not diction, the two pages would not be the same anyway even if the words happened, by miracle, to be.