The Two "R's" - Reading and Retirement

The other day when we were running in the pre-dawn darkness of Verona Park, DT was commenting on the difficulty of staying current on all of the reading we are doing - Shakespeare one week - Beowulf the next, followed by academic commentary on both. According to DT one of the main problems is that after he reads for about 20 minutes on top of a full day of work, he starts to nod off. Actually that's sort of what the rest of us experience sometimes during one of his think tanks, but that's another story. In fairness to DT he is a senior partner in one of the largest law firms on his street so his practice keeps him fairly busy.

Although I didn't say it the time, I understand the problem and to some extent still experience it myself. While I am doing a lot more reading in retirement, it still presents its challenges. A big part of that is timing, with some modest exceptions during the day, I usually don't try to do much reading until the evening. I kid about it, but I am actually working pretty hard in retirement, the difference is that it is primarily on things that I want to do. But I still have these feelings about work before fun, which in practical terms means working during the day and reading at night.

The problem is that much like DT after I read for a while, I either start to nod off or have a hard time concentrating. Part of that is the content I am reading, I like George Eliot's work, but she isn't the most accessible author of all time and the almost 700 pages of "Daniel Deronda" has its challenges. The other book I am reading at present is Adam Cohen's new book "Nothing to Fear" which is the story of the first 100 days of the New Deal. That's actually easier reading than "Daniel Deronda," but it's definitely not light reading. Although my father used to read 4-5 books at a time, I pretty much find two is my limit - one fiction, one non-fiction.

One of the things I am realizing now is that I need to add a third book, something that is lighter and easier reading. To that end I just started reading E. M. Delafield's "Diary of a Provincial Lady." Once again this was a suggestion from Elaine at Random Jottings and once again she was right on the money, it is hilarious and a relaxing read. The other thing that I need to do is to break up my reading during the day a little bit - read some in the morning, some in the afternoon as well as in the evening. That should allow not only more time for reading, but the time will be a whole lot more productive.

So once again DT although mistaken was helpful. As Sherlock Holmes says to Dr. Watson in the "The Hound of the Baskervilles," - "in your fallacies I was occasionally guided towards the truth."

President Obama's Inaugural Address - Part II

Things have been quite hectic here for the past few days. With the unexpected arrival of "The
Major League Pennant Races of 1916" and trying to wind up the Pioneer Project, it has taken longer than anticipated to get to this second post on President Obama's inaugural address. While disappointed with how I felt the length lessened the potential impact overall I felt it was a good and important speech. As with my disappointments, my positive comments are based upon what I will call the Lincoln standard - Lincoln's speeches and commentary on those speeches.

In my last post I mentioned Ronald White's book "Lincoln's Greatest Speech: The Second Inaugural." In that book White writes about the importance of a speaker understanding the mood of his/her audience and speaking to that mood. This is apparently based upon Aristotle's theories of rhetoric (I would have written Plato, but fortunately DT corrected me). In any event I think the President spoke to the things that are the minds of the American people such as terrorism and the economic crisis in a way that showed he understands the mood of the American people without offering specifics (which would have been inappropriate), but in an even handed way. One example of this was his early comments on the economic crisis which he attributed to the greed of some, but also a collective unwillingness to take difficult decisions. In speaking in this way the President acknowledges the concern placed blame where it belongs, but avoids the trap of making the issue and, therefore, the solution too simple, thus allowing himself plenty of room for developing specific approaches.

While this was well done, as previously mentioned, the really important part of the speech for me was its closing. The similarity to Lincoln's approach with the Gettysburg address is to me too great for this to be a coincidence. In Gary Wills classic book "Lincoln at Gettysburg: The Words That Remade America," the author writes that Lincoln changed the way Americans thought about themselves, arguing that the founding values of the country were found in the Declaration (all men are created equal) not in the Constitution which does not mention equality. In another book about the address ("The Gettysburg Gospel"), the author stresses that the speech was a war speech directed at the north - the message being simply that the war in spite of all its horrors had to go on.

Combining these two ideas, brings us to the position that the war had to go on because of what it was really about - equality without distinction or qualification. Lincoln thus linked that crisis with revolutionary values. President Obama, I think, used a similar approach connecting the current crisis to the revolutionary spirit. Of that spirit Bruce Catton once wrote that "at the core of the American effort was an unconquerable toughness." No where is that toughness that spirit better evidenced in December of 1776 when as the British historian, George Trevelyan observed never in history has such a small group of men used such a small period of time for such an impact on the history of the world. The point being if that generation of Americans could do it so can we.

There seems to have been some post inaugural discussion about exactly what the President was referring to with this quote. I didn't recognize it at the time, but as DT reminded me it is from Thomas Paine's "The Crisis" - remembered for the famous line - "These are the times that try men's souls." That of course means even a closer connection to New Jersey history. No one knows exactly where Paine wrote that essay, but it was clearly in New Jersey during the "retreat to victory," there is some speculation that he wrote it in Newark by a campfire.

Finally a cautionary word about inaugural addresses. Supposedly John Kennedy when preparing his own inaugural read all of the speeches of his predecessors. He was reportedly shocked to find that some of the most highly respected presidents had given some of the worst inaugurals and, perhaps even more surprisingly, some of the least regarded had given some of the best. Ultimately of course, the old idea that what we do is more important than what we say applies to inaugurals as well. DT is fond of quoting a saying attributed to St. Francis - "Preach the Gospel always, when necessary use words."

How's the Book Going? - It's Here!!!!!!!!!

Breaking News - "The Major League Pennant Races of 1916" has been published!!!!

President Obama's Inaugural Address - Part I

My running buddy (and intellectual buddy) DT (Deep Thinker) is an incredibly generous person. Just one example of this is how each December he spends time thinking up resolutions for the rest of the members of the running group. All designed to make for a better world, especially for DT himself. This generosity carries over to some of his favorite quotes from Shakespeare. While Macbeth is his special area of expertise, DT is particularly fond of a line from Hamlet - "Since brevity is the sole of wit, I shall be brief." DT really treasures brevity- especially in others.



All of this came to mind as I was thinking about President Obama's inaugural address to which I have two reactions - one a disappointment, the other positives. The disappointment is about the length of the speech and how it therefore, in my opinion, weakened it.


It's not that a speech of 20 minutes or so is inordinately long, it is more the question of length in inaugural addresses. Inaugural addresses are typically thought of as not being the time or place to get into a lot of detailed proposals. Rather they are an opportunity for a statement of vision, goals, values etc. or a discussion of one major subject. Abraham Lincoln's first inaugural is an example of the second kind of speech which reportedly lasted about 35 minutes. The focus of the speech was secession and Lincoln justifiably took the time for a detailed statement on the issues and why the nation should remain united. President Obama might have done something similar with the economic situation, but understandably he probably felt the need to address a broader spectrum of issues.


Lincoln's second inaugural which supposedly lasted only seven or eight minute, some 703 words.
Ronald White in his book, "Lincoln's Greatest Speech: The Second Inaugural" provides some excellent analysis of this kind of speech. One of his main points is that the opposite of verbosity is not brevity, but precision. And here lies what I felt was the weaknesses in the new President's speech. If the one in depth issue approach is not chosen, then it is important to be brief. Failing to do so creates the risk of falling into platitudes and cliches and/or providing a laundry list of values, vision that lacks the power it might have otherwise had. Unfortunately I found that to be true of much of the early part of the speech.

On the other hand, things changed towards the end of the speech. My thoughts on that and the good things in the speech (of which there were plenty) in a second post because I have still not reached the "soul of wit" goal that DT has set for me.

President Obama's Inaugural Address and New Jersey history - Perfect Together

If I am going to write much about President Obama's inaugural address, I want to wait to read it and think about it, but there is one thing I can't resist saying. I thought the ending where he went back to the darkest days of the revolution and the battle of Trenton was inspired. My guess is that it is to some degree a Lincolnesque touch. Lincoln used the Gettysburg address to tie the Civil War into the Declaration of Independence. In the same way our new president tied our current problems to a time when the American spirit triumphed in the face of far greater odds. Even if that opinion is not correct, I just want to remind all of us where that happened - not in Massachusetts or Virginia, but here in our state - our New Jersey!!!

"Team of Rivals"

One of my goals for 2009 is to keep a written record of all the books that I read this year. That's not hard to do in January, but I need the discipline of starting now. Last night I finished my second book, Doris Kearns Goodwin's Pulitzer Prize winning "Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln." Finishing it reminded me of something that DT has pointed out several times recently - the trend towards authors writing a biography or narrative that focuses on specific issues and doesn't get bogged down in detailed academic writing. DT has always been a little cynical about academic writing.

Of course, the key to such writing is choosing the best point or points to focus on. Goodwin has always been good at this kind of thing, but in "Team of Rivals" she takes it to a whole new level. By focusing not just on Lincoln, but his cabinet (some of whom were his rivals for the Republican nomination) the reader learns about these complex characters and how they both helped and hindered the Union war effort. Perhaps more importantly we get a fuller picture of the multiple challenges that Lincoln faced as a minority president.

Of particularly emphasis and importance is how Lincoln was able to ignore the verbal "slings and arrows" of others, including his cabinet, in order to bring their gifts to bear on the Union cause. One of the best examples of this is his bringing Edward Stanton into his cabinet as Secretary of War although years before Stanton had been unconscionably rude to Lincoln when they were ostensibly working together on the Reaper case. One can only imagine what it would have been like if the hypo sensitive Andrew Jackson had been president at this time - regular duels between the president and his cabinet members. This may an illustration of a point I tried to make about Lincoln in another post - that this was a time where the man and the moment met - there were few other people before and since who could have led the country through this struggle.

I am reminded of something I read in Alan Jones' "Journey into Christ." Although I couldn't find the exact quote it is about an image that Jones found in Buddhism - the image of a bowl that holds all of our frustrations, bitterness, hurt from unfair treatment. We hold this bowl in front of us and the question is will we empty it on to the ground or pour it back into ourselves - thereby magnifying those negative feelings even more. Thought about like that the right course is obvious, but it is much easier to say than to do. If Lincoln dealing with such vast matters could do this perhaps there is a lesson for all of us.

It is important to also say that what Lincoln accomplishes in this way is without wavering on his principles. As Goodwin and other writers have shown convincingly, this is not adopting the lowest common denominator or allowing everyone to follow their own course. Lincoln hold firmly to his principles no matter what their cost.

One other thing that I want to praise about this book is how the author writes about the last days of Lincoln's life. If Greek tragedy is watching the main character struggle against a fate that they can't avoid, the last part of "Team of Rivals" dramatically portrays a president, a cabinet and even a nation thinking and hoping that as the war winds down better days are ahead when the audience knows otherwise. This magnifies the ultimate tragedy even more - brilliant writing.

Beowulf - The monsters

Last summer I was re-introduced to "Beowulf," the early English poem which I had read part of in high school. I read the Seamus Heaney translation that came out some years ago and I enjoyed it a great deal. Trying to understand Beowulf is even harder than trying to understand Shakespeare and not just because of the language. As my intellectual friend, DT (Deep Thinker) and I were saying the other day, while there is no surviving documentation of Shakespeare's intentions, we at least know something of his sources which along with some other things gives us some guidance.



With "Beowulf" on the other hand, we don't even know the poet's name, much less what he read so there are few, if any, clues about his intentions. At some point in reading the poem last summer I was introduced to a famous essay by J. R. R. Tolkien (pictured left) about "Beowulf" called "Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics," which supposedly revolutionized the scholarly debate on "Beowulf."



One of the challenges of reading academic essays is that they are often written in an esoteric language that is almost impossible for the lay person to understand. I realize that some shared technical language is often necessary, but sometimes it severely limits those who appreciate the content. Yet I often find that if one avoids becoming concerned with understanding every word, one can find a lot of information that promotes a better understanding.



I had the opportunity to read Tolkien's essay over the past two days and other than some phrases in Latin and early English, his essay is fairly free of the more esoteric academic language. According to Tolkien many critics believed that the unimportant material in "Beowulf" is at the center of the poem (that is occupying a lot of space) while the important things are on the fringes. In this view the unimportant things are monsters - specifically Grendel, Grendel's mother and the dragon. Tolkien believes this view is wrong because the monsters are the important things in the poem - the primary means of exploring what for the poet are the important issues.



It seems clear how such a position could revolutionize "Beowulf" criticism. The monsters then become important symbols or metaphors, but symbols or metaphors for what. Interestingly Grendel and his mother are both connected to Cain, according to the bible, the first human born of a man and a woman. Tolkien refers to Grendel as being the enemy of God, yet in the bible, Adam says that he received Cain from God and then even after Cain kills Abel, God forbids anyone to kill him in for his crime. So there seems to be some inconsistency in Tolkien's position.


The dragon, on the other hand, who mortally wounds Beowulf before being killed by Beowulf is seen by Tolkien (or at least as I understand it) as a symbol or metaphor for death - for our own mortality. The issue then seems to be knowing that this final defeat awaits all of us, how to we respond to that defeat. The way Tolkien seems to phrase it if the dragon is faced heroically, the dragon wins the victory, but not the honor. I am not sure if this is intended by the poet or by Tolkien to extend to all of us, but with the recent death of my friend Edie Ewing, it certainly connects with some of my recent thoughts.

It is fascinating how something so ancient can still speak to us today. I am getting interested in learning a lot more about "Beowulf" and also turning my attention to the new translation of "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight" that I purchased about a year ago. It looks like DT and I will have a lot to talk about.