I Read: The Golden Bough by James George Frazer

I Read: The Golden Bough - A study in Magic and Religion by James George Frazer

Taking a completely different direction, This time around I have read an academic work, rather than fiction.  and holy cow was it a long one.  It's a work I have wanted to read for sme time, as one of my favorite thinkers, Joseph Campbell, cited it as a work that motivated his own scholarship.  So with scholarship in mind, lets explore the relationship between magic, ritual, and religion.

The Golden Bough - A study in Magic and Religion by James George Frazer

The first thing I'll say is that this book really made me respect the amount of scholarship people of time gone by needed to know much about anything. The sheer amount of books and reading required to get all of his info together is staggering and is worthy of note.  But enough about that.
The primary goal of the book is to understand the origin and meaning of a ritual that took place at a shrine of Diana on the mirror lake of Nemi near Rome.  Associated with Nymphs, spirits, and the nature goddess herself, the primary ritual revolved around a figure who guarded a tree in the grove near the lake.  He was called 'the King of the Wood.' His purpose was to protect the tree, and in some respect the shrine.  He would do this until a challenger would retrieve a golden bough from the tree and then fight the king to the death.  In doing so, the challenger would become the new King of the Wood until a challenger defeated him.  It was this grim and mystic scene that caused Frazer to investigate, and try to pick apart the ritual in order to understand what it was and why it came about.  What followed was an extensive list (700 pages!) of examples of various cultures and beliefs, charting the course from early man through the founding of civilization in order to define notions of magic, religion, and ritual.  I won't be extensive in reciting his proofs.  What I will do is mention the notions and ideas I found interesting, and the conclusions I found profound. The greatest of these was the foundational principles of Magic. They are:
The Law of Similarity - Like Produces Like. Effects resemble their cause.
The Law of Contagion - Things that have once been in contact continue to have contact upon each other at a distance.
It is these two beliefs which not only betray man's ever-present ego, but also show how a simple yet false assumption can have limitless effect on the world.  With these two 'truths' in mind, ancient man saw that certain action yield related results, and used that simple logic, but expanded it into all of creation. It was correct, in noticing that winter followed autumn, so supplies or better lands were needed to survive.  Also, if it rains a lot, plants grow more.  But these notions were taken to odd and clearly misguided places (if you have sex in the fields when you plant them, you will have babies and lots of corn/If a wife opens anything while her husband is away hunting, this will 'open' any trap set for prey and they will catch nothing/if you don't perform certain rituals, the sun won't rise in the morning.)
In this respect, everyone was a magician, as all had the ability to perform certain rituals and cause certain effects.  When spells didn't work, it was blamed on another person working against you who had stronger magic. And since the notion of some people being better at it than others, the first sorcerers/shaman appeared.
These magicians were looked to for food, rain, healing, and luck.  They were often the developers of new, more effective means of controlling the world, and were the investigative minds of their age. Wizards and mystics had advanced places in society because they served the public good. They were rain makers and helped provide for the good of the tribe. That gave them power. The Priest, the sorcerer, and the King were once one. The path of ascension is as follows.

• Wizard~Gains power and reverence~Becomes Chief.
• Chief~Gains possessions~becomes King.

But, upon noticing that magic does not work on its own, assumptions that some other force or personality was at work arose. This is where the gods came from.  If the elements could not be commanded by simple actions, then they must be subject to influence.  If they are subject to influence, then they must be similar to humanity itself, only more powerful, as they control the weather and seemingly the fortunes of men. The elements must be under the control of personalities, as man asserts control over itself.  See what I mean about the Ego of Man.
This is how the sorcerers became priests, interceding on behalf of the powerful personalities that control the world.  Gods were little different than mortal sorcerers, simply invisible versions.  They were still capable of the same powers, as well as susceptible to coercion. But to common people, the priests were not just more effective magic users but cohorts with the gods. This is the birth of religion. In later centuries, religion disliked magic because it did not require god to intercede in people's lives. They could do it themselves.
The age of magic followed scientific logic of cause and  effect. Its most praised sorcerers are the predecessors to today's investigators of the workings of the world: Scientists. The difference is, they have ditched the false assumptions of magic, aside from the basic premise of cause and effect, though effects don't have to resemble their causes anymore. Its not hard to see how humaity developed these ideas though, or how it morphed into religion.  Frazer puts it pretty nicely:

Magical assumptions stem from logic that even animals must have on some level. It takes consideration to invent God.

Comparing obstinate faith that magical actions cause the sun to rise and  religious claims, they look pretty similar.
But back to the Golden Bough.  So what does it all mean?  Here is the gist.

The "King of the wood," is the priest/magician of the shrine, and protector of a sacred tree.
That sacred Tree is a manifestation of Diana, a nature goddess.
The "King of the Wood" is the consort of the goddess, and her defender.
When a challenger comes, he faces the old king.
If he dies, it means that he was too weak to do his duty.
The Golden bough that the challenger first retrieves, is a receptacle for the King's soul.
That's right, the golden bough is a horcrux.
The mantle of the King, an even their spirit, is transfered to the challenger, and they must protect the grove.
For if the grove dies, the goddess will no longer provide for the people.

I think that's pretty cool.
After all of it is done, it was an interesting book, but hard to get through. Mountains of examples aside, the man did seem to look down on non-european cultures.  He used terms like 'savage,' 'rude,' 'barbarian,' and the like interchangeably. Some of his scholarship seems to make big assumptions, but nothing too illogical. He connected the bonfires of ancient nomads and the fire of the vestal virgins to the use of votive candles by catholics.  The healing waters of Egeria and Nemi are no different to the healing waters near the shrines of Saints and other sites in all modern religions. It makes sense if the belief in such ridiculous things is part of our cultural heritage from the beginning.
To leave off, I'll share a few choice quotations from the book.

More mischief has probably been wrought in the world by honest fools in high places than by intelligent rascals.

Religion is a sleeping threat underlying everything that can undermine all progress.  It is a standing menace to civilization. 

and

In the fight between 'the impulsive energy of the minority or the deadweight of the majority of mankind', which is the stronger force?

I Read: When Will Jesus Bring the Pork Chops?

I Read: When Will Jesus Bring the Pork Chops?

I have never read a book by a comedian before.  The only reason I read this one is because I found it in my parent's basement and had no idea how something like that got there.  I read it, and got a handful of chuckles.  Rather than give you a play by play, I'll just give you some of my favorite bits.

When Will Jesus Bring the Pork Chops? by George Carlin

Illustration: Unbelievably, a Goldfish can kill a Gorilla. However, it does require a substantial element of surprise.

Everything was somewhat organized under headings of the great man's thoughts (I love George Carlin, and I'm glad I read this.)  But here, I'll just offer you some, as George would say, 'free-floating hostility.'

• Read "A Modern Man"
• Men are Stupid and Women are crazy (because Men are stupid.) He also has other great passages on men and women.
• Euphemisms; the man was confounded by them. "I first became aware of euphemisms when I was 9 years old. I was in the living room with my mother and my aunt Lil when I mentioned that Lil had a mole on her face.  My mother was quick to point out that Lil didn't have a mole, she had a beauty mark." Relax and be happy that your pimples are seen by some as mere skin blemishes. He explores MANY more Euphemisms in the book.
• Why are people who believe in UFO's treated as significantly less credible than people who believe in the supernatural?
• He reduces the Ten commandments down to two: be honest and faithful, and try really hard not to kill someone else unless they don't pray to the same god you do.
• "Every child is special. An empty meaningless statement. What about every adult? Isn't every adult special? And if not, then at what age does a person go from being special to being not-so-special? And if every adult IS also special, then that means all people are special and the idea has no meaning. This embarrassing sentiment is usually advanced to further some position that is either political or fund-raising in nature. It's similar to "children are our future." It's completely meaningless and is probably being used in some self-serving way."
• Why is it the only time you ever hear the word figment it's in relation to the imagination? Aren't there any other kinds of figments?
• A GENERIC JOKE: A person walks into a place and says something to another person. The second person says something back to the first person, who listens to that and then says something back to the second person. The thing that he says back is really funny.
• Ignore these four words.
• Here's How money can buy happiness: Money gives you options, options give you breathing room, breathing room gives you control and control can offer you a measure of happiness. Maybe.
• The sky is not blue. It merely looks that way because blue is the name we have given that color.
• A good motto to live by: "Always try not to get killed."

I Read: Promethea - Book 1

I Read: Promethea - Book 1

Now its time to read over a graphic novel. It's a nice change of pace to read something visually instead of just textually.  And when its Alan Moore, its a great experience.

Promethea - Book 1 by Alan Moore & JH Williams III

Illustration: Promethea
Gorgeous. A knock-out creative team has created a story about story, and a new character. Promethea is the embodiment of creativity and imagination, and has existed as long as men have told stories. And she continuously reincarnates in various bodies along the way, finally entering the form of our hero, Sophie Bangs.
She comes across Promethea as a pulp comics character as well as an enduring character in poetry and folklore.  And like so many 'fish out of water' stories, she soon finds out that its 'all for real.'
And I don't mean to say that it falls into a familiar plot in a bad way.  Not at all.  If falling into a preexisting plot was universally bad, then I wouldn't like anything.  I don't think they make new plots, only new clothes for them.  And Promethea had some gorgeous outfits.
Moore creates a mythology in a flash that is both new, yet familiar enough to be comfortable in.  It also helps that it is drawn by the amazing JH Williams III, who's work always makes the most, both narratively and aesthetically, out of every inch of the page.  The panels are formed by Mucha-like frames and wreathes of roses.  The images are loaded with details, gags, and, when needed, negative space that gives the viewer both a full page and some breathing room.

Moore's writing is also wonderful, as well. He creates fun characters to follow as well as fun concepts to follow through the story.  In this world, there is a super-her- I mean SCIENCE-hero group called the Five Swell Guys, that float around on a hovercraft in business suits.  There is also a great gag in the leading comic character of the world: The Weeping Gorilla.  Funny not only for using a simplification of the human condition as a literalistic character for spewing morose one-liners, but also just plain silly fun.  Seeing billboards with a giant gorilla shedding a tear while saying "Modern Life makes me feel so alone," "Go on, ask me about my marriage," and "Can we hear that Radiohead track just once more?" is just a creative delight that makes the reading experience all the more enjoyable.
This was just the first volume of the trade paperbacks collecting this series.  It was a great start to an interesting comic and I look forward to reading even more.
Thanks Alan and JH!

I Read: Neverwhere

I Read: Neverwhere

I had only read Neil Gaiman's comic book work before. He's been one of the most interesting writers I have come across and I have wanted to read one of his novels.  After having a friend's copy sit on my shelf forever, I finally sat down and read it. It was only after I was nearly done that I found out it was a novelization of a BBC TV series he wrote.  Haven't seen the show, but it explains a few things.

Neverwhere by Neil Gaiman

Illustration: The Fop with No Name
The first thing I gathered  from the book was that Neil Gaiman's prose is as great in novels as it is in comics.  I thoroughly enjoyed his writing.  Funny, poetic, and tactfully concise, I look forward to reading more of his work. I recommend reading this one.  Now, to get into the novel's contents.  Be warned, I will talk freely about plot points and characters, so if you haven't read it... don't read this. Everyone ok?  Good. Let's continue.
The plot essentially finds an everyman who stumbles into an injured woman that pulls him into a secret world of forgotten people in the underworld of London. This is a fascinating concept for a book. It essentially takes many of the concepts associated with the homeless, mixes in some magic, and makes a mythology out of it.  In our world, homeless people are constantly on the move, are almost instantly forgotten after you look away from them, and have an association with mental instability and can be prone to ranting, saying crazy things, and conversing with the non-existent.  In the world of Neverwhere, an entire civilization lives beneath us and in the forgotten places in the world, they literally disappear from people's view, exist beside insane things like talking rats, magical doorways, and supernatural beings, and they appear crazy to the 'above' world.  Neat, huh?
Now for how much I like the concepts involved (like the magic door-opener Door, the secret bartering culture, and nearly immortal maniacs that hold medieval court in a subway car) the story is a little bland.  It is a basic 'fish-out-of-water' story with an Alice in Wonderland type of quality to it.  And No, comparing this to Alice in Wonderland is not a good thing.  To me, Alice is a story about random and weird events happening to someone who thinks they are stupid.  Neverwhere has a bit of wonder at this fascinating world, but mostly, the main character has a derisive, angry, and frightened attitude towards the weird and random things happening to him. Well written derision at randomness, but still randomness.
And when it isn't random, its predictable.  What? There's a suspicious guy, who keeps doing suspicious things after the bad guys say they should suspect a traitor? I'm going to trust him. What? There is a powerful and trustworthy character I'm supposed to have faith in despite mysterious behavior? Traitor!There are many points that can be predicted relatively easily.  The villain is obviously the villain from the moment we are introduced to him.  Maybe that's the point, but it seems too subtle to be a tipping-off to the reader.  I think it mostly comes from the story structure itself.  It's so 'by-the-book' I guess I know it too well.
Also, our protagonist, Robert, is an everyman.  I'm not a fan of the everyman.  He doesn't quite have enough quirks to qualify as a personality.  He has very little curiosity in the magical world he has entered, and just wants to go back to his boring life.  I know that's the story we're used to reading, but it doesn't make it good, at least in this case.
Not that I'm saying he shouldn't miss or want something of his old life.  The underworld is filthy, violent, and full of smelly people covered in shit. The design of this world is based off of every homeless person, vacant lot, and dirty dumpster you have ever seen put together.  Not exactly the most beautiful place to be, not that it has to be.  I like a bit of grunginess and ugliness in stuff, but I know it can be too much for some.
It has some funny and interesting moments, and I love the concept of a house assembled from different rooms around the city, but it gets far too little use.  I could have had a large portion of the book exploring that.  I like the character Door mostly for her abilities, and less for her personality, as she doesnt't have much of one.  But on some level I think the concept needs stock characters in a stock plot in order to show it off.  I'm not entirely against stock characters.  I know their purpose, they are useful in getting reluctant readers into weird worlds.  I get it.  I'm just a reader who can easily pop into a weird world, and would like some interesting people to meet me when I get there.
The short of it is, I enjoyed the book for the writing and the concept.  The plot and characters were a little dull, but I recommend reading it, as Neil Gaiman can make words a joy.

I Read: Wicked

I Read: Wicked

Another book down!  And this one's pretty popular.  Or at least at some point it was. Now with this review, I'm afraid I'll sound like I'm reading books I don't like, but that's not true.  I just happened to find flaws in these first two books. So without further pause I will go over my take on this piece. Be warned, I will make no attempt to avoid plot details or spoilers.
Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West by Gregory Maguire

Illustration: Elphaba
This came highly recommended and I have had a great interest in reading this for some time.  It takes a pre-existing world and turns it on its side.  That world is Oz, and the side it is turned on, is the side of the Infamous Wicked Witch of the West.
Before I talk about the actual book I need to mention expectations.  When I heard the basic premise (a retelling of the Wicked Witch of the West's life from her perspective) I expected the story to be one of a two things: A story built to fit neatly into the already made worlds of the 1939 MGM movie or the L. Frank Baum Novel, and be simply an expansion that would go along with the work, or that it was a new story that created its own tale independent of what existed before.  Honestly, I was expecting the first of these, with a focus on the 39 movie, given the design of the character presented on the cover.  But as I started reading, it proved that the universe of the books was more in use than the movie.  All that it takes from the movie is her look because, I expect, it is so much more recognizable than... well, that not so good looking one.
So, on with the show.  It was OK.  That's about it.  A little disappointing, but a well written disappointment.  I liked the premise of a retelling a famous story from a one-time villain's perspective. But, when he made his revision, he kind of removed what made her so fascinating and powerful in the first place.  As 2 dimensional as she was, she was at least a woman with conviction, power, and presence. What I'm afraid we got in her place is a woman trying to reject every choice and resist every action.
That woman is Elphaba, and for most of the book I liked her.  The story was well written and the prose was enjoyable. But the content of the story wasn't always particularly pertinent to the plot, but still I read it at a decent pace.  I think my motivation for reading came from a desire not to see what was to happen to Elphaba, I already knew that.  I wanted to see how she changed into that bad-ass wicked witch of the west I knew and loved.  But I feel like that desire was never met.  And here's why.
I get that the premise is supposed to tell me that she was justified in her actions, And that she really wasn't Wicked.  I assumed she would do some things that might be seen as such, but if we knew why, we wouldn't see her that way.  Well the truth is she never reall got around to do anything.  When they brought up the Animal/animal rascim thing, I thought that would be her cause, and she would do horrible things in the name of it, but she didn't.  when she signed up with the resistance, I thought she would do horrible things to defy the wizard, but she did nothing that we were made aware of.  And then when she joined up with the culture with an army that hated the wizard, i thought she would mount an offense against him, but she didn't.  I have no clue whay she would have a 'wicked' reputation in this story, or why the wizard would even care about her. She was no threat and didn't seem disposed to make a threat.
And lets talk about the wizard for a minute.  I'm all for adding dimension to a flat villain in Elphaba, but in making her complex, Maguire made the wizard inot the flatest villain possible: Hitler.  He traded one flat villain for another. In any of the source material, he is a bit complex, as he is a charlatan, pretending to be powerful, but he does it to protect himself and he is overall good natured.  In Wicked, he is cruel, violent, evil, and seems to be so without motivation.  And he also seems to have some weird magical agenda, as he is interested in that stupid book Elphaba finds in the castle.  THAT'S why he wants her dead?  Some random book that comes in near the end of the story? What?  Make her a genuine threat! Make her inspiring resistance! Make her something that would make his hitler ass feel compelled to get rid of!  She has a BOOK? What a waste.
That's how I feel about most of the book.  A great concept but it ends up being squandered.  She never becomes a powerful character. Interesting and complex, yes, but never one to inspire fear or respect.  She does everything half-assed and never accomplishes anything.  It's tragic, but it was always going to be tragic. At least let her be strong.  Don't make her resist every important action she could take.  Give her some conviction.  I like this politicized version of OZ. I enjoyed its play on religion and its effect on people.  I like the concept as a whole.  I just don't get why it played out so muted, sporadic, and motivationless.  Maybe that was the point.  Maybe it was all just a big accident and she was just another victim that didn't deserve it.  GREAT JOB.  Turning one of the most iconic and dynamic women in pop culture and turn her into a VICTIM.
And the green thing!  What the hell?  A big deal is made about how she is born green and is allergic to water but nothing comes of it.  So much is made of it that I thought it was going to have some symbolic meaning or purpose.  But no.  Nothing.  It's forgotten because the Hitler of OZ wants a book.
Sorry if you love the book or the musical.  I don't mean to hate.  I was just disappointed.  Oh well.  The next book I read I really loved, so look forward to that!

I Read: First King of Shannara

I Read: First King of Shannara

I realized recently, as I was putting my bookshelves back up after moving, that I owned many books that I have never read. Too many.  I put aside the ones I haven't read and set them on their own rack.
I have a massive amount of books to read.
So as I read through them, I have decided to do an illustration of each, and then give a little opinion piece on what I thought of it.  Why? Well, Why not?
The first book off of the list is First King of Shannara by Terry Brooks. 

Illustration: Bremen The Druid
This is my first Terry Brooks novel, and since I have always been a fan of fantasy, it was recommended to me.  It was, at best, OK.  I don't want to bash it too bad, as it is my first experience with the man and his writing, but I was not blown away by what I read.
To begin with, I must acknowledge that this was not his first novel.  It is the first in the chronology of his fictional universe, and it was the first one given to me by a fan.  So most people who have read his stuff, probably didn't start with this one, and there may be reasons that it was written the way it was.  That way, in my opinion, was not nube-friendly.  There were many instances of passages that seemed to have no purpose, and then they would like "And that man's name was Joe." Next chapter.
Who?  What? is that supposed to mean something to me?  I assume that it would make sense for people who already knew the future of the series, but for me, I just had to guess or use wikipedia.
Now lets get into the story.  It may have been bad luck, but starting me out on a fantasy series on a novel that is a near exact copy of the plot of the Lord of The Rings Trilogy is not going to impress or interest me.  If I want to read LOTR, I'll read that.
Seriously, the plot is the same: old wizard shows up, says the bad guy they thought was dead thousands of years ago is back and has an evil army to take over the world, assembles a diverse "fellowship" to find the "lost king" and "item of evil the bad guy wants" and stop the evil guy from conquering all the "good races" with "evil races." Also the bad guy is a formless wraith of darkness and has other evil wraiths of darkness that do his bidding. characters die, fight, "fall in love," and the boring guy gets the girl and the crown.
Actually, never mind.  It's not that similar. Aragorn is absolutely quirky compared to Jerle Shanarra.
Along with snagging the basic plot of LOTR it also takes its cues on the villain.  The Warlock Lord is a motivation-less evil force that makes two total appearances in the book, never gains a personality, and is gone before we can care.  The world also feels so sparsely populated that I don't see his actions as much of a threat.  there is mostly land and few people in a land that you can apparently walk across in a matter of days. And the Warlock Lord doesn't function very well as just a representation of Evil-Otherness as his supposed evilness can't reach out from beyond his little wagon, and the races he uses to fight with are just foreigners that want land.  In short, I felt no particular desire to see this enemy defeated.  I just knew it was supposed to happen.
So there's that.  So lets get into the actual writing. As I read, I thought I shuld have a map to look at as Brooks continuously refered to fictional geography in so much detail, I assume he would want you to check a map and pat him on the back for being so creative.  It is creative, but the extent to which he would detail a location got distracting.  Other distractions include extended descriptions of the natural world, histories that distracted from the moment, and what seemed like filler "action" sequences to keep things going.
Something I thought was interesting was how he described magic.  It made me picture how spells look in video games.  Cool, especially for coming from a pre-video game world, but at times it was cheesy.
To some up, it wasn't that great.  I never got a chance to see the characters as more than stock archetypes, and so I didn't invest in them.  The villains didn't do anything specifically evil enough to characters I cared about to make we want to see them defeated.  I'll give Mr. Brooks another shot, but that might be it.