spoiler alert
The aliens were alien but not very. I liked them and was more interested in their story than in the humans’. The climactic conflict promising dystopic mutual destruction ended in optimistic mutualistic synthesis. The tech that made everything possible was too vaguely magic, so the denouement was unsatisfying: lessons were not learned but imposed by biochemical fiat. Maybe we should be trying to develop a pan-empathetic nanovirus….
A collection of short essays by RSC actors each describing the preparation of a role played in production in the ’90s. I’m a community theater player with minimal formal acting training, so I found the incidental explanations of the rehearsal process from various perspectives enlightening. And as I’m more familiar with some of the actors’ TV and screen work than with their stage work, it was wonderful to read about the craft they trained in.
Paul Jesson’s essay on Henry VIII and Jane Lapotaire’s Queen Katherine were especially interesting because they had to explain the similarities and differences between historical reality and Shakespeare’s fiction. I know the play superficially, and found it difficult to relate to these characters. Both actors must have done a superb job of making these characters come alive on stage because they succeeded in doing so for me in these briefs.
John Nettles essay on Brutus was fascinating for the same reason: balancing what we have of history with what we have from Shakespeare. Nettles’ portrait of a man of deep ideals who thinks himself important to history yet is intellectually and politically woefully inadequate to his self-appointed role is bitter.
Other highlights: Christopher Luscombe’s Launcelot Gobbo & Moth, Philip Voss’ Menenius.
Several actors describe feeling miscast in their parts: Derek Jacobi made the interesting observation that he is a tenor with a slight appearance on stage, which he thought inappropriate for Macbeth, whom he felt should be a powerful bass. He played his Macbeth over-intelligent and over-imaginative, unable to still his skittish mind. David Tennant did not fancy himself a clown in the least, and had to work hard to create his Touchstone.
Isaac Asimov, scientist, polymath, and science fiction author, presents a detailed overview of the Hebrew Bible and of the New Testament. He sets the books in historical context, glossing names, places, and aspects of culture. He does so in a compelling style and authoritative voice, possessed of a scholar’s great detailed knowledge, a novelist’s expressive appeal to imagination, and a teacher’s skill at arousing and sustaining interest. He makes the subjects, the writers and the original readers of these foundational narratives come alive.
Great premise well played out. Realistic, deeply likeable characters, even the heavies, though the outright villains are slightly cardboard. Tense action, a lot of great military detail. The mystery of motivations spins out at a perfect pace. There is some gentle philosophy, a good balance of explanation & unexplained mystery, and, incredibly in this late age of science fiction, some unique aliens. The writing, concerns, and style remind me of Hilbert Schenck’s Chronosequence.
Mathewes-Green, a graduate of the Virginia Theological Seminary, converted to Orthodoxy from the Episcopal Church following her husband, now an Orthodox priest.
She describes life in a composite American Orthodox parish, describing in elaborate but personal and appealing detail everything from the character of the faithful; the appearance of the building; the form and nature of liturgy through a church year, weekly services, a communion, Pascha, baptisms, a marriage and a funeral, hospitality hour; a midnight telephone call to the priest from a spiritually distressed parishioner; to a house blessing (and a brief window into Orthodox worship at home). She describes the music, the role of icons, the written sources of wisdom, and something of the meaning of praying continuously. Above all, she describes how the entirety makes up the ancient spiritual Way that Orthodoxy offers for drawing ever nearer to God and Jesus. In a delicate afterward she invites us to take any part of Orthodoxy we may find appealing, but to understand that it is the combination of elements accumulated and refined over millennia that make Orthodoxy a resolute, difficult, and effective Way.
A scientist-activist’s heartfelt plea, inspired and sometimes poetical, always thoroughly scientifically detailed, to make the effort to cease the practices that will render our planet unfit to support our human lives within a few decades.
Flannery describes the Earth as a homeostatic system whose organs atmosphere, oceans, crust, and life, operate together to maintain the conditions that support all life. He describes the geological history of the Earth and the impact of the human species on the system that had evolved by the time our species arose, and the damage we have done since we developed agriculture. We can and will render Earth unable to support us and we can and will drive ourselves to extinction. The Earth system may be able to correct itself in a few thousands or tens of thousands of years after that. We could and might ruin Earth for all life. He explains how and why technically, psychologically, and politically we are failing to correct that damage, and what we can and must do about it now if we want the planet and ourselves to live.
Conversion, the sacraments of Baptism and Eucharist, believing in Jesus are the path; to love one another is the way; union, to come to know that we are one with God and God with us, is the completion.
Countryman’s thesis is that John’s Gospel is a manual for the mystical way in Christianity. He translates the Gospel in a manner which preserves John’s simple syntax, limited vocabulary, and repetitions and intersperses commentary, interpretation, and some cultural and historical context. He shows how John’s choice and ordering of events from Jesus’ life and ministry, differing from the synoptics, emphasizes the path of spiritual growth. Characteristic of Jesus' teaching in John is the inappropriate response, the seeming non-sequitur when questioned that is meant to break his hearer out of old ways of thinking. It reminded me of the idea behind Zen koans.
Countryman writes clearly, precisely, intellectually, spiritually and with belief. The book is scholarly but direct, not dry, and faithful.