The Prodigal Prof Returns

Dearest, dearest Madame M,

You have managed things (held down “the ethereal blog fort”) quite well Madame! Readers certainly enjoyed appropriate length posts, and I shall endeavor to keep up with that good sense (or rather, I shall endeavor for as long as I can before “returning to my windbag self,” lol).

Yes, we males suffer,a bit unfairly in the comparison and unexpressed (unrealistic?) expectation, at the hands of fairy tales and fictional men, for they are crafted, and we are, well, at best works in progress. :)

I too, admired the patient indulgence of Dawsey, who let Juliet take as long as she wanted to admire, well, anything. But that too, is, at least a little, related to the previous discussion on fictional men. Like the people on the “Real World,” fictional characters don’t seem to get bogged down in such inconveniences or time-stressors as jobs, money, multiple obligations, etc. Of course, one would like to think it’s because semi-secluded islanders have it all figured out better than we overtasked moderns (and there is probably some truth to that), but reality is what really intrudes when questioning some fiction.

The Freudian discourse has been questioned on many accounts, but is certainly keeping with the (then?) scientific penchant for wanting to rationalize God, the soul/spirit, and such like out of existence. Cartesian-Newtonian excess that is, one where too much becomes mechanical, where the pieces are all broken down to “understand” the “machine,” but fortunately we have quantum physics to thank (heavens!)for leading us by necessity back to more appropriate holism.

The written word is often superior for conveying a person’s character better first, when time and care is taken, and the expression capabilities of each communicator are not too far apart. Of course, honesty and relative transparency must be assumed for it to get the nod, as instances of written deceit (and manipulation) have in too many instances created problems or tragedy instead. Rare is the person who is clearly superior in person versus writing to pave the way on first contact. There is often puffery and projection where initial contact is only in person, and much of that can be avoided if thoughtful written correspondence precedes it.

As for grace/fruitfulness, many observers (Napoleon Hill being only one, and he thought it could be harnessed for great productivity) have commented on this phenomenon, and interestingly enough, it occurred recently with me and a friend I hadn’t communicated with in years.

Continuing some comments/observations on the book:

The plight of displaced people in Europe after the war was over, and the uncertainty of the whereabouts and disposition of so many, is well transmitted by the authors.

The authors also rightly point out something. There were Germans who detested what their country was doing, but they were vastly outnumbered by the believers, the dutiful, the blind, the ignorant, the acquiescing, the willing, the greedy, the plodding, the mindlessly patriotic, and those in denial.

The authors show flaw when, on page 153, they have the American (Mark Reynolds) speak like a Brit. Non-sequitir.

But on another matter, I agree with the authors through Juliet, commenting on the financier not wanting to make haste with financial affairs: “Let us leave well enough alone for the moment,” does indeed NOT sound like the words of a banker or trustee! :)