New Testament Podcasts

Neither of these are particularly new, but they’re more or less new to me so I thought I’d pass them along.  For those wanting to learn the history of the New Testament or simply brush up on the details, check out the following podcasts.  Both are available through iTunes U.

The first is Dale Martin’s (Yale) course, “Introduction to New Testament History and Literature.”  You can find it by heading to iTunes and doing a search for “Dale Martin” and “New Testament.”  If I were more proficient, I would post a link.

The second is Mark Goodacre’s (Duke) “NT Pod,” available from iTunes and through his website.

What Up With That?

I have maintained for some time that humanity is running out of creative steam, and that one can perhaps witness this fact by gazing toward Hollywood.  One of the most glaring examples can be found in the recent release of “Fast and Furious,” not to be confused with “THE Fast and THE Furious” that was released a mere 8 years earlier.  Apart from sharing an almost identical title, the two movies even share similar casts.  I haven’t bothered to see either, but I would bet at least a portion of the rent money that their plots are strikingly similar.  Is this example to glaring or ridiculous to even warrant mention?  Perhaps.  So, I present to you another phenomenon that is a bit more nuanced, yet equally bizarre.

I refer you to the slew of recent Hollywood remakes that have taken more classic works and presented them with a twist.  The majority of these remakes follow a common thread.  Namely, they tend to take the protagonist and make them more earthy or, perhaps just strange or psychotic.  The same thread is generally applied to the antagonist and side characters.  As evidence, I submit five examples (two of them, oddly enough, feature Johnny Depp).

1) Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory — So, was Gene Wilder from the original 1971 movie a little crazy?  Of course.  However, Johnny Depp takes the character to a new level in the newer release.  Aside from being simply mad, the 2005 remake portrays Willy Wonka as more deeply troubled and, strangely enough, somewhat androgynous.

2) Alice in Wonderland — Granted, this remake has yet to be released, but if the previews are at all accurate, we’re in for another creepy character…this time, Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter in Lewis Carroll’s “Alice in Wonderland.”  The cartoon version of the story is of course memorable, as the Mad Hatter and the rest of the insane tea party are portrayed as aloof and somewhat drunk.  However, in the remake, the Mad Hatter looks absolutely insane.

3) Robin Hood — Ah, Kevin Costner as Robin Hood.  In the 1991 “Prince of Thieves,” Robin Hood is truly a timeless character.  He is oddly enough the only character in the movie (set in medieval England) without a British accent, and his hygiene (replete with flowing hair) is sine qua non for a homeless robber of that era.  In the remake, however, set to appear in summer of 2010, Russell Crowe has snagged the part and will apparently be representing a different sort of Robin Hood, a dirtier Robin Hood.  I just saw the trailer of this tonight, and I have to say that it reminded me more of Gladiator, only with less Romans, no collosseum, and more splashing around in the water.  Not surprisingly, Ridley Scott directed it.

4) Sherlock Holmes — The pictures speak for themselves.

5) Batman Begins / The Dark Knight — Last, but certainly not least, consider the case of the newest Batman films, “Batman Begins” and “The Dark Knight.”  In contrast to the Batmen of yore (cartoons, Adam West, Michael Keaton, etc…), the new Batman is much rougher.  Instead of the sometimes cartoonish Batmobile, Christian Bale now drives around in a speedy tank while dressed in military-grade armor.  Plus, the joker is no longer funny…he is a true psychopath.

In light of these examples, I have to say, what up with that?

How to Read a Book

I have spent roughly a quarter of my life thus far in higher education.  Ergo, I read a lot.  Recently, I discovered a little gem in the Marquette University library that deserves mention: How to Read a Book by Mortimer J. Adler.  Granted, there is a fair degree of irony in learning how to read a book by reading a book on how to read a book, so let me give you a moment to chuckle to yourself and reflect on the absurdity of such a situation.

Now that we’re past all that, let me tell you why you should read this book and give you a few pointers that I gleaned from it.  Some are common sense, others are not.

1) Reading is a cooperation between author and reader.  The author’s goal in writing anything is to convey information, and the reader’s goal in reading is to (obviously) obtain information.  ‘Good reading’ could thus be said to occur when a) the author has successfully conveyed her point, and b) the reader possesses the skills to read and understand what the author has written.  In this sense, the book levels a challenge to writers as well as readers.  Regardless of their brilliant insights, an author will fail to be effective if they cannot be coherent.

2) There are three levels of reading: elementary, inspectional and analytical.  You (the one reading this page) are currently engaged in at least elementary reading, as you are recognizing that there are words in front of you that convey some sort of meaning.  Inspectional reading and analytical reading, however, are higher ‘forms’ of reading.  Inspectional reading involves surveying the book from cover to cover.  First, you examine the structure via the table of contents.  Then you take a look at the index (if your book has one) to see which topics are being treated.  Last, you speed read the book, which amounts to little more than skimming.  The entire inspectional stage should take less than an hour, and will give you a rudimentary familiarity with the book’s contents.  The real insight that Adler gives is that some books demand only to be read at the inspectional stage!  You may find, after your survey of the book, that you have gleaned all the information you need from your cursory overview of the book.  If this is the case, there is no need for you to go through and read it carefully.  Not all will agree with this point, of course, but I for one found it to be as refreshing as it is ridiculous.

3) Reading a book should be seen as a conversation with the author.  When you are engaging in ‘demanding reading,’ you must have a good idea of the author’s purpose in writing.  What is their thesis?  What do they aim to teach you or convince you of?  After you have discovered their goal, hold them to it.  How well does the author support what she claims to support?  Are there any logical fallacies or assumptions in the writing?  In the end, how convincing is the thesis?  What could have made it better or more convincing?  For those comfortable with writing in their books (I am one of these), this conversation will take place tangibly in the margins.  For those who dislike writing in books, or for those who read library copies of books, this conversation will take place on a separate sheet of paper.  Regardless of where it takes place, it must take place.  By actively engaging the author, one learns to be a ‘demanding,’ or ‘active’ reader.  In the end, you will arrive at a deeper understanding of the presented material by critically engaging it along the way.

There is of course much more to be said about this book, but I don’t want to give it all away here!  If you are serious about reading, and wish to become a better reader, go pick it up!

A New Year Awaits

In a little more than two days, 2010 will arrive.  The new year, I have decided, should give rise to a new blog.  The record of posts that previously resided at this address has been wiped clean, as I fear that they lost any sense of coherency, digressing into what could only be called occasional ranting.

I suppose at this point it would be fitting to describe what I hope to accomplish in reviving this blog.  Truth be told, I have no idea.  It may in fact suffer the same fate as the last, but hopefully this is not the case.  We shall see.