Since 1997, you’ve been coming to BarnesandNoble.com to discuss everything from Stephen King to writing to Harry Potter. You’ve made our site more than a place to discover your next book: you’ve made it a community. But like all things internet, BN.com is growing and changing. We've said goodbye to our community message boards—but that doesn’t mean we won’t still be a place for adventurous readers to connect and discover.

Now, you can explore the most exciting new titles (and remember the classics) at the Barnes & Noble Book Blog. Check out conversations with authors like Jeff VanderMeer and Gary Shteyngart at the B&N Review, and browse write-ups of the best in literary fiction. Come to our Facebook page to weigh in on what it means to be a book nerd. Browse digital deals on the NOOK blog, tweet about books with us,or self-publish your latest novella with NOOK Press. And for those of you looking for support for your NOOK, the NOOK Support Forums will still be here.

We will continue to provide you with books that make you turn pages well past midnight, discover new worlds, and reunite with old friends. And we hope that you’ll continue to tell us how you’re doing, what you’re reading, and what books mean to you.

Reply
Frequent Contributor
Posts: 3,107
Registered: ‎10-27-2006
0 Kudos

Native culture in US



fanuzzir wrote:Many writers have also imagined a native culture coexisting with English. I would look for short stories by Lydia Maria Child, a nineteenth century writer and abolitionist who thought there was no reason for Indians and white Americans not to live in the same time and place.




BN recently featured popular fiction Thirteen Moons (Frazier) when this topic could have been discussed in detail. Unfortunately it didn't generate any interest whatsoever.

Thanks for the pointer.
ziki
Frequent Contributor
Posts: 3,107
Registered: ‎10-27-2006
0 Kudos

Re: just a thought



fanuzzir wrote:The English originally intended the Virginia colony, their inaugural English colony, to be safety valve for the urban poor. They entered into something called "indentured servitude" whereby they were enslaved for seven years. In the 17th century, that's how England wanted to solve the problem of poverty: export it.




Scary. Imperialism at its worst. Not sure what the best of it would be.

ziki
Frequent Contributor
fanuzzir
Posts: 1,014
Registered: ‎10-22-2006
0 Kudos

Re: just a thought



ziki wrote:


fanuzzir wrote:The English originally intended the Virginia colony, their inaugural English colony, to be safety valve for the urban poor. They entered into something called "indentured servitude" whereby they were enslaved for seven years. In the 17th century, that's how England wanted to solve the problem of poverty: export it.




Scary. Imperialism at its worst. Not sure what the best of it would be.

ziki


It gets worse. Because the Indians were being killed, and the white indentured servants were getting restive, the colonial planners saw the need for a new labor force that would replace them both and give the poor whites and rich whites someone to gang up on. You guessed it: African slaves. That started in Virginia too.
Frequent Contributor
fanuzzir
Posts: 1,014
Registered: ‎10-22-2006
0 Kudos

Re: just a thought



Choisya wrote:
. Perhaps B&N ought to put one of Lydia Maria's books up for us to read?






I can reommend an edition of Child's work published by Rutgers University Press, a novel Hobomok and Other Writings abot Indians. There's a short story there called "Willie Wharton" that literally rewrites the whole history of westward expansion as a trans-racial adoptive family. There really was another way, the story shows. Indians and Americans were constantly trading children through need, war, ransoming, etc. All we had to do was to translate that social custom into policy. .
Frequent Contributor
Posts: 3,107
Registered: ‎10-27-2006
0 Kudos

Re: just a thought

[ Edited ]

fanuzzir wrote:

It gets worse. Because the Indians were being killed, and the white indentured servants were getting restive, the colonial planners saw the need for a new labor force that would replace them both and give the poor whites and rich whites someone to gang up on. You guessed it: African slaves. That started in Virginia too.




Ack.

Maybe we get to it in more detail with Uncle Tom's Cabin. The scary part is the need of the scapegoat which is the essence of evil.

Gosh, it is such a relief with Moby's forum. The atmosphere on the Hemingway board is getting so tight so it can snap any time; as if one shoots what's moving. I find it very interesting how a book will 'translate' the feel of the author into the present time....just through the writing style. Like I pick up their personality vibes. I can't quite explain it but it is like a paralell process, I almost feel the dysfunction of the Hemingway family in the air of that group. And it feels deadly to bring it up there as if no one will understand...that of course is just a feeling, a part of the whole set up. (This is a very strange phenomena that a German priest perfected into a therapy. He can see through family patterns in generations...the living people will absorb and manifest the tensions. I am amazed it happens to a degree on the net, too, not just IRL.) We become actors in old dramas.

Here Melville was writing about his whales, fed his cow in the afternoon and sailed on his remininscence of Southern seas, he had his friend Hawtorne nearby....and wrote looooong sentences not like the gun hammering short outcries of Hemingway. Even I see myself typing differently there...ugh...it's easier to deal with Ahab... I wonder why?

The evil in Hemingway is so poisoneous. Ahab was at least blunt with it. It was clear who his enemy was, what the struggle was about. With Hemingway the struggle is almost sickening. What I admire is his ability to re-in-form that what became his own death.

But I am digressing.


ziki :-)
love to you all
read on!

Message Edited by ziki on 02-21-200712:32 AM

Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: just a thought

Here Melville was writing about his whales, fed his cow in the afternoon and sailed on his remininscence of Southern seas, he had his friend Hawtorne nearby....and wrote looooong sentences not like the gun hammering short outcries of Hemingway.


A very insightful comparison ziki, thanks. Such different lives (and backgrounds) were bound to result in very different books and attitudes towards life, I suppose. Coming from a family which had five family members commit suicide over four generations must have been a tremendous mental burden for Hemingway from the outset. I feel that I would have liked to have known Melville but don't think I would have liked knowing Hemingway. Overtly masculine men and overtly masculine attitudes don't gel very well with me and I therefore find reading Hemingway difficult because I can't get a sort of John Wayne image of him out of my mind. Melville seems a lot more cuddly.:smileyhappy: There is a greater grandeur to Ahab as a protaganist too - struggling against his own nature and the forces of nature. I found that the anagnorisis passages, when he talks to Starbuck of his wife and child made me quite sympathetic towards him and I felt that Melville finally intended us to empathise with him. Hemingway's men are much more stark and it is difficult to empathise with them and therefore with him.





ziki wrote:

fanuzzir wrote:

It gets worse. Because the Indians were being killed, and the white indentured servants were getting restive, the colonial planners saw the need for a new labor force that would replace them both and give the poor whites and rich whites someone to gang up on. You guessed it: African slaves. That started in Virginia too.




Ack.

Maybe we get to it in more detail with Uncle Tom's Cabin. The scary part is the need of the scapegoat which is the essence of evil.

Gosh, it is such a relief with Moby's forum. The atmosphere on the Hemingway board is getting so tight so it can snap any time; as if one shoots what's moving. I find it very interesting how a book will 'translate' the feel of the author into the present time....just through the writing style. Like I pick up their personality vibes. I can't quite explain it but it is like a paralell process, I almost feel the dysfunction of the Hemingway family in the air of that group. And it feels deadly to bring it up there as if no one will understand...that is of course just a feeling, a part of the whole set up. (This is a very strange phenomena that a German priest perfected into a therapy. He can see through family patterns in generations...the living people will absorb and manifest the tensions. I am amazed it happens on the net toa degree, too, not just IRL.)We become actors in old dramas.

Here Melville was writing about his whales, fed his cow in the afternoon and sailed on his remininscence of Southern seas, he had his friend Hawtorne nearby....and wrote looooong sentences not like the gun hammering short outcries of Hemingway. Even I see myself typing differently there...ugh...it's easier to deal with Ahab... I wonder why?

The evil in Hemingway is so poisoneous. Ahab was at least blunt with it. It was clear who his enemy was, what the struggle was about. With Hemingway the struggle is almost sickening... what I admire is his ability to re-in-form that what was his own death.

But I am digressing.


ziki :-)
love to you all
read on!

Message Edited by ziki on 02-21-200712:28 AM




Frequent Contributor
Posts: 3,107
Registered: ‎10-27-2006
0 Kudos

male world of melville's construction

This is interesting Choisya...because Melville also presented a totally male world..but it was not hard-mute in the same way as Hemingway's men are.
Rough, demanding for sure and the harpooners were very male, strong, but appealingly so...'twas another male world compared to the Hemingway's zone.

And yet...they were also "killing" animals; Hemingway was, too. Why is that different? They had a commercial reason, he did it for sheer pleasure.

I am reading Sun Also Rises and it is about male friendship(s) (that is a bit more bearable than those in some of his short stories)....but he introduces a Jew as a scapegoat for those men.....so different from Queequeg it can be.

Glad we came to think of this...
ziki
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: male world of melville's construction

[ Edited ]
Yes, I personally see a difference between men who become strong and masculine because of the work they undertake and those who take it up almost as a hobby. I also see a big difference in hunting a whale for a living and killing, say, a bull or any other animal, for sport, and that is what Hemingway and his characters did. In some ways, that is what went wrong with Ahab, as Starbuck pointed out; he was no longer hunting the whale for a living but for sport and vengeance, and he had suborned his men to that sport so that their bravery became evil. Melville acknowledged this by killing all but Ishmael, the most gentle and thoughtful character. Hemingway's sport is always evil IMO and is part of the cult of his particular kind of masculinity, which does not attach evil to such actions. I would, for instance, attach bravery to a man who was being chased by a bull and turned to fight it so as to survive but not to one who taunted it to attack him in an enclosed ring. I would also attach bravery to a Masai warrior guarding his flock from a predating lion or hunting a large animal for food, but not to any man who was hunting purely for 'pleasure' or to test his skill or 'bravery'in order to prove his masculinity to himself or to anyone else.




ziki wrote:
This is interesting Choisya...because Melville also presented a totally male world..but it was not hard-mute in the same way as Hemingway's men are.
Rough, demanding for sure and the harpooners were very male, strong, but appealingly so...'twas another male world compared to the Hemingway's zone.

And yet...they were also "killing" animals; Hemingway was, too. Why is that different? They had a commercial reason, he did it for sheer pleasure.

I am reading Sun Also Rises and it is about male friendship(s) (that is a bit more bearable than those in some of his short stories)....but he introduces a Jew as a scapegoat for those men.....so different from Queequeg it can be.

Glad we came to think of this...
ziki

Message Edited by Choisya on 02-21-200705:41 AM

ALK
Contributor
ALK
Posts: 15
Registered: ‎01-27-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Lincoln's religion

[ Edited ]
Laurel wrote: What about Lincoln?

I am sorry to beat a dead horse, but after Fanuzzir's input on the chaos of American politics from 1848 into the Civil War and Choisya's quote about Lincoln's aggressive Infidelity (to religion; I was stymied for a moment by the image of our revered president aggressively sleeping around before I realized that the reference was to a different kind of infidelity), I think we can assume that the thesis that frontiersmen tended to be laissez fair and non-Calvinistic, therefore Democrats, and townspeople tended to be rigid and Calvinistic, therefore Republicans, still holds water. The objection that Lincoln was actually the first Republican president can easily be brushed aside by the political confusion of the time--if Lincoln had made his choice ten years later our first Republican president would have been a Democrat!

I am enjoying the discussion on what might have been but am still concentrating on Moby-Dick.

ALK

Message Edited by ALK on 02-21-200707:16 AM

Message Edited by ALK on 02-21-200707:21 AM

Frequent Contributor
Posts: 3,107
Registered: ‎10-27-2006
0 Kudos

Re: male world of melville's construction

I hear what you're saying. Killing is integral in life if done for the needs of survival. Like hunting for food. Also all of the animal was used, fur for clothes.But there's no need for fur today, nor for whale oil or as we said for whale meat. In that case the need are manufacturesd, habits inforced, desires marketed.

I am not big in biology but I think no other mammal would kill for pleasure. Animals kill what they eat. What a lion kills, another animals will finish so there is some order in nature.

With the killing that man introduces a disorder starts.

Maybe a man who is not psychologically broke/ill doesn't have the need to kill for killing's own sake. In that respect both Ahab and Hemingway were having disputable motives.

I do not know how the killing as culture (bull fights) and as a part of religious rites fits into that. I think it is already perverted, not serving the basic need.
I think both are askew. A religion (the way I see that) should confirm life, not repress it or take it.

ziki
Frequent Contributor
Posts: 3,107
Registered: ‎10-27-2006
0 Kudos

alk reading



ALK wrote:I am enjoying the discussion on what might have been but am still concentrating on Moby-Dick.




I hope your reading goes well. :-)

ziki
Frequent Contributor
fanuzzir
Posts: 1,014
Registered: ‎10-22-2006
0 Kudos

Re: male world of melville's construction



Choisya wrote:
Yes, I personally see a difference between men who become strong and masculine because of the work they undertake and those who take it up almost as a hobby. I also see a big difference in hunting a whale for a living and killing, say, a bull or any other animal, for sport, and that is what Hemingway and his characters did. In some ways, that is what went wrong with Ahab, as Starbuck pointed out; he was no longer hunting the whale for a living but for sport and vengeance, and he had suborned his men to that sport so that their bravery became evil. Melville acknowledged this by killing all but Ishmael, the most gentle and thoughtful character. Hemingway's sport is always evil IMO and is part of the cult of his particular kind of masculinity, which does not attach evil to such actions. I would, for instance, attach bravery to a man who was being chased by a bull and turned to fight it so as to survive but not to one who taunted it to attack him in an enclosed ring. I would also attach bravery to a Masai warrior guarding his flock from a predating lion or hunting a large animal for food, but not to any man who was hunting purely for 'pleasure' or to test his skill or 'bravery'in order to prove his masculinity to himself or to anyone else.




ziki wrote:
This is interesting Choisya...because Melville also presented a totally male world..but it was not hard-mute in the same way as Hemingway's men are.
Rough, demanding for sure and the harpooners were very male, strong, but appealingly so...'twas another male world compared to the Hemingway's zone.

And yet...they were also "killing" animals; Hemingway was, too. Why is that different? They had a commercial reason, he did it for sheer pleasure.

I am reading Sun Also Rises and it is about male friendship(s) (that is a bit more bearable than those in some of his short stories)....but he introduces a Jew as a scapegoat for those men.....so different from Queequeg it can be.

Glad we came to think of this...
ziki

Message Edited by Choisya on 02-21-200705:41 AM







This is such a fruitful comparison to make between Hemingway's male world and Melville's. There's definitely a physicality, an intimacy, a psychological complexity in the latter that is not there in the former. You might see some politically radical ideas of fraternity in his critique of Ahab's leadership on board. Especially if you're reading The Sun Also Rises, you see Hemingway's predatory, man against man petty battles over who has the last word with the pretty girl, etc. I think it's really worth discussing and seeing what happened to male friendship, what happened to create a new modern masculinity. Remember that Ahab's way went down with the ship, Ishmael was just trying to stay afloat, so Melville is letting us know that the ideal of masculine intimacy and fraternity, however appealing, was not destined to survive. (See Billy Budd for more on the death of male bonds).
As for the tone and atmosphere of the boards themselves, I'm not allowed to state my preferences, but I think people have done a good job not falling for Hemingway's heroism.
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: 'Masculine intimacy and fraternity'

[ Edited ]
Fanuzzir wrote:
I think it's really worth discussing and seeing what happened to male friendship, what happened to create a new modern masculinity. Remember that Ahab's way went down with the ship, Ishmael was just trying to stay afloat, so Melville is letting us know that the ideal of masculine intimacy and fraternity, however appealing, was not destined to survive.


We know from our reading of the ancients that intimate male friendship was common and was not frowned upon or treated with suspicion by society. It seems that, together with the rise of Christianity and the study of psychology, particularly the ideas of Freud re the Oedipal and Electra complexes, we have come to regard all male (or female) bonding as homosexual, if not consciously then subconsiously. Additionally, in our time, the greater tolerance of and 'coming out' of homosexual relationships seems to have made ordinary non-homosexual male friendships difficult to sustain. There is evidence that in Greek and Roman society, for instance, homosexual, homosocial and homoerotic relationships existed quite openly alongside heterosexual relationships and were without the approbation that came about with the spread of Christianity. I think it is possible the driving underground of overt male sexually driven friendship and its proscription by the Talmud/Bible/Koran etc. is what has changed and degraded homosexuality and helped to create the 'new modern masculinity'. It is as if men like Hemingway (supposedly with difficult Oedipal conflicts to resolve) had to create new 'macho' reasons for their male-on-male friendships. The idea of loving another male for their beauty, maybe for their more 'feminine qualities', their poetry etc, which was extolled by the ancients, no longer meets with society's approval so, in the 'collective unconscious', other reasons had to be found. Maybe if tolerance of homosexuality/homeroticism reaches another zenith, we may see a return of the sort of gentler 'masculine intimicacy and fraternity' which appealed to Melville and the Billy Budds of our world will no longer be crucified?




fanuzzir wrote:


Choisya wrote:
Yes, I personally see a difference between men who become strong and masculine because of the work they undertake and those who take it up almost as a hobby. I also see a big difference in hunting a whale for a living and killing, say, a bull or any other animal, for sport, and that is what Hemingway and his characters did. In some ways, that is what went wrong with Ahab, as Starbuck pointed out; he was no longer hunting the whale for a living but for sport and vengeance, and he had suborned his men to that sport so that their bravery became evil. Melville acknowledged this by killing all but Ishmael, the most gentle and thoughtful character. Hemingway's sport is always evil IMO and is part of the cult of his particular kind of masculinity, which does not attach evil to such actions. I would, for instance, attach bravery to a man who was being chased by a bull and turned to fight it so as to survive but not to one who taunted it to attack him in an enclosed ring. I would also attach bravery to a Masai warrior guarding his flock from a predating lion or hunting a large animal for food, but not to any man who was hunting purely for 'pleasure' or to test his skill or 'bravery'in order to prove his masculinity to himself or to anyone else.




ziki wrote:
This is interesting Choisya...because Melville also presented a totally male world..but it was not hard-mute in the same way as Hemingway's men are.
Rough, demanding for sure and the harpooners were very male, strong, but appealingly so...'twas another male world compared to the Hemingway's zone.

And yet...they were also "killing" animals; Hemingway was, too. Why is that different? They had a commercial reason, he did it for sheer pleasure.

I am reading Sun Also Rises and it is about male friendship(s) (that is a bit more bearable than those in some of his short stories)....but he introduces a Jew as a scapegoat for those men.....so different from Queequeg it can be.

Glad we came to think of this...
ziki

Message Edited by Choisya on 02-21-200705:41 AM







This is such a fruitful comparison to make between Hemingway's male world and Melville's. There's definitely a physicality, an intimacy, a psychological complexity in the latter that is not there in the former. You might see some politically radical ideas of fraternity in his critique of Ahab's leadership on board. Especially if you're reading The Sun Also Rises, you see Hemingway's predatory, man against man petty battles over who has the last word with the pretty girl, etc. I think it's really worth discussing and seeing what happened to male friendship, what happened to create a new modern masculinity. Remember that Ahab's way went down with the ship, Ishmael was just trying to stay afloat, so Melville is letting us know that the ideal of masculine intimacy and fraternity, however appealing, was not destined to survive. (See Billy Budd for more on the death of male bonds).
As for the tone and atmosphere of the boards themselves, I'm not allowed to state my preferences, but I think people have done a good job not falling for Hemingway's heroism.

Message Edited by Choisya on 02-22-200705:52 AM

Message Edited by Choisya on 02-22-200705:55 AM

Frequent Contributor
Posts: 3,107
Registered: ‎10-27-2006
0 Kudos

Re: male world of melville's construction

[ Edited ]

fanuzzir wrote:This is such a fruitful comparison to make between Hemingway's male world and Melville's. There's definitely a physicality, an intimacy, a psychological complexity in the latter that is not there in the former. You might see some politically radical ideas of fraternity in his critique of Ahab's leadership on board. Especially if you're reading The Sun Also Rises, you see Hemingway's predatory, man against man petty battles over who has the last word with the pretty girl, etc. I think it's really worth discussing and seeing what happened to male friendship, what happened to create a new modern masculinity. Remember that Ahab's way went down with the ship, Ishmael was just trying to stay afloat, so Melville is letting us know that the ideal of masculine intimacy and fraternity, however appealing, was not destined to survive. (See Billy Budd for more on the death of male bonds).
As for the tone and atmosphere of the boards themselves, I'm not allowed to state my preferences, but I think people have done a good job not falling for Hemingway's heroism.




Long ago the male power was defined by the struggle against the animals (nature); it was about the basics, the survival: go and bring back the bacon, put a curb on the nature (first attempts done by religion and superstition, later by technology and science). Nowadays both men and women can handle a computer so physical power (as onboard of the whaler) doesn't define men in the same way.

Hemingway inherited the same ancient approach from his father: man is defined by his dealings with nature. But with the progress of technology that picture became more hollow and man deals more often with culture, seeking adventure instead. He explores the extremes that offer a challenge.

Does a man need struggle to own his strength? Ahab had his whale, Hemingway had his war, none led to a good solution. I think that a male friendship offers a support that no woman can provide. And that frienship shouldn't need to be automatically sexualized (like with Queequeg or perhaps with Whitman).

I am mixing all cards wildly. ;-)

Both Ahab and Hemingway (what a combo, imagine Ahab visiting Hemingway on Pilar, going marlin fishing together...LOL)....OK both lived before the feminists hit the arena. Nowadays it is difficult for men to find a style that would in some way transcend the previous stages, allow them to keep their strength and sound male bonding and add also a streak of worship and service to the Whole of Life.

'Attacked' by the feminists men go undercover and form alliances that become even harder for women to penetrate. What an inversion. You hear how wrong it sounds...it is a man's nature to penetrate. Those covert alliances are just substitutes for real male frienships.

ziki
(free style diving)

PS
as to the boards, you do a great job, Bob. Busy as I suppose you are, you do us a favor by supervising this.

Message Edited by ziki on 02-22-200707:21 PM

Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: male world of melville's construction

Great thoughts ziki - thanks. I love the thought of Hemingway with Ahab:smileyhappy:

Yeds, Bob is still doing a great job here:smileyhappy:




ziki wrote:

fanuzzir wrote:This is such a fruitful comparison to make between Hemingway's male world and Melville's. There's definitely a physicality, an intimacy, a psychological complexity in the latter that is not there in the former. You might see some politically radical ideas of fraternity in his critique of Ahab's leadership on board. Especially if you're reading The Sun Also Rises, you see Hemingway's predatory, man against man petty battles over who has the last word with the pretty girl, etc. I think it's really worth discussing and seeing what happened to male friendship, what happened to create a new modern masculinity. Remember that Ahab's way went down with the ship, Ishmael was just trying to stay afloat, so Melville is letting us know that the ideal of masculine intimacy and fraternity, however appealing, was not destined to survive. (See Billy Budd for more on the death of male bonds).
As for the tone and atmosphere of the boards themselves, I'm not allowed to state my preferences, but I think people have done a good job not falling for Hemingway's heroism.




Long ago the male power was defined by the struggle against the animals (nature); it was about the basics, the survival: go and bring back the bacon, put a curb on the nature (first attempts done by religion and superstition, later by technology and science). Nowadays both men and women can handle a computer so physical power (as onboard of the whaler) doesn't define men in the same way.

Hemingway inherited the same ancient approach from his father: man is defined by his dealings with nature. But with the progress of technology that picture became more hollow and man deals more often with culture, seeking adventure instead. He explores the extremes that offer a challenge.

Does a man need struggle to own his strength? Ahab had his whale, Hemingway had his war, none led to a good solution. I think that a male friendship offers a support that no woman can provide. And that frienship shouldn't need to be automatically sexualized (like with Queequeg or perhaps with Whitman).

I am mixing all cards wildly. ;-)

Both Ahab and Hemingway (what a combo, imagine Ahab visiting Hemingway on Pilar, going marlin fishing together...LOL)....OK both lived before the feminists hit the arena. Nowadays it is difficult for men to find a style that would in some way transcend the previous stages, allow them to keep their strength and sound male bonding and add also a streak of worship and service to the Whole of Life.

'Attacked' by the feminists men go undercover and form alliances that become even harder for women to penetrate. What an inversion. You hear how wrong it sounds...it is a man's nature to penetrate. Those covert alliances are just substitutes for real male frienships.

ziki
(free style diving)

PS
as to the boards, you do a great job, Bob. Busy as I suppose you are, you do us a favor by supervising this.

Message Edited by ziki on 02-22-200707:21 PM




New User
waterwild
Posts: 1
Registered: ‎03-19-2008
0 Kudos

Re: Lincoln's religion

Lincoln's "conversion" runs a bit deeper than this. According to William H. Townsend in his book Lincoln and the Bluegrass (1955, University of Kentucky Press) Lincoln was despondent following the death of their younger son Eddie in February 1850. About a month later he and Mary visited her family in Lexington, Ky., upon the death of her beloved grandmother Eliza Parker. While browsing his deceased father-in-law's home library, Lincoln ran across a book entitled A Christian's Defense. As he read it, he began to accept the pro-Christian arguements, which ran counter to those of Constitin Volney and Thomas Paine, both of which he had read during his time in New Salem, Ill. When he looked at the name of the author, he was startled to see the name of Dr. James Smith -- the Springfield preacher who had presided at his son's funeral. Upon returning to Springfield (Mary stayed longer in Lexington), he contact Dr. Smith, obtained a personal copy of the book (long after held by Emilie Todd Helm, but now long lost), and became a lifelong pew renter at the Springfield Presbyterian Church.
 
And now you know the rest of the story.
New User
Telem
Posts: 1
Registered: ‎04-12-2008
0 Kudos

Re: Moby Dick: Dramatic Personae - Ishmael

Hello Choisya, pardon my late entry into this conversation. I was doing a google search and found your post. I am very interested in finding out that Jews, Muslims, and Christians all use the name "Ishmael" for naming babies. I have been searching for confirmation that "Ishmael" is used by Jews today. Can you tell me how you found this out, or where I could seek confirmation? I ask because we ourselves are partly Jewish, and are expecting a baby boy. We hope to name him Ishmael, but we have no wish to offend our Jewish relatives. Any help you could send my way would be very appreciated!
Users Online
Currently online: 59 members 760 guests
Please welcome our newest community members: