I just started reading a book called The Elegant Witch, found in a used bookstore under the banner “Nostalgia.” It's a hardback, first published in 1952, and I was attracted to its glossy, finely illustrated book jacket and the lovely typography inside—something I've come to appreciate as a graphic artist who was trained just as phototypesetting started giving way to digital—a much visually inferior experience.
I've been casually researching the American Revolution and history of the Constitution, mostly to figure out what my own perspective on all of that is--since it's obvious from my ideological surroundings that I am expected to have exactly one. Along the way, to lighten the load of "The Federalist Papers," I picked up a copy of "Johnny Tremain," the children's book by Esther Forbes, which is set in the early days of the Revolution, in Boston.
Which then led to me picking up another book by Forbes, for adults, that had won her the Pulitzer Prize back in 1943: "Paul Revere and the World He Lived In." The book was transporting--and not just because it portrayed this bygone era so vividly. It was transporting because it did not try to impose a modern perspective *on* that era. The perspective, I sensed, was always Forbes' own. There was no attempt being made to impress a scholarly collective by matching their intellectual 'dance moves' step by step--not even one from 1943! There was only Forbes, who had researched the hell out of this period, and had a thing or two to say about it.
Point being, it's one of the most memorable things I've read in years, and I found it by wandering around. It's also utterly unmoored from this insistent era, in every possible way. A welcome reminder that the world we're currently occupying, which seems to scream "it will always be this way" louder than any other possibly could, will one day be accessible only through books like these.
I think the book isn't more widely known because its title gets more boring with every passing year, LOL. But it's a terrific deep dive, so much interesting information about the culture of Boston. It made modern Boston seem downright boring, which is saying something.
Incidentally, Esther Forbes also wrote a book called "A Mirror for Witches" that I have to get my hands on and that I thought I should mention here. Plot description from Thriftbooks: "A novel written in the 1920s and set in the Salem witch-hunting days. A young girl is convinced by the spirit of the times that the accusation against her of witchcraft is true." This may be the first book written in the 20s about the 1600s that still feels "too soon."
If I went back to school it would be for Poli Sci so I could figure out what everyone making laws actually thinks they are doing, theoretically anyway. So yes, I'd be going for spite.
A theme of my book is that I come to be seen as a witch of sorts, and that maybe that isn't entirely unfounded. So now I need to check out "A Mirror for Witches" too!
Speaking of books ...🙂, your recent one in particular, I read through an excerpt of it over at Broadview, and thought to comment briefly here on it.
One thing -- of several things -- that leaped out at me was your "But set theory is probably the wrong framework for this discussion." Which seems obliquely related to your post "On forgiveness" in which you say, "... plain language. At a time in which the definition of basic terms (such as “woman”) are in dispute ...." In passing, transgenderism seems a rather bizarre phenomenon in many ways, and Jamie's "evil intent" may possibly be typical of those whose delusions are not endorsed by their "audience".
In any case, speaking more to your "set theory", you may have some interest in my post on the question of, "What is a woman?" in which I attempt to answer it by using some basic principles of categories and categorization. Unfortunately, such "plain language" tends to be somewhat "unpopular" since it really doesn't comport well with the illusions of many -- both women and transwomen -- by which there is some "mythic and immutable essence" to the category:
I've been casually researching the American Revolution and history of the Constitution, mostly to figure out what my own perspective on all of that is--since it's obvious from my ideological surroundings that I am expected to have exactly one. Along the way, to lighten the load of "The Federalist Papers," I picked up a copy of "Johnny Tremain," the children's book by Esther Forbes, which is set in the early days of the Revolution, in Boston.
Which then led to me picking up another book by Forbes, for adults, that had won her the Pulitzer Prize back in 1943: "Paul Revere and the World He Lived In." The book was transporting--and not just because it portrayed this bygone era so vividly. It was transporting because it did not try to impose a modern perspective *on* that era. The perspective, I sensed, was always Forbes' own. There was no attempt being made to impress a scholarly collective by matching their intellectual 'dance moves' step by step--not even one from 1943! There was only Forbes, who had researched the hell out of this period, and had a thing or two to say about it.
Point being, it's one of the most memorable things I've read in years, and I found it by wandering around. It's also utterly unmoored from this insistent era, in every possible way. A welcome reminder that the world we're currently occupying, which seems to scream "it will always be this way" louder than any other possibly could, will one day be accessible only through books like these.
Now I kind of want to read "Paul Revere and the World He Lived In." I see it on Amazon.
I collect random college degrees, and lately I've daydreamed of returning to school for history or art history.
I think the book isn't more widely known because its title gets more boring with every passing year, LOL. But it's a terrific deep dive, so much interesting information about the culture of Boston. It made modern Boston seem downright boring, which is saying something.
Incidentally, Esther Forbes also wrote a book called "A Mirror for Witches" that I have to get my hands on and that I thought I should mention here. Plot description from Thriftbooks: "A novel written in the 1920s and set in the Salem witch-hunting days. A young girl is convinced by the spirit of the times that the accusation against her of witchcraft is true." This may be the first book written in the 20s about the 1600s that still feels "too soon."
If I went back to school it would be for Poli Sci so I could figure out what everyone making laws actually thinks they are doing, theoretically anyway. So yes, I'd be going for spite.
A theme of my book is that I come to be seen as a witch of sorts, and that maybe that isn't entirely unfounded. So now I need to check out "A Mirror for Witches" too!
Speaking of books ...🙂, your recent one in particular, I read through an excerpt of it over at Broadview, and thought to comment briefly here on it.
One thing -- of several things -- that leaped out at me was your "But set theory is probably the wrong framework for this discussion." Which seems obliquely related to your post "On forgiveness" in which you say, "... plain language. At a time in which the definition of basic terms (such as “woman”) are in dispute ...." In passing, transgenderism seems a rather bizarre phenomenon in many ways, and Jamie's "evil intent" may possibly be typical of those whose delusions are not endorsed by their "audience".
In any case, speaking more to your "set theory", you may have some interest in my post on the question of, "What is a woman?" in which I attempt to answer it by using some basic principles of categories and categorization. Unfortunately, such "plain language" tends to be somewhat "unpopular" since it really doesn't comport well with the illusions of many -- both women and transwomen -- by which there is some "mythic and immutable essence" to the category:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/what-is-a-woman