A review of Job

That would be a book called Job - not the one from the Bible. It is a fiction book written by an excellent writer named Robert A. Heinlein. But don't hold your breath for biblical revelations or anything...here's my wee little review:
Job: A Comedy of Justice by Robert A. Heinlein

My review

rating: 4 of 5 stars
Heinlein's take on the biblical story of Job is a little less biblically based and a lot more fantastically oriented. That said, it is quite an interesting story, with a double share of twists and turns, and throughout it all you're rather unsure exactly where Heinlein is going.

The more religious minded might be rather offended at Heinlein's theological inversion of good and bad. I think this would be a tragedy, because the wide range of religions interwoven here it seems quite obvious this is not his version of the way things might be, but just a very creative exploration of "what if...?" What if you were just an unlucky pawn in a game between two really powerful players? What if they turned out to not be the most powerful? What if they were themselves not to high on the cosmic food chain? Where would that put you?

Heinlein has never been lacking the creativity department, and in places I think he pretty much let it run wild in this book. All said, the theology is blatantly non-scriptural, and in places, anti-christian. It is quite an interesting read, just don't pick it up with the wrong expectations of what you're getting into.

View all my reviews.

Dark Knight Philosophy

After seeing "Dark Knight" - the latest of Nolan's retake of the Batman franchise - this weekend, I couldn't help but mull over some of the more philosophical issues raised. First off, it must be understood that Batman (and his enemies) are not real, and despite how much fun it is to enjoy the speculation of what he would really play out to be in real life (as Nolan has done in both Batman Begins and Dark Knight), the philosophical issues and solutions raised are only viable and relevant if, and only if, they are transferable to our non-superhero world.

That said, the first relevant point raised and dealt with in the movie is that of how far must one go to bring down the "bad guys"? In Dark Knight the issue was how far would Batman go? Would he go so far as to kill? For us, in America, the bad guys most people think of are terrorists. How far can we go? Should the line be anything short of death? or is there a different line, marking a place worse than killing which we do not want to cross? How does one know when one has become worse than one's enemies?

This is, in my mind, a very needful debate. It is an issue which should be raised continually and habitually addressed over and over again. It is not one which can be answered once and never need be addressed again.

The second philosophical point is one upon which the movie closes. The concept that sometimes lies are better for people than truth. This is a very dangerous idea - one which our politicians would most likely love for us to embrace. In a dictatorship this concept might play out more readily - the people have no say and therefore their "need to know" is greatly reduced. But in a democracy and even a republic, there is a foundational understanding that people will have at least a cursory understanding of the truth and be able to (from their understanding) derive a moral and well-conceptualized decision on what must be done. If the people are never told the truth, then how can their decisions be any good?

No, the real danger here is the concept that the truth can hurt people or destroy a "righteous" movement (as Harvey Dent represented in the movie). The reality is, though, that learning the truth is the process of cleaning out the wound. Yes, sometimes it can hurt, sometimes seemingly almost more than the initial wound, but it is a cleaning which must happen or rot will set in and even more will be damaged. And if a social or judicial movement cannot survive the fall of one of it's proponents, does it truly have any real moral foundation? or rather, if it was so weak as to fall with the destruction of said proponent's reputation, then would it really have persisted and amounted to anything even without that demise?

In the end, I find truth to be one of those lines which should never be crossed. If something is being done which no one should know about, maybe it shouldn't be done in the first place.

Readin' to my son

Here's a video my wife promised everyone (heh heh, I got it up first!!!) of me (attempting a) reading of a pretty clever little book.