Thisby Thestoop and the Black Mountain

It’s fair to say that I read a good number of books children’s books. Having kids of my own, I like to pilfer their shelves from time to time. In our house, we like to stock “the classics” as a sort of quality guarantee. Since children’s books became a genre there have been writers who have tried to cash in on the children’s market as a way to make a quick buck with little effort. Reading “the classics” means that you get the best books from every era without having to wade through the formulaic twaddle, most of which has mercifully been forgotten over the years.
It’s a different story with modern children’s books. Picking up a new children’s book means taking a chance on wasting your time, and the modern children’s book publishing machine loves tried and true formulas. After the success of Harry Potter we got books about schools for magical/mythological/specially talented kids who are sorted into groups based on their personalities. After The Hunger Games took off, we’ve have had m…

Stars and Angels

I'm listening to a Portable Professor lecture series entitled "What Would Socrates Do? The History of Moral Thought and Ethics" by Peter Kreeft. I liked this quote, though it has nothing to do with ethics. It reminds me of a discussion at a men's meeting a couple of years ago.

You’re certain that a square can’t be a circle because you understand the essence of a square and the essence of a circle. But you’re probably not absolutely certain that a quasar can’t be an angel because you don’t fully understand the essence of the quasar or an angel.

Comments