the reverse alchemy of reality

Books get a sense of identity from not being what people think they are. Frankenstein is a good example of this. It's ostensibly a story about a monster but I think it's really more about humanity. 

The real monster or villain in Frankenstein is neither Victor Frankenstein nor the being he creates. Through the novel’s nested narratives, the reader comes to sympathize and identify with both of the main characters. The sense conveyed is that the tragedy is not perpetrated by malevolent individuals but rather by reality itself, and the tragedy is rendered all the more profound because it seems to arise as a result of impulses and enterprises that are positive. Frankenstein desires to learn and to discover secrets that will be of great benefit to humanity. His is an intellectual quest to discover new realms of knowledge and his motivation is essentially altruistic or, at least, not malevolent. He sees himself as being on this great scientific quest right up until the moment that he creates life, and then it turns into a nightmare. 

I think one of the major issues represented in Frankenstein is the way that, fineness and goodness held in one's inner world, become monstrous and malevolent when we try to squeeze them into the 'real' world. Something happens to these ideal good things when they are realized - made real. Intelligence is an example of this. People with higher intelligence are at greater risk of suffering from mental illness, simply because there's so much going on in their mind, which in abstract and ideal terms is good, but when it comes into contact with the realities of this world, can be destructive. 

We see it in religion as well. During Jesus's life on earth, the people who were most serious about religion and righteousness were the pharisees, but they were the people who Jesus criticized and rebuked the most. He said that they were far from God. Ironically, that was because they were so serious about being close to God. They had good ideas and even good intentions, but when those ideas were translated into the real world, the result was something bad. 

more than cosmetic

Sometimes I have wondered why the Bible doesn't have pictures. The basic Bible I mean. I know that study Bibles and Bibles with extra resources have images, like maps and representations of things the Bible talks about. The basic text though, is text. Words. 

I'm glad about that. It's like that for a reason. We're meant to engage with the text as words and sentences, and that includes the whole thing. 

'The Readable Bible' tries to make reading the Bible easier (that's their claim) by reformatting the text more appropriately and adding in charts and images and maps. They say on their website: "Reading the Bible is hard. We fix that." I think that's highly problematic. First of all, difficulty is not the enemy. The Bible ought to be hard. Yes, we can use commentaries and paraphrases and teaching and diagrams and maps, etc. to help us understand the text, but interfering with the text to make it 'easier' is verging on (maybe more) blasphemy. 

Some more text from the website:

If you find the Bible hard to read, you're not alone. Many people wish they read it more often. But let's face it. With page after page of plain text, the Bible is hard to read.

Until now.

That's not a Christian view. That's saying that, while it's good to read the Bible, it's understandable if you don't, because it's hard. That's not what Christians believe. They believe that the Bible is the word of God and that it's our spiritual food - that it's the 'bread of life' that comes from heaven. That's also what the Bible teaches about itself. Reading it is not an option, it's indispensable. It's part of having a relationship with God. Also, it's not that difficult. If you can read, you can read it. Yes, as you go, you encounter difficult and challenging parts, but that's good. 

draught

I bought a secondhand copy of Blue Sisters by Coco Mellors for a couple of dollars. It's her second novel. The first was Cleopatra and Frankenstein, and the third, which comes out April, 2027, is Grenade.

Something that really impresses me is the aesthetic of these books. The covers I mean. It's one of the most effective designs I've ever seen. There's something very elegant and, at the same time, crafted and rustic about it. The second and third books, even though the colors and fonts are different, are in the same style as the first.  

substance and form

I first came across the work of Michel Foucault in a class about legal history. His subject was power, and I was really impressed by the truth of what he wrote. It was deep and profound. I can't remember the content. I just remember how compelling it was. 

clue

My overall impression of my art is that it doesn't look very good, but still, as I create it there's usually a feeling that I've captured something that I like. Occasionally, but rarely, I don't feel that, and I just put the image out there because, for better or worse, I've made it. 

I've noticed that there's a big discrepancy between what I think about the works and how they are received. Often when I think something's really good, I won't get much response, and vice versa - I won't think it's that good but people like it. 

a strange claim

In an ad for a business automation platform, the young guy in the ad says:

I literally owe everything I have to *******. If you take out *****, all of my dreams and my whole life disappears. 

The problem is that I don't even think it's possible to do anything close to that with this platform. What you can do with it is to automate tasks, more efficiently use data across different apps, and incorporate AI into processes. The only way I think it could encompass your whole life and all your goals is if it was your own business, and even then, you'd probably have other concerns and goals....like relationships and family, for example, or hobbies. Or, even if you were fully consumed with your career and your whole life was about that, a tool that is used to improve efficiency is not going to become the source of all your ambitions. You have to bring that yourself and you use tools to help you achieve them. 

from here

I was surprised to learn that, when it was a new development, impressionism was considered to be radical and transgressive. People wondered if it was even art, because it was so different from what was called art at that time. 

At first, I was surprised because, to my mind, impressionism is the epitome of fine art, but when I thought about it, it made sense. That's how art develops.