Book review: Saving the Appearances

I confess that I got nothing out of Owen Barfield's "Saving the Appearances". I read it because it was "recommended" by C S Lewis in some aside in The Discarded Image¹, and from that and the title I assumed that it was in some way about, errm, saving the appearences as the concept in antient science.

But, it isn't about that. What it is about I'm afraid I can't tell you, as it all bounced off. None of it meant anything.

In retrospect, the quote from the Church Times and OB's anthroposophy should have been a hint. OB has a knack for using words with unclear meanings in a vague way to apparently build up to something, but not actually get anywhere; and later on refers to those "conclusions" as though they meant something.

Towards the end it becomes explicitly Christian-Spiritualist, but again without saying anything that I was unable to understand - but I was skipping by the time I'd got to there. To the extent that it was C-S at the end I am, of course, uninterested in it; to the extent that (I now suspect) it was aiming at that all along; ditto. This I think tends to justify my opinion that it is valueless, to me.

Somewhere near the start is some stuff about rainbows; to quote from a 5-star review: Barfield starts with the apparently innocuous example of a rainbow. Obviously the rainbow doesn’t exist except when it is seen. The particles of water which physically exist in the air-space of a thunderstorm are not the rainbow. The rainbow is constituted by that phenomenon and the human eye and brain in concert. This is ‘Kant for dummies’, and very effective. This seems somewhat confused: the particles of water are not the rainbow; the rays of light are. These exist regardless of whether they are perceived or not. Non-concious cameras can take images of them that people recognise as rainbows, without supposing that the rainbow is "in" the images. It is possible to say that "the rainbow" - perhaps in the sense of "oh-it-is-beautiful, and regarded as a sign from god" - only exists in human perception; but when defined in that way it is empty of content: you have made your definition to get the answer you want. Whether OB regards the ordinary physical universe as independent of perception is unclear, again undermining his work.

To take another work which this vaguely reminds me of: Why Materialism is Baloney is without doubt Woo; but at least it is honestly and clearly so, and indeed does its best to explain what it is trying to say.

Notes

1. Ah yes, see pix here; or as text:

This would, I believe, be recognised by all thoughtful scientists today. It was recognised by Newton if, as I am told, he wrote not 'the attraction varies inversely as the square of the distance', but 'all happens as if' it so varied. It was certainly recognised in the Middle Ages. 'In astronomy', says Aquinas, 'an account is given of eccentrics and epicycles on the ground that if their assumption is made (hac positione facta) the sensible appearances as regards celestial motions can be saved. But this is not a strict proof (sufficienter probans) since for all we know (forte) they could also be saved by some different assumption.'1 The real reason why Copernicus raised no ripple and Galileo raised a storm, may well be that whereas the one offered a new supposal about celestial motions, the other insisted on treating this supposal as fact. If so, the real revolution consisted not in a new theory of the heavens but in 'a new theory of the nature of theory'.2

On the highest level, then, the Model was recognised as provisional. What we should like to know is how far down the intellectual scale this cautious view extended.

1. 1ª XXXII, Art. 1, ad secundum. 

2. A. O. Barfield, Saving the Appearances (1957), p. 51.

Book review: Glory Road

Another Heinlein. In some ways reminiscent of Starships Troopers, in that it is an adventure story combined with somewhat heavy-handed philosophising. I have fond memories of this from my childhood, but I was probably about 14 then and I fear it has not aged well. The story remains decent, although really rather brief; without the padding it would be a novella, and perhaps all the better for it. Indeed, whilst I'd remembered a few bits, I'd quite forgotten just how brief it is. I won't trouble to summarise the plot; doubtless as usual Goodreads will do that.

To digress on the cover, which is the one I remember: the heroine is, errm, striking, and is much as the book describes her, except it still makes her face a bit weird; the slain dinosaur as backdrop and dwarf elegantly proffering a glass as refreshment are all fitting. The backdrop should not be level desert, but it emphasises the foreground so meh.

I realised after a bit that the tone grated, in a way that ST doesn't. The hero speaks directly to the reader, just as in ST, but badly. I now discover that GR was his first fantasy novel, but actually post-dates ST. Somehow the fake-chumminess is too condescending; the lead-like prose doesn't help. Perhaps this review's "Alas, "Glory Road" is a preview of the old, pervy and insane Heinlein to come" is correct; I recall eventually abandoning him in disgust; perhaps stick to the early stuff.

Igli: the book is fantasy but it is fantasy-with-pretence-of-science, i.e. what happens is supposed to be high-enough-tech-looks-like-magic. That explains away most things, but it doesn't explain Igli disappearing down his own throat. The book kinda realises this because Our Hero asks Our Heroine for an explanation, which she deflects with various unsatisfactory words which somehow placate Our Hero.

The Egg: the object of the Quest. Nowadays, this would be desperately dull, because it would just be backed up. I thought I'd throw that in.

And finally, the philosophy: I'll skip the bits about personal conduct, because I think that is just RAH's wish-fulfilment. But what about govt? It turns out that the ideal govt system is to give one individual ultimate power. This we will instantly recognise as Plato's failed philosopher-king junk again, everyone's favourite answer, and a step backwards from what he propsed in ST: a sign I think of an old man growing impatient with how-to-fix-the-world. He attempts to save himself by making it clear that the individual's power is freely granted; if this was entirely so it would be a good defence; but it is unlikely that the people or peoples that are ordered killed really consented to their own deaths; this point is not explored in depth. I'm more sympathetic to his suggestion that most problems should be left alone.

He does get some points for what everyone mentions: not ending the book with the successful culmination of the Quest, but with Our Hero struggling to find some meaning in life afterwards. Unfortunately he can't find any answer other than go-on-another-quest.

And: the book veers off towards comedy-of-manners, criticising various aspects of society. Most of which fails badly. For example, Earth turns out to be the only planet with prostitution. WTF? (Errm...). For something that occurs in practically every independent society on Earth, this seems wildly implausible. And this isn't because females are chaste, no, it is because they have a much more sensible attitude to sex, see above re lustful old men.

I feel like mentioning The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoag, which I also read young and was very impressed by; and re-read recently and still like. That gets bonus points for weirdness, though it loses a little for the hero and heroine being too typical-RAH.

Book review: The Alchemaster's Apprentice

During our recent trip to London I visited Foyle's and bought a copy of The Alchemaster's Apprentice by

Walter "Captain Bluebear" Moers. I haven't read Capt BB, though both D and E had; and I now have their copy to read at some point.

But what of tAA, I hear you cry? Well, its OK. I'm sorry not to be more enthusiastic; it is nicely filled with whimsy whilst somewhat dark; the trouble is that the whimsy is just a bit too forced, somehow. I enjoyed reading it though. I think that's all I have to say.

Peaks: Stanage and Birchens

(this post written in arrears; but sadly it now looks like visits to the Peaks will be few enough that each one can be blogged). 

GPS: Stanage; Birchens. Flickr pix. I've largely forgotten what we did (Strava notes for Birchens say "The start to Half Nelson repulsed E and I but D made it (top rope). Blind Eye is entertaining to exit the hole"), but here's a pic at Birchens (note the monument) for variety. We look like some 70's prog-rock band.

Book review: The Green Odyssey

The Green Odyssey by Philip José Farmer was, according to wiki, Farmer's first book-length publication. I "know" Farmer mostly through the Riverworld series, which I enjoyed countless years ago, and a vaguely-remembered... The Stone God Awakens; oh, and of course some of the The Maker of Universes stuff.

Anyway, it is all good clean fun - unlike, apparently, some of his other stuff - in what someone better educated might call a picaresque fashion.

It is perhaps notable for having a rather implausible-looking cover that turns out to be quite well related to the actual story.

See-also: Scifi and Fantasy reviews.

Book review: Star King

This is early Jack Vance. Goodreads as usual gives you a range of opinions. I say it is fluff; Vance hasn't really found his voice but is turning out pulp. I would give it only a few stars; this isn't vintage stuff; it is going back to Oxfam. "Twice winner of the Hugo award" but not for this - for The Dragon Masters and, somewhat surprisingly, The Last Castle.

The story is a kinda detective story, and kinda scene-setting for the series; indeed this is kinda the same scene - various planets, and Old Earth - that most of his scifi is based on. Various implausibilities in the plot need not detain us. On the detective front, I kinda wanted PA to turn out to be the villain, but no such luck

There are some not-so-subtle jokes in the names-of-authors of the various in-universe quotes: one Frerb Hankbert, on p 64; and Jan Holberk Vaenz heads chapter 6. I kept feeling that "Pallis Atwrode" ought to be an anagram; "allowed rapist" fits but is a bit meh; ditto one for Attel Malagate.

Cezanne: a trip to London

At Miriam's initiative, we had tickets to the Cezanne exhibition at the Tate. At my suggestion we stayed over Saturday night to have a more relaxed time.

I went down somewhat earlier, to the BM, and then down to Hammersmith to watch WeHoRR; met M at the hotel; we had an evening meal and so to bed. Next morning b'fast and a walk to th Tate via the nearby St Paul's. Pix here. Then M, somewhat tired, home; me back to BM, then Foyle's, then home.

Overall: a good thing to do. We should do similar more often.

Of the Cezannes

My picture I include somewhat maliciously, as it is anomalous in his work: about the only one with strong colours. Most of the rest give out a pale pastelish aura. In general, I have no great objections to his work, but I don't particularly like it. I find more interest in detail; see perhaps the pix from the BM.

There is a room full of still life; apparently, he spent quite some time re-painting much the same scene with apples. That seems a bit odd, and indeed the exhibition itself doesn't seem quite sure why he did this. Lack of inspiration? Any old stuff would sell? Who knows. My pet theory is that he didn't know how his art worked, and was trying to find out. You don't know how language works; one way to investigate is to try to talk about the same thing, with slight variations. He didn't know quite how, once he'd finished a painting, he'd decided to do it. So he did it again. Anyway, here's one; click for more.

Somewhat curiously, I now find that I like my photo better than I liked the real thing. The original is perhaps 5' across.

Another suggestion: sometime, it looks like he is trying to paint "what is really there" rather than painting what has been processed through his brain: so, painting areas of colour, rather than delineated steps that his mind has abstracted from the stream of incoming photons. The trouble is that though this may be intellectually interesting, mostly to him, it doesn't - IMO - make for good pictures. Unlike, sometimes, Klimt.

One more point: he was trying to do new things. That is always much harder than it seems, once those things are done. So he gets points for that, and it increases the intellectual pleasure of looking at the pix. Incidentally, it is interesting that he kept the same ginger jar, and the same cheap table, all through his career.

Of the BM

I like the BM. Here is a thing I like in it.

The Assyrian stuff may be my favourites. I like gazing at these weird muscular beasts and men, unfathomably alien across the gulf of three thousand years. What were they thinking? I will never know. But I feel that they cared deeply about what they were making.

Of the WeHoRR

I went down to Hammersmith somewhat against my will - for one thing it is a two-hour walk so I didn't, instead I took the tube. Hammersmith bridge is semi-closed for repairs: no road traffic. Absurdly, they restrict pedestrian numbers, with officious idiots with an unenviable job whose pointlessness makes them unhappy. But that only kicked in around boat 180. Pix are on Flickr. Chesterton were number 98 (why were they that high?) and looked decent.

Although grey and cold it was worth doing: after the interest of the first, say, thirty fast crews there was a sprinkling of crews I knew (us; Tabs; Nines; Champs) or had some interest in (SEH; other Oxford or Cambridge colleges).

After, I walked back - finding Jonathon Pilgrim on the bank, waiting for his Izzy in Tabs F or G - for quite a way, since it turns out there is a vast desert in tube stations around there, until you get to Sloane Square.

Of London

It was a cold grey weekend and didn't encourage being outside. But here is a picture from around the Tate towards the City.

It looks kinda vaguely weirdly futuristic; a strange mash-up; as though an alien spaceship had landed in an old city.

Of St Paul's

A disappointment, frankly. The outside is quite plain, and the building itself unprepossessing, apart from the dome. Viewed from a distance this is fine; from closer, it is perhaps unbalanced. But I was looking forwards to the inside... but you're only allowed into the first quarter. There is, as far as I can see, no explanation of this posted inside. The website, now I look, implies that you can visit... except on Sundays. They also forbid photography, perhaps also only on Sundays. Well, maybe I'll got back some other day some other time.

Of the hotel: Club Quarters

It was OK; perhaps even decent. But I think I should have spent a little more. So it was decent; I am not complaining; well above my usual Iffley Tree Hotel standard. But... the windows didn't quite properly close, so letting in some traffic noise (although also the bells of St Paul's, of which we had a side-view; it was very close); the walls were a little thin; and the breakfast, whilst acceptable, was uninspired. Our evening meal at the semi-attached Cote Brasserie was also decent.  Maybe try the Leornardo next time, if in that area.