EngineeredTheology

I love reading the classics. They are always surprises because I expect them to be good, but I really have no idea what they are about. More often than not I’ve been pleasantly surprised, and I’m coming to find that Steinbeck is one of my favorite authors.

I started writing a summary, but the book doesn’t lend its self very well to summarizing. I feel like there is something profound behind the narrative that I’m just missing. Maybe the contrast of loneliness vs. community, but still how caring for others can leave you alone. How dreams (just like the mice and puppies) can be so easily killed when the only intention you had was love.

I will admit that this book was not what I was expecting to receive when I put it on the amazon wish list. The words are few (following a Mark Twain saying that if he’d had more time he would have said less), but poignant. The art of each page contributes as much as the words – I’ve never read a book like that.

He talks about a guitar he owns, and plays well. His friend really knows how to play. While Rob owns the guitar, his friend possesses it. Funny how we can have nothing, but possess everything. Maybe this is the heart of Christianity.

The book talks about suffering. That suffering cuts through what is unimportant and leads us to what is real. So much of modern life is filled with the unimportant, and we are left bored. Suffering cuts through that and leaves us to face the substance of life. It also connects us to the people who have suffered the same things. This is the importance of having a God who has suffered with us.

as an end note: I will admit my engineering tendencies. The last few pages are some great pictures showing some of the beauty that can be found even in destruction. I couldn’t help noticing the ice crystals on the shattered flowers thinking that they must have frozen them in liquid nitrogen in order to have them shatter. My next though is what else I could get to break in interesting ways if I supercooled them. I think I might have missed the point.

I enjoy books like this because they are written indirectly. There is a point to the book, but it is difficult to sum up. If you learn something, it is inductive. The story builds, but not in any sort of linear way. At the end of the book, I really enjoyed it – but can’t put a finger on exactly what it is. What it allows is to have two people read it, feel like they got the point of the book, and totally disagree on what the point was.

What spoke to me in the book is what makes life worth living. The moments we remember in our lives are not those endless days watching tv. What is memorable are those times when we stick our necks out. The times when we take a chance and give it everything we got.

He tells a story about a family who lived in a multimillion-dollar mansion, but their marriage was falling apart and affecting the kids. The family signed up for an adventure to build a cabin in rural Montana and live off the land (with no experience in farming). The family spent all day just to make three simple meals. Without all the modern convinces, the family bonded. A year after the family went back to their old life, the teenage daughter was interviewed. She said she wished she could go back to Montana where everything was easier. (188)

In short, the book is about living a better story.

Right now, the book is a great reminder of why we are here in France. The days are tough and more often frustrating than not. There are moments of greatness, of once in a lifetime opportunities. These are the times when our family is really building and connecting and I wouldn’t trade it for anything in the world. I need these times of reflection to step back into the bigger picture. I think those times you remember back in your life are often the times you were having the most difficulty. The times you are glad you went through are the times you wish you weren’t going through. It is those times that you get molded into someone different, and find yourself in a better story than the one you were living.

You don’t know a story is happening to you when you’re in it. You slide into the flow of it like a current in the ocean; you look back at the beach and can’t see your umbrella, and you hotel is a quarter mile behind you. (111)

I’ve had a lot of people ask me what I thought of the book, and I always say the same thing – disappointed. This has been an influential book in favor of capitalism throughout the years, and I was expecting a more persuasive argument.

The story is a good one, and the characters well written. In terms of literature, it was a very good book to read. My two main complaints were 1) length – it did not need to be this long because 2) the characters go on these multiple page speeches about whatever topic is at hand (the longest is well over 40 pages in the book I read). I will admit that a few times I just skipped to the end. The 1000+ page book could have easily been reduced by half without loosing anything.

As for a major contributor to free market ideals, I was surprised at how weak the argument was. In short, the story is a portrayal of what would happen to the world if we operated entirely based on a person’s need and equality (socialism) instead of their ability (capitalism). The argument is that the only way to get more in this type of society is to be less an less responsible (the only way to succeed is to be completely incompetent). There is no incentive to pursue excellence. The argument is that one persons greed actually brings the standard of living up for everyone. Each person should only look out for themselves, and do what is in their own best interests.

The logic follows is that if you want more money, you need to earn it. In order to earn it, you need to provide people with a good or service that is better than what they can currently get. This fuels innovation, gets better products to market, which actually benefits everyone. Where the story breaks down is that this idealism only works so far. Even in the book, situations arise that actions for the social good must be performed, even if it is not the most financially beneficial for the person performing it (there is worldwide hunger and crops were going to perish. The railroad dropped its current inventory to pick up the crops without regard to if the crops would bring the most money, but if they didn’t then people would starve).

The characters are interesting shades of autism. The socialist majority have sense on how their actions are contributing to societal collapse. They can draw no cause and effect relationships. The capitalist minority have no capability to see through the eyes of someone else. They have no ability to understand any motives that are not their own. In trying to make a stark contrast between the two characters, both the heroes and villain are dysfunctional and could easily be diagnosed with mental disorders.