Good Questions

Irene and I were talking about the Odyssey last night while making dinner, and Irene asked a very good question. I was kind of blathering on, and I happened to mention the most heralded events in the epic--Odysseus' encounters with the Lotus-Eaters, Cyclops, Circe, Sirens, as well as Scylla & Charibdis--are not told as they happen, but narrated by Odysseus to the Phoenicians only the night before his return to Ithaca. Which seemed interesting to me, but Irene asked (and rightfully so): So what?

Sadly, I didn't have any insightful replies on hand and, even after reflection, I can't come up with a convincing reason this structure would effect the story itself. It's true that Odysseus is a man of "twists and turns" and so throughout the epic tailors his story to his audiences--but it's difficult to believe that Homer would have Odysseus incorrectly recount this section, this section that details the harrowing nature of his journey, and so constitutes the heart of the story.

What makes it interesting to me is that prior to telling the Phoenicians of his trials and travails Odysseus is moved to tears by a famous Phoenician bard who sings of the fall of Troy. Odysseus compliments the bard profusely ... and then launches into his own story. It seems to me that by having Odysseus praise the Phoenician bard, and by having Odysseus' become a bard himself by retelling his legendary journey, Homer has reserved a special place for bards the world over. Historical context makes this easier to understand: Not only would Homer have told the Iliad and the Odyssey orally, he would have known that the only other way they would be spread is by other bards.

So one reason for this structure, among many others I'm sure, is self-propagation (with perhaps a touch of egoism). Tell them to hold the press at the New Yorker (with their indecipherable cartoons), I've got their next front page story right here.

The Economist

A few weeks ago I forwarded you an article in Foreign Affairs about corporate social responsibility--as it turns out, the Economist has picked up the thread, and has a 14-page spread in this week's edition. If you've only got time for one article, the lead story is here. Generally, the piece appears to be an attempt to temper optimism about the impact businesses can have, and should have, in facing down global problems. Whether the Economist, which is famed for its impartiality and level-headedness, is right to reign in expectations I'll leave to your consideration.

Admittedly, the Economist has never been one of my preferred publications. It's expensive, for one thing, and its focus on business issues takes a toll on readability. The analysis of social issues is commendably even-handed, and often quite insightful--but usually all too brief (few articles run for more than two pages). Even masterly written articles can only cover so much with such little ink.

Worse, I find myself skeptical of the magazine's readership. The content of the Economist is simply too specialized for general consumption, but its reputation as the magazine for the cosmopolitan and business-savvy make it an appealing subscription for the affectatious.

For what it's worth, I'm sure that among those who actually need it the Economist is simply indispensable.

And that's my gripe about the Economist. Let me know if you agree, and/or if the article's helpful.

Belated Thanks

I wanted to thank you for my Christmas presents. I've put both the Henckels knives and Emeril pots and pans to good use, and with little delay. In particular, this little guy has been invaluable:
From cutting potatoes to onions to soy meats to opening packages, I've found no other knife that is its equal. Good for everything.

I've put it to work tonight cooking some Miso Soup. I'll let you know how it turns out.

I also have an excellent recipes for Vegetarian Moussaka--but I'll save that to make the next time I come home.

Happy MLK (Jr.) Day!

I know, I know. The actual day of celebration is tomorrow. But, Irene gave the sermon at her church today and the theme (complete with jazz band!) was MLK. And it was a very good sermon.
I'd attempt to summarize, but I wouldn't do it justice.

I was also happy to hear that you managed to rent out the Asheville place...though it is a bit unfortunate that it happened when you were intending to stay there! Was it the fault of the realty? I think you mentioned over the phone that you had to move places several times. Sounds taxing. Hopefully you still enjoyed the weekend.

Official GRE Scores

I received my finalized, official GRE scores in the mail yesterday. As I mentioned before, my verbal was significantly higher than my math. What I hadn't realized was that, apparently, the opposite is true for most test takers so in terms of how I did percentage-wise the difference is even more exaggerated.

Effectively, it's two A's (verbal and essay) and a F (math).

Aren't either of you good at math? How did I end up so bad at math?

Mother Amy

So why is it that Uncle's are always referred to by their connection and their name (e.g. Uncle Chris)? Why no Father Chris or Gramps Roger? Maybe I heard some Granna Linda's, but that's it. Not that I'm complaining about being remembered, or anything, but seriously.

It's always Uncle Joe, or Uncle Scott, or Uncle Something-or-Another. What is it about Uncle's that requires an extra level of categorization?

Pictures of the New Place

Alright, alright. The post below was a bit heavy. How about this? I finally got around to taking and posting a few pictures of my new place in Boston (Somerville, actually). Take a look.


Why don't you come up and see (it) sometime?