Showing posts with label wholesome family values. Show all posts
Showing posts with label wholesome family values. Show all posts

Sunday, November 4, 2012

The State of the Nation: a post-Hallowe’en report


Our county has long had a “Choose Civility” campaign -- green bumper-stickers on hybrids and Volvos  as far as the eye can see.  It always struck me as lame:  anyone who would be influenced by such a genteel appeal  would already be civil to begin with;  nor can one easily picture the citizen, chin on fist and finger to lips, thinking: “Hmm … Civility … Barbarism … Civility … Barbarism … Hmm …….”
[For analysis of a similar such pitch, this one offering a choice between Civilization and Savagery, click here: http://worldofdrjustice.blogspot.com/2012/10/enthymeme-alert.html ]

However, it may have had an effect.  This Hallowe’en was the most … civil in years.
We always offer a choice of several substantial candies, but each child is siupposed to take just one.   And this year, everyone, even the teenagers, hewed to this rule.  Indeed the teens, this time, often added things like “Thank you, sir” and “Happy Hallowe’en".  (Really, I could die tonight, the nation’s future is in good hands.)
There was just one semi-exception -- and that, of the rule-proving kind. ...



A tiny boy, who had just that day turned two, borne about in his father’s arms, was experiencing his very first Hallowe’en.  He was quite excited.  I handed him a candy-bar, at which his face lit up;  and his father put it in a little bag.  But the boy, straining against restraint, his eyes as big as saucers, cantilevered forward, both chubby arms with flapping fingers  outstretched towards the brimming bowl, with its unimaginable wealth of colorful candies.  “Now now, just one,” I gently admonished;  and his father echoed this admonition.

So, what have we here:  a little greedy-guts?  Perhaps -- but this is greed -- if greed it be -- absolutely pure and unalloyed, with no invidious admixture, along the lines of “I want more than Bobby gets”  or “Having all these goodies makes me King of the Mountain.   No, it is rather that original archaic nisus that propels all creatures to avail themselves of such plenty as they might stumble upon, in a world punctuated by times of want.  Reese’s Pieces had been few and far between during the last glaciation;  and our little cavebaby or troglo-tot  understandably wished to take on provisions while they were to be had.  Nor, in such a frame of mind, would such pernickity precision arithmetic as “Just one” have any cognitive meaning, let alone moral force:  surely the tyke had already quite forgotten the piece his father had stashed in the bag.   As soon bid the bunny shun the carrot, or the babe  the breast.

We are not born civil, nor civilized, but must be patiently, persistently socialized, first by our mother and father, and later by society at large.   My bet is that this tot is well on track, to himself be making the rounds, a generation from now, with his own squirming offspring in tow -- possibly on airborne scooters, or on Mars, who knows that the future may have in store;  but some things don’t change: 
“Just one, little fellow;  just one.”

[Footnote, which it pains me to report:  Not everywhere is the picture so rosy.
Just in the next county over, as a friend tells it, the children who came to her door were mostly well-behaved, but in a couple of cases  the mom reached over and grabbed a fistful, sinking her arm in  up to the wrist.
-- Well, but then their county didn’t have a “Choose Civility” campaign.]


Sunday, July 15, 2012

On my wife reading to me


O sweet -- O best --
thine own dear voice -- -
Thou mine , thou most --
like pipes of Pan !

Pan grant when He   shape us anew
for our next life,   as forest-folk,
so may the flute-like song purl on
like brook, like breeze,    like nightingale.

Sunday, July 8, 2012

How reading Murphy can dramatically improve your sex-life --


-- by strengthening your understanding of the Sacramental Conception of Marriage;  being faithful to your spouse  follows naturally from this.

Open this door -- if you dare

 

Find out why he Doesn’t Do Divorce cases!
Hear a dramatic reading, featuring dames!
Buy the d*mn thing, for less than the price of a pizza!

[Postscript]  Weird ... this keeps happening.
We're used to seeing used books on Amazon, for like a penny -- only the shipping will set you back four bucks.  But for some reason, used -- owned, and cherished -- copies of my books, are worth more than brand-new:

In Stock.
Ships from and sold by Amazon.com. Gift-wrap available.
Want it delivered Tuesday, July 10? Order it in the next , and choose One-Day Shipping at checkout. Details
12 new from $11.01   3 used from $35.05

Seriously, dunno what’s going on with this.  Collector’s items, obviously.  And this, while as yet unsigned!   -- You want I should sign it?  You fork me a fitty-bone, I sign it!  U B A rich man, too!






Wednesday, May 30, 2012

The Overdue Notice … It Tolls for Thee


Back in my day, we were  as children  given very strict instruction in Library Etiquette.   No more would you raise your voice in that sanctum, in infantile mirth, than you would in church, or at a funeral.   Books were to be returned unharmed and on-time;  the concept of the Overdue Library Book was our first introduction to the notion of having a sin on one’s conscience.
The situation is somewhat reminiscent of that prevailing during Freudian/Victorian times, when children were subjected to overly-strict toilet-training, with odd and lasting consequences. 

In the current issue of The New Yorker,  in a typically witty review of the new movie “Moonrise Kingdom”, Anthony Lane writes, of a couple’s mad romantic encounter, before they go off on their great adventure:

Now they come face to face once more -- Sam with his canoe, gun, tent, and all-around scouting skills;  Suzy with her library books  and a cat in a basket.  [dbj: BTW, note the Harry/Hermione motif].  His most urgent concern, obviously, is the books:  “Some of these are going to be overdue.”

I totally get that.

Sunday, May 13, 2012

Happy Mothers’ Day


My bride away at work, I walked -- alas alone -- down to the lake.
Lo, many were the couples with strollers there.
So that the Grace of the day was made plain,
and as I circumambulated clockwise,
met many a mother  coming widdershins:
and did doff, and slightly bow,
uttering the blessing  appropriate to the day.

Their own babes yet too mute to voice their Ave,
‘tis meet that we as well give tongue
to the grateful reverence of this peopled planet,
that the great race of Man (fashioned by His hand)
should not dwindle and wink out.

Ave, Mater, Ave.

Sunday, January 8, 2012

What do Steamfitters Need to Read?



“Out there  it’s the 1990s, 
but in this house
it’s 1954.”
-- Tony Soprano


Joe comes home from a hard day on high steel.   “Honey I’m ho-ome!”
His adoring wife Dorla gives him a peck on the cheek.  “My big man.”  And he does feel big when she tells him that.
He flops down on the chintz chair by the fireplace, sets his hardhat on the tablestand, and scruffs Ruff right where Ruff likes it, right behind his shaggy ears.  They make a matched pair of satisfied males.  Already she has brought him his beer, which she has unnecessarily poured into an attractive glass, and a little flowered plate on which some pretzels have been artistically arranged.  She smooths her apron.  He sighs with contentment;  no further words are needed.

As he finishes the final sip of that golden beverage, he sighs, and, taking it out from the shirt pocket over his heart, fingers his proudest possession:  a Union Card.  "Solidarity forever," he murmurs.

The evening proceeds quietly.  Dorla is knitting in the wing chair with the floral pattern.   Joe has finished with the sports page and has begun his second beer (that will be the last one of the night).  The pretzels are gone and he will not refill:  for though he is agile on high steel, he is no longer so young -- the kids have grown up and gone off to college, and he has to start watching his waistline.  (It was Dorla who, gently, first pointed this out.)   He lets the newspaper drop, and begins to brood.  Something is gnawing at him.  There has got to be more to this life.

Suddenly he speaks up.  “Honey, you know what I could use ?  An exciting crackling mystery, starring a wise-cracking tough-talking two-fisted detective who, though naturally unmarried himself, being after all a detective, still deeply understands the sanctity of the family, and the paramountcy of marriage, that unbreakable sacrament.”

She smiles shyly and sets her knitting aside.  “I was wondering when you’d ask,” she murmurs, and fetches a book from the mantlepiece.

“Hmm!” says Joe approvingly, as he looks at the cover -- a view from the inside of an office, of a glass door bearing the words

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS
DISCRETION ASSURED

only since the view is from the detective’s desk (the one with the whisky bottle in the lower drawer), the writing seems reversed.  But what really sparks his attention is the title:

I DON’T DO DIVORCE CASES

“Sounds like this guy is on the up-and-up !” he exclaims. “Straight as an arrow and on the square !”
“Yes, dear,” puts in Dorla.  “He’s actually pre-Conciliar.”
Joe is puzzled.  “Pre-Conciliar ?  What’s that?”
“That’s -- that’s when we are living, right now.  A golden time.  But it won’t be around much longer.  I have a bad feeling about that… that Vatican II thing.”
Joe nods grimly.  He agrees but says nothing.  And that is the problem -- too many said nothing at the time.  And look where it got us.

But for now, all is well.  He begins to read.
And when the clock strikes bedtime, he is deep in his reading.  The rest of the beer sits untouched in the glass, and the fire has died down.
“Won’t take divorce cases,” he sighs, finally putting the book down.  “This Murphy -- he’s my kinda guy.”

Dorla snuggles up to him and their hearts beat as one.  “Here’s one marriage he’ll never have to worry about !”



[Try it out yourself -- Read it for free -- here:
http://www.linguasacrapublishing.com/justiceexcerptdivorce.html

For a customer review, try this, from a noted physicist and philanthropist:
http://www.amazon.com/I-Dont-Do-Divorce-Cases/product-reviews/0984343229/ref=sr_1_1_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1]

[Update 9 Jan 2012]   This Just In !
The intergalactic best-seller I Don't Do Divorce Cases  is evidently becoming a collector's item, with used copies going for three times the price of the book brand-new !
Check it out at Amazon:

New: $11.13
Used: $34.70

Can you imagine what an autographed copy might go for?  My pen is ready!

Monday, November 14, 2011

The Lab Specimen known as “Dr Justice”: a Darwinian dissection


To a slight extent in these pages, and more earnestly in private conversation, I have championed the Sacramental Conception of Marriage, as revealed by the Holy Mother Church.
However (science oblige)  I am quite willing to submit -- pithed-frog-fashion, splayed on a lab-bench -- to a Darwinian deconstruction:  laying bare -- let us not say the motives, since the very existence of such shadowy spiritualities are denied by the reductionists, but the:  tropisms, that motivate this belief (excuse me: this  behavior).

First, some necessary background.
There are four basic evolutionary/game-theoretic strategies for the nurture of offspring. 
(1) Both parents abandon the offspring so soon as the eggs are laid, if not before. (Insects.)
(2) Male abandons, female nurtures (up to a point). (Many mammals.)
(3) Female abandons, male nurtures.  (This one’s surprising -- sticklebacks, and seahorse, if memory serves -- anyhow look it up in Dawkins Selfish Gene, where it is all very well laid-out.)
(4) Both nurture.  (Ozzie & Harriet;  Leave it to Beaver.)

My own tropism is for (4)  -- and indeed, tropism it is, far antedating my own baptism, owing perhaps to imprinting by my own two loving parents, God bless them both.  (In this, I am much like a duck, and am happy to be so:  I love ducks.)

However! (the alert reader will surely object).   Of late, at least, Homo sapiens falls only very dubiously under (4).  In certain well-known but nameless subcultures in America  in particular, the portrait is rather (2),  and in some cases (crack moms) (1).
(Edward Wilson goes even further.  The pattern of human population growth over the past several decades  has, he says, been "more bacterial than primate".)
So let us tighten up our categories.  (4) is best exemplified, not by fallen Man, but by -- the Penguins;  in particular the emperor penguins (Aptenodytes forsteri),  of whose tender magnificence  you may read more here.

And now, my fervent adherence to (4), is nakedly revealed for what it is:  Sheer  biological  determinism.   For I am -- I confess, now and before the world -- that I am, myself, taxonomically,  a penguin.


Friday, October 14, 2011

Bulwark of Sanity: the traditional family


The latest red flag about messing with the natural process of mother and child:   
new dangers of Caesarian sections.

If humanly possible, deliver your babies and nurse them  the way Our Lady  nurtured Our Lord.

For a meditation on the traditional family, click here.

For a detective-story which turns upon the tragedy of abandoning the nurturing family, click here.

For the effects of Hardin’s Law (“You can never do just one thing”), click here.


~

Miscellaneous madness, in the absence of such sanity:

This summer a Swedish woman celebrated the 29th anniversary of her marriage to the Berlin Wall. Yes, you read that correctly. Eija-Riitta Berliner-Mauer, 54, whose surname means "Berlin Wall" in German, "wed" the concrete structure on June 17, 1979. The Swede claims she fell in love with her future "husband" when she first saw it on TV as a child.

A Tennessee pastor who allegedly helped a woman abscond to central America with her 9-year-old daughter  has been charged with aiding a kidnapping, the latest twist in a long-running custody dispute between former lesbian partners.

http://jacksonville.com/opinion/editorials/2011-11-17/story/will-there-be-others-cristian
Welcome to the world of single mothers and half-brothers.  "Cristian" in name only..

~

And here's a wholesome singalong song, suitable for children !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZtAAQUBVL4&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_6SfwsQcb0&NR=1




[Update 28 June 2015] Amid the pink explosions of celebration of paraphilia, the Sunday Review section of the New York Times  nonetheless allowed this token remaining op-ed-er to have his say:

Monday, September 26, 2011

Penguin funporn

What is it about you all?  People keep searching on the term "funporn" and somehow finding this site.  Sheesh!  That's not what we're about!  Topology, ontology, these we got!  Funporn, schmunporn, what's with that?

Still, vox populi, vox dei, so, here is some penguin funporn:


Note that all penguins in these videos  are duly married and care for their babies
Not like some folks one could mention!
See you in church.

Sunday, August 21, 2011

Sacrament

On this day,  my bride and I
celebrate thirty-five years of marriage.

Thanks be to God.

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Dr J’s Sexxx Tips !


=>  Marry in faith,
      be true to your vows,
      till death you depart.


[In accordance with FCC regulations, we offer equal time to the contrary view:
=>  The Road to Hell. ]

[Update, 10 IX 11]  People for some reason keep clicking on this; and I feel bad, since there is not much here (though what there is, is wise).  A more substantive essay on matrimony can be consulted here.]

[Update, II 12]  Oh-kay, ohh-kay.   You want dames?  We got dames:


 
 

Tuesday, July 19, 2011

Going offline for a few days


I am running off to the greenwood   with the woman I love.
Fortunately, she is my wife.

("Let's elope," I said.
 "Yes let's," said she.)

Sunday, June 26, 2011

Friday, June 24, 2011

Trinitarian Minimalism


Minimalism in living:
(Ricky Scaggs, “A Simple Life”)

Note that the Simple Life does not mean being a hermit, nor even an ascetic.
“A man and a wife and a fam-i-ly.”   Amen -- the earthly trinity.





(For more on Trinitarian Minimalism ®, the fab new insight that is sweeping the nation, click here.)
 

Monday, April 11, 2011

Unsolicited Counsel for those Contemplating Love


 There was a time, when I was adolescing, a song was popular, with this refrain:

            If you can’t be with the one you love,
            love the one you’re with.

At first hearing, this might strike you as shallow;  as word-play, epigrammatical;  there might even be a reading (horresco referens) whereby it is downright cynical.  But now at last, I understand it aright:  and it is more than just good advice:  it goes to the heart of our human situation.  And its applications are manifold -- implying,   for instance,  the parish principle of congregational organization, rather than the Country Club style.  (In Princeton, when I lived there, all the choicest citizens attended Nassau Pres;  Negroes and sinners attended a different Presbyterian church  a few blocks away.)

Let us explore the implications of this insight.


(1)   Finding Mr. Right

Trying to find Mr. Right… is a fool’s errand.   (A novelist phrased it more candidly:  Looking for Mr. Goodbar.)   As soon seek a diamond, in a field of wheat.  But the wheat itself, each ear -- the wheat is good.

            There was a woman I knew in college;  I was much taken with her loins.    I knew little of such things.  She knew a bit more.   She agreed, we’d have a fling (and we flung), but she one day mentioned -- in passing, I suppose -- that I should understand we’d never marry.   I was indeed nowhere near, as yet, being ready for any such adventure;  yet her remark astonished me.  Why not?  “Because you’re not Jewish,” she said.
            At the time (as yet unbaptized), I presumably shared, without thinking, the goodthink of  secular liberalism, which no doubt would tut-tut  such a prejudicial idea.  Oh ho ho, we’re all just one big happy family here;  let Mormon wed Zulu, let prophetess and priest be wed.   I don’t quite remember whether I did partake of this opinion, nor by which path, if so, I came gradually to abandon the idea -- so wilting is that plant, which has its roots in nothing real.   Anyhow  it rather quickly became clear, that such a criterion, while by no means a skeleton-key to life’s locks, is still a pretty sensible sort of thing to bear in mind.
            After college, she moved to Manhattan -- that citadel of the love-lorn -- and I’d see her from time to time, when I’d visit back East.   And she would update me -- resignedly, glumly -- on the detours and divagations in her search.   The latest was Allen, he’s an accountant,  and he has good points  and not-so-good points, an upside and a down;  but she was getting tired now, and thinking of finally tying the knot;  even though  she couldn’t truly say that he was “Mr. Right”  (for thus she styled the object of her quest).   -- I replied, sympathetically, and wryly/diplomatically, that I hoped he would anyhow prove  “Mr. Approximately Correct”.
            The phrase  for some reason caught her fancy;  and from then on, that was her name for him,  whenever she spoke with me:  “Mister Approx”.  (They did eventually go on to marry;  and there we must leave them, fading into the crowded canvas of all our lives.)

            Bottom line (write it for reference, on your inner arm):
            No match is made in Heaven.  Rather, it is sanctified there.


(2)  To Wed, or not to Wed:  that is the question
           
            Whoso weds, with an oath before the Lord,  is wedded indeed.
            It is not (as they say) a commitment to be undertaken lightly.   This is a thing, which would change your life forever;  you’re not just renting each other -- neither for a decade, nor for the night.

            Have a care:  I am not being romantic  or sentimental here -- almost the contrary.   Nothing is being…idealized.
            For there you both stand, with all your warts and faults.   Sir Galahad he is not;  and you are not Guinevere.
            Yet once you are wed, in the sight of the Lord:   as surely as had a statue come to life -- you are transformed,. 
            I was going to add, “like water into wine” -- only, that would be false.  Plainly, factually, both spiritually and practically false.   For wine is instantly a quite different beverage:  Whereas you and he  will both, for a time, taste pretty much the same.  You might even have your very first marital quarrel, when you are not yet quite halfway down the chapel steps.
            And that doesn’t much matter.  We fell in the Garden, and have been picking ourselves up ever since.  The change in this case  -- would we might avoid  such a big-barreled comparison, but you see, no other simile will do -- this change is comparable rather to that of the wine -- the rich red wine -- into the true and veritable blood of Jesus Christ.  Post-transubstantiation, it tastes exactly the same;  yet it is different:  inexpressibly, but in ways that matter.

            When the man who would be my father, proposed to the woman who would become my mother, he said:   I offer you my hand, but on one condition:   That you never get on to me, about my drinking.  I drink.
            And with time, it became clear, that he had been wise  to say that.  Not wise, perhaps, to continue drinking so much (well -- wise, not at all;  but perhaps justified, in that he had other dragons to go forth and conquer, at that time in his life, than John Barleycorn..)  But wise to make it plain,  that he was not signing up for a lifelong role in an Edward Albee play.
            Whether it be wise for a woman, to accept a man on these terms, I know not.   Some cases yes, some cases no, I imagine.  But if she does accept him, it had better not be with the mental reservation, that yeh, okay, she kind of plights her troth, but on the tacit understanding that she shall later be able to retract her pledge and to browbeat him into submission, break him upon the anvil of her righteousness, and bend his behavior to her will:  since after all, she is right, and he is wrong.   Not denying, she might be in the right, in some given situation;  only, there are just two good choices:  decline the offer;  or accept him with your whole heart -- and then so live and so love as to beckon the Holy Spirit into your home.  And in time,  your man will sense that presence in the room.     Then, whether with the lightest of lingering fingers, or with the brute brawn wherewith the angel wrestled Jacob,  the Spirit shall engage your husband indeed.  And it may be, later, each time the toper hoists the tankard to his lips:   behold!  the wine has turned to water in the glass.


(3)  The Adventure of Married Life

            A word chosen wisely:  adventure.   For you and he are sailing forth, upon a dark sea, beneath a brooding sky, towards horizons wherein lurk pirates.
            And no more could I advise you, concerning what you may face, let alone what to do about it, than I could tell you what to be sure to pack, when traveling to the Moon.   I barely understand my own life, let alone yours.   All that I can, is to wave from the dock, as your splendid ship sets sail.   And to wish you favorable winds -- But if that come not:   then stout hearts, and a sound compass:  each to the other  both captain and mate.   
            (And in secret, casting this gold ring into the ocean,   even now do I offer,  a prayer to Poseidon … Nay in a matter of such moment  -- may the One God forgive me -- I do offer this prayer to that old Greek seaweed-stained   god of the Sea . . . )

Thursday, February 17, 2011

Penguins & Politics


 Heartwarming:


And like the lady says, at the very end:


-- A line which, until a few years ago, would have evoked little but nods and smiles.


But now this simple fact  is everywhere under attack.  Cf., just yesterday:


The problem addressed above is but a tiny slice (and largely the result) of a more general problem:  rampant single-motherhood.   The core of who we are, as human society,  is crumbling  -- savage rats ravaging  the fragments from without.

Fortunately, most of us still believe in this, even though it becomes ever less politically correct to say so.  From this morning’s Post:


La Manif pour tous, le 13 janvier, sur le Champ-de-Mars.


This is serious, folks.   This blog was created to explore Cantorian Realism, and to show forth its ties with theism:  because that’s a little something I happen to know.  But it pales in importance  to these basic truths:

=>  Marry in faith.
=>  Nurse your babies.
=>  Stay loyal to the day you die.


[Post-script:  Plaudits to the First Lady:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/18/us/politics/18breastfeed.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=michelle%20obama&st=cse ]


[Post-postscript, as the story refuses to die:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/18/AR2011021805522.html
(The egregious Palin and Bachman  parade their pointlessness and ignorance.)
-->
It began with a modest remark during a roundtable discussion with reporters: First lady Michelle Obama said she supports making it easier for mothers to breast-feed their babies, because "kids who are breast-fed longer have a lower tendency to be obese."
Within days, the sentence - and a new Internal Revenue Service policy offering tax deductions for breast pumps - had touched off a political firestorm. Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-Minn.) blasted the Obama administration for trying to impose a "nanny state" on mothers. Another potential 2012 presidential candidate, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin, mockingly said the first lady was trying to compensate for high milk prices.


Careful readers between the lines might have gathered that I am -- when not contemplating Hilbert Space -- something of a social conservative.  But I would not vote for these Tea-Party types  if you boiled me in oil.   That they are ignorant of science is for them practically a badge;  but you'd think they'd at least get this right.]


Sunday, December 19, 2010

The Penguin Passion


Checking again the dashboard, we notice a disturbing trend.  Plenty of pageviews from most of the continents (including Africa -- from Egypt), but… none from the great state of Antarctica!   This is intolerable!!

Accordingly, we here provide a review of my favorite film.  (The reference to the “Passion” concerns the Mel Gibson film that came out around the same time -- and which I also reviewed, if anyone is interested.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

HUT two three four (the penguin "Passion")

            A very good movie has managed to make it past the Cerberus of masscult-- and this despite the added stigma of having been originally French.  In the original it was called "La marche de l'Empereur"; it now is actually better, dubbed as "March of the Penguins".  The plural is important, as is the lack of all Imperial pretension.

            Nature photography has reached such a pitch of excellence in our time, that even the odd bit stumbled across while channel-surfing may be memorable and riveting.  But Hollywood does not trust it at feature length.   One of my fondest cinematic memories from childhood is the Disney film, "The Living Desert", yet it has had few progeny.  In 1971, some fine footage of insects made it into the theatres, but under the meaningless title of "The Hellstrom Chronicles"; it was given an  overheated pseudo-sci-fi wraparound, as though the public could not be trusted to take nature plain, but it must be sugar-coated, or rather  smeared with NutraSweet.

            Nothing of the sort  mars the present offering.  Indeed it is remarkably spare in its treatment, even classical.  The focus is relentless on the central fact of survival against odds, during a frigid and exhausting trek across the ice, in a dogged attempt to obey the commandment, Be fruitful and multiply, though one perish in the attempt.  It is not a popcorn movie.  It is a good date movie, but only with someone you are serious about. There is a complete abstention from the trivializing Wild 'n' Wacky World of Animals point of view.  Once, it is true, one of the pilgrims slips and falls, eliciting a laugh from the light-minded.  But in the stark context of this forced march along this frozen Via Dolorosa, it is rather as wrenching as those stumbles that mark the Stations of the Cross.  Though the movie deals in, and does not flinch from,  birth and death and love and grief and sacrifice and even madness, it has the delicacy and dignity (sorely missed) of early Hollywood, when faced with certain things that should be known, but yet not shown.  (Sex was what one imagined might have happened between the kiss and the cigarette, never depicted but only inferred.)  And despite the ever-present menace of death, we are spared the actual sight of blood.   As in the early days of cinema, before the rot of slasher movies, a killing was the more sobering for being seen as the wrenching of a soul from its moorings, rather than a mere mashing of meat.  This restriction required of the director, and of the audience, some artful indirection.  Here  the killer is the leopard seal, sliding along morosely under the ice; and the image that sticks with you is that of a succession of penguins escaping back through the one small hole in the ice -- pop! pop! pop! pop! until one, just p- p-- ahh... only the head emerges, then he slips back forever.

Nor, despite appearances, is the film truly or fully a science film, though it is factual, even soberly so.  Except as regards the great central ritual of the pilgrimmage, the film is sparing with information.  Where exactly on the continent are they nesting?  What is known of their evolutionary history, back to a flightless state?  (And were there prehistoric penguins as big as dinosaurs?) How long do penguins live? How many are there?  Are there other species of penguin, and do they all act – do they act at all like this? What species of sea-creatures do penguins eat?   And what is that bird that eats (or means to eat; mercifully we are not shown the meal) the clueless chicks?  (The folks sitting behind us hazarded it was a "condor"; the film never mentions the word "skua" or "gull".)   The movie lacks the wide-ranging interests (and thus distractability) of the amateur naturalist, pursuing each butterfly into the bush; in its single-mindedness it is almost more like Mel Gibson, resolutely excluding most of the Gospels  so as to focus on his one big theme.

In the memorable and defining opening shot, it is not even clear that we are dealing with a nature film at all.  We first see a handful of figures at a shimmering distance, like a mirage, as though this were  not snow  but baking sands.  The species is not discernable, nor the genus, nor the phylum even; we do not know if we are dealing with humans or with the jinn. (Much indeed as the eponymous protagonists of L’île des Pingouins first presented themselves to Saint Maël (on whom be peace), who baptised them, deeming them men.)  The dark shapes resemble nothing so much as the "black moving objects" in abaya-ridden Arabia: and the long slow patient annual ritual march that follows, has echos of the Hajj.

It is indeed, finally, a nature film, but it has been flavored with some other genre, which at first I could not quite place. The knee-jerk response is "Greek tragedy", for its sobriety and its sense of implacable destiny:  but really it is far from that.   For one thing, it lacks a hero, having rather unsung several thousands of them.   And there is no tragic flaw, but a collective trial.  One point of comparison does suggest itself -- and it too is Greek.   Namely, the march of the Ten Thousand, in the Anabasis of Xenophon.  There too, their agony was over  when they at last could cry, "The sea! The sea!"

*
There is something in the plight of penguins  that turns the contemplative mind to theology.  Simultaneously dignified and risible, vertical yet chained to the earth, soldiering on in their icy exile, devoid of every luxury and of every distraction from, as it were, the eternal questions.  The cineasts who made this film  will have been familiar with that work of their countryman, Anatol France, "L'ile des pingouins" (1908), which explores this theme at book-length.  We may ask: Whence comes this resonance?

First, Antarctica is itself, almost literally a fallen world.  Time was, it floated in milder climes, where the broad sun ripened the grape and vine, and the creatures of the forest  feasted thereon. Then, like Atlantis, it sank -- or rather slipped, tectonically, winding up (in a process that took longer than that angel's fall from the heights of heaven to the depths of hell) at the -- oh, *no*, not *this*! -- South Pole.   The sense of dismay is pungently summed up by the penguin mariners of the recent animated movie "Madagascar", who after an extended catabasis to their ancestral continent, standing in the gloom with no sounds but an ill wind, at length exclaim: "This sucks!"

Further, penguins are, almost literally, fallen birds.  Fallen from the sky, where, in despite of their bird-nature, they can no longer fly.  To see them trudge clumsily, mile after mile, on their little feet (they seem to have legs no more than wings), is to sense, what is true for us also:  We are not made for this, but for a better world.  (A truth that is obscured amid the glitter and blare of the malls, but stark upon the blinding ice.) 



And yet there is something prelapsarian about the penguins, a thing that indeed tugs at us  like a magnet  the filings, we in our fallen state.  We may quote the saint:
“Habitants de cette île, quoique vous soyez de petite taille, vous semblez moins une troupe de pêcheurs ... que le sénat d’une sage république. Par votre gravité, votre silence, votre tranquille maintien, vous composez sur ce rocher sauvage  une assemblée comparable aux Pères-Conscrits de Rome…”    

Ipse dixit.   They live in a world  at poles from Eden, yet a world stripped of all temptations, devoid of all, save necessarily of Him who is never absent, silent though He may be.  – I cannot resolve the contradiction.

The penguins have had no Messiah, so far as we know; they are still, it appears, waiting.  And waiting.  And waiting.  Yet there are echoes of Christian themes.   The most poignant scene in the movie is the lament of a mother over her dead chick: a penguin Pietà.  And we get  even a glimpse  of what might possibly be meant by the strange dogma of the resurrected body, when the coffle of mortals  in their gravitational chains  at last reach, and plunge into, the aqueous element,  and -- fly, fleet and unfettered, ----- utterly transformed.

*

I am fond, despite all, of that old hoaxster of an epigram, that "the fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing".  What the epigram may mean, or what the hedgehog may know, I know not (though it is pleasant to have any occasion to be reminded of  the hedgehog, our modest and seldom-celebrated friend).   Yet having witnessed the life-cycle laid out here with such care, we are obliged indeed to affirm, that the penguin  at any rate  does know one gigantic thing, -- knows it single-mindedly to the possible exclusion of all else:  a thing as vast as the sky that overarches his little trajectory of life, a thing as wide as the ice which he must traverse with unrelieved weariness, always either starved or gorged, and as deep as the sea which renews him when it does not slay him:  and that is, fidelity.   Fidelity to the mate whom he feeds and is fed by; fidelity to the band with whom he huddles against the whipping winds, taking his turn at the periphery where there is nought to turn its lash; fidelity to the chick for whom he well may give his life, and over whom he grieves  if the cruel chill claims it.  - - And fidelity, philologers instruct us, is the etymon of faith; as it might be, the egg of it.

            St. Francis, it is said, preached to the fowl.  Had he managed to journey to that white world, he might have found a most attentive audience.




[© 2007  David B. Justice. -- article to appear in American Penguin (Oct 2036); reprinted with permission]