TV Review: Rebecca (1997)

Rebecca (1997) directed by Jim O'Brien

In this Masterpiece Theater adaptation of Daphne Du Maurier's novel, a young woman (Emilia Fox) is vacationing in Monte Carlo with an older woman Mrs. Van Hopper (Faye Dunaway) when the two meet Maxim de Winter (Charles Dance). Max is a recently widowered British aristocrat who is a bit aloof and not at all interested in Van Hopper. He spends a lot of time with the young woman, eventually proposing to her. She agrees, they spend more time traveling Europe, then the couple returns to Max's home, a seaside estate called Manderley. The estate has an extensive staff headed by Mrs. Danvers (Diana Rigg), a cold and calculating housekeeper who is clearly still enamored with Rebecca, Max's first wife. Max also is not quite over his dead wife. Rebecca seems to haunt the house--a lot of her stuff is still there, the whole west wing is closed off (that's where she lived), and the servants are constantly mentioning Rebecca's habits and how wonderful she was. So the young Mrs. de Winter (she's half Max's age) has a hard time adapting to her new life and home.

The production is fairly lavish. The period costumes and the estate evoke the older times. The actors perform well. Max tries to be even-keeled but his temper often gets the better of him. The difficult relationships are compelling with the young Mrs. de Winter struggling to assert herself, fighting her own personality and the shadow of Rebecca. Rebecca herself appears in flashbacks but the viewer never sees her whole face, just close ups of her mouth or eyes, emphasizing the disruptive influence she has. The human drama is good, it's no wonder that the book has been remade several times. 

Recommended--it's not as gothic as the Alfred Hitchcock version but still does a good job.

Book Review: The Age of Illumination by Scott Rank

The Age of Illumination: Science, Technology, and Reason in the Middle Ages by Scott Rank

In The Age of Illumination, Scott Rank overturns some common misconceptions about the Middle Ages, the period of history circa 500 to 1500 AD. Many historians characterize this time as an age of superstition, ignorance, and disease. It's as if there was a cultural and intellectual black hole between the fall of the Roman Empire (end of the Classical Age) and the Renaissance (beginning of the Modern Age). The Renaissance was a return to classical ideas of the ancient Romans and Greeks as if no progress happened in between. Rank sets the record straight by looking at the history and culture of the Middle Ages.

Waves of barbarian attacks caused the collapse of the Western Roman Empire (centered in Rome) but not of the Eastern Roman Empire (centered in Constantinople). The empire had been divided earlier in an attempt to make it more manageable. The theological and cultural differences of the Latin West and the Greek East became a political divide. Even with the fall of ancient Rome, it wasn't long before others tried to reunite the European landscape under one rule, eventually becoming the Holy Roman Empire. A complicated relationship grew between the Catholic Church and the emperors. National identities began to emerge as England and France became rivals, Spain began a long fight to throw off Muslim control, and Eastern Europe faced the growing threat of the Ottoman Empire. 

The Crusades began and ended during this period. Initially, they were an attempt to secure the Holy Land in Israel for Christian pilgrims. As with any large-scale, multi-generational effort, the situation became very complicated and had lots of unintended results. When the Holy Land was secured, the Knights Templar were formed to keep the area safe for travelers. The Knights turned into an international corporation, with Knights in Europe taking deposits from pilgrims (so they didn't have to carry much wealth and thus were less of a target for brigands). The deposits would be paid back in Jerusalem. The Knights became very powerful and were somewhat secretive, leading to their disbanding by jealous and suspicious opponents. The Church, often with ecclesial approval, sold indulgences to finance some of the Crusades, a practice that was corrupt and in part led to the Protestant Reformation. The Reformation became a practical end to the Crusades as Christian infighting arose in Europe.

The culture of the Middle Ages was highly intellectual and creative. During this period, the university system began and all fields of knowledge were encouraged. The feudal system started with serfs who worked lands for vassals and lords who provided military service to the king. Though the life was difficult, it also included a lot more leisure time than we have today. Holy days were feast days in a literal sense--everyone feasted and celebrated, often for more than one day. The calendar was full of holidays (the very word is derived from Holy Days) and work for serfs was periodic, with intense periods planting and harvesting then long periods of little work. The creativity of the Middle Ages can be seen in the cathedrals built all over Europe. The new Gothic style allowed for more light and decoration than the classical Roman and Greek temples. Artisans developed new technologies for creating stained glass, cloth, and even producing food. Thousands of water mills dotted the English landscape and were used to ground grain into flour as well as create hardened armor plate. 

Women were able to have a greater role in society. They often ran castles and estates when the lord was called off to service by the king. They had freedom to move about, often independently like on the pilgrimage described in Chaucer's Canterbury Tales. Joan of Arc became the French hero of the Hundred Years War. Charges of witchcraft were few during this period since the ecclesiastical opinion was witches do not exist. Charges of conferring with the devil for power were more often leveled at men since such consort required more education. The age of witch burnings came after the Middle Ages, during the Enlightenment.

The book also describes the impact of the Black Death on European culture. The numerous, quick deaths wiped out a large portion of the population, having huge social effects. With a depleted labor force, lords had to pay more to serfs. Industries and towns went dormant, waiting for a recovery. People became more mobile, looking for work opportunities. 

Historians are wrong to characterize the Middle Ages as a time of superstition and ignorance. The period featured a lot of growth intellectually, culturally, and artistically. The foundation of nations and the restraint of government powers through legal means like the Magna Carta began in the Middle Ages.

Highly recommended.

Movie Reviews: Invisible Man-ia

I finally watched all of the Invisible Man movies on the DVD collection I've owned for years and years. Here's the good, the bad, and the crazy...

The Invisible Man (1933) directed by James Whale

A heavily bandaged and goggled man shows up at the Lion's Head Inn, a countryside pub where the local populace is hanging out during a snowy winter night. The stranger is Griffin (Claude Rains). He demands lodging with a sitting room and a fire. He sets up a lab where he works to reverse his great scientific success--he's made himself invisible! The bar patrons are curious as are the bar owners. Griffin does not welcome their curiosity and hides his problem from them. Once Griffin can't pay the rent, they are ready to kick him out. By this time, the frustration of not finding a solution gets to Griffin, who is ready to kill and cause havoc to get his way. His scientist mentor (Henry Travers), the other mentee (William Harrigan), and the mentor's daughter (Gloria Stuart--the character is going to marry Griffin) come to help but Griffin has become too crazy and ambitious to listen even to his fiancee.  

The story is full of speculation on how to catch an invisible man, along with various attempts at the more practical ideas. The movie has a good sense of humor and the effects are amazing consider the movie was made over ninety years ago. A few of the floating items are clearly on strings, which often gets the focus of reviewers, but a lot of other effects are impressive for the time. Rains gives a great performance, especially considering he is almost entirely just a voice. He sells the pathos and madness of his character. Una O'Connor reprises her role as the shrieking female comic relief from Bride of Frankenstein, overdoing it even more this time as wife of the innkeeper.

Recommended--This is an entertaining story with some impressive visual effects. It doesn't have the thematic depths of other Universal horror classics.

The Invisible Man Returns (1940) co-written and directed by Joe May

Geoffrey Radcliffe (Vincent Price) has been convicted of killing his brother and waits for execution. His best friend is Frank Griffin (John Sutton), brother of the guy in the first movie. Frank is also a scientist and works at the Radcliffe coal mine as a doctor. Frank visits Geoffrey on the eve of his execution. Geoffrey then makes a fantastic escape because he is now...the Invisible Man! Geoffrey was falsely accused and wants to find the true killers. He hides at a lodge with his girlfriend Helen (Nan Grey) and plans his next move. Meanwhile, the police are out in force at the Radcliffe estate. Geoffrey goes back to the coal mine where Frank works on a cure. Frank is not as brilliant as his brother and the madness slowly takes over Geoffrey, but not before he discovers the true culprit.

The movie plays itself as both an "innocent man" drama and as an "invisible man" thriller. Geoffrey is depicted as a good fellow driven to desperation by his predicament. As he goes about in his invisible state, he realizes all that he can do. Price has a great madman speech in the middle of the film where he tells how he can take over the country and have followers rather than friends. The speech seems like it's taken from the Gyges' Ring section of Plato's Republic, which is much less about desperation than about opportunism. The speech doesn't really fit Geoffrey's character though, even if it is well-delivered by Price. The filmmakers quickly get back to the "innocent man" plot and bring things to a satisfactory conclusion.

This movie is much more upbeat, with a likable hero in an unlikely predicament. Price is as solid a voice actor as Rains and carries the film through some rough plot patches. The special effects are the equal of the first film.

Recommended--There's a little more thematic depth and personality to this movie, making it an interesting companion to the original.

The Invisible Woman (1940) directed by A. Edward Sullivan

The invisibility gag gets played for laughs in this feature. Professor Gibbs (John Barrymore) has developed a machine to make people invisible but needs a human test subject. He puts an ad in the paper; unfortunately his financial backer, Richard (John Howard), has lost too much money as a playboy and can't finance him anymore. Instead of offering $3000 in a newspaper ad, Gibbs offers the treatment for free. A lot of crackpots send joking replies (like "make my husband vanish, please!"). Kitty Carroll (Virginia Bruce) is a dress model who's harried by her boss and seriously wants to be invisible to give him what for. She replies as K. Carroll and the befuddled scientist assumes she's a man. When she shows up, he has to sort out a way to take away her visibility without seeing her "in the all together," as he puts it. The experiment is a success. Just as the professor calls Richard over to see, Kitty sneaks off to pester her boss. When she gets back, she discovers some mafia thugs ready to get the invisibility machine so their boss, who is stuck in Mexico, can sneak back into the country unseen. She foils their first plan but all the pieces are in place to have lots of comedic incidents.

Virginia Bruce is fun and adventurous, providing her character with a lot of charm. There's no angst or world-domination plans; the story is played for laughs and, of course, a romance develops between Kitty and Richard. The rest of the cast is good (Shemp Howard from The Three Stooges is one of the thugs!) but the script is very corny and occasionally too silly for its own good. The special effects are a bit sloppy at times and were a bit distracting. This movie watches like a B-movie sci-fi comedy.

Slightly recommended.

Invisible Agent (1942) directed by Edwin L. Marin

Frank Griffin (Jon Hall), grandson of the original Invisible Man, is recruited to infiltrate Nazi Germany and get valuable information back to the Allies. But not before Japanese and German agents (Peter Lorre and Sir Cedric Hardwicke) try to steal the invisibility serum from him. Frank agrees to go to Berlin. They fly him in, he takes the serum, and he parachutes into the outskirts of town. Evading the local Nazis is fairly easy. Frank meets up with his contact who sends him to Maria Sorenson (Ilona Massey) a fabulous blonde who happens to be the paramour of Hardwicke. Hardwicke's flunkie Heiser (J. Edward Bromberg) is trying to get both the girl and his boss's job. Frank breaks up Heiser's clumsy attempt at a romantic dinner with Maria. Maria and Frank work together to get the info he needs before escaping back to England.

The movie was made in the middle of World War II and it looks like second-rate propaganda to stir up anti-Axis sentiments. The Germans have properly despicable attitudes and are just as likely to turn on each other as to fight against Griffin. Any chance to make them look bad is taken, regardless of how much sense it does or does not make for the plot. They are depicted as buffoons and sadists, a sharp contrast to the heroic Frank. This film is one of those propaganda pieces that you'll agree with but also find tedious. The visual effects are not too convincing, plenty of wires are visible. 

Not recommended unless you are into propaganda films. Or want to be an Invisible Man completist. 

The Invisible Man's Revenge (1944) directed by Ford Beebe

Jon Hall is back, but as Robert Griffin--no relation to the other Griffins in the series. Robert sneaks back into England from South Africa. He was part of an expedition five years ago to a diamond mine. He lost his memory when he was hit on the head by a branch and did not recover his memory until two months before returning. He looks up his old partners, Irene and Jasper, who are now well-to-do aristocrats. Robert wants his share of the money but the couple claims they lost most of the money through bad investments. They offer half of what's left of their wealth. Robert wants more. Irene drugs Robert's whiskey and they try to get rid of him. Robert winds up at the home of Doctor Drury (John Carradine) who has been experimenting in, you guessed it, invisibility formulas. He's made his pets disappear but nothing larger than a dog. Robert is on the outs with the gentry and thus with the law, so he's willing to be the first human test. After he turns invisible, he leaves the doctor and goes for revenge against his old partners.

The premise starts off ambiguous. Robert is fairly unstable and broke out of a mental hospital in Africa, killing some people along the way, so he seems a bit unsympathetic. His partners are upright until they drug him and try to dump him literally on the side of the road. Robert then goes down the madman's path, losing some of the sympathy he gained when the partners turned on him. The movie winds up as a standard b-movie sci-fi thriller with not a lot new to offer.

Mildly recommended.

Book Review: Doctor Who: Prisoners of Time by S. Tipton et al.

Doctor Who: Prisoners of Time written by Scott and David Tipton with art by Gary Erskine and others

For the fiftieth anniversary of Doctor Who, a twelve-issue comic series was published. Each of the first eleven Doctors has an adventure typical for him. An overarching villain is depriving him of his companions for some nefarious purpose that gets revealed toward the end of the series.

The First Doctor visits Thomas Huxley in the 1860s for a little lecture on science and a confrontation with a London subway-dwelling enemy that shouldn't be on Earth. The Doctor and his companions (Ian, Barbara, and Vicki) fight the good fight. The Doctor mysteriously winds up alone at the end of the story when the three companion vanish into thin air.

The Second Doctor travels with companions Jaime and Zoe to an intergalactic mall where they discover an underground slave market. The slavers discover Jaime is from the past, and thus very valuable. They kidnap him, causing the standard rescue mission. The story is fun though it ends much the same way with the two companions disappearing during a trans-mat transportation. There must be some joke about them vanishing into thin air when they are dematerialized by the trans-mat, but I can't come up with it.

The Third Doctor is stuck on Earth in the 1970s and has an adventure with UNIT. The Brigadier has gone crazy and the whole planet is being flooded by freak storms. The Doctor quickly discovers the Remoraxians are behind the plot. The Doctor cures the Brigadier with a made-up doodad and they work together with Dr. Liz Shaw and Sarah Jane Smith to beat the Remoraxians. Then the three companions (Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart, Dr. Shaw, and Sarah Jane) are kidnapped by a hooded figure.

The Best Doctor, I mean, the Fourth Doctor takes Leela and K-9 to the garden planet Agratis for a feast. When they arrive, the place is in anarchy. An irreplaceable gem has been stolen and the rhino-like Judoon have been brought in to find it. The Doctor helps solve the mystery and winds up at a feast where K-9 and Leela are kidnapped by the hooded bad guy.

The Fifth Doctor lands the TARDIS on an obscure planet with a slight crack in space-time. The power leaking out of it will recharge the TARDIS. The only problem is the planet is also a battleground in the thousand-year war between the Sontarans and the Rutan Host. The Doctor has run into both groups before and does his usual job trying to talk them out of war. As the Doctor and his companions (Tegan, Adric, and Nyssa) flee back to the TARDIS, the Doctor gives a little speech about the inability of people to deviate from their natural tendencies. The bad guy shows up and accuses him of endangering his innocent companions, which seems like a natural tendency of the Doctor. The bad guy kidnaps the trio of companions and the doctor starts to remember the previous kidnappings.

The Sixth Doctor visits 7200s Earth with Peri and Frobisher. Frobisher is a shapeshifter and has taken the form of a penguin since they are visiting Antarctica. Or I should write "Antarcticopolis" since the continent has become one gigantic city. They run into trouble when they visit the city and the locals think that the Doctor has kidnapped a penguin. A frantic chase ensues with the Master interfering, causing the Doctor to get locked up. Meanwhile, the bad guy captures Peri and Frobisher. By this point, a future Dcotor has left a message for the companions. Frobisher uses his shapechanging to escape his cell and starts to investigate the bad guy's lair.

The Seventh Doctor and Ace visit 19th century Scotland where two elderly aristocrats lie on their deathbeds. The Doctor is all too willing to help cure them, especially since there's an extraterrestrial element to what's going on. The villain turns out to be the Master, who says he is working with a partner who is trying to torment the Doctor. The villain is our recurring bad guy, who snatches Ace in the very last panel of the issue.

The Eighth Doctor takes Grace Holloway (also a doctor) on a supposedly quiet and unexciting jaunt through the universe. They wind up at a planet with a big moral dilemma and have an adventure resolving it. At the end, the Doctor confronts the unnamed bad guy/kidnapper, who indeed snatches Grace at the end of the issue.

The Ninth Doctor takes Rose to a colossal monument dedicated by the richest man in the universe to the richest man in the universe (typical Doctor Who stuff, eh?). They have their adventure and run into the bad guy at the end, who explains that he is Adam, a minor character in one episode of the first series of the Doctor Who reboot. Adam worked at the vault on Earth where they found a Dalek. He uses the other alien technology in the vault to get revenge on the Doctor. The Doctor had invited Adam to go adventuring but then left him behind with some weird alien tech in his head. After the exposition, Adam knocks out the Doctor and Rose, kidnapping Rose and presumably taking her back to his base.

The Tenth Doctor takes Martha Jones to 1950s Hollywood and the Griffith Observatory. There's a film crew there, but it's not Rebel Without a Cause, just some B-picture sci-fi thriller. The show is behind schedule because of disappearing crew. The Doctor and Martha investigate with the expected results. Adam shows up at the end and gets the drop on the duo, carting off Martha. The Doctor comes to and sends his message back to Frobisher. 

The Eleventh Doctor starts off confronting Adam, who snatches Clara. Then the Doctor tries to find Adam's lair, which he eventually does. Adam explains why he's so angry at the Doctor and reveals the Master as his ally. The Doctor warns Adam of how evil the Master is. Adam is uninterested and delivers his ultimatum--he will kill all but one of the Doctor's companions; the Doctor chooses who will live. And thus, he chooses the others to die.

The big finale unites all eleven Doctors to fight Adam and the Master. Naturally, the Doctors free the companions while the duo release other minions to have a big fight scene. It all ends pretty much the way you'd expect.

I found the series mildly interesting. I wish they had gotten to the mega-team-up quicker and spent more time on that, rather than rushing through an adventure for each Doctor and then rushing through the ending. Individual stories had different artists, making the style shift a bit from issue to issue. Also, the art winds up being more and less good with so many people working on it. This book is a great idea but a mediocre execution.

Mildly recommended.

Game Review: The Lady and the Tiger

The Lady and the Tiger designed by Peter C. Hayward, Allysha Tulk, Kevin Carmichael, Ken Maher, JR Honeycutt, and Philip Tootill, published by Jellybean Games

I am always fascinated by game designs that use the same components to create completely different games. That's the case with The Lady and the Tiger. The components were created and several designers developed games from those. The components are the following:

• 25 gems (5 in each of 5 colors)--the first printing had glass beads, which were nicer looking than the plastic gems in the second edition (which I have). The plastic ones are more color-blind friendly.
• 4 door cards (a blue lady, a red lady, a blue tiger, and a red tiger)
• 14 playing cards (3 blue ladies, 3 red ladies, 3 blue tigers, 3 red tigers, a lady/tiger card, and a blue/red card)
• Game summary cards for each game

Components page from the rules (click to enlarge)

The diversity of the games is surprising. Here are the five games:

1. Labyrinth (by Philip Tootill) ia a two-player game where players move their cubs (five colored tokens) across a grid of cards to their home card. On each turn, the player moves one token to an adjacent card and then swaps two cards, at least one of which has to have a cub on it. The trick is that the player can't swap just any cards. It has to be two of the same color or two ladies or two tigers. And the choice is further limited by only one of the two colors (blue or red) or one of the two types (ladies or tigers) depending on what was chosen previously. Cards on the side keep track of which type can be moved next.

Game in progress

You can choose blue or tiger next

The game is very "thinky" and thus prone to analysis paralysis. Planning moves ahead is possible but not certain. It's fun and challenging.

2. Doors (by Peter C. Hayward) is a two-player game in several rounds. In each round, one player is the Collector and one is the Guesser. Both players draw one of the door cards, so they have a specific color (blue or red) and character (lady or tiger). The players deal out four of the general cards face up. The Collector chooses one of the face-up cards (which is immediately replaced from the draw pile). The Collector is trying to get four cards that match their color or character. The Guesser gets to discard one of the four face-up cards and can try to guess the color and/or character of the Collector. Successful guessing gets points; unsuccessful guessing gives points to the Collector. As soon as someone scores, the round is over. The roles then switch for the next round. Play continues until one player has scored ten points.

It's an interesting game but I am terrible at it. We played twice and, including both games, I scored four points. Yikes! I did enjoy it in spite of my lack of skill.

3. Favor (by Allysha Tulk and Kevin Carmichael) is an auction game. Each player starts with five gems and a secret identity (one of the door cards). Cards from the deck are played to the center. On a player's turn, the choice is to flip up another card in the center or to call an auction. During the auction, each player gets to bid a number of gems on the whole set of cards in the middle. Whoever called the auction has the last bid, so the last chance to get the cards. If the auction caller wins the cards, his bid is split among the other players. If another player wins, the auction caller gets the bid. So the gems move around. Once the cards run out, a final auction is held. The cards that match both characteristics of a player's secret identity are worth three points; one characteristic is worth one point; no characteristics are negative two points. The two wild cards can alter attributes on one card. The game runs for three rounds. Whoever has the most points at the end wins.

Auction games are an Achilles' Heel for me. I am never that good at them. This game was ho-hum, but maybe it is just me.

4. Horde (by Ken Maher) is a solo game where the player tries to collect all the red and blue gems from the cards. Those gems are distributed randomly along with the black and white gems across the four door cards. Three yellow gems at the top are used to mark the rounds.

Hordes just starting

Each card drawn makes the player do one of three actions:

1. Move a gem between the lady cards or between the tiger cards (depending if the drawn card is a lady or tiger, regardless of the color on the drawn card)
2. Remove all pairs of trash (white and black gems) from the matching door card (so a drawn red lady can only remove trash from the red lady card); any unpaired trash (two of the same color or a third/fifth gem) stays on the card
3. Collect a treasure from a door card only if there is no trash AND the treasure matches the color (so a drawn red lady can take a red gem off the red lady door card if there is no trash on that door card)

The wild cards (lady/tiger or red/blue) force the player to put back trash on the cards. If no trash has been cleared yet, the player can swap two pieces of trash from any door cards.

There is a definite (and quick) learning curve that makes the game play more satisfying (and success more likely). On the other hand, the last card drawn is put under a yellow marker to indicate the round is done. If the first two rounds end with the same card (e.g. two red ladies), I have found it is virtually impossible to win in the final round unless that door card has no matching colored gems. Typically, I just start again.

I like this game but realizing when it becomes impossible to win is a little frustrating. The game only takes ten minutes at the most, so it is not a big loss.

5. Traps (by JR Honeycutt)

This is a bluffing game, which is not a popular style of game in our house. So we didn't play it. Four out of five isn't bad, is it?

Overall, I like these games. The variety is good, with something for everyone. The package is small. The art is gorgeous.

Recommended.

Book Review: An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding by David Hume

An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding and A Letter from a Gentleman to his Friend in Edinburgh by David Hume

David Hume is an eighteenth-century English philosopher who had a more skeptical outlook. In this short work from later in his life, he writes about various issues around what humans know and how we know those things. He starts out with a distinction between moral philosophy and natural philosophy. Natural philosophy is what we would call today "the sciences" and is focused more on abstract elements like mathematics and geometry. Moral philosophy is about human behavior, but for Hume it also includes politics, history, and anthropology, not just ethics. Moral philosophy is also grounded on experience or factual states and is often less certain than math.

Central to Hume's philosophy is his denial of cause and effect in experience (and thus in everything covered by "moral philosophy"). We assume the sun will rise tomorrow or bread is nourishing because of our repeated experiences. There is nothing absolute or necessary in the idea that the sun will rise tomorrow as there is necessity in the idea that interior angles of a triangle adding up to one hundred and eighty degrees. We know the sun will rise because of a continuity of experience, not because of a cause and effect relationship. Hume applies this reasoning to all of human experience.

He also argues that all ideas come to us through experience or our senses. This position leads him to deny any and all spiritual realities. Miracles cannot happen because they are violations of the laws of nature, which are necessary and cannot be contradicted, like mathematics and geometry. Hume disregards human testimonies to miracles like Jesus's resurrection as unverifiable and prone to error. He goes so far as to deny the knowability of the existence of God because humans can't reason back from an effect, like the created universe, to a cause, like a creator. 

In "A Letter from a Gentleman to his Friend in Edinburgh" Hume gives a defense against criticisms of his theory, focusing mostly on his natural atheism. The arguments he gives try to sidestep the issue by talking about different ways of arguing and that some arguments still retain their force though they have no basis in experience. It makes for a rather unconvincing shell game.

Hume's style of writing is easy to read. He is very clear and forthright. But he is not convincing. Aristotle defined science as about what happens always or for the most part. Hume seeks an absoluteness that denies the malleability of reality in a search for certitude. This leads him into all sorts of errors.

Not recommended unless you are interested in what Hume had to say as part of the history of philosophy. N.B. I have the first edition of this book which did not include "Hume's Abstract of a Treatise of Human Nature."

Cute Kid Pix January 2021

Here's some more photos that didn't make their own post...

We visited a small playground by Lake Kittamaqundi (did I spell that right?) near the Mall in Columbia. The night before had some very light snow flurries. The snow only stayed in shaded areas. The playground itself was shaded, which is probably nice in the summertime. In January, it was too cold for more than five minutes of play.

Sorry for the butt shot

The other side of the playground

Slide in shade=snow slide

Our church was decorated for Christmas in the usual "tower of poinsetta" fashion. I always mean to get a picture of it but so many other things are going on during Christmas time. I happened to be dropping something off at the parish office so I made a quick visit.

Christmas at St. Mary of the Mills

Altar close up