chet8757

LOS ANGELES REDUX

Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough

(Blog:awalkingdelight)
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

All Involved: A Novel

Written by: Ryan Gattis

Narrated by: Anthony Rey Perez, Marisol Ramirez, Jim Cooper, Adam Lazarre-White, James Chen

RYAN GATTIS (AUTHOR)

Ryan Gattis’s novel, “All Involved”, tells of the Los Angeles riots in 1992. It illustrates a cause for broken trust between minorities and the police. It is the story of public safety departments struggling with criminality, poverty, addiction, and discrimination.

STACEY KOON (L.A. POLICE SERGEANT)

Four Los Angeles Police officers inflict a beat-down on Rodney King while arresting him after a high-speed chase. Sergeant Stacey Koon, the commanding officer at the scene is said to have tazed King twice.

Koon argues the tazing is effective but suggests King is “dusted”; i.e. meaning hyped by PCP. The four involved officers are white. Rodney King is black. King is handcuffed and dragged to the side of the road to wait for an ambulance. There is no clearer example of how difficult it is–to be Black in America.

Officer Koon’s drug use comment is resurrected by officer Derek Chauvin in the restraint of George Floyd in 2020. Is drug use justification for beating or killing a human being?

RODNEY KING (APPEARANCE 3 DAYS AFTER BEATING 3.6.92–KING DIES IN JUNE 2012 @ 47 YEARS OF AGE) There is no clearer example of how difficult it is to be Black in America.

All four officers are indicted for “excessive force”. After acquittal by the State, six days of rioting begin. It is April 29, 1992. In the end, four police officers, Stacey Koon, and Officer Laurence Powell are convicted by a Federal court. Each serves two years in prison. Theodore Briseno and Timothy Wind, the other accused, are acquitted. Gattis does not dwell on the King’ beat down but infers it is the primer for society’s explosion in South Central Los Angeles.

In the end, four police officers, Stacey Koon, and Officer Laurence Powell are convicted by a Federal court. Each serves two years in prison. Theodore Briseno and Timothy Wind, the other accused, are acquitted.

RODNEY KING RIOT - SOUTH CENTRAL LOS ANGELES

Gattis’s novel looks at L.A’s riots through the eyes of minority communities living in the poorest parts of South Central Los Angeles. His story begins with the brutal murder of an innocent Latino by a Latin gang. The murder occurs just after the State’s acquittal of the four officers. Gattis infers the murder occurs because it could be disguised by the Angeleno’ riots.

The murder introduces a cast of characters that will scare most reader/listeners. Sadly, Gattis’s book will also energize gun-toting vigilantes, reinforce socioeconomic prejudices, and encourage right-wing pundits to argue socialism is ruining America. Fundamentally, Gattis’s novel exhibits the appalling consequence of America’s neglect of the poor.

One may argue there is no justification for rioting in America but current events and past history suggest otherwise. From the days of the American Revolution to the murder of a 32-year-old woman in Charlottesville, North Carolina by James Fields Jr. in 2017, rule-of-law has been violated by both moral and miscreant Americans.

Every riot is justified and vilified in measures equal to the power and prestige of prevailing interests. Victims of riots range from rule-of-law enforcement agencies to all socioeconomic levels of American society. However, the powerless, disrespected, and poor are recycled as perennial victims in every riot.

Those who protect the general public suffer at the time of riot but, as peace is restored, the poor return to a life of quiet desperation and crime that is largely contained and hidden from public view.

GANGS IN SOUTH CENTRAL LOS ANGELES (Money, power, and prestige are important to all human beings. However, the ways of making money in poor communities are often illegal because, like Willie Sutton said about banks–robbing, murder for hire, extortion, and drug trafficking are where the money is. Gangs proliferate in poor communities.)

Human self-interest is at the heart of what is good and bad in societies based on rule of law. The rich and middle class are served by rule of law while the poor are often left to fend for themselves. What Gattis shows in his story is that citizen’ self-interest in poor communities is the same as the general public’ but it takes a different form.

Money, power, and prestige are important to all human beings. However, the ways of making money in poor communities are often illegal because, like Willie Sutton said about banks–robbing, murder for hire, extortion, prostitution, and drug trafficking are where the money is. Gangs proliferate in poor communities. They have their own rule of law because the general public’s rule of law does not equally protect the poor.

If the poor cannot find a job, they sell their bodies or their loyalty. Turning tricks for money buys food, clothing, and housing–the necessities of life. Being a gang member or leader becomes the primary ladder for success of the poor.

The stress of being poor is a cycle of illegal selling and buying. With the use of one’s body or drugs, the poor escape the mind-numbing reality of being poor in America; i.e. at least until they run out of money, are murdered, or die from the pestilences of life. American police and fire departments treat the poor less equally because the problems of the poor are increasingly unmanageable.

The stress of being poor is a cycle of illegal selling and buying. With the sale of one’s body or the trafficking of drugs, the poor are employed in ways that satisfy the human desire for money, power, and prestige.

Gattis’s novel posits a solution. He suggests an American gang of corrections officers to threaten poor community gang leaders with murder and mayhem if they choose to persist in their murderous control of poor communities. One has to ask oneself–how can vigilantism cure the problem? The victims of this mentality are decent police and fire department operations that have sworn to protect life and property in the jurisdictions of all citizens of the United States.

Police and fire departments are caught in the middle of a war that cannot be won.

The solution for America does not lie in public safety departments being drawn down to the level of gangs but to raise gangs to the level of good citizens by genuinely educating and providing equal opportunity for all.

The map for poverty’s elimination is a destination at the end of a long road. The road to a police state, a gang-like sanction of government enforcers, is a short cut to Democratic’ Armageddon. Gattis tells a story that exposes poverty’s sharp edges and democracy’s vulnerabilities.

BROKEN TRUST

Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough

(Blog:awalkingdelight)
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Ghettoside: A True Story of Murder in America

Written by: Jill Leovy

Narration by: Rebecca Lowman

JILL LEOVY (AUTHOR)

Broken families, broken hearts, but most of all, broken trust are described in Jill Leovy’s book, “Ghettoside”.

Leovy’s “true story”, somewhat surprisingly, deals mostly with the relationship between Black communities and local law enforcement in an area known as South Central Los Angeles. The surprise in the story is that the 2000 census shows 87.2% of the population of South Central Los Angeles is Latino–only 10.1% is Black; the remainder white, Asian, or other.

SOUTH CENTRAL LOS ANGELES (51 SQUARE MILES, 25 NEIGHBORHOODS)

The 2000 census shows of 49,728 people live on 2.55 square miles of land, made up of nine communities. One presumes Leovy chooses the relationship between Blacks and the police because it fits the particular facts of her story.

Food distribution as a result of Covid19 and unemployment.

It seems fair to suggest broken families, hearts, and trust are equally true for Latin South Central Los Angeles families because poverty and gang violence are common denominators of its residents.

Though Leovy’s story is not about poverty, “Ghettoside” (a coined word for ethnic groups killing themselves) is partly related to poorly regulated capitalism; just as genocide is partly related to totalitarianism. The poor in American cities have few legal means of escape.

“Ghettoside” appears most obviously in modern cities because of population concentration. The poor have few available living-wage jobs. The poor congregate in run down inner-city neighborhoods because that is all they can afford.

Decent education is a cost without immediate benefit; i.e. robbery, extortion, prostitution, and other illegal activities provide gainful employment, put food on the table, and pay the rent. On-job-training is provided by street gang activities.

Violence provides “street-cred” and gang affiliation provides power. Money, power, and prestige, the hallmarks of capitalism, are as coveted by the poor as the middle class and rich.

GANGS IN SOUTH CENTRAL LOS ANGELES (A son rejects the gang culture but, like all teenagers, craves his own identity. He ignores gang-culture rules of living in South Central. Standing on a corner, with a hat that is the wrong color, he is shot in the head by another teenager that presumes gang affiliation.)

This story about South Central is primarily told from the perspective of the police department. Leovy tells the “true story” of a black South Central Los Angeles’ cop who works and lives in a South Central L.A.’ community. He is an exception to the rule of most South Central policemen because he lives in the neighborhood he polices. He is an excellent homicide detective, who works hard to solve crimes in a city he loves. He raises a family that exemplifies the American dream. He comes from a lower middle class family, marries a Costa Rican wife while in the marines, and returns to South Central to become a cop. They raise three children; two younger children went to college while the oldest struggled in school. With extra effort, the oldest finishes high school. He is not interested in college but is a conscientious, hardworking young man; much like his father. The oldest son rejects the gang culture but, like all teenagers, craves his own identity. He ignores gang-culture rules of living in South Central. Standing on a corner, with a hat that is the wrong color, he is shot in the head by another teenager that presumes gang affiliation.

LAPD IN SOUTH CENTRAL LOS ANGELES (Leovy explores police department reaction to inner-city homicide to reveal how good cops are overwhelmed by a culture that victimizes itself.)

Leovy explores police department reaction to inner-city homicide to reveal how good cops are overwhelmed by a culture that victimizes itself. As the story unfolds, the police officers’ oldest son dies. The investigation is turned over to a different department that initially fails to solve the crime; not because of lack of effort but because of a bureaucratic way of conducting the investigation. The officer in charge is a meticulous detective but the record of his investigation shows he repeatedly knocks on doors of possible witnesses without actually making contact. The effort is duly noted in the “murder book” but no new evidence is found. A new officer is assigned to the case that is equally organized but pursues witnesses until he finds them. A record of attempted contacts is not acceptable to this detective.

Leovy provides detail of the new officer’s interrogation of a suspect that rivals the skill of the investigator of Raskolnikov in Dostoyevsky’s classic fictional story of “Crime and Punishment”.

The interrogation description is a pleasure to listen to and a high commendation by Leovy for the investigating detective. The case is solved but one is left with the feeling that justice is not done. A young man, a teenager, is dead. The killer is also a teenager. When asked why he murdered the police officer’s son, he said he shot him with his eyes closed; he only did it because the officer’s son looked like he belonged to a rival gang, and, after all, he is Black, so who cares?

Leovy systematically reveals how difficult it is for a good police officer to keep up with the murder rate in South Central L.A. Everything from budget cuts, to bureaucratic “cover your ass” investigation, to a culture that feeds on itself, makes a good policeman’s job un-doable.

Leovy explains how Black families believe they do not matter to the police because murders do not get solved.

Police officers are faced with mistrust that makes solving murders less important than bureaucratic record keeping that shows they are working

“Ghettoside” is a picture of hell; i.e. a picture of broken families, broken hearts, and broken trust.

When trust between citizens and police is broken, witnesses will not cooperate because they fear reprisal from the accused.

Ineffective police bureaucracy is compounded by officers that are not part of the community for which they are responsible. The irony of that observation is made obvious in Leovy’s story of a good officer who lives in the community and has a son murdered for being part of the community.

Being a cop in South Central L.A. looks like the hell described in Sartre’s play, “No Exit”. It is a play where three dead characters are locked in a room with no exit. In Leovy’s story, there are the police, the citizens, and the perpetrators. Sartre is saying “hell is other people” because each is perpetually viewed by the other as the worst part of themselves.

AKIN TO PROUST

Knausgaard’s precise descriptions of a lived life reminds listeners of how much men have in common, whether Norwegian, American, or other.

Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough

(Blog:awalkingdelight)
Website: chetyarbrough.com

My Struggle, Book 1

Written by: Karl Ove Knausgaard

Narration by: Edoardo Ballerini

KARL OVE KNAUSGARD (NORWEGIAN AUTHOR)

Karl Knausgaard’s “My Struggle, Book 1” is akin to Proust’s oeuvre about life and coming of age. This comparison is somewhat apt but Knausgaard’s journey is visceral and personal while Proust’s is intellectual and universal. A listener feels like they are peeking into Knausgaard’s personal diary; while Proust’s “Remembrance of Things Past” is an intellectual exercise.

With Knausgaard, a listener feels stuck in a web, without exit; with Proust, one feels stuck but sees a way out.

Even the name of Knausgaard’s book, “My Struggle”, has an emotional feel and personal meaning. In contrast, Proust’s first book is called “Swann’s Way” which infers a more abstract and recollected universal insight.

Marcel Proust (French novelist, criitc and essayist, 1872-1922)

This is not a criticism of Knausgaard’s or Proust’s writing. Knausgaard and Proust are like spiders that weave words into webs that capture listener’s consciousness.

Knausgaard struggles with his freedom. On the one hand, he likes the independence; on the other, he misses the stability associated with family. He becomes accustomed to being alone. He covets being alone, even among friends.

Knausgaard craves the oblivion of alcohol.

Acquiring alcohol becomes a challenge that is met by having others buy it for him and eventually using his 6’ 2” height to fool corner store owners into selling him beer.

Knausgaard seeks companionship to compensate for unstructured independence but shies away from intimacy.

He struggles with growing interest in sex. He has his first ejaculation in an unconsummated bedroom experience with a girl schoolmate. He is sixteen years old.

At fifteen, Knausgaard is struggling with his need for independence.

Knausgaard reveres both his mother and father. He deeply loves both but is ambivalent and somewhat fearful of his father. Knausgaard’s need is served by a mother and father that become separated, first as a result of work, but in the end by divorce. Knausgaard begins to effectively live alone when his mother and father separate.

The way Knausgaard views life waivers between the radical left and outright anarchism.

He is financially supported by his father but his father allows Knausgaard to live largely by himself. When parental divorce becomes a fait accompli, Knausgaard emotionally cleaves to his mother while revising views of his father.

“My Struggle, Book 1” is an excellent memoir of boyhood. It is filled with experiences that remind adult men of what it is like to grow-up in modern times. Some embrace the “Sturm und Drang” of life while others close themselves off and become observers rather than participants. Knausgaard is an observer.

Knausgaard begins to see his father as an individual; as a vulnerable human being, capable of crying and subject to the same weaknesses of all men. He is married twice. He is driven by desire for success with relationships in life as a means to an end rather than ends to a mean.

Knausgaard is less observant of his mother’s humanness because he measures his life against his father’s actions and reactions. In consequence, his understanding and relationship with women is degraded.

Knausgaard’s depiction of his father’s death in the squalor of Knausgaard’s grandmother’s home shocks the senses. It reflects a truth about neglect of the poor, physically or mentally challenged, and the elderly in cultures based on self-interest.

Children who grow into relatively healthy adults believe they are immortal; i.e. “boys grown to men” believe achieving economic security, psychological health, and physical well-being is part of every life’s struggle. Knausgaard infers that when life’s struggle slaps people down, the recovered forget the un-recovered.

Knausgaard suggests those who succeed in a self-interest’ culture believe failure to overcome life’s struggle is the their own fault. One cannot escape the feeling that this is a leading cause of homelessness in one of the richest nations in the world.

Knausgaard tells of his father’s descent into alcoholism, and his grandmother’s mental collapse. Both are ignored by Knausgaard and his brother until confronted by his father’s death in their demented grandmother’s pee and shit-stained house.

There is a homeopathic comfort in hearing Knausgaard’s vignettes of life because they remind one of life as a boy growing into a man. There are no revelations in Knausgaard’s journey to adulthood. However, there are interesting and informative recollections.

Knausgaard’s precise descriptions of a lived life reminds listeners of how much men have in common, whether Norwegian, American, or other. It reminds us that we are human, imperfect, and ephemeral.

WOMEN

Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough

(Blog:awalkingdelight)
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Those Who Leave and Those Who Stay

Written by: Elena Ferrante

Narration by: Hillary Huber

ELENA FERRANTE (A writer who chose to be anonymous until she was revealed by the press to be the author of the Elena Greco/Lila trilogy.)

“Those Who Leave and Those Who Stay” reflects on the difference between women “doing” and women “thinking”.

“Those Who Leave and Those Who Stay” is the last book of four by an author known by the pseudonym Elena Ferrante. It is a book about Italy in the 1960s and 70s. As in the United States, this is a time of social upheaval. Student revolution and class warfare headline Italian media.

In Italy, neo-fascists and communist parties compete for Parliamentary seats at opposite ends of the political spectrum. A neo-fascist’ party presses to capitalize on economic prosperity of the 50s while communist sympathizers rail against economic disparity between owners and workers.

Ferrante’s story is about a young female author, Elena Greco, who has written a book about coming of age in this era of Italian upheaval. To men, Elena reveals insight to an erotic chasm between the sexes. To women, she offers insight to inequality of the sexes.

Elena reveals how life is a struggle for all women; i.e. those who escape poverty, as well as those who remain mired in it.

Sadly, Ferrante ends her book in bewilderment. Her hero, Elena Greco, appears to surrender to a world tainted by male domination. To add to that bewilderment, her counter-culture maven named Lila, succumbs to the sterile belief that self-interest is all that matters in life.

The author reflects on how formal and street-wise education in Italy impacts social change. Elena Greco, Ferrante’s protagonist, is a lower class Italian that rises to fame and fortune by being the first in her family to graduate from college. She is a writer. She is a thinker. Her first book is published to wide acclaim for its depiction of a girl growing into a woman. She is struggling to find her way through middle life by writing a second book. She has a tumultuous relationship with her mother who secretly admires her daughter’s accomplishment and ability. She becomes engaged and marries a rising college professor but grows to resent his intellectual beliefs and dominating self-interest.

WOMEN ON THEIR OWN (Ferrante creates a less conventional character named Lila.)

Lila, who comes from the same neighborhood as Elena but escapes poverty by marrying a relatively successful merchant, whom she later divorces. The divorce can be explained in different ways and for different reasons but the immediate consequence is Lila’s return to poverty. She did not pursue a formal education but is educated by the street. She is a doer. She is tough, insightful, and independent.

Lila has two children, a daughter who stays with her former husband, and another, a boy, that she is pregnant with when she divorces. She, like Elena, has a tumultuous relationship with her mother. The relationship appears irreconcilable because her mother believes her a whore who left a husband that gave her security and extended family respectability.

To survive, Lila breaks with her extended family, goes to work in a sausage factory, and lives with a male friend to reduce living expenses. Partly out of necessity, Lila leaves her boy with neighbors when working but also resents the un-shared burden of motherhood.

Elena and Lila are friends from childhood but their paths to adulthood diverge. As adults, their lives periodically intersect to crystallize differences between revolutionaries that think, and revolutionaries that do.

Lila is a pioneer; a woman ahead of her time, “a doer”.

Elena becomes part of the intelligentsia–those who think, while Lila is street educated–those who do. In their journey through life, one sees Elena using her intelligence to parse the difference between love, sex, success, and failure. With knowledge as a thinker, Elena pursues independence.

In Lila, one sees an equal intelligence that deals daily with being a woman, a worker, and mother in a man’s world; doing what is necessary to win independence. Lila sees potential in the technology industry and capitalizes on its growth. She eventually starts her own company.

Both heroines seem to break free to become independent human beings. Elena achieves freedom as a consequence of thinking; while Lila achieves freedom as a consequence of doing. Both bear the consequence of their independence.

In the end, a listener becomes bewildered by Elena’s view of freedom because it seems constrained by how a man views women rather than how women view themselves. It seems, to a believer in equality of the sexes, that Elena Ferrante abandons her “female independence and equality” theme.

Ferrante’s main character–Elena Greco, in her second book, ironically writes about man’s creation of woman; i.e. an odd assessment for one who wrote a first book that infers women are independent and equal to men.

In the beginning, Ferrante shows women are the sun, around which men revolve. In Ferrante’s second and last book of the trilogy, a cloud appears between the sun and its planets. Independence and equality become something else.

ORGANIZED RELIGION

Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough

(Blog:awalkingdelight)
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

The Pope and Mussolini: The Secret History of Pius XI and the Rise of Fascism in Europe

Written by: David I. Kertzer

Narration by: Stefan Rudnicki

DAVID KERTZER (AUTHOR, ANTHROPOLIGIST, PAUL DUPEE UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR, HISTORIAN SPECIALIZING IN ITALIAN STUDIES)

David Kertzer reminds society that organized religion is only human. Religions are subject to the goodness and sins of human nature. Whether one believes in a Supreme Being or not, actions of organized religion are freighted with human error.

Kertzer is only one of many who have exposed the perfidy of organized religion. His target, in “The Pope and Mussolini, is the Roman Catholic Church.

Cardinal Ratti becomes Pope Pius XI during the ascension of European Fascism and Nazism in the 1920s and 30s. Ratti is characterized as a pedantic, conservative, and sometimes bellicose Christian believer in the Roman Catholic Church. As a religious pedant rather than trailblazer, Pope Pius XI focuses on returning Roman Catholicism to a former time of independence and influence. No price appears too high; Pope Pius XI’s purchase price paves the way for state Fascism (total control of government and society) in Italy.

POPE PIUS XI (1857-1939) Cardinal Ratti becomes Pope Pius XI. Ratti is characterized as a pedantic, conservative, and sometimes bellicose Christian believer in the Roman Catholic Church.

Kertzer recounts early 19^th century history of the Roman Catholic Church. The secular government of Italy confiscates Church lands. That taking decimated Catholic wealth, restricted Popes to the Vatican grounds, and reduced Papal control of the Holy See. More significantly, it reduced the church’s power to influence believers. After 1860 and until the Lateran Treaty negotiated between Mussolini and Pope Pius XI, the Church is treated as a part of the state of Italy, subject to secular rule.

Pope Pius XI agrees to support the government of Benito Mussolini in 1929 in return for the creation of an independent Papal State in Rome. Mussolini agrees to pay the church approximately $100 million for formally confiscated church land. Pope Pius XI acquires for himself and future Popes the right of independent rule, religious interpretation, and Catholic dictation. In return Mussolini gains the support of the Roman Catholic Church, the dissolution of Catholic political parties, and a title as II Duce, “The Leader” of Italy. At the stroke of a pen, Mussolini becomes a hero of Italian Catholics (over 90% of the population) and the totalitarian leader of Italy.

BENITO MUSSOLINI (1883-1945, PRIME MINISTER OF ITALY 1922-1943, LEADER OF NATIONAL FASCIST PARTY)

Kertzer notes there are common goals for Mussolini and Pius XI in the Lateran treaty which separates church from state. Both covet power. Both dislike the idea of a Catholic party interfering with religious or state matters. Both desire elimination of factional interference in government and religion; i.e. Mussolini’s Fascist control of government and the Pope’s control of Church doctrine.

Seeking sovereign independence of the Holy Sea. Pius XI becomes head of state of the smallest state in the world. $100 million is paid to the church for confiscated land since 1860.

Pius XI is the first Pope to broadcast on radio in the early 1920s. With the Lateran Treaty of 1929, the Papal State is created; after 58 years of refusal to become part of Italy. Prisoners in the Vatican before 1929, the Lateran Treaty required elimination of the Catholic Italian Popular Party, a political organization.

DAVID KERTZER “THE RELATIONSHIP OF BENITO MUSSOLINI AND POPE PIUS XI (1922-1939):

An unintended consequence was to reinforce Fascism in Italy. With the ascension of Pope Pius the XII, the Nazi government is solidified. The trade-off for the Roman Catholic church is an increase in international influence. At the same time, pagan worship of fascism by Church youth groups diminishes the church’s moral stature.

POPE PIUS XII (1876-1958, FORMERLY CARDINAL PACELLI)
Pope Pius XI refuses to excommunicate Hitler, Mussolini gravitates to Nazism, and Pius XII ignores Nazi atrocity.

The Lateran treaty is a slippery slope for both Nazi Germany and the Roman Catholic Church. Mussolini and Pius XI are blinded by hubris and false piety.

BENITO MUSSOLINI HANGING BY HIS HEALS NEXT TO HIS MISTRESS

Mussolini is shot by his countrymen, hung by his heals for destroying people’s freedom, and losing a war that compromised and betrayed his county. Pius XI compromises his morals and paves the way for Pius XII, a closet Christian anti-Semite, who becomes a Hitler’ stooge by tacitly endorsing the immorality of belief in ethnic purity.

The closing years of Pius XI’s reign is marked by a closer association with democracies as the Western nations and the Vatican found both were threatened by totalitarian regimes and ideologies of Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin. However, with Pius XI’s death and ascension of Pope Pius XII, distinction between totalitarianism and democracy diminishes.

Pope Pius XII—Hitler’s Pope. FORMER CARDINAL PACELLI Hitler and the roman catholic church: <iframe width=”854″ height=”510″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/2x_MdS88qr8″ frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen>

***IRONIC SPEECH POPE PIUS XII SPEAKING ENGLISH TO TROOPS WHO LIBERATED ROME:

Kertzer offers insight to what really happened in Italy in the 1920s, 30s, and early 40s but the story resonates with all organized religions. Jewish isolation of Palestinians, ISIL’s attempt to resurrect the Caliphate, Muslim repression of Kurds, Taliban Muslim cruelty in Afghanistan, Chinese suppression of Uighurs, and Protestant proselytizing around the world are cut from the same flawed fabric; i.e. the flawed fabric of human interpretation of humanly manufactured texts and religions.

In the name of God, organized religion’s killings continue. If there is a God, he/she is not evil; i.e. only humans are evil.

BESTSELLER

Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough

(Blog:awalkingdelight)
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Great American Bestsellers: The Books That Shaped America

Published by: The Great Courses

Lectures by: Professor Peter Conn

PETER CONN (AUTHOR, VARTAN GREGORIAN EMERITUS PROFESSOR OF ENGLISH, PROFESSOR OF EDUCATION AT THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA)

Professor Peter Conn prefaces his lectures on “Great American Bestsellers” by noting a bestseller’ label is not necessarily a measure of good or great writing but of popular consumption.

Historically, bestseller has meant high purchase volume for a book; usually, higher than expected. In the modern age, a bestseller label is often degraded by publishers; i.e. it is used as a marketing ploy rather than a measure of sales volume.

However, by more accurate measure of popular consumption, Conn argues bestsellers shape American culture, either by reinforcing or changing the direction of cultural norms. The books Conn identifies are American bestsellers because they fulfill two criteria. One, the books Conn selects and reviews are widely purchased. Two, Conn’s bestseller’ selections arguably reflect or shape American’ belief.

Most books Conn selects are well-known today. A few, like “The Bay Psalm Book”, “Ragged Dick”, and (at least to me) “The House of Mirth”, are obscure. Some of Conn’s selections have been reviewed by me in the past; e. g. Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense”, Harriet Beecher Stowe’s “Uncle Tom’s Cabin”, Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle”, Pearl Buck’s “The Good Earth”, John Steinbeck’s “The Grapes of Wrath”, Richard Wright’s “Native Son”, and Joseph Heller’s “Catch-22”, Each of these books profoundly shape my view of America; partly from personal experience, but mostly from an author’s ability to paint pictures of others’ lives.

These lectures are informative. Thomas Paine’s “Rights of Man” is as relevant today as it was in the nineteenth century. It became a best seller because it reflected rising discontent with the direction of government. Todays’ political demonstrations offer similar resentment about elected representatives and an election system (now corrupted by money) that Paine railed against when writing about the rights of man.

“Uncle Tom’s Cabin” is another bestseller that moves modern readers with as much force as it did in the 1850s. Conn recounts the apocryphal (likely untrue) story of Abraham Lincoln’s welcome for Stowe to the White House—“So this is the little lady who started the great war”.

It is interesting to find that Mark Twain’s “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” is criticized for what might be called “Black Samboing”. The last half of the book reflects a characterization of Huck’s companion, Jim, a runaway slave who compels Finn to choose between what is morally or legally right. The last half of the adventure makes Jim look like “Black Sambo”; i.e. one who shucks and grins rather than seeks freedom and the right to be treated as a human being. Twain seems to covet laughter at the expense of truth.

Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens 1835-1910) — It is interesting to find that Mark Twain’s “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” is criticized for what might be called “Black Samboing”.

Conn identifies why Twain is a puzzle that confounds critics’ understanding. On the one hand, Twain is a man ahead of his time; on another he is a huckster seducing his audience with stereotypical and offensive characterizations of the poor and uneducated. Twain is an acquired taste; i.e. bitter like beer or coffee that either dulls or sharpens one’s senses.

“Native Son”, the first bestseller by an African-American, is a compelling and brutal picture of the consequences of discrimination. Conn tells of Richard Wrights’ hard life and its lessons in “Native Son”. It is a story of what being Black in America means. Many consequences of Wrights’ hard life are still being played out today.

In 24 lectures, Conn surveys many of yesterdays’ bestsellers; some of which have outlived their relevance but many that continue to speak “…volumes about the nation’s cultural climate” (a partial quotation from the publicist of the series).

TO A HAMMER, EVERYTHING IS A NAIL

Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough

(Blog:awalkingdelight)
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

The Emperor of All Maladies, A Biography of Cancer

By Siddhartha Mukherjee

Narrated by Fred Sanders

SIDDHARTHA MUKHERJEE (AUTHOR, PHYSICIAN)

Dr. Siddhartha Mukherjee examines the history of cancer in “The Emperor of All Maladies”.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports heart disease and cancer are the two leading medical causes of death.

At first glance, one thinks–so what? We are living longer, and everyone dies of something. However, Mukherjee notes a study showing cancer deaths are rising: i.e. they decrease in one age group only to be offset by increase in another. The net effect is a rising number of cancer cases.

In researching the history of cancer, Mukherjee exposes the arrogance of medical specialization. Mukherjee shows early attempts to cure cancer were led by surgeons who removed cancerous growth.

Cancer, like the threat of a pandemic, induces fear and panic. Both maladies are unpredictable in the face of a human desire for predictability, health, and well-being. There is no certainty in either diagnosis. All a human can do is persevere. And so it is today with Covid19, the most horrific pandemic since the 1918 flu epidemic.

“The Emperor of All Maladies” reminds one of the saying—”To a hammer, everything is a nail”.

Cancer, like Covid-19, is a slippery killer. Thinking Covid-19 is the flu is as misleading as a singular solution for cancer.

COVID-19 affects different people in different ways. Infected people have had a wide range of symptoms reported – from mild symptoms to severe illness.

Symptoms that may appear 2-14 days after exposure to the virus:

FeverCough
Shortness of breath or difficulty breathing
Chills
Repeated shaking with chills
Muscle pain
Headache
Sore throat
New loss of taste or smell

The world scrambles for a vaccine to treat COVID-19. Fear drives people to desperation.

The public needs to discipline itself when offered an alleged medical treatment without verifiable proof of efficacy by medical science.

Mukerjee recounts the missteps made by medical professionals in their search for a cure to cancer.

The hammer, in the early days of cancer treatment, is a scalpel wielded by surgeons who cut deeper and deeper into the body until the patient is physically disabled, in limited remission, or laboring toward death. The surgeon believes he has removed the cancer only to find it returns in weeks or months later.

Surgery works but the scalpel is a hammer that only works when cancer is localized and non-systemic.

The next specialty is radiation. Here the physician replaces the scalpel with focused radiation; another hammer. Radiation cannot kill systemic cancer without killing or diminishing a patient’s health.

Next up is the internal medicine specialist, the oncologist. This specialty argues that cancer can best be treated with designer drugs to specifically attack or starve cancer cells. The problem is medicines that kill cancer cells are generally toxic; i.e. they kill both good and bad cells.

The final specialization is immunotherapy which ranges from bone marrow and blood antigen enhancement to bone marrow transplantation. The purpose of immunotherapy is to make the body more resistant to cancer cell growth.

Though each specialization advances cancer remission, specialists lauded their own treatments and ignored each other’s accomplishments.

Specialists were historically proprietary about their treatments. Some went so far as to distort their results with false clinical studies. They felt their treatment was the best way of attacking “The Emperor of All Maladies”.

Specialists exclusively pursue their singular research, treatment, and reporting until a few physicians argued all disciplines should be enlisted to cure cancer.

The cure begins with physician attention and empathy for the patient. Mukherjee infers cancer therapy is not for physician self-congratulation. Hubris is a failing in physicians; just as it is in all human endeavors. Cancer is an eternal war. It changes with the environment and life’s evolutionary laws.

Mukherjee’s history explains how the chain of discovery for a cancer cure can be broken at different levels.

There is physician self-delusion about how effective their treatment is for cancer. There is the integrity of research studies and how they are conducted. There is industry and government support of industrial waste production that is proven to be carcinogenic.

The door is opened to interdisciplinary research by philanthropists who created foundations to clinically study causes and cures for cancer. Mukherjee addresses the continuing need for funding to expand cancer research. He is not Pollyannaish about the need. He acknowledges cancer research is not going to be like America’s race to the moon in the 1960s. There is no definitive goal. The goal is not fixed like a mission to Mars. Cancer’s etiology evolves. It is unlikely for there to be a single-bullet solution that will cure cancer.

Mukherjee expands on the difficulty in curing cancer because of capitalist resistance to scientific research, and discovery.

Mukherjee recalls the battle with the cigarette industry when research clearly shows a correlation between cancer and smoking. The cigarette industry lies to the public about their own studies correlating lung cancer with smoking.

Cigarette industry lobbyists influence legislation that delays concerted action by the government to curb the addictive characteristics of smoking. Money talks, cancer proliferates. (This reminds one of the gun lobby and their insistence that guns designed only to kill people are a right that should not be infringed upon. Though gun use may not be addictive, there is a distinct correlation between the number of deaths in one incident and the proliferation of fully automatic weapons designed only to kill people.)

Mukherjee also recounts the incidence of cancer in England for chimney sweeps that inhaled carbon and asbestos from cleaning chimneys. Today’s confrontations are carbon, other cariogenic, and environmental contaminants created by industry.

The National Institute of Health reports an estimated 1,735,350 new cancers will be diagnosed in the United States in 2018. Of that number, 609,650 will die. Worldwide, NIH reports 14.1 million new cases were identified in 2012. 8.2 million died. The only killer more prolific than cancer is heart disease, and only by a small margin (In 2009, the CDC reports 610,000 people die every year from heart disease.)

Mukherjee implies all physicians need to step back, abandon their professional bias, and pursue treatments that are based on scientific research, symptoms, and reports of their patients.

Physicians need to listen, do no harm, and when necessary, offer palliative treatment—until, hopefully, a lasting cure is found. When the world is struck by a deadly virus, urgency is admittedly a gamble. Searching for a cure comes from science. When multitudes are dying, no-risk cures are unlikely to be discovered. Those who choose not to be vaccinated are risking more than their own lives when a pandemic strikes.

Medical research and experimentation is costly.

Mukherjee’s history shows the weakness and strength of capitalism and human nature in supporting what humanity needs to defeat cancer. His history should be required reading; particularly for physicians, and researchers, but also for the general public.

MORALITY

Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough

(Blog:awalkingdelight)
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

The Modern Scholar: Ethics: A History of Moral Thought

By: Peter Kreeft

Lectures by Kreeft

PETER KREEFT (PROFESSOR OF PHILOSOPHY AT BOSTON COLLEGE AND THE KING’S COLLEGE)

Professor Kreeft, in The Modern Scholar’ lectures, offers stories of interesting philosophers and what they think they know about moral thought. “Ethics: A History of Moral Thought” is a whirlwind tour of how philosophers define ethics. It begins in antiquity and continues through tomorrow.

What one hears in these lectures may be accepted and practiced in life tomorrow or never; if never, one is seemingly confirming belief in free choice, but not much more. As a warning to the curious, the tour is circular. The tour ends as it begins.

Socrates (469-470 BC-339 BC-estimated age 71)

Wisdom is characterized by Socrates as—“I Know Something That I Know Nothing”. Kreeft recounts Socrates’ story of being told by Apollo’s Oracle that he is the wisest man on earth.

Socrates does not believe what he is told by Apollo’s Oracle. He proceeds to prove the Oracle’s error by asking questions of wise men in his day. In the process of questioning, Socrates finds no one can convincingly answer the questions he asks.

Socrates concludes the Oracle is right. He is the wisest man in the world because he knows that he knows nothing. Others say they know, explain what they know; believe they know, but show (from Socrates’ questions) they know nothing.

Kreeft moves on from the ancients to Aquinas (1225-1274), Machiavelli (1469-1527), Hobbes (1588-1679), Locke (1632-1704), Rousseau (1712-1778), and Sartre (1905-1980) to reveal the truth of Socrates’ aphorism. Each of these philosophers open new doors of explanation to human ethics but each door leads to empty rooms.

THOMAS AQUINAS (ITALIAN DOMINICAN FRIAR & PHILOSOPHER-THEOLOGIAN 1225-1274)

Aquinas acknowledges happiness as a goal in life. To Aquinas, happiness is defined by union with God, the Father of divine virtue.

The cardinal virtues are prudence, temperance, courage, and justice. Aquinas believes, to the degree humankind follows the cardinal virtues, he/she finds happiness. The logical extension of this philosophy is that there is no chance of happiness without union with God, a God defined by its believers–a Christian, a Buddhist, a Muslim, who?

NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI (1469-1527)

Kreeft explains that Machiavelli removes the idea of virtue and ethics from the concept of happiness and suggests the exercise of power is the source of happiness.

Machiavelli views mankind as innately evil with happiness as reward from the pragmatic use of power; power gathered by any means necessary. Machiavelli argues that being feared is more important than being loved. “Might makes right” in Machiavelli’s observation of the world; virtue is superfluous in the face of force. The logical extension of this philosophy is tyranny of the many by the few.

THOMAS HOBBES (1588-1679)

Kreeft notes that Hobbes believes, like Machiavelli, mankind is innately evil. However, Hobbes suggests societies form into communities to mitigate human’ evil through the creation of laws exercised by a great Leviathan, a powerful monster.

The logical extension of Hobbes belief is big government that proscribes laws to mitigate mankind’s inherent evil.

John Locke (English philosopher 1632-1704)

In contrast to Hobbes, Kreeft explains John Locke’s argues that mankind is basically good and freedom-to-compete in a marketplace for goods and property will result in a balanced community of interests.

The logical consequence of Locke’s philosophy is smaller government but only theoretical happiness because competition generates win/lose consequences that amplify community’ inequity.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778)

Next, Krefft’s analysis of Rousseau opens a door to the French Revolution with the idea of “The Social Contract”. Rousseau believes in the innate goodness of man and argues for the rights of assembly and representative government to establish standards for the common good. The consequence of that belief is mobocracy in the “Great Terror” of the French Revolution.

In more modern times, the rise of Sartre’s philosophy brings ethics into the 20^th century. Krefft describes Sartre’s philosophy as relativist. Sartre is an atheist. He argues that the world is indifferent to all life forms. People are free but their freedom comes with responsibility. Without God, all things are permissible but the individual bares the consequence of his/her action. Sartre believes everything is defined by relationship to an “other”.

JEAN-PAUL SARTRE (1905-1980)

Sartre suggests human beings live in a state of oppression. What he means is people choose to emulate others rather than be themselves. They are oppressed by working to stay up with the Joneses rather than fulfilling there own desires.

David Riesman (1909-2002), a sociologist, wrote a book titled “The Lonely Crowd” that exemplifies Sartre’s concept of oppression. Sartre suggests we can break that bond by recognizing the oppression and choosing independent self-actualization or authenticity.

This is an existentialist philosophy that demands knowledge and understanding of oneself.

Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855)

Oddly, existentialism began with a religious philosopher, Soren Kierkegaard. Sartre is known as an atheist. Every person is his/her own god. Ethics are situation-ally determined with individual’ acceptance of responsibility; every person is an island.

A logical extension of this ethical belief is that societies breed iniquity and distort truth and leave every person on their own path to happiness.

From Krefft’s lectures, one begins to believe human beings are good and bad by nature. Aside from “Knowing One’s Self” and “Knowing that I Know Nothing”, there is no philosophy that adequately defines virtue or ethics that would predict any kind of Utopian future.

If happiness is the goal of life, its attainment by an individual or a society remains a mystery.

Nearing the end of Krefft’s lectures, he addresses attempts of science to define morality and ethics. Krefft acknowledges observation’ analysis dates back to Machiavelli and his views of history but the scientific movement gains momentum with David Hume (1711-1776), Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), and John Stewart Mill (1806-1873). It seems none of these “users of the scientific method” shed much light on the subject.

Finally, Krefft lightly covers eastern philosophy’s approach to morality and ethics. One fundamental difference between western and eastern beliefs is eastern belief in reincarnation versus western belief in a one way ride. A second fundamental difference is the belief in eastern’ culture that human beings are both good and bad while western’ culture believes humans try to be good but are seduced into being bad.

Krefft suggests an eastern religion may pass a dying person on the sidewalk because he/she fears interference with reincarnation. In contrast, a westerner might pass a dying person to not be involved, or with a belief that a dying person’s problem is not my problem.

Krefft also notes that eastern philosophy is by nature a “let be” view of life with a concerted effort to leave worldly concerns to their own destiny.

Western philosophy is more proactively involved in defining and practicing, or failing to practice, morality and ethics.

By the end of Professor Krefft’s lectures, a listener returns to Socrates suggestion; i.e. “Know thyself” because “The un-examined life is not worth living”.

What you believe is what you believe, but Krefft seems to suggest we should always seek to understand why.

CHILD ABUSE

Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough

(Blog:awalkingdelight)
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

A Little Life: A Novel

A Little Life

Written by: Hanya Yanagihara

Narration by: Oliver Wyman

HANYA YANAGIHARA (AUTHOR,WRITER,JOURNALIST) — HANYA YANAGIHARA (AUTHOR, WRITER, JOURNALIST)

“A Little Life” is about the difference between coping and overcoming. Hanya Yanagihara writes of a boy growing to manhood. Though the story is about a boy, it is a universal and gender-less story about child abuse.

Yanagihara draws one into a story like John Irving lures one into “A Prayer for Owen Meany”. One feels captured in a quicksand of feeling and thought about an enigmatic character. Yanagihara creates Jude, an extraordinarily handsome and intelligent man who secretly mutilates unseen parts of his body. The story drags a listener’s thoughts into a dark place. Why is this extraordinary person cutting himself with razor blades? The reader turns a page; the listener listens to the next paragraph; needing to know the answer. Yanagihara slowly develops a backstory that explains something about human nature and why one chooses to punish themselves.

Jude is an abused child, raised in an orphanage run by priests. At 8 years of age, Jude is pimped out by a pedophile, a felon who parades as a priest. His name is Father Luke. This false man-of-God kidnaps Jude and pimps him out as a prostitute while making him believe he loves him and protects him from harm.

CHILD ABUSE STATISTICS — Yanagihara’s story drags a listener’s thoughts into a dark place. Why is this extraordinary person cutting himself with razor blades?

Yanagihara’s horrific story is revealed in flashbacks as Jude grows into a successful career as a lawyer. One begins to feel this is a story about many lost boys and girls abused by adults. It is an abuse founded on betrayal of purported guardians’ trust, and exploitative adult motives. But Yanagihara offers more.

Most children suffer from remembrance of things past. Every life copes with intentional, unintentional, true, and false hurts from childhood. Yanagihara fictionalizes a person’s life story to show how extreme those hurts can be. She offers slender hope that someone will cast a line that will rescue them from their sinking despair. The slenderness of hope is inferred by the extra-ordinariness of her main character.

A criticism of “A Little Life” is that the story is too long. It offers revelation but its insight is too long in the making. A most over-used phrase in “A Little Life” is “I am sorry”, a refrain that becomes cloying by the end of the story.

COPING WITH LIFE — Yanagihara suggests there is a chasm between coping and overcoming life’s hardships.

Yanagihara suggests there is a chasm between coping and overcoming life’s hardships. Yanagihara infers most of life is coping with hardship rather than overcoming real or imagined hurt. Friends, lovers, psychiatrists, and physicians can help one cope with real and imagined hurts; but true overcoming lies in the mind of the traumatized.

What Yanagihara makes blindingly clear is the ugly truth of pedophilia and how sex-trafficking scars children for life. This is a story that needs to be told and understood, but not in so many words. For that criticism of the author, “I am sorry”. CHILD ABDUCTION

ARTISTS’ BAD BOY

Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough

(Blog:awalkingdelight)
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Caravaggio, A Life Sacred and Profane

By Andrew Graham-Dixon

Narrated by Edoardo Ballerini

ANDREW GRAHAM-DIXON (ART CRITIC-JUDGE FOR THE TURNER PRIZE, BP NATIONAL PORTRAIT PRIZE,& ANNUAL BRITISH ANIMATION AWARDS)

Caravaggio is artists’ bad boy of early sixteenth century Italy. Born in 1571, Caravaggio arrives in the midst of religious turmoil between Catholic nations and the Ottoman Empire. Caravaggio comes to life in Andrew Graham-Dixon’s biography. Graham-Dixon explores the light and dark of Michelangelo Merisi Caravaggio’s short life.

Graham-Dixon suggests Caravaggio’s life is self-formed by circumstance of history, the political connection of Caravaggio’s family, and a rebellious nature of a boy who loses his father at the age of six. A self-formed life is a description of Caravaggio’s growth to manhood. It suggests Caravaggio’s artistic ability comes from inner drive more than formal education. Though Caravaggio is apprenticed to painters in his youth, contribution to his artistic ability is obscured by differences in what Caravaggio paints and what his teacher’s taught.

CARAVAGGIO-BOY PEELING FRUIT (THE EARLIST KNOWN WORK 1592-1593) — CARAVAGGIO-BOY PEELING FRUIT (THE EARLIEST KNOWN WORK 1592-1593)

Use of light and shade (chiaroscuro) reflects an early break with what teachers taught and what Caravaggio could do. In his early work, the beginnings of Caravaggio’s genius are shown. Even though the subject “Boy Peeling Fruit” shows immature dimensional perspective, Caravaggio’s beginning use of light and dark dramatically highlights his subject. As time passes, Caravaggio skillfully improves chiaroscuro to further dramatize his work.

Graham-Dixon recounts Martin Scorsese’s 1960s comments about Caravaggio’s cinematic sense. Caravaggio’s paintings tell stories of the bible known by the public but known more symbolically than literally. Caravaggio’s work dramatizes biblical stories. The dramatic finger probe of Jesus by Thomas cinematically illustrates Christ has risen from the dead. From the frown on doubting Thomas’s face to Thomas’s dirty fingers, the biblical story becomes graphically real. CARAVAGGIO-DOUBTING THOMAS

CARAVAGGIO-DOUBTING THOMAS (DETAIL OF THE EXTENDED FINGER, ITS DIRT& REMINISCENT MICHELANGELO SISTINE CHAPPEL HAND) — CARAVAGGIO-DOUBTING THOMAS (DETAIL OF THE EXTENDED FINGER, ITS DIRT& REMINISCENT MICHELANGELO SISTINE CHAPEL HAND) From the frown on doubting Thomas’s face to Thomas’s dirty fingers, the biblical story becomes graphically real.

At times, Caravaggio went too far and displeased his benefactor with biblical interpretations that offended social propriety. In St. Matthew and the Angel, the intimacy of the angel and St. Mathew offended his client. A second version had to be painted before Caravaggio would be paid.

www.mikeyangels.co.uk — In St. Matthew and the Angel, the intimacy of the angel and St. Mathew offended his client.

CARAVAGGIO-ST MATTHEW AND THE ANGEL-(THE REVISION)

Caravaggio paints from models of working people of his time to make stories of the bible truer to Jesus’s time. Jesus walks among the poor, the bereft, and sinners of society. Caravaggio’s characters are workers, prostitutes (courtesans), and gamblers like “The Cardsharps…” or his sexualized “Cupid as Victor”. He shows the dirty feet of a visitor to “Madonna of Loreto”.

CARAVAGGIO-THE CARDSHARPS AND THE FORTUNE TELLER

CARAVAGGIO-CUPID AS VICTOR (A STORY OF V'S-SENSUALITY OF HUMAN BEINGS) — Caravaggio’s characters are workers, prostitutes (courtesans), and gamblers like “The Cardsharps…” or his sexualized “Cupid as Victor”.

MADONNA OF LORRETO (Below shows the dirty feet of a visitor.)

He shows the dirty feet of a visitor to “Madonna of Loreto”.

Graham-Dixon’s infers Caravaggio is a profligate sinner himself. Caravaggio is described as a person who wears black to obscure his visage at night when he is raising hell with his friends and enemies. Caravaggio violates the law by carrying a sword without a license; by brawling in local brothels and practicing alleged bi-sexual acts. Graham-Dixon suggests Caravaggio may have been a pimp to subsidize his income. Graham-Dixon also suggests pimping may have provided models for his art. Finally, Caravaggio kills a man and is sentenced to death.

Caravaggio is recorded by witnesses and in trials to have a volatile temper. Though the biographer mentions artist’s behavior was sometimes affected by lead and other contaminants of their paint, Graham-Dixon does not conclude Caravaggio’s behavior is caused by a painter’s occupational hazard. In 2010, lead poisoning is found in what is believed to have been Caravaggio’s remains. But Graham-Dixon reports no one really knows exactly where Caravaggio is buried. Were those remains Caravaggio’s?

KNIGHTS OF MALTA (Caravaggio made many enemies but no one knows for sure what caused his death. Graham-Dixon believes a vendetta, by a member of the Knights of Malta, is the proximate cause of Caravaggio’s death.)

Graham-Dixon concludes the biography with an explanation of Caravaggio’s mysterious death. Caravaggio made many enemies, but no one knows for sure what caused his death. Graham-Dixon believes a vendetta, by a member of the Knights of Malta, is the proximate cause of Caravaggio’s death.

Caravaggio, when he tries to become a Knight of Malta to escape the death sentence for an earlier murder, insults one of the Knights. The insult goes unsatisfied and is compounded by Caravaggio’s abandonment of the Knights of Malta when he thinks he will get a pardon for his crimes from Rome. Graham-Dixon suggests the insulted Knight catches up with Caravaggio and severely cuts his face. Several months later, Caravaggio is still recovering from the wounds when notice comes to him–upon return to Rome, he will receive his pardon.

Caravaggio packs his bags and his last three paintings and heads for Rome. The trip is by ship. The voyage includes a stop before arriving in Rome. At the stop, for an unknown reason, Caravaggio is retained by a local sheriff. The boat sails without him. When Caravaggio is released, he buys a horse to meet the departed ship at its next port before Rome. Caravaggio is still recovering from his wounds. When he arrives at a port, he is sick unto death with fever and exhaustion. Some days later, he dies at the age of 38.

Caravaggio marked a pivot point in the meaning of art. Painting became more than symbolic representation, i.e., it became a cinematic representation of the real world. The imperfection of humankind, both physically and spiritually became a part of art’s story about life. Caravaggio’s art reflects on the violence of life, the imperfection of humankind, the doubts of human belief in God, and the nature of human beings.

CARAVAGGIO (JUDITH BEHEADING HOLFERNES) — CARAVAGGIO (JUDITH BEHEADING HOLFERNES-Caravaggio’s art reflects on the violence of life, the imperfection of humankind, the doubts of human belief in God, and the nature of human beings.)

Newly discovered but unsigned painting by Caravaggio found in a French attic.

Caravaggio’s use of light and dark is the principle challenge to a recently found work of art attributed to, but not signed by Caravaggio. The objection is related to the use of a brown backdrop that enhances the light and shade characteristic of Caravaggio’s paintings. The estimate value for the newly discovered version of JUDITH BEHEADING HOLFERNES is $100m.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: