Jessica Hooten Wilson is the Fletcher Jones Endowed Chair of Great Books at Pepperdine University (’23) and previously served as the Seaver College Scholar of Liberal Arts at Pepperdine University (’22-’23).
She co-hosts a podcast called The Scandal of Reading: Pursuing Holy Wisdom with Christ & Pop Culture, where she discusses with fellow authors, professors, and theologians with Claude Atcho and Austin Carty. She is the author of Flannery O’Connor’s Why Do the Heathen Rage?: A Behind-the-Scenes Look at a Work in Progress (Brazos Press, January 23, 2024); Reading for the Love of God: How to Read as a Spiritual Practice (Brazos Press, 2023); Scandal of Holiness: Renewing Your Imagination in the Company of Literary Saints (Brazos Press, 2022) which received a Christianity Today 2023 Award of Merit (Culture & the Arts) and a Midwest Book Review 2023 Silver Book Award (Nonfiction - Religion/Philosophy) and many more great books!
I think the epiloque was a a "happy ending" revision because it doesn't fit with the rest of the ride up in tone or style; probably to say the right thing at the time by the author especially due to his perception and circumstamce in life.
As I read more of Dostoevsky's works, I find that his answers to the questions are in Christianity. I am not a believer in the any of the Abrahamic religions, I am disappointed. I was hoping that he write about it in a non religious manner. I came to this work by way of listening to Jordan Peterson who mentioned reading Dostoevsky for psychological insights. But of course, since Peterson is a Christian what else would he say.
I really appreciated this. Thank you! I've read Phantastes numerous times but this has given me much greather understanding of it. MacDonald is always so inspiring as he lays out again and again the beautiful way of God that we so rarely notice but that we all know to be true. Next you need to do a video on Lilith. :)
Great point @erikStensland ! I just read Phantastes for the first time and have been scouring RU-vid for some book reviews. Jessica's videos have been helpful, but I feel I still don't quite grasp the novel - I just simply found it beautiful. For me, (nearly 40), Macdonald did a wonderful job of warning young men of the dangers of false beauty. I wonder what he would say now with 'glowing rectangles' (reminiscent of the mirror in the story) in men's hands, which allow us to gaze upon thousands of beautiful women at the drop of a pin. We live in dangerous times. The rust on Sir Percival's armor so beautifully captures what lust can do to a man, I think. Now I have to read the King Arthur legend, of which I remain almost totally inexperienced with...
Thanks Dr. Hooten Wilson, The Brothers Karamazov is one of the greatest books ever written and this playlist is an amazing introduction/summary. Please could you recommend which English translation is the best. Whether P&V or McDuff or any other ? Thanks
The current common term for what you call 'intrusive' fantasy is 'urban fantasy', in which the magical world impinges on a city environment. Williams's stories are usually set in a city like London, and can fairly be considered early urban fantasy. That opening sentence of War In Heaven has always suggested to me that Williams had a film version in the back of his head. The close-up of the ringing phone and the camera pull-back to reveal a corpse seems very much like cinematic language.
lol I dog-ear pages, write in books, totally wreck them. You can pull any book from my shelf and tell how much I loved it by my destruction of it. I adored this book. I have the bind up of the three books and to be honest, there was a bit in the middle that dragged a little for me but overall, such a perfect book. I haven't read it in many years but still think about it.
If I am allowed to express my personal opinion: Dostoevsky is one of the most overestimated writers of all time. Really D.? What can one say about Alyosha's theological discussions with a 13 year old boy? What can one think about the ending of Brothers Karamazov, where Alyosha together with some pre-adolescent children (!) are all together cheerfully happy as they celebrate... the coming of the Last Judgement Day!... Seriously? Is this suppose to be good literature? Even a believer reader should have enormous problems with such a literary, such an artistic solution, which is not. In Dostoevsky we find always the following concept: All "good" guys get to be rewarded and all "bad" guys either commit suicide or go to prison or get crazy. Ivan Karamazov, the one that could have saved Dmitri's - his brother's - life, gets crazy one day before the court! And why? Because he is the "atheist" of the novel! Is there anything more p r e d i c t a b l e in whole literature? Do we want our literature to be predictable in that silly way? How can a healthy human mind accept this forced and totally disgusting solution? And this novel is considered by many, many, many "serious" people that read (do they actually read?) serious literature as "the best novel ever written". H o l y cow! After having read Dostoevsky's works again and again I have come to this conclusion: He is the most horrible, boring and kitsch author out there. Not even his language has anything to offer! And although I don't agree with every single critical opinion Nabokov expressed for a number of authors, I totally agree with his opinion on Dostoevsky. There are so many writers out there that are... writers! D. is at least mediocre. And please, for all of you reading this comment and thinking that I am crazy: Read D. anew; don't let yourself repeating "what the world is saying". Shape your own opinion.
I’ve noticed both religious folks and atheists tend to spin Dostoevsky a little. He made his criticisms and points about all of it. He’s a master of truly complex characters, and truly simple ones. Religious, atheist, whatever it was, he had a piercing gaze on the best and worst in something
you start this video by saying "the reason we have spent so much time discussing The Abolition of Man . . . . " => have you posted that video (where you discuss The Abolition of Man" on your RU-vid channel? I have been unable to find it, but I'm really interested.
Oh utube, oh utube, how I love the algorithm :) Once again throwing an awesome channel my way when I was in need of this vibe. Super that I have now a new podcast to catch up on that will hit the spot I was lacking. Great days indeed, and they are longer so I am happy out in both meaning
Christ added absolutely nothing to Homer message from The Iliad. He neither clarified nor added to it. He simply repeated it. I totally dug your video though.
In book 6 lines 448-449 are about Caenus, not Dido: "And Caeneus, once a young man, now a woman-since fate had changed her back - walked by their sides." From the Sarah Ruden translation. Here's also her note: "448-Caeneus: A woman who was transformed into a man after her r-pe by Neptune; Caeneus was eventually killed by Centaurs and reverted to female form in the afterlife." *not that big of a correction, I just noticed because I had read over that section for Catherine Project a bit ago!
error: - You forgot to mention that lizaveta had a homeless drunk father. And it originally says "[...] which made her even more acceptable in the eyes of the religious persons of the town, as an orphan. In fact, everyone seemed to like her; even the boys did not tease her, and the boys of our town, especially the schoolboys, are a mischievous set. She would walk into strange houses, and no one drove her away. Every one was kind to her and gave her something. If she were given a copper, she would take it, and at once drop it in the alms-jug of the church or prison. If she were given a roll or bun in the market, she would hand it to the first child she met. Sometimes she would stop one of the richest ladies in the town and give it to her, and the lady would be pleased to take it. She herself never tasted anything but black bread and water. If she went into an expensive shop, where there were costly goods or money lying about, no one kept watch on her, for they knew that if she saw thousands of roubles overlooked by them, she would not have touched a farthing." - Grigory originally says "“A child of God-an orphan is akin to all,” he said, “and to us above [106] others. Our little lost one has sent us this, who has come from the devil's son and a holy innocent. Nurse him and weep no more.” - The book originally says "he was very fond of hanging cats, and burying them with great ceremony. He used to dress up in a sheet as though it were a surplice, and sang, and waved some object over the dead cat as though it were a censer. All this he did on the sly, with the greatest secrecy."
Having just finished reading this astonishing book, I so appreciate your in-depth discussions of each section. It has helped me make sense of small details and grand themes in the work. I loved listening to you read passages before and after making the case for your interpretations. You did a brilliant job of balancing discussions of the book with points about Dostoyevsky's life and the historical context. As someone who long ago finished school, it's wonderful to be able to sit in on your lectures and broaden my understanding of this book. I will be sure to follow more of your lecture series on other classics. Thank you!
Thanks for your reflections on 4 Quartets. I have a friend who has memorized parts of the poem and uses Eliot's words to comment on various observations of his. I have long desired to enter the world of 4 Quartets as my friend and the two of you have. I still hope for the day I get to fall into the 4 Quartet rabbit hole?
I've reread this chapter several times trying to get to the bottom of the discussion. It appears as you said Ivan does not want a separation of church and state. The Elder however doesn't necessarily want the church to transition into the state, but the state to 'dissolve' into a singular church. The Elder does not seem to have faith in the state and it seems he thinks it would be better to have the church as a forgiving jurisdiction over society. I'm interpreting this correctly? This seems like a really pivotal section of the book.
