Blog Resolutions -- 2011

***Update: Since I didn't want to clog the blog with double posts, I linked this to Booking Through Thursday's January 6th meme about New Year's reading resolutions.***

It's that time of year again, when I make blog resolutions I doubt I'll be able to keep. But I love the idea of written goals, even unattainable ones, and I like to have some sense of direction as I begin reading for the New Year.

Ongoing Reading (Incomplete from 2010)

-- I am still working my way through the Brother Cadfael books by Ellis Peters, picking them up where I can find them. I have discovered all over again just how much I like the writing and plots of these stories, so I'm in no hurry to complete them. As I think I mentioned before, the books are apparently out of print now, so I have to buy them used where and when I can find them. That makes it all the more fun, though.

-- I need to finish and review Heaven Is a Place on Earth, by Michael Wittmer. I've liked what I read so far, but I keep getting side-tracked by events in life. And I've discovered that having the Kindle software on my computer isn't necessarily conducive to easy reading (especially since I put the computer away at night, when I do most of my reading).

-- I also want to read and review The Breaking of Eggs, which I won (mentioned previously) and still need to complete. I'm excited about reading it, but I need the time -- which I haven't had lately -- to sit down and enjoy it.

New Goals for Reading

-- I have an almost embarrassing amount of books that I own and haven't so much as cracked open. Among these are the lofty biography of John Adams by David McCulloch and several shorter books by C.S. Lewis (The Screwtape Letters, The Four Loves, and Miracles). Once I get through a few more boxes, I suspect I'll find others.

-- I recently ordered two books that have have been sitting in my subconscious for a while -- Apollo's Angels, by Jennifer Homans, and In Siberia, by Colin Thubron. I read intriguing reviews/discussions of each, and as a result they got into my mind and wouldn't leave me alone until I decided to buy them. I hope to begin working on these soon, and I expect to add reviews to the blog.

Perhaps my biggest goal for 2011 is that I'll return to a schedule I followed for a number of years but gave up after life got in the way a little too much. For a long time, I consistently read one book a week, and since giving that up my reading muscles have become a little flabby. I want to exercise them again, so I'll start with the one-book-a-week goal except when the length of the book requires more than a week.

So, that's a start for my blog resolutions. I'm not going to make any serious lists or real resolutions of what I'll read and when -- as long as I can keep reading (and reviewing!) a book each week, I shouldn't have any trouble getting through a good number of books this year.

Unless we get transferred, of course...

Art Study: Steaming River

I brought this image over from an article on The Arts Desk (photo taken by Ismene Brown). The photo is of the Yenisei River in the Siberian city of Krasnoyarsk. With temperatures hovering around negative 26 degrees, the river has begun to steam. Rather impressively, as I think you'll agree. (You can read more in the article that is linked above.)

A few interesting points about Krasnoyarsk in particular, and Siberia in general. Siberia encompasses approximately 10 percent of the land mass on earth but only has 36 million inhabitants. (Russia in its entirety represents about 12.5 percent percent of the landmass on earth.) Krasnoyarsk is also pretty far east -- east of Novosibirsk and perched above Mongolia. There are 4000 kilometers (about 2500 miles) between Krasnoyarsk and Moscow. Ultimately, that's not saying much in terms of distances, though. To get from Russia's far-eastern city of Vladivostock to Moscow takes nearly 10,000 miles. All of Europe can fit inside Siberia. Back to Krasnoyarsk, the city is a blend of the many cultures that have collided and found a way to live together there -- European influences from the western parts of Russia, Chinese influences, Arctic Siberian influences, and Turkic influences (distinct from Turkish).

Learn How to Do the Double Dream Hands!

Not to mention Jazz Hands and Rain Hands.

I dare you to do this at the next party you attend. Any takers? If so, I'll develop some kind of prize for going through with it. (Pictures and/or video required, of course.)

Don't forget to rock out.

E-book Review: The Orthodox Church, by Timothy Ware

I've been putting this review off for a while now, largely because I wasn't quite sure how to approach it. This is one of those books that does exactly what it advertises: it provides a "clear, detailed introduction to the Orthodox Church...for the non-Orthodox as well as for the Orthodox Christians who wish to know more about their own traditions." While some books promise one thing but deliver another, this book provides exactly what it claims to provide, making a review a little tricky. I'm not here to review the Orthodox Church, but rather a book about it. In reviewing a book about the Orthodox Church, however, I'll certainly end up reviewing the theology to some degree.

So I've decided just to offer my thoughts after reading the book. I chose this after searching for a good overview of Orthodoxy written for someone who knows little about it. Ware's book was recommended in other places (that I can't remember now), and it was a fairly inexpensive download, so I decided to go for it. All in all, I was pleased. The writing is thoughtful and certainly takes into consideration the questions that non-Orthodox Christians have about Orthodoxy. The tone was gentle and the purpose informative. There was nothing of a sanctimonious tone (as in "we're right, and here's why"), and I appreciated the way that Ware pinpointed and explained specific elements of doctrine that non-Orthodox Christians would want to discuss. This isn't a long book, and I can't advise this for anyone who wants an in-depth study, but those looking into Orthodoxy for the first time are more likely to be overwhelmed by anything lengthier.

My own reasons for reading about Orthodoxy are a little difficult to explain, in part I suspect because I haven't yet sorted them out for myself. I just know that I needed to know more. All in all, I found myself in agreement with the vast majority of Orthodox doctrine, so there's not as much of a difference as some might think. (It certainly looks different to non-Orthodox believers, but at its core it's largely the same.) I also appreciated the explanation that Ware provided for two points of doctrine: sin and the path to salvation and the role of the Virgin Mary. From what I can understand, the Orthodox Church embraces the idea of free will in the sense that Adam had the ability to choose good and evil and rejects the idea of original sin to the extent that St Augustine argued. That being said, humans are still born with the propensity to sin and will definitely sin and remain in sin (to the point of spiritual death) without the effects of salvation. ("Each new being is born into a world where sin prevails everywhere, a world in which it is easy to do evil and hard to do good. Our will is weakened and enfeebled by what the Greeks call 'desire' and the Latins 'concupiscence.' We are all subject to these, the spiritual effects of original sin.") But as Ware notes, the Orthodox Church does not believe all humans are infected with Adam's sin but instead born with the tendency to sin as Adam did. I don't think I'm doing a very good job of explaining this, but basically the Orthodox version recognizes original sin and the need for Christ's grace in salvation (due to the barrier that sin creates between God and man), just not to quite the same extreme as parts of the Protestant (i.e., Reformed) and Catholic Church. The result is that the Orthodox Church believes man's will to play a role in salvation. Ware addresses the question of predestination:

The west, since the time of Augustine and the Pelagian controversy, has discussed the question of grace and free will in somewhat different terms; and many brought up in the Augustinian tradition -- particularly Calvinists -- have viewed the Orthodox idea of "synergy" [that is, the idea of cooperation, of believers as "fellow workers" -- Greek synergoi] with some suspicion. Does it not ascribe too much to human free will and too little to God? Yet in reality the Orthodox teaching is very straightforward. "Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in" (Revelation iii, 20). God knocks, but waits for us to open the door -- He does not break it down. The grace of God invites all but compels none. In the words of John Chrysostome, "God never draws anyone to Himself by force and violence. He wishes all to be saved, but forces no one." "It is for God to grant His grace," said St Cyril of Jerusalem (died 386); "your task is to accept that grace and to guard it."

I can certainly come up with the Reformed rebuttal to this, but I also find myself in agreement with much of it. The issue of predestination concerns me on many levels, in part because it feels too logically extreme -- as though the development of the idea came about through a series of logical steps: because we believe this about original sin, therefore we must believe this about the will of man. And because we this about the will of man, we must believe this about salvation and man's role (or lack thereof) in it. But as any logician can tell you, it's possible to make a completely logical argument that is also inaccurate. Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that the Reformed fathers (and St Augustine before them) arrived at their views as a purely logical exercise. I am, however, suggesting that it's possible to start with one point and to paint oneself into a corner by carrying it that point to its logical conclusion. I'm also not to the point of saying the Reformed argument is inaccurate, but I'm not averse to thinking outside its logical strictures and, as always, studying Scripture more closely. (Frankly, it's more important to me that I'm a Christian than it is to worry about whether or not the word "Reformed" defines my belief in Christianity.)


On the role of Mary, I had a harder time with it, but I accept that it's just very foreign to me as a Protestant. I'll quote Ware's explanation, rather than butchering it with paraphrase:

...Orthodox honour Mary, not only because she is Theotokos, but because she is Panagia, All-Holy. Among all God's creatures, she is the supreme example of synergy or co-operation between the purpose of the deity and human freedom. God, who always respects our liberty of choice, did not wish to become incarnate without the willing consent of His Mother. He waited for her voluntary response: 'Here am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be as you have said' (Luke i, 38). Mary could have refused; she was not merely passive, but an active participant in the mystery... If Christ is the New Adam, Mary is the New Eve, whose obedient submission to the will of God counterbalanced Eve's disobedience in Paradise...

I'll admit that his makes sense to me, although I'm not sure I fully agree with it. That being said, I should point out that the Orthodox Church does not accept the Roman Catholic doctrine of Immaculate Conception (that is, the doctrine that Mary was herself born without sin). They believe she lived a life "free from actual sin" (as Ware points out) but not free from the potential for original sin that all humans inherited from Adam. That is, she had the ability to sin but did not, living a life in obedience to God. I don't know if this is even possible, but I like the Orthodox distinction between original sin and actual sin.

On a final note, Ware also touches on the role of art, and particularly icons, within the Orthodox Church (its Russian branch in particular). Quoting Nicolas Zernov, Ware explains that icons "were for the Russians not merely paintings. They were the dynamic manifestations of man's spiritual power to redeem creation through beauty and art." I love this description. Once again, I don't know to what extent I agree with it, but I also think the Protestant Church has done a fairly poor job of contributing to art. And as a lover of art and as someone who feels that Christians should be active in "redeeming creation through beauty and art," I find this idea one that Protestants especially can learn from. (And if you dare to point out that someone like Thomas Kinkade should be mentioned in connection with "beauty and art," prepare to exit my blog with a flea in your ear.)

Wrapping things up, I recommend The Orthodox Church if you are interested in learning a little more about Orthodoxy. Given the chasm that seems to exist between this branch of the Church and the others, it wouldn't hurt for more Protestants and Catholics to read about the Orthodox Church, if only to understand their brothers and sisters in the Eastern tradition a little better. If nothing else, a book like this can help to challenge currently held beliefs and force all Christians to study their beliefs and the doctrine governing those beliefs a little more closely.

Cracking the Nut: Which One to Watch?

The Nutcracker is a holiday favorite, and for those who can't make it to a performance (or those, like myself, who have spouses that would rather endure a root canal than a ballet) there's always the DVD option. What is more, there are a number of good versions to choose from, with most available from Netflix or Amazon. If you're facing the quandary of which Nutcracker to watch, here are some tips.

(Before getting started, I should admit that these are entirely my opinions and are based on my experience as a dancer and what I expect to see in a performance.)

Royal Ballet Productions

The Royal Ballet has two productions currently available on DVD. The first is a 2001 production with Alina Cojocaru as Clara.

Despite Anthony Dowell's slightly creepy face (in the role of Drosselmeyer) on the DVD cover, this is a great production. What makes it special is the fact that Dowell, a former Royal Ballet dancer and the former Artistic Director of the Royal Ballet, is part of the performance. He has tons of stage presence and owns the role. Additionally, Alina Cojocaru is perfection in the role of Clara. She's a Royal Ballet principal and a teeny-tiny dancer who manages to fill up the stage in the way that only great dancers can. Her dancing is fairly minimal, but her performance is memorable.



The other production is the 2009 version, released just a couple of months ago.

This is another good production that has been running on Ovation TV for the last week or so. (They are advertising the Royal Ballet production as the one with Cojocaru, but that's incorrect.) The role of Drosselmeyer is played by Gary Avis (I think?). He's good, but not as good as Dowell. The role of Clara falls to the charming Iohna Loots. Loots is a strong dancer with very good stage presence. She's a long-time soloist with the Royal Ballet and the go-to dancer for Clara, primarily because she fits the look and style needed for the role. She's not as good of a dancer as Cojocaru (the latter has better lines and a more articulate upper body), but the role of Clara requires more sparkle than technique.

What I didn't like about this production, however, is that the dancing and the casting leave a little to be desired at times. The dolls in Act I feel slightly unrehearsed, and as lovely and precise a dancer as she is Laura Morera does nothing for me in the Waltz of the Flowers. Her head is a little large and her legs too short to create the exquisite lines that are needed to match the music. (If you view this production, you can see what I mean when she and Loots dance together. Morera's proportions are so odd that she almost looks like a cartoon figure next to the nicely proportioned Loots.) Besides, Morera can't compare to the perfection that is Zenaida Yanowsky's Waltz of the Flowers in the 2001 production. (See below.)



For the most part, the two productions are similar in style. In fact, Miyako Yoshida plays the Sugar Plum Fairy in both, so you're not missing out in one over the other. The benefit to seeing the 2009 production might be that this is one Yoshida's final performance as the Sugar Plum Fairy before her retirement from the Royal Ballet, and she absolutely glows in the role. She's a consistent dancer, though, so you'll appreciate her equally in the 2001 production. (I'm not sure how I'd feel about seeing Yoshida in other roles, but I'm also not sure anyone performs the Sugar Plum Fairy with quite the grace and delicacy that she brings to the performance. Seriously, she barely hits the ground the entire time.)



Baryshnikov/Kirkland Production

This is an older production but one worth mentioning. It's a little bizarre as far as a traditional Nutcracker goes, but it still has the charm that a Nutcracker performance requires. The primary benefit to this one, of course, is the fact that Mikhail Baryshnikov and Gelsey Kirkland perform in it. As a quick word of warning, Kirkland is very thin here. She struggled with an eating disorder and drug use for years, and it shows in her appearance. Where it does not show, however, is in her performance. I'm not sure I've ever seen so ethereal a Sugar Plum Fairy.



Kirov Production

This production dates from 1994 but is not out of date (not yet, at least !) -- particularly since the Kirov (now known as the Mariinsky) currently performs a more modern version. If you want to see a Nutcracker that reflects the style of traditional Russian ballet, this '94 performance is the way to go. Perhaps best of all, the lovely Larissa Lezhnina, with her immaculate Vaganova technique, performs the Sugar Plum Fairy in a production that overall has the feel of finely spun cotton candy.



I've yet to find a Bolshoi production in full that I really like and feel like recommending. You can locate snippets on YouTube, and that might be the best way to go. There's a production with the legendary Ekaterina Maximova that is worth catching if you find it, but the one I'd really steer viewers toward is the production with Nadezhda Pavlova -- if you happen to run across it. She's just beyond charming and was one of the few real child prodigies of the ballet world. (She actually won the Grand Prix at the Moscow International Ballet Competition, beating out much older dancers for the prize, when she was just 16.)



As a final note, while I appreciate Ovation's commitment to bringing the fine arts to television, I advise that you locate a DVD (or older video) version instead. For some reason, Ovation decided to ask Sarah Jessica Parker and former NYC Ballet dancer Damian Woetzel to host, and viewers have the misfortune of listening to these two gas on about the most mundane things before and after commercial breaks. Obnoxious and unnecessary doesn't begin to describe their comments. If they had actually said something useful, I might not have minded. But they decided to point out the obvious to viewers ("This is such a sumptuous production!") as though they were revealing something unexpected.