Hail and well met! The gracious ladies at Pages Unbound nominated me for Best Fantasy/Sci-Fi Blog at Forever and Everly’s Third Annual Book Blogger Awards. They have always been supportive of me since the very early days of our blogs, and I do highly recommend them.
Please check out all the nominees and vote for the ones you like!
Which classic book do
you wish had a sequel, and why?
In trying to brainstorm a list for this post, I was assaulted
by the feeling that I have not read enough of the classics of world literature.
Which classic book do I wish had a sequel? First off, which classic books have
I actually liked? Well, let’s see.
The Hobbit? Already has a sequel.
The Three Musketeers? Ditto, and more than one.
Anything from Shakespeare? No, he ends his stories properly, they don’t need to be continued.
Kidnapped by Robert Louis Stevenson? Already has a sequel.
Treasure Island? Hmm…one could argue that there is a story to be told in what happens to Long John Silver after he rows away, or that perhaps Jim Hawkins has another adventure when he is older. But I can’t imagine such stories being worthy of Treasure Island, which ends rightly without any clear hook for a new story of any significance.
The Iliad? What is The Odysseyif not a sequel to that?
To Kill a Mockingbird? It has lately received a sequel, the reception of which has been controversial, to say the least.
Crime and Punishment? Again, Dostoyevsky ends it perfectly. A sequel would be pointless.
The Adventures of Tom Sawyer? Twain already gave it a sequel, in Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.
Wait a moment. Let’s consider Huckleberry Finn again. I haven’t read it since childhood, but I do remember that the book ends with Jim recognized as a freed man, and left to make his own life. I like the book, and I like the character of Jim quite a bit. No doubt there is a worthwhile story to be told about his struggles to make a good life as a freed man in pre-Emancipation Proclamation America.
“Right is right, and wrong is wrong, and a body ain’t got no business doing wrong when he ain’t ignorant and knows better.”
Mark Twain, Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
Where would Jim go? Would he remain in the South, with slavery still legal there, or would he try to make a new life in a Northern state? And where would he be when the Civil War breaks out? Would he enlist in the Union army? Would he try to avoid the conflict altogether? His story seems only beginning when Huckleberry Finn closes out his book. It would provide an excellent way for Mark Twain to confront the difficult lives of free blacks in America, through Jim’s own unflinching perspective, with no childlike filter to cover up the nastiness of racism.
Susanna Clarke’s Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrellis already recognized as something of a modern classic. Set in an alternate Victorian England where magic and Faery are making their belated returns, it is a long, elegant, and at times wild novel. I loved it. Its ending was excellent and satisfying, and yet left me begging for a sequel.
*SPOILERS for the ending of Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell by Susanna Clarke*
The book ends with both magicians, Strange and Mr. Norrell, trapped in the magic tornado called the Darkness, which was the result of a curse that a malevolent Faery gentleman had put on Strange. The Darkness follows them everywhere, but also, it seems, makes it possible to travel to other worlds. The final page of the novel has Jonathan Strange bidding passionate farewell to his wife, Arabella. She wishes to go with him, but while he wants to be with her, he is unwilling to submit her to the possible dangers that lie in wait for him and Norrell. So he kisses her goodbye, promises to return to her once he and Norrell have found a way to lift the curse, and departs into the Darkness to explore new and magical worlds.
What an ending! And what a great hook for a potential sequel! Where does the Darkness take Strange and Norrell? What new worlds do they explore? What new magic do they learn? Such a quest would surely be filled with wonders. The two magicians would also change and grow throughout it; their character arcs, both individual and that of their relationship, are far from over at the end of the book. Clarke would have her work cut out for her in matching the success of her debut novel, but I do not think I am the only reader who would welcome her attempt.
What about you, dear reader? Would you be interested in a Mark Twain-penned story that told of Jim’s attempts to make a free life in slavery-ridden America?
Or perhaps, in a sequel to Susanna Clarke’s Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell?
I’ve shared the work of director Jake Viramontez before, with the minidoc “Killing the Rock“. That beautiful documentary profiled a victim of the Syrian civil war who deals with his grief through sculpting. Now Jake Viramontez is back with a moody thriller called “Scarecrow.” And I don’t want to spoil anything, but unlike “Killing the Rock,” this short film actually fits the genre of my blog.
Also a minor disclaimer: I went to high school with Jake, but I’m sharing the film purely on its own merits. Enjoy!
Intriguing, isn’t it? I thought so. I like the conceit and would love to see the story expanded in the future.
If you like me showcasing short films like this, let me know. And if you liked “Scarecrow” and “Killing the Rock,” keep track of Viramontez’s work on his Vimeo page. And consider voting for “Scarecrow” at the Musicbed Challenge! I already have.
This is a bit of a departure for The Warden’s Walk, as Ernest Hemingway‘s famous novella “The Old Man and the Sea” is not properly fantasy, science fiction, or historical adventure. It is set in 1950s Cuba and busies itself with the daily and realistic concerns of a humble old fisherman. I hope you will forgive me this detour. I do not expect it to become a habit for this blog. However, in my defense, the story has about it the aura, and some of the sensibilities, of a folk tale.
An ordinary man wages an extraordinary battle against a force of nature, equipped with only his wits, his hands, and his hope. As in much of fantasy and mythological literature, the forces of nature are only partially personified; the ocean is wild and unpredictable, but makes life possible on earth. Nature and humanity are at once separated by an unbridgeable gulf, and also linked in an unbreakable symbiotic relationship. And though Hemingway may not have seen it the way I do, I see in this an acknowledgment that both Man and Nature are subject to their common Creator.
It is good that we do not have to try to kill the sun or the moon or the stars. It is enough to live on the sea and kill our true brothers.
Santiago, the old man
But enough of grand themes. I do not love this story for any themes. I do love it somewhat for the atmosphere — the lapping of the waves, the slapping of fins on water, the salt breezes, the hot sun, the patched nets and stacked harpoons. But mostly, I love this story for its characters.
I may not be as strong as I think, but I know many tricks and I have resolution.
*Minor spoilers for an old, short story*
I do not know how this story could be a better version of itself. It does exactly what it sets out to do, and in the process helps me to understand, sympathize with, and even love a person in very different circumstances from myself. After all, how similar am I to a poor old Cuban fisherman from the mid-20th century, who would rather die than lose the last great fight of his life? I would have cut the fishing line long before the first day was up. But I am not a lifelong ocean fisherman like Santiago.
He rested sitting on the un-stepped mast and sail and tried not to think but only to endure.
I love this old man, and his friend, the boy Manolin, who is competent and compassionate beyond his young years. I love how they consider suffering to be gain when in the service of each other. I love how their hands are rough but their voices tender. Kindness overflows in their interactions, and it is the sort of kindness that breeds strength, hope, and endurance.
And when the great battle ensues, in which Santiago stubbornly allows the great marlin to pull him dangerously out to sea rather than admit a long defeat by cutting the fishing line, I admired him even though I would never advise anyone to do what he did. His choice and reasons are his own. They were written believably and compassionately.
If the others heard me talking out loud they would think that I am crazy. But since I am not, I do not care.
While the battle was costly, and in the end Santiago considers himself defeated, he nonetheless returns with his life, finds his home and Manolin again, and is content. And so was I, with them.
Audiences seem to have ignored Tolkien at the box office, but it raised quite a noise among the Tolkien fandom. Many regard its inaccuracies and dramatizations as a kind of betrayal of the man, whereas its supporters say that its accuracies and artistic truths make it a beautiful and moving tribute to the Professor and much that he valued.
I caution is this: it simply
isn’t helpful or honest to be polemical. For
one, Tolkien is a
drama, and to demand that a
drama be instead a documentary is ludicrous. Likewise,
to demand that the film be
either a perfect success in all areas biographical and artistic, or
else be judged a vulgar
failure and disgrace, is to apply a standard so hideously unfair that
nothing not divine could satisfy. Any
good standard must acknowledge the imperfection of every human work
and counter that with, as Christians ought to know, grace. Some
films, even after this grace, will seem bad. In others, we begin to
marvel at the good that flourishes in spite of the flaws. And this is
how I see Tolkien.
It is not a great biography,
nor artistically a truly
Great Film, but it is a good and unique film that deeply loves J.R.R.
Tolkien the man and tries very hard to do right by him. Its
stumbles are disappointing, but when it stands tall, strides
purposefully, and finds deep meaning in dancing, it manages
to evoke and celebrate much that I love about John Ronald Reuel
Tolkien and his work.
Plot summary, please
Plot summaries are boring and have little to no place in a review because they reveal next to nothing about the story’s quality. Reviews should be concerned primarily with a story’s quality.
curt with your section titles, are you? Seems a bit self-indulgent,
but it’s your blog, I suppose. Still, what’s actually in
Tolkien covers J.R.R. Tolkien’s teenage and young adult years, ending before the publication of his famous novels. A wise choice, I think, as his later years were fairly sedate, to my understanding, and would have been difficult to dramatize. Instead, the film specifically examines his relationship to his future wife Edith Bratt, his deep friendships with the club known as the T.C.B.S., and how his love of and affinity for languages fed into his desire to change the world through art.
summary, if it ain’t too much trouble, guv
While not a definitive exploration of the themes or events of Tolkien’s life, Tolkien is very good and I strongly recommend it for fans of the man. The film is sincere, good-hearted, and often beautiful, though it sometimes stumbles and loses sight of the real man at its heart.
is it ACCURATE?
The film does alter or gloss over some details of J.R.R. Tolkien’s life, which is simply a thing that all biopics do for their subjects, and frankly Tolkien changes far less than most. I commend it for including so much:
his hatred of his childhood move from the English countryside to dirty Birmingham
his early interest in languages
the stern but generous help from Father Francis
his lack of academic diligence and direction until his meeting with Professor Joseph Wright (who provides two of the film’s best scenes)
the loyalty and idealism of his early friendships
the ways in which he and his romantic interest Edith gave each other a unique support in difficult times
the way he was kind of an obsessive nerd, but also was an aggressive rugby player
that he also was a passable artist who illustrated his own work
the fact that this period of his life was characterized by some benign trouble-making and testing of boundaries (i.e. the scene where he and friends “steal” a bus is based on a real incident)
that he was a somewhat lower social status than his three friends in the T.C.B.S., being a poor orphan living on scholarships and charity whereas they were all from rich families, and yet they all not only accepted him as a brother, but counted him as the most worthy of their number for academic and artistic success
and so, so much more detail and nuance from Tolkien’s biography that the film portrayed quite nicely
plays with the chronology of real events as it attempts to emphasize
certain themes and relationships. Sometimes
I think the result was less effective than the real history; for
example, its alterations to the timeline of Tolkien and Edith’s
relationship felt less meaningful and were
awkwardly conveyed, whereas the account in Humphrey Carpenter’s
biography was clear and moving.
about his Christian faith and the Catholic Church?
notable glossing is in the area of religion: the
role of the Catholic
in Tolkien’s life
handful of times, and positively,
is not shown to personally participate in it.
I’ve heard people complain about this, as though there was some
attempt to erase or downplay Christianity in the film. And
while I get that complaint, I think it is also based on some
the one hand, I would have loved for the film to address his
spiritual development directly, and to have shown how it influenced
his relationships and work. But in
actuality, this period of Tolkien’s life is one that he himself
regarded as spiritually weak. He went an entire year without once
hearing mass, and Dr. Corey Olsen, a Tolkien scholar, believes that
the religious influence on Tolkien’s writing at this time was
pretty slight. From
what I can tell, the film’s portrayal is a
smaller deviation than many reviewers seem to think. It wasn’t
until later that he began attending mass every day and taking an
active role in his own spiritual development.
film’s representative for Catholicism, and indeed for any
Christianity, is in Father Francis, Tolkien’s legal guardian. It’s
a very fair portrayal, quite in line with what we know. He was stern,
but very generous and sincere in his concern for Tolkien. He forbade
Tolkien from seeing Edith until he was an adult, partially on account
of Edith being Protestant but also because Francis knew, correctly,
that romance would distract the easily-distracted Tolkien from his
already struggling studies at Oxford, and could seriously endanger
his future. Rather than fashion Father Francis into a symbol of a
repressive and unforgiving Church, the film acknowledges his
generosity and the perfectly valid reasons he has. It’s a
refreshingly true, even-handed portrayal.
The other thought to keep in mind has to do with the art of adapting someone’s life for a dramatic medium. You simply can’t cover every aspect of the subject’s life, you have to choose which threads are most relevant to the story you want to tell. And since Tolkien’s religious practice was weak both outwardly and inwardly during this period, it makes sense for the filmmakers to leave it at the barest mention and spend more time on the aspects of his life which were dominant. If a film wanted to examine Tolkien’s faith and its relation to his life and work (and I very much want to see that film), it would probably choose his later years with the Inklings.
is the portrayal of Tolkien himself?
Nicholas Hoult is excellent as the young John Ronald Reuel Tolkien, and this sentence is a relief to type. He has a sort of nervous energy, as though his intelligence is itching for the chance to express itself creatively but hasn’t quite found the right outlet; which is fair, because while Tolkien was in fact already writing and studying languages by this point, his imaginative ideas hadn’t quite coalesced in the way we think of them now. He is brilliant with languages but slacks off at school. He plays rugby confidently but his words stumble over themselves when he tries to express himself. He adores Edith, but also sometimes overlooks her until she stands up and demands his attention. And he is deeply loyal to his friends, even though it was they who sought him out rather than he them. All of this is close enough to the Tolkien I met in Carpenter’s biography and in the earliest of Tolkien’s letters.
If there is one part of him I wish they had portrayed more, it is
Tolkien’s humor. His earliest letters have a light, wry touch even
when describing unpleasant circumstances. “I had to pay a
duty call to the Rector in the afternoon which was very boring,” he
writes to Edith in Letter 1 of The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien.
“His wife is really appalling! I got away as soon as possible and
fled back in the rain to my books.” I was also disappointed to see
no reference in the film to the time at university when Tolkien acted
in a student play and made his role, a grumpy old battleaxe of an
aunt, the most hilarious and memorable part on the stage! Hoult’s
Tolkien is too serious for all that, able to enjoy his friends’
jokes and silliness without offering much of his own.
But Hoult does portray Tolkien’s passions, loyalty, and intelligence quite well. It’s a nuanced portrayal that held my interest the whole way through.
Tolkien’s friends made for the strongest thread in the film. They met each other at King Edward’s School and formed a club they called the Tea Club, Barrovian Society (or T.C.B.S.), after Barrow’s Stores where they took their tea and discussed art, literature, and the future of the world. The actors all do fantastic jobs, portraying young men intoxicated with the possibilities of the future, with the strength of their education, with their own artistic talents, and especially with the bonds of brotherhood that were growing between them. They have a natural charisma as a group, and the growing realization that their fellowship is destined to be torn apart by a world war that none of them wanted or anticipated is upsetting.
Edith Tolkien, as portrayed by Lilly Collins, is a sharp-witted, beautiful young woman who is frustrated at being trapped in a boring life of servitude to an old woman, and who challenges Tolkien to think more carefully about the meanings of words and how they affect people. We don’t actually know much about Edith from history, as the Tolkien Estate and family have elected to keep much of that information private. Collins’ spirited portrayal is pretty close to what we know of her, and makes for a good dramatic foil for the more stoic Tolkien. My one complaint is that in their attempt to have her contribute to Tolkien’s intellectual development, the filmmakers give Edith credit for certain ideas about language and story that I’m pretty sure Tolkien already was espousing before he met her. Still, it’s a fair enough change in service of the greater story: she did support his writing in reality, even though she didn’t share his enthusiasm for languages.
What of those “stumbles” you mentioned?
I can think of three main areas of the film that felt weaker than they should have been. The first is his relationship with Edith. The movie fumbles their first meeting by not really showing it! We see him get a first glimpse of her while she plays the piano, unaware of him. Then later we see them sit down to dinner at the house they both live, which is presumably the first time she’s seen him—but no acknowledgment of that is made. And then it literally cuts to a scene of them having a private, familiar talk together, as if they were already past introductions and into a fast friendship. By making their first meeting confusing this way, we lose the impact that meeting her really had on him. There are more pacing stumbles in the later parts of their relationship, too, where the timing of events becomes a little unclear to the point where the movie forgets to actually show their wedding.
Another concerns the T.C.B.S. – we needed to learn more of what really made them tick as a group, what their ambitions really were, especially regarding Tolkien himself. I loved watching them interact and encourage each other, but the film didn’t really show us how the four of them might have been able to change the world together, had they all survived World War I. And they never really let Tolkien himself share his writings with the group. The film will leave you thinking that Tolkien barely wrote anything of his own during this period, where in reality he wrote quite a lot of poetry (some of it gorgeous) that he was sharing with his friends and occasionally publishing.
The T.C.B.S. were Tolkien, Smith, Gilson, and Wiseman – Tolkien writes in Letter 5 of The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien that they had believed they were “destined to kindle a new light, or, what is the same thing, rekindle an old light in the world; that the TCBS was destined to testify for God and Truth in a more direct way even than by laying down its several lives in this war.” He wrote that in a 1916 letter to Smith, after they had both received news of Gilson’s death. The way he writes to his friend sounds very much like the friendship portrayed in the film, with the exception that in the letter Tolkien is more explicit about his ambitions for the future than film made clear, and more confident in his beliefs as he tries to make sense of his friend’s death.
Which brings me to my final frustration with the film: its portrayal of Tolkien dealing with the horrors of war by hallucinating fantasy creatures on the battlefield. I think the filmmakers were trying to show how Tolkien’s trench fever and shell shock were causing him to process the battlefield in terms his imagination already understood, as a way of shoring up Tolkien’s belief in the ability of fantasy and myth to help us understand the real world. But because the film hadn’t showed Tolkien writing any of his own fantasy yet, nor even talking much about it, these scenes instead conveyed the idea that he got his ideas for stories from the hallucinations themselves. This all contradicts what Tolkien himself said about his experiences at war and writing his first fantasy stories in the trenches, it trivializes the process of art creation, and it also ends up downplaying the real horrors of the Somme.
And yet even as I acknowledge these genuine problems, I can’t help but remember all the stuff I loved in the film. The T.C.B.S. especially, but also Hoult’s performance, and his genuinely romantic chemistry with Edith. There are at least three brilliant conversations in the film: one where Edith chastises Tolkien for a moment of selfishness, one with Prof. Joseph Wright discussing the importance of the history of words, and a final, heart-wrenching conversation with the mother of Smith, who was killed in the war. Then there is fact that the movie portrayed a world in which platonic friendship could be one of the most passionate and pure forms of love, and in which even romance was stronger when it was moral. It is an essentially Christian worldview, and that a film today would advocate for such a worldview by showing it stoking healthy passions, self-sacrifice, and creativity is, in its own way, wildly, dangerously radical.
All film images from IMDb. Photo of the real Tolkien from Wikipedia.
My review of the J.R.R. Tolkien biopic, Tolkien, is in progress. There has been a lot of great discussion about it across various forums, and I hope I won’t be too late to engage some of my readers in discussion about it here. However, I’ve noticed a trend of responses among some Tolkien fans that disturbs me: that of smug dismissal.
A Feanorian response if there ever was one; finding a perceived flaw in something, whether by experience or hearsay, real or imagined, and dismissing the entire thing out of hand without careful, gracious consideration. We must take pains to avoid this. And yet I see this happening with Tolkien fans in regards to the movie Tolkien. They see a review or hear a comment about it that says something they don’t like, and they decide they can safely dismiss or even condemn the movie without even seeing it themselves.
Please don’t do this. It is an intellectually dishonest attitude. It also does a tremendous disservice to a film that many people came together to make, out of a sincere love for J.R.R. Tolkien and a desire to convey to the world just what is beautiful and wise about his life story.
So don’t dismiss the movie, no matter what you have heard. Regardless of whether the movie is good or bad, it deserves not to be ignored. If you are a fan of J.R.R. Tolkien, then it is absolutely worth your time to see the movie Tolkien and discuss it in some depth with others.
But what we suffer from to-day is humility in the wrong place. Modesty has moved from the organ of ambition. Modesty has settled upon the organ of conviction; where it was never meant to be. A man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about the truth…
Rat Monster 1: “Please, comrade! I just want to chop him up for the stew!” Rat Monster 2: “And that’s another thing! I’m tired of stew! I want to put him in a crust and bake a light fluffy quiche!” Rat Monster 1: “QUICHE?! What kind of food is THAT for a monster to eat?!”
Bone: Vol. 1
Jeff Smith’s Boneis correctly described as “a cartoon epic.” Not only is it a graphic novel, but its three main heroes are round-featured cartoon creatures in the style of the classic Pogo comic strip, complete with vague anatomy, exaggerated quirks, and a relaxed adherence to the rules of physics. They stumble out of their presumably silly and gag-based homeland into a mystical valley populated by medieval humans, talking bugs, elusive dragons, and other strange creatures, which is being menaced by a dark sorcerer and large, vicious rat-creatures.
You might fear that these two genres wouldn’t mix well: that either the cartoon humor would undercut the epic’s gravitas or that the epic’s gravitas would dampen the lightness and optimism of the cartoons. Yet for the most part it does work, and delightfully well. Bone is an engrossing fantasy saga with enough sweep and scale to thrill, and enough wit and lightness to keep you laughing and hoping for the best.
I read the nine issues of Bone in a one-volume, 1344-page book. It might be the fastest 1000+ pages I’ve ever read, finishing it in under three weeks; it could have easily been faster. Smith’s art is alternately beautiful and hilarious, and well-suited to the balance that his writing achieves.
Some have compared the story’s epic sweep to The Lord of the Rings, although I think
that is far too enthusiastic. It has nothing of the deep history and
carefully-designed symbolism of Tolkien’s worldbuilding and stories. The
characters are lively and have enough emotional depth to give the story some
worthwhile meaning and emotion, but there’s no one so awe-inspiring and
life-affirming as Sam Gamgee, Frodo, Gandalf, and Aragorn. But that’s okay,
because Bone has as much as it needs.
Enough sword-and-sorcery adventure and clever worldbuilding details to
intrigue, but leaving it light enough that it is accessible to a wide variety
of readers and can be digested fairly quickly.
“A great and rigid authoritarian administration with a thought police which is supposed to know all should at least keep its records straight.”
De Santillana, The Crime of Galileo. 1955. Page 263
The Crime of Galileo by Giorgio De Santillana (Goodreads)
In school I only learned the most basic information about Galileo: that he was a genius scientist and polymath who sought to prove that the Earth orbited the Sun, at a time when the accepted view was that the Sun went around the Earth. That the Roman Catholic Church opposed him, and when he would not recant, employed the Inquisition to see that his writings were banned and he himself was put under house arrest. The reality is far more complicated. For example, at first the church had little problem with his writings; rather, it was other academics who first became hostile to Galileo and who were suspicious of applied mathematics. Throughout his life there were certain groups, especially, it seems, of the Dominican Order, who declared themselves his enemy and worked tirelessly to turn the Church bureaucracy against him, even when he often had the support of powerful church officials, and sometimes even of popes. Galileo himself bent over backwards to avoid getting in trouble with the Church; he had no fear of controversy so long as the authorities granted him the right to debate on equal footing, but he took care to avoid needless provocation. Still, drama and frustration seemed unavoidable. His life was full of mountains and valleys, and it’s something of a wonder how much data this book is able to collate and make into a single, understandable story.
“…it was clearly established among all concerned, with the possible lone exception of the Pope himself, who stood there in the solitary unawareness of despots, that Galileo’s trial was based on a judicial forgery, although it could not be stated explicitly without bringing about a diplomatic crisis.” (297)
Giorgio De Santillana’s examination of Galileo and his world is packed tightly with extracts from letters, legal documents, private memoirs, contemporary published works, Inquisition files, and many other primary documents. With an impressive attention to detail, and a strong belief in the humanity behind each historical character, he stitches together a saga based on fact, that reaches beyond the narrow confines of the Florentine scholar’s books and touches not only other aspects of his life, but the many aspects of the lives of every significant player in his story. So we learn not only what Galileo Galilei wrote about the movements of the sun and earth, but also of his personal friendships, his relationships with the Catholic and Protestant denominations, his health problems, his hopes and desires and disappointments. And then when another major character enters the picture, say the Duke of Tuscany or Cardinal Bellarmine, we dive into their own life to try to understand just who they were and why they did what they did at the time of Galileo’s story. I was continually surprised by just how much contemporary evidence there is for all of this. De Santillana will quote from characters who were very minor in history, who perhaps made only one or two important contributions to Galileo’s life, and yet De Santillana has found this person’s diary, and in it something which sheds new light on these events. It’s a dense approach, to be sure, and makes for heavy reading. Heavy, but riveting.
“Moralist historians do not seem to notice that their perspective is that of believers in another religion…They forget [Galileo] was a member of the Apostolic Roman communion and had to submit in some way. Quite apart from the personal inconvenience of being burnt at the stake…” (278)