Blue Like Jazz, by Donald Miller
Pardon me while I vent some steam about what I'm feeling right now. Shawshank on The Electric Monk offered to send a free copy of Donald Miller's book Blue Like Jazz, Nonreligious Thoughts On Christian Spirituality to whoever asked for it, because he had a simple question. "... my question for you is NOT whether it rationally solves the mystery of Christianity (and cures all other ills in the process)," he wrote. "Rather, my question would simply be this -- if Christianity looked like THAT, would you find it appealing or not?"
It's in the category of what are called "inspirational books." As such it's very annoying. I've gotten to chapter five, Faith, and it's the worst yet. I would have gotten further by now, but I have to take this book in small portions at a time. I don't like who I become. I can't read long enough to accumulate too much contempt, disgust and frustration, before I feel like I need to take my psyche out and wipe these emotions off on my pants.
One of the opening pages is blank except for this text: "In America, the first generation out of slavery invented jazz music. It is a free-form expression. It comes from the soul, and it is true." Right there on the first page, by applying the word "true" to music (and later to love), the author reveals to me the probable answer to Shawshank's question. I will never find any framework appealing that undermines the ability to apply a truth value to statements. I frequently write about this. If music can be true, then other music can be false. Like rock and roll is purported to be, by those who apply "true" and "false" to music. Mr. Miller probably thinks there is no such thing as false music. Then there's no difference between true and false. These words just don't apply to music or love. This wall of separation that should keep emotional reactions from corrupting our truth claims is the same wall that keeps emotional reactions safe from being invalidated by truth and falsity. When you get the fire out of the fireplace, both truth and beauty are in danger.
An example. It was the last straw when the atheist character Laura (who I had greatly respected because she didn't buy into the author's mental masturbation and going around in little pointless circles) experienced some kind of emotional breakdown of cowardice and neurotic guilt and turned to Jeeeeeeeezus. When her virtues were despised by the author and her failure was glorified, it made me get up and rant and rave. I thought Laura was the perfect woman before, the kind I've rarely seen. He hated those attributes and played a hand in ruining that. I wanted to hit him. That's extreme, I know, but this is why I don't like who I become when I read this claptrap.
This book is like a gagging oppression on my life right now. So the answer to "would you find it appealing or not" is a resounding no. What did Shawshank think was unique or distinctive from the "same-old, same-old" vomit I've been fed from spirituality my whole life? That Mr. Miller is not a "big meanie head"? SO WHAT. What Shawshank needs to understand is that ACTUALLY GETTING SOMEWHERE is what I find emotionally satisfying. But if true and false are depicted as indistinguishable, then no mystery can be resolved. We can get nowhere. Miller makes the search for answers, even a little relative probable answer, into a joke and a farce. Have Shawshank and I talked online for so long and he still doesn't know what I'm going away from? The answer was not even in the book's opening page, it was in Shawshank's own question. A book about Christianity that does not attempt to resolve the mystery, that actively sabotages fruitful progress on answers, has automatically committed the cardinal failing.
Comments
Anonymous on Aug. 16, 2004 1:32 PM — It will be ok
Close your eyes, breathe deeply, and count to ten. These are good people who would not hurt a fly. They will not come for you with pitch forks or even yell at you. If they want to delude themselves, live and let live. This religion makes Shawshank feel good. He is just trying to share his joys. He does not realize the offense, I'm sure. Yes, it is annoying to have someone try to convince you of something silly, but just look at the good intentions a give a weak smile. Most people are not even all that intelligent in this world. Not everyone will even come close to meeting your standards. Most people are just trying to get from day to day and make some sense of the madness.
Just look at yourself in comparison and feel proud that you rise above the masses. Its is a shame for those who have the capacity to use their brain and neglect to do so, but that crime deserves no wrath or violence.
netmouse on Aug. 16, 2004 1:55 PM — Re: It will be ok
(I think we have gone too far in the direction of letting people live with their delusions. Point holes in delusions with glee and fortitude! THis is important stuff!)
matt-arnold on Aug. 16, 2004 2:10 PM — Re: It will be ok
Glee... I like that... So much better on the blood pressure, and so much more fun too.
twoofdtm on Aug. 16, 2004 2:01 PM — Re: It will be ok
HEAR HEAR Rachel Mad Kudos to you for stating as such!!!! There are many people out there with many different beliefs and views and we can't all expect to understand them, let alone agree with them. Some people can go on and on and on about the things that make them feel good/they feel are important and not realize they are giving offense. Use me as an example. I can talk about most things without the bat of an eye and not get upset about it. Take the conversation we had in the car on the way home from the Halloween party in Bill's truck. That can show you how people can really listen and (might not agree) but respect somebody's point of view. And other people that are to close minded and so worried about their lives and their beliefs that they can't see somebody elses point. No matter the situation. Do be proud in the fact that you are open minded enough to listen and talk about it.
matt-arnold on Aug. 16, 2004 2:08 PM — Re: It will be ok
I'm all in favor of deep breathing and getting a perspective. Robert Anton Wilson calls this mood that I get into, "being a Cosmic Schmuck." I need one of those gag gifts that are a little medicine bottle reading "Chill Pills." My issues are important, but I need self-awareness too.
matt-arnold on Aug. 16, 2004 2:04 PM — Re: It will be ok
Thanks. Who are you?
Harmless? I wouldn't be so sure. Violence isn't the only kind of harm. Suppose I and Mr. Miller are trying to negotiate an important decision. He gets to retreat to faith when he's losing an argument, and then hold me to reason, argument and evidence when he feels they give him the upper hand. Just like everybody else I know in my life personally, who claim to be on friendly terms with both faith and reason-- this usually means they get to use them both against me, but account to neither. "Faith and reason are both good" sounds all warm and fuzzy, but it's a stealth weapon. And the worst thing about that tactic, is that in our society, they are the good guys for pulling this switcheroo and I am the bad guy. They have the legal right under the first amendment to do this, but I have the legal right under the first amendment to call them assholes.
Anonymous on Aug. 17, 2004 9:19 AM — Re: It will be ok
By the way. If you were making an important decision as you say and the other person "harms" you with their faulty reasoning. You are in control of that situation. You choose to give them power over you and for their reasoning to upset you. In that sense of harm, everything is mental and you can control that. Controling someone's bursting your ear drum and shaking you and giving bruises is a little harder.
netmouse on Aug. 16, 2004 2:11 PM
uhg, I'm in a christianity revolt myself. There's this guy who left us a quote for our sidewalk and driveway replacement, and I was supposed to call him to ask him questions. His voice mail message (which doesn't give his name) includes him saying "god bless" and some other religious saying. I found it so inappropriate I almost hung up.
Last week I went to my great-aunt's funeral and sat there for a half hour or so while this really nice seeming man preached to us about this woman (who he did not know) and more, about Jesus, and how we will all die with Jesus, and be burried with Jesus, and rise with Him to the city of Heaven after we die, and we should look forward to that and be comforted by it.
On the way to the family's home afterward, I commented that I had found myself wondering what the effect would be if someone other than the christian church got to have a captive audience every time someone died, to whom they could speak for half an hour or so about how to live your life, what to hope for, and how to find comfort and love each other. My dad said something nice and affirming like "You noticed that too, huh? That's my daughter!"
Personally I don't have too much problem with the quote about Jazz at the beginning of your post - at least, not with the music being true question. The rest of it is junk, of course. Jazz has quite a lot of structure and pattern to it, it has roots in music that was before slavery ended, and has continued to be reinvented and developed by much more than "the first generation out of slavery" including by many people who never were slaves (nor their ancestors).
But poetically, I like the idea of something artistic being True- and though I can see your point about how it's harder to call something like music "false", I feel you could, with regard to many pieces of music, call them "wrong" (I personally, would never apply either of these terms to whole categories of music. Each individual piece of music speaks or does not speak with a clear voice, regardless of category or type, or medium, for that matter).
But in much the same vein, I say on my website,
I am a hoper, a wisher, a dreamer.
I am a lover, a poet, a reader.
Join me as I strive to be true.
And in this I mean something more than to be truthfull, if you know what I mean.
matt-arnold on Aug. 16, 2004 2:36 PM
When we hear good music (or other art) and it seems "right," and ineffective music seems "wrong," perhaps this is right and wrong in terms of success or effectiveness, not fact value. Buildings can be "right," when they don't fall down, because the purpose is to stand up. Music expresses mood, not informational, factual content. Wouldn't you say you're glad? What if all it were good for was such a dry purpose? That's why the wall of separation between fact and feeling protects both of them. Music is good at something and not at others-- and determining facts are a purpose to which only certain methods apply. I'm just about using tools for what they are actually effective for, that's all. Actually, I was always kind of curious about your tag line. You're obviously clear on the functional distinction though.
netmouse on Aug. 17, 2004 4:11 AM
Music is not merely about mood, and truth is not only about factual content. Consider other applications of "true" you can find in the dictionary. A note (or instrument) can be true, meaning it is in tune. The angle of a building can be true, meaning it is right, literally, as in at a right angle to the ground and in all the other right places. A piece of wood or a wheel can be true, meaning it is straight. The internal structure of a gem or piece of metal can be true or flawed. There is a rightness and a purity that is referred to by the word "true" that is more fundamental than even logic and relationship, and I think it would be innapropriate to eschew this application of the word, given that it is already well-established through usage.
Back to the subject of the content of music, music is of course often used to impart some message, factual or cultural, either in words or in theme. And this message can most certainly be judged true or false. This doesn't apply to all music of course, but definitely to some.
netmouse on Aug. 17, 2004 4:27 AM
Even just in mood or emotional appeal, consider this corrolary:
In archery, your aim is true if your arrow strikes your target.
Whether it makes you glad or brings you tears, music is true if it pierces the heart.
(And that is of course a reference to an allegorical heart, which confuses things even more. But I still think it's true, so there. :P)
matt-arnold on Aug. 17, 2004 5:50 AM
People too often try to put a message into music. I hate that. There's only one thing that can be accomplished by trying to convince someone of fact claims with music, and that's lies and delusions. This reminds me of the time I revealed to my dad that I was struggling to stay in Christianity. He didn't offer me arguments, he didn't offer me truth. Instead, one of the invalid brainwashing techniques he used was that he said I should listen to Christian music over and over and over until the doubts went away. This is a lie and my father is a lying liar, first to himself and then to his own son. So-called "factual truth" in music is brainwashing. I can't even put into words how much I despise that.
Donald Miller applied the word true to music not in order to mean these other semantic things, but so that he could make the readers think we'd heard a justification for his delusions. Granted, our language has developed this dangerous flaw built right into it so that people will confuse fact value with emotional value. but I eschew it as carefully as I can, so that I won't feel like an accomplice to lies and the lying liars that tell them. That's my opinion. It's well-established through usage, but all it that means is I have an extra burden on me to constantly define my terms.
netmouse on Aug. 17, 2004 6:33 AM
It's true that music can be effectively used to express (and indoctrinate people with) false beliefs and inappropriate emotional reactions. That doesn't mean that all music does this, any more than it's true that everything in the newspaper is false, or anything that might be said to you by a hypnotist is false, or anything I say to you is false. Any of these sources can be persuasive and any of them can lie.
that doesn't mean they all do, all of the time.
And music definitely doesn't, not all of the time.
matt-arnold on Aug. 17, 2004 7:00 AM — Love, music, smoking dope
OK, the point is to view music, newspapers or hypnotists with very low credibility. The truth claims that romantic love hormones tell people is that way too. I like loving someone as much as the next person, but for me it's like art appreciation, not truth. People who believe the truth claims that their hormones tell them when they fall in love (this is forever, this is all you need, etc.), end up miserable. For me, falling in love with a beautiful person or listening to beautiful music is like smoking a beautiful joint: you don't believe what the feeling tells you, you just enjoy the feeling. (Not that I've ever smoked dope either; you might be sensing a trend here.)
netmouse on Aug. 20, 2004 5:35 AM
_This reminds me of the time I revealed to my dad that I was struggling to stay in Christianity. He didn't offer me arguments, he didn't offer me truth. Instead, one of the invalid brainwashing techniques he used was that he said I should listen to Christian music over and over and over until the doubts went away. This is a lie and my father is a lying liar, first to himself and then to his own son. So-called "factual truth" in music is brainwashing. I can't even put into words how much I despise that.
_
I was thinking about this and coming back to it: it seems to me that most music, in terms of lyrics anyway, is fiction (some of it is speculation ("imagine") and some of it is autobiographical ("like a virgin") but most of it is fiction. This doesn't mean it can't say true things about the world and the human condition, else why would written fiction be such a good lense through which to observe life? But most music makes no bones about the fact that it is fiction. Gospel music, on the other hand, is trying to convince you, comfort you, and tie into your faith, and create or strengthen it. A fair bit of it comes straight from scripture, but many songs assert things that are clearly made up after the fact, such as most visions of heaven, e.g.:
"I got shoes! (I got shoes!)
All God's Children got shoes!
Alleluia, Lordy,
When I get to heaven, gonna put on my shoes, I'm gonna walk all over god's heaven!"
Whether the bible is fiction or the bible is fact, this song is fiction - there is no mention of shoes in heaven in the bible. But the canon of religious music generally pretends to be other than fiction, and I would suppose this is what really gets in your craw.
btw, I was talking to Bill about this - someone who had a Much more religious upbringing than I did, and he suggested that if you were to go to a priest and tell him you have doubts, the priest would respond that it's fine to have doubts, that doubting is an important part of examining your beliefs. He also supposed that a priest would have lots of other helpful things to say and suggested you talk to one if you haven't already.
(that is, if you're still trying to stay in the faith. I'm presonally not christian, and hope you know that I'm not trying to influence you one way or the other.)
matt-arnold on Aug. 20, 2004 5:57 AM
I resolved that years ago, and left religion permanently. I don't intend to return.
matt-arnold on Aug. 20, 2004 6:38 AM
A good indication of my un-likelihood of returning to faith could be found in my recent posts, Universism, the O'Doul's of Religion and iConoclasm, a Convention for Freethinkers. I could talk to a priest for entertainment value, I guess; but when he finds out I intend to try to actively compete to take away his congregation, who knows how he might react.
Anonymous on Aug. 17, 2004 5:30 AM — It will be ok
Hey Matt,
It's me, Rachel. I'm all for poking holes in delusions, but I think it should be done with a smile and compassion and as little frothing at the mouth as humanly possible. That is why I remind that these are not people worthy of wrath no matter how annoying. Now if these were scream in the face, guilt inducing, shake some sense into you Christians being described, I may get a tad irate as well. Then they have crossed a personal barrier of respect and are worthy of anger. I have read some of this book, and the people described are nothing like that. They are kind and unintrusive, the equivalent of hippie Christians. Sure you could laugh and snort and how ridiculous they are but swatting at butterflies flying into walls is not quite appropriate. Swatting is reserved for wasps trying to sting you again and again.
matt-arnold on Aug. 17, 2004 6:26 AM — Re: It will be ok
Frankly, I myself am the guilt-inducing, shake-some-sense-into-you kind of guy when it comes to authority figures, teachers and leaders. When someone writes a book, teaches an audience, parents a child or takes on some other kind of authority and influence, they have a different level of responsibility. Sons and daughters, book readers, political constituents, etc. have the moral right to demand that they not take an antagonistic stance toward reality. My grandmother was a sweet old lady who never shared her faith with anyone, and that's fine with me. See the distinction?
Anonymous on Aug. 17, 2004 6:46 AM — Self-Expression
So what you are saying is that if someone writes their memoirs and happens to mention what drives them and what they believe, you then have the right to froth and drool over everything they expressed about themselves which you disagree. So to be safe from the spittle one would have to never tell you or anyone what they think in their innermost heart.
I think spittle should be reserved for those who are actively trying to manipulate the world to agree with them, not for those who just happen to share what's on their mind.
matt-arnold on Aug. 17, 2004 7:08 AM — Re: Self-Expression
Hm, some memoir. I no longer consider it to be that. He doesn't happen to offhandedly drop comments into his narratives, he drops narratives into his comments. This is a work of persuasive writing. He accuses us of all being broken and innately wrong. He teaches us that we must never trust what we want, but give up all our goals to perfect trust and obedience to a holy book. It teaches us that it's OK to use ignore the facts because of what we feel, which in my view is like a drug dealer passing out addictive drugs to kids. Who know what else he does later in the book. And I'm supposed to say nothing of the outrage?
Anonymous on Aug. 17, 2004 7:26 AM — Re: Self-Expression
Why is this outrage such a powerful emotion? Why do you give this piece of writing so much power over you? You know the answer. It is because of your father. If you had a father that never shouted and did not completely unjustifyably lead his family down a path of raging emotional religion would you be this hot. Sure you have the right to point out that it is indeed false and ridiculous, but why the coronay arrest? People are going to think and believe whatever they want regardless all the persuasive writing in the world.
matt-arnold on Aug. 17, 2004 7:37 AM — Re: Self-Expression
The temper and lack of conflict resolution skills is a different problem from the impaired judgement leading us down his primrose path. I have no problem with passion. I'm passionate myself. In fact, the reason this problem doesn't go away is that we keep treating faith in our leaders and teachers like a harmless quirk instead of a character failing. Jesus and Martin Luther King and the Founding Fathers didn't change the world with making light of it. They employed blame and shame on King George, on the Pharisees, on the power establishment. Only when the public perception changes to see faith as self-deception and a double standard will anything improve.
matt-arnold on Aug. 17, 2004 7:39 AM — Re: Self-Expression
In fact, this reminds me, Donald Miller says in his story about his political protests that he learned not to blame the power establishment but always to blame himself. What an Uncle Tom.
Anonymous on Aug. 17, 2004 8:38 AM — Re: Self-Expression
Improve how? So if everyone does realize this is a character flaw will they all join in spitting on such dispicable people who dare avoid reality and truth and chase them out of town with pitchforks. Perhaps it is better to simply shake one's head at the folly and realize that it is better to encourage free and individual thought and show people that path rather than hiss at those trying to lead people down the path to the briarpatch. Each individual has a the power to choose to whom they give power over themselves. It seems you are still stuck in the mentality that people are basically sheep that must be hearded in the right direction.
matt-arnold on Aug. 18, 2004 7:14 AM — Preachiness
That's fine as far as it goes. All I'm saying about blame and shame is that religion-related issues always can't help but touch on it. Preachiness is not always a bad thing because blame and shame and control are going to be at stake whether you defend the innocent from it or not. So, I say let's do so. To me, preachiness is like being a lawyer in a courtroom, with humanity on trial. Donald Miller is the prosecution. I volunteer for the defense. Will I be preachy? Heck yes, this injustice requires a passionate advocacy. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, let's review Mr. Miller's accusations and power grabs.
1. You and I and everyone are broken and innately wrong.
2. Oppression by the establishment is the victim's fault.
3. What you want is bad, you should obey his holy book.
What exhibits does the prosecution provide? Exhibit A, Penguin Sex. I'm not making this up. His argument is that we don't know how penguins know just when to return to their mates on the day the egg hatches. Therefore, according to the prosecution, his accusations and power grabs are relieved of the responsibility to make any sense. They are accountable only to his animal instincts just like the brute instincts of these mindless beasts. Exhibit B, Jazz Music. If it feels good, believe it.
In short, his arguments amount to cheating this court. I object on procedural grounds and ask that the case against me and all mankind be dismissed pending appeal with a new prosecution.
Leave a Comment