Good Parenting Advice From O'Connor (and Lewis)

 

I came across an interesting article by Theresa Civantos Barber over on Aleteia,
"Flannery O’Connor’s perfect parenting advice."

The article begins:

When my kids don't want to do their chores or go on a family hike, you can count on me quoting Flannery O'Connor!

There’s a phrase of Flannery O’Connor’s that I quote so much I’ve started to take it as a motto for parenting. 

O’Connor wasn’t talking about parenting when she said it. She was actually talking about education. But are those really so different? The Catechism itself says that parents are called to be their children’s “primary educators.” 

Barber then quotes O'Connor:

"And if the student finds that this is not to his taste? Well, that is regrettable. Most regrettable. His taste should not be consulted; it is being formed." 

She also brings C. S. Lewis into the discussion:

"Aristotle says that the aim of education is to make the pupil like and dislike what he ought… The little human animal will not at first have the right responses. It must be trained to feel pleasure, liking, disgust, and hatred at those things which really are pleasant, likeable, disgusting and hateful."

Barber points out the importance of the parents forming the child's tastes through activities from chores to homework to hikes. And she finds joy in that.

"One of the best things about being a parent is sharing the things we love with our kids, so we can enjoy them together."

Check out the rest of what Barber also has to say.

Rochester Chesterton Society Season Begins

 

Tonight the Rochester Chesterton Society will meet to begin its 2025/26 season. The Society meets from September to May on the second Thursday of the month - except in January, taking a break due to the frequently snowy weather.

At the meetings, we read a book by Chesterton. The last two years it has been Heretics and The Ball and the Cross. Tonight we start The Man Who Was Thursday.

We read the books aloud, pausing to discuss. It's wonderful getting other people's insights and discovering things about the books that I did not know.

I have a fondness for Thursday. I read it a number of years ago, and I'm looking forward to rereading it. Moreover, when I began contributing to the blog I was assigned Thursday, so I was literally "The Man Who Is Thursday." 

Our Society used to sponsor an annual Chesterton Conference. Alas, the donation that was used ot pay for the conferences finally ran out. In addition, the order with which we used to work is no longer active in our diocese, and the college where they used to be assigned was no longer an easily available venue.

I wonder how many local Chesterton Societies there are. I wonder if they are as active as we are. I wonder if they follow the same format we do. 

To quote the great one: “The world will never starve for want of wonders; but only for want of wonder.”

Final Notes on LOTR Books vs Movies

 

I finished reading The Return of the King by J. R. R. Tolkien. What a great pleasure to read - or in my case, reread.

In a previous post I noted some differences between the books and the movies. I spotted some more, but I'm going to just touch on two of them.

In the movies, I noted that I actually hoped Aragorn would have ended up with Eowyn. The suggestions is made that she will end up with Faramir, but it seems kind of abrupt.

In the book, we learn more about the growth of the relationship between Eowyn and Faramir, and it makes far more sense. 

One thing left out of the movies entirely is the "scouring of the Shire." Our four hobbits return to the Shire to find it overrun with thugs and criminals, and Saruman behind it. Our heroes rouse their fellow hobbits and oust the servants of evil. This is entirely missing from the movies. I understand the reasons given the length of the movies already and their focus, but I think it was a loss. The scouring helps to show the growth of Pippin and Merry and their heroism along with that of Sam.

Overall, I enjoyed the rereading. I also enjoy the movies, and will view them again.     

The Lord of the Rings Book vs. Movies

 I am currently rereading The Lord of the Rings. I'm up to the third volume: The Return of the King.

This is my third rereading of the entire trilogy. 

I've also seen the movies multiple times, though it has been a while. When I watched the movies I saw some differences between them and the books. I understood that they are different genres, and so there ahead to be some changes, including some material in the book having to be left out. If they included everything, the movies would have been hours longer that their current running time of about 10 hours in the theaters (and more than 11 in the extended editions.) Adding in all the cut or reduced characters and scenes would have made them rediculously long.

As I read, I am paying attention to some of those changes.

The first big change I had noticed when I first saw the movies was that one of my favorite characters from the The Fellowship of the Ring, Tom Bombadil, was left out entirely. I actually based a character on him in the bedtime stories I told my daughters. While I missed him, from the standpoint of making a movie, I understood why he was left out. He does not play a significant direct role later, and the interlude with him would have added a lot to the movie - including the incident with the deadly willow and the barrow-wights.

On the other hand, leaving out the barrow-wights did leave something unexplained in The Return of the King. Merry acquired his sword in the lair of the barrow-wights, and it was that special sword that enabled him to wound the Black Rider (the Witch King), setting it up for Eowyn's stroke. 

The battle also has a significant change. In the book, the army of the dead helps Aragorn capture the ships. he then frees them, and fills the ships with men who sail with him to join the battle. In the movie they have the army of the dead sweep off the ships and attack the enemy army. Visually with was a great scene, but it was not in the book.

Back in The Felowship of the Ring, Frodo at the Ford of Bruinen is threatened by the evil Nazgul. In the book, he is saved by the elf Glorfindel. In the movie, Arwen saves him. Giving her more screen time, I guess. Personally, I found Liv Tyler's Arwen kind of a weak part of the movies. I actually found myself wishing Aragorn would end up with Eowyn! 

Faramir played a more prominent, heroic role in the books. And Gimli is a much more nuanced, stalwart character in the books; in the movies, he was almost a comic figure. 

I know there are more. When I finish The Return of the King I might have to watch the movies again!