The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by James:

James@19:

The assignments clearly aren't just random, so there is some real programming behind them. (Throw in a text with lots of Middle-Earth references, and it will tell you that you write like Tolkien, which is consistent with a heavy reliance on word-frequency analysis.)

And it tells a lot of people that they write like Dan Brown, which is barely above telling them that they write like Stephenie Meyer, i.e. hardly a compliment.

However, the vanity press aspect would be just as troubling even if the test were at the cutting edge of AI.

The New Testament's books don't attempt to replicate the genres of the Old (with the small exception of the Apocalypse, which echoes Daniel and intertestamental apocalyptic in its structure and tropes). The Aeneid stands in a strong genre relationship to the Odyssey and the Iliad (in that order, half and half).

There is a Heyer novel (The Quiet Gentleman) which is set a few years after Waterloo at most and in which an epergne plays a small role in the plot, which pushes them back to a Georgian period at least.

With regard to "One day, someone will reboot this genre, and produce a stunning novel":

1) Why would he assume it's likely to be any time soon? and 2) Why would he assume that this is something for which most readers are waiting with bated breath?

The non-SF subgenre that Anita Blake riffs off, the hard-boiled detective novel, has produced just one really first-rate writer in about 90 years: Raymond Chandler.

This has not prevented several generations of readers from enjoying much more mid-range work.

John Stanning@51

That's why I was careful to use the lower-case on both adjectives.

Seriously, I often see arguments which defend some non-democratic feature of the U.S. Constitution (e.g. the massive deviation of the Senate from rep. by pop.) as an aspect of the "republic" character of the U.S. ("the drafters designed a republic, not a democracy"), where I can't see what it has to do with the defining characteristic of a republic. It would make sense if, "republic" was replaced by, say, "oligarchy" in most of these defenses, but I have a feeling that that substitution would not be welcome to the people making the argument.

John Stannin@45:

Maybe it's just my having a different perspective as a non-USAn, but I always thought Republic (except in the context of discussing Plato) mainly meant "not having a hereditary monarchy", principally because that's what it looks like in Roman history from a height of 20,000 feet by contrast with the Tarquins and the Empire.

From that perspective I see no opposition between republican and democratic -- they're two completely different axes.

The Kedushah, as it stood at the beginning of the CE, is indeed the direct ancestor of the Sanctus, in direct descent from the Synagogue service of the first century. "Tsivaot" is maintained in the Latin as the unsassimilated sabaoth. The Benedictus which follows is an indirect descendant of the "Baruch Kevod Adonai Mimkomo" -- it substituted a different text beginning with "Barukh" as a response.

"Then it passed through her mind what her mother had said
With her antepenultimate breath:
"Oh my child, when you look on the wine when it is red
Be prepared for a fate worse than death".

I understand that the song (Madeira, M'Dear) is actually a real music-hall song and antedates F&S, but I may be wrong.

Proverbs 23:31, actually.

I gather that it is unclear which colour is actually referred to in the Hebrew: Douay-Rheims translates it as "yellow".

Mycroft W.:

I'll grant the greatness of the piece you link to, but "most difficult"? Compared to, oh, say, motets by Gesualdo?

Elliott Mason:

Neither "he suffered death and was buried" nor "he suffered, died, and was buried" is a close translation of "passus et sepultus est" (the Cranmerian "he suffered and was buried" nails it): both want to insert something about the death to make it explicit. The new translation does merge it back into two rather than three actions, though. Overall, the creed seems (unsurprisingly) to be closer to the original in the new translation than in the old (consubstantial being a direct derivative of "consubstantialem" and always having had exactly that meaning -- I think I prefer it or "being of one substance " to the vaguer "one in being".

The reason for that bit being in the creed was to make it clear, as opposed to various heresies which held that Jesus was either a man in appearance only or that his presence as son of God was withdrawn before the passion to prevent the scandal of God being said to suffer (via communicatio idiomatum), that the suffering was real and not apparent and was the suffering of the second person of the Trinity.

Craig R. --

"Mass" is OK.

We use it at our Anglican church.

B. Durbin:

Yes, well, there's even a book by Thomas Day (a Catholic church musician) called Why Catholics Can't Sing (which lays a chunk of the blame at the feet of the Irish in the English-speaking world). And the Sistine Choir is notoriously bad; the only Roman church which seems to be considered an international model on the choral side is Westminster Cathedral. There are also the Solesmes Congregation monasteries which use the Graduale Romanum, but they are plainsong-only.

In theory (following the Council) the Graduale should have pride of place; but I've never heard it used in a Novus Ordo Roman church other than Westminster, a monastery, or an oratory.

The textual issue is sort-of-related, in that the same urges which produced the guitar masses of the 1960s -- I'm just 50 this year and can remember them in their original heyday as a member of the young generation to which they were supposed to appeal (they did not) -- were a contributory factor to the choice of a particular register and style for the English-language adaptation of the Novus Ordo.

One gap which I tend to note is the relative lack of using the genuinely Catholic reservoir of hymns in the plainsong office and processional hymns, of which Catholic hymnals tend to be remarkably short. Genuinely good hymns are in relatively short supply, and many of the texts by e.g. Fortunatus and Sedulius are very good to stellar, as are the traditional tunes.

"Mass" is derived from "missa", but "missa" was not originally the name of any rite, just one form of the supine stem of mitto. Ita, missa est was just a generic formula of dismissal in Latin.

B. Durbin@260:

The ICET translations are less than 50 years old, and have been in consistent use for a little over 40. In the history of thw Western Rite, this is a minor blip.

To some of us, the ICET texts are still "new", and very much of a period whose ethos was, well, poorly adapted to liturgical expression.

The fact that they resorted to heavy paraphrase meant that the older settings could not be adapted for them. I have seen adapted Palestrina settings for the Cranmer translations, since they at least matched clause-for-clause; this was impossible for the ICET texts. (In contrast, I think this could be managed for the new translations.) Five hundred years of polyphony down the drain; I have seen more Anglican churches use Victoria and Palestrina than Roman ones in recent decades.

There are reports that the ICET commission frequently avoided obvious translations (e.g. "and with your spirit"; "Lord God of hosts") because they were afraid of sounding "too Anglican". I notice that these are back.

The only older settings I have seen adapted to the new ones are Orbis Factor and de Angelis; and being non-melismatic plainsong they can be used for just about anything.

One reason you haven't seen much in the way of new settings, of course, is that the introduction of the new missal has been attended by foot-dragging on the part of some of the hierarchy, especially in North America.

A couple of touchstones regarding principles of not changing the texts of hymns:

Hark how all the welkin rings,
Glory to the king of kings...
(Charles Wesley)

Have mercy on us, Lord most high,
Who lift our hearts to thee;
Have mercy on us, worms of earth,
Most Holy Trinity.
(Frederic William Faber, also author of "Faith of our Fathers, referenced above).

The page reminded me of how much better a version the new translation is. The RCs seem to have gotten over the fear of sounding Anglican that afflicted the ICET in the 1960s and are much closer to the original Latin than the ICET/Missal 1970 version. This particularly applies to the Gregorian Canon (Prayer 1).

B. Durbin@250:

I don't think it's any harder to set than "Glory be to God on high; and in earth peace, goodwill towards men. We praise the, we bless thee, we worship thee, we glorify thee, we give thanks to thee for thy great glory. O Lord God, heavenly King, God the Father Almighty." Four and a half centuries of Anglican composers have handled that.

And both are far closer to Gloria in excelsis Deo, et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis. Laudamus te, benedicimus te, adoramus te, glorificamus te, gratias agimus tibi propter magnam gloriam tuam. Domine Deus, Rex caelestis, Deus Pater omnipotens than the paraphrase in the older translation.

Come to think of it, all three have been equally well set to masses like the Missa de Angelis.

Mary@250:

It was neither biblical nor (simply) heterosexual.

THe legal status was ... complicated, but worked out carefully by the parties' lawyer.

I don't know... I've been happy to put crucifixes in the bedroom, and I'd be willing to have a nicely-done Spanish crucifix in the living room; it would make a nice conversation piece.

In my experience, a stated attachment to the 1928 Prayer Book (or 1962 Prayer Book in Canada) is an explict rejection of the lowered level of explicit Protestant modes of discourse and Protestant doctrine in the later books, and a rejection of changes which tend to somewhat Catholicise the rites in the newer books. This would tend to correlate highly with anti-gay positions but not (except in a very extreme fringe) with opposition to women's orders.

Opposition to the ordination of women tended and tends to be strongest in conservative Anglo-Catholic circles, which had been ignoring the 1928 book ever since it came out in favour of the Anglican Missal. If they use a prayer-book version at all, it would be the newer one.

I knew one of the members of the committe which produced the newer US Prayer Book, now dead, who was firmly opposed to the ordination of women, and he was fairly representative of the AC right wing -- no problems with the prayer book except that it didn't go far enough.

Comment statistics for James on the Making Light blog

Total: 183 comments. View all these comments on a single page.