Wednesday, 28 October 2026

Leo Tolstoy - The Death of Ivan Ilyich – Comment.

 

Long after completing his two masterpieces, War and Peace and Anna Karinina, achieving world fame, an older man, Tolstoy penned this short story, examining death, and what constitutes a 'good' life'. What is a life well lived?  Whether this text answers this question is really up to the reader. From a cultural and societal perspective, Ilyich's has met all expectation, though in death he confronts life's meaning.

Our protagonist is a respected citizen of Moscow from a good family. He is educated in law to become a respectable judge. We see him move up in status and later marry a woman who he deems appropriate though never expresses any real feelings for her or in general. She fits well in his view what constitutes a good wife, though more precisely, what others believe is a successful marriage. We come to discover that she is not a very deep person and looks at her husband with some bitterness and disrespect. Their bourgeoisie status, however, is cemented when he is promoted and moves into a big house, where he conducts extensive restorations at considerable expense. It is here that he has a slight fall, injuring himself that sets his painful demise in motion. 

Ilyich's health diminishes at a slow rate and by the end the pain is unbearable. At first the doctors really don't have a clue as to what is wrong with the man, and we as readers never understand his illness. Ivan's disgust for his doctors grows. Ivan's disgust with his family grows, especially his wife. They seem to be more concerned about how his illness affects them socially and personally. He slowly becomes acutely aware of this fact. The only person in his immediate circle that cares for the man is his humble servant. The servant displays an unusual kindness for Ivan, attentive without patronizing or showing pity. Ivan comes to the end of his life feeling that nothing was worth it, no love or meaning at all. He dies an excruciating death.  

Living one's life only on the surface, achieving only the expectations of society in a wholly materialistic manner is death to the spirit. Through Ilich's life, bourgeoise goals of action and material status was his only concern. The man's only interaction with his fellow human being was a weekly card game, and this activity was not to form deeper friendships, but only to win the game. 

In The Death of Ivan Ilyich, we come to understand that living only a materialistic existence without at least an exploration into the philosophical, the spiritual, life in the end has no meaning. Ilyich lived a materialistic life and died a horrible meaningless death. 

A lesson for us all. 

 

Tuesday, 20 October 2026

John Williams – Augustus – Comment.



The Washington Post heralded 
Augustus as the finest historical novel written by an American. This statement of opinion is debatable on many levels. First, the genre of historical novels, many teachers hammered into me early in life, as something to avoid. When studying history, read historians and certainly not fiction writers. There were two "historical" novels that I've found informative and entertaining. Gore Vidals, Julian and Marguerite Yourcenar's Memoirs of Hadrian. See comment: Articles, Essays & Consideration: Marguerite Yourcenar – Memoirs of Hadrian - Review .Yourcenar of course is French, and Vidal is American. See comment: Articles, Essays & Consideration: Julian- Gore Vidal- A Review Both novels, including William's Augustus, are likely the best of the best in this genre. Yourcenar wrote a curious comment on the genre:

"Time itself has nothing to do with it. It is always surprising to me that my contemporaries, masters as they consider themselves to be over space, apparently remain unaware that one can contract the distance between centuries at will." (276)

In all three novels mentioned, send this reader back in space in time as if I was a curious spider on the wall unseen and listening in silence. 

Augustus was the 'chosen' son and heir to Julias Caesar. After Caesar's brutal assassination by his close friend's and colleague's, the 19-year-old Octavius (Augustus) far from Rome received word of his adoptive father's death, and the infamous political machinations of Roman politics began. 

There are many lessons in this novel regarding power, love for one's country, close friendships, family, and living by one's principles. August was the first Roman Emperor who ruled from 63 BCE to 14 CE establishing a united Roman Empire and Pax Romana. He is described as slight in stature, fair with piercing blue eyes. He managed to navigate through lies and backstabbing, attempted assignations, and the "betrayal" of his beloved daughter, Julia. 

The most interesting and valued relationship of Augustus was with his daughter. She was his intellectual equal and sacrificed her personal life for the good of her father and Rome. The end of their relationship can be viewed as quite tragic. 

At the end of the book, we gain a greater insight into Augustus Caesar, as he writes to his friend Nicolaus of Damascus, contemplating his long life of 76 years. I found this section to be quite moving. 

Augustus is written in the epistolary form – fictional memoirs, dispatches, letters and poems. Don't let this let put you off, as William's excellent prose drags you right into the story. 

An excellent read. 

Wednesday, 14 October 2026

The Death Penalty should be Abolished – Opinion.


 The controversy over Capital punishment has raised it head again in mainstream circles. The fact that this medieval activity dictated by the state continues to be practiced in many countries around the planet reveals a civilization that is morally bankrupt and has enabled unjust power to the authorities to murder its own citizens based on a flawed justice system. 

There have been two items in the news that has sparked the controversy into the public sphere:

Christa Pike's failed execution after two doses of pentobarbital that left her still alive. This woman was found guilty of the torture and murder of 19-year-old, Colleen Slemmer. This is the first execution of a woman in Tennessee for 200 years. The governor has placed all state executions on hold until an investigation discovers the reason for this cruel and unusual event. It should be noted that during Pike's trial, the jury was not informed of her violent sexual abuse she endured as a child. This well could have swayed the jury to the lesser punishment of life in prison without the possibility of parole. "Experts" of the death penalty including politicians has called this catastrophe, "Singler and Unparalleled". 

The announcement from the Trump Administration of the possibility of livestreaming the firing squad execution of Ford Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan, who killed 13 people in a killing rampage, has more than raised the eyebrows of many influential pundits around the planet. When Trump was questioned about the livestream execution, he said, "(He) was vicious and he is violent, there are two thoughts, don't show it, and show it. Because you know by showing it, maybe other people won't be doing what he did."  

This is flawed logic and statistically untrue. Capital punishment has never acted as a deterrent for murder. If any rational person believes by televising Hansan's murder will make people think twice about committing a mass shooting is lying to themselves. Executing convicted murderers does not prevent others from committing that crime. This fact is undisputed.  

The arguments for capital punishment are weak and archaic. 

The death penalty is just retribution for the crime. If you believe in the OT 3,500-year-old doctrine of an "Eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth" dogma, and applied it to all crimes, there would be blood on the streets, and no one would be safe. 

As discussed above that the death penalty deters potential murderers is blatantly false. We can prevent the offender from further offending by placing him in prison, where he can no longer hurt the citizenry. 

The argument of closure for the victims aligns with the Old Testament doctrine; killing the man who killed your loved one doesn't bring the loved one back. Many believe there really isn't such a thing as closure anyway. The wound merely scares up and will reopen from time to time. 

Those against the death penalty argue that it does not deter others to murder. One of the major arguments against capital punishment is the risk of executing the innocent. In our justice system, there is no consistency in applying this punishment. Statistically, the cost to the state and the risk of killing the innocent is high. 

Lastly, giving the power to the state to execute its own citizens in a democratic society paves the way to full authoritarianism, shedding our rights for a faceless system. Simply granting that power to the state is immoral. 

Murder is immoral.

The botched execution of Chista Pike reveals a highly flawed system and an incompetence that goes way beyond the pale. 

The barbaric idea to livestream the execution of Nidal Malik Hasan to the world reveals a specific type of psychopathy. This action is not to deter others from committing mass murder; it is a show of power by the state to instill fear in the people.  It is a tool for control. "We can do this, and do it to anybody, so stay in line." The death penalty as entertainment, only satisfies the morbid, lesser human beings. It's a live snuff film for the masses. 

There's nothing moral or good about murder and execution. 

It is death perpetuating more death ad infinitum.  

Abolish Capital Punishment. 

Leo Tolstoy - The Death of Ivan Ilyich – Comment.

  Long after completing his two masterpieces, War and Peace and Anna Karinina , achieving world fame , an older man, Tolstoy penned this sho...