"In the Vault" by H.P. Lovecraft - Mr. P Reads Stuff - Ep. 04

 

In the Vault by H.P. Lovecraft is a fun little short story involving a mishap in a tomb with a bumbling drunk undertaker. Of course, this undertaker also happens to be a bit of a dirt-bag who was a little less than concerned with how he treated the bodies of those he had to prepare for burial. The ending is a little predictable, but still enjoyable nonetheless. Not much to say about this one since it's pretty straightforward. No lore or anything to dig into. Just a straightforward story. Enjoy!

The Authority of Scripture and Sola Scriptura - Mr. P Talks Theology - Ep. 01

 

For the past couple of months, I've been wanting to share a conversation I had on the YouTubes with an individual on a Babylon Bee video. It sounds riveting, I know. However, the discussion itself shifted from defending the Doctrines of Grace from spurious attacks from your standard internet denizen suffering from ACDS (Anti-Calvinist Derangement Syndrome) to the topic of the authority of scripture. Now, the conversation regarding Calvinism was threaded throughout, but the main issue I want to focus on here is how we as Christians view the Bible and how we are to treat it as authoritative. Suffice it to say, if I had to choose a title card to summarize the conversation, it would be from an old Windows first-person shooter called:

Did you know it was allegedly possible to complete disregard scripture as authoritative and yet still try to quote it as authoritative when it suits your agenda? Did you also know it makes no sense to do that and it's a complete waste of time? I don't go around trying to model my life after Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, or Goosebumps. If scripture is on par with that level of fiction, then what difference does it make what it says? Might as well ignore it and do whatever you want because it's not worth your time to live by. It's no more binding and authoritative than the works of Jordan Peterson. Sure, there may be some good advice, but if you reject it, so what? Why bother trying to get anyone to live by it either? Let people do whatever they want.

Of course, most people who are Christians don't actually want to take that position. It's a ridiculous position to hold to. It's just as ridiculous as someone who doesn't believe anything the Bible says wanting to a pastor. Why waste your time? Unfortunately, this subpar view of scripture has become prevalent in the west via liberal Christianity (which isn't actually Christianity at all). Sadly, many gullible Christians fall into the same trap, or they simply don't recognize it for being as intellectually bankrupt as it is. Most are willing to go along to get along without calling their liberal "Christian" friends out on such a vital issue. If we are to be disciples of Christ, we have to hold to the same view of scripture as our Lord did, and he certainly didn't take a piecemeal approach to it or see it as the mere writings of ignorant men. So, when we come across those who would seek to denigrate and undermine the authority of scripture, or even supplant it by an appeal to a particular "Church" as their final authority, we must stand firm and hold to the position of the apostles and the Reformers that not only are the scriptures the inspired word of God, but they are the only ultimate authority by which we are to be governed.

Sola Scriptura!

"Goldie Pinklesweet" by Roald Dahl - Mr. P. Reads Stuff - Ep. 03

Back in sixth grade, my teacher, Mrs. Hamilton (if you'rereading this, hi!), took time just about every day to read stories to us. Partially this was to get us exposed to different famous children's books, but also to give us time to relax and maybe even take a quick nap. Either way, I recall at one point her reading to us the sequel to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, which was none other than Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator. I don't recall too much about the story other than the Vermicious Knids (which were also little enemies that you had to fight in some of the online Willie Wonka flash games on their website at the time) and the poem here, "Goldie Pinklesweet". If I remember correctly, the grandparents had all taken a bunch of pills that made them younger and to the point that they were all newborns again. One blipped out of existence because while all the rest were 80 years old, she was only 79 and thus took one too many. Thus was the stage for the Oompa Loompas to come give a brief talk about drug abuse.

Of course, nowadays Dahl's works among others are getting revised for a "modern audience" (one of the worst things to ever hear about an adaptation). Numerous changes were made and words were censored in favor of slightly less "offensive" terms. When one asks "who are these words offensive to," the answer is the people on the editorial board. Just who was on the board?

https://nypost.com/2023/03/01/roald-dahl-books-editors-woke-consultants-all-under-30/

From the article:

The company hired to revise Roald Dahl’s books only uses “woke” consultants under the age of 30 and once employed a project manager who describes themselves as a “non-binary, asexual, polyamorous relationship anarchist.”

What!? You mean to tell me that the people who were doing this were a bunch of activists whose descriptions read like something an edgy teenager was putting in their bio on Tumblr almost a decade ago? You mean they read like the description of someone who is "chronically online" and doesn't have a firm grasp of objective reality!? Who would have ever guessed!?

Among the progressive editors tasked with revisiting classics such as “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory,” “Matilda” and “The Witches” was a staffer who described themselves as a “non-binary, asexual, polyamorous relationship anarchist who is on the autism spectrum,” according to National Review.

Further down, we have this statement as well:

A spokesperson for Inclusive Minds told National Review its ambassadors don’t make direct edits, but that young people with “lived experience” have valuable inputs to make when it comes to “reviewing language that can be damaging and perpetuate harmful stereotypes”. They also noted publishers have the final say at to what changes they want to make.

Having a bunch of out-of-touch, progressive, chronically online autists determining what's offensive based on their "lived experience" is a surefire way to turn a book into a steaming turd. To be quite honest, someone's "lived experience" should also be the experience of getting over words that they deem offensive. Part of that "lived experience" needs to be understanding that just because they're offended by a word doesn't mean the word is actually offensive to the vast majority of people. Of course, the reverse is also true and there needs to be empathy. However, examples of words being changed are words like "fat" and "ugly". Those are now deemed too offensive for kids to read. What words would they rather use? "Brave and courageous at every size" and "non-conforming to oppressive white cis-hetero patriarchal beauty standards"? An edit in Witches includes a caveat about the witches being bald. From another article (https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/roald-dahl-edits-books-censored-witches-b2288252.html).

In The Witches (where witches wear wigs) Dahl had written: “You can’t go round pulling the hair of every lady you meet, even if she is wearing gloves. Just you try it and see what happens.” Puffin’s new version reads: “Besides, there are plenty of other reasons why women might wear wigs and there is certainly nothing wrong with that.”

There is no reason to include that disclaimer in the first place. As though a child was going to read the description and thing that all women who wear wigs are either witches or have something wrong with them. Never once when reading any of Dahl's works did any such thing pop into my head and I can almost assure you with 99.9% certainty nobody else has either. These are activists looking for a reason to be offended and justify their perceived victim status. They then use that status as a reason to force changes on everybody else. The stories are fine as they are and aside from maybe updating older language that never gets used anymore. In "Goldie Pinklesweet", the term "w.c". meaning "water closet" is used. In American editions part of the poem is changed to "and so she sits and dreams of glory alone inside the lavatory", because most Americans used that term instead of "w.c.". So I can understand updating certain things like that. But beyond that, no. If someone is described as fat and ugly, then that's the term they should use. Words have meaning and just because people have become too thin-skinned these days doesn't mean that those words are offensive in themselves. If you want to be offended by them, that's a you problem.

To their credit (what little they deserve) the publisher says that they'll keep releasing the original versions under the Penguin label, but the Puffin label will have the edited ones. Cool. At least I know which version not to buy for the kids.

So, to the activists: get offline, get some therapy, kick rocks, pound sand, and touch some grass.