I knew that this story is one of those stories that does not have a happy ending.  However, it is an important book to read and think about what the author is asking you to consider.   Reading this in Feb 2026 is even more poignant because I can see again lynch mobs in parts of our society.   Of course, they don’t call themselves lynch mob.  They call themselves protesters.  But they have decided they don’t like something so are out vandalizing, harming others, chasing people, yelling, screaming, fighting, and many other things in the name of justice.  They have decided to take the law into their own hands.

In this story, a man is said to be killed and cattle were stolen.  The cattle had been disappearing before, and the cow hands and ranchers were upset about it. But when a friend is killed, action needs to be taken.  Or so the characters in this book thought.  They gathered a group to go hunting for the rustlers of cattle and a murderer of a hired hand.  They did not want to wait or include the sheriff and the judge.  Justice was needed!

         “We shall observe order and true justice, Judge”, he told him.   
          Tetley looked at him.  “In time,” he said.
          “Mapes,” he said, turning to Butch.
          “Yes, sir?”
          “You said Risley had made you deputy?”
          “Yes, sir,” said Butch.
          “Then suppose you deputize the rest of us.”
        “It’s not legal,” [Judge] Tyler told him.  He appeared infuriated by Tetley’s smiling, elusive talk.  “No deputy has the right to deputize.”
          “It’ll do for me, Butch; go head and pray,” Smith yelled.
         Butch looked at Tetley. Tetley didn’t say anything or even nod.  He just smiled, that thin little smile that barely moved the corners of his mouth.
          “How about it, boys?” Butch asked us.
          “Mapes,” Tyler bellowed at him, “It’s ineffective.  Your violating the law yourself, in such an act.”
       Men called out to Mapes: “Go ahead, Butch”; “I guess it will take as well with you as any, Butch”; “fire away, sheriff.”
         “Raise your right hands,”….(p. 93)

This group of men were determined to catch the rustlers and murderer regardless of the situation.  They were not going to wait for the sheriff or a new day or better weather.  Off they went with their determination to lynch, not catch the guilty parties.  Several men had encouraged them to follow the law, but emotions were high and they felt that their way was the right way.   I knew before I got to page 100 that things are not going to turn out well or the right way.  Sure enough, they find 3 men that they believe are guilty.  There is not enough evidence to clear them, but they think there is enough evidence to hang them, so they do.  It was pointed out to them before they hung the men that it would be really easy to verify these men’s story if they just waited until morning and checked out their story.  But these men came for a lynching and were not interested in anything else.  Several of the men in the party were convinced that hanging was deserved.  Shortly after they find out that they hung the wrong men.  

The opening chapters of the book talk about justice and what justice means. There are many pages of trying to reason with the mob.  But the men are never fully convinced that they need to slow down and do things the right way.

One answers that justices is…”seein’ that everybody gets what’s comin’ to him…” (p. 46)
And
“True law, the code of justice, the essence of our sensations of right and wrong, is the conscience of society.  It has taken thousands of years to develop, and it is the greatest, the most distinguishing quality when has evolved with mankind.” (p. 49)

Another feels that they have seen enough injustice in the land by men that they need to make sure justice is served this time.

Why did these men not want to wait for a trial?  “Law, as the books have it, is slow and full of holes.” (p 156) They decided that they would not get justice the way they wanted it so lynched the men. 

Shortly after they found they had accused and hung the wrong men one of the character’s says:
                “My God,” Gil said, “I knew it didn’t feel right.  I knew we should wait.” (p. 189)

What is the author asking me and you to do with this story?

Does he want us to understand that in the heat of emotion people in a crowd will act in ways they would not if they were alone?  Does he want to show us that it is hard to stand up against others because we fear what they will say about us or treat us?  Does he ask us to consider what we would do if we were one of the men called to join the mob? 

Is the author trying to warn us that when we see an injustice we should not let our emotions rule over our decisions?  That our first reaction might not be the best reaction?  

“We desire justice, and justice has never been obtained in haste and strong feeling” (p.33)
Is that true? 

What happens if the law decides differently than what we want it to decide? 
In this case there was no murder and the cows they recovered were not stolen but bought.   The men in this mob left and acted without collecting all the information that they needed to have to make the decision to hang rustlers.  Now they each have to either find someone to blame or live with guilt that they didn’t deliver justice that day but injustice.  These men decided that they would not get justice from the society and laws that were established.  Yet how did they do? 

​Reflecting back on my own life, I can see where I have made decisions in the heat of the moment, some of them were wrong.  Some of them needed to be done but with a different approach.  Overall, taking the time to sit back, collect more information, and wrestle with the ideas would have been a better choice.

I read this book in isolation from the other Narnia books and found that I had ideas that I missed in previous readings. 

King Tirian, the last of the Kings of Narnia, hears word that Aslan is in Narnia.  As he is on his journey, he discovers that things are just not working out well.  There seems to be a problem with what Aslan is saying, and there are problems with the Calormen.   The talking beasts of Narnia ask why this Aslan is so different.  They notice and name the issue, but they still accept that Aslan is the person who is directing Shift the ape to command those in Narnia.  King Tirian sees the miserable faces of those around him who have been accepting the ideas of Shift.  King Tirian recognizes that something is wrong.
 
“Ape,” he cried with a great voice, “you lie damnably.  You lie like a Calormene.  You lie like and Ape.
 
He meant to go on and challenge the Ape but was struck and knocked down.  What is it that makes King Tirian different from the others?
 
The king escapes and seeks to expose the false stories of Shift, along with gathering a force to remove the Calormen soldiers from Narnia, but runs into many troubles.  He persists and, though he is outnumbered, will continue to challenge Shift.
 
“Here stand I, Tirian of Narnia, in Aslan’s name, to prove with my body that Tash is a foul fiend, the Ape a manifold traitor, and these Calormenes worthy of death.  To my side, all true Narnians.  Would you wait till your new masters have killed you all one by one?”
 
So why is Tirian so willing to see what could become of the plan Shift has laid out, but those of Narnia are not seeing?  Why do the Narnians not question the differences that they see between the new and old Aslan? 
Tirian seems to have a sense of conscience that he will not go against.  The animal that has been posing as Narnia is freed from Shift and states:   “I see now that I really have been a very bad donkey.  I ought never have listened to Shift.  I never thought things like this would begin to happen”. 

Is one of the reasons that Shift had so much influence?  That it would never get this bad?   

At the beginning of the story, Shift tells the donkey, “You know you’re no good at thinking, so why don’t you let me do your thinking for you?”

Or is the reason that the thinking was delegated to Shift, it was just easy to listen to someone else tell you what you want to do? 
 
How can we apply this story to our own lives?  Where do we stand in the story?  Do we stand with Aslan and Narnia or with the false Aslan and Calormen?  Which belief system do we choose to embrace, support, and follow?
 
This book was published in 1956.  World War II is over, and the Cold War is in progress.  Is Lewis trying to warn up of what is going on?  Warn us that we have a choice to make?  We have to choose between the real Aslan and those who pretend to be Aslan.  Will we choose to follow leaders who promise “to make things better for everyone,” or “it's for your benefit,” or will we choose leaders who expect us to think and figure out how we can make the world a better place?
 
 
 

My copy of this book is pretty worn, but with sweet memories.  This was a book that my grandmother gave me.  It came as a set and included The Little House in the Big Woods and Mary Poppins.  If there was another book, I don’t remember it.  I don’t remember what year I was given this book, but I remember that my first books came from my grandmother.  I am not sure how many times I have read this book, but I don’t think I read it as often as some of my other books.   Now I think this is an important book to read and discuss.  There are many lessons that I see now about the thoughts you think and the responsibilities you choose. 
I can relate to Meg; I, too, never wanted to be an oddball.  Yet I was.  I was not as smart at math as Meg, and I was just as good at the negativity and victim mentality that she was feeling during most of this book.  What I had missed in my readings was that Meg took responsibility when she did not want to and changed her course.  When she changed her course, the blame, shame, and victim mentality seemed to decrease, too.
 
As they prepare for their journey to rescue their father, Mrs. Which says, “There will no longer be so many pleasant things to look at if responsible people do not do something about the unpleasant ones.”   What does this mean?  Who are the responsible people?  What should they do?
 
When they free their father, the brother is left behind, and Meg is angry with her dad.  He did not meet her expectations.  There were several times when she thought her dad should have done something.   She is angry because her brother was left behind.  As they are talking about the situation, Meg cries out, “I can’t go!  I can’t!  You know I can’t.”   The response was that she was not asked to at that point, and she started crying as she said that she would go back for her brother.  She knows it must be her that will go in order to bring her brother back.  At this point, she takes responsibility and changes her course from being a victim, angry at others, to being a creator or proactive, willing to try again.  Not only did she save her brother, but she also gained self-confidence in who she was and gained some wisdom.  Meg’s wisdom lies in her ability to trust her emotions, which she thought was a weakness. 
 
What a wonderful lesson for us to learn.  That we can choose our thinking and take responsibility instead of being victimized by the situation.  We can use gifts wisely and come to better know ourselves through our experiences.  

I have read this book a couple of times now.  When I was much younger, it was one of the books my grandmother gave me.  Through the years, I have gained many messages from it.  This time through, I have been thinking more about an event that occurred at the beginning of the book.  Jane is not treated well by those with whom she lives with and after one of those unfair treatments, Jane strikes out. 

In consequence of her actions, she is sent away to a school for orphans.  A pretty severe consequence for a lapse in self-control.   That seems so extreme and cruel.   This time through, I looked at the story in a different light.  Audrey Rindlisbacker (Mission-Driven Mom) asks the question:  What principle/s did Jane or her aunt not understand or live?

Well, that has me thinking and thinking.

To add to that, I have been comparing Mrs. Reed with Miss Temple.  Both of these adults were responsible for Jane Eyre’s well–being.  How were they different?  Why?

I way I see it is that Miss Temple tried to live her life based on principles, and Mrs. Reed lived her life based on emotions.  Even at the end of Mrs. Reed’s life, she showed that she was still ruled by her emotions, and those emotions were all negative.  Miss Temple worked to find the principles and had a more positive view of her situation, yet their circumstances were very different.  Miss Temple had a very hard, cold life compared to the comfort and luxury of Mrs. Reed’s life. 

When Jane was around Mrs. Reed, she too lived based on her emotions – her very negative emotions.  Jane was treated unfairly; however, the thoughts that she had made things worse for her.  Jane chose passion over principle for many years.   You can see this as you compare Jane to Miss Temple and Helen.  Both of these ladies suffered much, yet they found ways to find the good, be positive, and focus on the principles of natural law. 

Jane did follow in the footsteps of Miss Temple and Helen.  She states:  “Laws and principles are not for the times when there is no temptation: they are for such moments as this, when body and soul rise in mutiny against their rigour; stringent are they; inviolate they shall be.  If at my individual convenience I might break them, what would be their worth?  They have a worth – so I have always believed;…”

Jane turned from the idea of allowing emotion to rule her and lived by the principles she discovered in her life. 
This story has me thinking about how I treat people.  Do I let my emotions rule, or do I live my life based on principles?   In what ways should I treat people?  Based on what principles? 

What principles were not understood at the beginning of this story?  That all people are of divine worth and should be treated with kindness and respect.  

I have now read this book twice and have to say that I needed mentoring to see some of the lessons of this book.   I am so glad that there are people who do understand different ideas and share them with others.  Think of all the things that we would miss out on if there were not people sharing their ideas and gifts with the world.
 
The first time I read this book, I recorded that the Know-Feel-Do of the story was:
K – Trust is Good
F – that character (morality) is important
D- be trustful, courageous, and honorable like the princess. 
 
I wrote down that fairy tales are not about ethos, pathos, and Logos but are meant to make a point.   So what is the point I take from this story?
 
I think I want to spend a minute or two recording my thoughts about the light and darkness in the book.  The goblins live underground in the darkness because they didn’t want to pay taxes and withdrew.  In their new lives underground, they had and held on to a lot of their grievances, and that resentment grew and grew.  They changed as people, becoming physically and mentally different.    

They spend their time “devising trouble for their neighbours”.   Interesting.  How am I like this?  How do I hold onto things and cause myself to withdraw from the light and beauty that the world offers me?  Painful questions to ask.   The goblins hold on to their ideas so fervently that in the end, the government (King and Queen) makes several decisions that will cause them to destroy most of their population and their underground world. 

The caretakers of the Princess (Irene) knew that the goblins were causing trouble, so as they cared for her, they were very concerned with security and keeping the princess safe.  They had rules about being out after dark, closing the windows, and keeping guards on watch.  They were so focused on keeping Irene safe that they missed when she was not there and had left the safety of her home.   This approach was very different from her grandmother, who was always connected with light.  Her grandmother gave her guidance and gifts to help navigate through the challenges, along with healing when Irene returned.   Grandmother’s influence brought into Irene’s life also the Peterson family, who taught her many lessons.  Good relationships brought good actions. 
As I have been pondering this book, I keep returning to the light and the dark features of the story.  I wonder if I am surrounding myself with darkness or fear of the dark or seeking light.  I hope that I can move away from dark thinking and fear of the dark so that I spend my time seeking light. 

There are several men in this play that you can compare to decide who is the ideal husband: The Earl of Caversham, Viscount Goring, Sir Robert Chiltern, and Baron Arnheim (not present in the play).  You can also look at the ladies and ask who the ideal spouse is.  Which is the best marriage?  You could look at the areas that Oscar Wilde pokes fun at. 

The main focus of the play is Sir Robert Chiltern, the respected and honorable politician who a scheming woman is blackmailing.  I guess if you can be blackmailed, you might not be a truly respected and honorable politician.  Of course, that depends on why he is respected. 
We learn very quickly in the play that the origin of wealth his career start of Sir Robert comes from sharing government secrets.  Is Sir Robert remorseful for his actions?  I think not. 

He states: 
“Gertrude, public and private life are different things.  They have different laws, and move on different lines.”

and,

“Gertrude, truth is a very complex thing, and politics is a very complex business.”

And,

“And, after all, whom did I wrong by what I did?  No one.”

And

“Of course I had private information about a certain transaction contemplated by the Government of the day, and I acted on it.  Private information is practically the source of every large modern fortune”.

And

“Every man of ambition has to fight his century with its own weapons.  What this century worships is wealth.  The God of this century is wealth.  To succeed one must have wealth.  At all costs one must have wealth”.

And

“No; that money gave me exactly what I wanted, power over others”.
 
I don’t see that Sir Robert has many regrets other than his wife might leave him because he hid the truth from her.  His friend, Lord Goring, saves the day; Sir Robert keeps the girl and gets a promotion.
Lord Goring has many lines in the play that are well executed; he shows himself to be the best candidate for an ideal husband.  One of those popular lines is:  “Women are not meant to judge us, but to forgive us when we need forgiveness.  Pardon, not punishment, is their mission”. 

Forgiveness is important in all relationships.  And no doubt Sir Robert needs some forgiveness.  My question is, since he doesn’t believe he did wrong, what is he being forgiven of?  And more importantly, how long will it be before he finds that to move ahead in his career, he will do something dishonorable again?  People are human.  Should we just excuse politicians for just doing what everyone else is doing?  I am sure we can find that they are likable and have some good qualities, but what are we saying when we don’t hold people accountable for their integrity?  What are we saying when we focus on the cute romance and the great acting but don’t address the principles the story shares with us?  Is the quote 100% true? Should no judgment ever occur, and just excusing action always be the case?   Are private virtue and public virtue distinct from each other?  Should they have different laws?

Jim Hawkins has, for his example the following people:
           *His father an innkeeper,
           *Billy Bones, an old pirate,
           *Squire Trelawney, a magistrate,
           *Dr. Livesey, a doctor and constable,
           *Long John Silver, a charismatic pirate (the antagonist of the story), and
           *Captain Smollett, the captain of the Hispaniola
 
The character that is the most dynamic in the story is Long John Silver.  Long John has to charm his way into everyone’s graces and is kind, along with being corrupt.  When his kindness and charm don’t work, he is willing to use violence and force.  He appears to be the most thoughtful member of the group.  He has no moral compass and is loyal to himself only.  The other characters in the story are not as dynamic.  His father is afraid of Billy Bones and dies early in the story.  Squire Trelawney is foolish; Captain Smollett is knowledgeable, wise, and uncompromising. Dr. Livesey is an honest man who will help others and seems very gentle, yet is seeking to find the treasure suggested by the map.
Jim is young and looking for adventure.  He puts his faith in his own abilities and does not follow the captain's or doctor’s instructions; he does not join the pirates but is manipulated by others. However, he survives and returns with his share of the treasure.  The story does not really tell you what Jim does after, only that he continues to have nightmares about his experiences.  You are left wondering what type of person Jim becomes and what he does with his share of the treasure.  You are also left wondering which character Jim chooses to follow and why. 
The two characters most present in the story are Dr. Livesey and Long John Silver.  Of these two men, which is the one who will have the most impact on Jim, and why? Jim starts out as a very timid boy, but by the end, he outwits the pirates and rescues the ship.  He has shown more courage, charisma, and independence than the captain, squire, or doctor.  It seems he has learned much from Long John Silver.  How will these events shape him and his decision-making in the future?  Will he develop the characteristics of an English gentleman, a pirate, or a bit of both?

I never thought I would be a fan of Louis L’Amour, but I was wrong.  I seem to pick up a lot of lessons or ideas from his books. 
As I sat down to write about this book, I noticed that in the front of this book, there is a dedication:  “To my Father…who knew what it meant to wear the badge”.  Interesting thought.  Most of the L’Amour books that I have read were about the frontier and the skills or ideas needed to establish a frontier.  This book started differently compared to several of the other books that I have read.   It opens with a coyote attempting to catch a chipmunk.  He fails, but in the process of time the area changed due to the weather.   It then moves to a trapper that finds a nugget of gold and takes it, and carries it around for many years.  Near the end of his life, he decides to return to the area where he found the nugget.  He shares his story with 3 men but dies in his attempt to return area.  The three men follow the trapper’s information and find gold.  Well, what does that have to do with wearing a badge, you wonder?  I did.  
You are well into the book before any badge is mentioned.  The three gentlemen set up a claim and registered it with the intent of building a “town”.  There is no thought about law or order, just hunting for gold.  In this town of mostly men, there is a lot of gambling, shooting, fighting, drinking, and drifting of people.  L’Amour paints a vivid picture of a “boom” town.  A town that is full of violence.  One of the three from the beginning of the story seems surprised that there is so much lawlessness.  He wants to see schools, churches, and a community set up, but what he has is a ‘dog-eat-dog world’.  Very violent men will do whatever it takes to get what they want.  Some with their fights, some with weapons, but the story of this town is very grim.  It is a L’Amour novel, so you know a hero will arise and he does.  The hero teaches us that “if you’re going to have peace rather than violence, both sides have got to want it.  One side alone can’t make peace.”   And “The trouble with most folks coming out here is that they’ve been protected so long they’re no longer even conscious of it.  Back where they come from there are rules and laws, curbstones and sidewalks, and policemen to handle violence.  The result is that violence is no longer real for them; its it something you read about but that never happens to you.”
Definitely some ideas to think about.  What makes a good town?  What makes a good society?  Is it right to use violence to chase away violence?  Why?  Is there another option to violence?  Can violence be halted without more violence?  What does it mean to wear a badge?  What type of person/people is/are required to have a place that has peace?
 

Premises of Communism
I have just finished reading The Naked Communist by W. Cleon Skousen.  I think this book does a good job of introducing what Communism is and also gives brief histories of the people who influenced and promoted Communism.   One of the areas that I have been pondering a bit more is the ‘Major Premises of Communism’ from the author’s point of view using the writings of those that promoted it (I won’t provide the quoted source below, just the premise.  if you would like to know who said each statement, please see the book for more information).
Major Premises of Communism:

1.  Everything in existence came about as a result of ceaseless motion among the forces of nature. 
2. Human beings are only graduate beasts.
3. There is no such thing as innate right or wrong
4. That all religion must be overthrown because it inhibits the spirit of world revolution.

 
 
I think that another premise should be included, or maybe it fits under #2, and that is the belief in human nature.  This worldview believes that humans should start as a blank slate.  I have been listening to the book: The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature by Steven Pinker. If you believe that man is born as a blank slate than that would also mean that you can fill that slate with information or experiences that will program the mind to create a perfect society; A classless society that promotes universal peace and prosperity.  It would make creating the perfect mind, child, or society a little bit easier if we were just trained to be what is wanted or needed.  Having a complex innate human nature means that not everything is trainable.  Society could / would have flaws that demand correction by the Dictator of the Proletariat; therefore, there would always be a need for government.   Can Communism ever reach its goals without blank slates?