Seeking for Righteousness

The Personal Blog of Kaimi Wenger

Comments from Readers

A few comments have come in in the past week. Actually it’s been almost a week (slightly over a week for one), and I was meaning to reply to them earlier. Problem is, they’re on my blog-only e-mail (created to avoid spammers) and I only check that e-mail once or twice weekly. If I check it when I have no free time, I make a quick mental note to reply to them or post about them, and that note sometimes gets put in a mental drawer and not seen again for a while. Ooops. Hopefully I will do better in the future — it’s a pain running 3 e-mail addresses (home; work; blog address).

First comment was a question, why “Seeking for Righteousness” when “Seeking Righteousness” would work just as well? Hmm, I never thought about that. I’ve heard my name translated as “seeking for righteousness” or “seeking after righteousness.” I think the preposition gives it a nice ring. I actually prefer “seeking after righteousness,” and I’m not sure why I didn’t use that one when I named the blog (I just didn’t think about it, for some reason). Now that I’ve had a few posts linked by uberbloggers, I feel that I’ve established enough brand identity here that I can’t easily make changes (like Bell Atlantic to Verizon). Ah well, such is life.

Second comment was a further critique of the New York Times. A reader suggests that Sunday’s article on the Sabbath is eerily similar to an article in USA weekend four years ago. He writes:

Compare this article (“Bring Back the Sabbath,” NYT Mag, 3/2/03):

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/02/magazine/02SABBATH.html

with this article (“Whatever Happened to Sunday?” USA Weekend, 4/4/99)

http://www.usaweekend.com/99_issues/990404/990404sabbath.html

It’s an interesting argument. I’m not sure I entirely agree; I found the NYT article to be deeper and better written, if a little quirky. To the extent that the NYT article was claiming a newfound discovery, the discovery was personal, so I’m not sure if pre-emption applies.

As for it appearing in a (rival?) Sunday magazine supplement, that does make the Times article look a little less creative. But I’m not convinced on this issue for a specific reason — if there is any one topic which can appear in Sunday supplements without being Ambrose-esque, it is the Sabbath, and because of that immunity, I don’t feel that the NYT article is problematic. The reader doesn’t have a bad argument, just one I personally find unconvincing (and he was quite observant to notice the similarities).

That’s it for reader mail at the moment, and I will try to answer e-mails more expeditiously in the future.

Advertisements

March 6, 2003 - Posted by | Uncategorized

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: