I should probably leave well enough alone, but at least a couple of the comments to the second entry before this one compel a respose. We all should strive for and expect to attain a level of understanding and demonstration in which the Bible and writings of Mary Baker Eddy are all of the letter we need. If one has today the metaphysical chops to stick entirely to these works, by all means play on, play on, but to claim a higher position where ones reach has exceeded his grasp could inhibit growth rather than enhance it. That is why most of us, whether we admit it or not, still need to look for "All good, where'er it may be found" (hymn 224). To wrap oneself defiantly in the textbooks, like protean Balzac wrapped majestically in his cloak in Rodin's powerful sculpture, could well be to tempt disappointment and unnecessary trials.
To be stubbornly determined to blaze ones own trail out of the deep snows of false belief, mortal mind, when one could possibly make far more rapid progress following in the capacious steps of a King Wenceslas might be for many what Martha Stewart called "a good thing". One obviously can't expect to rely on others forever, but to deny oneself the helpful inspiration, guidance, and wisdom of those who have gone triumphantly before could result in unnecessary lingering in the Slough of Despond and on Hill Difficulty.
Someone may say: "I barely have time to read the lesson or the textbooks. I certainly don't have time to read anything else." Well, we usually find plenty of time to extricate ourselves from an assortment of pits, snares, and briar patches and the Gordian knots we tie ourselves into, so why not proactively take that time to get to know God better by any path He has provided? In the end we might even save time by a more efficient use of the truths we have learned in Christian Science. If we are humble and trustful, God will show us where we need to go, and it may well be the books and only the books, but at early and intermediate stages of our progress, we shouldn't shun or deny ourselves the wisdom and inspiration of the intrepid pioneers. They certainly didn't write for the dusty edification of the bookshelves in Reading Rooms.
My comments on Louise Knight Wheatley/Cook/Hovnanian were not intended to be flip, but obviously trod ungraciously on the toes of some. Were she unworthy, she would not have been chosen out of the thousands of writers who have written for the periodicals over the years. The comment that she may have been a professional writer of novels could shed light on my earlier remarks in another way--as a writer she was almost too facile. For some, at least, not all her articles justified the lavish attention she gave to the subjects. The overriding point is still that one should explore these and the many other early writers and make the invigorating acquaintance of some wise and uplifting practitioners of the art of Christian Science.
But enough, enough! If, however, as a result of that blog entry, just one person seeks out and finds one of these writers to be a blessing to him my time will not have been wasted nor, I hope, will your fleeting impatience with much too much on this subject go unreimbursed.