The weekend

After being postponed for two weeks due to illness, Aragorn's samurai-themed birthday party actually took place on Saturday.

Even though we had an extra two weeks, surprisingly little got done until "the last minute" (which started on Thursday). Apparently, we completely forgot that there was a party coming up. So, despite serendipitous circumstances, we were still rushed at the end. In our dining-room, we have a dry-erase marker board that is about 10 x 5 feet. It holds a large calendar in one corner, and various amounts of the rest of it are used daily for notes and lists. When we wrote all the things that had to be done before the party on it, it was nearly completely covered. But in a family of nine, a large list is dealt with. We worked, we erased what we finished, and we were ready for the guests at 2:00 on Saturday.

Everyone's costume turned out near-perfect, and many of the other guests came in costume as well. There were Japanese activities such as calligraphy (everyone's name in Japanese), chopstick races, sushi-rolling, martial arts instruction (in the rain), and a treasure hunt based off of a Japanese legend. After dinner, some of the guests stayed to watch The Last Samurai from 8:00pm to 11:00pm as a final touch. I like to complain that our parties are way overdone, but everyone enjoys them, and this one was more fun than I thought it would be. And I love my kimono.

But the busy weekend was not over. On Monday we went to a Memorial Day church barbecue, and played baseball. Because our church is small and has lots of children of various ages, each team had players ranging from 7 to 17 years old, which made it an interesting game. I usually avoid sports, but I decided to give baseball a try, and found that it was not too difficult, even for un-athletic me. The teams were pretty well matched, and while we were by no means skilled, it was a lot of fun.

The best part of the evening, in my opinion, though, was the conversation in the evening. The adults and a couple of the teenagers (of whom I was one) had some interesting discussions on parenting and maturity. One of the dads posed a question: how does a parent give advice to their adult children, knowing that they need it, but also realizing their comparative independence and maturity? Should they give advice in every situation, or let the children learn from their own mistakes in some circumstances? The question provoked some interesting discussion, which was unfortunately cut off by the approach of night.

Northanger Abbey

Many years ago, I was sure that I would never like Jane Austen. I started Sense and Sensibility at a recommendation of a friend, and dropped it after the first two money-centered chapters. I was not in the mood for pecuniary tales. But fate was kind to me, and after picking up Northanger Abbey at a booksale, I read the back and thought the plot sounded thrilling, and not at all related to inheritances. It was short, too, so I would not have to endure too much. I was enthralled. Jane Austen could be interesting! At the age of 11, all I understood of the story was that the Mysteries of Udolpho sounded like a fun book, and that Catherine's mistaken ideas about the Abbey were suspensful and funny

Two years later I read it again, and found to my delight that there was more to be gotten out of it. Instead of a support of Gothic literature, I found a delectable spoof of that genre; and I caught all the tongue-in-cheek jabs and witticisms with much pleasure.

This week, though, as I read it for a third time, the book had changed again. There wasn't much Gothic stuff at all, in fact, and what I found was a coming-of-age story in which I heartily identified with Catherine Morland. I have known what it is to be over-imaginative, to hear noises in the dark and suspect the very worst. I hadn't seen such a character portrayed in a book before, and I savored her simplicity, her artlessness, and her pure devotion to Isabella, her brother James, and Henry Tilney (who is one of the strangest and most likable of Austen's heroes).

Of course, now I have read and loved all of Austen's other works, so it was interesting to go back to the one that was first written. Like Miss Morland, Northanger Abbey neglects politics ("from politics it was an easy step to silence"), complex plots, and twisting relationships. Catherine's love for Henry only grows stronger from the first meeting to the wedding, and his, once established, is equally unmoving. The only one unable to see Isabella's capricious ways is trusting Catherine herself, and even General Tilney's nature is not unhinted at. It's a simple story, but Austen's wit makes it my favorite of her books after P&P.

The length of books

There are some books that are too long. There are some books that aren't long enough. I am usually dealing with one of these quandaries, but this month I am dealing with a new one: too many long books. While I enjoy lengthy novels, reading seven of them at once is...tiring. Les Miserables, The Lord of the Rings (very slowly), Doctor Thorne, Middlemarch, North and South, The Life of Charlotte Bronte, and The Three Musketeers. I thought twice about starting The Count of Monte Cristo or The Moonstone. To supplement these very long books, I am also reading several very short ones: Bath Tangle, Cranford, Northanger Abbey, and A Blunt Instrument. I prefer having many books going at once—it adds variety and allows for different reading moods—but usually I only have five or six. From some circumstances, though, more is required. My pile of books-I-am-reading is looking overwhelming...I must off to finish a couple to make it more palatable.

Kate and Leopold

We just watched a time travel/romance film called Kate and Leopold. Though it would be considered a chick-flick for the most part, the first half is pure comedy and all my brothers loved it. The plotline is that a duke from 1876 is accidentally brought forward to modern times. He’s a chivalrous gentleman, and the romance part was more palatable because it supported chivalry, integrity, courtesy, and honor. In the director’s commentary, he said that his aim was not to make the past (shown as avaricious in the movie) look wonderful, but to support the idea that chivalry should never have gone out of style. Duke Leopold's attraction is not that he's handsome, but that he is considerate to everyone and honorable to women. There were a couple editing issues, but overall it was a very enjoyable film.

A little too far

I usually love reading literary criticism. I am not one of the readers who sees political symbolism on the first reading, and though I think extensively about what I read, I cannot always say why I like or dislike a writer's style.

Right now, I am rereading North and South (I usually reread a book after I've seen the movie), and I started it looking forward to the introduction. Sometimes, people who write introductions have weird ideas, but this one made me feel weird. It wasn't that the author was making outrageous claims, but something about what he was saying felt wrong, and I couldn't put my finger on it. Thankfully, he gave me a big clue.

While talking about the symbolism of the Marlborough Mills riot, he declared that the reason Margaret uses herself as a human shield between Thornton and the crowd is because she subconsciously loves Thornton (and is justifying herself when she says that she would have done the same for any man). Suddenly it all made sense. I flipped to the front of the introduction, and just as I suspected, the author was a man. It made sense now why he couldn't understand the motherly and protective instincts that goaded Margaret into action (for which there is much textual evidence), and had to come up with a wild theory (IMHO) for which he had no proof at all.

Which made me wonder, though, why on earth he broached the subject if he didn't have evidence for his claims. I can understand if he just had an opinion—everyone is entitled to one of those—but in a professional critical work, opinions seem totally out of place.

Another thing that comment drew to my attention to was the whole tone of the introduction. Every single comment was on the political bits of the novel, or on the writing style of Gaskell. Do people who write introductions not enjoy good stories? It seems a little too critical to focus only on the inferred parts of a novel that the majority of people read for its wonderful story. Some books (like Animal Farm) should be approached that way, and North and South deserves some political attention, but it rather burst my bubble to read such a stark view of one of my favorite stories. Criticism is all fine and good, but I like introductions to show a little enjoyment in the story as well.

10 simple pleasures

I saw this at the Common Room and thought I would join in.

Sitting across a table looking into my dear husband's eyes and realizing I
can't remember what life was like without him.

Snuggling with the children, especially when they come into my bed in the
morning. Or when I'm snuggled on the couch with my coffee in the morning
and they come join me under my blanket.

The smell of lilacs.

Singing hymns with other Christians, and especially hearing my children singing next to me.

Hearing, "Coming Mom!" from the other end of the house.

Going for a walk in spring, when the sun is warm and the sky is clear and
the trees are bursting forth with new leaves.

Reading books in bed, especially with my husband.

Petting a dog, a guinea pig, or an affectionate cat.

Looking through the pictures with the children and listening to their
versions of the events. Or better yet, sitting around the lunch table when
they start sharing some of the times they got away with things!

A full moon shining through the pine trees out front on a clear night.

Two books about books

Recently I read two books-on-books from a Christian perspective that were well-written.

The first was A Landscape With Dragons by Michael O'Brien, and it was about symbols in fantasy literature.

The basic idea of sub-creation is that when God created this world, he made humans in his image, and because we are in his image, we also desire to create worlds. That is sub-creation. In writing fiction, humans worship God by imitating him through sub-creation, like awe-filled children imitating the style of a beloved hero. This is not blasphemy in that we can only make worlds using ingredients and tools that God created from nothing. However, it is a gift that may be misused, and that is one of the points of A Landscape With Dragons.

However, the main point of ALWD is the use of symbols, especially the dragon, in fantasy literature. Michael O'Brien argues that since God portrayed Satan as the first dragon, and since, in the past, dragons have always been considered as evil, there is something special about that symbol, and therefore dragons should never be portrayed as good. There is a logical fallacy here that I cannot name, but that he takes the example of Satan portrayed as a dragon in Revelation, but conveniently forgets that Satan is portrayed as a serpent, a lion, and a wolf also. Especially relating to the lion, Jesus is also portrayed as one. With O'Brien's logic, lions would be evidence of God's yin/yang nature, both evil and good residing in one. He cites several examples of dragons being portrayed as good, and cites them as dangerous for no other reason than that he thinks them a symbol of Satan being portrayed as good.

This attitude towards symbols seems to me to be flawed. Symbols, IMHO, especially in the Bible, are just that: symbols. Metaphors, similes, but not intended for anything else. Should we exalt mustard seeds because they are "like the Kingdom of God"? If you try to make a connection between the symbols in the parable of the sower and those in the parable of the weeds, it comes out seemingly contradictory and definitely confusing. This is, I think, because they were not meant to be taken literally. Metaphors and symbols are there as a literal example of something abstract. When the Bible says that Satan is like a lion, it does not mean that Satan is a large yellow cat with a big mane, or, more importantly in relation to ALWD, that we should shun lions as symbols of the devil. Likewise, I think that when the Bible calls Satan a dragon, it is calling up a picture of how terrible the Devil is. Obviously, dragons are not real beasts, but I do not think that their symbolism is any more important than that of the lion.

In fantasy literature, Michael O'Brien thinks that dragons should always be portrayed as evil. If they are not, he thinks that it is a dangerous flaw in the book. He also makes a comment about serpents being a symbol of the Devil, and that they also should not be portrayed as good. To take this to its logical conclusion, we would be called to exterminate snakes from the Earth. But did not God create snakes? Did he not give them a valuable place in the balance of the ecosystem? Snakes can be scary, but it does not make them evil.

Especially in fantasy literature, the idea of sub-creation allows for different symbols. In LOTR, a ring is a symbol of evil power. Was Tolkien trying to say that all rings were evil? In the Chronicles of Narnia, winter is a sign of the White Witch's evil dominion. Was C. S. Lewis trying to say that winter was a product of the devil? When man sub-creates another world, it will not be the same as our earth. That is why it is called fantasy. Since it is not our earth, it need not have the same "rules". Mice may talk, or birds may grow huge, or words may have magical powers. But it does represent our earth, and paradoxically must follow the same rules.

For example, many people object to LOTR because it has magic, which they equal to the occult. However, it was not Tolkien's desire to portray the occult as good when he sub-created Middle-Earth. Magic in LOTR is a metaphor, just as Middle-Earth is a metaphor for our earth. In Middle-Earth God (called Illuvatar), created more intelligent beings than just Man, and he gave them different gifts. Elves were endowed with superhuman creative talents that seem just supernatural to men, but in Middle-Earth are natural powers, not occultic. Gandalf is called a wizard, and does things that seem on the surface like the use of occultic powers, but in Tolkien's metaphor, he is the equivalent of an angel, a spiritual being endowed with supernatural powers for use in his mission from God. Saruman also was an angel and given powers, but he succumbed to evil and fell, and used his powers in direct disobedience to God.

While in our world we do not see angels performing supernatural acts in glory to God, Tolkien was not writing about our world. Gandalf's special gifts, that the hobbits may call magic, can be seen as a metaphor of the supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit. Magic, then, is a metaphor or symbol; a literal example of something abstract, like the Holy Spirit.

When fantasy, like LOTR and Chronicles of Narnia and many others, is merely a metaphor for the Kingdom of God, it has the same inner rules (creation is good, destruction is bad; loyalty is good, treachery is bad; etc.) as the Christian faith, and the outer rules (such as the appearances of dragons, enchanted castles, magical objects, etc.) are an example of sub-creation and are not meant to be taken literally.

Where Michael O'Brien's message (about the importance of symbols) fails is in his extremist point of view. His reverence for symbols drives him to, IMHO, miss the forest for all of the trees. His upset reaction to dragons being not always symbols of evil is reminiscent of people being upset with the so-called anti-Semitic portrayal of Shylock the Jew in The Merchant of Venice. But it is not so much the symbol that is important, it is the abstract principle behind the symbol. When I read The Merchant of Venice, I do not feel a repulsion towards Jews, but a repulsion towards greed and avarice. Likewise in Barchester Towers there are some very hypocritical and bad "men of the Church", but there are some truly Christian ones as well. The goal of The Merchant of Venice is IMHO not that Jews are bad, but that avarice is bad. Likewise the goal of Barchester Towers is that hypocrisy is just as bad whether it comes in the form of a clergyman or an athiest. Sometimes metaphors are misused, and therefore it is truly anti-Semitic if all Jews are portrayed as evil monsters, and it is truly anti-Church if all clergyman are portrayed as hypocritical. But if all Jews being bad is anti-Semitic, one Jew being bad is not necessarily anti-Semitic.

Christ and God are the only things we should revere. It is healthy to understand that appearances, titles, and words are not necessarily truth anywhere else but in God. Anyone can claim to be a Christian, but that does not make him one. If you see an example in fiction of a hypocritical Christian, that does not mean that the book is claiming that all Christians are hypocritical. The book is often merely claiming that people are not always what they say they are, which is a healthy and Biblical attitude.

Back to the original point about ALWD, Michael O'Brien is so obsessed with symbols, that he disregards many fantasy stories merely because they portray dragons as good. What is that supporting but the idea that appearances are everything, that if something looks evil, it is? Dragons in fantasy may look scary, but they can often be metaphors for things in life. In Pride and Prejudice, Mr. Wickham looks charming and gentlemanlike, but is corrupt and evil inside. The message is not to trust appearances. The same message can easily be conveyed by a dragon who looks scary but is good inside.

Symbols are neutral in sub-creation and especially fantasy. They are merely metaphors, and if they stayed constant through every piece of literature, there would no longer be originality. The only constant thing is God. Earthly things shift and move, and eventually pass away, but God is the same always. As long as sub-creation glorifies God, Michael O'Brien's concern about the use of symbols is, IMHO, unnecessary.


The second book, and one which I enjoyed much more, was Great Books of the Christian Tradition by Terry Glaspey. Not only did it discuss why Christians should read books, but it had a large list of books to enhance a Christian's spiritual walk (with detailed notes on why each particular book was picked), as well as another list of books that are excellent but don't have a particular focus on and/or direct application for your spiritual life (lots of classic books on this list). I added a few more books to my "to be read" bookshelf, and learned some more about the application of books I had already read. A great read!

Logic and impossible questions

There are some questions that are always answered one way, and never another. There are other questions that are almost too hard to answer. G. K. Chesterton solved both these problems. When asked what single book would he choose if marooned on a desert island, G.K. Chesterton replied, "Thomas' Practical Guide to Shipbuilding."

Random Thoughts on the bookshelves in my bedroom...

The people who abridge books must be blind to beauty. How else could someone read the first 100 pages of Les Miserables and then edit out some of the most beautiful prose in literature? I wonder if it's the prose or the mini-story that's being told, but I cried at the end of the Jean Valjean/Monsieur Bienvenu episode.

I recently read an essay on the types of literature you should read before bed. Basically the criterion were that it should be interesting, but not too interesting, and not any nonfiction that might call you to action. The author’s pick was Anthony Trollope. I had never really thought about the books I read in bed before, other than the fact that I didn’t want to read a murder mystery, but his advice is very true. The night I read Dr. Thorne by Trollope, I could go to sleep relaxed and content (there is something wonderfully soothing, and yet so alive, about his writing). The next night I read That Hideous Strength, and felt noticeably less comfortable. I’ll stick to reading that in the day.

There is something very wonderful about a story that can cross time periods and/or genres without losing its power. North and South is a Victorian version of Pride and Prejudice (it’s not the same, but it has several similarities), but is almost equally good in a completely different way, and quite a page-turner. Jenna Starborn is a sci-fi version of Jane Eyre. The author tells the story pretty much event for event, but it’s quite enjoyable light reading, if not the excellent quality of the original (it’s main fault is not being quite original enough...there’s a Victorian feel to it still despite the interplanetary and technical setting), and would probably be a good way to get a modern teen interested in the real book.

I have two bookshelves in my room. One is only three shelves, and is most of the books from our library that I want to read in the near future. It has about 130 books on it. The other is full size and is two-thirds my library books, and one third books I own or have already read and there because I want to reread them. I cannot look at them without a title jumping out that I am dying to read. How lovely to be a bibliophile!

I’ve read eight books this month, and they are almost all on the same theme. Let’s see if you can guess it:

The Inklings by Humphrey Carpenter
The Oxford Guide to Word Games by Tony Augarde
The Black Dudley Murder by Margery Allingham
More Book Lust by Nancy Pearl
Q’s Legacy by Helene Hanff
A Landscape With Dragons (reread) by Michael O’Brien
A Passion For Books edited by Harold Rabinowitz
Great Books of the Christian Tradition by Terry Glaspey

I have picked up That Hideous Strength by C. S. Lewis, which is the final book in his space trilogy, for the fourth time. The problem is, I’ve never actually finished it. The other two books I’ve read three times each, and each time I finished Perelandra, I picked up THS. But after 50 pages, I always couldn’t finish it. It seemed so English college drama, and not science fiction or fantasy at all. Well, I’m halfway through now and it’s getting much more enjoyable. Maybe I just needed to pick it up at the right time.

Speaking of the right time, I’ve been thinking a lot about timing for books. In my reading life, I have read books at the wrong time. I read Pride & Prejudice when I was 11, and could only remember the character names and the plotline of the first couple chapters when I picked it up again at 13 and loved it. I tried Rob Roy when I was twelve and couldn’t get past the first few pages..I’ve since been able to finish it easily. I used to only want to read fantasy...now I’m hooked on Victorian lit. There are certain of my non-bibliophile reading friends that I wouldn’t recommend certain books to, even though I love them. It’s not that they aren’t great books, but I don’t think they’d appreciate them. You don’t start off reading classical lit with Trollope or Dickens, because long character novels are something you can only really enjoy when you are a more mature reader. And there are other books that must be savored when you are young (C. S. Lewis would disagree, though). It’s a delicate system, but a useful one when you understand that it’s there.

I finally got Purring Piggy to start Cotillion. How much more wonderful is a shared book! So far, we both agree that it would make a great movie. I think most of Heyer's books would. They've got lively and hilarious dialogue (some great one-liners in every book), a twisting plot, interesting characters, and a plot and scene style that seem almost designed for film adaptations. I think they would definitely be as enjoyable as a Jeeves and Wooster film, especially The Grand Sophy and Cotillion, but also A Civil Contract (one of her more serious ones actually), The Unknown Ajax, and Powder and Patch. Filmmakers, however, never make the films I'd like to see (when will there be a remake of The Barchester Chronicles?). But the books are still delightful, though, and that's always a comfort.

Wonderful...but not quite perfect

That's how I'd describe this adaptation if I only had a few words. Thankfully, blogging allows me more than just a few, so I'll elaborate.

North and South by Elizabeth Gaskell is an excellent book that I read recently and enjoyed greatly. I had heard many people recommend the BBC adaptation, and so I waited and waited on the hold list at the library for it. This Wednesday it came, and I watched it with my mom, and I watched it again on Saturday with a friend and the rest of the family. I like to consider myself pretty forgiving with movie adaptations. I can enjoy movies like Sense and Sensibility, LOTR, and the new Pride and Prejudice even though they differ from the book. However "ruined" they might be, the book will always be separate and apart for me, and so I don't get very upset about the adaptation. My principle held for North and South, which is a wonderful movie.

Even though a very accurate adaptation, with excellent acting 90% of the time, lovely filming, and the same overall tone as the book, it had a minor/major flaw, and that was the treatment of Margaret Hale. In the book she's tall and aristocratic in both features and outward behavior, so much so that the new people she meets all think she's proud. N&S has some similarities to Pride and Prejudice, and Margaret is very much like Mr. Darcy. Just like him, she's very good and kind underneath her cool mantle of indifference, and I found her hardly proud at all. We also get to see the story mainly through her eyes, and see the good and thoughful deeds she performs, which makes the Thorntons' assumption that she is proud and cold-hearted easily disbelieved (though understood) by the reader. Margaret Hale is a very well drawn character in the book.

What we get in the movie, though, is a 2D, hardly there, character who, as Purring Piggy said, "looks like a deer in the headlights" all the time. She can't act, at least not Margaret Hale, and it's a pity, for her co-part is quite excellent. Despite the fact that he looks more like a Darcy than a Mr. Thornton (who was supposed to look plain and homely), Richard Armitrage made N&S a worthy adaptation. All the minor characters were well-acted, but Mr. Thornton came alive on screen through his acting. He was brooding, he was a bit rough, he was hasty, but he was so vulnerable and loving with his mother, and portrayed such emotion in his scenes with Margaret.

Other than Thornton, the greatest portrayal was of his mother, Mrs. Thornton (Sinead Cusack). She can pull off being blunt and rude and being devoted and loving at the same time, and I quite liked her by the end, despite her faults. In the book, she was a lot like a less civilized version of Margaret, which made it believable that Mr. Thornton would fall for a woman who is a younger version of his beloved mother.

Even with Margaret's character stripped, I and Purring Piggy really loved this movie, and I'd definitely like to own it. Every minute of its four hours is enjoyable, it remains very accurate to the story, and it has some beautiful acting and filming (I'm looking for the soundtrack, too, because the main theme is very beautiful and haunting). So if you've read the book and like it, or just love British period dramas, see it! (There was almost nothing objectionable, too, just a few bad words.)

"We're very very busy and we've got a lot to do,

and we haven't got a minute to explain it all to you, for on Sunday Monday Tuesday there are people we must see, and on Wednesday Thursday Friday we're as busy as can be, with our most important meetings and our most important calls, and we have to do so many things and post them on the walls"

Our annual testing was this week, which meant that we were gone all morning and early afternoon, and doing party prep and chores for the rest. However, we had to postpone the party, so I have a little time to blog today.

I still don't understand some of my tests. Why are tenth-graders only required in geography to name the countries you would pass through if you followed a straight line from Paris to Moscow? Especially since because it is a multiple choice test, the answers were A) Germany and Poland; B) Italy and Greece; C) Saudi Arabia and India; D) Brazil and Argentina)? Surely they should be past that, surely. They should know that Paris and Moscow are in a completely different hemisphere than Brazil and Argentina, shouldn't they?

And as for science, one of the questions was this (paraphrase):

"A fly gets caught in the web of a spider. What part of the spider's life cycle is this:

A) Reproduction
B) Defending itself
C) Gathering food
D) Building a home"

Do they really anticipate that some tenth graders might answer A? That's sad if they do.

A sample math question is :
"3N - N = 6
N="

And as for vocabulary...well, I won't go there. Altogether a sobering, and easy, look into what public schools expect their highschoolers to know.

Strange things in fiction

I just recently started to read mysteries after avoiding them for years, and though I am by no means a good detective, it is enjoyable to try to deduce things for yourself. One problem about reading mysteries is that, since you know that they are mysteries, you automatically suspect everyone, because you know there will be a murder at some point. That idea (of knowing a little about what's coming) struck me as not only true for murder mysteries, but for many other books. For all the wonderful variety in fiction, there are some cliches that seem especially hard for authors to break (and I do not mean that in a derogatory way), and which make the task of a detective reader slightly easier once you know the code. Here are some examples that came to mind:


Romantic Fiction:

The most prominent male will be the groom (this is even true of Jane Austen...she mentions Darcy too much and Wickham too little for their places to be the same at the end of the book as at the beginning)

The male the main character hates from the beginning will be the one she loves by the end (again, people in romantic fiction rarely keep the same opinion of people, especially men, throughout the entire book)


Fantasy:

Countries are always kingdoms (you would think that, with such a wonderful medium for political musings, fantasy would have more than kingdoms or, occasionally, clans)

Any piece of jewelry mentioned will become important (this is almost without fail a definite clue for the reader detective)

Bad guys are never short (this isn't a really useful clue, but I found it very odd)

Kings are either wonderful or awful (where is neutrality in fantasy? I suppose that fantasy is a black/white medium in general, but I so much enjoy the shades of grey)

The horse culture is rarely the bad guy (big clue here...the clan of horsemen who surround the main character and demand his surrender are usually just independent, and not in league with the Dark Lord. Is this bias towards people who love horses a matter of fantasy books being written by equusphiles?)

Bad guys never pick the lush green land, but always the desert or barren land. (once again, not a very useful clue, but odd. If dark lords are smart enough to create specialized armies and weapons of mass destruction, you would think they would know enough about geology to pick the best ground for raising a nation. How do they feed their huge armies in the middle of a desert?)

The old man who acts as your mentor (and asks you to blindly trust him) is nearly always for the good (this is a cliche/clue that I am determined to break)


Victorian:

Fathers are never strong figures (not a clue, just an odd cliche)

Arranged marriages are never carried through with, and therefore never turn out well (another odd cliche)

Minor illnesses are nowhere to be found (yet another one!)


General:

First impressions are either right or a complete misjudgment; bad ones are never merely a result of seeing someone on a bad day (do people even have moody days in fiction?)

Characters can recall every line of dialogue they ever heard, even years from the event, word for word (this constantly jumps out at me...perhaps some people have photographic memory, but everyone?)

Characters can note the least change in the color of the face (“she paled slightly”) or the brightness of the eyes (I'd like to see that happen in real life...not only is it difficult, but characters usually trace the change to the right cause too)

Events are rarely mentioned which do not relate to the later plot (ah, back to some real clues)

Small children and pets are rare (another cliche I am determined to break. Small children are so endearing and common, you would think they would be more present in literature)

Odd or uncharacteristic things always have a meaning (ah, yet another important clue. If the character hears a scream in the night, or a whispered line of strange dialogue, or finds a monogramed handkerchief with no recognizable initials...it always means something. An ingenious author would have some odd things that are just that—odd, to throw people off. After all, it would be more realistic)


While these are probably just quibbles on the part of a reader, I not only enjoy finding them, but intend on breaking most of them in my writing for even more fun. I think that my main impulse to be a writer is that nobody writes certain things that I want to read. Has anyone else found cliches or clues in fiction?

Busy and sick week

Many of you may have wondered why MerryK hasn't posted for almost week? Well, the Clan is in the final preparations for Aragorn's birthday party on Saturday, which is actually his birthday (rare of late). As always, Purring Piggy is throwing a big one based on what Aragorn wanted - a Samurai party - with all of the uniforms, armor, weapons, food, etc. She is mainly doing the sewing and oversees the progeny while they make their own armor and weapons. MerryK has been focusing on doing most of the meals (a job which she normally shares with Aragorn, Adaon and Iceman) so the others can work on party things.

A couple of things have gotten in the way so far. One is that I have been home with the flu since last Wednesday (the day of MerryK's last post) and it has been hanging on for WAY too long, mainly the fever. My doctor thinks that multiple illnesses going on (I won't go into those), which may account for the length, but the flu usually hits me hard anyways.

Adding to the stress is that I am chewing into the vacation that I had plan to use on our trip to Yellowstone Bible Camp in August. Vacation for illness, you may ask? For those that may not know, a couple of serious illnesses and a hospital stay in the last two years have chewed away almost all of my vacation and all of my sick leave. I have accrued more of both this year, but it has been eaten away on various small stuff. I still had accrued approximately seven days of vacation so far this year and should have had accrued enough to get through our two week Yellowstone trip by the first week of August, but it looks like I will chew through all of that this week as the fever and upper respiratory stuff are hanging on. For those who may be going with us and are nervous about this, we will still do our best to be there, but by another means than vacation! We really want to go and would have gone last year (good thing as it turns out by all of our friends that are going this year!), but my hospital stay made that impossible.

Why all this stuff about me? Well, besides the stress of seeing me sick and burning precious vacation days, Purring Piggy relies on me to do a lot of the preparation, mainly the house stuff. Needless to say, I have not been able to help much other than a few things while sitting on the computer. Much more pressure on her. Then it looked like she might have come down with the same illness Sunday morning, but she only had the hideous headache for a day, but was A-OK by Monday (I am SO jealous!). Adaon was out-of-sorts for a couple of days, but appears to be OK on Saturday.

The latest victim is MerryK, who came down with the hideous headache today. Our hope is that she will be like Purry Piggy and will recover tomorrow. If not, or if any of the other progeny get sick , or if I am still not available to help out at the party, we may have to postpone the party. None of us wants that to happen.

We would appreciate any prayers you could give on our behalf.

Re-reading

"An unliterary man may be defined as one who reads books only once." —C. S. Lewis

The art of re-reading is an art that is seldom expounded on, being too often paled by its elder cousin Reading. When people speak of the pleasures of reading, they remember being saddened by Beth’s death in Little Women or surprised by the outcome of Pride and Prejudice, and other such first-time remembrances. Re-reading has no glory, and so is rarely mentioned.

When you see a person reading a book you like, the questions you ask are “How far are you?”, “What do you think so far?”, “What do you think will happen?”, “Who do you like best?”. But when someone responds to the first question that they are reading it again, a whole new world is opened. You can ask questions like, “What about the author’s style do you like?”, “What do you think of so-and-so?”, “Do you think that such-and-such is well fore-shadowed by this-or-that?”, “Don’t you just love this passage?”, and other much more detailed questions.

Re-reading is a pleasure all of its own. When you read a book for the first time, everything is new and crisp. Impressions are being made, tastes formed, friendships started. It is like tasting a new dish. You are slightly cautious with the first bite, but if you like it, you finish it quickly, your mind storing away your first impressions of all the facets of the dish. Some ingredients may be familiar, recalling another dish you like; others may be brand new and point you to similar dishes. Sometimes all the flavors are overwhelming, and you need to take a sip of water to clear your palate before you continue. Reading a book for the first time is also like walking into a room full of people. You may recognize one or two people, and you may take to the strangers like a duck to water, or you may take it slowly and carefully, but everyone is new. You are meeting people for the first time, hearing the words they say and being confronted with their idioms and their ideas for the first time. One thing is certain: everything is different and new.

In both these examples, your enjoyment and understanding is incomplete, like reading a book only once. When you go back to a book, it is like savoring a dish. You have eaten it once, and your memories are favorable, but when you take that first bite again, you see that memory has once again failed to capture everything. You can test each flavor, trying to identify it, enjoying the subtle combinations and undertones, and seeing the overall presentation and experience with more attuned eyes. As in the room of people, your second meeting is better. You can greet people as acquaintances rather than strangers, and know what you are to expect from them. You may recall some of their likes and dislikes, but you discover even more, and your understanding grows. Instead of thinking about navigating through this group, you are more at ease to admire the lighting of the room, the becoming hairstyle of a young lady, the lovely carpeting, the nuances of facial expressions and tones, and everything else that you might have missed on your first meeting.

Likewise, when you read a book for the first time, you are reveling in suspense and surprise, novelty and narration, intuitions and impressions. The first chapter you take cautiously, wondering if you will like this author, these characters, this story. When it’s good and you continue, you can’t wait to find out what happens next, you wonder who you will meet next, and delight in everything that strikes your senses or touches your soul. But when the book is over, you do not know it. It is an acquaintance, something you have a topical and general knowledge of, but nothing quite so deep. The twists of plot often take the lead, and you may end the book feeling breathlessly happy.

But when you pick up a book that you have already read, it is entirely different. You know how it ends. You know who marries whom and where they live and how many children they have. You know who is the murderer and how he is discovered and how all the clues fit together. You are not reading the book for these facts, but for something deeper and more lasting. A good book is full of meaning beyond the Cliff Notes summary, meaning that often must be savored to be really enjoyed. The characters are all recognizable; now you may enjoy their nuances and actions with a fuller understanding and appreciation. A particular passage may catch your eye, and you can linger on it without feeling the burning desire to continue to the next page. Each event is familiar and yet viewed in a different way; you are always a different person than you were when you last read a book.

There is a gentle delight in rereading. Your first experience is fast and vigorous and young, but your second experience is slower and fuller and with more meaning. Rereading is opening a box again. There is no surprise, but there is both a challenging of first impressions and the benefit of pleasant memories. Most books can be finished once; a really good book means more after every reading.

Jane Eyre quotes

“I care for myself. The more solitary, the more friendless, the more unsustained I am, the more I will respect myself. I will keep the law given by God; sanctioned by man. I will hold to the principles received by me when I was sane, and not mad — as I am now. 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; and if I cannot believe it now, it is because I am insane — quite insane: with my veins running fire, and my heart beating faster than I can count its throbs. Preconceived opinions, foregone determinations, are all I have at this hour to stand by: there I plant my foot.” —Jane Eyre


“I can live alone, if self-respect and circumstances require me so to do. I need not sell my soul to buy bliss. I have an inward treasure, born with me, which can keep me alive if all extraneous delights should be withheld; or offered only at a price I cannot afford to pay.” —Jane Eyre, by Charlotte Brontë

Friends' new blogs

Two of my good friends just started blogs. I'm very excited!

The Rotating Polenta Garage

Christian Life in the 21st Century

Books read in April

I only just recently started keeping track of the books I read. I've kept track for years, but not month by month, just in a big spreadsheet. Once I did, though, I started seeing patterns. We go to the library once a week, and I noticed that the few books I read after each library trip were the "lighter" ones, the books that I most wanted to read, not necessarily the ones that I needed to read. I say "need", but none of these were required reading. It's just that I'd rather read a book recommended by a friend than a classic that I "should" read. I also read fiction almost exclusively. Since keeping track, though, and even more since I started blogging, I started feeling guilty about my choices. Sure, I was reading some non-fiction, and more classics than were on my schoolbook list, but was I really having variety? The answer was a decided no. I really needed to get in better shape, readingwise. So far this month I've read one third non-fiction, and I'm really enjoying it. Now the only problem is that I request lots of books from our library, and then have to read them before they go back. This month I've read four times as many library books as books we own. Perhaps I should stop requesting so many books... Well, to the list now!


Conviction by Skylar Burris (Apr 1)
The best Pride and Prejudice sequel I've read...by far! Pamela Aidan's Darcy trilogy is very good, but it's not a sequel. Skylar Burris manages to keep Austen's characters the same, and also make me know and like her knew characters. This book made me think, made me cry, and was altogether enjoyable. Very deep for a "fanfic", and it was nice to see some familiar faces again.

The Warden (reread) by Anthony Trollope (Apr 2)

The True Darcy Spirit by Elizabeth Aston (Apr 2)

The Grand Sophy (reread) by Georgette Heyer (Apr 3)
I wasn't intending to read this again, but Adaon said he wanted to listen to it as a book on tape. Imagine my manly camoflage-wearing sword-wielding brother wanting to hear a Regency comedy of manners! He enjoyed it, though, and has requested that I get more books for him on tape. Amazing!

The Unfinished Symphony and Other Stories of Men and Music by Freda Berkowitz (Apr 4)

Walking the Bible by Bruce Feiler (Apr 6)

The Age of Revolution by Sir Winston Churchill (Apr 6)

Honey For a Woman’s Heart by Gladys Hunt (Apr 7)

The Convenient Marriage by Georgette Heyer (Apr 8)

Wit and Wisdom of the Founding Fathers (Apr 8)

The Eyre Affair by Jasper Fforde (Apr 9)
Excellent book, especially for Jane Eyre fans, but has lots of profanity. Thursday Next is the heroine detective, and has to read herself into Jane Eyre to find out who has murdered Jane.

A Study in Scarlet by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (Apr 10)

The Mysteries of Udolpho by Ann Radcliffe (Apr 11)

Miss Elizabeth Bennet by A. A. Milne (Apr 12)
A stage adaptation of Pride and Prejudice that is, for the most part, accurate. I do not like the changes he makes though, especially as regards dialogue and the liberties with Darcy's character.

84 Charing Cross Road (reread) by Helene Hanff (Apr 13)

Robert Boyle: Founder of Modern Chemistry by Harry Sootin (Apr 13)

Lost in a Good Book by Jasper Fforde (Apr 14)
The second in the series; not as much language.

Victoire by Clare Darcy (Apr 15)

The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History by Thomas Woods (Apr 17)
Excellent book! One of my favorite history books, now.

Regency Buck by Georgette Heyer (Apr 18)

Book Lust by Nancy Pearl (Apr 20)

The Well of Lost Plots by Jasper Fforde (Apr 20)
Third book in the series and very enjoyable. I especially liked the anger management scene when they are in Wuthering Heights.

Something Rotten by Jasper Fforde (Apr 21)
Last book in the series and very good.

The Little Guide to Your Well-Read Life by Steve Leveen (Apr 22)

Timeline by Michael Crichton (Apr 25)
For once, the movie was better.

Barchester Towers (reread) by Anthony Trollope (Apr 30)
Ahhhh. So much better the second time, and much better than the movie. I think I would like Francis Arabin for a brother.