Church! Stop:
1. Being judgmental
2. Being petty
3. Being hypocritical, and
4. Gossiping.
I think these are the four biggest problems within the church today. People in general are so self-centered, even church and God become about them. But we're not on the earth because of us, or even because of some ominous, distant presence called The Universe. We're here because of one thing and one alone: God and His purposes. The Church needs to stop trying to make Christianity about declaring their perfection (and incontestable superiority) to the world. To me, Christianity is about nearly the exact opposite. It's declaring to the world that we're scum, and it's okay. Because no matter how far we fall, how many drugs we take, and how many dark alleyways we traverse, God will always be holding out is hand to pull us back up.
I kinda want to expand on these problems a little. I feel like anyone who's stepped into a church for even a short while knows what I'm talking about at least a bit, though probably more from experiences outside of the church rather than in one. Obviously, not every Christian is like this, and I'd like to think a precious few have major problems with all four of these flaws. But they remain a gigantic problem within the Church nonetheless.
Clearly, everyone's judgmental to some degree or another, whether it's to the degree that we judge people largely on their appearance or more severe things like drug use (which still isn't a facet of someone's personality, by the way). In any case, the hypocrisy some Christians harbor figures in a lot with how the severity with which they judge people.
As I've said before, we all stink. There's no getting around that. So since we all stink, why do we feel such a need to nitpick at others? Especially for a Christian that's supposedly acknowledged that we all stink! Everyone makes their own mistakes, but we all make mistakes. Whether you've personally messed up in the specific way you see someone else messing up or not (and it's frequently debatable whether a "mistake" is, in actuality, really a mistake), you have made mistakes.
Often, too, people are more severe on other people than they are on themselves. We can, after all, see our own reasoning for doing a thing, but not someone else's. While we may stare down at the cat we just hit with our car thinking, "Gosh, it may have been right in front of my car, but I just didn't see it." others may look at the scene from a distance and say to themselves, "That cat was right in front of them! They've always hated that cat, and now they've taken it upon themselves to get revenge!" It's the same with anything we do: whether good or bad. That's why it's so incredibly unfair to make calls on why someone does something and how bad it makes them.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Morality in Marriage?
Okay, so recently one of the authors I think very brilliant in all things literature, John Green, recently posted a blog in response to the question, "Do you believe in saving sex for marriage?" Although it won't stop me from thinking he's a very good author, I very much disagree with the conclusion he presented. Here, I'd like to respond to that enumerating why I disagree with his logic. You can see the original blog post he made here. I will write this blog as if talking directly to the author.
First, John, I'd like to address your struggle with definitions. This is a very large part of philosophy. We can't really define anything, can we? It's very hard to assign specific meanings to anything, especially in the contex you were doing in your blog. For instance, what is a bed? Is it something you sleep on, or does it by definition have to be a piece of furniture with some sort of padding on it? Does a sleeping bag or an air mattress or a normal mattress standing on its own amount to a bed? In third-world countries, when a child sleeps on rags in the corner of the floor, can this be considered a bed?
Just like the words you expressed difficulty defining, every other seemingly simple thing can present a problem when coming up with a stable, specific definition. However, in order to function in a civilized manner, society has to form some sort of generalized definition for each word it creates. Thus Dictionary.com defines "bed" as "a piece of furniture upon which or within which a person sleeps, rests, or stays when not well," "marriage" as "the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc." Thus, marriage is not defined as either legal commitments or religious ceremonies. Those are simply the means. The marriage is the commitment.
P.S. And John? Should you miraculously read this, a response of some kind would be appreciated! I'm not the final source on anything (Obviously)! So yeah. xD Discussion makes the world better. Oh yeah. That was a super intelligent unequaled quote by M-E me. Yeah. xD
First, John, I'd like to address your struggle with definitions. This is a very large part of philosophy. We can't really define anything, can we? It's very hard to assign specific meanings to anything, especially in the contex you were doing in your blog. For instance, what is a bed? Is it something you sleep on, or does it by definition have to be a piece of furniture with some sort of padding on it? Does a sleeping bag or an air mattress or a normal mattress standing on its own amount to a bed? In third-world countries, when a child sleeps on rags in the corner of the floor, can this be considered a bed?
Just like the words you expressed difficulty defining, every other seemingly simple thing can present a problem when coming up with a stable, specific definition. However, in order to function in a civilized manner, society has to form some sort of generalized definition for each word it creates. Thus Dictionary.com defines "bed" as "a piece of furniture upon which or within which a person sleeps, rests, or stays when not well," "marriage" as "the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc." Thus, marriage is not defined as either legal commitments or religious ceremonies. Those are simply the means. The marriage is the commitment.
And yes, sadly many marriages do end in divorce. But for something to have ended it must have existed, so your logic is somewhat of a contradiction. It was meant, maybe, to be life-long, but sadly it doesn't always turn out that way. Regardless, since people whose marriages end in divorce were legally and socially considered married when they had sex, it cannot be considered immoral. Besides, nobody can see into the future, and they can't be held morally responsible if they suddenly can't be defined as having been married at any point in their lives because they divorced.
Anyways, John, I think as a general operational definition, we all know what "sex" is defined as, and I'd say that's the first option you put up. That doesn't make everything else you put up there moral outside of marriage, but we're not addressing that right now - we're addressing (as I see it) the meat of the definition, what most people perhaps loosely define that word as.
Because of all this, I think your reasoning is flawed. I see how you got there, but I believe it's flawed all the way. Of course, people are free to make their own decisions, and I'm not going to tell people what they can and can't do. But I do have my own opinion, and that's that sex outside of marriage is plain-and-simple immoral. I hope you understand why I've come to my conclusion, whether you agree or not.
In any case, it's sad to me how many people agreed with your post. I guess people particularly in this age group have to agree with it, really. As commonly stated, people will rarely do anything they know without a doubt is wrong, and therefore they're always trying to justify themselves to themselves. It's part of being human.
With that said, John Green, I hope you will see my books on shelves one day, as well. Hopefully they, too, will present the deeper meaning many contemporary books lack, and help people truly look in and discover themselves - the good and the bad. Until then, I'll just continue in my own search.
Thanks for reading (even if you didn't),
EmilyWith that said, John Green, I hope you will see my books on shelves one day, as well. Hopefully they, too, will present the deeper meaning many contemporary books lack, and help people truly look in and discover themselves - the good and the bad. Until then, I'll just continue in my own search.
Thanks for reading (even if you didn't),
P.S. And John? Should you miraculously read this, a response of some kind would be appreciated! I'm not the final source on anything (Obviously)! So yeah. xD Discussion makes the world better. Oh yeah. That was a super intelligent unequaled quote by M-E me. Yeah. xD
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Misquoting people
Lately, I've seen a lot of instances of people being misquoted, and to me, it's really annoying. Whether it's a case of deliberately misquoting someone or doing it out of ignorance, I don't believe it's ever acceptable.
For instance, today I was looking up whether or not Ernest Hemingway was an atheist for a quiz (don't worry it's open-book, so we're aloud to look around). In doing so, I came across this page. The person asking the question quoted Hemingway as saying, "All thinking men are atheists," and then asked everyone whether or not they thought that was true. The answer that was chosen as the best one just killed me.
This person quoted Thomas Jefferson (much worse of a guy than his status as a "founder of America" would permit us to speak of). Anyways, the quotes by Thomas Jefferson included "Religions are all alike – founded upon fables and mythologies," "I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature." and, "Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man." These quotes were obviously meant to prove he was atheist, and therefore strengthen the argument that all thinking men were atheists. But this person for got one very important thing. Thomas Jefferson was a Deist.
Note that Deism still boasts a belief in God, just not a believe in the divinity of Christ, or his ability to perform miracles of any kind. You have to be somewhat thick to overlook this. I mean, Jefferson was the author of The Jefferson Bible, a version of the Bible which omits any reference to Jesus as divine, takes out all the signs and miracles he performed, and switches other things around for no perceivable reason besides. But the fact is, he still believed in God. He wasn't an atheist, he just wasn't a Christian. His failure to be either may be worse, but that's not the point.
And that's not the only time I've come across people being misquoted to be atheists. A few months ago, when I was looking for a specific quote by Victor Hugo that I remembered but couldn't find in the book, I was shocked to find some quotes by him that were interpreted as atheist when they actually weren't. Such as:
"In every village there is a torch; the teacher, and in every village there is an extinguisher; the priest."
"Every step which the intelligence of Europe has taken has been in spite of the clerical party."
Etc. The fact is, Victor Hugo was a Christian. I have read both these quotes in their context in his book, Les Miserables, and they were written well after he had become a Christian - somewhere between the death of his daughter and his return to France after his exile. What Hugo meant to convey through these quotes was his lack of faith in the clergy and others who saw the church as a source of power, not his lack of faith in God. His poem "A Villequier" (written while he recovered from the death of his much loved daughter at nineteen), proves that quite clearly.
It's true that there are a significant number of "thinking men" that have been atheist. Benjamin Franklin (supposedly) was not quite atheist, although he was often accused of being such, Emily Dickinson, Hemingway, and a bunch of other people I'm forgetting. However, there are a lot of people that were Christians or Deists (Victor Hugo, Thomas Jefferson, T.S. Elliot, Charlotte Bronte, most of America's other founders, etc) Alexandre Dumas' book The Count of Monte Cristo seems to suggest he's Christian, but The Three Musketeers doesn't so much, I can't find anything in his biography that confirms either one (his lifestyle certainly doesn't). Of course, some of these people converted from atheism to Christianity, such as Victor Hugo and T.S. Elliot. The fact is, someone's intelligence doesn't have much at all to do with whether they turn out a Christian or an atheist or a Muslim. It's about what they're raised as and, ultimately, what they decide for themselves.
Just a few thoughts that don't all have anything to do with the title. xD
For instance, today I was looking up whether or not Ernest Hemingway was an atheist for a quiz (don't worry it's open-book, so we're aloud to look around). In doing so, I came across this page. The person asking the question quoted Hemingway as saying, "All thinking men are atheists," and then asked everyone whether or not they thought that was true. The answer that was chosen as the best one just killed me.
This person quoted Thomas Jefferson (much worse of a guy than his status as a "founder of America" would permit us to speak of). Anyways, the quotes by Thomas Jefferson included "Religions are all alike – founded upon fables and mythologies," "I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature." and, "Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man." These quotes were obviously meant to prove he was atheist, and therefore strengthen the argument that all thinking men were atheists. But this person for got one very important thing. Thomas Jefferson was a Deist.
Note that Deism still boasts a belief in God, just not a believe in the divinity of Christ, or his ability to perform miracles of any kind. You have to be somewhat thick to overlook this. I mean, Jefferson was the author of The Jefferson Bible, a version of the Bible which omits any reference to Jesus as divine, takes out all the signs and miracles he performed, and switches other things around for no perceivable reason besides. But the fact is, he still believed in God. He wasn't an atheist, he just wasn't a Christian. His failure to be either may be worse, but that's not the point.
And that's not the only time I've come across people being misquoted to be atheists. A few months ago, when I was looking for a specific quote by Victor Hugo that I remembered but couldn't find in the book, I was shocked to find some quotes by him that were interpreted as atheist when they actually weren't. Such as:
"In every village there is a torch; the teacher, and in every village there is an extinguisher; the priest."
"Every step which the intelligence of Europe has taken has been in spite of the clerical party."
Etc. The fact is, Victor Hugo was a Christian. I have read both these quotes in their context in his book, Les Miserables, and they were written well after he had become a Christian - somewhere between the death of his daughter and his return to France after his exile. What Hugo meant to convey through these quotes was his lack of faith in the clergy and others who saw the church as a source of power, not his lack of faith in God. His poem "A Villequier" (written while he recovered from the death of his much loved daughter at nineteen), proves that quite clearly.
It's true that there are a significant number of "thinking men" that have been atheist. Benjamin Franklin (supposedly) was not quite atheist, although he was often accused of being such, Emily Dickinson, Hemingway, and a bunch of other people I'm forgetting. However, there are a lot of people that were Christians or Deists (Victor Hugo, Thomas Jefferson, T.S. Elliot, Charlotte Bronte, most of America's other founders, etc) Alexandre Dumas' book The Count of Monte Cristo seems to suggest he's Christian, but The Three Musketeers doesn't so much, I can't find anything in his biography that confirms either one (his lifestyle certainly doesn't). Of course, some of these people converted from atheism to Christianity, such as Victor Hugo and T.S. Elliot. The fact is, someone's intelligence doesn't have much at all to do with whether they turn out a Christian or an atheist or a Muslim. It's about what they're raised as and, ultimately, what they decide for themselves.
Just a few thoughts that don't all have anything to do with the title. xD
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Gulliver's Travels Review
Okay, so I've just finished Gulliver's Travels by Jonathan Swift. I actually really enjoyed it! However, anyone who's considering reading this should be forewarned of a couple things!
This book was written in 1726, and it's a very complex political allegory. That doesn't mean it's inaccessible, but if you want to read this, you should be aware that it's just complicated as freaking heck. I mean, if any of us were born in eighteenth-century Britain, I'm sure we wouldn't have a problem! xD But sadly, I find the population of that description much depleted. Just by a little. xD
Anyways, so unless you have a thorough understanding of eighteenth-century Britain and the political situations that were going down at that time, you're going to need a very well annotated version! Barnes & Noble classics are always good - they give you the bare necessities in footnotes, and if you need more by the end (like me) you can always go back and read the introduction you inevitably skipped out on at the beginning.
Despite not being "in" on all the cracks Swift was making at people left and right, I still thoroughly this book! To be honest, I don't think you could call the plot thrilling - it was, of course, written from the point of view of the fictional character, Capt. Gulliver, as if it were Gulliver's accounts of his travels upon his final return. The style is very matter-of-fact, and it mostly gives a very precise account of what occurred during Gulliver's "travels." So if you're not used to that sort of style, that would definitely be a drawback, and you might want to forgo reading this one. xD But really, it is a good book, even if it is too complex for the common man to understand! xD
Okay, so next up is Arabian Nights! I hope these reviews are helpful!
This book was written in 1726, and it's a very complex political allegory. That doesn't mean it's inaccessible, but if you want to read this, you should be aware that it's just complicated as freaking heck. I mean, if any of us were born in eighteenth-century Britain, I'm sure we wouldn't have a problem! xD But sadly, I find the population of that description much depleted. Just by a little. xD
Anyways, so unless you have a thorough understanding of eighteenth-century Britain and the political situations that were going down at that time, you're going to need a very well annotated version! Barnes & Noble classics are always good - they give you the bare necessities in footnotes, and if you need more by the end (like me) you can always go back and read the introduction you inevitably skipped out on at the beginning.
Despite not being "in" on all the cracks Swift was making at people left and right, I still thoroughly this book! To be honest, I don't think you could call the plot thrilling - it was, of course, written from the point of view of the fictional character, Capt. Gulliver, as if it were Gulliver's accounts of his travels upon his final return. The style is very matter-of-fact, and it mostly gives a very precise account of what occurred during Gulliver's "travels." So if you're not used to that sort of style, that would definitely be a drawback, and you might want to forgo reading this one. xD But really, it is a good book, even if it is too complex for the common man to understand! xD
Okay, so next up is Arabian Nights! I hope these reviews are helpful!
Monday, February 21, 2011
A Choice: Society or God?
Nowadays, there's only a certain belief system you've got to follow. If you don't follow it, society won't only condemn you as ignorant and contemptibly old-fashioned, but heartless, narrow-minded, hateful, judgmental, stubborn, arrogant, and/or an inhibitor of progress. These are only some of the qualities that may be assigned to you if you depart from the belief system that's generally accepted today.
To be considered one of the "moral" and "upright" people in society today, you must (1) Not only accept all those who are homosexual unequivocally, but also believe in the strong morality of homosexuality, such that you would be one if only you were "born" that way, (2) In the serious nature and existence of global warming as well as the strong necessity to reverse it (which, even granting its existence, doesn't by any means imply human causation of the effects, and without that assurance the idea of reversing it is laughable) and (though this isn't nearly as bad as the others) (3) Evolution is real and all the physical evidence supports it, so anyone against it is just believing in unproven fantasies.
Honestly, under normal circumstances I wouldn't care what the heck people thought was a good opinion and what wasn't, except that now you see Christians trying to reconcile what society says they should think with what Christianity (or, more accurately, God) says they should think. Well, I've got something to say to you! If you have to adjust your Christian beliefs to conform to society's expectations of you, you've got your priorities all mixed up!! GOD should be your priority - it doesn't matter what other people think! People who are trying to conform to society's expectations of them are boarding a sinking ship!!
The fact is, if you're doing that already, later you're going to have major problems!! It's going to get hard, people are going to think we're altogether horrible people for being the way we are. It's okay. But we've got to stand strong. Honestly, until a couple of weeks ago I used to inwardly sigh and roll my eyes when people have said "the end times are coming fast, they're almost here." I thought, "Wow, they've only been saying that every century for the past 21 centuries!!" Seriously, though. God woke me up, and he really shook me up in the process! It is coming soon. Whether it'll be in my lifetime, I don't know! However, I know it's coming, and I think it'll be here within a few generations at most.
I just look around me, and I see so many Christians trying so hard to live up to society's expectations of them, but that priority has got to go! You'd best kill it completely, because if you keep reconciling your beliefs with society's skewed view of morality, you're going to find yourself in a trap. As society's morals get more and more skewed, and their opinions more and more reprehensible, you're going to have to make a farther leap to get to a point where they won't toss you aside as ignorant or narrow-minded. However, they'll be just tiny baby steps. You'll just take one little one so they won't reject you, and then one small other one when the time comes, and another one. Soon enough you'll be across the street, with God waving at you from a distance and a bus passing between you. Please don't let that happen to you!! You have to be willing to take some disgusting junk for God! I mean, for now it's easy. People are just like, "Oh, please. You believe that? Psh." Later it will be much worse. Don't be afraid. God has his expectations of you too, and if to keep up with them you have to be hated, disdained, mocked, laughed at, or even physically beaten, you have to be willing to do it!! The worst anyone can do to you is give you death. They give you death and you gain the world. They are powerless. The end.
To be considered one of the "moral" and "upright" people in society today, you must (1) Not only accept all those who are homosexual unequivocally, but also believe in the strong morality of homosexuality, such that you would be one if only you were "born" that way, (2) In the serious nature and existence of global warming as well as the strong necessity to reverse it (which, even granting its existence, doesn't by any means imply human causation of the effects, and without that assurance the idea of reversing it is laughable) and (though this isn't nearly as bad as the others) (3) Evolution is real and all the physical evidence supports it, so anyone against it is just believing in unproven fantasies.
Honestly, under normal circumstances I wouldn't care what the heck people thought was a good opinion and what wasn't, except that now you see Christians trying to reconcile what society says they should think with what Christianity (or, more accurately, God) says they should think. Well, I've got something to say to you! If you have to adjust your Christian beliefs to conform to society's expectations of you, you've got your priorities all mixed up!! GOD should be your priority - it doesn't matter what other people think! People who are trying to conform to society's expectations of them are boarding a sinking ship!!
The fact is, if you're doing that already, later you're going to have major problems!! It's going to get hard, people are going to think we're altogether horrible people for being the way we are. It's okay. But we've got to stand strong. Honestly, until a couple of weeks ago I used to inwardly sigh and roll my eyes when people have said "the end times are coming fast, they're almost here." I thought, "Wow, they've only been saying that every century for the past 21 centuries!!" Seriously, though. God woke me up, and he really shook me up in the process! It is coming soon. Whether it'll be in my lifetime, I don't know! However, I know it's coming, and I think it'll be here within a few generations at most.
I just look around me, and I see so many Christians trying so hard to live up to society's expectations of them, but that priority has got to go! You'd best kill it completely, because if you keep reconciling your beliefs with society's skewed view of morality, you're going to find yourself in a trap. As society's morals get more and more skewed, and their opinions more and more reprehensible, you're going to have to make a farther leap to get to a point where they won't toss you aside as ignorant or narrow-minded. However, they'll be just tiny baby steps. You'll just take one little one so they won't reject you, and then one small other one when the time comes, and another one. Soon enough you'll be across the street, with God waving at you from a distance and a bus passing between you. Please don't let that happen to you!! You have to be willing to take some disgusting junk for God! I mean, for now it's easy. People are just like, "Oh, please. You believe that? Psh." Later it will be much worse. Don't be afraid. God has his expectations of you too, and if to keep up with them you have to be hated, disdained, mocked, laughed at, or even physically beaten, you have to be willing to do it!! The worst anyone can do to you is give you death. They give you death and you gain the world. They are powerless. The end.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Obama
I'm sorry, I've had a lot to write about the last couple of weeks, but I haven't had much time to actually write about it. xD So here's what's on my mind now!! xD
I just made it through part of MSNBC.com's intervew with Ms.I'm-the-first-first-lady-who's-actually-ridiculous-enough-to-become-a-fashion-icon and my opinion of her just completely died. Admittedly, I didn't have an opinion about her before because I don't give a rats hindparts about her, but now I absolutely have no respect for her whatsoever.
During the interview (and I didn't watch much of it, I skipped through the beginning junk about Egypt and on to the interesting questions) the man questioning her asks her if Obama has changed at all during the two years since he became president. Her answer: no.
This answer is a bunch of hog vomit for a very clear, indisputable reason: there is not a single person on this freaking earth that goes a full two years without changing. Period. If this goes for a normal person who's just moseying their way through life (and it does) it goes for some idiotic guy that's become president during that time as well. If you're going to lie, you might as well buck up and do it well, saying he's changed for the better or some junk like that. But she doesn't even know how to lie. She's spewing out this nonsense that anyone with half a brain can perceive as false.
And honestly? Do you really think we're that stupid? All you have to do is look at a picture of him then and another now!! xD Seriously!! I'll do it for you!!! *ahem*
Obama then (January 2009):
Obama now:
If you want to see the pictures I could have picked that are worse, here they are: 1, 2, & 3. Doesn't he just look like his eyes are sunken in, almost like he has some sort of terminal cancer?? You can't tell me that man's the exact same as he was before. xD I'm not buying it!! xD And that's just the first recent one I found, there are a ton worse than this one! Now, I'm not saying he's worse than before. He just looks plain freaking unhealthy, and despite how much I disagree with him, I do feel sorry for him!! xD But he needs to not lie, and his wife needs to stop lying, too! You know, you'll get a lot more out of the American people if you tell them the freaking truth. For the most part, they can tell when you're lying to them. Honestly. xD I can't freaking stand the man. You've got to be a snake and sit there saying "oh, the American people'll get it soon," etc. when you are in the very act of trying to flatter them into your opinion!! Rat!!
I just made it through part of MSNBC.com's intervew with Ms.I'm-the-first-first-lady-who's-actually-ridiculous-enough-to-become-a-fashion-icon and my opinion of her just completely died. Admittedly, I didn't have an opinion about her before because I don't give a rats hindparts about her, but now I absolutely have no respect for her whatsoever.
During the interview (and I didn't watch much of it, I skipped through the beginning junk about Egypt and on to the interesting questions) the man questioning her asks her if Obama has changed at all during the two years since he became president. Her answer: no.
This answer is a bunch of hog vomit for a very clear, indisputable reason: there is not a single person on this freaking earth that goes a full two years without changing. Period. If this goes for a normal person who's just moseying their way through life (and it does) it goes for some idiotic guy that's become president during that time as well. If you're going to lie, you might as well buck up and do it well, saying he's changed for the better or some junk like that. But she doesn't even know how to lie. She's spewing out this nonsense that anyone with half a brain can perceive as false.
And honestly? Do you really think we're that stupid? All you have to do is look at a picture of him then and another now!! xD Seriously!! I'll do it for you!!! *ahem*
Obama then (January 2009):
Obama now:
If you want to see the pictures I could have picked that are worse, here they are: 1, 2, & 3. Doesn't he just look like his eyes are sunken in, almost like he has some sort of terminal cancer?? You can't tell me that man's the exact same as he was before. xD I'm not buying it!! xD And that's just the first recent one I found, there are a ton worse than this one! Now, I'm not saying he's worse than before. He just looks plain freaking unhealthy, and despite how much I disagree with him, I do feel sorry for him!! xD But he needs to not lie, and his wife needs to stop lying, too! You know, you'll get a lot more out of the American people if you tell them the freaking truth. For the most part, they can tell when you're lying to them. Honestly. xD I can't freaking stand the man. You've got to be a snake and sit there saying "oh, the American people'll get it soon," etc. when you are in the very act of trying to flatter them into your opinion!! Rat!!
Monday, January 31, 2011
The Portrait of a Lady
Okay, so I've just finished The Portrait of a Lady by Henry James. I actually really liked it! xD But whether you like this book or not highly depends on your personality. I'll try to review it to the best of my ability here. xD
Anyways, so at first I didn't like it that much, I'll admit that. xD I don't really know whether it was because I just had so many other books to read, that Henry James has too much description, or a combination of the two. but just short of halfway through I decided to start cheating a bit. xD By cheating I mean nothing more than skimming, though it could be counted a horrible sin for an English major! xD Either way, once I began to skim it was much more enjoyable.
Despite the fact that Henry James does go a bit overboard with the description, his characters are phenomenal. Although in many books characters pretty much follow a general mold (otherwise known as archetypes), Henry James' characters are quite outside of the standard. When I say this, I mean it in the best way possible. You won't find an exact reproduction of these characters unless they're somebody else's versions of his original characters, and maybe even that doesn't exist. In any case, James' characters are entirely unique, and entirely set apart from anything I've ever seen before. Isabel is independent and fancies herself very knowledgeable, but she blinds herself to the real character of a man who should never have fooled her. Ralph sees everything, and his cynical approach on life makes him one of the most endearing characters in the bunch, but Casper Goodwood follows close behind with his seemingly futile devotion to Isabel and his rash pursuit of her.
If you read this book, though, there are some things you should be aware of. They are (1.) Don't hate me for the ending, I didn't write it xD, and (2.) Be prepared to skim through the description. I don't know too many people who'd want to wade through all the description. If you want to, be my guest. But be forewarned that not all of it's strictly relevant or really necessary to the story. But some of it is, so you just have to be sort of careful what you skim and what you don't. xD
On the whole I really enjoyed this book, though, and I give it four stars out of five! xD I could've stopped in the middle because of the description, but the truth is I couldn't! No matter how much the description annoyed me, I was just too devoted to the characters by then! Skimming, I guess, is almost a compliment for me in this case. I loved the characters so much I couldn't stand it!! And normally I hate skimming!
Anyways, so at first I didn't like it that much, I'll admit that. xD I don't really know whether it was because I just had so many other books to read, that Henry James has too much description, or a combination of the two. but just short of halfway through I decided to start cheating a bit. xD By cheating I mean nothing more than skimming, though it could be counted a horrible sin for an English major! xD Either way, once I began to skim it was much more enjoyable.
Despite the fact that Henry James does go a bit overboard with the description, his characters are phenomenal. Although in many books characters pretty much follow a general mold (otherwise known as archetypes), Henry James' characters are quite outside of the standard. When I say this, I mean it in the best way possible. You won't find an exact reproduction of these characters unless they're somebody else's versions of his original characters, and maybe even that doesn't exist. In any case, James' characters are entirely unique, and entirely set apart from anything I've ever seen before. Isabel is independent and fancies herself very knowledgeable, but she blinds herself to the real character of a man who should never have fooled her. Ralph sees everything, and his cynical approach on life makes him one of the most endearing characters in the bunch, but Casper Goodwood follows close behind with his seemingly futile devotion to Isabel and his rash pursuit of her.
If you read this book, though, there are some things you should be aware of. They are (1.) Don't hate me for the ending, I didn't write it xD, and (2.) Be prepared to skim through the description. I don't know too many people who'd want to wade through all the description. If you want to, be my guest. But be forewarned that not all of it's strictly relevant or really necessary to the story. But some of it is, so you just have to be sort of careful what you skim and what you don't. xD
On the whole I really enjoyed this book, though, and I give it four stars out of five! xD I could've stopped in the middle because of the description, but the truth is I couldn't! No matter how much the description annoyed me, I was just too devoted to the characters by then! Skimming, I guess, is almost a compliment for me in this case. I loved the characters so much I couldn't stand it!! And normally I hate skimming!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)