The Thing to Do

With National Poetry Day out of the way, of course, a new, literary fad is going to be pushed down your throat.

Today is the day you're supposed to "Buy a Book from an Independent Bookstore."

There are all of these really great reasons you're supposed to do this - b/c, like many small things, indie bookstores are cute, it helps stimulate the local economy, blah, blah, blah. You can read someone else's (probably better) blog to discover REAL excuses.

I say, it's an excuse to buy a book, and feel compelled to point out that today is also the technical release date of the paperback of Maureen Johnson's Suite Scarlett.

Coincidence? Or marketing ploy? See, it doesn't matter. Now, if you don't know what to get today to do good for your local economy, you're going to have to buy it, because I pointed it out.

Avid fan of Johnson? You need the paperback AS WELL AS the hardcover version, of course.

Never read Johnson's work? Now is the perfect time to start.
Already own a copy of Suite Scarlett? It also makes a great gift. (Look at that prettty cover!)

Don't read? You should start. But you probably won't, so now is the time I'm going to point out how many OTHER uses books have:

*They make you look smart. Even if you haven't actually read the books in your living space, if you have a bookshelf with books on it, people are all impressed and whatnot.

*They prop up coffee tables rather well. This has been proven in countless movies, cartoons, etc.

*Are you considering not participating in the day of buying indie b/c you don't want to seem like a hippie? Books are made of PAPER. If you buy one without intending to read it, you're wasting paper, killing trees, and making long-haired freaks everywhere cry.

Obviously, you NEED a copy of Suite Scarlett.

So, I'm just going to stay here, and keep saying the name of the book until you go out and buy it.

Suite Scarlett
Suite Scarlett
Suite Scarlett
Suite Scarlett
Suite Scarlett
Seriously.
Suite Scarlett
Suite Scarlett
Suite Scarlett
Suite Scarlett
My energy is unflagging.
Suite Scarlett
Suite Scarlett
Suite Scarlett
Suite Scarlett
Suite Scarlett
Have you left? Good.
Suite Scarlett
Suite Scarlett
Suite Scarlett
Suite Scarlett
I can't stop!

A Religious Book "Not Intending to Prove Anything"

I recently received this book in the mail:


In case you're having trouble reading the cover, it's entitled: Who really goes to hell? The Gospel You've Never Heard: What a Protestant Bible written by Jews says about God's work through Christ (A book for those in the church and those offended by it), and it's written by David I Rudel (with a foreword by Rev. Edward Hopkins).

Basically, even the title gives an indication of what this book seems to be aiming to do - show that the modern interpretation of the gospels is flawed, and offer a viable alternative.

Those who know me personally are aware of my views about Christianity - let's just say, I'm not a fan of the religion. If you believe what the Bible says, and do your best to follow it, you'll be a good person. That's cool. If it gives you comfort, that's great, and I envy you. I, personally, however, have done much thinking on the matter, and I am not a Christian, nor can I force myself to be one, nor am I going to pretend to be one.

This book didn't change my mind.

Yet, I'm going to be honest - I can't bring myself to finish it. I read up through page 20, which is the first chapter of part 1 ("Questing").

The following will be, step by step, some of the problems I had with the chapter that I read:

*On page 10, the author claims that Matthew Henry's Commentary is wrong with the interpretation of Luke 10:28. Yet part of the commentary which he seems to think is a problem is explicitly in my battered King James Version. In my version, it specifically says that the questioner asks the second question to "justify himself." Concerning this, the author states: "That commentary then says his second question is an effort at looking for a way out."

The manner in which the author's sentence is phrased at least indicates that he does not agree with the commentary interpretation. Yet, according to my KJV, that's not even an interpretation, but a statement of facts.

Now, Rudel is not using the KJV for his scriptural quotations. He's using one of those newer interpretations. So maybe his version is phrased differently, and takes out the connotation that the questioner is trying to flatter himself that he's still all right.

This possible difference brings us to an important concept, for me, however: translation.

We all know that if you translate something from its' original language, some of the original understanding is lost. The New Testament, specifically the gospels, were written in ancient Greek, later translated into Latin by St. Jerome, and later still, translated into English during the reign of King James. So, unless you're going to learn ancient Greek and read the gospels in the earliest form that you can find, I don't really think that you can look at the tiny differences between modern English bibles, pick the version you like best, and go, "See! I have a point!"

*On page 12, Rudel writes: "Evangelists today can sketch out their message in five minutes; you'd think if it were an accurate depiction of Christ's work, each writer would clearly write it somewhere in his gospel."

First of all, this passage is extremely rude. I really don't think that most modern Christian holy men are setting out to mislead people. I think that they have had a lot of theological training, and have read the gospels closely, and are trying to pass on the knowledge that they have gleaned. I assume Rudel is referring to a sermon, in which many pastors/preachers/etc. summarize the main points of their lecture. Still, Rudel's wording sounds very close to a personal attack. I don't see why anyone with an orthodox view of Christianity is going to read this book if Rudel's going to talk about the views they grew up with with such disdain.

Secondly, why? Why should the gospel writers have a clear interpretation of the overall message? When I read the Bible, it sounds authoritative in that it sounds like a primary source. And when you're talking about history, primary sources are to be read avidly, critically, and with interest. You can't get a better glimpse of history than from someone who says, "I was there. And this is what I saw." The disciples claim to be faithfully depicting the actions and at least the gist of the words that Jesus spoke - kind of like a memoir. Or maybe, more like a play, in which the reader/audience member sees the actions and hears the words, but needs to find meaning in the play him- or herself.

*Again on page 12, Rudel writes: "...it is hard to understand why they would not affirm the modern gospel (if it were true); instead they chose (or the Spirit chose for them) to relate teaching after teaching that chafes against it."

This statement is pretty broad, and the author has not given us evidence showing "teaching after teaching that chafes against it."

*On page 13, the author writes: "It appears the Greek version of Matthew we have today might come from an earlier Hebrew version written before the Gentiles were welcomed into the church." He says this to make a point. Well, if that's the case, then why should we consider the gospels reliable at all? It says that Matthew is a tax collector. As a government official for the Roman Empire, Matthew, if he's literate at all, is most likely to read and write in Greek or Latin. And considering the area in which the gospels are set, most likely to read and write in Greek.

And don't you think that it's kind of odd that Matthew isn't introduced in his own gospel until chapter 9 verse 9? Everything that is related before we, the readers, meet Matthew is therefore heresay, rather than something Matthew witnessed himself.

*On page 13, Rudel quotes Matthew 5:19-20, the beginning of the sermon on the Mount. "Jesus says, anyone who breaks the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever obeys them and teaches others to do so will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness goes beyond that of the experts in the law and the Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."

He uses this passage to point out that many modern Christians deny that being a good person and doing the right thing gives you favor in God's eye. I don't know that that's true, exactly, but many modern interpretations of the gospel claim that people are ONLY saved through faith and the grace of God. Which means that it doesn't matter what you do, because you will never be perfect like God, and so can't gain eternal life without his help. I don't think, however, that most Christians are like, "So do whatever you want b/c good works don't really gain you shit," which is kind of the impression Rudel is giving me.

I also find Rudel's interpretation of the passage not simplistic enough. That sounds odd, I know, but since he's claiming modern views are wrong b/c they've strayed from literal interpretations of the gospels (which, considering how often Jesus spoke in metaphor, doesn't really sound that weird to me, but whatever), I kind of expect him to pull apart these passages that the church generally interprets "wrong" and explicitly show me how he interprets them differently. But he just kind of makes these general statements that I don't even usually agree with.

I'm skipping ahead to page 19, which has one of the worst lines, in my opinion: "Nothing here is meant to prove anything, just indicate why the modern gospel does not seem the natural conclusion from Jesus' teachings for a number of reasons."

Way to wuss out. If you're not trying to PROVE that the modern interpretation is wrong, and offer a viable alternative, why did you write this book? And why should I read it?

So I'm not.

Title: Who really goes to hell? The Gospel You've Never Heard: What a Protestant Bible written by Jews says about God's work through Christ (A book for those in the church and those offended by it)
Author: David I Rudel
Publisher: Biblical Heresy Press
Copyrite: 2009
Website that goes with book: www.John173.net

Another Look at Twilight

I have a long, tangled history with the book Twilight, by Stephenie Meyer.

Meyer's book had a great marketing team. They got her to change the title of the book from the less appealing Forks to a less obvious title, and they picked really visually appealing covers. I read young adult quite a bit, actually. I browse that section of the bookstore, particularly when I was looking for a less mentally demanding book to read for fun (because I picked a major that forced me to do a lot of dry reading, and a lot of analysis; sometimes, I needed a break). My eye was caught many times by the book with the black cover, and the pale arms, with hands cupping an apple. I noticed the cover, I read the back cover, and I put it back on the shelf. Frankly, those famous "three things" Bella's "absolutely positive" about make it sound like the protagonist is an airhead. Not that that's a bad thing, but I have a kind of intolerant attitude with regards to idiocy, and I didn't think I would like this book.

Well, then the trailer for the movie came out. The trailer looked pretty interesting, and I was like, Okay, I'm going to suck it up and pay eleven dollars to read this book. That clever cover was right - this book is interesting.

And then I read the book, and was very underwhelmed. Not at first, but at the end.

See, here's the thing. The book starts out okay. Excluding the epilogue, it ends okay, too. Yet for 500 pages, this book doesn't pack the punch I'm aiming for. If we are an S&M couple, I'm bent over, expecting to get smacked hard, and I feel a tap. I want to be sore for a week, and am instead only slightly irritated for a few seconds.

I know this book has a lot of fans. That's great; Meyer got lucky with this book series. And have you seen her interviews for The Host? She might not realize how lucky she got with this series, but she is appropriately humble about her writing skill. She says she was kind of "raw." I appreciate that she isn't acting like the greatest writer who ever walked the earth because some obsessed girls say it's true.

(Also, I would like to say, I like Meyer much more after seeing this interview. What a bitch! She refers to her readers as "girls," when I know there are some boys, middle-aged moms, etc. who rave about these books. Then, while she said she's got cool fans, she still puts them down, insinuating that they're not open-minded when she says they might just throw the book on the floor because it doesn't have Edward in it. While she's got a clear view of why many of her fans like the Twilight series, it is still deliciously evil to call them out on being love struck ditzes.)

I'll ignore the inconsistencies in this book - suffice it to say, they exist.

I won't go into detail about the abusive relationship, because many others have discussed this, and I doubt I can do better than they have. I would like to say that Bella is afraid of Edward many times, though, and that any impressionable people who read this book and happen to stumble upon this review, please keep in mind, if you're scared of your significant other, that is wrong. Don't date someone you're scared of, physically or otherwise.

I didn't mind reading the book as much this time around, but I'm definitely not going to rave about it.

Bella gets kind of whiny, kind of annoying, and says some really stupid things. She's a teenager. You know what? She sounds like a teenager most of the time. Meyer did a good job of capturing that phase of life. I like reading about teenagers who are more intelligent.

The big problem with this book for me, though, is that a lot of the dialogue is really shitty. I'm sorry, there's no way around this. Around page 206 (and remember guys, this book is FIVE HUNDRED FREAKIN' PAGES LONG!), the dialogue just starts to get ridiculous.

Let's put it this way - when I watched the movie with my boyfriend, he was guffawing at the dialogue, and actually said, "This dialogue is terrible!"

My response: "It's from the book."

Sometimes, the narrative writing gets a bit saccharine, too, at least for my tastes. An example of this can be found on page 257: "I tried to keep my eyes away from his perfection as much as possible, but I slipped often. Each time, his beauty pierced me through with sadness." Now that is just bad writing.

Still, while there are a lot of dopey moments, Meyer has some good writing in here, too. There were times I giggled, and believable moments. I would not call this a good romance, though.

If you like your reading to be witty and clever, I say skip this one. It is Meyer's first book, and the writing might get better later in the series, but this book's pretty rough.

(P.S., this book counts towards the 2009 Romance Reading Challenge I'm doing.)

Re-reading

I'm currently re-reading Twilight. I'm giving it another chance. We'll see if I like it better this time around; so far, I like it about the same.

See, I didn't absolutely hate it the first time. But about halfway through, I was getting antsy, and saying, "I'm ready to be done. I want to move on to reading something else!" Of course, since I have ADD, this reaction isn't as large an indictment as it might at first seem.

We shall see - and should anyone want to read my Emma essay, I'm taking a break on that. I was ill for awhile, and now I seem to be tired a lot of the time. Maybe I'll force myself to work on it some tomorrow. Regardless, it will take some time to materialize.

Possibly Cheating

At a library book sale (an entire paper grocery bag full of books for $2.oo; I was ecstatic), I picked up a book called Joy in the Morning by Betty Smith. I was drawn to the book because of its cover (pretty yellow, with a flower), and the author. I couldn't place it at first, but as most people probably know if they've read it, Smith is the author of A Tree Grows in Brooklyn. Great, great book. So I figured I would give this new book a try.

It was GREAT!

Seriously, I think more people need to read it, and it deals with a married couple, thus fulfilling the romance component I need to review it for the Romance Reading Challenge, so I decided to write a review for this in place of 13 Little Blue Envelopes.

In her book Joy in the Morning, Betty Smith relates the lives of Carl and Annie Brown, two young individuals who have been in a romantic relationship since their early teenage years, who decide to marry at the tender ages of 20 and 18 (respectively). The romance in this book is realistic and sweet, and I think it gives the reader hope that romance can occur in real life (some of us have grown rather cynical, by which I refer to myself, of course).

What makes this book great is the characterization. Smith manages to succinctly convey the characters' personality in this book. While the most fully fleshed-out character is Annie, the reader gets a feel for nearly all of the characters who appear in the book.

The main problem with this book wasn't a problem at all for me, really. Yet some people might not like the dated feel of this book. Written in the sixties, it is set in the late 1920's. Some of the language might seem a bit silly to a modern audience. I didn't have a problem reading it, though I might have giggled once or twice; overall, I felt that the original intentions of the author shone through clearly, and the language wasn't an impediment, but an enhancement. To me, the language helps me feel like I'm a voyeur in a different time period.

Honestly, I didn't want to put this book down. I am very glad that I picked this book up at the library sale, and I encourage people who are looking for a new, older book to read to give this a try. Smith's writing is a delight.

An Austen-Affiliated Novel I Didn't Hate

As part of that Romantic Reading Challenge I joined this year, I read Karen Joy Fowler's The Jane Austen Book Club.

I was worried, upon embarking on the journey of reading this novel. I had heard, from a therapist a few years ago, that this book wasn't very good. I believe her words were, "They just read Jane Austen books. It was boring."

And then the movie came out, and it looked cute, so a friend and I rented it and watched it. I liked it, and this caused me to consider reading the book.

There was one more factor that caused me to be reluctant at the idea of reading this book, however: its affiliation with Jane Austen.

I love Jane Austen's books. Every single one of them is enjoyable - witty, realistic, romantic. Unfortunately, most of the more recent books that have been published by fellow Austen-enthusiasts have been horrible. I realize that it is difficult to write a book worthy of the great author from the nineteenth century, and authors who try deserve credit for their endeavor, but I don't like being repeatedly disappointed, either.

In this case, I wasn't. I thoroughly enjoyed this book. The characters are all interesting, and described in a captivating way that makes the reader want to avoid putting the book down at all costs.

The one thing that was kind of weird about the book was the narration style. Primarily told in the third person, the narration tends to focus on one, or only a couple, of the characters. There were times, however, when a plural second person point of view was used. So I, as the reader, felt as though I was being addressed by one person in the group, talking about everyone in the group, but in actuality, it was the narrator, who was not in the reading group. It felt kind of voyeuristic, stalkerish, and wrong.

But the novel, overall, is very good. It's one of those magical books that just makes you feel good, even when it recounts bad things happening. It reminds me of Alice Hoffman's books, which are permeated with fantastical creatures and those realistic magic moments that are in our lives.

Since Jane Austen's novels all involve love and courtship, the characters, through reading and discussing the six books Ms. Austen wrote, realize issues in their own love lives. The reading of Austen's books are healing, and feel like a healing balm to the reader, as well.

This book is great, and I strongly recommend it to anyone who has read Ms. Austen's books, is interested in reading Ms. Austen's books, or who loves love. The book is, perhaps, a bit esoteric - it is definitely easier to follow if you HAVE read Ms. Austen's books. But there are summaries of the Austen books, if you haven't read them.

This is Not the Emma Essay

Instead, I bring forth a book review and a rant, both of which are inspired by Christopher Moore's soon-to-be-released book, Fool.

For those of you who have never heard of this book, it comes out February 10th. Only four days before Valentine's Day (and was, in fact, my early Valentine's Day present, and I don't even like the holiday).

For those of you who have never heard of the author, GO. Stop reading. Walk, run, swim, drive to the nearest bookstore (because you'll be wanting to give him royalties, of course), and pick up one of his books. Any of his books. I started with Bloodsucking Fiends: A Love Story, which was devoured in a manner of hours despite my being sick at the time (plane travel does not agree with me).

All right, then. With those little necessities out of the way, I suppose I can commence my review. Fool is a re-telling of Shakespeare's telling of "King Lear," with the court jester narrating. I think this is a great idea, and eagerly awaited reading this novel, particularly as I anticipated Moore's comedic style. And it is a fun book. The problem with anticipation, of course, is that it's hard for anything to measure up completely, and I think that's what happened here. There were definitely laugh-out-loud funny moments while I was reading this book, and I am glad to have had the experience of reading this book. The book was not quite as enjoyable as I had expected, however. A large part of this, I think, is due to my initial and recurring distaste for the court jester narrator. He had moments of sweetness, but overall, I kind of thought he was a jerk. I didn't necessarily want him to have a happy ending, though I did feel for him at moments. I'm the type of reader who likes to like the protagonist. So while Moore did his research for this book, and used British slang, and told jokes, I didn't find his book as engaging nor as humorous as I tend to find his writing. Much of the book felt a bit flat to me.

It's not that I wouldn't recommend reading this book at all. But I am glad I didn't buy the hardcover copy, which is useful as a weapon, but is not as kind to my decidedly small pocketbook.

On to the rant!

As someone who previously lived in Michigan, and now lives in Indiana, I look forward to those small pleasures in life, chief among them, hearing authors whose work I enjoy speak. Christopher Moore generally spoke somewhere in Michigan, often at Ann Arbor, "the deuce" being a rather literary place and all. So I was eagerly looking forward to seeing Mr. Moore this year, and hearing him talk about Shakespeare and jesters and Medieval Britain and whatnot.

Yet, to my heartbreaking eyes, from the website of Mr. Moore, came the news that not only was Mr. Moore not going to be in Ann Arbor, his publishers had decided the man couldn't come to the Midwest at all!

I rejoice for Mr. Moore, who can now avoid freezing his balls off in this hell-hole I am forced, for the moment, to call home. But I've got to say, his publishers blaming this shitty economy kind of angers me.

As if I don't suffer enough for living here! I had to grow up in this shitty weather, where the cold seeps into my bones, and every year, I expect that one of these days, I'm just not going to wake up, I'll just freeze in my bed, and be undiscovered for days like that homeless man in Detroit (who, technically, didn't freeze in a bed). The Detroit area being where I'm from, I don't have any good sports teams to root for, and even the Michigan Wolverines let me down this year. I come from an area SO BORING, the only thing we kids could do was get drunk, get stoned, or go bowling.

There's already NOTHING to do here, and you're going to punish us more?

You can fly the man all the way across the country, from California to New York, but you can't make a pitstop in freakin' Chicago?

If the economy's that bad, then why not just cancel the tour altogether? You can just send signed books off from a bookstore in Mr. Moore's local area, and do a few YouTube videos and call it a day. If we in the Midwest have to suffer and suffer, then why do the lucky people on the coastlines get everything? They've already got the ocean within easy driving distance, and better weather, and not being surrounded by hicks! They've got better museums, and more money.

I feel slighted. Not personally, but as a community. I don't know how many people in the Midwest have actually thought about this, but I do know plenty of people in this area who read, and I just think it's a shame that now this area is being slighted in visiting literary talent, as well. Especially since a lot of literary talent grew up in the Midwest.