Hello, dear readers. I am still here, lest you thought I was frozen into the side a snowbank, never to appear again.
In spite of my lack of blog activity, I have been up to a lot of things, some reading related. I have 3 books on the reading pile, two of which I have finished.
1. Don Quixote-
My latest Classics Club read. It's funny and enjoyable and the translation done by Edith Grossman is great. I've been enjoying just a few chapters every evening by the fire with hot Earl Grey tea, my new favorite. I usually make the tea into a London Fog-with lots of steamy hot milk.
But back to the book, there is something so eerily amazing about reading a book that is so old. I'm quite enjoying it and there will be a full-fledged review, once I've finished it.
2. Small Victories by Anne Lamott-
I love Anne Lamott's writing and this is her latest book. I have about 5 pages in the book and I can't wait to get a review up about it. Lamott has had a strange, at times pretty rackety life, but the thing that strikes me reading her books is her incredible grace and wisdom through all kinds of scenarios that I am not entirely sure how I would handle. If you haven't read anything by Lamott, this is definitely a must-read.
3. The Nutmeg Tree by Margery Sharp-
This is a re-read, but I do love Sharp's incredible sly wit. The Nutmeg Tree is about a young, irrepressible widow who is left in the early days of WWI with a baby. After a dreadfully boring stint as a respectable young widow, she leaves the baby with her kindly in-laws and heads to the city. Susan, the baby, grows up dull and respectable, until she falls in love with an unscrupulous man and Julia has to help her get out of the mess. It's really funny and was a very quick read.
In addition to all of this reading, I'm working and doing as little outside as I possibly can (which usually means just the once-a-day trudge to do the animal chores and then scurrying inside as quickly as possible). I'm also dreaming of summer through a big stack of summer clothes that I have waiting at the sewing machine. So see? I haven't turned into a frozen brick of ice.
Friday, February 13, 2015
Friday, February 6, 2015
Dear Committee Members by Julie Schumacher
After a month of going without any library visits, I was chomping at the bit to get to the library. So, on February 1st in the afternoon I headed to the library and reveled in that lovely whiff of books and that something else that my public library smells like. I headed to the stacks and then….found nothing to read. It was quite a let-down after all of the waiting. Well, I didn't exactly come away with nothing. I actually don't think that is physically possible for me. I got a book that didn't look terribly promising (can't remember the name) and then a slim little volume called Dear Committee Members. It was on the new book shelf, but it was released this summer. I was mildly interested and so took it home.
Dear Committee Members is written epistolary form, but it's unique in that all of the letters are letters of recommendation. I was so impressed that an author could craft a book that was moving and funny and had, you know, a plot, that the story itself could have been pretty bad and I still would have admired and enjoyed the book. The story is told through the letters of recommendation written by a beleaguered English professor, Jason Fitger, who is watching his little midwestern college fall apart. He sits amid the rubble and dust in his office which sits underneath the Economics department which is being renovated to include such amenities as a heated yoga studio and showers. Meanwhile, the eccentric English department is slowly crumbling apart as students leave for more practical fields. There is a steady stream of students requesting letters and there is one student in particular who has caught Fitger's attention. This boy is slowly wasting away as he works at trying to find a job so he can publish his eccentric book. Added to this unassuming scenario is an angry ex-wife whom Fitger still loves and an old flame who also hates him.
This book is not the kind of book I would normally pick up. It's a dry, biting humor as opposed to the more laugh-out-loud style that I normally read. It's also a grim commentary, another genre that I almost never read. The whole book is a eulogy to the gravy days of college life when professors were tenured and students flocked to majors that weren't necessarily job-oriented; when the arts were valued and students didn't write stories in creative writing classes about zombies and werewolves. The book reflects sadly on the loss of such dinosaurs as the Slavic Languages department and the days of professors with multiple published books. I think it was even more poignant because this book was actually written by an English professor. I admit to be slightly depressed at the end of this book.
This book does not end happily. I won't say more because spoilers can be annoying to some, I understand (I am not one of those people). All this to say, would I have read this book if I hadn't been in such dire need of reading material? Probably not. But I'm still glad I took the time to pick up this book. It's very well written and short, so even if it isn't your normal reading pattern, it's not a waste-of-time kind of book. Now, this isn't just damning with faint praise. I have to emphasis how good the book really was. It's one of those books that you shut and say, "Hey, that was actually a really well-written, generally good book!" Jason Fitger has a very funny voice and gets in plenty of jabs at the lack of grammatical common-sense in the US. So I do recommend this book. Go ahead and read it!
Dear Committee Members is written epistolary form, but it's unique in that all of the letters are letters of recommendation. I was so impressed that an author could craft a book that was moving and funny and had, you know, a plot, that the story itself could have been pretty bad and I still would have admired and enjoyed the book. The story is told through the letters of recommendation written by a beleaguered English professor, Jason Fitger, who is watching his little midwestern college fall apart. He sits amid the rubble and dust in his office which sits underneath the Economics department which is being renovated to include such amenities as a heated yoga studio and showers. Meanwhile, the eccentric English department is slowly crumbling apart as students leave for more practical fields. There is a steady stream of students requesting letters and there is one student in particular who has caught Fitger's attention. This boy is slowly wasting away as he works at trying to find a job so he can publish his eccentric book. Added to this unassuming scenario is an angry ex-wife whom Fitger still loves and an old flame who also hates him.
This book is not the kind of book I would normally pick up. It's a dry, biting humor as opposed to the more laugh-out-loud style that I normally read. It's also a grim commentary, another genre that I almost never read. The whole book is a eulogy to the gravy days of college life when professors were tenured and students flocked to majors that weren't necessarily job-oriented; when the arts were valued and students didn't write stories in creative writing classes about zombies and werewolves. The book reflects sadly on the loss of such dinosaurs as the Slavic Languages department and the days of professors with multiple published books. I think it was even more poignant because this book was actually written by an English professor. I admit to be slightly depressed at the end of this book.
This book does not end happily. I won't say more because spoilers can be annoying to some, I understand (I am not one of those people). All this to say, would I have read this book if I hadn't been in such dire need of reading material? Probably not. But I'm still glad I took the time to pick up this book. It's very well written and short, so even if it isn't your normal reading pattern, it's not a waste-of-time kind of book. Now, this isn't just damning with faint praise. I have to emphasis how good the book really was. It's one of those books that you shut and say, "Hey, that was actually a really well-written, generally good book!" Jason Fitger has a very funny voice and gets in plenty of jabs at the lack of grammatical common-sense in the US. So I do recommend this book. Go ahead and read it!
Thursday, February 5, 2015
Book Tag: I Mustache You Some Questions
Lory, from Emerald City Book Review (isn't that the best blog name?) just tagged me in a tag called I Mustache You Some Questions. Since I have a bit of a penchant for silly puns and I enjoy book tags, I was more than happy to play along. Here are the questions, most of them original, with one left out because I'm pretty (probably too) cautious about information on the internet and one added :
Four Jobs I've Had:
1. Multiple childcare/babysitting/etc. jobs throughout high school
2. Farming
3. Writing
4. Various musical-related things…some paid some not so much
Four Of My Favorite Songs/Artists/Composers
1. L-O-V-E by Nat King Cole-It's such a cliched, over-used song, but I still love it.
2. Doris Day-This is my cooking music
3. Chopin-When I was taking piano lessons, this was always the composer I most loved.
Even today, I will still listen to Chopin for fun.
4. Simon and Garfunkle-Actually, I love all this 60s music as a genre.
Four Movies I've Watched More Than Once
1. Mary Poppins-I think maybe 3 times?
2. The Parent Trap- Why are all my rematches children's movies?
3. Sense and Sensibility
4. Pride and Prejudice-This one wins for most-watched movie.
Four Books I'd Recommend
1. Absolutely anything by Jane Austen. If you haven't read Jane Austen, your life is Incomplete (and that does get capital letters).
2. Something by C. S. Lewis; also because your life will be Incomplete.
3. She Stoops to Conquer by Oliver Goldsmith-I just read this and it's laugh out loud funny.
4. The Melendys-A wonderful children's series that needs to be read by everybody.
Four Place I'd Rather Be Right Now
1-4. Places that don't have several feet of snow on the ground
Four Things I Don't Eat
I am not a picky eater whatsoever, so I had to think for quite awhile about this one.
1. Eggs-Eggs are pretty much the only thing I don't like. There is something that just makes
me shudder about eggs, particularly fried and dippy. Blech.
2-4. I absolutely can't think of anything else. I'm not being pious. I really can't think of anything.
Four of My Favorite Foods
1. Coconut (milk, flaked, fresh, anything)
2. Grapefruit
3. Really good curry
4. Bagels with lox, cream cheese, capers, tomato, and red onion
Four TV Shows I Watch
Well, I don't have a TV, but I do have Netflix.
1. Parks and Recreation-I've started with Season 2, because my friends told me that Season 1 wasn't any good and that the show only got funny with Season 2, and now I'm on Season 4….3 more seasons to go and I'm already feeling slightly sad about the end. But really, if you like comedy, this is the best show.
2. Sherlock
3. PBS Miniseries, just as a class
4. Gilmore Girls-Except then it got stupid after about 5 episodes.
Four Things I'm Looking Forward To This Year
1. More reading, but of course
2. Spring
3. Some interesting job opportunities
4. Summer
Four Things I'm Always Saying
1. Have you read this book? I can't remember the title or the author, but here's the basic plot line.
2. So I saw this thing on Pinterest…
3. That reminds me of this one book….
4. Can you find my (fill in the blank)? (I am quite absentminded, which leads to misplacing things all the time. For instance, the other day I stuck my scissors in the fridge and then spent a good 20 minutes looking for them.)
Four Jobs I've Had:
1. Multiple childcare/babysitting/etc. jobs throughout high school
2. Farming
3. Writing
4. Various musical-related things…some paid some not so much
Four Of My Favorite Songs/Artists/Composers
1. L-O-V-E by Nat King Cole-It's such a cliched, over-used song, but I still love it.
2. Doris Day-This is my cooking music
3. Chopin-When I was taking piano lessons, this was always the composer I most loved.
Even today, I will still listen to Chopin for fun.
4. Simon and Garfunkle-Actually, I love all this 60s music as a genre.
Four Movies I've Watched More Than Once
1. Mary Poppins-I think maybe 3 times?
2. The Parent Trap- Why are all my rematches children's movies?
3. Sense and Sensibility
4. Pride and Prejudice-This one wins for most-watched movie.
Four Books I'd Recommend
1. Absolutely anything by Jane Austen. If you haven't read Jane Austen, your life is Incomplete (and that does get capital letters).
2. Something by C. S. Lewis; also because your life will be Incomplete.
3. She Stoops to Conquer by Oliver Goldsmith-I just read this and it's laugh out loud funny.
4. The Melendys-A wonderful children's series that needs to be read by everybody.
Four Place I'd Rather Be Right Now
1-4. Places that don't have several feet of snow on the ground
Four Things I Don't Eat
I am not a picky eater whatsoever, so I had to think for quite awhile about this one.
1. Eggs-Eggs are pretty much the only thing I don't like. There is something that just makes
me shudder about eggs, particularly fried and dippy. Blech.
2-4. I absolutely can't think of anything else. I'm not being pious. I really can't think of anything.
Four of My Favorite Foods
1. Coconut (milk, flaked, fresh, anything)
2. Grapefruit
3. Really good curry
4. Bagels with lox, cream cheese, capers, tomato, and red onion
Four TV Shows I Watch
Well, I don't have a TV, but I do have Netflix.
1. Parks and Recreation-I've started with Season 2, because my friends told me that Season 1 wasn't any good and that the show only got funny with Season 2, and now I'm on Season 4….3 more seasons to go and I'm already feeling slightly sad about the end. But really, if you like comedy, this is the best show.
2. Sherlock
3. PBS Miniseries, just as a class
4. Gilmore Girls-Except then it got stupid after about 5 episodes.
Four Things I'm Looking Forward To This Year
1. More reading, but of course
2. Spring
3. Some interesting job opportunities
4. Summer
Four Things I'm Always Saying
1. Have you read this book? I can't remember the title or the author, but here's the basic plot line.
2. So I saw this thing on Pinterest…
3. That reminds me of this one book….
4. Can you find my (fill in the blank)? (I am quite absentminded, which leads to misplacing things all the time. For instance, the other day I stuck my scissors in the fridge and then spent a good 20 minutes looking for them.)
Friday, January 30, 2015
How to Read a Book by Mortimer Adler and Charles van Doren
At the beginning of January, I decided that I was going to read a serious book. A book that would stretch me and make me work on stretching my mind just a little. I picked up How to Read a Book by Mortimer Adler and Charles van Doren. It was the beginning of January and I was fresh off of making a good resolutions list and it felt so pleasantly stark and stiff for a gray January. I finally finished it and I confess to almost dropping the book a few times. However, I'm glad I stuck with it and I think that I will definitely be glad of a few tips and tricks that I picked up.
How to Read a Book was written in the 40s and was a call to arms for people to return to the serious reading of their forefathers. This meant intelligent reading, rather than mindless reading, and also reading difficult books, rather than light novels. In the back is a 30 page reading list of every classic that Messrs. Adler and van Doren believed to be important for the Western reader.
The book reminded me in many ways of The Well Educated Mind by Susan Wise Bauer. It had similar themes and, while Bauer's writing style was much more accessible, both Adler/van Doren and Bauer were/are greatly influenced by the Great Books movement.
Not there weren't some problems with the book. The book recommendations were extremely dated. Now, before you say, but of course they were dated, we're talking about classics here! The notion that Classics (with a capital C) are all written by dead, white men is a bit dated and one that I do take offense to. And it's one of the things that I appreciated about Susan Wise Bauer's book. She was happy to include Toni Morrison along with Charles Dickens. Adler and van Doren's list was so skewed that Emily Bronte didn't make it onto the list.
Adler starts with the premise that there are 3 levels of reading and that we need to be fully using every level or else we will not be getting every bit we can out of the book. First is elementary reading, which is simply the act of reading that we all learn in elementary school. Next comes inspection reading, where you systematically skim first of all and then carefully analyze all parts of the book to gain a better understanding of it. Finally comes analytical reading, the process of which takes up the second third of the book. It includes pigeonholing the book, x-raying the book, coming to terms with the author, determining the authors message, criticizing the book fairly, agree or disagreeing with the author and then aids to reading are discussed.
Part 3 deals with specific instructions on how to deal with every genre of writing, from practical books to philosophy. The last part discusses the ultimate goals of reading and ends by summarizing why we should all be reading in this way.
The section on inspectional reading was what fascinated me the most. I had been taught to scorn the practice of skim reading, but Adler's words completely changed my mind. He writes,
"Let us assume two further elements in the situation, elements that are quite common. First, you do not know whether you want to read a book. You do not know whether it deserves an analytical reading. But you suspect that it does, or at least that it contains both information and insights that would be valuable to you if you dig them out. Second, let us assume-and this is very often the case-taut you only have a limited time in which to find all this out. In this case, what you must do is skim the book, or as some prefer to say, pre-read it."
Now, to be fair, the kind of skimming I scorn is not what Adler and van Doren were referring to and, if the reader determines that the book is worth his or her while, then of course, they will not stop there, but go on to read the book again.
The book really inspired me. In fact, this book is a large part of the reason why I decided to join Classics Club. I was so spurred on after reading this interesting book that I wanted to start in on a whole stack of classics! However, while Adler and van Doren were thinking about classics and meaty books when they were writing this, I don't think that's any reason to not apply these tips to my everyday reading. After all, don't I do a sped-up version of inspectional reading when I decide whether I want to read a book that looks interesting at the library? And I'm already starting to apply little bits and pieces of the analytical reading step to my reading-asking myself what the author's message is or what the tone of the piece is. And I like to imagine that it's helped me become a better, more thoughtful reader.
I really recommend this book and, while the book is thick and pretty tome-like, the writing is not at all difficult and I gleaned so many interesting tips that I think plowing through the book was worth it.
How to Read a Book was written in the 40s and was a call to arms for people to return to the serious reading of their forefathers. This meant intelligent reading, rather than mindless reading, and also reading difficult books, rather than light novels. In the back is a 30 page reading list of every classic that Messrs. Adler and van Doren believed to be important for the Western reader.
The book reminded me in many ways of The Well Educated Mind by Susan Wise Bauer. It had similar themes and, while Bauer's writing style was much more accessible, both Adler/van Doren and Bauer were/are greatly influenced by the Great Books movement.
Not there weren't some problems with the book. The book recommendations were extremely dated. Now, before you say, but of course they were dated, we're talking about classics here! The notion that Classics (with a capital C) are all written by dead, white men is a bit dated and one that I do take offense to. And it's one of the things that I appreciated about Susan Wise Bauer's book. She was happy to include Toni Morrison along with Charles Dickens. Adler and van Doren's list was so skewed that Emily Bronte didn't make it onto the list.
Adler starts with the premise that there are 3 levels of reading and that we need to be fully using every level or else we will not be getting every bit we can out of the book. First is elementary reading, which is simply the act of reading that we all learn in elementary school. Next comes inspection reading, where you systematically skim first of all and then carefully analyze all parts of the book to gain a better understanding of it. Finally comes analytical reading, the process of which takes up the second third of the book. It includes pigeonholing the book, x-raying the book, coming to terms with the author, determining the authors message, criticizing the book fairly, agree or disagreeing with the author and then aids to reading are discussed.
Part 3 deals with specific instructions on how to deal with every genre of writing, from practical books to philosophy. The last part discusses the ultimate goals of reading and ends by summarizing why we should all be reading in this way.
The section on inspectional reading was what fascinated me the most. I had been taught to scorn the practice of skim reading, but Adler's words completely changed my mind. He writes,
"Let us assume two further elements in the situation, elements that are quite common. First, you do not know whether you want to read a book. You do not know whether it deserves an analytical reading. But you suspect that it does, or at least that it contains both information and insights that would be valuable to you if you dig them out. Second, let us assume-and this is very often the case-taut you only have a limited time in which to find all this out. In this case, what you must do is skim the book, or as some prefer to say, pre-read it."
Now, to be fair, the kind of skimming I scorn is not what Adler and van Doren were referring to and, if the reader determines that the book is worth his or her while, then of course, they will not stop there, but go on to read the book again.
The book really inspired me. In fact, this book is a large part of the reason why I decided to join Classics Club. I was so spurred on after reading this interesting book that I wanted to start in on a whole stack of classics! However, while Adler and van Doren were thinking about classics and meaty books when they were writing this, I don't think that's any reason to not apply these tips to my everyday reading. After all, don't I do a sped-up version of inspectional reading when I decide whether I want to read a book that looks interesting at the library? And I'm already starting to apply little bits and pieces of the analytical reading step to my reading-asking myself what the author's message is or what the tone of the piece is. And I like to imagine that it's helped me become a better, more thoughtful reader.
I really recommend this book and, while the book is thick and pretty tome-like, the writing is not at all difficult and I gleaned so many interesting tips that I think plowing through the book was worth it.
Thursday, January 29, 2015
Thoughts on Narnia
(Girl With Her Head in a Book did a lovely post on Top Ten Irritating Book Characters. One of the characters she listed was Susan, the responsible big sister in Chronicles of Narnia. And that is how this train of thought started.)
Narnia is a series that I remember so fondly. Throughout my elementary school years, my dad was primarily the evening read-aloud parent and we plowed through so many classic children's books together-Alice in Wonderland, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer, A Wrinkle in Time and Meet the Austins, Matilda, and so many more. And, of course, The Chronicles of Narnia made it onto the list. I remember loving them. I wept bitterly through Aslan's death and resurrection and laughed at dear Mr. Tumnus and all of the other wonderful characters. Narnia is one of those books that will live on in my memory probably forever. Then I picked up the books again at some point recently (maybe 2 years ago?) and I began to notice new elements.
Of course, by the time I read the books again recently, I was well acquainted with C.S. Lewis and had enjoyed The Great Divorce and the Screwtape Letters and Mere Christianity and all of those books. And I really do admire Lewis as a thinker and a Christian. However, I also came to realize that he was very much a man of his time and his opinions come through loud and clear.
Of course, it's a pretty much universally known piece of information that Narnia is one great biblical analogy. The books are about the Christian story, starting with the new worlds created when Edmund and Lucy jump into the pools in The Magician's Nephew and ending with the Book of Revelation-filled The Last Battle. Aslan is, of course, Jesus and the four children are everyman/everywoman/other biblical characters as needed. The evil white witch is, I suppose, Satan. You could go into a whole analysis of why the representation of evil is a human female and I know that many people have. But I'm getting ahead of myself.
The thing that drove me wild while reading these books recently was that C.S. Lewis was sexist as all get out. I think it's interesting that this came out most in a children's book. It didn't cross my mind when I was reading, say Mere Christianity, but the message is loud and clear throughout most of the book. I think that we can say very mildly that Lewis did not, ahem, have a very contemporary view of gender and race.
Susan, in particular, bothered me. She goes from being the personality-less big sister whose sole purpose in life is being the stable Martha-like (as in the Mary and Martha story) character to being cast out of Narnia because she has become interested in makeup and parties. This struck me as so strange and I will confess to be annoyed to no end on behalf of all big sisters everywhere. And then there's the white witch and her other evil counterpart who appears in The Silver Chair, The Lady of the Green Kirtle, or the Emerald Witch. There were some weird comparisons to Eve in the Garden of Eden at the beginning of The Magician's Nephew. Those are just a few off the top of my head.
The other thing I cringed over was the racism in the Horse and His Boy. I mean, it was bad enough that I was cringing while reading. Sheesh, did he really just say that? And that does make a book uncomfortable to read. The portrayal of the Calormens is hard to take at best; they are every Middle Eastern stereotype you've ever heard. And the way that they are constantly contrasted with the fair people of Narnia made me gag.
It gives me a bit of a pang to admit all of this. See, I still absolutely adore Narnia. The imagery is some of the best out there, the characters are all lovable and the plot is perfectly crafted. I would be loath to tell any parent not to read these books to their children. On the contrary, if I were running the world, I would insist on every parent reading these books to all of their children, simply for the beautiful storytelling. There are some pretty wonderful truths throughout the books that I think everybody should hear, like sibling loyalty and the importance of a culture and, oh, a thousand things. I could write a whole series of posts on things that Narnia taught me.
So I wonder, am I overreacting? Should I treat Narnia like I would any old book-appreciating the good stories and the wonderful things they have to offer, while also acknowledging that we have moved on in some ways in our modern world? And the thing is, all authors are human and, therefore, all authors are flawed and products of their times and places. Can any book ever be perfect?
I'm not sure why this book struck me particularly. Perhaps because it was such a crucial book in my childhood, or maybe just because it's such good writing. Maybe if the writing were less that perfect, I would be willing to write off the author's flaws more easily. Is it because C. S. Lewis is such a good, good writer that it is harder to acknowledge his personal flaws?
So those are my Narnia musings, all set off by a simple comment and having read the books recently. Now, tell me, what are your thoughts on Narnia? Should it get a free pass on any kind of scrutiny because it is such beloved and wonderful writing? Should we just throw it out and stop romanticizing over the writing? Or should we strike some kind of happy medium of acknowledging it's problems while also accepting that this is some of the loveliest children's fiction out there?
Narnia is a series that I remember so fondly. Throughout my elementary school years, my dad was primarily the evening read-aloud parent and we plowed through so many classic children's books together-Alice in Wonderland, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer, A Wrinkle in Time and Meet the Austins, Matilda, and so many more. And, of course, The Chronicles of Narnia made it onto the list. I remember loving them. I wept bitterly through Aslan's death and resurrection and laughed at dear Mr. Tumnus and all of the other wonderful characters. Narnia is one of those books that will live on in my memory probably forever. Then I picked up the books again at some point recently (maybe 2 years ago?) and I began to notice new elements.
Of course, by the time I read the books again recently, I was well acquainted with C.S. Lewis and had enjoyed The Great Divorce and the Screwtape Letters and Mere Christianity and all of those books. And I really do admire Lewis as a thinker and a Christian. However, I also came to realize that he was very much a man of his time and his opinions come through loud and clear.
Of course, it's a pretty much universally known piece of information that Narnia is one great biblical analogy. The books are about the Christian story, starting with the new worlds created when Edmund and Lucy jump into the pools in The Magician's Nephew and ending with the Book of Revelation-filled The Last Battle. Aslan is, of course, Jesus and the four children are everyman/everywoman/other biblical characters as needed. The evil white witch is, I suppose, Satan. You could go into a whole analysis of why the representation of evil is a human female and I know that many people have. But I'm getting ahead of myself.
The thing that drove me wild while reading these books recently was that C.S. Lewis was sexist as all get out. I think it's interesting that this came out most in a children's book. It didn't cross my mind when I was reading, say Mere Christianity, but the message is loud and clear throughout most of the book. I think that we can say very mildly that Lewis did not, ahem, have a very contemporary view of gender and race.
Susan, in particular, bothered me. She goes from being the personality-less big sister whose sole purpose in life is being the stable Martha-like (as in the Mary and Martha story) character to being cast out of Narnia because she has become interested in makeup and parties. This struck me as so strange and I will confess to be annoyed to no end on behalf of all big sisters everywhere. And then there's the white witch and her other evil counterpart who appears in The Silver Chair, The Lady of the Green Kirtle, or the Emerald Witch. There were some weird comparisons to Eve in the Garden of Eden at the beginning of The Magician's Nephew. Those are just a few off the top of my head.
The other thing I cringed over was the racism in the Horse and His Boy. I mean, it was bad enough that I was cringing while reading. Sheesh, did he really just say that? And that does make a book uncomfortable to read. The portrayal of the Calormens is hard to take at best; they are every Middle Eastern stereotype you've ever heard. And the way that they are constantly contrasted with the fair people of Narnia made me gag.
It gives me a bit of a pang to admit all of this. See, I still absolutely adore Narnia. The imagery is some of the best out there, the characters are all lovable and the plot is perfectly crafted. I would be loath to tell any parent not to read these books to their children. On the contrary, if I were running the world, I would insist on every parent reading these books to all of their children, simply for the beautiful storytelling. There are some pretty wonderful truths throughout the books that I think everybody should hear, like sibling loyalty and the importance of a culture and, oh, a thousand things. I could write a whole series of posts on things that Narnia taught me.
So I wonder, am I overreacting? Should I treat Narnia like I would any old book-appreciating the good stories and the wonderful things they have to offer, while also acknowledging that we have moved on in some ways in our modern world? And the thing is, all authors are human and, therefore, all authors are flawed and products of their times and places. Can any book ever be perfect?
I'm not sure why this book struck me particularly. Perhaps because it was such a crucial book in my childhood, or maybe just because it's such good writing. Maybe if the writing were less that perfect, I would be willing to write off the author's flaws more easily. Is it because C. S. Lewis is such a good, good writer that it is harder to acknowledge his personal flaws?
So those are my Narnia musings, all set off by a simple comment and having read the books recently. Now, tell me, what are your thoughts on Narnia? Should it get a free pass on any kind of scrutiny because it is such beloved and wonderful writing? Should we just throw it out and stop romanticizing over the writing? Or should we strike some kind of happy medium of acknowledging it's problems while also accepting that this is some of the loveliest children's fiction out there?
Monday, January 26, 2015
Snow Day
We're in for a blizzard around here, which means that I'm battening down the hatches, but also making sure that I'm stocked up on entertainment and things to do. There's a dirty house to get tidy and all the animals to tuck up first, though. And a blog post to write, because it's been on my list for so long. Be warned-this is a multi-part post. So sit down with a cup of tea and prepare to listen to me ramble.
A little wooly worm that I found creeping across the icy snow. Of course, I tucked him up into the hay in the barn. |
*********************************************************************************
Part 1-Snow Ice Cream
Yesterday, the snow hadn't started for real, but we had about 5 inches, so I went outside and filled a metal bowl and prepared to make snow ice cream. Have you heard of this? I first read of this in the Melendys books when I was elementary school aged. The idea enchanted me and I remember making a batch and ending up with sweet, watery milk. After that, I abandoned the idea. The memory of that flashed through my head and so I ran to get the ingredients and hurried outside to try snow ice cream again. And it was delicious! It's not like regular ice cream, but the trick is to keep everything thoroughly frozen in the snow and to eat the ice cream outside, exclaiming about how cold it is all the while. I love making this recipe because it's pretty ridiculous to sit outside making ice cream in the middle of winter and, oh is it delicious. I firmly shut my brain off that is reciting the litany of nasty stuff in that precipitation and pretend that I've never heard of acid rain, er, snow, and heaven knows what else and make this ice cream. It's lovely. Here's my recipe:
This is a terrible picture, but white ice cream against white snow is extremely hard to photograph. |
Fill a smallish bowl with cleanish snow. Sprinkle sugar liberally into the snow. Now that I think of it, maple syrup would be delicious as well. Actually, maybe more delicious. Pour about a capful of vanilla into the snow. Splash full-fat, maybe even raw (if you're a rebel) milk into that sugary snow and then lightly toss together, kind of like you stir egg whites into batter. Your goal is to keep the snow intact so you have a kind of ice cream-ish texture. While you're doing this, keep your bowl sitting firmly in the snow so it's staying as cold as possible. Enjoy!
*********************************************************************************
Part 2-Winter Activities
I have the hugest pile of mending to do. And, you know what? I'm actually looking forward to tackling it in front of the fire during these blizzard-y evenings. I've got a bag filled with yarn and thread and needles and a thimble and I'm ready to go. I'm also planning to entertain myself with my camera. I'm in the process of going through the pictures I just took off of my camera and sorting them and, I'm sure, throwing great quantities away.
The cute sweater-wearing (trust me, it's necessary) dog, but also this perfectly illustrates wood stove season. There is always ash. Always. |
*********************************************************************************
Part 3-The Buzzards in the Tree
I can't believe it, but these buzzards haven't made it into a blog post. I apologize to them and now will post several pictures. We have this very old tree that is dead, but provides great shelter to so many animals. It is a spectral sight to look out and see that stark, old, dead tree filled with buzzards with their wings spread (we think they're drying their wings, but who knows). I do wonder what they're watching for. The chickens? There are no carcasses that I know of. I have become peculiarly fond of those old birds.
*********************************************************************************
Part 4-My Book List
I do have a book list, readers. Of course I do. Here it is:
The Long Winter by Laura Ingalls Wilder, because it seems extremely fitting
Essays of E. B. White
The Edwardian Lady: The Story of Edith Holden
The Grand Sophy by Georgette Heyer
A new vintage magazine that I plan to read
I plan to keep busy with these titles. I'm sure there will be more reading. I'll keep you updated.
*********************************************************************************
Whew! I'm finished rambling. If you've reached the end, thank you for listening. Now I'm off to stuff the cracks of the chicken coop with straw.
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
She Stoops to Conquer-Classics Club #2
This is my second Classics Club read, which I think is pretty good, being that it's only January 16th. This one was a fun read. It was a running read and so I got to listen to a little every morning. Hearing plays dramatized is really the best way to experience a play, if you're not going to go see it.
She Stoops to Conquer, set in England in the 1700s is about Kate Hardcastle, a young woman who has fallen madly in love with a young man too shy to court girls of his own class who, instead, spends his time pursuing servant girls and barmaids. Kate meets this man, Marlow, who is being sent by his father to meet her as a possible suitor. Kate is infatuated at once but, of course, Marlow is not.
Meanwhile, there's a secondary romance between Kate's best friend, Miss Constance Neville, and Marlow's best friend, Hastings. In order to win Marlow over, Kate decides to play the part of a barmaid and, sure enough, he falls in love with her. And then it gets so exceedingly complicated that I'm not sure I could even begin to summarize. There were so many ruses and double-ruses and all kinds of mistakes of character that I must admit to my head spinning at several moments.
There are other characters involved in the plot, too. There is Mrs. Hardcastle, the miserly mother of Kate who is forcing Constance (who, by the way, is her niece) and her nasty son Tony (whose tricks are part of what make the whole plot so convoluted) to marry. There are Constance's jewels, which Tony wants to steal and Hastings wants to use so they can elope. There is Mr. Hardcastle who is the main deciding factor in whether or not Kate will marry Marlow. And there is a whole host of bartenders and sneaky servants who fill the pages and add to the general confusion.
I had a lot of fun reading (er, listening to) this. I'm always surprised when I read a book this old and find myself laughing out loud like I would at modern comedy. I think we as a modern culture have a bit of a representation of literature and culture at this time period as being stiff and boring and completely lacking in any kind of emotion. And so, when something proves us wrong in that assumption, we are completely surprised. This book was like that. It proved that, no, people did like a good joke, even back then, and they actually laughed at most of the same things we do today.
The story in itself is very good. It's not a well-known classic in the sense that all high schoolers read it, so if you didn't study theater or English in college, it's probably not something you would have come across. I hadn't read the book, but had heard it mentioned in passing several times. I'm so glad I picked up this book. It was a really fun read and a great way to start out my year of Classics Club.
She Stoops to Conquer, set in England in the 1700s is about Kate Hardcastle, a young woman who has fallen madly in love with a young man too shy to court girls of his own class who, instead, spends his time pursuing servant girls and barmaids. Kate meets this man, Marlow, who is being sent by his father to meet her as a possible suitor. Kate is infatuated at once but, of course, Marlow is not.
Meanwhile, there's a secondary romance between Kate's best friend, Miss Constance Neville, and Marlow's best friend, Hastings. In order to win Marlow over, Kate decides to play the part of a barmaid and, sure enough, he falls in love with her. And then it gets so exceedingly complicated that I'm not sure I could even begin to summarize. There were so many ruses and double-ruses and all kinds of mistakes of character that I must admit to my head spinning at several moments.
There are other characters involved in the plot, too. There is Mrs. Hardcastle, the miserly mother of Kate who is forcing Constance (who, by the way, is her niece) and her nasty son Tony (whose tricks are part of what make the whole plot so convoluted) to marry. There are Constance's jewels, which Tony wants to steal and Hastings wants to use so they can elope. There is Mr. Hardcastle who is the main deciding factor in whether or not Kate will marry Marlow. And there is a whole host of bartenders and sneaky servants who fill the pages and add to the general confusion.
I had a lot of fun reading (er, listening to) this. I'm always surprised when I read a book this old and find myself laughing out loud like I would at modern comedy. I think we as a modern culture have a bit of a representation of literature and culture at this time period as being stiff and boring and completely lacking in any kind of emotion. And so, when something proves us wrong in that assumption, we are completely surprised. This book was like that. It proved that, no, people did like a good joke, even back then, and they actually laughed at most of the same things we do today.
The story in itself is very good. It's not a well-known classic in the sense that all high schoolers read it, so if you didn't study theater or English in college, it's probably not something you would have come across. I hadn't read the book, but had heard it mentioned in passing several times. I'm so glad I picked up this book. It was a really fun read and a great way to start out my year of Classics Club.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)