The Great Gatsby, by F. Scott Fitzgerald
As a story, this book is somewhat complex, with some foreshadow and a few jumps in the story line. However, its not as complex as some of the other classics and required high school readings. In a nutshell, the narrator is telling a story about a man who fell in love with a woman whose husband is cheating on her with another married woman. The shady morals are only hinted at as being wrong, but the overall message comes across as: when you screw around with the wrong kind of love, people die. Its kind of a morbid message to be sending to a high school English class, however there is a greater reason to use this book for educational purposes.
F. Scott Fitzgerald is a genius with the English language. His writing contains just enough sarcasm to suit my tastes, and yet appears to be an accurate image of the picture he is trying to portray. Take, for example, "the intimate revelations of young men or at least the terms in which they express them are usually plagiaristic." In many cases, the narrator does more than simply narrate. He uses words which are not neutral, which insert his own feelings into the story.
Also of note is the following metaphor: "The lawn started at the beach and ran toward the front door for a quarter of a mile, jumping over sun-dials and brick walks and burning gardens- finally when it reached the house drifting up the side in bright vines as though from the momentum of its run." Many authors today use descriptive language like, "the lawn was a brilliant emerald green, and the gardens" ...etc. It is rare to find an author using a metaphor to describe the setting, rather than 15 adjectives. This particular metaphor is fascinating for its movement. It is not a passive metaphor, and a lawn, which usually just sits there, is transformed into an active and living part of the setting.
While not using adjectives is refreshing, Mr. Fitzgerald's use of adjectives in other, surprising places is another reason I love this book. "And now the orchestra is playing yellow cocktail music." Yellow music? In some strange way, it really does tell you what kind of music is playing.
Rather than bore you with everything in the book that I underlined in fascination, I'll simply give you what I consider to be the author's crowning accomplishment: "Mr. Wolfshiem swallowed a new sentence he was starting and lapsed into a somnambulatory abstraction." If more authors were capable of using words like somnambulatory in a sentence, and more high schoolers were made to read things like this, our society would learn to quit using curse words and begin to actually express themselves (for real!). We'd have less people depressed and unable to share their emotions. We would have more potential, as a country, to do great things.
I recommend this book to everyone, especially those who feel they received a less-than-adequate high school education.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Every Woman, Every Day
Every Woman, Every Day, by Shannon Ethridge with Stephen Arterburn
This book is laid out in a 365-day format, so it took me a year to read. While I found Stephen Arterburn's other books and ideas mildly helpful, this book made my stomach turn. I did not get the impression that Shannon Ethridge grasped Mr. Arterburn's vision for his "Every" series of books. (If you are not aware, the "Every" series- Every Man's Battle, Every Young Man's Battle, etc- deals with issues of sexual purity.)
Some issues I had with the book is that I felt it was taking a step backward in terms of women's progress. I'll be honest, I am NOT a feminist in any way, however, I felt that the book emphasized women as doormats, regardless of the faults of the man, all the while, putting up a front that said, "Draw near to God and your sex life will be awesome if and when you have one."
In many cases, I felt that the statements in the book were presented as fact, without supporting statements proving them as fact. The book seems to assume that any reader has already read the Bible cover-to-cover, understands it like a theologian AND is willing to accept it unquestioningly as God's law for his people. Very few people fit into all three of those requirements. Any explanation of the Biblical references, such as Paul's original Greek words and how they were translated into English, is not supported with any reference to source material.
Also, there are a few statements that do not seem to be supported Biblically in anyway, such as the statement that a married woman has "traded away all her rights and freedoms" in order to marry. This statement is not Biblical as I have been taught to understand the Bible. Yes, women submit to their husbands, but they still have a power and a freedom all their own, which is demonstrated very vividly in Proverbs 31, as well as in the character studies of Ruth, Esther, and many of the women of the Bible.
There is at least one reference that I found to be somewhat racist. "She doesn't dress to seek male attention, but she doesn't limit herself to a wardrobe of ankle-length muu-muus, either." To me, this implies that the first part of the sentence is one end of the extreme, and the second part of the sentence is the other end of the extreme- that muu-muus are not attractive enough to catch the eye of a man. It gives the wrong impression of the Hawaiian culture, and is just plain incorrect anyway. Type "muu-muu" into a Google Images search engine, and you will find plenty of beautiful women in loose-fitting dresses. You will even find Angelina Jolie, whose dress stood out at the SAG awards (and was ridiculed behind her back) for its inability to display her hips and yet, will you take a look at the gawker? She clearly has a man's attention:
I also took issue with the book's attempt at science, with the claim that masturbation "can warp the brain's hardware." Masturbation destroys neurons?? Seriously? And you aren't going to back it up with any reference to a medical journal?
I'm trying to go through the references I took issue with chronologically, and I've only gotten to August 5, which seems to imply that men are too dense to understand the basic differences between men and women. I felt that the book made broad generalizations about men and women, without taking into account that there are often cases where a woman is wired differently than most women, or men are wired differently than most other men. The result appears to be degrading to both sexes. Although I continued reading to the end, I think August 5 is a good place to stop this review.
To be perfectly fair to the book, I will admit that every day's reading was taken from one of the other "Every Woman" books, and its meaning could be obscured purely because it was taken out of context. However if that is the case then there is absolutely no reason for this book to exist. I would need to read the other books to understand fully what is meant by each day's reading.
If you must read an "Every Woman" book, I do not recommend this one to anyone. Since most of the statements I took issue with came from "Every Heart Restored," that one may or may not be recommendable either. Like I said, I would have to see how the paragraph is used within the context of the book.
This book is laid out in a 365-day format, so it took me a year to read. While I found Stephen Arterburn's other books and ideas mildly helpful, this book made my stomach turn. I did not get the impression that Shannon Ethridge grasped Mr. Arterburn's vision for his "Every" series of books. (If you are not aware, the "Every" series- Every Man's Battle, Every Young Man's Battle, etc- deals with issues of sexual purity.)
Some issues I had with the book is that I felt it was taking a step backward in terms of women's progress. I'll be honest, I am NOT a feminist in any way, however, I felt that the book emphasized women as doormats, regardless of the faults of the man, all the while, putting up a front that said, "Draw near to God and your sex life will be awesome if and when you have one."
In many cases, I felt that the statements in the book were presented as fact, without supporting statements proving them as fact. The book seems to assume that any reader has already read the Bible cover-to-cover, understands it like a theologian AND is willing to accept it unquestioningly as God's law for his people. Very few people fit into all three of those requirements. Any explanation of the Biblical references, such as Paul's original Greek words and how they were translated into English, is not supported with any reference to source material.
Also, there are a few statements that do not seem to be supported Biblically in anyway, such as the statement that a married woman has "traded away all her rights and freedoms" in order to marry. This statement is not Biblical as I have been taught to understand the Bible. Yes, women submit to their husbands, but they still have a power and a freedom all their own, which is demonstrated very vividly in Proverbs 31, as well as in the character studies of Ruth, Esther, and many of the women of the Bible.
There is at least one reference that I found to be somewhat racist. "She doesn't dress to seek male attention, but she doesn't limit herself to a wardrobe of ankle-length muu-muus, either." To me, this implies that the first part of the sentence is one end of the extreme, and the second part of the sentence is the other end of the extreme- that muu-muus are not attractive enough to catch the eye of a man. It gives the wrong impression of the Hawaiian culture, and is just plain incorrect anyway. Type "muu-muu" into a Google Images search engine, and you will find plenty of beautiful women in loose-fitting dresses. You will even find Angelina Jolie, whose dress stood out at the SAG awards (and was ridiculed behind her back) for its inability to display her hips and yet, will you take a look at the gawker? She clearly has a man's attention:
I also took issue with the book's attempt at science, with the claim that masturbation "can warp the brain's hardware." Masturbation destroys neurons?? Seriously? And you aren't going to back it up with any reference to a medical journal?
I'm trying to go through the references I took issue with chronologically, and I've only gotten to August 5, which seems to imply that men are too dense to understand the basic differences between men and women. I felt that the book made broad generalizations about men and women, without taking into account that there are often cases where a woman is wired differently than most women, or men are wired differently than most other men. The result appears to be degrading to both sexes. Although I continued reading to the end, I think August 5 is a good place to stop this review.
To be perfectly fair to the book, I will admit that every day's reading was taken from one of the other "Every Woman" books, and its meaning could be obscured purely because it was taken out of context. However if that is the case then there is absolutely no reason for this book to exist. I would need to read the other books to understand fully what is meant by each day's reading.
If you must read an "Every Woman" book, I do not recommend this one to anyone. Since most of the statements I took issue with came from "Every Heart Restored," that one may or may not be recommendable either. Like I said, I would have to see how the paragraph is used within the context of the book.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Prophet
Prophet, by Frank Peretti
Although this is an excellent book, I don't think that this is the author's best work. I know that he is capable of some pretty gripping plot lines and action scenes, and I felt that this book fell short of his other works. I struggled to continue reading for the first few chapters, and part of that was due to the fact that although I thought, "Peretti book = great book," another part of me said, "Ahhh!! He's using the A word!!" The A word stands for abortion.
The plot is this: The main character, John, is a news anchor. He and another reporter uncover a government scandal and reveal what a scumbag the governor is. They also uncover who killed John's father and make discoveries about family and God. My problem is that the government scandal could have been anything, but it was regarding an abortion. Don't get me wrong, I believe firmly that abortion is murder. However, I don't want to read about it, I avoid politics in general (any topic), and I don't think that people in the entertainment industry should be using their positions for things other than entertainment.
To be fair to Mr. Peretti, I will acknowledge that this book's message had to do with the privacy laws allowing minors to get abortions without parental consent. Because a minor is often incapable of making quality decisions, there is the opportunity to choose a clinic with low quality standards, inexperienced or unlicensed staff, or other qualities that might endanger the safety of the procedure. While this is a valid concern, the book was written nearly 20 years ago, and its message may have been important at the time it was written.
However, in the 20 years since the book was written, times have changed. People are willing to sue the pants off a McDonald's because they sell hot coffee. A doctor who botches an abortion? Serious trouble because of the willingness of people to sue. According to the Harvard Medical School, less than one out of 100,000 abortions ends in the death of the mother, which comes out to less than 13 deaths a year. Thanks to people's stupidity, greed, and frivolous lawsuits, our nation's pregnant teenagers can murder their children in safety.
Yes, that was a little bit of sarcasm at the state of the world now compared to how it was when this book was written (I was in first grade, and it was easier back then). To return to the topic of the book, rather than politics, I feel that Mr. Peretti's mission in writing the book was skillfully accomplished. He DID get me, the reader, thinking, talking, and researching the topic of abortion, and that I think was the reason he wrote it.
In addition, he emphasized, or the character of John emphasized, the importance of telling the truth. John's career was compromised because he told the truth, and in some ways, I wonder if the author felt the same way in writing this book. He was telling the truth about a controversial subject, risking his reputation as a writer. 20 years later, he's still writing awesome books, so I think we can safely say that the truth was the right story to tell.
I would recommend this book to anyone who likes a good murder mystery, courtroom drama, or anyone interested in a behind-the-scenes look at the news/television industry. Also, there's a good side story about John's family, so I would recommend it to anyone who is interested in supernatural occurances, or patching up a broken relationship.
Although this is an excellent book, I don't think that this is the author's best work. I know that he is capable of some pretty gripping plot lines and action scenes, and I felt that this book fell short of his other works. I struggled to continue reading for the first few chapters, and part of that was due to the fact that although I thought, "Peretti book = great book," another part of me said, "Ahhh!! He's using the A word!!" The A word stands for abortion.
The plot is this: The main character, John, is a news anchor. He and another reporter uncover a government scandal and reveal what a scumbag the governor is. They also uncover who killed John's father and make discoveries about family and God. My problem is that the government scandal could have been anything, but it was regarding an abortion. Don't get me wrong, I believe firmly that abortion is murder. However, I don't want to read about it, I avoid politics in general (any topic), and I don't think that people in the entertainment industry should be using their positions for things other than entertainment.
To be fair to Mr. Peretti, I will acknowledge that this book's message had to do with the privacy laws allowing minors to get abortions without parental consent. Because a minor is often incapable of making quality decisions, there is the opportunity to choose a clinic with low quality standards, inexperienced or unlicensed staff, or other qualities that might endanger the safety of the procedure. While this is a valid concern, the book was written nearly 20 years ago, and its message may have been important at the time it was written.
However, in the 20 years since the book was written, times have changed. People are willing to sue the pants off a McDonald's because they sell hot coffee. A doctor who botches an abortion? Serious trouble because of the willingness of people to sue. According to the Harvard Medical School, less than one out of 100,000 abortions ends in the death of the mother, which comes out to less than 13 deaths a year. Thanks to people's stupidity, greed, and frivolous lawsuits, our nation's pregnant teenagers can murder their children in safety.
Yes, that was a little bit of sarcasm at the state of the world now compared to how it was when this book was written (I was in first grade, and it was easier back then). To return to the topic of the book, rather than politics, I feel that Mr. Peretti's mission in writing the book was skillfully accomplished. He DID get me, the reader, thinking, talking, and researching the topic of abortion, and that I think was the reason he wrote it.
In addition, he emphasized, or the character of John emphasized, the importance of telling the truth. John's career was compromised because he told the truth, and in some ways, I wonder if the author felt the same way in writing this book. He was telling the truth about a controversial subject, risking his reputation as a writer. 20 years later, he's still writing awesome books, so I think we can safely say that the truth was the right story to tell.
I would recommend this book to anyone who likes a good murder mystery, courtroom drama, or anyone interested in a behind-the-scenes look at the news/television industry. Also, there's a good side story about John's family, so I would recommend it to anyone who is interested in supernatural occurances, or patching up a broken relationship.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)