Lady Bibliophile--a SAHD does book reviews

[Rachel333]

ladybibliophile.blogspot.com

I just found this blog while searching for information about a somewhat obscure book I loved as a kid (Laddie).

She's a SAHD and a Vision Forum follower; the Botkins "reformed her thinking" with their books--ladybibliophile.blogspot.com/2012/02/girlguy.html

Her "greatest desire is to take every book captive to the Lord Jesus Christ" and so she only reads books with good Christian values, which limits her choices greatly. In part four of a series on fantasy, she worries that talking animals might be inappropriate. ladybibliophile.blogspot.com/2012/08/magic-fantasy-and-allegory-part-four.html She does ultimately decide that the Narnian version of talking animals are "not completely evil to think about." In a series on dirty words (beginning here: ladybibliophile.blogspot.com/2012/10/how-to-deal-with-dirty-words-part-one.html) she reveals that she goes through books and uses whiteout on the swear words (over 35 yards worth of tape, according to her). Mercifully, God wiped her memory of other swear words she recently encountered due to Christians who didn't have the same standards as her.

She does take the controversial stance that it can be okay to read books with Catholic characters, with a caveat:

I have many friends who used to be Roman Catholic. I don't recommend books with Catholic characters to them. That would be insensitive to their spiritual journey, and cause a stumbling block which I certainly wouldn't want to do. For some readers Catholic characters would be more of a spiritual detriment than a historical edification. Let me not, by my choice to read about Catholics, cause my brother to stumble. It may be a historical fact, but we must be sure that we do not cause baby Christians to fall into error over things they aren't ready to evaluate or handle yet.

ladybibliophile.blogspot.com/2013/10/on-roman-catholicism.html

I saw that she had a Hunger Games review (titled, of course, Hunger for Evil -- ladybibliophile.blogspot.com/2012/06/hunger-for-evil.html) and thought she had lightened her requirements, but no she hasn't read them and is exhorting others to abstain as well.

And some might say that this disqualifies me to speak to the issue. But I don't have to put my hand in the fire to know that it's hot. And I don't have to read the whole book to know that it's wrong. We're called to judge books first of all by their covers--and if the cover has the appearance of evil, then need we go farther?

According to her, the right choice would have been for Katniss to not volunteer, and if they took Prim anyway then Prim would die as a martyr. Her review shows a lot of black and white thinking--the concept of the Games is wrong, therefore it is wrong to read the book. It's like she thinks the author actually approves of having kids kill each other for food (this is another problem--fighting for Christianity would be okay, but fighting for food is wrong).

She actually makes me a bit sad with all her restrictions, but then she seems so self-satisfied about them as well.

From ladybibliophile.blogspot.com/2012/06/parting-of-ways-part-three-sorcerers.html:

You might remember my first article, in which I mentioned an example of a book that I had given up: Michael Phillips' Angel Harp. Last night, I had the opportunity to spend an hour in a Christian book store, just browsing for about forty minutes. Needless to say, it doesn't happen often, and I was enjoying myself having fits over the offerings of pop Christian literature. And then, as my eye ran along the shelf, I came to Angel Harp. Right beside it sat the sequel, Heather Song.

I thought "You know, I'd really like to know what happened."

And I continued on.

I still don't know. I probably never will. But God gave me the strength to turn away. My testimony is too precious, and my mental peace is too easily eroded upon to squander a moment's satisfaction to a single bit of regret. Too much depends upon your reading choices, fellow bibliophiles, not to put the bad ones down.

Edit: Here's her page where she links to her articles: ladybibliophile.blogspot.com/p/articles.html She uses the phrase "in which" 50 times.

[salex]

Wow. I didn't click on the link, but she seems a lot like Raquel/God's Daughter.

I had no idea there was a controversy about reading books with Roman Catholic Characters. (And, doesn't the old testament have talking animals)(Numbers 22:28)

How old is this self satisfied little prig?

[Rachel333]

She's a homeschool graduate who finished in 2011, so probably in her late teens, maybe 20.

[salex]

She's a homeschool graduate who finished in 2011, so probably in her late teens, maybe 20.

I couldn't resist. She's 19. I looked at some of her reviews, and learned that we have little overlap in what we've read.

[Becoming_Me]

Man, she comes off so smug! In my experience with fundie friends online and IRL if you are that smug about such narrow thinking at that age you eventually reform to some extent.

[nelliebelle1197]

Isn't the line "never judge a book by its cover"? I have never been taught that you only look at the surface of something before making a judgment. She is stupid, isn't she?

[dianapavelovna]

Once again all I can think is how boring it must be to be a fundie

[Hane]

I'm constantly astounded by these fundies who are actually literate, can write well (if a tad bit bombastically), and have some reasoning skills, but who are SO marinated in the Kool-Aid that they see anything beyond their own back yards as entrapment or worse.

[formergothardite]

Isn't the line "never judge a book by its cover"? I have never been taught that you only look at the surface of something before making a judgment. She is stupid, isn't she?

Exactly. :lol:

[browngrl]

Good grief, this is sad. All those guidelines for what is appropriate reading and all the mental gymnastics she does to force books into her Biblical world view are so limiting. If I had a wish for girls like this I would wish they read a coming of age book that opens their eyes to the wider world. Fundamentalism has put blinders on her eyes.

[Sobeknofret]

Shallow and naive readings of almost everything she's posted. She spends way more time discussing the books she doesn't like than the ones she does. Virtually *no* book meets her exacting standards, which is a pity, because she could have her mind opened so much farther if she was a little less exacting.

[Many_Spaynes]

Isn't the line "never judge a book by its cover"? I have never been taught that you only look at the surface of something before making a judgment. She is stupid, isn't she?

The "don't judge a book by it's cover" version must be a heathen mistranslation of the godly original.

Other revelations: DO live in a glass house & throw stones (just look at Doug talking about other people's families)

If the shoe fits DON'T wear it (modesty & comfort rarely go together)

[Cleopatra7]

So she won't read books with talking animals, Catholics, non-Christians, or anything interesting. What exactly does that leave aside from the Moody books and the Prince Charming book? Why have a blog about book reviews if you've already decided that 99% of the books out there are "ungodly"? Maybe she could read Milton's "Paradise Lost," but she'd probably take exception to how Lucifer is portrayed as being glamorously evil.

[Dinorah]

I love it when a fundie claims to like reading oh so much but then is going to limit so narrowly what she is going to read. So you read almost no post-19th c. literature, and even with earlier books you're incredibly limited, because it's bad if someone suffers because of misfortune rather than sin, and it's bad to read about flawed characters, and you can't read even indirect hints at violence or sexuality. Btw whatever happened to "everything is pure to the pure"?

I honestly don't know how someone can endure to live with so many (self-imposed) restrictions governing every little aspect of their life.

[kaetrin]

She thinks you should not read books unless you already know how they are going to end, so that if they turn out to have inappropriate content, you won't be tempted by suspense to keep reading. If you can't find a spoiler review, you should read the last chapter first. (Unless you really have enough moral strength to leave a book unfinished.) That's a whole new level of "no fun at all."

[guidedbybobafett]

Even if she's only reading older books, she can't even read the good stuff. No Bronte's, no du Maurier, no Hardy, no Defoe, no Melville. Is she reading Jane Austen books like all the other fundies (and, let's face it, most people) by pretending they're something entirely different than what they are?

[Hane]

GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHD, I hate this prissy, didactic little twunt. "Miss" Raquel takes herself less seriously than My Lady Bibliophile does.

Jane Austen has been slandered as a great feministic propagandist of the 19th century; however I find it ironic that her novels contain little more than the stories of young ladies living at home until they are married. Lizzy Bennet, Eleanor Dashwood, and Catherine Moreland aren't much interested in changing the world or championing women's rights. All they want is a happy family, a good husband, and enough money to make a living. What is often seen as Austen's feministic "career" is ridiculous; women can write books, and writing is a biblical and perfectly feminine occupation. And her women's rights advocates disguised as stifled daughters longing for freedom? Sorry. I can't find any indication of that being the case. These young ladies know their life business, and each story focuses on their longing to be a woman, not on a wish to be like a man.

• I like to think of myself as a pacifist, but, utter the pseudo-word "feministic" in my presence and I will snatch you baldheaded.
  
• Um, Tootsiepie? Being called a feminist is not slander--it's praise.
  
• Bolding mine. Sweetie, I seriously doubt that Austen's heroines were "longing" to be women--they just WERE women. And they lived in a time of seriously limited options. In order to live, women of Austen's class either had to inherit money, marry it, or scratch out a dubious living as a governess.

And don't even let me get started on her "review" of The Hunger Games, books she hasn't even read. I am reminded of the Mormon who wrote a negative review of "The Book of Mormon" for some major news source (NYT?), but hadn't seen it and had no intention of doing o.

[Carla Bruni]

You know, when Dr Zhivago was published, Pasternak was expelled from the Soviet Writers' Union in a speech that began with the words "I haven't read Pasternak, but..."

Not to compare Dr Zhivago to Hunger Games or anything :P

[NotALoserLikeYou]

And she has a youtube...

youtube.com/channel/UC1btPfiDrlIS1TRKxKuMmDQ?feature=watch

[ladyamylynn]

Oh goody, I needed a new blog to hate-read! Smug, self-important, terribly misguided, VF and Western Conservatory fangirl. Yep, checks out!

[Dysfundamental]

Harold Bell Wright was a best selling writer in the US from the 1890s to the 1920s. He was very active in Christian movements (iirc, he was Methodist himself and had considered the ministry) and that is definitely reflected in his novels, most of which are historical action manly men adventures a la Zane Grey.

So I was working on a project about forgotten bestsellers of the past, and came across some SOTDRT fundie lady on Goodreads reviewing a book by Harold Bell Wright.

My jaw dropped when I saw she was one-starring it and warning others away because of its intolerable language. The word in question was "durn", which she primly pointed out was a minced oath and therefore an outrage to delicate eyes.

I'm sorry, but if explicitly Christian novels from 19fucking03 are too out there for you, just crawl into a hole and pull it over your head, lady.

[Confused_by_religion]

ladybibliophile.blogspot.com

I just found this blog while searching for information about a somewhat obscure book I loved as a kid (Laddie).

She's a SAHD and a Vision Forum follower; the Botkins "reformed her thinking" with their books--ladybibliophile.blogspot.com/2012/02/girlguy.html

Her "greatest desire is to take every book captive to the Lord Jesus Christ"

Dear Godess, what does this even MEAN?

I wonder how she'd take a Hemingway "captive to the Lord Jesus Christ". Or one of the dread bodice rippers.

As for reviewing Hunger Games without having read it, that renders me speechless.

[Savoring Samsara]

Dear Godess, what does this even MEAN?

I wonder how she'd take a Hemingway "captive to the Lord Jesus Christ". Or one of the dread bodice rippers.

As for reviewing Hunger Games without having read it, that renders me speechless.

I was just going to post about how "to take every book captive to the Lord Jesus Christ" was a fundie turn of phrase I had not heard before. Why does everything always have to be so fraught with spiritual import? Can't a person just read for pleasure or education without their preferences in literature needing to be a constant, total reflection of their spiritual health?

As far as Hunger Games goes, I find it perfectly understandable to weigh in on a book by saying something like, "I'm choosing not to read this popular thing because it offends my sensibilities." However, to conflate that sort of a statement with a review, which would require a close reading, is misleading at best.

[Pandora Moon]

The question I always have for people like this, is how can they read the bible?

As the things that are mentioned in the bible like incest, rape, murder, genocide, drunkenness, eating excrement. Are all things they wouldn't tolerate in other books so why this one?!

Actually I suspect what happens with the bible is either they only read select portions of it or if they have read the dodgy parts then they probably just put them out of their mind.

[NotALoserLikeYou]

Her name is Schuyler McConkey. She spoke at a homeschool conference on how to be a SAHD and how to read books and she is an aspiring author:

conference.homeschoolmichigan.org/workshopinfo.html?sortby=isp&sp=smcconkey

Her brother has a blog. The family is IFB and into college plus and fundie:

victoriouswarriorblog.blogspot.com/

Dad (check out moms dress): plus.google.com/106228761740694174764/posts