Lady Bibliophile--a SAHD does book reviews

[JesusFightClub]

WHY DO YOU TORMENT ME SLICKCAT :pink-shock:

I don't like Twilight at all, but that was a terrible comparison. And I hate this idea that books are sources of evil and you have to be very careful what you read.

Agatha Christie and Dorothy L Sayers as sources of wickedness, there aren't really words for that. Agatha Christie's later books are flawed and near unreadable, but that was because she was pretty unwell at that time of her life. The rest of them are much more moral than a lot of Bible stories are. Dorothy Sayers, as well as being a devout Christian, also presented difficult moral issues in all of her books that she asked readers to untangle. If you stop reading her books because "she's talking about sinners sinning!" you kind of failed that test.

A lot of the books Lady B likes suck. The Elsie Dinsmore series at least are a bit pacey at the outset but by the end they are utterly dire (and I have read most of them for a project and know whereof I speak). How can she be happier to read pap than anything challenging? Who can seriously read and reread, as an adult, Pollyanna, A Girl of the Limberlost and Elsie over and over again? (A Girl of the Limberlost is well done, the other two, not so much. And none of them are adult reading.)

The rest of her reviews are generally shite. I get the impression she's got a strong, intelligent mind. She'd probably like to read all kinds of books without having to break out the Tippex. But her religious beliefs mean the Tippex is always hovering at the forefront of her thoughts and she's scared that she might read something sinful. That is absolutely tragic IMO.

[JesusFightClub]

I am going to double post, because today is whinge day ;) But seriously.

"Marxists" are trying to redefine Jane Austen as a feminist. Are we. Really.

Comrades have said that JA shows a kind of female self-determination in her stories which was unusual for the time and place in which her books are set. That's it. It doesn't mean that all Marxists think Jane Austen was Andrea Dworkin with neater hair and less overalls. Aside from that it's a complete non-issue anyway and most people do not give a living shit about it.

This is, if you will excuse me, a bit homeschooly. "I hear Marxists believe X thing! Those horrible Marxists! The horrible things they do to good Christian writers/homeschoolers/politicians/people!" It starts to have no reference to what people actually think and becomes a catch-all term for whatever the demons Christian homeschooled children are taught to believe in do.

[salex]

I grow ever more weary of trembling virgins explaining the facts of life to me. Telling me about the evils of hand holding? Really? Does it seem to anyone else that the SAHD lifestyle just makes the girls more and more self absorbed as they spend all day and all night contemplating their hymens?

[AnywhereButHere]

So Catholics are bad (or at best questionable), but elves, trolls and dragons are fine. Her thought process is as much a tangled web as her prose.

Reading books with upsetting language/situation and then whiting them out - ummm, horse left the barn there sweetie. Skipping over sections that are "ungodly" (but not whiting out) - horse has now left pasture. Reading books with main characters with questionable morals is maaaybe okay - horse is wandering down the road. Enjoying Tolkein - horse is in agnostic neighbor's yard happily munching alfalfa. Just admit it already. You like reading "mainstream" books. It's okay, come over to the dark side. 8-)

[dianapavelovna]

I am going to double post, because today is whinge day ;) But seriously.

"Marxists" are trying to redefine Jane Austen as a feminist. Are we. Really.

Comrades have said that JA shows a kind of female self-determination in her stories which was unusual for the time and place in which her books are set. That's it. It doesn't mean that all Marxists think Jane Austen was Andrea Dworkin with neater hair and less overalls. Aside from that it's a complete non-issue anyway and most people do not give a living shit about it.

This is, if you will excuse me, a bit homeschooly. "I hear Marxists believe X thing! Those horrible Marxists! The horrible things they do to good Christian writers/homeschoolers/politicians/people!" It starts to have no reference to what people actually think and becomes a catch-all term for whatever the demons Christian homeschooled children are taught to believe in do.

She probably thinks Obama is a good example of a Marxist. :lol:

[Marianne]

She probably thinks Obama is a good example of a Marxist. :lol:

This is very funny, because Marxists (I'm Marxist), we say that Obama is someone from right and ultra-liberal.

[NotALoserLikeYou]

Another young woman who likes to read and write, and any potential she had was corrupted by religious "schooling."

[Carla Bruni]

The brother's blog post about his eleventy billion college "credits" is such sheer idiocy that I can't even :angry-banghead:

Education is not about passing tests. It's about LEARNING - from everything. Books, instructors, classmates, experiences, debates. That these morons don't get this makes me weep for my generation, which will, sadly, contain people like this who even aspire to political office (not that many holders of political office have much in the intelligence department, but that's a separate story).

One of my favorite college classes was called Superpowers in the Middle East in the XXI century. I could've (and had) read the entire history course in a single book, but that wasn't the point of the class. The point of the class was listening to the professor, who'd lived in at least a dozen countries in the region, had met the leaders of Hezbollah, had run a telecom business with a Palestinian refugee in Jordan, and actually used these experiences that you CAN'T just read about to shape our debates. Same with my IR theory class in grad school - I knew the entire curriculum before I even got there, but the professor was a moderately anti-Zionist ex-IDF sergeant and yeah, no, there's no way to get what I got out of that class from a goddamn book. Or two. Or twelve hundred. I took a class in grad school on failing states, for which we had exactly one (1) book to read, yet we had guest speakers at the deputy assistant secretary level in every class, and many of my classmates had worked or served in places ranging from Burma to Afghanistan. And then there was my NATO class for which we didn't even have a book - we were actually taught BY the DAS who just so happened to be going to the NATO summit at the end of our course, and for whom we prepared briefing books on bilateral military relations that he actually TOOK TO THE SUMMIT. I dare that smug little self-righteous moron to explain to me how any sort of dumbass "testing" system can approximate those experiences.

To be clear, I think it's smart to test out of things like college algebra if you can, but the whole point of cycles in humanities, the social sciences, business, etc is to actually learn in discussion and debate. Don't even get me started on how he thinks he mastered the natural sciences through a test without ANY lab work. Now, of course, these are the same people that visit the Creation Museum, so there's that, but just… UGH. :wtf:

[martian]

My Jewish WWII veteran grandfather read Mein Kampf so that he could understand the Nazi mindset better. He prided himself on being well-read--and probably in a much truer sense of the term than Lady Bibliophile.

If you don't mind my asking, did he say that it gave him any useful insight? When I read Mein Kampf I found it to be such an incomprehensible word salad that I came away with nothing but an indelible impression of skin-crawling craziness. Not a single phrase seemed to stick in my memory, just the creepy feeling. I've thought for years that it must have been a book no one read but everyone owned just to fit in as appropriately patriotic.

I should go back and read it again now that I've lived more life and know more context. And, interestingly, the copy I read as a teenager (just a few years younger than Lady Bibliophile, actually) was my WWII veteran grandfather's.

Lady Bibliophile seems to rather miss the point of things.

[Marianne]

How do you read Mein Kampf ? This is allowed ? ((No judgments, just curious, here it is for historians; this type of people, but it is forbidden for sale )

[Hane]

How do you read Mein Kampf ? This is allowed ? ((No judgments, just curious, here it is for historians; this type of people, but it is forbidden for sale )

The USA, Canada, and many other countries have freedom of the press. I know that many pro-Nazi books and songs were banned in Germany in the aftermath of World War II, but they weren't elsewhere.

[Dysfundamental]

How do you read Mein Kampf ? This is allowed ? ((No judgments, just curious, here it is for historians; this type of people, but it is forbidden for sale )

Many stores in the US choose not to carry it for sale, but it's legal to buy. Or download for free, since it's in the public domain now.

It's also legal here to hold public Nazi rallies, but whenever this happens there are always ten to twenty protestors for every Nazi.

[MissBeaufort]

Here's what I get from glancing at her blog: words words words words words words words words words words more words (because why use ten when 100 will do?) words words words words words

Ironic, then, that she feels Les Miserables shouldn't be considered a classic because his writing style is too wordy.

[GeoBQn]

If you don't mind my asking, did he say that it gave him any useful insight? When I read Mein Kampf I found it to be such an incomprehensible word salad that I came away with nothing but an indelible impression of skin-crawling craziness. Not a single phrase seemed to stick in my memory, just the creepy feeling. I've thought for years that it must have been a book no one read but everyone owned just to fit in as appropriately patriotic.

I should go back and read it again now that I've lived more life and know more context. And, interestingly, the copy I read as a teenager (just a few years younger than Lady Bibliophile, actually) was my WWII veteran grandfather's.

Lady Bibliophile seems to rather miss the point of things.

That grandfather died before I was born, so I don't know the details of what he thought about it. I was just always impressed that he was willing to read books that he disagreed with. Today, so many people vocally disagree with material they have never read or watched.

[JMarie]

How do you read Mein Kampf ? This is allowed ? ((No judgments, just curious, here it is for historians; this type of people, but it is forbidden for sale )

I bought it from Barnes & Noble's website (I'm in the U.S.).

disclaimer: I was a history major, not a Nazi.

[Rachel333]

She has a new post up from yesterday. Just a lot more words, mostly.

It used to be that books were solely for entertainment, and I guarded that entertainment jealously. Now I think of them as a matter of dominion. I realized that a book was not merely a story, but a worldview encased in fiction or nonfiction, and therefore it was vital that I started practicing a little thinking and unpacking of the themes the author included, so that reading was a beneficial exercise. Really, the Lord opened my eyes, because it wasn't any message or person or book that gave me a thirst for thinking through what I was reading--He just planted that desire in me.

[mockingbird]

She has a new post up from yesterday. Just a lot more words, mostly.

Hint: that's not what you're doing :lol: This pained me as a former English major... go take a college English class please. If she could get off her high horse, (real) literary criticism is probably something she'd enjoy. She's so pseudointellectual. She knows some of the terms to use, but isn't really getting at any deep arguments beyond "because Jesus".

Also, I just want to reassure her (and many other fundies) there is nothing wrong with just enjoying something to enjoy it, without really thinking about it. Not everything has to be about God. If God created the earth, surely that included sources of entertainment. Humans have been creating art in multiple forms since the beginning of time, after all. (Criticizing books is fun too, at least for me, but it doesn't always have to be your purpose in reading.)

I used to ignore the bad guys in books--they were just props, someone there to be a foil to the hero, and who cared that they received judgment in the end, so long as the main character made it through victoriously? And then I realized what a grievous thing it was, whether the character was a side character or a main character, that they should choose to sin and reject God's grace.

from her post about reading books with "bad" characters

Honey, they are not real. The "good" characters are not going to receive God's grace either. THEY ARE NOT REAL. YOU DO NOT NEED TO WORRY ABOUT THEIR SALVATION.

I guess it's encouraging that she's thinking a little deeper beyond only seeing "bad guys" as "props" (sigh... another case of knowing the term to use, but putting no substantial thought into it) but this whole post points to how she still has a hugely black-and-white view of the world. Nobody is purely good or bad. I mean, you're what, 19? You can stop dividing characters into "good guys" and "bad guys". Authors create nuanced characters to reflect real life and explore the "grey". The next step from this post would be to start embracing that and learning from it.

I tried to find a post about a book I have read fairly recently because I wanted to find something I could specifically refute. So North and South, one of my favorites! Apparently this was part of her "reading theory" series. Haha, um, no. You are not using literary theory at all. Moving on. Of course, she thinks Margaret is the epitome of "strong and fearless womanhood", and not "feminist propaganda". So uh, why not reread your definition of feminism. Margaret could, IMO, be considered feminist (I may or may not have written an entire paper about this subject :lol: ). So could some of the women in P&P (though I haven't read that one since 9th grade, so I can't really talk too much about it). Does Margaret openly break with her prescribed role in society? Not really. Do you have to do that to be feminist? ABSOLUTELY NOT. Margaret has self-worth, but she knows that to openly defy her social role would only bring scandal. She wants to bring attention and change to her own personal causes. So instead of reflecting all the attention on herself by causing scandal, she uses her station in life in the best way she can to enact real change in her community. I mean at one point she makes herself faint so that people would pay attention to her, because she knows men will want to come to her rescue. Previous to this incident she was always complaining about women who were too "girly", including fainting too often - she expected more of herself, wanted to have more substance. To me, that was kind-of the moment where she realized she could use her position as a woman to her advantage. This book was one of my favorites BECAUSE I thought Margaret had a good heart/intentions, but it was also funny how blatantly manipulative she acted at times, and how oblivious the other characters were to this at times. Oh yeah, and she ACTUALLY ARGUES WITH MEN. She's definitely not submissive, except when it benefits her (uhhhmmmm Lori anyone???). I remember her being frustrated by how much influence men had, and the lengths she had to go to to have the same type of effect on people. Not to mention complaining to her father about moving to the North because she wasn't happy and had to let him know instead of the whole "first obedience" thing. Oh and if I remember right, she basically runs the entire household at one point, because her mother is sick and I believe her father becomes incapacitated by grief. Margaret's a strong female character - and I would say she would agree with the radical notion that women are people.

"I also applaud Mrs. Gaskell for refusing to use situational ethics. This is one of the few books I've read where a lie is a sin, and is treated as such. Well done." Aww, well, if manipulating people is honest to you, okay. I think there were a few 'the end justifies the means' moments with Margaret, but ymmv.

"North and South is unique in that it isn't good fighting against evil, but two right perspectives learning to value their opposites." Um, you do realize Gaskell wrote this book because she wanted to call attention to and humanize the ethical problems going on in the "North"?? Reread. I think there is clearly one side that is portrayed as "right" or "better" (though I did also enjoy how much intellectual debate went on within the book!).

Then she spends the majority of her review detailing the mysterious theological problem Mr. Hale has with his church, which is really not that important to the plot beyond being the family's impetus to move. Because it's not a good book if his disagreement conflicts with her beliefs.

Sorry this is so long (definitely right up my alley haha and I've been waiting until I had some free time to read more of the blog), but I also wanted to add that this quote in the OP of this thread made me sad - yes, the media influences our society - but no, you are not that fragile. Don't let anyone brainwash tell you otherwise. "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."

[martian]

How do you read Mein Kampf ? This is allowed ? ((No judgments, just curious, here it is for historians; this type of people, but it is forbidden for sale )

Freedom of the press and free speech mean there are relatively few restrictions on what can be published and read in the U.S. Even books like The Anarchist Cookbook, which contains (or used to, before revisions) instructions on how to manufacture explosives and drugs like LSD are protected free speech under the Constitution.

That said, disclaimer: I am not a Nazi nor a sympathizer and neither was my grandfather. I think he was just trying to make sense of a war that profoundly shaped his life. Me, I just love history in general, and WWII was a hovering presence in our family in some ways. We had Churchill's memoirs, Speer's memoirs ( fucking self-aggrandizing whitewash, of course. Like he was the Nice Nazi), piles of histories, biographies, and novels. There was no Internet. I read a lot. Our copy of Mein Kampf was very old and I'm curious now which translation it is since the early, Hitler authorized translations apparently left out some of the more inflammatory anti-Semitism and militarism. According to Wiki, Hitler's publisher actually sued in U.S. courts when Alan Cranston - future Senator - published an unauthorized translation to get the truth out. One of my cousins ( a journalist) has my grandfather's copy now - I should ask him.

[JesusFightClub]

If you actually want to blow shit up and not blow *yourself* up, don't read the Anarchist Cookbook for tips. That is all, and that is common sense rather than any kind of endorsement of blowing shit up.

Back to Lady Bibliophile, and because I'm an insomniac I just read this:

this is novel, for all its flaws, is probably one of the only French novels I would heartily recommend.

Ignoring the typo (it happens to everyone) imagine swapping the word French with English. Has the sentence stopped making any sense to you?....Yeah.

I strongly doubt Lady B can read French, let alone that she has read many "French novels" or that she is qualified to comment on what every "French novel" is like. But never mind that, she's a homeschooled fundy SAHD so she obviously should be commenting on the literary output of an entire country.

:angry-banghead:

[mockingbird]

Okay, I just had to come back to note that she reviewed The Scarlet Pimpernel and the entire review was about how a) the author directly mentions God, b) Marguerite's belief in "fate" is "evil", and c) Orczy lets Marguerite see the consequences of her actions without being preachy. C is valid, but should be a given in good writing and is probably not really worth noting, and A and B are just irrelevant. Did you not notice anything else about the book?! So shallow. (There is so much to get into here. Satire of the upper class through Percy. The dynamic of shallow Percy vs. deep/courageous Percy. How the book reflects societal/political attitudes when Orczy wrote the books in the early 1900s. The start of the "hero with a secret identity" trope. Overarching theme of love: in general for people as human, between Marguerite and Percy, between Marguerite and her brother. Possible implications with an Englishman playing such a key role in what should maybe be a French story and French/English real political relations up to Orczy's lifetime. etc etc) But worse, in her post about the series, she notes that "You'll really get to know your history in these books; Orczy includes it as a matter of course." :angry-banghead: :angry-banghead: :angry-banghead: The books are not history textbooks! IIRC Orczy wrote them as "fun" books so they're not even trying to be that accurate. It's one of my favorites (both the book and the Jane Seymour movie) and I watched the movie in a high school history class, but THIS SHOULD NOT BE A SOURCE FROM WHICH YOU LEARN THE HISTORY OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION!!!!! :doh:

Also, if you are going to use the word "foppish" in your review/summary, which is a direct quote (many times) from the book - it's the classic description of Percy (and what Scarlet Pimpernell review would be complete without it?!) - put it in freaking quotes! One of the many reasons to go to real school (/adequate homeschool) and get real training in how to write: to learn what constitutes plagiarism. I bet she doesn't even know what foppish means, unless she had an annotated edition. IDK I just have the feeling she'd use that word b/c it's typical of Percy, without really caring to try to figure out the context clues or look it up. After all, it has nothing to do with God so it doesn't matter.

ETA: Interesting note: Orczy made so much money from the books that she was able to support herself and her husband with quite a nice lifestyle. That seems a bit... feminist... :shhh:

[martian]

That grandfather died before I was born, so I don't know the details of what he thought about it. I was just always impressed that he was willing to read books that he disagreed with. Today, so many people vocally disagree with material they have never read or watched.

I wonder if Internet culture amplifies that. Lots of blogs I read have an "I read these idiots so you don't have to" feature. I think I probably don't seek out primary sources nearly as much now that there are virtual Cliff Notes on everything under the sun. Of course, the danger being that the virtual Notes come with actual, pre-packaged opinions. For Lady Bibliophile and other fundies, that's a feature not a bug, but I'm not sure they're much different from the rest of the world in enjoying the security of group opinion.

[Dysfundamental]

If you actually want to blow shit up and not blow *yourself* up, don't read the Anarchist Cookbook for tips. That is all, and that is common sense rather than any kind of endorsement of blowing shit up.

Back to Lady Bibliophile, and because I'm an insomniac I just read this:

Ignoring the typo (it happens to everyone) imagine swapping the word French with English. Has the sentence stopped making any sense to you?....Yeah.

I strongly doubt Lady B can read French, let alone that she has read many "French novels" or that she is qualified to comment on what every "French novel" is like. But never mind that, she's a homeschooled fundy SAHD so she obviously should be commenting on the literary output of an entire country.

:angry-banghead:

They're Catholic, see, those French novels. :hand:

Orczy was also Catholic, though she converted to Church of England when she married.

[Marianne]

Freedom of the press and free speech mean there are relatively few restrictions on what can be published and read in the U.S. Even books like The Anarchist Cookbook, which contains (or used to, before revisions) instructions on how to manufacture explosives and drugs like LSD are protected free speech under the Constitution.

That said, disclaimer: I am not a Nazi nor a sympathizer and neither was my grandfather. I think he was just trying to make sense of a war that profoundly shaped his life. Me, I just love history in general, and WWII was a hovering presence in our family in some ways. We had Churchill's memoirs, Speer's memoirs ( fucking self-aggrandizing whitewash, of course. Like he was the Nice Nazi), piles of histories, biographies, and novels. There was no Internet. I read a lot. Our copy of Mein Kampf was very old and I'm curious now which translation it is since the early, Hitler authorized translations apparently left out some of the more inflammatory anti-Semitism and militarism. According to Wiki, Hitler's publisher actually sued in U.S. courts when Alan Cranston - future Senator - published an unauthorized translation to get the truth out. One of my cousins ( a journalist) has my grandfather's copy now - I should ask him.

Thank you for the answers. I confess that I have difficulty imagining a freedom of the press at this point ... I read everything Franco - because like 60% of people in my city my grandparents were Spanish Republicans, and it was very difficult to have. And my lawyer girlfriend told me that it is not strictly forbidden to sell Mein Kampf, but the only edition available should be guided by a historian, and often times a bookstore tried to sell him the justice prohibited. But she said the majority of university libraries have Mein Kampf annotated edition.

I can imagine why she does not want to read French novels. First, they are almost all Catholics. Second, look at our greatest classics, okay ? Manon Lescaut ? "The story of a whore and a defrocked priest." Madame Bovary, the story of a woman who commits adultery ! Yvain, the Knight of the Lion? ... Catholics. Pantagruel? Haha, without comment. Phaedra and all classical theater? I don't know if it is translated into English - I can't imagine how to translate it, but it speaks about the submission to the Pagan gods, oh my God! The Princess of Cleves ? She prefers not to marry at the end ! Confessions of Rousseau? ... Someone who explains how spanking given by his teacher was erotic, I'm not sure she'll appreciates. Zola, Hugo ? Haha, without comment. Baudelaire ? Poetry on lesbians !

[Carla Bruni]

Marianne - I think she could use some Beigbeder in her life :P

[martian]

But, Marianne, Madame Bovary doesn't turn out well for the sinner at ALL. Couldn't she enjoy that in a righteous, "the wages of sin are death" sort of way?

Man, that was a crushingly depressing book to me. Why wouldn't a fundie like it? But, then, my favorite French novel is probably Nana, so what can I say. I like cheerful sinners.

I wish Lady Bibliophile would share a list of the books she has read in her extensive exploration of French literature. I'd be honestly fascinated to get a peek through her reading glasses.