Saturday, June 28, 2008
In response to Kelly
Kelly, just send Julia the email address and she will email it to me (with your friend's name) and I will send her an author invite.
Oh Andrea or whoever knows
I took the liberty of asking if a friend of mine would like to join the blog. She loves to read, wants to be a writer, and is very much someone that I think we would enjoy hearing from. She and her husband are some of our favorite people to read and discuss things with.
How can we go about inviting her? I don't want to post her email address here, but I can send it (I don't think I have anyone's except Julia's, though).
Thanks!
KELLY
How can we go about inviting her? I don't want to post her email address here, but I can send it (I don't think I have anyone's except Julia's, though).
Thanks!
KELLY
Friday, June 27, 2008
Matters of Consequence
I thought this was a good discussion topic (from the site listed earlier):
Chapter VII
If the pilot doesn't fix his plane, he might die. The little prince thinks the war between the sheep and the flowers is more serious.
**Which do you think is more serious? Why?
The pilot drops his tools and consoles the little prince. He thinks taking care of his friend is more serious than his own life.
**Would you have taken care of your friend or fixed your plane?
**Is it ever OK to think your friend's problems are more serious than your own?
**When is it OK to think your own problems are more serious?
Chapter VII
If the pilot doesn't fix his plane, he might die. The little prince thinks the war between the sheep and the flowers is more serious.
**Which do you think is more serious? Why?
The pilot drops his tools and consoles the little prince. He thinks taking care of his friend is more serious than his own life.
**Would you have taken care of your friend or fixed your plane?
**Is it ever OK to think your friend's problems are more serious than your own?
**When is it OK to think your own problems are more serious?
What to Say - Prince Comments
Well, I'm sorry, but there's not going to be much "argument" in this string of posts because I agreed and loved most of Andrea's comments. Shall we stick with the same format?
Rearing children: I wasn't looking at this from the child's point of view of "Mommy doesn't ever play with me." This point I made was entirely from MY view as the parent. However, that does not mean I think I need to spend every waking minute entertaining and playing with my children (I've seen the house of a woman who thought that!). Anyway, what I meant by these "matters of consequences" was that we, as adults, have the choice: let these matters bog us down OR get done what needs to get done productively with our children in tow; complain about our matters of consequence (even internally) OR push them aside while we take care of our children's matters of consequences. For example, the cool leggo ship John built (that's important), the mean thing Brooklynn heard on the playground (that's important), playing Skipbo with Addie and Joel (that's important). I think making our children feel that we have the time for them is a vital part in raising confident kids and it's letting go of our own "matters of consequence" during that time our children need us that can make a difference.
Friends: I am learning a valuable lesson here about friends. Everywhere I've lived (almost), I've been able to find that one special somebody with whom I can just let down my guard. Unfortunately, that somebody hasn't been found here in R. I feel I'm open with everyone and no one all at the same time and it's rather frustrating. Like you said, Andrea, if we had to be vulnerable and build that special bond of friendship with everyone we wouldn't have anything left. I think that sums up how I'm feeling right now in the friendship department. I feel I have to be everyone's friend. Being social in nature, I thrive on friendship and yet I'm finding to to be a tad bit taxing for me these days. This could also be due to the fact that my kids are getting older, I'm not sure. (sorry - conversation turned personal!)
Beauty: LOVED your beauty comments, Ans. I do agree that there is so much beauty to SEE. However, I really and truly do not know many people who honestly open thier eyes to SEE and that is the sad part of it all. Also, I think this can go along with what you said about being tamed and having that deeper friendship (i.e. letting go of what's hidden and becomign vulnerable strengthens the relationship and makes it a beautiful thing).
Taming: When reading the book I totally didn't "get" the point you brought out about being tamed and thought your comments were awesome & totally agree (though, I still do like my whole gospel tie-in!). :-)
Satisfaction: This is a tough one for me because the boundary is so thin. Yes, you need to be happy with who you are - - but not to the point of arrogance. Yes, you need to work and improve upon your talents - - but not to the point of living a stressed out life and seeking perfection. Yes - - you need to be happy where you are - - but not to the point of forgetting how you need to improve. There are so many fine lines that define how far you are leaning one direction or the other, that I think it can all get a bit muddled together.
The End
(for now)
Rearing children: I wasn't looking at this from the child's point of view of "Mommy doesn't ever play with me." This point I made was entirely from MY view as the parent. However, that does not mean I think I need to spend every waking minute entertaining and playing with my children (I've seen the house of a woman who thought that!). Anyway, what I meant by these "matters of consequences" was that we, as adults, have the choice: let these matters bog us down OR get done what needs to get done productively with our children in tow; complain about our matters of consequence (even internally) OR push them aside while we take care of our children's matters of consequences. For example, the cool leggo ship John built (that's important), the mean thing Brooklynn heard on the playground (that's important), playing Skipbo with Addie and Joel (that's important). I think making our children feel that we have the time for them is a vital part in raising confident kids and it's letting go of our own "matters of consequence" during that time our children need us that can make a difference.
Friends: I am learning a valuable lesson here about friends. Everywhere I've lived (almost), I've been able to find that one special somebody with whom I can just let down my guard. Unfortunately, that somebody hasn't been found here in R. I feel I'm open with everyone and no one all at the same time and it's rather frustrating. Like you said, Andrea, if we had to be vulnerable and build that special bond of friendship with everyone we wouldn't have anything left. I think that sums up how I'm feeling right now in the friendship department. I feel I have to be everyone's friend. Being social in nature, I thrive on friendship and yet I'm finding to to be a tad bit taxing for me these days. This could also be due to the fact that my kids are getting older, I'm not sure. (sorry - conversation turned personal!)
Beauty: LOVED your beauty comments, Ans. I do agree that there is so much beauty to SEE. However, I really and truly do not know many people who honestly open thier eyes to SEE and that is the sad part of it all. Also, I think this can go along with what you said about being tamed and having that deeper friendship (i.e. letting go of what's hidden and becomign vulnerable strengthens the relationship and makes it a beautiful thing).
Taming: When reading the book I totally didn't "get" the point you brought out about being tamed and thought your comments were awesome & totally agree (though, I still do like my whole gospel tie-in!). :-)
Satisfaction: This is a tough one for me because the boundary is so thin. Yes, you need to be happy with who you are - - but not to the point of arrogance. Yes, you need to work and improve upon your talents - - but not to the point of living a stressed out life and seeking perfection. Yes - - you need to be happy where you are - - but not to the point of forgetting how you need to improve. There are so many fine lines that define how far you are leaning one direction or the other, that I think it can all get a bit muddled together.
The End
(for now)
Thursday, June 26, 2008
The Little Prince--Andrea
Julia, thank you, thank you for giving us a starting point on this book. As a preface to my comments organized exactly like yours, sorry if you didn't want me to steal, I'd just like to state that I felt the author glorified children unrealistically and bashed adults unrealistically. There are some serious negatives to children that we saw amply demonstrated in Milkweed. A lack of maturity and understanding to allow them to navigate the world successfully, a deep mean streak (maybe not Ju's kids, they are abnormally kind but if you remember elementary recesses. . .), and selfishness amongst others, and most importantly an inability to understand consequences. It is why adults are around to teach them. Granted, adults have many of those same problems but not in the same way as children and even if you do something just to seem unselfish at least you can reason enough to understand the consequence if you make the other choice.
Rearing Children (I really am copying Ju): I definitely agree with Julia that adults tend to get bogged down in things that need to get done and sometimes forget to pause for things that our children need us for but don't seem important to us. That is one of the biggest challenges of parenthood. However, the author gave the impression that adults are always in the wrong in being busy attending matters of consequence. That is foolish child-thinking. If moms didn't tend to the matter of consequence of dinner, kids wouldn't eat. Although the children would enjoy the extra 30 minutes spent playing with mom, in the long run, they wouldn't be happy to not have dinner. A similar example would be dads going to work. We all like having somewhere to live, but children don't understand that without dad working every day the house would not be a possibility. Therefore, although adults often and repeatedly get too wrapped up in adult affairs--adult affairs are matters of great consequence and although I know this book is a philosophy primer for children, I still think it should have presented more balance. Obviously, you could have these discussions with your child as they read the book, but I still find how the author wrote incredibly irritating.
Friendship: I agree with Julia's friend--most people have lots of acquaintances and few friends but that isn't a bad thing. For the author to say that adults have no friends because they are too busy to make any is ridiculous. Adults and children both have few friends because to develop that type of relationship requires a lot of time, effort, and selfless giving. If we tried to maintain that type of friendship that Julia described with more than our families (esp when our families are large) and a handful of people--we wouldn't emotionally be able to sustain the friendships. So to have the type of relationships the author was encouraging through all his talk of "taming" you of necessity have to limit their number.
Satisfaction: I agree with Julia that the author was making the point that many adults have a "grass is always greener" complex. I also definitely agree with Julia that children remember to enjoy the simple/smaller pleasures of life that adults take for granted. Although, on the other hand, adults have a great capacity to enjoy sitting on the back porch sipping lemonade while children are more prone to say they are bored--but overall, I definitely think children know how to enjoy life more than adults.
That being said, I am still bugged by the idea that not being satisfied with your life is inherently wrong. Since when did we walk around going--well, I could probably learn more and be a better mother/wife/sister/friend, and I could probably read more scriptures more often and enlarge a talent--but that would be wrong. It is better to just be satisfied with who and what I am. Also--wanting more money isn't necessarily wrong either. Wanting to better yourself and your situation is healthy and admirable. I certainly never want to reach a point where I think--wow, you know, I'm great just the way I am and I don't need to improve any more. I think stagnation is not the same as satisfaction.
Beauty: this is one of the ideas that bothered me most. He kept talking about things that were hidden being beautiful. Usually, the things that are most obvious are the most beautiful. Seeing an older couple walking down the street holding hands is beautiful because of what is seen--not because of what is hidden. A kiss from a baby is beautiful because of what is seen, not what is hidden. Children are GREAT in that way because they are so bad at hiding things. I think the author complicated the idea of beauty unnecessarily.
Tamed: I agree with what Julia said with the caveat that Julia chose to think about it in a way entirely unintended by the author. I think the author meant that every person craves being involved in a really meaningful relationship but when we find ourselves in the position to create that kind of relationship, we often find it hard to allow ourselves to be vulnerable. To really open up to another person. It was the only concept in the book that I really agreed with--I think all of us, to different degrees, present a front even in our closest relationships with humans. It is one of the reasons we need a God/human relationship.
That's it for now. I am curious to see what others have to say (and what Julia has to say back).
Rearing Children (I really am copying Ju): I definitely agree with Julia that adults tend to get bogged down in things that need to get done and sometimes forget to pause for things that our children need us for but don't seem important to us. That is one of the biggest challenges of parenthood. However, the author gave the impression that adults are always in the wrong in being busy attending matters of consequence. That is foolish child-thinking. If moms didn't tend to the matter of consequence of dinner, kids wouldn't eat. Although the children would enjoy the extra 30 minutes spent playing with mom, in the long run, they wouldn't be happy to not have dinner. A similar example would be dads going to work. We all like having somewhere to live, but children don't understand that without dad working every day the house would not be a possibility. Therefore, although adults often and repeatedly get too wrapped up in adult affairs--adult affairs are matters of great consequence and although I know this book is a philosophy primer for children, I still think it should have presented more balance. Obviously, you could have these discussions with your child as they read the book, but I still find how the author wrote incredibly irritating.
Friendship: I agree with Julia's friend--most people have lots of acquaintances and few friends but that isn't a bad thing. For the author to say that adults have no friends because they are too busy to make any is ridiculous. Adults and children both have few friends because to develop that type of relationship requires a lot of time, effort, and selfless giving. If we tried to maintain that type of friendship that Julia described with more than our families (esp when our families are large) and a handful of people--we wouldn't emotionally be able to sustain the friendships. So to have the type of relationships the author was encouraging through all his talk of "taming" you of necessity have to limit their number.
Satisfaction: I agree with Julia that the author was making the point that many adults have a "grass is always greener" complex. I also definitely agree with Julia that children remember to enjoy the simple/smaller pleasures of life that adults take for granted. Although, on the other hand, adults have a great capacity to enjoy sitting on the back porch sipping lemonade while children are more prone to say they are bored--but overall, I definitely think children know how to enjoy life more than adults.
That being said, I am still bugged by the idea that not being satisfied with your life is inherently wrong. Since when did we walk around going--well, I could probably learn more and be a better mother/wife/sister/friend, and I could probably read more scriptures more often and enlarge a talent--but that would be wrong. It is better to just be satisfied with who and what I am. Also--wanting more money isn't necessarily wrong either. Wanting to better yourself and your situation is healthy and admirable. I certainly never want to reach a point where I think--wow, you know, I'm great just the way I am and I don't need to improve any more. I think stagnation is not the same as satisfaction.
Beauty: this is one of the ideas that bothered me most. He kept talking about things that were hidden being beautiful. Usually, the things that are most obvious are the most beautiful. Seeing an older couple walking down the street holding hands is beautiful because of what is seen--not because of what is hidden. A kiss from a baby is beautiful because of what is seen, not what is hidden. Children are GREAT in that way because they are so bad at hiding things. I think the author complicated the idea of beauty unnecessarily.
Tamed: I agree with what Julia said with the caveat that Julia chose to think about it in a way entirely unintended by the author. I think the author meant that every person craves being involved in a really meaningful relationship but when we find ourselves in the position to create that kind of relationship, we often find it hard to allow ourselves to be vulnerable. To really open up to another person. It was the only concept in the book that I really agreed with--I think all of us, to different degrees, present a front even in our closest relationships with humans. It is one of the reasons we need a God/human relationship.
That's it for now. I am curious to see what others have to say (and what Julia has to say back).
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
The Little Prince - Julia
One site online gives a great synopsis of the book and gave me greater insite into this book. I now see that this book is purely to indtroduce children to philosophy. So, I guess you can say it's a childrens verson of Thoreau. :-) Check it out...
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/omc/kidsphil/questions/Littleprince/princediscussion.html
I agree with Andrea - the theme against the adults was a bit bothersome. BUT it did make me think about how I am as an adult with regards to my children. For instance, I checked myself on the part about how when kids make new friends the adults only want to know how much $$$ the dad makes. :-) I laughed at that, relieved that my first question is NOT about $$. My first question is, "What's his name?" (a seemingly important part of considering someone a friend). Ha! However, as I began to write this "essay" I realized that I did find some great gems to discuss. So, without further ado. . .
On Rearing Children
"Children should always show great forbearance toward grown-up people." (17) There is some truth in this statement I believe. There is a lack of this "forbearance," I believe, in our society today. Children don't show enough of this "forbearance" toward adults. However, I also believe there needs to be as much respect given to the children as well. Unlike the king (chapter 10) who commanded that everyone obey him "because I am the king," parents and adults can use their authority with a little more understanding. I think of the many times I say "no" to my children and then check myself wondering why I said no in the first place. Sometimes it is an unnecessary and too-quick response. Again, though, we do need to use our authority and help our children recognize that authority is something to be respected. I also wonder if I'm not like the protagonist who responded to the little prince with, "Don't you see - I am very busy with matters of consequence." (28) How many times have I been preoccupied with adult "matters of consequence" so much that I can't sooth my child when crying, or admire their latest art project (thought it may be the 100th one of the day), or listen to my child talk about their play date, or read them a story without having my mind caught up in mental distractions. I do believe, as I write this, that there is a valid point to be made than too many parents (adults) are absent with regards to really seeing and feeling their children around them.
On friendship
"To forget a friend is sad. Not everyone has had a friend." (18) We can continue in our discussion from our last book here if we'd like, but I'd also like to pose another question (from the site above). How do you describe a friend? I like to think of a friend the way Anne Shirley describes them: kindred spirits. A friend is someone whose relationship you know will stand the tests of time (lame wording, sorry!). No, seriously. A friend is someone you can talk to about anything. You can cry with without feeling stupid. You can share the joys of your life without a feeling of competition. A friend is someone you miss. A friend is someone who you may not see in a long time but you can pick up again just as though you'd seen her the day before. And even more, a friend is someone who even if you have a misunderstanding can forgive and be forgiven. Those are my thoughts on what a friend is. I have one friend who said, "I don't have a lot of friends - - many aquaintances, yes, but not very many friends." I think that is true. Later in The Little Prince we read, "Men have nor more time to understand anything. They buy things all ready made at the shops. But there is no shop anywhere where one can buy friendship, and so men have no friends anymore." (83-84) Such a sad statement. Is it true?
On Satisfaction
I actually loved chapter 22! I wish I could quote it all. In there it talks about the railway switchman who is sending travelers out by bundles of thousands, people who are going other places but not knowing what they are searching for. The prince then asks, "Were they not satisfied where they were?" The switchman responds, "No one is ever satisfied where he is." This may not be entirely true for everyone, but I do believe that the majority of people in this life are not satisfied with where they are. There is always something they can have or do better, somewhere better to be. And yet, nobody knows where that better place is; or once they reach that place something will happen to again make them dissatisfied. The idiom, "The grass is always greener on the other side" proves to be true time and time again. Unfortunately, the author also brings up the children vs. adult view of life again. "Only the children know what theya re looking for...They are lucky." This statement I also agree with in that as adults we do forget to look at where we are going and enjoying what we are seeing along the way. Children find joy in the little things we adults sometimes forget to enjoy ourselves!
On Beauty
The little prince believed the stars to be beautiful "because of a flower that cannot be seen" and the desert he saw as beautiful because "somewhere it hides a well ." The protagonist then remembers an old home in which he'd lived as a boy. A dilapidated home that had no value or meaning until he was told there was a buried treasure buried there. Suddenly his house was enchanted, "My home was hiding a secret in the depths of its heart....Yes...The house, the stars, the desert - - what gives them their beauty is something that is invisible." (pp. 92-93) This led me to think about what makes a home beautiful? What makes MY home beautiful? The answer is in the memories. The little things that we do as a family and the traditions that we create. Also, what makes a home beautiful is how people, particularly our children (and husbands) feel within the home. Those feelings are huge secrets that sometimes take years and years to come out of hiding into a reality.
One Final Thought
I'm going to end this long post with one final quote. "One runs the risk of weeping a little, if one lets himself be tamed.. . . " (99) This had a lot of gospel significance to me in the principle of submitting our will to the Father, in becoming truly humble, and in going through our mortal refining. We need to recognize that if we truly want to be tamed, "become as a little child, submissive, meek, humble..." we do run the risk of shedding some tears (temporally and spiritually). It is up to us to decide if we are going to plead as the fox so humbly did, "Please - - tame me!" (83)
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/omc/kidsphil/questions/Littleprince/princediscussion.html
I agree with Andrea - the theme against the adults was a bit bothersome. BUT it did make me think about how I am as an adult with regards to my children. For instance, I checked myself on the part about how when kids make new friends the adults only want to know how much $$$ the dad makes. :-) I laughed at that, relieved that my first question is NOT about $$. My first question is, "What's his name?" (a seemingly important part of considering someone a friend). Ha! However, as I began to write this "essay" I realized that I did find some great gems to discuss. So, without further ado. . .
On Rearing Children
"Children should always show great forbearance toward grown-up people." (17) There is some truth in this statement I believe. There is a lack of this "forbearance," I believe, in our society today. Children don't show enough of this "forbearance" toward adults. However, I also believe there needs to be as much respect given to the children as well. Unlike the king (chapter 10) who commanded that everyone obey him "because I am the king," parents and adults can use their authority with a little more understanding. I think of the many times I say "no" to my children and then check myself wondering why I said no in the first place. Sometimes it is an unnecessary and too-quick response. Again, though, we do need to use our authority and help our children recognize that authority is something to be respected. I also wonder if I'm not like the protagonist who responded to the little prince with, "Don't you see - I am very busy with matters of consequence." (28) How many times have I been preoccupied with adult "matters of consequence" so much that I can't sooth my child when crying, or admire their latest art project (thought it may be the 100th one of the day), or listen to my child talk about their play date, or read them a story without having my mind caught up in mental distractions. I do believe, as I write this, that there is a valid point to be made than too many parents (adults) are absent with regards to really seeing and feeling their children around them.
On friendship
"To forget a friend is sad. Not everyone has had a friend." (18) We can continue in our discussion from our last book here if we'd like, but I'd also like to pose another question (from the site above). How do you describe a friend? I like to think of a friend the way Anne Shirley describes them: kindred spirits. A friend is someone whose relationship you know will stand the tests of time (lame wording, sorry!). No, seriously. A friend is someone you can talk to about anything. You can cry with without feeling stupid. You can share the joys of your life without a feeling of competition. A friend is someone you miss. A friend is someone who you may not see in a long time but you can pick up again just as though you'd seen her the day before. And even more, a friend is someone who even if you have a misunderstanding can forgive and be forgiven. Those are my thoughts on what a friend is. I have one friend who said, "I don't have a lot of friends - - many aquaintances, yes, but not very many friends." I think that is true. Later in The Little Prince we read, "Men have nor more time to understand anything. They buy things all ready made at the shops. But there is no shop anywhere where one can buy friendship, and so men have no friends anymore." (83-84) Such a sad statement. Is it true?
On Satisfaction
I actually loved chapter 22! I wish I could quote it all. In there it talks about the railway switchman who is sending travelers out by bundles of thousands, people who are going other places but not knowing what they are searching for. The prince then asks, "Were they not satisfied where they were?" The switchman responds, "No one is ever satisfied where he is." This may not be entirely true for everyone, but I do believe that the majority of people in this life are not satisfied with where they are. There is always something they can have or do better, somewhere better to be. And yet, nobody knows where that better place is; or once they reach that place something will happen to again make them dissatisfied. The idiom, "The grass is always greener on the other side" proves to be true time and time again. Unfortunately, the author also brings up the children vs. adult view of life again. "Only the children know what theya re looking for...They are lucky." This statement I also agree with in that as adults we do forget to look at where we are going and enjoying what we are seeing along the way. Children find joy in the little things we adults sometimes forget to enjoy ourselves!
On Beauty
The little prince believed the stars to be beautiful "because of a flower that cannot be seen" and the desert he saw as beautiful because "somewhere it hides a well ." The protagonist then remembers an old home in which he'd lived as a boy. A dilapidated home that had no value or meaning until he was told there was a buried treasure buried there. Suddenly his house was enchanted, "My home was hiding a secret in the depths of its heart....Yes...The house, the stars, the desert - - what gives them their beauty is something that is invisible." (pp. 92-93) This led me to think about what makes a home beautiful? What makes MY home beautiful? The answer is in the memories. The little things that we do as a family and the traditions that we create. Also, what makes a home beautiful is how people, particularly our children (and husbands) feel within the home. Those feelings are huge secrets that sometimes take years and years to come out of hiding into a reality.
One Final Thought
I'm going to end this long post with one final quote. "One runs the risk of weeping a little, if one lets himself be tamed.. . . " (99) This had a lot of gospel significance to me in the principle of submitting our will to the Father, in becoming truly humble, and in going through our mortal refining. We need to recognize that if we truly want to be tamed, "become as a little child, submissive, meek, humble..." we do run the risk of shedding some tears (temporally and spiritually). It is up to us to decide if we are going to plead as the fox so humbly did, "Please - - tame me!" (83)
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Haven't even started yet
I just got around to requesting "The Little Prince" from the library. Hopefully I'll get it before I go out of town. I better request the next book while I'm at it.
I read this book AGES ago when I was in about 5th grade. All I remember is that I did NOT like it. I was hoping the second time around with my more mature mind (ha, ha) would make it a more enjoyable read. We shall see!
I read this book AGES ago when I was in about 5th grade. All I remember is that I did NOT like it. I was hoping the second time around with my more mature mind (ha, ha) would make it a more enjoyable read. We shall see!
The Little Prince
I thought the Little Prince was lame, lame, lame. It was sort of like the Alchemist in that it was pretentious in its own moralizing, but without the interest of the Alchemist. Maybe I am missing the grand picture--but I am presuming the point was that humans get distracted from the really important things in life (relationships and simple pleasures) by things of little or no worth. I didn't like how the author kept pointing out how idiotic adults are, and basically found the whole thing a little annoying.
But . . . now I can say I read it. :)
But . . . now I can say I read it. :)
Welcome Kayli!
Actually, with that WONDERFUL post, I am expecting and anxiously awaiting more posts from you!!! Thank you! Thank you! I'm on "your side" with Bees and I'm glad to know that "all Rasumssens don't think alike!" :-) Keep writing!! :-)
P.S. to everyone - - I read Little Prince already, waiting for the right time to post an essay. AND, I've started Fermat's Enigma - - which I'm hoping you all will take a long time reading, because it probably will take me awhile. I have enjoyed the first five pages though! :-) I just have a HUGE stack of books on the side of my bed, and I want to read them ALL right NOW! Unfortunately, it seems summertime sucks away all my time to read! Anyway, long story short.... Happy Reading!!
JULIA
P.S. to everyone - - I read Little Prince already, waiting for the right time to post an essay. AND, I've started Fermat's Enigma - - which I'm hoping you all will take a long time reading, because it probably will take me awhile. I have enjoyed the first five pages though! :-) I just have a HUGE stack of books on the side of my bed, and I want to read them ALL right NOW! Unfortunately, it seems summertime sucks away all my time to read! Anyway, long story short.... Happy Reading!!
JULIA
Monday, June 23, 2008
New Blog Author...a dud
I know you all are so excited that I'm joining up and writing something here, but let me warn you, DO NOT GET YOUR HOPES UP.
I've read/skimmed over several of the comments about the Bees book, and I just read it on Sunday, and I didn't like it. It was way too emotional for my tastes. You know the part where Lily's riding in the truck with Zach and first she's kinda crabby and then she starts laughing hysterically and at the end she weeps on his shoulder? And she says that Zach probably feels done with female emotions? That's what the whole book made me feel like. I kept thinking that maybe the very end might make it all worth it, but it didn't.
I don't like sisterhood books...ya-ya sisterhood made me gag. Too many women without a good dose of maleness gets to be too much. There should have been a cool old black guy in the book.
Sorry folks (and my sisters Andrea and Amy who love this book). I guess you will not be looking forward to more posts from me. But have a good night anyway. :)
p.s. Okay, I had posted this, but decided to come back and write at least one thing that was a bit more specific. A few people have mentioned some things that they thought seemed improbable, and one thing I thought was improbable was June and Lily reconciling --or whatever you call what they did. It seemed highly unlikely to me that June would all of the sudden be over it, just because they fought over the sprinkler. I think, that sort of thing might work for men--punch each other in the face and then have a drink together--but that's not how women traditionally operate. I didn't even really get the character of June at all. Why did she have such a chip on her shoulder in the first place (I mean, I know that August told why, but I just didn't think it really explained it), and what was her character there for anyway?
I've read/skimmed over several of the comments about the Bees book, and I just read it on Sunday, and I didn't like it. It was way too emotional for my tastes. You know the part where Lily's riding in the truck with Zach and first she's kinda crabby and then she starts laughing hysterically and at the end she weeps on his shoulder? And she says that Zach probably feels done with female emotions? That's what the whole book made me feel like. I kept thinking that maybe the very end might make it all worth it, but it didn't.
I don't like sisterhood books...ya-ya sisterhood made me gag. Too many women without a good dose of maleness gets to be too much. There should have been a cool old black guy in the book.
Sorry folks (and my sisters Andrea and Amy who love this book). I guess you will not be looking forward to more posts from me. But have a good night anyway. :)
p.s. Okay, I had posted this, but decided to come back and write at least one thing that was a bit more specific. A few people have mentioned some things that they thought seemed improbable, and one thing I thought was improbable was June and Lily reconciling --or whatever you call what they did. It seemed highly unlikely to me that June would all of the sudden be over it, just because they fought over the sprinkler. I think, that sort of thing might work for men--punch each other in the face and then have a drink together--but that's not how women traditionally operate. I didn't even really get the character of June at all. Why did she have such a chip on her shoulder in the first place (I mean, I know that August told why, but I just didn't think it really explained it), and what was her character there for anyway?
The Little Prince
FYI-- Andrea and I have been reading the Katherine Woods translation, it's not the latest translation, but Andrea read that it's the closest to the French version as rated by French speakers. It doesn't really matter what version you read though.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
More people
Kami, go to bed you crazy lunatic!!! I'm going to take my own advice here in a minute, but it is too hot to sleep here.
I invited two people to join the blog who I think would bring a great wealth of disagreements to the table. Yeah!! Hopefully they will join.
I invited two people to join the blog who I think would bring a great wealth of disagreements to the table. Yeah!! Hopefully they will join.
Sisterhood
I am glad Kami finally got around to writing about the sisterhood aspect of this novel--which really drew me in. Julia, I also appreciated your comments on the issue.
Like I mentioned before, I didn't realize how much women needed women growing up. That came partly because my mom didn't have many female friends (I didn't realize until much later all the factors that played into that and how that must have added to her stress level as a woman/wife/and mother), and partly because I grew up listening to my parents ridicule the idea of "girls night out" or a "scrapbooking night" or "lunch with the girls" or ANYTHING that involved a woman choosing to spend time with other women over choosing to be with her husband. For my parents, that was pretty much a no-go.
So, in my normal fashion of assuming everything my parents said was true I assumed that I would never need anyone outside of my family, and certainly once I was married I would never need anyone outside of my spouse. How untrue!
I started to get a glimmer of just how untrue when I left home for the first time and realized that I was a ship completely without anchor without my mom. I spent my whole life following her around like a puppy (still do, actually) and between her and my best high school friend Pepe, and my brother Derek, I really had everything I needed as a GIRL. Homesick doesn't even really describe how I felt--lost is more the word I would use. I don't know how much Julia remembers of this from our first semester at BYU.
I had some really great friends at BYU (Julia mostly that first year), but it wasn't until I lived with the Conley women and was adopted into their crazy sisterhood that I understood the idea of sisterhood. The support, the involvement, the friendship of a GROUP of women is so different from a friendship with one woman who doesn't know any of the other people that you know. I was so happy with them. It was the golden time of my BYU experience, and I needed it so desperately after Ju and Cindy had gone off and gotten married and Timothy (my now husband) had left for his mission.
When I went to Utah State and the Conley women scattered to pursue their own lives I felt adrift in a way I never had before. What made it worse was I was expecting to have an instantaneous sisterhood with my own two younger sisters who were freshman at Utah State the year I started there (that would be Kami and Kayli for those poor souls who try and keep us straight). But we hadn't lived together in four years. I didn't even know them in a meaningful way anymore. We could play together, but we couldn't SUPPORT each other.
Like Kami said, with Kayli's and my marriage our relationship changed drastically and deepened into the kind of relationship WOMEN need as wives and mothers, and when Kami was married she slipped so easily into our circle. Not that I think you have to be married to be part of a supportive group of women, but you definitely need some life experience, and marriage instantly ages and matures people--at least, it should.
So when I read about sisterhood, about the kind of support that Lily was receiving (notice, she thought of them as mother figures. She wasn't yet ready to be part of their sisterhood on a woman level, but she could savor their support at an adopted daughter level), and I feel so tender to those women who can really and truly be there for each other. I certainly have not been as lucky as Ju. I haven't really found that kind of support anywhere that I have lived since I married, outside of my sisters. That's okay, because I have my sisters, but I often think of women in our relief societies who don't have six million siblings and don't find the support they need from other women in church. How lonely for them. How desperate they must feel sometimes.
When our old relief society presidency talked about "watchcare" being different than just visiting each other in relation to visiting teaching, I think they are talking about the kind of sisterhood that the Daughters had in Life of Bees.
Sorry that was so long and tedious, but I really did find the women's relationship in the book incredibly touching and beautiful.
Like I mentioned before, I didn't realize how much women needed women growing up. That came partly because my mom didn't have many female friends (I didn't realize until much later all the factors that played into that and how that must have added to her stress level as a woman/wife/and mother), and partly because I grew up listening to my parents ridicule the idea of "girls night out" or a "scrapbooking night" or "lunch with the girls" or ANYTHING that involved a woman choosing to spend time with other women over choosing to be with her husband. For my parents, that was pretty much a no-go.
So, in my normal fashion of assuming everything my parents said was true I assumed that I would never need anyone outside of my family, and certainly once I was married I would never need anyone outside of my spouse. How untrue!
I started to get a glimmer of just how untrue when I left home for the first time and realized that I was a ship completely without anchor without my mom. I spent my whole life following her around like a puppy (still do, actually) and between her and my best high school friend Pepe, and my brother Derek, I really had everything I needed as a GIRL. Homesick doesn't even really describe how I felt--lost is more the word I would use. I don't know how much Julia remembers of this from our first semester at BYU.
I had some really great friends at BYU (Julia mostly that first year), but it wasn't until I lived with the Conley women and was adopted into their crazy sisterhood that I understood the idea of sisterhood. The support, the involvement, the friendship of a GROUP of women is so different from a friendship with one woman who doesn't know any of the other people that you know. I was so happy with them. It was the golden time of my BYU experience, and I needed it so desperately after Ju and Cindy had gone off and gotten married and Timothy (my now husband) had left for his mission.
When I went to Utah State and the Conley women scattered to pursue their own lives I felt adrift in a way I never had before. What made it worse was I was expecting to have an instantaneous sisterhood with my own two younger sisters who were freshman at Utah State the year I started there (that would be Kami and Kayli for those poor souls who try and keep us straight). But we hadn't lived together in four years. I didn't even know them in a meaningful way anymore. We could play together, but we couldn't SUPPORT each other.
Like Kami said, with Kayli's and my marriage our relationship changed drastically and deepened into the kind of relationship WOMEN need as wives and mothers, and when Kami was married she slipped so easily into our circle. Not that I think you have to be married to be part of a supportive group of women, but you definitely need some life experience, and marriage instantly ages and matures people--at least, it should.
So when I read about sisterhood, about the kind of support that Lily was receiving (notice, she thought of them as mother figures. She wasn't yet ready to be part of their sisterhood on a woman level, but she could savor their support at an adopted daughter level), and I feel so tender to those women who can really and truly be there for each other. I certainly have not been as lucky as Ju. I haven't really found that kind of support anywhere that I have lived since I married, outside of my sisters. That's okay, because I have my sisters, but I often think of women in our relief societies who don't have six million siblings and don't find the support they need from other women in church. How lonely for them. How desperate they must feel sometimes.
When our old relief society presidency talked about "watchcare" being different than just visiting each other in relation to visiting teaching, I think they are talking about the kind of sisterhood that the Daughters had in Life of Bees.
Sorry that was so long and tedious, but I really did find the women's relationship in the book incredibly touching and beautiful.
Wondering
I was just wondering if anyone had anyone else they wanted to invite to our book club. I love the discussion that has been going on too and I think with a few more people, we might have more of discussion with every book (you know, more people to disagree with). Hee. Hee. Anyway, any thoughts on the matter? Anyone?
A brief edit
I just wanted to say as an adendum to my previous post, that not only do I enjoy the support my female friends give me, but that I feel fulfilled when I am able to give that support back to them in return. It's nice to know your helping cheer up someone's day or that your the first person to be told (besides the hubby) that she's pregnant. :) Maybe when I feel that way about everyone, not just my closest friends and sisters, I'll have the beginnings of charity. Random thought-just posting/thinking out loud.
This has been fabulously interesting. I like reading all the thoughts and responses. We've had a busy blog the last few days!
Anyway, I just want to say that I won't be on for the rest of the week as I will be out of town. I'm sure we'll have moved on by the time I get back.
It is interesting to me to read and reflect on how our personal experiences have really shaped how we react to things. I can tell you that I lived a sheltered life. I also grew up in a home with a strong dominant female. Those things shape my understanding of the world and my perception of how other people see the world. I love hearing all our views and thinking about them!!
Anyway, I just want to say that I won't be on for the rest of the week as I will be out of town. I'm sure we'll have moved on by the time I get back.
It is interesting to me to read and reflect on how our personal experiences have really shaped how we react to things. I can tell you that I lived a sheltered life. I also grew up in a home with a strong dominant female. Those things shape my understanding of the world and my perception of how other people see the world. I love hearing all our views and thinking about them!!
More from Ju - on Bees
Okay, okay! I will get off my soapbox as well for the man-hater, no need for men, campaign that many nazi-women libers are preaching. Sorry! I just get sensetive on that subject. However, I do fully appreciate the comments both by Kami and Andrea about the need for girlfriends! I, for one, have always been VERY LUCKY in this department. Everywhere I've been I've had the close friend (or small group of friends) that have really strengthened and lifted me up more than any man could ever do (though J. has done remarkably well for my sanity as well!!!). That yearning for friendship among other women has always been inate with me - - i.e. Kelly, Andrea, and others strewn along my path. And, I do see where that point is coming from in The Life of Bees.
I also appreciated Andrea's comment that women largely base their beliefs of themselves through the eyes of other people. Why do we do that?! I am, as A & KR both know, very much one of those women. It goes back to my favorite quote (again, I'm sorry):
A lot of misery could be traced to this one mistaken notion [that] we need to be perfect for people to love us and we forfeit that love if we ever fall short of perfection. There are few emotions more capable of leaving us feeling bad about ourselves than the convistion that we don't deserve to be loved, and few ways more certain to generate that conviction than the idea that every time we do something wrong, we give God and the people closest to us reasons not to love us. - - Rabbi Kushner
Recently, I've not felt this close friendship. I've felt distanced from those around me. Not that I'm not social, have no friends, or think nobody likes me; but I have had a couple of experiences in the past year that have really hurt in that one person's opinion of me (someone who really was a very close friend for some time) have truly affected how I think about who I am as a person, a friend, a daughter of God. Suddenly, the word "friendship" has a different meaning for me and I have come to doubt the need for it in my life. It's almost like I'm trying to convince myself that I don't need friends, my family is all I need. Now, in once sense, it is true. Families can be forever (yadda, yadda, yadda) but I truly believe that the relationships we make in this life are just as eternal as that family bond, and it is in the relationships that we are strengthened and have a chance to grow. Sorry, this is not turning into a pity party!! I'm just saying, that it is essential to have those strengthening, woman-to-woman, friendship bonds in our lives as women and we need to not allow ourselves to believe that one mistake merits the feelings of being unloved. AND those are two very valid points made in The Secret Life of Bees.
As for you Andrea - - don't worry - - I knew what I was getting into the minute I wrote my essay!! :-)
I also appreciated Andrea's comment that women largely base their beliefs of themselves through the eyes of other people. Why do we do that?! I am, as A & KR both know, very much one of those women. It goes back to my favorite quote (again, I'm sorry):
A lot of misery could be traced to this one mistaken notion [that] we need to be perfect for people to love us and we forfeit that love if we ever fall short of perfection. There are few emotions more capable of leaving us feeling bad about ourselves than the convistion that we don't deserve to be loved, and few ways more certain to generate that conviction than the idea that every time we do something wrong, we give God and the people closest to us reasons not to love us. - - Rabbi Kushner
Recently, I've not felt this close friendship. I've felt distanced from those around me. Not that I'm not social, have no friends, or think nobody likes me; but I have had a couple of experiences in the past year that have really hurt in that one person's opinion of me (someone who really was a very close friend for some time) have truly affected how I think about who I am as a person, a friend, a daughter of God. Suddenly, the word "friendship" has a different meaning for me and I have come to doubt the need for it in my life. It's almost like I'm trying to convince myself that I don't need friends, my family is all I need. Now, in once sense, it is true. Families can be forever (yadda, yadda, yadda) but I truly believe that the relationships we make in this life are just as eternal as that family bond, and it is in the relationships that we are strengthened and have a chance to grow. Sorry, this is not turning into a pity party!! I'm just saying, that it is essential to have those strengthening, woman-to-woman, friendship bonds in our lives as women and we need to not allow ourselves to believe that one mistake merits the feelings of being unloved. AND those are two very valid points made in The Secret Life of Bees.
As for you Andrea - - don't worry - - I knew what I was getting into the minute I wrote my essay!! :-)
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
The Secret Life of Bees--more comments
So, I couldn't really call this an essay, because it is so horrid, hence it's title of more comments. It is certainly not my best writing, I didn't keep track of quotes again either, but with so much discussion going on about this book, maybe no one will notice my poor writing (and run-on sentences).
The importance of sisterhood is the main impression I came away with after reading this book. (Well, that may have been influenced somewhat by Andrea's comments on it). I tend to agree with Andrea on her viewpoints about this book, maybe because we are sisters. Lily was seeking a mother figure, which she found in August, but in general the support all the women gave each was an impressive example of sisterhood. I think Relief Society as it's meant to be would be similar to their friendships and support.
Personally, my best friend had always been my younger sister Kayli (the punk, lazy one who considers this blog too much work, rudie!), and I never relied much on other friends growing up. When Kayli married shortly after we went to college though, my friendship with Kayli abruptly changed. It was only when I married that once again I felt closer to her again. Also, my marriage made me feel much, much closer to Andrea too. With the stresses and problems unique to marriage, I needed more of a supportive sisterhood than the friendship sisterhood I had shared with my sisters before. Who else would I dare discuss the most intimitate of topics and the pains of doing the dishes? Recently, I have developed another close friendship and have so enjoyed having a sister of sorts nearby while my sisters are so far away. The support and understanding another woman can provide is unique, and while my husband is my confidante and closest friend, it's really a relationship on a whole different level (as it should be). Having another woman to discuss "womenly" issues and even sometimes husband-relationships is a wonderful thing. It's makes me feel more normal, if that makes sense--less out of control and more at peace with my life and how's it going. Plus sympathy is just nice once in a while.
The point of this tirade, is that the Daughters of Mary, form that kind of sisterhood. Not only do the actual sisters--May, August, and June--support each other, but they help and support the other women around them, from Rosaleen registering to vote to Lily's mother recovering from her breakdown, to the simple trouble of a husband spending money on a boat (I'd whine to my sisters about that too). I think that is beautiful and part of the special relationship women can share together. Yes, I turn to my husband for help and to be lifted up and I have no secrets from him whatsoever, which couldn't be and shouldn't be said of my sisters, but I am so glad I have the extended net of sisters as well. Personally, I don't think the author was male-negative, simply sisterhood focused. One of my favorite parts was when T. Ray was trying to take Lily home, and the other women arrived. "The four of them lined up beside us, clutching their pocketbooks up against their bodies like they might have to use them to beat the living hell out of somebody. I wondered how we must look to him. A bunch of women--"
The importance of sisterhood is the main impression I came away with after reading this book. (Well, that may have been influenced somewhat by Andrea's comments on it). I tend to agree with Andrea on her viewpoints about this book, maybe because we are sisters. Lily was seeking a mother figure, which she found in August, but in general the support all the women gave each was an impressive example of sisterhood. I think Relief Society as it's meant to be would be similar to their friendships and support.
Personally, my best friend had always been my younger sister Kayli (the punk, lazy one who considers this blog too much work, rudie!), and I never relied much on other friends growing up. When Kayli married shortly after we went to college though, my friendship with Kayli abruptly changed. It was only when I married that once again I felt closer to her again. Also, my marriage made me feel much, much closer to Andrea too. With the stresses and problems unique to marriage, I needed more of a supportive sisterhood than the friendship sisterhood I had shared with my sisters before. Who else would I dare discuss the most intimitate of topics and the pains of doing the dishes? Recently, I have developed another close friendship and have so enjoyed having a sister of sorts nearby while my sisters are so far away. The support and understanding another woman can provide is unique, and while my husband is my confidante and closest friend, it's really a relationship on a whole different level (as it should be). Having another woman to discuss "womenly" issues and even sometimes husband-relationships is a wonderful thing. It's makes me feel more normal, if that makes sense--less out of control and more at peace with my life and how's it going. Plus sympathy is just nice once in a while.
The point of this tirade, is that the Daughters of Mary, form that kind of sisterhood. Not only do the actual sisters--May, August, and June--support each other, but they help and support the other women around them, from Rosaleen registering to vote to Lily's mother recovering from her breakdown, to the simple trouble of a husband spending money on a boat (I'd whine to my sisters about that too). I think that is beautiful and part of the special relationship women can share together. Yes, I turn to my husband for help and to be lifted up and I have no secrets from him whatsoever, which couldn't be and shouldn't be said of my sisters, but I am so glad I have the extended net of sisters as well. Personally, I don't think the author was male-negative, simply sisterhood focused. One of my favorite parts was when T. Ray was trying to take Lily home, and the other women arrived. "The four of them lined up beside us, clutching their pocketbooks up against their bodies like they might have to use them to beat the living hell out of somebody. I wondered how we must look to him. A bunch of women--"
Kelly's question
Kelly asked why she thought female empowerment stories are so popular today with writers and readers (okay, that wasn't a direct quote, but you know which question I am talking about). I've been thinking about that for the past day because my perspective as a very self-confident LDS woman is so DRASTICALLY different from mainstream life for American women.
I come to this question from a slightly different perspective as an ex-teacher. I totally see where Kami's answer is spot-on as ONE of the reasons. Another of the many reasons (I'm sure there are many because each area and each cultural region of the States is so distinct, as is ethnicity/religion/family life of women), is that women still mainly judge themselves by what other people think of them instead of gaining their own sense of self. At the high school teenage level it is painfully obvious. Buying the right clothes, dating the right boys, and on a darker level the rise in anorexia, bulimia, self-mutilation, teenage pregnancies (many of which tie into trying to please a boy to get reflected love, but also because many girls want someone to love them).
On an adult level, you still have the huge number of bad relationships, buying the right clothes, the skyrocketing numbers of elective cosmetic surgery. Enhancing ourselves to look right to other people. The women in this country are drowning in their own insecurities. Mormon women do it to, but I admit to having less patience with them because we know better. Women empowerment books (the few I've read, and since I usually avoid adult literature I'm speaking from a VERY limited experience here) usually focus on a woman's journey to accepting herself and valuing herself distinct from other people's view of her. If that means distinct from a man--I have no problem with that. Get yourself healthy girl, is pretty much my attitude.
I think we need that desperately now. I don't think the female empowerment books as a whole are helping for the reasons Julia stated--women don't have the knowledge we have of what will really make them happy and they don't know that they are daughters of God. Without that knowledge they will continue to drown in their own insecurities and continue to be unhappy with their choices.
However, Julia mentioned that she thought that more books should show women happy in the home. That's great and all for people who are in good marriages and understand why they would do it (because it is HARD!), but I agree with Kami--too many women, because of the insecurities mentioned earlier look to men for feelings of self-worth and that is generally very bad. These women need to be okay enough with themselves to end the cycles of bad relationships and learn to be okay on their own. Telling women to submit more to their husbands is NOT helpful.
Besides, I don't care how much you tell me the doctrine of our church is that the husband is the head of the home--when it all boils down if the wife and husband aren't equal partners than that marriage is not a good one. We have too many stories in our church of husband's exploiting their wives and mistreating their children all in the name of Priesthood leadership for me to think for ONE MINUTE that we should be teaching our daughters to be more submissive and obedient.
Sorry--my soapbox. I had a roommate who had to fly home to testify in a child abuse case. The accused--a stake president--had built a soundproof room in his house where he routinely beat his children. It was only after a hospital employee grew suspicious about the number of broken bones did anyone investigate anything. And what did the mother/wife say to justify not saying anything about the abuse? He is the priesthood leader of my home. Makes me sick, really.
Ju, you know I love being a wife and mother, and you know that I understand where you are coming from in the whole "head of the house" thing, but the history of abuse against women that has happened because men felt some inborn right to dominate and women submitted because they were taught to, makes me think that my understanding of the doctrine can't possibly be the same thing as what those women and men's understanding was. So again, telling women to be more subservient/obedient/whatever term you want to use makes me cringe.
I come to this question from a slightly different perspective as an ex-teacher. I totally see where Kami's answer is spot-on as ONE of the reasons. Another of the many reasons (I'm sure there are many because each area and each cultural region of the States is so distinct, as is ethnicity/religion/family life of women), is that women still mainly judge themselves by what other people think of them instead of gaining their own sense of self. At the high school teenage level it is painfully obvious. Buying the right clothes, dating the right boys, and on a darker level the rise in anorexia, bulimia, self-mutilation, teenage pregnancies (many of which tie into trying to please a boy to get reflected love, but also because many girls want someone to love them).
On an adult level, you still have the huge number of bad relationships, buying the right clothes, the skyrocketing numbers of elective cosmetic surgery. Enhancing ourselves to look right to other people. The women in this country are drowning in their own insecurities. Mormon women do it to, but I admit to having less patience with them because we know better. Women empowerment books (the few I've read, and since I usually avoid adult literature I'm speaking from a VERY limited experience here) usually focus on a woman's journey to accepting herself and valuing herself distinct from other people's view of her. If that means distinct from a man--I have no problem with that. Get yourself healthy girl, is pretty much my attitude.
I think we need that desperately now. I don't think the female empowerment books as a whole are helping for the reasons Julia stated--women don't have the knowledge we have of what will really make them happy and they don't know that they are daughters of God. Without that knowledge they will continue to drown in their own insecurities and continue to be unhappy with their choices.
However, Julia mentioned that she thought that more books should show women happy in the home. That's great and all for people who are in good marriages and understand why they would do it (because it is HARD!), but I agree with Kami--too many women, because of the insecurities mentioned earlier look to men for feelings of self-worth and that is generally very bad. These women need to be okay enough with themselves to end the cycles of bad relationships and learn to be okay on their own. Telling women to submit more to their husbands is NOT helpful.
Besides, I don't care how much you tell me the doctrine of our church is that the husband is the head of the home--when it all boils down if the wife and husband aren't equal partners than that marriage is not a good one. We have too many stories in our church of husband's exploiting their wives and mistreating their children all in the name of Priesthood leadership for me to think for ONE MINUTE that we should be teaching our daughters to be more submissive and obedient.
Sorry--my soapbox. I had a roommate who had to fly home to testify in a child abuse case. The accused--a stake president--had built a soundproof room in his house where he routinely beat his children. It was only after a hospital employee grew suspicious about the number of broken bones did anyone investigate anything. And what did the mother/wife say to justify not saying anything about the abuse? He is the priesthood leader of my home. Makes me sick, really.
Ju, you know I love being a wife and mother, and you know that I understand where you are coming from in the whole "head of the house" thing, but the history of abuse against women that has happened because men felt some inborn right to dominate and women submitted because they were taught to, makes me think that my understanding of the doctrine can't possibly be the same thing as what those women and men's understanding was. So again, telling women to be more subservient/obedient/whatever term you want to use makes me cringe.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Another Response
A few clarifications I had in response to Julia.
HOWEVER - - what kind of empowerment stories like this give women the strength to make the right decisions? To me these books are of women rebelling against the right decisions. Yes, August was a very educated woman and I'm very proud of what she made of herself (especially in that era !!!), but I still would like to see more empowerment stories like those that Kelly listed and more: Little Women, for one. I guess I would just like to see more empowerment stories in a positive light rather than a "running-away-from-the-terrible" type of a setting.
I never said that women were necessarily making the right choices in the book or nowadays, just simply observing that many want female empowerment stories to feel validated. I think I generally disassociate my perspective and beliefs of what is right or wrong from what the characters in the book beliefs are, simply because as LDS members I think we have a lot more knowledge and understanding than most people--it wouldn't work to hold them to our ideals when they don't know them. Also, I think "running-away-from-the-terrible" is not necessarily a bad thing. Having seen women in abusive relationships, I think it takes more strength to leave than to stay.
Also, as far as the town's people accepting Lily staying with the women, I don't think any of them knew till Lily visited the lawyer with Zach the first time. And it was shortly after that when May died and the sheriff or whatever told her she should move on.
And on the religion part, I personally believe that any religion in whatever form it comes in that helps people be better, kinder, and have any sort of belief in divinity is better than nothing and is still helpful for their eternal progression. If belief in Black Mary helped these women than I'm all for letting them follow their customs. Of course a belief in Christ would be preferable, but I think Christ would rather let them follow that than be spiritually starved and lacking any faith whatsoever. Just my opinion though.
HOWEVER - - what kind of empowerment stories like this give women the strength to make the right decisions? To me these books are of women rebelling against the right decisions. Yes, August was a very educated woman and I'm very proud of what she made of herself (especially in that era !!!), but I still would like to see more empowerment stories like those that Kelly listed and more: Little Women, for one. I guess I would just like to see more empowerment stories in a positive light rather than a "running-away-from-the-terrible" type of a setting.
I never said that women were necessarily making the right choices in the book or nowadays, just simply observing that many want female empowerment stories to feel validated. I think I generally disassociate my perspective and beliefs of what is right or wrong from what the characters in the book beliefs are, simply because as LDS members I think we have a lot more knowledge and understanding than most people--it wouldn't work to hold them to our ideals when they don't know them. Also, I think "running-away-from-the-terrible" is not necessarily a bad thing. Having seen women in abusive relationships, I think it takes more strength to leave than to stay.
Also, as far as the town's people accepting Lily staying with the women, I don't think any of them knew till Lily visited the lawyer with Zach the first time. And it was shortly after that when May died and the sheriff or whatever told her she should move on.
And on the religion part, I personally believe that any religion in whatever form it comes in that helps people be better, kinder, and have any sort of belief in divinity is better than nothing and is still helpful for their eternal progression. If belief in Black Mary helped these women than I'm all for letting them follow their customs. Of course a belief in Christ would be preferable, but I think Christ would rather let them follow that than be spiritually starved and lacking any faith whatsoever. Just my opinion though.
Finally, My Say
Here's my comments on a few things that have been said. I plan on writing an essay (I do!) but my husband is home and wants me to come to bed. Who can resist that!??!
Question:Why did Sue Monk Kidd feel it was necessary to write this story for today's audience? By that I mean, what does a story that is set 4 decades ago have to offer to us today? What new lessons can we learn? Do women today still need stories about female strength? We seem to lap them up (ie Oprah's bookclub). But is it filling a need, or is it preaching to the choir? I can agree that the need WAS necessary...is it still? I'd like to hear your thoughts.
I think that woman today are more confused about their roles than ever before (because they have more options), which makes them more uncertain about the choices they've made and more subject to guilt about the things they may have given up. I think this leads to more women wanting female empowerment stories, so they can feel better about themselves and their choices. I think any story that has a "universal" theme (acceptance, belonging, love, redemption, etc) will always have something to offer, whether written or just set in a period 40, 100, or 500 yrs. ago.
So according to the Catholic Church, Mary does not supplant God - she helps them worship God and communicate with Jesus. I don't personally agree with all this, but I can see where they are coming from. Sue Monk Kidd's characters have totally removed God from the equation. I believe it's because he's a MAN that the author chose to remove him from the book. And that's mainly why I have a problem with it. It's not different religions that bother me - it's that this has taken female empowerment too far for my tastes.
In the book August says she purposefully chose the Black Madonna for the very reason of giving the women around her someone to identify with. I think the author didn't purposefully take God out because he was a man, more than she wanted her character to be able to give the women around her something more accessible. I like how August is intelligent, intelligent enough to know what she is doing when she is choosing that symbol for her friends.
Also, having been around many Catholics since my marriage and having a mother-in-law, who despite being LDS now, is still very Catholic in many of her ideas--I'd have to say that it is extremely common for Mary (or sometimes other saints) to completely supplant Christ in Catholicism. In Hispanic culture, many not only just pray to Mary, but they'll have specific Marys, like the Virgin of Guadalupe, Virgin of the Poor, Virgin of Rosario, Virgin of Sucor, etc. They know it's all the same Virgin Mary, but the way they treat the different titles and names, it's practically like they are seperate Marys; i.e. they'll light seperate candles for different Virgins, etc. Practice of religion, especially in Catholism, rarely follows the guidelines of the church. I guess it didn't bother me as much either (the whole Black Mary thing) because I've been exposed to a lot of Latin culture (inventors of the genre mystical/magical realism) where things are accepted a lot more readily which are ascribed to "magic." For instance my mother-in-law is always having dreams and whatnot that she interrupts and states means this and that, which I think is completely ridiculous. Or she'll completely accept this or that as a "sign." It drives me nuts, but that's a lot to do with the culture (not just my mother-in-law), and I think a lot of blacks have that in their culture as well.
My idea of religion in the south (which may or may not be accurate) has always been that whites often a harsher view of God than blacks. From what I've read, "black" religion was much warmer, kinder, and user-friendly. All that "Praise Jesus, Hallelujah" and gospel music shows happy people celebrating God and Jesus - not being scared of them! Would moderately educated black women in the south have created their own pseudo-religion? It seems far-fetched to me. AND I think Lily could have found the redemption she searched for from the classic Gospel of the Black South.
Having lived in the South, I have to say I disagree--not with the softer view of God-but the classic Gospel of Black South. I cannot count how many times while working night shift at the hospital conversation turned to witchcraft, voodoo, and the like---AND how many of my coworkers who were African American had had experiences with that sort of thing. From what I understand the mixing of African beliefs with Christianity has always been a part of Afro-American culture, which falls right into place with the Black Mary beliefs described in this book.
Question:Why did Sue Monk Kidd feel it was necessary to write this story for today's audience? By that I mean, what does a story that is set 4 decades ago have to offer to us today? What new lessons can we learn? Do women today still need stories about female strength? We seem to lap them up (ie Oprah's bookclub). But is it filling a need, or is it preaching to the choir? I can agree that the need WAS necessary...is it still? I'd like to hear your thoughts.
I think that woman today are more confused about their roles than ever before (because they have more options), which makes them more uncertain about the choices they've made and more subject to guilt about the things they may have given up. I think this leads to more women wanting female empowerment stories, so they can feel better about themselves and their choices. I think any story that has a "universal" theme (acceptance, belonging, love, redemption, etc) will always have something to offer, whether written or just set in a period 40, 100, or 500 yrs. ago.
So according to the Catholic Church, Mary does not supplant God - she helps them worship God and communicate with Jesus. I don't personally agree with all this, but I can see where they are coming from. Sue Monk Kidd's characters have totally removed God from the equation. I believe it's because he's a MAN that the author chose to remove him from the book. And that's mainly why I have a problem with it. It's not different religions that bother me - it's that this has taken female empowerment too far for my tastes.
In the book August says she purposefully chose the Black Madonna for the very reason of giving the women around her someone to identify with. I think the author didn't purposefully take God out because he was a man, more than she wanted her character to be able to give the women around her something more accessible. I like how August is intelligent, intelligent enough to know what she is doing when she is choosing that symbol for her friends.
Also, having been around many Catholics since my marriage and having a mother-in-law, who despite being LDS now, is still very Catholic in many of her ideas--I'd have to say that it is extremely common for Mary (or sometimes other saints) to completely supplant Christ in Catholicism. In Hispanic culture, many not only just pray to Mary, but they'll have specific Marys, like the Virgin of Guadalupe, Virgin of the Poor, Virgin of Rosario, Virgin of Sucor, etc. They know it's all the same Virgin Mary, but the way they treat the different titles and names, it's practically like they are seperate Marys; i.e. they'll light seperate candles for different Virgins, etc. Practice of religion, especially in Catholism, rarely follows the guidelines of the church. I guess it didn't bother me as much either (the whole Black Mary thing) because I've been exposed to a lot of Latin culture (inventors of the genre mystical/magical realism) where things are accepted a lot more readily which are ascribed to "magic." For instance my mother-in-law is always having dreams and whatnot that she interrupts and states means this and that, which I think is completely ridiculous. Or she'll completely accept this or that as a "sign." It drives me nuts, but that's a lot to do with the culture (not just my mother-in-law), and I think a lot of blacks have that in their culture as well.
My idea of religion in the south (which may or may not be accurate) has always been that whites often a harsher view of God than blacks. From what I've read, "black" religion was much warmer, kinder, and user-friendly. All that "Praise Jesus, Hallelujah" and gospel music shows happy people celebrating God and Jesus - not being scared of them! Would moderately educated black women in the south have created their own pseudo-religion? It seems far-fetched to me. AND I think Lily could have found the redemption she searched for from the classic Gospel of the Black South.
Having lived in the South, I have to say I disagree--not with the softer view of God-but the classic Gospel of Black South. I cannot count how many times while working night shift at the hospital conversation turned to witchcraft, voodoo, and the like---AND how many of my coworkers who were African American had had experiences with that sort of thing. From what I understand the mixing of African beliefs with Christianity has always been a part of Afro-American culture, which falls right into place with the Black Mary beliefs described in this book.
Julia Comments on K, K & A's Comments! -Bees-
I don't know enough about Catholicism, Black American Religion, etc...So, I won't add to that discussion too much. However - there are some thoughts I'd like to add - -
Kelly said - One thing I've realized lately is that for a novel to work for me - I have to be able to believe that it would really happen. I can believe in books like "Les Mis", "Pride & Prejudice", "Tom Sawyer", etc., because although they aren't about real people, they are about lives that real people led and they are relatable to OUR lives. I had a hard time with "Life of Pi" (I believe I'm the only one who didn't like that book) and other books like that because it took unbelievable circumstances and tried to apply the lessons learned to a real world. I can't get over the "but this could never happen" part. In "The Secret Life of Bees" there were just too many unbelievable circumstances: worshipping Black Mary, Rosaleen spitting on shoes, Lily being instantly welcomed by August with no explanation, T. Ray letting Lily go on living there (hello, isn't this the 60s?) and other things just did not seem believable to me.
I say, I actually thought this book was quite "believable." It still was not my favorite book ,but I did think it held to some true thoughts and feelings of the time period. I think that a stubborn black woman like Rosalee just might have spit on a white man's shoes, and that there were those black/white relationships being squelched before they could begin (like Lily & Zack), and the beatings that must have taken place for the black population. As for living with the black women, I did wonder why the town was so accepting of it. A few people questioned, but for the most part Lily was ignored, and I found that to be a little odd.
Andrea said - I think we, as LDS women who understand our place and value better than anyone else on earth, take female empowerment for granted
I say - I agree that we take female empowerment for granted. However, I don't think that LDS women have always had the empowerment either. Think of Emma Smith who had to accept many things that were not easy to accept (the secrecy of the plates, the introduction of polygamy, etc...etc...) I think that we underestimate the statement in the Proclamation on the Family that husbands and wives are to work as equal partners and there was a reason for that statement being made in the 90's rather than in the 60's. Also, another note from Sister Beck's talk ( you all know the one I"m talking about). Empowerment of women still comes from being in the home, NOT from having so many options!
Andrea said - I can certainly see why August didn't go to those churches. Religion has traditionally been male-dominated. Not because of the Savior being male as much as that the clergy have been male. Would independent-minded August have put up with a preacher telling her to find and submit to a man? Give up her independence, her property, her income, her opinions, her ability to accept guests like Lily without getting approval? Marriage was way too one-sided for too long for me to accept that wanting to not get married made someone a man-hater.
This just proves mine and Kelly's point, does it not? That August was not willing to succomb to a man's authority in her life. A husband and father is still the man of the house. I don't know that she was a "man-hater" per say, but she definitley took too much liberty in freedom as an individual, I believe.
Kelly asked - Question:Why did Sue Monk Kidd feel it was necessary to write this story for today's audience? By that I mean, what does a story that is set 4 decades ago have to offer to us today? What new lessons can we learn? Do women today still need stories about female strength? We seem to lap them up (ie Oprah's bookclub). But is it filling a need, or is it preaching to the choir? I can agree that the need WAS necessary...is it still? I'd like to hear your thoughts.
I liked Kami's answer here:
Kami - I think that woman today are more confused about their roles than ever before (because they have more options), which makes them more uncertain about the choices they've made and more subject to guilt about the things they may have given up. I think this leads to more women wanting female empowerment stories, so they can feel better about themselves and their choices.
HOWEVER - - what kind of empowerment stories like this give women the strength to make the right decisions? To me these books are of women rebelling against the right decisions. Yes, August was a very educated woman and I'm very proud of what she made of herself (especially in that era !!!), but I still would like to see more empowerment stories like those that Kelly listed and more: Little Women, for one. I guess I would just like to see more empowerment stories in a positive light rather than a "running-away-from-the-terrible" type of a setting.
One last note, along with Kelly I also appreciated the symbolism in this book, the connection with the life of bees, and the relationship between Zack and Lily. It really was a very well-written book, and I'm very glad I read it! Plus, this discussion has been FABULOUS!
Julia
Oprah's Bookclub and other things....
You said: For example, you both seem to view August's decision not to marry as anti-man. I actually don't remember saying that...I could be remembering wrong.
I agree with what you wrote about Lily's character. I think that is all spot-on. This experience with all those women was definitely a good thing for her.
I agree that LDS women have a different idea of female empowerment and feel more value in society.
As I originally said, without the Black Mary storyline I really did like the tale. I think we may just have to split ways there. :-) I was glad that Lily was able to grow as a woman. I liked her relationship with August. I was happy as all get-out when she got out from under T. Ray's house. Those things I liked and I think they are pertinent to a girl in any age.
Question:
Why did Sue Monk Kidd feel it was necessary to write this story for today's audience? By that I mean, what does a story that is set 4 decades ago have to offer to us today? What new lessons can we learn? Do women today still need stories about female strength? We seem to lap them up (ie Oprah's bookclub). But is it filling a need, or is it preaching to the choir? I can agree that the need WAS necessary...is it still? I'd like to hear your thoughts.
I agree with what you wrote about Lily's character. I think that is all spot-on. This experience with all those women was definitely a good thing for her.
I agree that LDS women have a different idea of female empowerment and feel more value in society.
As I originally said, without the Black Mary storyline I really did like the tale. I think we may just have to split ways there. :-) I was glad that Lily was able to grow as a woman. I liked her relationship with August. I was happy as all get-out when she got out from under T. Ray's house. Those things I liked and I think they are pertinent to a girl in any age.
Question:
Why did Sue Monk Kidd feel it was necessary to write this story for today's audience? By that I mean, what does a story that is set 4 decades ago have to offer to us today? What new lessons can we learn? Do women today still need stories about female strength? We seem to lap them up (ie Oprah's bookclub). But is it filling a need, or is it preaching to the choir? I can agree that the need WAS necessary...is it still? I'd like to hear your thoughts.
Non people-pleaser
Kelly, I am glad you posted that you are enjoying the discussion. Kami and I were a little worried since Rasmussen's don't pull punches and they LOVE to discuss things and disagree and state their opinions. We certainly never want to make you uncomfortable, but just know that we were raised to be very strong-minded and opinionated, and it is hard (and frustrating) to pussy-foot around.
Feel free to disagree as much as you like!!!
Feel free to disagree as much as you like!!!
Female Empowerment
Maybe the central disagreement we (meaning Kelly and Ju and I--Kami has been too busy to put in her two cents yet) are having is about the idea of female empowerment since that is how you are interpreting the Black Mary--as another way of taking men out of the equation. Quite personally, I believe that female empowerment was desperately needed in the 60's. Just listen to any cd of Loretta Lynn's.
Femi-nazi's have slaughtered the term "feminism" with the introduction of lesbianism into the mix, but that doesn't mean that pre-1980s feminism was bad or wrong, or that our current understanding of feminism is the same as female empowerment.
For example, you both seem to view August's decision not to marry as anti-man. I can't see that. Just because a woman chooses to live without a man doesn't make her anti-man. It showed that she understood the limitations of a married woman in the 60s, and they were MANY.
How I see it, is if Lily had stayed living with T. Ray, she would have grown increasingly desperate and less sure of herself and the very first guy who came along and told her sweet things, she would have thanked her lucky stars and jumped head-first into whatever that boy offered--whether that was good for her or not. And it would probably have ended badly because needy women usually find predatory males who take advantage.
Instead, Sue Monk Kidd created a situation wherein Lily could become stronger--more sure of herself. She could, in fact, find some absolutely essential female empowerment. She could learn to love herself. She could learn that she could depend on herself for the confidence and love she needed. She learned that she didn't need a man--in this case, T. Ray, to love her for her to be a valuable person.
What are the chances that she will now eventually end up in a negative relationship with a man later on? A lot less. That is female empowerment. Now I recognize that in the eternal plan of happiness we need our mates to reach eternal exaltation and that is well and good, but it is not necessary to be married on earth for our lives to be worthwhile and for us to be worthwhile. Knowing that is female empowerment. If something happened to Timothy, I know that I am educated and can get a job and can take care of my family. That is female empowerment. Teaching our girls that they are daughters of God and their worth comes from inside them and not from anyone or anything else (which is what August taught Lily) is female empowerment.
I think we, as LDS women who understand our place and value better than anyone else on earth, take female empowerment for granted. There was no Heavenly Mother getting praise and recognition at any of the Southern Black churches, and those preachers would have been telling those women to obey their husbands without anything being said about treating your wives nice or being equal partners, and although I agree that Black churches did a better job of creating an environment where each person could have a personal relationship with the Savior--nobody was telling them to read their scriptures to gain their own understanding--it was a male preacher telling you that you should listen to him because he knew the path to salvation and you didn't.
I can certainly see why August didn't go to those churches. Religion has traditionally been male-dominated. Not because of the Savior being male as much as that the clergy have been male. Would independent-minded August have put up with a preacher telling her to find and submit to a man? Give up her independence, her property, her income, her opinions, her ability to accept guests like Lily without getting approval? Marriage was way too one-sided for too long for me to accept that wanting to not get married made someone a man-hater.
I'm not trying, in any way, shape, or form, to say that women don't need men. We do. But not in a needy, desperate, tell me what to do because I'm just a girl and need a big strong man for my own good, sort-of-a-way. Women need to be healthy though, before they can have healthy relationships, and to be healthy you have to really understand your own value.
As to her accepting Lily at first sight--it was stated repeatedly that she looked just like her mom, so August knew who she was from the beginning. It doesn't seem farfetched that a woman would take in the daughter of a woman she helped raise.
As for creating their own religion--people have been creating their own religions since Cain. I don't see much farfetched in that either.
Femi-nazi's have slaughtered the term "feminism" with the introduction of lesbianism into the mix, but that doesn't mean that pre-1980s feminism was bad or wrong, or that our current understanding of feminism is the same as female empowerment.
For example, you both seem to view August's decision not to marry as anti-man. I can't see that. Just because a woman chooses to live without a man doesn't make her anti-man. It showed that she understood the limitations of a married woman in the 60s, and they were MANY.
How I see it, is if Lily had stayed living with T. Ray, she would have grown increasingly desperate and less sure of herself and the very first guy who came along and told her sweet things, she would have thanked her lucky stars and jumped head-first into whatever that boy offered--whether that was good for her or not. And it would probably have ended badly because needy women usually find predatory males who take advantage.
Instead, Sue Monk Kidd created a situation wherein Lily could become stronger--more sure of herself. She could, in fact, find some absolutely essential female empowerment. She could learn to love herself. She could learn that she could depend on herself for the confidence and love she needed. She learned that she didn't need a man--in this case, T. Ray, to love her for her to be a valuable person.
What are the chances that she will now eventually end up in a negative relationship with a man later on? A lot less. That is female empowerment. Now I recognize that in the eternal plan of happiness we need our mates to reach eternal exaltation and that is well and good, but it is not necessary to be married on earth for our lives to be worthwhile and for us to be worthwhile. Knowing that is female empowerment. If something happened to Timothy, I know that I am educated and can get a job and can take care of my family. That is female empowerment. Teaching our girls that they are daughters of God and their worth comes from inside them and not from anyone or anything else (which is what August taught Lily) is female empowerment.
I think we, as LDS women who understand our place and value better than anyone else on earth, take female empowerment for granted. There was no Heavenly Mother getting praise and recognition at any of the Southern Black churches, and those preachers would have been telling those women to obey their husbands without anything being said about treating your wives nice or being equal partners, and although I agree that Black churches did a better job of creating an environment where each person could have a personal relationship with the Savior--nobody was telling them to read their scriptures to gain their own understanding--it was a male preacher telling you that you should listen to him because he knew the path to salvation and you didn't.
I can certainly see why August didn't go to those churches. Religion has traditionally been male-dominated. Not because of the Savior being male as much as that the clergy have been male. Would independent-minded August have put up with a preacher telling her to find and submit to a man? Give up her independence, her property, her income, her opinions, her ability to accept guests like Lily without getting approval? Marriage was way too one-sided for too long for me to accept that wanting to not get married made someone a man-hater.
I'm not trying, in any way, shape, or form, to say that women don't need men. We do. But not in a needy, desperate, tell me what to do because I'm just a girl and need a big strong man for my own good, sort-of-a-way. Women need to be healthy though, before they can have healthy relationships, and to be healthy you have to really understand your own value.
As to her accepting Lily at first sight--it was stated repeatedly that she looked just like her mom, so August knew who she was from the beginning. It doesn't seem farfetched that a woman would take in the daughter of a woman she helped raise.
As for creating their own religion--people have been creating their own religions since Cain. I don't see much farfetched in that either.
And can I just say that as a past people-pleaser I find this discussion very exciting and exhilarating! I don't run into people I can safely disagree with too often (I have to be polite to people in town and my friends all tend to agree with me - or else I want to keep them as friends). So I'm very glad that we can do all this!
I was quite sure my post was going to come across sounding close-minded. Perhaps I can clarify some of my thoughts. We may have to agree to disagree! :-)
The issue of women-empowerment is not new. I didn't think it was fabulously done here. And I'm not big into female strength books - they don't do anything for me. So that was strike number one and really has nothing to do with evaluating the book on it's merits.
There are other books about the south that deal with civil rights, coming of age, and family relationships, and belonging that I like better ("To Kill a Mockingbird" and "Bridge to Terabithia").
There are books about redemption that I like better ("Les Miserables").
So here's what the Catholic Church believes about the Virgin Mary: Prayers and devotions to the Virgin Mary and the saints are a common part of Catholic life but are distinct from the worship of God.[129] The Church holds Mary, the mother of Jesus, in special regard. She is honored with many loving titles such as "Blessed Mother" and "Mother of God". She is considered by the Church to be a spiritual mother to each believer of Christ. Because of her influential role in the life of Jesus, prayers and devotions asking for her intercession, such as the Rosary, the Hail Mary and the Memorare are common Catholic practices. (Roman Catholic Church; Wikipedia)
So according to the Catholic Church, Mary does not supplant God - she helps them worship God and communicate with Jesus. I don't personally agree with all this, but I can see where they are coming from. Sue Monk Kidd's characters have totally removed God from the equation. I believe it's because he's a MAN that the author chose to remove him from the book. And that's mainly why I have a problem with it. It's not different religions that bother me - it's that this has taken female empowerment too far for my tastes.
I don't think Monk Kidd needed to create this fake religion in order to get the point of her story across. August easily filled the mother-figure without needing Black Mary to accomplish that. May's rock wall was a sort of confessional - a way to release guilt. Those aspects of the story worked for me. Monk Kidd was a genius in the way she wove together all the symbolism - that is what I think worked.
My idea of religion in the south (which may or may not be accurate) has always been that whites often a harsher view of God than blacks. From what I've read, "black" religion was much warmer, kinder, and user-friendly. All that "Praise Jesus, Hallelujah" and gospel music shows happy people celebrating God and Jesus - not being scared of them! Would moderately educated black women in the south have created their own pseudo-religion? It seems far-fetched to me. AND I think Lily could have found the redemption she searched for from the classic Gospel of the Black South.
One thing I've realized lately is that for a novel to work for me - I have to be able to believe that it would really happen. I can believe in books like "Les Mis", "Pride & Prejudice", "Tom Sawyer", etc., because although they aren't about real people, they are about lives that real people led and they are relatable to OUR lives. I had a hard time with "Life of Pi" (I believe I'm the only one who didn't like that book) and other books like that because it took unbelievable circumstances and tried to apply the lessons learned to a real world. I can't get over the "but this could never happen" part. In "The Secret Life of Bees" there were just too many unbelievable circumstances: worshipping Black Mary, Rosaleen spitting on shoes, Lily being instantly welcomed by August with no explanation, T. Ray letting Lily go on living there (hello, isn't this the 60s?) and other things just did not seem believable to me.
So put it all together, and I just did not love this book.
I feel like I am not able to make a very sound argument against the book but there you have my attempt.
The issue of women-empowerment is not new. I didn't think it was fabulously done here. And I'm not big into female strength books - they don't do anything for me. So that was strike number one and really has nothing to do with evaluating the book on it's merits.
There are other books about the south that deal with civil rights, coming of age, and family relationships, and belonging that I like better ("To Kill a Mockingbird" and "Bridge to Terabithia").
There are books about redemption that I like better ("Les Miserables").
So here's what the Catholic Church believes about the Virgin Mary: Prayers and devotions to the Virgin Mary and the saints are a common part of Catholic life but are distinct from the worship of God.[129] The Church holds Mary, the mother of Jesus, in special regard. She is honored with many loving titles such as "Blessed Mother" and "Mother of God". She is considered by the Church to be a spiritual mother to each believer of Christ. Because of her influential role in the life of Jesus, prayers and devotions asking for her intercession, such as the Rosary, the Hail Mary and the Memorare are common Catholic practices. (Roman Catholic Church; Wikipedia)
So according to the Catholic Church, Mary does not supplant God - she helps them worship God and communicate with Jesus. I don't personally agree with all this, but I can see where they are coming from. Sue Monk Kidd's characters have totally removed God from the equation. I believe it's because he's a MAN that the author chose to remove him from the book. And that's mainly why I have a problem with it. It's not different religions that bother me - it's that this has taken female empowerment too far for my tastes.
I don't think Monk Kidd needed to create this fake religion in order to get the point of her story across. August easily filled the mother-figure without needing Black Mary to accomplish that. May's rock wall was a sort of confessional - a way to release guilt. Those aspects of the story worked for me. Monk Kidd was a genius in the way she wove together all the symbolism - that is what I think worked.
My idea of religion in the south (which may or may not be accurate) has always been that whites often a harsher view of God than blacks. From what I've read, "black" religion was much warmer, kinder, and user-friendly. All that "Praise Jesus, Hallelujah" and gospel music shows happy people celebrating God and Jesus - not being scared of them! Would moderately educated black women in the south have created their own pseudo-religion? It seems far-fetched to me. AND I think Lily could have found the redemption she searched for from the classic Gospel of the Black South.
One thing I've realized lately is that for a novel to work for me - I have to be able to believe that it would really happen. I can believe in books like "Les Mis", "Pride & Prejudice", "Tom Sawyer", etc., because although they aren't about real people, they are about lives that real people led and they are relatable to OUR lives. I had a hard time with "Life of Pi" (I believe I'm the only one who didn't like that book) and other books like that because it took unbelievable circumstances and tried to apply the lessons learned to a real world. I can't get over the "but this could never happen" part. In "The Secret Life of Bees" there were just too many unbelievable circumstances: worshipping Black Mary, Rosaleen spitting on shoes, Lily being instantly welcomed by August with no explanation, T. Ray letting Lily go on living there (hello, isn't this the 60s?) and other things just did not seem believable to me.
So put it all together, and I just did not love this book.
I feel like I am not able to make a very sound argument against the book but there you have my attempt.
Andrea's response to Kelly
I take issue with you saying that just because something fit the novel it "doesn't make it right." If the author had suddenly introduced the idea of a personal relationship with the Savior through prayer and personal revelation--every reader would say, whoa--those ideas did not fit in the South at that time period. Jesus saves you but he also damns you--with an emphasis on the damnation. As a reader, I would completely turn off if the author did anything so ridiculous. Who wants to read historical fiction that isn't historically accurate? Since the Southern view of Jesus was pretty harsh--Lily needed something else. Just because we have different ideas doesn't make her finding love and peace and forgiveness "wrong." Reconciling yourself to a higher power is almost always "right" even if that higher power is far different than the "truth" that was ascribe to.
Also--worshipping Mary is not strange to the millions of Catholics in the world. Just because we have different religious ideas doesn't mean that those people are bad or even "wrong" in any real sense. They just hold to different ideas. Many people find in Mary a much more approachable God (or whatever they would label her) than the actual Christ figure because she doesn't do any judging--she's just about love. Which is why it fit for me--Lily needed love and lots of it. Also, we do many physical things to express our devotion--special clothing, taking the sacrament, a certain place where lots of standing and sitting occurs. Nothing quite like rubbing honey into a statue--but it is the same concept--tangible, physical reminders of belief.
Also--unless you read in the LDS genre (which I don't--doing so usually makes me cringe and feel embarrassed to be associated with people who write so poorly, publish such poor writing, and spend so much money to purchase and then read such poor writing), the religious ideas you are going to encounter are generally not going to match up with "truth" as we describe it. I don't think that should make us squirm or be put off from a book. Now, if the religious ideas are dark or in some way anti-truth, then that is different, but usually the religion found in literature is either strongly Catholic or strongly Protestant in nature and is easily recognizable as good. If Lily couldn't find the missionaries (thank heavens she didn't--then the book would have sold in Deseret Book--blah, blah, blech), then the next best thing was finding a type of religion that could actually help her, guide her, strengthen her, all the reasons we need religion.
And I can't think that is "wrong" or off-putting in any way. I think, instead, that it is a powerful example of how lucky we are to have a relationship with a higher power--what that gives us. Thought-provoking, but not squirm-inducing.
Also--worshipping Mary is not strange to the millions of Catholics in the world. Just because we have different religious ideas doesn't mean that those people are bad or even "wrong" in any real sense. They just hold to different ideas. Many people find in Mary a much more approachable God (or whatever they would label her) than the actual Christ figure because she doesn't do any judging--she's just about love. Which is why it fit for me--Lily needed love and lots of it. Also, we do many physical things to express our devotion--special clothing, taking the sacrament, a certain place where lots of standing and sitting occurs. Nothing quite like rubbing honey into a statue--but it is the same concept--tangible, physical reminders of belief.
Also--unless you read in the LDS genre (which I don't--doing so usually makes me cringe and feel embarrassed to be associated with people who write so poorly, publish such poor writing, and spend so much money to purchase and then read such poor writing), the religious ideas you are going to encounter are generally not going to match up with "truth" as we describe it. I don't think that should make us squirm or be put off from a book. Now, if the religious ideas are dark or in some way anti-truth, then that is different, but usually the religion found in literature is either strongly Catholic or strongly Protestant in nature and is easily recognizable as good. If Lily couldn't find the missionaries (thank heavens she didn't--then the book would have sold in Deseret Book--blah, blah, blech), then the next best thing was finding a type of religion that could actually help her, guide her, strengthen her, all the reasons we need religion.
And I can't think that is "wrong" or off-putting in any way. I think, instead, that it is a powerful example of how lucky we are to have a relationship with a higher power--what that gives us. Thought-provoking, but not squirm-inducing.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
The Secret Life of Bees - Kelly's take
Wow! What a book! I have to start off with the statement that Sue Monk Kidd is an exceptional author. I understand, intellectually, why this is a fantastic book. And I can appreciate all those things (I think). I know people like to read works of literature that have strong female characters. However, I agree with Julia here that this book is a little too female-empowerment-minded for me.
I think the only thing I really didn't like about “The Secret Life of Bees” was the role of Black Mary in the novel. Sorry, Andrea. My intellect was saying, “this is so well-done”. My spirit was screaming out “this is wrong – this is not where true peace and happiness are found”. And so I have a problem with Black Mary. I think the way Mary is used in the novel is exceptionally insightful. In fact, I think it is pure genius! I disagree, though, with the idea of Mary supplanting God. Which she does. Did you notice that God is not ever mentioned once? He doesn't exist in Lily's world except at the Church in which she does NOT find happiness. The Boatwrights worship Mary. As a religious person I do have issues with that. Do I think that make this a bad book? I haven't decided. If it encourages women to think that they don't need God in their lives, then to my mind yes, it would be a detrimental book. An argument might be made that this isn't a religious book at all, it's a book about mothers and women and therefore God shouldn't come into any discussion about the book. I appreciate the purpose of the role of Black Mary, but I don't agree with the idea. Religion in the south was a totally screwed up thing back then (some might argue that it still is!). Black Mary filled a void for these women. It fits the story. But that doesn't make it right.
So on to the good things in the book. First, I thoroughly enjoyed learning about bees! This book ended up in my home because my husband had heard it was a good way to learn about beekeeping. It was later that I realized it was on our list (what great timing!). I happened to already be reading a book by Gene Stratton Porter called “Keeper of the Bees”. Between the two books, I picked up quite a lot of basic information about bees. They really are interesting insects. I liked how Sue Monk Kidd intertwined the bee epigraphs at the beginning of each chapter with Lily's character development.
August Boatwright had a lot of wise things to say. I always perked up when she was speaking to Lily. I think my favorite story of hers has to do with her decision to paint the house Caribbean Pink. August says, “You know, some things don't matter that much, Lily. Like the color of a house. How big is that in the overall scheme of life? But lifting a person's heart – now, that matters. The whole problem with people is....they know what matters, but they don't choose it. You know how hard that is, Lily? I love May, but it was still so hard to choose Caribbean Pink. The hardest thing on earth is choosing what matters” (147). I read that section several times because it just spoke to me. How often do we think we love somebody so much we'd do anything for them? We often imagine grandiose gestures, but in reality it is the willingness to do the small things that exhibits the true nature of our love for each other.
Being the big sap for romance that I am, I was immediately interested in Lily's relationship with Zach. I loved, loved, loved that they did not “get together”. This was not a romance novel. And it would not have been true to the time that this book takes place for that to have occurred. I appreciated Sue Monk Kidd for staying true to that idea and not giving in. The other area in which she stayed the course was with the idea that Lily killed her mother. In the beginning, I would totally have gone with the idea that T. Ray would let Lily take the fall for that. He seemed to be a very harsh man. We discover the truth about his story and can learn to appreciate where he's coming from just as she does. I was sad for Lily that she has to have this heavy thing in her life - that she deprived herself of a mother. But there really can't be blame. It was an accident. I thought the book finished positively that this is something that Lily will conquer.
My Black Mary concerns aside, the author wrote a wonderful tale of women, friendship, redemption, and coming to peace with who you are.
No more Comments
I like this. I always forget to check the comments and this makes much more sense. My response to the book is coming soon. I know you all can't wait. But don't hold your breath. I'm making Josh read it first and he's busy right now. So just be patient, it's coming. :-)
The Black Mary
The Black Mary was my favorite part of the book. It is what ties everything together and makes it all believable for me.
Lily shot her mother. I know some might argue that it was T. Ray, but I don't believe it. It was Lily, and she had to live with that. Also, if you noticed in the book, Lily was really hard on herself. Whenever she lied, even if it was for a good cause, she chastised herself and added more guilt to her already too-heavy load. I think that comes from going to church in the South at that time. There would have been a whole lot of hellfire and damnation, and not much personal relationship with a Savior.
It is clear that Lily's regular white church did not meet her need--the need to feel forgiven. She had nobody to forgive her. Her mother was dead so she couldn't come and absolve Lily. Lily's father was not compassionate enough to reach through his own bitterness to help his daughter. Rosalee (sp) loved Lily, but she was not her equal educationally so that made everything she said skewed a little bit for Lily.
The author of Bees understands one incredibly important human need--to be forgiven by a power higher than ourselves. Even August's forgiveness was not enough for Lily. But in Black Mary, Lily found a religion that was personal enough, meaningful enough, powerful enough, that she could ask and receive forgiveness. She found in Black Mary what we all try to find with our Savior. She found redemption.
I realize that the Daughters' religion was a strange mixture of Catholicism (dominantly) and slave history, and music and story, and personal need--but it wasn't silly. It wasn't treated lightly. And most importantly, it wasn't followed blindly by uneducated Southern Blacks with 9 parts voodoo and 1 part Christianity. Instead, it was understood by educated women to be Christianity mixed with all those other things to be precisely what they needed.
Maybe that is why it didn't feel strange to me. It felt warm and alive and poignant and vibrant and I was so grateful for Lily's sake that she was able to finally get rid of the guilt. To move on. To feel lovable and valuable. If it hadn't been for the Black Mary she would not have been able to do so. The most important thing in any religion is that religion's ability to provide absolution--to let a person recognize their own guilt and then let it go. I thought the Black Mary part of the book was beautiful and central, and without it, I don't see how Lily could have ever really accepted her past and given herself a future.
Lily shot her mother. I know some might argue that it was T. Ray, but I don't believe it. It was Lily, and she had to live with that. Also, if you noticed in the book, Lily was really hard on herself. Whenever she lied, even if it was for a good cause, she chastised herself and added more guilt to her already too-heavy load. I think that comes from going to church in the South at that time. There would have been a whole lot of hellfire and damnation, and not much personal relationship with a Savior.
It is clear that Lily's regular white church did not meet her need--the need to feel forgiven. She had nobody to forgive her. Her mother was dead so she couldn't come and absolve Lily. Lily's father was not compassionate enough to reach through his own bitterness to help his daughter. Rosalee (sp) loved Lily, but she was not her equal educationally so that made everything she said skewed a little bit for Lily.
The author of Bees understands one incredibly important human need--to be forgiven by a power higher than ourselves. Even August's forgiveness was not enough for Lily. But in Black Mary, Lily found a religion that was personal enough, meaningful enough, powerful enough, that she could ask and receive forgiveness. She found in Black Mary what we all try to find with our Savior. She found redemption.
I realize that the Daughters' religion was a strange mixture of Catholicism (dominantly) and slave history, and music and story, and personal need--but it wasn't silly. It wasn't treated lightly. And most importantly, it wasn't followed blindly by uneducated Southern Blacks with 9 parts voodoo and 1 part Christianity. Instead, it was understood by educated women to be Christianity mixed with all those other things to be precisely what they needed.
Maybe that is why it didn't feel strange to me. It felt warm and alive and poignant and vibrant and I was so grateful for Lily's sake that she was able to finally get rid of the guilt. To move on. To feel lovable and valuable. If it hadn't been for the Black Mary she would not have been able to do so. The most important thing in any religion is that religion's ability to provide absolution--to let a person recognize their own guilt and then let it go. I thought the Black Mary part of the book was beautiful and central, and without it, I don't see how Lily could have ever really accepted her past and given herself a future.
Saturday, June 14, 2008
Life of Bees - Response to Ans
First of all, thanks for eliminating the idea that we are to use the comments. I've wondered why we were doing that! :-)
As for your argument - - I understand what the book is supposed to portray - - that sense of belonging, children's lives being messed up, etc..etc.. BUT I still can't help but think that there is an underlying anti-men theme in there. And it could just stem from my sensetivity to this topic in general. I don't like the far swung women's libers' points of view. So, I take these types of books in that frame of mind, I think.
Secondly, I very much appreciate your comments on the problem coming from the mothers - - Those women who do just run out on their children, their husbands, and their lives. I think it's not too uncommon of a situation. In your first commentary you mentioned how it was the era in which males were more dominate. I agree, and yet we've just come so far from that mindset that sometimes we women don't want to submit any will to our husbands (causing just as many problems as the issue stated previously). This makes me think. When were women really and truly happy? It seems they weren't happy with what they had in the sixties and now women have many more opportunities but don't seem any happier because it's just not enough! Again, going off on my tangent...sorry!
In short, I completely understand your point, but I still get frustrated with underlying messages of zealous feminists. :-)
As for your argument - - I understand what the book is supposed to portray - - that sense of belonging, children's lives being messed up, etc..etc.. BUT I still can't help but think that there is an underlying anti-men theme in there. And it could just stem from my sensetivity to this topic in general. I don't like the far swung women's libers' points of view. So, I take these types of books in that frame of mind, I think.
Secondly, I very much appreciate your comments on the problem coming from the mothers - - Those women who do just run out on their children, their husbands, and their lives. I think it's not too uncommon of a situation. In your first commentary you mentioned how it was the era in which males were more dominate. I agree, and yet we've just come so far from that mindset that sometimes we women don't want to submit any will to our husbands (causing just as many problems as the issue stated previously). This makes me think. When were women really and truly happy? It seems they weren't happy with what they had in the sixties and now women have many more opportunities but don't seem any happier because it's just not enough! Again, going off on my tangent...sorry!
In short, I completely understand your point, but I still get frustrated with underlying messages of zealous feminists. :-)
My next response to Ju's response--taken out of the comments section
First--your comment should have been posted as a post so we don't have to waste time pushing the comment button. That's why we are all authors.
Next, we REALLY read things differently. I read the Ya-Ya Sisterhood as a late coming-of-age novel where a young woman had to learn to accept the past so that she can embrace her future as a wife and mother. The main character was terrified of getting married and becoming a mother because of her own mother's and father's poor examples, so she is taken in hand by a group of "stand-in mothers" to show her how to get a grip on what happened and therefore open up a future for herself WITH a man.
Basically both the Life of Bees and Ya-Ya demonstrate how messed up kids are when they don't have a normal family and especially a healthy, there-for-you mother. And when kids have skewed perspectives of family from their own non-existent or troubled families, it makes it almost impossible for them to have good, healthy families and relationships of their own.
In both books, the mother "stand-ins" try to help the girl in need make sense of her own sad past so that she can embrace a future that involves a healthy relationship with a man and the real possibility of a happy family.
I didn't get anti-male in either of those books, or anti-marriage. In both books, most of the problems in the parent's marriage stem from the mother's problems--not the father's. Also, in both books the father's provided what stability the child had--not the mother's.
The quote about the bees only needing males when necessary was a quote, in my mind, to point out that women shouldn't jump into relationships until they are at a healthy place. But I can definitely see why you saw it the other way.
Ju's response to my response taken out of the comments section
Okay, I see your point about the need for woman to woman relationships. I, for one, have never had trouble realizing that in my life. I've always NEEDED that friendship with other women. So, maybe that's why I didn't see it in the book. And you can't underestimate that quote about the bees only having males when required (sorry, poor paraphrasing). I do agree that the Zack & Lily relationship was quite tender. I got a real sense of their emotions both of love and of fear. Very poignant part of the book.
I guess this book just reminds me of The Ya-Ya Sisterhood movie (book). I guess I've always taken these types of stories to be more about the "no need for a man" philosophy than the actual friendship aspect because it's almost like these ladies become stronger by not having men (usually negative examples of men) in thier lives. It's like they're all seeking refuge from the men in their lives rather than having a healthy friend relationship ALONG with a healthy male relationship (but I guess that wouldn't make a very interesting book, would it?). Now, The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants - - that is a story about friendship.
I guess this book just reminds me of The Ya-Ya Sisterhood movie (book). I guess I've always taken these types of stories to be more about the "no need for a man" philosophy than the actual friendship aspect because it's almost like these ladies become stronger by not having men (usually negative examples of men) in thier lives. It's like they're all seeking refuge from the men in their lives rather than having a healthy friend relationship ALONG with a healthy male relationship (but I guess that wouldn't make a very interesting book, would it?). Now, The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants - - that is a story about friendship.
Friday, June 13, 2008
Wifehood--in response to Ju
I think Ju brought out an interesting point that never occurred to me while I read--that this book depicts marriage in an unfavorable light. In some ways you could say it depicts men in an unfavorable light.
But I don't really agree with that. My essay (if it ever materializes) is going to be about how this book really emphasizes how important it is for women to have strong relationships with other women. This took me awhile to learn and Marjorie Hinckley was the one who finally convinced me that I wasn't a heretic for needing more than my husband could provide. Women do need women.
However, just because the book embraces and celebrates women's relationships with each other doesn't doesn't mean it bashes intergender relationships. For example, Zack, Zack's lawyer friend, and June's fiancee are all strong, good, male characters. The relationship with June and her fiancee is an especially good one to bring up for this particular discussion thread because both August and May thought that June was ridiculous to not marry him. They both encouraged her to do so--as did Rosalee (okay, I don't have the book in front of me for spelling--if I was one of my students I would lose a grade for laziness), despite Rosalee's bad marriage and June's previous poor experience. None of the "Daughters" were dismayed in any way by June's decision to get married--they were delighted.
Also, nobody was against Zack and Lily's relationship--well, they probably worried about them a little, but not because of the boy/girl thing, more the black/white thing, and even then they all seemed to pretty much take it in stride.
Another point is that August tried to explain to Lily that T. Ray wasn't always a terrible, bitter person--that Lily's mother had a lot to do with T. Ray's current state of mind and poor behavior. She had fallen out of love with him, still married him, was a depressed wreck with him, and left him with their young child and orchard to cope with. August never allowed Lily to put all the blame on T. Ray's shoulders and that in and of itself demonstrates that the author didn't have a negative man bias.
As for August's choosing not to marry--I thought it was an excellent reflection of the time period. Men really did dominate in marital relationships until just recently, and quite frankly, if I had been an educated woman of that time, I would have hesitated myself. You were literally putting your life in your husband's hands with no legal recourse and no recourse to spiritual leaders, or probably even your family. Therefore, I can't really see that as anti-marriage so much as August making a choice that she felt was best for her.
Then again, it really never occurred to me either time that I read it that the author was in any way anti-marriage. Maybe if I read it again I might see it more, but I think she made the book pro-women with enough good male characters in it that it seemed realistic more than anything else.
But I don't really agree with that. My essay (if it ever materializes) is going to be about how this book really emphasizes how important it is for women to have strong relationships with other women. This took me awhile to learn and Marjorie Hinckley was the one who finally convinced me that I wasn't a heretic for needing more than my husband could provide. Women do need women.
However, just because the book embraces and celebrates women's relationships with each other doesn't doesn't mean it bashes intergender relationships. For example, Zack, Zack's lawyer friend, and June's fiancee are all strong, good, male characters. The relationship with June and her fiancee is an especially good one to bring up for this particular discussion thread because both August and May thought that June was ridiculous to not marry him. They both encouraged her to do so--as did Rosalee (okay, I don't have the book in front of me for spelling--if I was one of my students I would lose a grade for laziness), despite Rosalee's bad marriage and June's previous poor experience. None of the "Daughters" were dismayed in any way by June's decision to get married--they were delighted.
Also, nobody was against Zack and Lily's relationship--well, they probably worried about them a little, but not because of the boy/girl thing, more the black/white thing, and even then they all seemed to pretty much take it in stride.
Another point is that August tried to explain to Lily that T. Ray wasn't always a terrible, bitter person--that Lily's mother had a lot to do with T. Ray's current state of mind and poor behavior. She had fallen out of love with him, still married him, was a depressed wreck with him, and left him with their young child and orchard to cope with. August never allowed Lily to put all the blame on T. Ray's shoulders and that in and of itself demonstrates that the author didn't have a negative man bias.
As for August's choosing not to marry--I thought it was an excellent reflection of the time period. Men really did dominate in marital relationships until just recently, and quite frankly, if I had been an educated woman of that time, I would have hesitated myself. You were literally putting your life in your husband's hands with no legal recourse and no recourse to spiritual leaders, or probably even your family. Therefore, I can't really see that as anti-marriage so much as August making a choice that she felt was best for her.
Then again, it really never occurred to me either time that I read it that the author was in any way anti-marriage. Maybe if I read it again I might see it more, but I think she made the book pro-women with enough good male characters in it that it seemed realistic more than anything else.
Secret Life of Bees - Julia
I'm sorry, but I have to say I didn't really love this book. My #1 complaint is the negative portrayal of marriage. Lily had a negative view from T. Ray and her mother; August talked about loving her freedom more than the man she could have married; and June resisted it throughout (though she did get happy once finally making the choice). And, I'm sorry but I just didn't catch the symbolism of the whole Mary statue mumbo jumbo! Overall I just thought it was kind of an annoying book.
However, there was some great quotes that I had to share and I got some good thinking in on some subjects as well. First, some quotes:
"...people aren't meant to be overly bright in everything." (15) - - Truman G. Madsen has said, "Everyone is a genius at something."
"Children did not have two parents who refused to love them. One, maybe, but not two." (41)
"Some things don't matter that much...Like the color of a house...The hardest thing on earth is choosing what matters." (147)
"You have to know when to prod, when to let things take their course." (236) - - good one for parenting! :-)
"J.O.Y" - - Love this! The true way to have happiness is getting your priorities straight: Jesus Others Yourself
"Once you get stung, you can't get unstung." (167)
The Secret to Belonging
This book was yet another book about belonging and the meaning of family. Though it had a negative viewpoint of marriage (in my opinion), I was struck with the vividness in which the author portrayed the need to feel loved.
Connecting the bee life to family life, Kidd quoted, "Honeybees are social insects and live in colonies. Each colony is a family unit, comprising a single, egg-laying femail or queen and her many sterile daughters called workers. The workers cooperate in the food-gathering, nest-building, and rearing the off-spring. Males are reared only at the times of year when their presence is required." (67) Again, a hint of "no need for males, no need for marriage" in there; but taking that out, you find that bees work together as a family should work together. Getting things done for the betterment of the family must be a principle instilled in children. That sense of belonging strengthens as you work together.
"I wanted to make her love me," Lily says of August. "I wanted to make her love me so she would keep me forever. If I could make her love me, maybe she would...let me stay." (94) How often do we do things to "make people love" us? Whether it be in our friendships, our wards, or our own families, I think we all have a sense of needing to act a certain way in order to be loved. However, one of my favorite quotes from Rabbi Kushner states:
A lot of misery could be traced to this one mistaken notion [that] we need to be perfect for people to love us and we forfeit that love if we ever fall short of perfection. There are few emotions more capable of leaving us feeling bad about ourselves than the convistion that we don't deserve to be loved, and few ways more certain to generate that conviction than the idea that every time we do something wrong, we give God and the people closest to us reasons not to love us.
In short this is what Lily was struggling with throughout the whole novel. In her mind she heard, "You are unloveable, Lily Owens. Unloveable. Who could love you? Who in this world could ever love you?" (242) Why was she thinking this? Because she had the weight of killing her own mother on her shoulders. What a burden for a young girl to carry through her life. And yet, how many of those around us carry similar weight, for even smaller mistakes! How do we lift these burdens from ourselves? How do we truly gain a sense of belonging?
The answer: "Remembering is everything." (228) Allowing yourself to remember things - - to sorrow over mistakes, to remember the Plan that allows us to push past those mistakes, and remembering the joys that come from choosing the right and feeling the Spirit - - you can then move forward with a realistic veiwpoint of life and gain a true sense of belonging to something more grand than what life may offer. Lily discovered this truth. She was not able to move on and truly experience belonging until she allowed herself to remember, to cry, to mourn, to feel. "A wall of glass broke in my chest, a wall I didn't even know was there... [August's] hands rubbed my back. She didn't say, Come on now, stop your crying, everythings going ot be okay, which is the automatic thing people say when they want you to shut up. She said, 'It hurts, I know it does. Let it out. Just let it out.' So I did." (238) So I did.
However, there was some great quotes that I had to share and I got some good thinking in on some subjects as well. First, some quotes:
"...people aren't meant to be overly bright in everything." (15) - - Truman G. Madsen has said, "Everyone is a genius at something."
"Children did not have two parents who refused to love them. One, maybe, but not two." (41)
"Some things don't matter that much...Like the color of a house...The hardest thing on earth is choosing what matters." (147)
"You have to know when to prod, when to let things take their course." (236) - - good one for parenting! :-)
"J.O.Y" - - Love this! The true way to have happiness is getting your priorities straight: Jesus Others Yourself
"Once you get stung, you can't get unstung." (167)
The Secret to Belonging
This book was yet another book about belonging and the meaning of family. Though it had a negative viewpoint of marriage (in my opinion), I was struck with the vividness in which the author portrayed the need to feel loved.
Connecting the bee life to family life, Kidd quoted, "Honeybees are social insects and live in colonies. Each colony is a family unit, comprising a single, egg-laying femail or queen and her many sterile daughters called workers. The workers cooperate in the food-gathering, nest-building, and rearing the off-spring. Males are reared only at the times of year when their presence is required." (67) Again, a hint of "no need for males, no need for marriage" in there; but taking that out, you find that bees work together as a family should work together. Getting things done for the betterment of the family must be a principle instilled in children. That sense of belonging strengthens as you work together.
"I wanted to make her love me," Lily says of August. "I wanted to make her love me so she would keep me forever. If I could make her love me, maybe she would...let me stay." (94) How often do we do things to "make people love" us? Whether it be in our friendships, our wards, or our own families, I think we all have a sense of needing to act a certain way in order to be loved. However, one of my favorite quotes from Rabbi Kushner states:
A lot of misery could be traced to this one mistaken notion [that] we need to be perfect for people to love us and we forfeit that love if we ever fall short of perfection. There are few emotions more capable of leaving us feeling bad about ourselves than the convistion that we don't deserve to be loved, and few ways more certain to generate that conviction than the idea that every time we do something wrong, we give God and the people closest to us reasons not to love us.
In short this is what Lily was struggling with throughout the whole novel. In her mind she heard, "You are unloveable, Lily Owens. Unloveable. Who could love you? Who in this world could ever love you?" (242) Why was she thinking this? Because she had the weight of killing her own mother on her shoulders. What a burden for a young girl to carry through her life. And yet, how many of those around us carry similar weight, for even smaller mistakes! How do we lift these burdens from ourselves? How do we truly gain a sense of belonging?
The answer: "Remembering is everything." (228) Allowing yourself to remember things - - to sorrow over mistakes, to remember the Plan that allows us to push past those mistakes, and remembering the joys that come from choosing the right and feeling the Spirit - - you can then move forward with a realistic veiwpoint of life and gain a true sense of belonging to something more grand than what life may offer. Lily discovered this truth. She was not able to move on and truly experience belonging until she allowed herself to remember, to cry, to mourn, to feel. "A wall of glass broke in my chest, a wall I didn't even know was there... [August's] hands rubbed my back. She didn't say, Come on now, stop your crying, everythings going ot be okay, which is the automatic thing people say when they want you to shut up. She said, 'It hurts, I know it does. Let it out. Just let it out.' So I did." (238) So I did.
Friday, June 6, 2008
Julia's Milkweed Thoughts & Essay
First of all, I have enjoyed reading everyone's thoughts on Milkweed. By way of "disturbing for children" - - it, too, is hard for me to grasp what actually did happen during that time, but I have also always had a fascination with WWII and how it could have possibly gotten to that point! This book, for me, wasn't put on the top of my list of WWII books, i.e. Number the Stars, Devil's Artithmetic, and The Hiding Place; but Spinelli is not one of my favorite authors, either, so that may have been something to do with it. My favorite quote from the book: "When you own nothing, it's easy to let things go." (104)
Now for my essay (recognize I've got five children mulling around me at this time, but I have to return the library book today so it's now or never!)......
"You are what you are," Uri told Misha (22). Through Milkweed we learn of the desire of hope and belonging. Misha was on a search to discover himself. He starts off by introducing himself as the name given him, "Stoptheif," (3) yet in the end he still took on the title of what someone else called him, "Poppynoodle" (208). And yet through all of this Misha hoped.
Misha hoped for angels. Olek brought angels into Misha's life in the graveyard. Enos shot down those beliefs saying, "What are your angels doing for [Jon]?" (48) Then comes the conversation with Uri when Misha asks, "Is Enos right? There are no angels?" Again, Misha hoping for something that beautiful to really exist. Uri's answer struck me, "When you're nothing, you're free to believe anything." (49) Misha is starting to catch the glimpse of hope that it's up to him what he believes. Shortly thereafter he runs into a real life angel, Dr. Korczak, who makes the very stark comment regarding the orphans, "They're children...Children." (63) Dr. Korczak is first exposing Misha to the taking away of labels. Every contact Misha had with the orphans and Dr. Korczak only gave him more hope that there was a place to belong, the hope that being given a label was not who you had to be.
Misha hoped for a family. "We were huddled kittens, the bunch of us. We were voices in the dark. Often we talked about mothers. Though I could not remember mine, I had a pretty good idea what a mother was (again, the labeling). Not Ferdi. He was always saying, 'I don't believe in them.'...'Everybody has a mother,' said Kuba. 'Everybody.'" (87) Here we see the sparking interest of Misha in thinking about family, and belonging to someone. The statment that everybody has a mother gives him hope that this could be true for him. Thus we see Misha wanting to be a Jew only to belong to someone, to something, to anything! As the soldiers screamed at them the streets he suddenly felt a part of that something. "With my new armband, I thought: I am a Jew now...They're screaming at me. I am somebody." (94) To bring this closer to home, I think about those of us who try to please others just so we feel we belong, whether it be in our family, in our wards, in our schools. We all want to belong. We all want to be somebody. No matter the cost!
Misha hoped for happiness. "'Tata, what is happy?" (158) Can you imagine having your child ask this question? This just broke my heart! I loved Tata's answer. "Were you ever cold, and then you were warm? . . . That was happy." And then Tata teaching Misha that happiness is inside; again giving Misha something to hope for. This was just a poignant, touching part of the story for me.
In the end, Misha found all that he'd hoped for, in his own simple-minded way. He found his angel, his family and his happiness all through one individual - - Wendy Janina.
Now for my essay (recognize I've got five children mulling around me at this time, but I have to return the library book today so it's now or never!)......
You are What You Are
"You are what you are," Uri told Misha (22). Through Milkweed we learn of the desire of hope and belonging. Misha was on a search to discover himself. He starts off by introducing himself as the name given him, "Stoptheif," (3) yet in the end he still took on the title of what someone else called him, "Poppynoodle" (208). And yet through all of this Misha hoped.
Misha hoped for angels. Olek brought angels into Misha's life in the graveyard. Enos shot down those beliefs saying, "What are your angels doing for [Jon]?" (48) Then comes the conversation with Uri when Misha asks, "Is Enos right? There are no angels?" Again, Misha hoping for something that beautiful to really exist. Uri's answer struck me, "When you're nothing, you're free to believe anything." (49) Misha is starting to catch the glimpse of hope that it's up to him what he believes. Shortly thereafter he runs into a real life angel, Dr. Korczak, who makes the very stark comment regarding the orphans, "They're children...Children." (63) Dr. Korczak is first exposing Misha to the taking away of labels. Every contact Misha had with the orphans and Dr. Korczak only gave him more hope that there was a place to belong, the hope that being given a label was not who you had to be.
Misha hoped for a family. "We were huddled kittens, the bunch of us. We were voices in the dark. Often we talked about mothers. Though I could not remember mine, I had a pretty good idea what a mother was (again, the labeling). Not Ferdi. He was always saying, 'I don't believe in them.'...'Everybody has a mother,' said Kuba. 'Everybody.'" (87) Here we see the sparking interest of Misha in thinking about family, and belonging to someone. The statment that everybody has a mother gives him hope that this could be true for him. Thus we see Misha wanting to be a Jew only to belong to someone, to something, to anything! As the soldiers screamed at them the streets he suddenly felt a part of that something. "With my new armband, I thought: I am a Jew now...They're screaming at me. I am somebody." (94) To bring this closer to home, I think about those of us who try to please others just so we feel we belong, whether it be in our family, in our wards, in our schools. We all want to belong. We all want to be somebody. No matter the cost!
Misha hoped for happiness. "'Tata, what is happy?" (158) Can you imagine having your child ask this question? This just broke my heart! I loved Tata's answer. "Were you ever cold, and then you were warm? . . . That was happy." And then Tata teaching Misha that happiness is inside; again giving Misha something to hope for. This was just a poignant, touching part of the story for me.
In the end, Misha found all that he'd hoped for, in his own simple-minded way. He found his angel, his family and his happiness all through one individual - - Wendy Janina.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Milkweed
Despite Andrea's assumption that I wouldn't like Milkweed, I did like it. I didn't like Maniac Magee which is the only other book I've read by Jerry Spinelli. I thought Maniac Magee was too preachy and rather improbable. Of course, that was my thoughts on the book back when I was in 6th or 7th grade. Anyway, I liked Milkweed for several reasons. I liked how it always stayed true to Misha's perspective. Personally, I wanted to hear more of Uri's story but I liked how you just get the little tidbits that Misha discovers about him. It makes it more real. I thought the writing style was excellent. I really thought the ending was appropriate as well. One of the most interesting aspectives of the book to me was Misha's search for identity and how readily he picked new identities as it suited him. I think it's true that everyone wants their place, their own bit of history to have a sense of self. (Which is probably why so many adoptees care so much to find their birth parents.) I think that's part of the reason we always hear so much church history, to give us in our church our own unique identity and past and cement us together more, which I I'm sure the long Jewish history does for many Jews too.
I did think it rather improbable that Misha could have survived on his own for so long that he didn't even remember his own name without coming into contact with other street urchins before then. I mean yeah, there are accounts of feral children and what not, but living in the city with other kids around him, I don't see how he could have stayed isolated for so long. Anyway, that's my one issue with the story. I do agree that I thought he was stupid at the beginning, but then I wonder where my 8 yr. old's head is most of the time so I think it's pretty true to life. (Sorry, that was mean of me--but honest.)
And just because Leo and I have been talking about it lately--it really has nothing to do with the story per se--but it made me think of the last days and food storage and that sort of thing. Well, to preface a little there is this guy in our ward who's a little carried away with the last days and tent cities and odd stuff like that. Anyway, it was suggested that we get a gun or pepper spray to protect our food storage. I think if it came down to that, I'd hope I'd be Christ-like enough to share it. I guess what I'm trying to say, is that you never know how you'll act in a crisis--especially one that lasts for years without hope for an end, but I'd hope I'd be like a Mr. Milgrom or Janusz Korczak.
Okay, these are all really random thoughts, but it's really, really hot in my apartment and I barely can concentrate. Sorry this is so pathetic of a response.
I did think it rather improbable that Misha could have survived on his own for so long that he didn't even remember his own name without coming into contact with other street urchins before then. I mean yeah, there are accounts of feral children and what not, but living in the city with other kids around him, I don't see how he could have stayed isolated for so long. Anyway, that's my one issue with the story. I do agree that I thought he was stupid at the beginning, but then I wonder where my 8 yr. old's head is most of the time so I think it's pretty true to life. (Sorry, that was mean of me--but honest.)
And just because Leo and I have been talking about it lately--it really has nothing to do with the story per se--but it made me think of the last days and food storage and that sort of thing. Well, to preface a little there is this guy in our ward who's a little carried away with the last days and tent cities and odd stuff like that. Anyway, it was suggested that we get a gun or pepper spray to protect our food storage. I think if it came down to that, I'd hope I'd be Christ-like enough to share it. I guess what I'm trying to say, is that you never know how you'll act in a crisis--especially one that lasts for years without hope for an end, but I'd hope I'd be like a Mr. Milgrom or Janusz Korczak.
Okay, these are all really random thoughts, but it's really, really hot in my apartment and I barely can concentrate. Sorry this is so pathetic of a response.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Milkweed
Kelly, great thoughts! I really enjoyed your essay.
You liked Misha a lot more than I did. I found him really annoying at times. Not as annoying as Janina, but still annoying. Maybe this just proves that I am not a great kid person. Love my own kids, but as a general rule, I find most other kids a bother.
My favorite character was Uri. First, he didn't have to help Misha. He fed him, took care of him, and tried to keep him out of trouble. I felt so sorry for Uri when he tried and tried to get Misha to understand how to act to stay out of trouble, only for Misha to do whatever the heck he wanted. Of course, Misha had been on his own as long as he could remember. He wasn't exactly trained up to be obedient. On the other hand, some kids just walk their own way. Wyatt was like that.
Back to the point. First Uri took care of Misha, then he warned him about the train, and then, at great personal risk, he helped Misha escape the train. All by choice--there was no family obligation. Another example of people creating their own families out of a need for a family.
Also, I think it is harsh to judge Janina's mother. The uncle became amoral and denied his faith and heritage. I find it easy to point a finger at him and call him weak. However, Janina's mother was not physically strong, and she did not have hope to sustain her. I can't really bring myself to believe that an inability to hope is weakness. Certainly the flip is true: that an ability to hope is a strength, but realists aren't necessarily weak. She crumbled, yes, but she did not become a "bad" person. I wouldn't lump her with the uncle--I think that is unfair. I would, however, lump the uncle with the Jews who worked for the Nazis against other Jews.
You liked Misha a lot more than I did. I found him really annoying at times. Not as annoying as Janina, but still annoying. Maybe this just proves that I am not a great kid person. Love my own kids, but as a general rule, I find most other kids a bother.
My favorite character was Uri. First, he didn't have to help Misha. He fed him, took care of him, and tried to keep him out of trouble. I felt so sorry for Uri when he tried and tried to get Misha to understand how to act to stay out of trouble, only for Misha to do whatever the heck he wanted. Of course, Misha had been on his own as long as he could remember. He wasn't exactly trained up to be obedient. On the other hand, some kids just walk their own way. Wyatt was like that.
Back to the point. First Uri took care of Misha, then he warned him about the train, and then, at great personal risk, he helped Misha escape the train. All by choice--there was no family obligation. Another example of people creating their own families out of a need for a family.
Also, I think it is harsh to judge Janina's mother. The uncle became amoral and denied his faith and heritage. I find it easy to point a finger at him and call him weak. However, Janina's mother was not physically strong, and she did not have hope to sustain her. I can't really bring myself to believe that an inability to hope is weakness. Certainly the flip is true: that an ability to hope is a strength, but realists aren't necessarily weak. She crumbled, yes, but she did not become a "bad" person. I wouldn't lump her with the uncle--I think that is unfair. I would, however, lump the uncle with the Jews who worked for the Nazis against other Jews.
Milkweed: a few thoughts
Milkweed
“Milkweed” is ultimately a book about survival. We discover that almost immediately when we realize that Misha, the main character, has been surviving as a street urchin for most of his life. He has no memory of home or family, and in fact does not even know his name – referring to himself as “Stopthief”. Which, of course, tells how he has managed to survive. Misha, we are quick to discover, is not a normal person – he does not view the world the way we do.
Through Misha's eyes, we view Warsaw during the Nazi reign of terror. I have never read a book about World War II through the eyes of an innocent such as Misha. The things he saw and thought were beautiful – the shiny boots of the Jackboots or the flames of fire they turned on the people – are normally portrayed as the horrible things that they are. Yet Misha did not sense the horror behind them. He had to discover it. And even then, he was able to remain happy and upbeat.
A favorite character in the book is Janina's father, Mr. Milgrom. Of the adults in Janina's family, Mr. Milgrom is the one who holds it together. I believe that when life gets difficult, the true nature of a person shines through. Janina's mother and uncle crumble. Mr. Milgrom is able to share with those that have less. He is patient with Janina and Misha. He shows his true character.
I felt that the saddest statement made in the book was Mr. Milgrom telling Janina (in response to Uri's warning about a train), “There will be no train. Uncle Shepsel is right. There is nothing else they can do to us” (171). I think part of the reason there was little resistance of the Nazis by the Jews and other good people at first, is that they just did not believe that what would happen, could happen. It is hard for a good heart to imagine the depravity that an evil person will consider. I think most of the world could not comprehend the immensity of what was being done by the Nazi regime. This incomprehensibility kept good people from taking action. Remaining passive in the face of aggressive wickedness allowed more to take place.
One of the characters in the book that greatly interested me was Janusz Korczak. There really was a man named Janusz Korczak who lived in the Warsaw Ghetto. Coincidentally, there was a Misha in Janusz's life; a teacher who was friends with Janusz. In doing a little research into Janusz Korckzak, I came across this statement made by the real Misha:
" You know, everyone makes so much of Korczak´s last decision to go with the children to the train. But his whole life was made up of moral decisions. The decision to become a children´s doctor. The decision to give up medicine and his writing career to take care of poor orphans. The decision to go with the Jewish orphans into the ghetto. As for that last decision to go with the children to Treblinka, it was part of his nature. It was who he was. He wouldn´t understand why we are making so much of it today. "
Knowing this about Janusz Korczak puts a whole new spin on the march of little orphans to the ghetto, and then later, the march to the train that would carry them to their death. It is incredible to me that during such a profoundly terrible time in human history, there were people who faced all adversity with integrity. (See Corrie Ten Boom's “The Hiding Place”).
Misha and Janusz Korczak had such a happy relationship because they recognized in each other the ability to rise above strife and look at the silver lining in the dark thunderclouds of history that hung over their heads.
After the war, Misha ended up in America. He is still the same, naive Misha. War and it's aftermath could not tarnish his innocence completely. In order to deal with his experiences, he starts talking. And talking. “Then one day in Philadelphia...two women stopped and listened...After a while one of them reached out her hand and cupped my ear clump. She smiled and nodded and said, “We hear you. It's enough. It's over.” And they walked on, and I went another way, and I never took to another street corner” (203-204). This action really touched me. I thought it was wonderful that the women were able to sense Misha's need. They didn't scorn him. People need to be heard. Usually, our listening and hearing is enough for them to put their hearts at rest. What a great lesson to remember.
Although Misha had a difficult life – scrounging around for food, being locked in a Jewish Ghetto with the family that he adopted – he always saw joy in his surroundings. He was persistent in reaching goals that he set for himself. He was devoted and unswerving in his love for those he served. Misha is like Milkweed. He travels freely and is able to sprout and bloom where he is planted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
