John_Rempel is not currently reading any books.
I’m male, from Canada. I’ve been a DailyLit member since January 07, 2009. My reading interests include Contemporary Novels.
I suspect the reason is that it's considered the largest in the west. (It's probably been displaced by Atheism as first.) There also are many more 'Christian' books in most western libraries. but it's a subcategory with the others and should be here as well. Because I try to be a Christian, I feel it has no right to vain preferences over any other.
Rise to a warm day, have a coffee and work finishing some cabinetry for my house. Let my worker dismantle and treat the wood while I head to the harbour for cappuccino as I read a contemporary Canadian or English woman's masterpiece. Home to siesta. Coffee, successful computer graphic done. Off to the harbour for ouzo with meze then a good meal with my book. Then a couple beer in a well DJed bar all and home to bed.
Edith - I've yet to read 'Scenes...' but, on your recommendation, soon will. It probably shows her advanced theology as a sub-theme, rather like 'Middlemarch' and so many others. You've also inspired me to read her translation of Strauss's 'The Life of Jesus Critically Examined' which got him and, consequently, her in so much trouble.
Shakespeare because I relearned how to read in collage by reading along with the library LPs, have since bought the Norton reprint of the original First Folio and read every play and, as a result, could understand his Elizabethan English easily and speak it quite proficiently. Obviously, I doubt he’d be in the underworld, more likely the heavens. I'd certainly ask if my favourite, 'The Tempest', was his finale and if its epilogue is a personal plea, but definitely wouldn't ask if he’s gay or never wrote the play.
Not signing up for a fine book because you once read one you found foul certainly won't help you find a hundred ways that work for you.
Like most of Poe's stories this is brilliant romanticism. If you love cats and find cruelty to them horrid, this may disturb you, but do read on to its finale.
Dickens’ timelessness is a wonder. His elite had their idiosyncrasies but their methods are much like ours. Both keep control through tradition, but differ in that Dickens' authorities relied on fear while ours on propaganda partly via illiteracy. A bookmark passed out a few years ago said, “One out of 5 Canadians cannot read this message.” I encountered it in upper-middleclass schools. In ’93 the National Adult Literacy Survey revealed that nearly 25% of adult Americans with an average of 10 years of schooling had 4th grade literacy skills or lower. “Nearly half…scored in the lowest two levels of literacy…that the National Goals Panel stated are well below what American workers need to be competitive in an increasingly global economy” (Wagner & Vensky, 1999, p. 1). 71% of those at the lowest level believed they “read English well” (Kirsch, Jungeblut, Jenkins & Kolstad, 1994, p. 20). Such ignorance keeps our elite well entrenched.
In addition to Cresswga's excellent advise let me add that, when you first get it, print it and underline any unfamiliar vocabulary. Look up the appropriate definitions and note these in the margin. Finally, read it referencing these definitions. Even native speakers should do this with archaic texts.
I've taught this method to students of English as a foreign language and it works. Remember SCANNING is not reading and should only take a couple minutes. In doing it you are only searching for unfamiliar words, not trying to understand the passage.
Bye for now,
Examine the full clause, "some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only," as an intro to the next paragraph:
"There were a king with a large jaw and a queen with a plain face, on the throne of England; there were a king with a large jaw and a queen with a fair face, on the throne of France. In both countries it was clearer than crystal to the lords of the State preserves of loaves and fishes, that things in general were settled for ever."
The royalty are the 'authorities' who insisted on being received and, therefore, expected to remain in power.
Hope this explains it for you.
Bye for now,
'Titus Groan', Mervyn Peake’s first book of 'The Gormenghast Trilogy', is set in a huge castle, a vast landscape of crumbling towers and ivy-filled quadrangles that has been the hereditary residence of the Groan family for centuries. Unlike Tolkien, where darkness is a force to be defeated, here darkness is its very setting. It’s the stuff of nightmares, riddled with black humour and was not written for children. The birth of Titus Groan, heir to Lord Sepulchrave, interrupts the daily rituals which are practiced at all levels of the castle society, from the kitchens to the Hall of Bright Carvings. On the other hand, Steerpike is a ruthlessly ambitious kitchen boy. His entry into society at the same time as Lord Titus is born introduces steadily growing subliminal conflict.
To say 'love is sacrifice' is hyperbole. Indeed sacrifice shows love but simply giving ones time and/or effort also does. Sacrifice is hopefully not always necessary. But just truly asking, “How are you?” is an expression of love that can hardly be called sacrifice.
That “sex and lust play very little part in that” is certainly true, but desire can lead to love. I feel that love is the cake and sex the icing. I’d rather eat cake by itself than icing without it. However, many people with no experience of love will settle for sex as a shoddy substitute pretending it is love. Love is a learned behaviour. If one had none in childhood, their needs are too great for them to be able to give. These needs must be dealt with. That’s what friends are for, and there are no lovers who aren’t friends. But love must become mutual to survive.
I'll read 'Rowan of the Wood'.
Of course you should have them all. And everything else, for that matter, despite the recent extensions of copyright legislation supported by Disney who, in fact, never credited the writers of all those fairytales but now wants to maintain control of them.
Romance is clearly sexually driven but not necessarily enacted. I also believe it's essential to developing relationships because it’s blind. (Love is not despite the cliché.) This blindness allows one to ignore the other's faults and, if they're a well matched couple, give both the time to choose acceptance of these. Acceptance is essential in all types of love, platonic to erotic. So romance is not love but allows it to develop.
Romance is also quite a new phenomenon. ‘Love’ (i.e. romantic) literature didn’t exist until the advent of Modern English in the 16th Century. Chaucer never wrote of it but Shakespeare and Marlow both did.
Read Eric Fromme’s ‘The Art of Loving’ to get a better overview. It’s described in my book list.
Yes, A Tale of two Cities is a great read. If you found it relatively easy, try A Christmas Carol to get further into the language. Follow it with Great Expectations, which is his most critically acclaimed. Then read some George Eliot who Dickens said was the greatest writer of his time. She's fabulous. Silas Marner is a delightful allegorical novella while Middlemarch is her masterpiece.
I also found 'Moby...' demobilizing, though not due to its archaic style. I'm fine with Austin, Dickens and Elliot. Meeting a couple who were worried about 'the language' in a Stratford production of 'King Lear', I said, "Just watch as well as listen, get the story straight from the action and then read it with a dictionary." From the same time and place as ‘Moby…’ came Hawthorne's 'The Scarlet Letter' that is stimulating. It's here. Try it. If vocab's a problem, scan the chapter for it, find the meanings, write them in the margin and then read normally.
If you can read Jonathan Swift, you’ll have no trouble.
Aesthetically speaking, I judge a film on its own terms, generally not requiring it to be true to its source. Here are a few examples of films that stand apart on their own right. (I use the film titles.) 'Atonement' is one of the first films where its author, Ian McEwan, worked closely with Joe Wright, its director, to create a masterpiece. Stanley Kubrick has a history of creating films like 'Doctor Stranglove' and 'The Shining' that are superior to their source book. Anthony Burgess liked 'Clockwork Orange' better than his book, which he said, “I keep it in a marmalade jar.” Thrillers like 'Don’t Look Now' and 'House on Haunted Hill' generally transform well. My worst may be 'The Lord of the Rings: the Fellowship…' with its silly eyes popping out: can't obsession be acted without cheap tricks. I avoided parts 2 & 3. But at least when a film is chopped or a shoddy, slushy adaptation, it stimulates book sales and, consequently, literacy.