Return

Hello again, friends!  I'm not sure if I feel comfortable calling you loyal readers, since that might highlight my lack of loyalty as a writer.  However, I am back -- partially employed (30 hours a week) for a pro-life group 30 minutes up the road from my parents' house, where I am living for the next few months.  As counter-intuitive as it might seem, unemployment is horrible for my productivity, so I am anticipating that you will hear from me somewhat more often, now that my days have an outside structure imposed upon them.  We'll see; I'm learning a new swing if things.  But now that I have a steady job, my days can settle into a routine of some sort.

For your entertainment, I'm going to reach back into my "Blog Me" folder and pull out a story that came up a while ago.  This story came up in a local paper a few months ago, but, since it takes readers on a walk into the past, it is still relevant.  It talks about "Story Book Land," a "children's amusement park" that made fairytales and nursery rhymes real.  It used to exist right up the road from me, but was gone before I could add it to my memories.  I do remember the talk of reopening it and wishing that it would happen.

A Vindication of Fanny Price

[Note: All links from Wiki represent one reading of Austen.  Pick up the books for the full story!]

Two smart, single young women, especially two well-read smart, single young women, will always have  one entertainment and consolation at their fingertips: Jane Austen.  I discovered this during my first few days at the College and it holds true for Shelly and me in Steubenville.  She is seeking a Mr. Darcy.  I don't have a favorite hero, but I am Eleanor Dashwood.  Shelly believes that Austen comes second to the Bible in terms of truth (there may be some exaggeration here; I have not heard those exact words from her) and was not content until she fixed upon the hero right for me.  Her choice: Edmund Bertram.

Edmund is (arguably, but this is how I would argue) Austen's most developed hero and a quality young man.  However, if he is my perfect match, that would make me Fanny Prince.

Quick literary lesson for those who do not immediately understand the hilarity of that statement.  Fanny Price and Edmund Bertram are from Austen's Mansfield Park.  Fanny is considered Austen's "problem heroine" because she appears a weaker woman without the feminine wit and strength of personality that characterizes Austen's heroines.  Edmund guides and develops Fanny throughout the novel, forming her taste and opinions.

I hope you are laughing now.  When I offered this view to Shelly, she contested it, claiming that Fanny is one of Austen's stronger heroines and that I was not doing justice to her moral fiber.  So I picked up Mansfield Park once more to reexamine Fanny Price.

I am about to write three words that are rare for me, especially concerning a well-formed opinion: I stand corrected.  While Fanny's physical weakness and her timidity make her appear a weak character, I agree with Shelly's points about her moral fiber.  Despite her natural meekness and desire to please, she stands up for what is right, even in the face of opposition from those she loves most.  Although given the chance to vindicate herself at the expense of others, she chooses delicacy and charity.  She bears pain herself, rather than seeing those she loves suffer.  She lacks the almost modern edge that attracts smart, single young women nowadays to Austen's heroines; her strength is quiet, gentle, and unimposing.  Yet it is strength.

As for Edmund, I can see the point Shelly was trying to make.  I don't have to be Fanny Price (thank heavens!) to be suited for a man who will draw out my emotions and those quiet truths I rarely express.  Because, yes, in spite of my loud opinionatedness, plenty of those exist.

The Hunger Games

On to the next work of fiction.... I am filling my break time quite well.  The Hunger Games hold the remarkable distinction of being one of the few works of fiction that Wendy and I both love.

SPOILER ALERT: Please stop reading here if you do not want to know about what happens in any of the three Hunger Games books.

Shelly lent me the series at the end of exam time, thus taking away the two excuses I had not to read them.   Within two pages, I thought, "I am Katniss Everdeen."  Then I decided this was just my projecting myself on the main character, which meant she was well-written.  When Wendy and I chatted about the books, she was 150 pages from the end; I was 50 pages.  And she told me that she basically thought Katniss was me.  At that moment, I knew Katniss and Peeta were going to end up together, although I'd been rooting for Gale.  Though, quite frankly, her eternally rationalized issues with authority are stronger evidence for our similarity than her romances.

Before I picked them up, I was worried that The Hunger Games would be another Harry Potter -- decent enough books, but not worth the hype; maybe even a little annoying.  Or worse, another Twilight -- four weekends of my life I will never get back from the land of poor writing, underdeveloped characters I don't like, and misplaced value systems (the value systems of Harry Potter are an entirely different discussion).  Instead, I found three new favorite books.

Reasons Why The Hunger Games Are Awesome:  They are well written.  They are young adult fiction and not the type of literature that will be taught in English classes in years to come, but the writing is good.

The characters are realistic. They are complex and don't behave as you want or expect.  I especially loved seeing into Katniss's head.  She has a great combination of selfless and loving on one hand, and selfish and self-focused on the other.  And she can't sort out the two.  Another way in which I had fellow feeling for her.  She also had a wonderful mix of being incredibly aware and oblivious of other characters' actions, feeling, and motivations.

The books ask big questions.  About  right and wrong in terms of individual actions and societal structures.  About personal responsibility and culpability.  The answers aren't simple, so the books make the reader think.

And finally, any book that can combine a heroine carrying a bow and arrow and the principles of MAD cannot but be awesome.

Lord of the Rings

SPOILER ALERT:  If you do not want to read about what happens in Lord of the Rings or How To Train Your Dragon, read no further!

After finals ended, my study break group embarked upon a Lord of the Rings marathon.  Somehow, I got blessed enough to have a group of friends who are also nerds and possess more Lord of the Rings knowledge than I do (I'm no LOTR expert).  And who like to talk through movies.  So we sprawled over my couches and floor, spread chips and chocolate throughout the room, and drank copious amounts of tea for the duration of three extended version films (11ish hours, over 2 days).

In addition to enjoying the movies themselves, I enjoyed watching people watch the movies.  Especially the guys, who picked up on different parts than the ladies did.  The epic battles, glittering swords, embattled heroes moments.  For the last 3/4 of the final film, I started asking myself, "What is it that makes these movies so powerful?"

I came up with three answers -- three things these movies show that our society lacks and longs for.  Actually, the movies don't just show these three things.  They are the driving themes of the films.  These three themes: Objectivism, Virtue, and Intimacy.

Objectivism:  For the most part, watching LOTR, we don't wonder who's the good guy and who's the bad guy.  Sauron is evil.  His army of Orcs is evil.  The ring is evil.  (Shelly pointed out that it presents metaphysical problems if it has a will... but that's a different discussion.)  The quest to destroy it is good.  The fellowship is good.  Sure, some of the characters are complicated and have to make difficult, heart-wrenching decisions.  But it is a story of Good versus Evil.

At one point, as an army of Orcs marched against the united peoples of Middle Earth, I found myself thinking about How To Train Your Dragon.  Percy and I saw it over the summer and he pointed out the irony of the message of tolerance (the dragons aren't evil -- they are misunderstood) in light of the ultimate climax of the movie (destroy the truly Evil Monster).  What is the message to take home there?  We find no such confusion in LOTR.  And it's a relief to find an evil we are allowed to name and to fight, especially in the midst of the confusing relativism that plagues our world.

Virtue:  In an age of relativism, we often seek and praise values.  Where values guide one person's behavior, virtues provide guiding light for everyone.  When we can sort Good from Evil, we discover that some people act in accordance with good.  Some do not.  Some, like Saruman who desired power of his own, act out of evil motives.  Others act out of weakness.  Some characters -- the main characters (Frodo, Sam, Merry, Pippin, Aragorn, Gandalf, Gimli, and Legolas to start with, along with many others) and a host of minor characters -- exhibit a conviction toward good, in spite of hardship.  Whether for the greater good of society or the personal good of a friend, these people ignore themselves and act heroically.

I found myself riveted by Sam's unquenchable loyalty, even after Frodo rejects him.  By Pippin's determination to save Faramir from his father.  By basically everything about the character of Aragorn.  By the way each powerful character stood against temptation and turned down the chance to take the Ring.  By the ways that characters, again and again, proved themselves loyal, selfless, honest, courageous, virtuous.

Intimacy:  Partway into the third movie, I mentioned aloud something I had noticed in the previous one that was still going on:  There was so much face-touching!  Everyone was touching everyone else's face.  It actually made me uncomfortable, because the people who were touching each other's faces were not close enough to be doing that.  The face-touching was the physical dimension of the theme of intimacy that fueled the film.

Most of the intimacy was not romantic.  Indeed, the Aragorn/Arwen story formed only a side tangent.  Instead, the intimacy was between friends, families, companions, and comrades.  Sam and Frodo exemplify this the best, although Merry and Pippin were the ones who nearly made me cry when, for the first time, they were separated.  Our society tends to view romance as the only locus for intimacy.  Tolkien reminds us that love runs deep and pure in other places.

These three forces are especially poignant considering that the books were written during WWII, when Good and Evil were clashing in Europe.  But I think they are things that we yearn for today as well.

More of an Idiot: On Wealth and Poverty, St. John Chrysostom

More of an Idiot: On Wealth and Poverty, St. John Chrysostom: "Yes, I have been reading lately, I promise. I just haven't been blogging... about anything.

This short little book, which I finished weeks ago, contains a collection of sermons given by St. John Chrysostom when he was Archbishop of Constantinople. They focus on the parable of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16: 19-31). Despite the fact that he was preaching to people who enjoyed their wealth (or perhaps because he was), he emphasized, in various ways, the virtues of giving up material wealth and the blessedness of the poor in heaven. He points out eloquently that our material goods came from God and belong to Him, to be used among His children, and therefore one who possesses a superabundance is stealing from the poor. He also explores idea of how God punishes and rewards people in the afterlife according to their actions (not wealth) here."

Love and Responsibility, Karol Wojtyla

More of an Idiot: Love and Responsibility, Karol Wojtyla: "Yes, I have been reading for past 7 weeks. At long, long last, I have finished Love and Responsibility, written by our late Pope John Paul II before he became pope. This book lays out the philosophical background for the pope's theology of the body, which he developed more fully during his papacy. I picked up the book because many CCMers have read it or talk about it on a regular basis, and I wanted to have it from the source. I like to know what other people know and be well-informed. So, while I cared about what was written in the book, it was not a topic that resonated with me as much as, say, Irresistibly Revolution.

The book contained dense meditations on the nature of personhood, love, and sexuality, arguing for that order of importance in interpersonal relationships. Wojtyla explains that we have an inherent "sexual urge," which simply means that we are attracted to people of the opposite sex as such. But the way we respond to this urge must recognize other people as persons. He calls this the "personalistic norm." The personalistic norm leads us naturally to love -- a desiring the good for another person. It also keeps us from the sin of utilitarianism, or using other people for our own pleasure, either physical or emotional. Only within the context of love, which keeps us from using the beloved, can we express our sexuality in a full and just way. Wojtyla also explains why the specific context of marriage is the only place where we can act upon the sexual urge without using our partner, and the way birth control stands in the way of the fullness of giving and openness that should exist in the sexual act.

Wojtyla presents a detailed philosophy that rings true with experience, but also describes parts of existence in a new way, which makes for a good read. As I said, however, it is very dense, and the 200-odd pages took me seven-ish weeks to get through, often because I had to force myself to pick up the book, knowing the intellectual task ahead of me... compared to Narnia, which I was reading on the side. However, the ideas should be spread, because our world lacks an understanding of love, and this philosophy helps clear up some confusions that we have."

Irresistible Revolution, Shane Claiborne

More of an Idiot: Irresistible Revolution, Shane Claiborne: "Let's ignore the amount of time, over the last three weeks, it took me to learn how to spell "irresistible," and go straight on to the book. This book is one enthusiastic Christian's rallying cry to return Christianity to his idea of its roots : the simple, self-supporting communities of Acts that lived simply and reached out both materially and spiritually. Claiborne organized his book half around ideas related to his vision of Christianity -- or the revolution, as he calls it -- and half around his own story, how he came to where he is now (or in 2007).

I'm having a hard time writing this review as a book review, because the book spoke to my heart as a Christian. Claiborne essential advocates for the idea that Christianity doesn't merely mean living morally as we pursue the American Dream -- it means dreaming a different driving and clinging to an alternative way of life and an alternative way of being. He describes a peaceful, joyful, Christ-centered, others-oriented, down-to-earth, idealistic, relationship-infused, communal, complete way of being that marks the irresistible revolution. Christians, he maintains, should start this revolution, and it will catch.

Unlike most of my favorite spiritual writers, Claiborne does not come with credentials -- not degrees from Catholic institutions (um, he's not Catholic) nor seals of approval from the Church. He writes playfully, yet seriously, with great emotional appeal, yet grounded. I don't know if he would have convinced me if I had strongly disagreed with his ideas. However, since I was already convinced that as a Christian I should be seeking another way to live my life, I found the book inspiring (hey, I'm not alone) and challenging (but I have a long way to go)."

Confessions, St. Augustine

More of an Idiot: Confessions, St. Augustine: "Now that I have finished this book, I can't believe how long it took me to read it. I think, somehow, I have retained the idea that classics, especially non-fiction ones and those in translation, are difficult reads. Lies. However, let me make a few clarifications. I read a 1961 Penguin Classics edition with a translation that was accessible. If I had found another version, I may have found the going a little tougher. Also, I have been a long time at reading this book. I picked it up about a year ago, left my borrowed copy at home when I returned to St. Louis, bought a copy, read it for a bit, got distracted by the Epistles, picked it up again, got distracted by novels, finally decided I needed to finish, and devoured the last five or six books.

In his Confessions, Augustine describes his story of gradual conversion and the consequences of it. He shares his life before and after he realized the Truth of the Church, with an emphasis on the process of change. His story covers philosophy, as he seeks the meaning of concepts such as Truth and Beauty; identity, as he seeks to know God in the Trinity and himself; and morality, as he struggles with the lifestyle implications of the Christian Way.

I knew intellectually that people see Augustine as still applicable to the world today, but the modernity of his questions and struggles struck me. He follows the ways of the intellectuals of his time who have twisted the way of truth to make it easier. He prays, famously, "God grant me continence and chastity, but not yet." He longs to give his life to God, but does not go all the way, holds back. And God breaks through all his opposition, partly through the steadfast intervention of his mother.

After his conversion, Augustine begins to chronicle some of the blessing which God has bestowed upon him and to meditate on some lines of Scripture. In fact, he starts with Genesis 1:1a : "In the beginning." After writing at length he moves on to Genesis 1:1 : "In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth." He lost my interest for a while as he mused over abstract ideas of time and matter, mostly because he has a tendency to repeat himself seven or eight times over in the section. However, in the last book, he writes that he does not have the time, nor his readers the energy (true!) to go through the Scripture in such detail, and he addresses the six days of Creation in one fell swoop, regaining my interest.

If you are Catholic, read this book. If you are a non-Catholic type of Christian, read this book. Augustine speaks of joining the Catholic Church, but he wrote at a point in history where all our modern denominations did not exist. If you are not a Christian, I still recommend it for an interesting theological and philosophical read. It would be an excellent book for a discussion group, because it has a lot to digest."

A Tale of Two Cities, Charles Dickens

More of an Idiot: "I have read the beginning and the end of this book several times before, but have never made it all the way through. Until now. In case you don't know, the novel follows the story of the French Revolution through the lens of Dr. Manette, who is released from the Bastille at the beginning of the novel; Lucie, his daughter; and her eventual husband, the French aristocrat, Charles Darnay. Dickens also spends a good deal of time in France, among the peasants, who are simultaneously oppressed and bloodthirsty.

I found Dickens's narration of history very hard to get through, both because it is dense and wordy and because I am not much of a history person. I wanted to take a pen and slice out a third of the words he used. Especially when he went on about kings and aristocrats and massacres and politics. Again, though, that is in part due to my interests. On the other hand, I fell in love with his good-hearted scoundrel character (a tendency of mine), and, in general, enjoyed the plot lines and the way Dickens wove them together. Mostly though, I just feel better read for having actually worked my way through the entire novel at last."

And You Are Christ's: The Charism of Virginity and the Celibate Life, Thomas Dubay, S.M.

More of an Idiot: And You Are Christ's: The Charism of Virginity and the Celibate Life, Thomas Dubay, S.M.: "I borrowed this book from a friend who is reading it as prep for a retreat. The sub-title really tells it all. Fr. Dubay writes about people who dedicate their lives to Christ as celibates. He explains it in terms of love, self-gift, and prayer, and contrasts this approach to ideas of freedom for service. He offers the idea that virginity for Christ is a radical, rich, and loving. The virgin remains single because she is completely given to God, totally in love with Him, and can't imagine anyone else as the focus of her life. He of course goes into detail and pulls on Scripture and the saints, but that is the long and short.

I enjoyed the book, but I think that's mostly because of where I am in life right now. It's an accessible read and insightful, however, if you are interested in the topic."

Anna Karenina, Leo Tolstoy

More of an Idiot: Anna Karenina, Leo Tolstoy: "In case you are wondering if I've fallen off the planet for the past month... No, I have not. I've been working my way through one thousand pages of Anna Karenina. I expected it to be difficult, but I found it much less dense than expected, very engaging, and maybe a new favorite. Apparently I had the 'wrong' translation; I found the translation very accessible, but apparently the best one has purple flowers on the front cover.

The novel opens with an glimpse in the house of Stepan Oblonsky and his wife, Dolly, the morning after she has discovered that he was having an affair. These two characters serve to connect the other main couples: Oblonsky's sister, Anna Karenina, and AlexeyVronsky, who is not her husband; and Dolly's sister, Kitty Scherbatsky, and her suitor, Konstantin Levin. These four are the "main" characters, but the novel sweeps through a diverse cast of Russian nobility of the late 1800s.

The novel encompasses at least as many themes as characters, but both themes and characters kept me turning page after page, as Anna reacts to Vronsky as he seduces her; as Anna interacts with her husband as Vronsky seduces her; as Anna raises her son as Vronsky seduces her. They kept me turning pages as Kitty and Levin's relationship grows and blossoms. Passion and love, fidelity and honesty, personal and social responsibility, faith and religion all have their respective places in this novel, along with vast social commentaries on Russian noble and agricultural life at the time.

Two years ago, I wouldn't have made it through the entire novel, but I would have missed out. I highly recommend Anna Karenina to anyone who loves reading... in spite of my sub-par post to describe it."

The Small Rain, Madeline L'Engle

More of an Idiot: "The Small Rain, Madeline L'Engle
Of course I loved this novel. Madeline L'Engle wrote it. I have read most of her novels and I've yet to find one that I don't like. This particular novel tells the story of a girl growing up. L'Engle tends to write coming-of-age stories, and all of them are similar, yet each of them is unique. Katherine Forrester is only 8 or 9 at the beginning, and the story takes up about 10 years of her life. She is the daughter of musicians and is a pianist herself. Her story covers her broken but beautiful family life, her time at school, and her experiences with all kinds of love.

This story was a quick read, fun and tragic by turns. I especially enjoyed the ending, because L'Engle tends not to tidy up too much at the end of novels. I can't think of much to say about it, other than that I highly enjoyed it and have checked out the next novel in which the main character appears."

King Lear, William Shakespeare

More of an Idiot: King Lear, William Shakespeare: "Spoiler Alert: Everybody dies.

Believe it or not, there is a shocking amount of good English major lit out there that I just haven't read. I am remedying this defect, and King Lear is part of my solution.

It is a Shakespearean tragedy, so I came in knowing that pretty much everyone dies. Because it is about a father and his three daughters, most of the characters are related, which makes the disregard and cruelty with which they treat each other even more poignant. I enjoyed the twists that it took to get from the beginning to the point where everyone dies, even if the original premise made the story a little unbelievable. The entire conflict hinges on King Lear's making his three daughters give public speeches about their love for him and his youngest daughter's refusal, despite her deep love for him. Being a tragedy, it goes downhill from there. Being Shakespeare, there are a lot of disguises and tricks thrown into the story, plus a few good storms and failed suicide attempts.

My favorite character was the Fool, who offered an alternately nonsensical and wise counterpoints to the suffering throughout the play, following Lear in his exile. And of course, I loved the language of the play. That's why I read Shakespeare."

Wuthering Heights, Emily Bronte

More of an Idiot: Wuthering Heights, Emily Bronte: "Yes, I am fairly certain that most, if not all, of my fellow-bloggers have read this novel, and I hope a good chunk of my readership as well. I am also fairly certain that almost everyone who reads this novel develops a strong opinion of it, and I might be risking my often-in-jeopardy literary neck by offering my own view. But here goes.

First, in case you haven't read it, Wuthering Heights picks up the age-old question of nature-versus-nurture in the form of several very twisted love stories. The action centers around Heathcliff, a foundling child of mixed race, who enters the Earnshaw household. The older sibling, Hindley Earnshaw, hates him; Catherine, the younger, loves him. However, for various reasons, she chooses not to marry him, but the pretty-boy Edgar Linton instead. From there, the novel spirals into Heathcliff's elaborate machinations of vengeance.

I'm not sure what Bronte was thinking when she wrote the novel, but the narrative point of view is unusual, to say the least. A complete outsider (Lockwood) narrates the novel, but the housekeeper tells him the story that really constitutes the plot. However, she did not witness every event in the story, so she gives Lockwood long monologues from other characters... It is story veiled in story veiled in story and presents the dilemma of the unreliable narrator ad absurdum.

I don't like stories told through third-party narrators. I don't like stories where I don't identify with, like, or respect any of the characters. I don't like stories about hatred or vengeance. And if I picked some adjectives to describe the novel, they would be dark, twisted, annoying, and boring. So, logically, I should really hate Wuthering Heights. Yet, I don't. I enjoyed it the first time I read it, four years ago, and I enjoyed it this time, and I have no idea why."

On Writing, Stephen King

More of an Idiot: On Writing, Stephen King: "My little sister loaned me this book, and I am very upset about having to give it back. Stephen King abandoned horror fiction for the length of one book to write about writing. His detour resulted in an accessible, fun-to-read book that covers a variety of topics. The book is part autobiography, part grammar and stylistic lesson, part rant on pet-peeves, and part advice to aspiring writers.

Having read it, I am disappointed that King writes in a genre that I don't enjoy, because I enjoyed his writing and wanted to read more than this short book. He didn't give any advice that I haven't heard, but he wrote it in a way that I liked to hear. If you write fiction, you should read this book; it is inspiring, entertaining, and helpful, a pretty good combination of traits."

Thursday Next Series, Jasper Fforde

More of an Idiot: Thursday Next Series, Jasper Fforde: "I decided to wait and post about this series in one entry. Fforde wrote four books about his 'literary detective' heroine, Thursday Next: The Eyre Affair, Lost in a Good Book, The Well of Lost Plots, and Something Rotten. They are set in England in a world that might-have-been, if Winston Churchill had not carried England through the Second World War.

Thursday, a Special Operations agent of the Literary Detectives, spends most of her days searching out forged Miltons and keeping Marlovites (those who think Marlowe penned Shakespeare's plays) from rioting. Then an operative from a high unit of Special Operations comes to seek her help. Acheron Hades, the archnemesis of the world as his name might imply, is plotting evil things, and Thursday can recognize him since he once was her professor. As events unroll, Hades and Thursday discover a way to travel into books, a feat Hades uses to blackmail the world when he threatens harm to Jane Eyre and Thursday uses to pursue Hades.

And that's just the first book. In subsequent books, Thursday battles more of the Hades clan (their names are Cocytus, Phlegethon, Lethe, Styx, and Aornis) and goes head-to-head with her country's personal evil corporation. She ends up living inside Book World, a complex fictional society where characters live and new stories are created. Ultimately, she has to save the real world from threats of its own and characters from the Book World.

Fforde creates an alternate England that provides a hilarious, witty, and sometimes scathing critique of the modern world. He throws in time travel, re-engineered extinct species, and full contact croquet just for the fun of it, and his novels are fun. However, I found his long sojourn to Book World very tedious. He creates a detailed set of rules and mores for his fictional world that fall flat after reading the parts that take place in the modern world. They tested the bounds of belief and were not always internally consistent. And, frankly, I ultimately did not care about the complexities of Book World. I wanted Next to get on with her life in the real world.

Still, I think this series (or at least the first one) is a must-read for any English nerd. How can you turn down a novel with Shakespeare vending machines?"

My Weakness

In case you are wondering, I am now at home. My time here is spent with family and friends, cooking, and sorting through the boxes that I shoved in the basement when I moved home from college and promptly forgot. Now that I am moving once more, I want to make sure I know the difference between the things I need with me, the things I want with me, the things I want to keep but not move, and the things I can give or throw away.

In my boxes, I have discovered one of the things I gave up as a part of simple living : the books I own. I only let myself bring a few books to St. Louis with me (I think 3) and now I am unearthing the beginnings of a fantastic library. English majors end up with good books, such as Austen, James, Shakespeare, Bronte (both), Faulkner, Frost, Plath, and anthologies ad nauseum. Sociology majors acquire more non-fiction, but I found familiar names such as Peggy Levitt and Leo Chavez. And then there are the old friends that I have met on my own -- Robin McKinley, C.S. Lewis, Harper Lee, Madeline L'Engle, Sandra Cisneros, Catullus, Emily Dickinson -- plus a thesaurus, a name dictionary, the Catechism, a Spanish dictionary...

I have too many books to bring with me every time I move, but they make me really look forward to a day when I am settled somewhere. I want a Beauty and the Beast -esque library with books from floor to ceiling, and it looks like I have a pretty good start. However, now that I am not in a community dedicated to simply living and a place where I will have to fly or ship books home, I find self-control harder. I have a hunch I am going to bring way too many books with me to my next stage of life.

The Book Thief, Markus Zusak

More of an Idiot: The Book Thief, Markus Zusak: "I should maybe leave this book to Susan, because she recommended it to me. However, I just finished it and have quickly added it to my favorite books.

The Book Thief tells the story of Liesel Meminger, a young girl living with foster parents in Nazi Germany. She cannot read at the beginning of the book, but slowly falls in love with words through the people closest to her. And these people offer different revelations about life, death, morality, obligation, love, and what it means to be human -- against the backdrop of one of the most inhumane times in history.

Zusak chose Death as his narrator, a character who has the dubious privilege of seeing much of Europe during the time of the book. This narrator places Liesel's story in a horrific historical context. At the same time, he keeps the story focused on, and revolving around, Liesel. Zusak's richness of metaphor and unique use of language fit both his narrator and his main character very well. Death is a straightforward narrator with an outside-of-human perspective on his subject matter.

Despite this understatement, the story loses nothing of the horrors of the time. Somehow, Zusak keeps a childlike tone to his narration, so that people like me, who are chased off by too dark subject matter, still enjoy it. The story made me cry without depressing me. It offered no false hope, but did not crush characters or readers. It is brilliant.

Other than that, all I have to say is, you should read it."

Helena, Evelyn Waugh

More of an Idiot: Helena, Evelyn Waugh: "Helena, Evelyn Waugh
Once again, I chose a book based on recommendation. I opened it in the library to see if I could figure out the basic plot line (I don't like to jump into a book unless I know this) and sat on the floor reading the first five or ten pages. Needless to say, that recommended it to me.

Helena tells the story of St. Helena from a half-fictional, half-historical perspective. St. Helena is the mother of Constantine, the Roman emperor who legalized Christianity. She is famous for being pious, establishing churches, and supposedly discovering the true Cross. Not much is known about her background or her relationship with Constantius, the father of Constantine.

Waugh takes liberty in creating a vivid young Helena on the British Isles who falls in love with the adventures she hopes to find as the wife of Constantius. I felt like I knew Helena through her early marriage, the birth of her son, and even up through her divorce. Then, abruptly, the tone shifts. Waugh steps away from Helena. I spent most of the novel anticipating the story of her conversion because she spends so much of the novel seeking. Waugh simply slipped in her conversion as a side note, rather than a major part of the story. I never quite got over that, even though he brought the narration back into her character for a while.

Waugh also has a habit of slipping occasionally from the concrete into heavily abstract language that, quite frankly, lost my attention. Other than these few passages, however, I enjoyed his writing. Like the first five or ten pages, the novel read smoothly and kept me reading. I just had to see it as a novel about a girl from Britain who marries a great Roman and gives birth to a greater one, not as the story of a saint that I expected."

Snow White and Rose Red, Patricia C. Wrede

More of an Idiot: Snow White and Rose Red, Patricia C. Wrede: "As I was searching the children's section for Briar Rose, I stumbled upon a few books I had not read by Patricia C. Wrede. Wrede writes fun young adult books, full of magic, confusion, and spunky heroines. Being in the mood for fun and not too much thought, I picked up another book in the Fairy Tale series of Briar Rose, Snow White and Red Rose.

Snow White and Red Rose is not the same fairy tale as Snow White and the Seven Dwarves. So I didn't actually know the fairy tale of the book. Wrede interspersed bits of the fairy tale with her story, so that I read it slowly throughout the novel, but I think part of the joy of the story was lost on me.

The novel is set in Elizabethan England, in a world that combines traditional idea of Faerie with a historical fear of witchcraft. Two girls and their mother get inadvertently involved in a vortex of human wizardry and Faerie drama. Wrede uses rather Shakespearean language (this is the only place I've read 'an' to mean 'if' outside of the Bard), which jarred with her accessible prose at first. Once I got past it, I enjoyed the novel, from an 'I want something simple and engrossing to take my mind off the housing hunt' perspective."