Posted in Books
Yesterday morning, Sophie told me that she did not have a book to read, because she had finished both books that I had checked out for her recently at the library. I perused our shelves and picked out King of the Wind by Marguerite Henry, thinking that it would satisfy my little horse freak.
She finished the book by 4 p.m.
Yes, she did her schoolwork, and I insisted that she put the book down to eat lunch and to practice piano. Apart from that, she could not put the book down. (At least she didn't cry when she finished it...this time.)
I recently watched the BBC film version of Wives and Daughters by Elizabeth Gaskell. I enjoyed the movie much more than the BBC version of North and South by the same author. This weekend I purchased Wives and Daughters to read. The kids are calling it my "big pink book." It is 644 pages long and Mrs. Gaskell died before she finished it. (I hope writing such a long book didn't kill her.) The kids compared the book's size to the paperback LOTR trilogy on our shelf. They remarked that it would probably take me a long time to read the pink one. Actually, I re-read the LOTR trilogy in two days after the first movie came out. I'll restrain myself this time, though.
This week, I downloaded the Mozilla Firefox add-on called "Scrapbook" in hopes that it might help me to save and print out a hard copy of my blog. I really, really don't want to read the online manual. I hope I can persuade James to read it for me and then just show me the key features. He he. James doesn't read novels, but he has read the riveting story Build Your Own Pentium II PC.
~ 7 Comments
~ Post A Comment!
~ Permanent Link
Posted in Books
Last night, I finished reading Mansfield Park by Jane Austen. It was the third or fourth time that I've read that book.
James laughed incredulously when I told him that. I said to him that it wasn't as many times as I've read Pride and Prejudice or other books such as Lord of the Rings.
He explained that he's never read a book more than once, excepting
books of the Bible. He reads books so slowly and meticulously,
though, that he probably retains far more of the details than I
do. I breeze through books very quickly and then return to them
later, renewing a continuing friendship.
On the other hand, I
had a difficult time understanding my daughter a couple nights
ago. She was completely absorbed in the book Because of Winn-Dixie,
saying "It thrills me!" I told her that she could stay up to finish the
book as she only had three pages left. She declined my
offer! She explained that she wanted to save the last pages so
that the book would not end and make her sad. She wanted to make
the book last as long as possible.
The goofy girl still has not finished her book! What is wrong with my child?!!!!!!!!
Anyway, back to Mansfield Park.
Jane Austen had such a depth of understanding of human nature and
incredible powers of description. Her characters are usually so
complete and complex. The only aspect of her writing that does
not satisfy is the way she writes her endings. I have M.P. and
P.&P. specifically in mind here. Throughout the body of the
books, we know all the thoughts of the main character and every detail
of place and conversation and occurence, making us almost participants
in the story. However, in the end-- when the conflict comes to a
resolution, the characters of low morals receive their just desserts,
and the heroine and hero reach their final felicity-- Austen steps back
and merely tells the story rather than involving her readers in
it. It's like as if she was hastily tying up loose ends and grew
tired of the intensity she had up to that point sustained.
In M.P., chapter 17 is where she runs out of steam, almost explaining
by writing: "Let other pens dwell on guilt and misery. I
quit such odious subjects as soon as I can, impatient to restore every
body, not greatly in fault themselves, to tolerable comfort, and to
have done with all the rest."
Was Austen running out of ink?
Even though her powers of description seem to fail her at this point, I
like what she writes a few pages later about Sir Thomas and his
realization of the cause of his daughters' sins and folly:
Bitterly did he deplore a deficiency which now he could scarcely comprehend to have been possible. Wretchedly did he feel, that with all the cost and care of an anxious and expensive education, he had brought up his daughters, without their understanding their first duties, or his being acquainted with their character and temper."
A rather legalistic assessment, but an interesting analysis...
~ 3 Comments
~ Post A Comment!
~ Permanent Link
Posted in Books
This past week, while reading the Well-Trained Mind General Discussion Board, I was surprised to be addressed by someone thanking me for comments about John Knox which I posted last year after reading Story of the World, Volume 3, Chapter 2. I just checked my Word Perfect files and found that I had saved the comments and thought I'd re-post them here...
I'd like to share some of my thoughts on SOTW v. 3, ch. 2, "The Queen Without A Country" for the purpose of discussion, if others want to opine as well, but not for the purpose of starting a flame war. I thoroughly appreciate Story of the World and though I have some quibbles with this particular section, I'm not writing this out of disgust. To let you know my bias: I am a member of a Reformed Presbyterian church. Last year, I taught a high school church history class and gained a deeper respect for the way God used John Knox in church, country, and even towards developing ideas foundational to the American Revolution.
I realize that SOTW is a childrens' history and is not meant to be comprehensive, but humor me as I discuss it as an adult.
On pg. 29 it says that Mary of Guise BECAME Mary Queen of Scots'
regent. From what I've read, it was not as if Mary of Guise was
the only option to become regent. She CAMPAIGNED to become regent
and did become the regent, partly because of the *promises* she made to
the Protestant lords. At first she was tolerant of
Protestants. SOTW goes on to say that Mary of Guise was a good
regent. That assessment is arguable, because Mary of Guise, like
many politicians, broke the promises that she made to the lords who put
her in power. She haughtily dismissed them when they objected,
saying that "it became not subjects to burden their princes with
promises, farther than they pleased to keep them." The Protestant
Lords did suspend Mary from office, but with three qualifications:
1. That they still were in allegiance to Mary Queen of
Scots. 2. That they harbored no personal animosity
towards Mary of Guise. 3. That they would restore the queen
regent to office if she would show sorrow for breaking her
promises. Sounds fair to me.SOTW mentions John Knox, but ignores all of his significant contributions to Scottish, and indeed world history, and instead holds up a magnifying glass to his criticisms of women rulers. Let me first agree that Knox's Monstrous Regiment of Women was indeed "monstrous" in the language he uses in describing women. I'm not trying to get into a discussion here about his beliefs on women rulers, but I think that he way overstated his case and turned it into a general insult and degredation of women. He was a man of his times. Earlier, he had left England due to the persecutions of Bloody Mary. Her abuses I'm sure had a lot to do with influencing his opinions towards women rulers! He certainly did not treat his wife and mother-in-law with the same disrespectful spirit that he displays in his writing. All of this is not an excuse, in my opinion. I think that this part of his writing is a blot on his character which serves to keep me from "putting him up on a pedestal".
I've noticed that many men and women of God in the Bible and in the pages of history have been used by God in various ways in spite of their sin. I've also noticed that when the Bible describes the people of God, after their lives are over, it mercifully focuses on their faith in God and not their sins.
Anyway, in reading this chapter, I got the impression that the Protestant lords were scheming and treacherous, that Mary was unjustly persecuted, and that Knox was a woman-hating sourpuss. However, other books I've read shed a different light.
I think that Knox is a historically more significant character than Mary, because:
* his preaching was instrumental in furthering not only the Scottish Reformation, but the Reformation in England (Edward VI asked him to preach in England to make the Reformation based on scripture rather than just a political power play as his father had begun it.)
* He helped author the Scottish Confession of Faith which was -adopted by Parliament BEFORE Mary came to Scotland - and which 1) made Protestantism the official religion of Scotland 2) basically outlawed Catholic worship 3) defined the roles of state and church [I think that this is important to understand that the Protestants were not just renegades against Mary at this time, but their Parliament had made Scotland a Protestant nation. The Protestant nobles were remarkable in accepting Mary as their rightful ruler even though her beliefs were contrary to the principles of the nation and she basically kept breaking the law and turning a blind eye to to others who broke it.]
* He is the Father of Presbyterianism
* He was the only man who was immune to Mary's charming personality and could stand up to her. For instance, the first time that he met her, he said, "If princes exceed their bounds, and do against that wherefore they should be obeyed, there is no doubt that they may be resisted even with power." [Sounds like he is giving teeth to the principle in the Magna Carta that the ruler is not above the law!] Later Samuel Rutherford expanded this seed of an idea in his work Lex Rex. It can be argued that Knox articulated a principle that was born out in the American Revolution!
The books that I've read have painted a very different picture of Mary as well:
Mary married Lord Darnley, but their marriage soon turned sour. She began an affair with the Earl of Bothwell. Darnley turned to drinking and prostitutes. Mary's secretary, David Rizzio, was a Catholic who was hated in Scotland. He was plotting to restore papal authority in Scotland. Darnley believed rumors that Mary was sleeping with Rizzio and plotted with some Protestant nobles (not Knox) to kill him which some assassins did in front of Mary. [SOTW said on pg. 31 that Darnley wanted to make Catholicism illegal... but the practice of Catholicism already WAS!]
SOTW also mentions that Mary became less and less popular. WHY? Could it be that Darnley died in a suspicious way and everyone suspected the Earl of Bothwell with Mary as his accomplice? Could it be that Bothwell pretended to rape Mary who then married him, claiming that she had to because he had "lain with her" against her will? As Douglas Wilson writes in For Kirk and Covenant, "the nation, Protestant and Catholic, was revolted, and so they revolted."
Poor Mary? It seems to me that she brought a lot of her own troubles down upon her own head. Cough.
Please don't take my comments to mean that I am against Catholics! During the time of Mary Queen of Scots and John Knox, every country had an established church. No country was neutral. Queen Elizabeth was fairly tolerant of Catholics, but she was still a Protestant queen and England was a Protestant nation. Really, the American idea of no establishment of religion is a novel idea in history!
