I'm going to go on a little rant this morning. Advice from a Novice part III is coming along, but it isn't finished yet, and I haven't posted in a while, so I thought I'd throw this one out there to buy some time.

***

I am really big on symbolism in writing. Fiction, in my opinion, is all about symbolism (otherwise, why would we be reading about a series of phenomenons that didn't happen, happening to a series of people who never existed?)—especially Fantasy. If you've read my previous fiction reviews, you'll have gotten at least a hint of a few of my opinions on the subject. :-)

Anyways, because I'm a Christian, symbolism is given even more meaning. The Bible is filled with symbolism, and it can be a lot of fun to sort and figure it out (*ahem* try to, anyways).

So one of the things that comes up a lot in debates with friends is the symbol of the dragon. Is it a symbol of Satan, or Christ—or both at different times? What are the Greek and Hebrew roots to all of the different references to dragons in the Old and New Testaments? If it IS a symbol of Satan, can it be acceptable for use as a symbol of Christ or Christians at times?

It's all quite confusing, and while I have my opinions on many of these things, I'm not going to really go into that much right now. What I want to talk about is one particular argument that I've seen lots of times. I'm gonna use fictional characters to illustrate. I'm even going to mix and match to create my own names for them. Be impressed. (;-P)

Evily: The dragon is a symbol of Satan in the Bible. We oughtn't to use it as a symbol of good.

Aarick: But according to 1 Peter 5:8, Satan is a lion too, and you don't seem to have a problem with, say, Aslan.

Now, here's where I get frustrated. Let's look at two passages—one from Revelation 12, on the Dragon, and the aforementioned 1 Peter 5:8.

“Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon. And the dragon and his angels fought back, but he was defeated, and there was no longer any place for them in heaven. And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.”

~Revelation 12:7-9

“Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.”

~1 Peter 5:8

Now, here's the difference. Revelation doesn't say, “The devil, Satan, the deceiver of the world, who is like a great dragon.” The dragon IS Satan. That is symbolism. The 1 Peter verse doesn't say, “the devil, that roaring lion,” “the devil is a roaring lion,” or even just use a lion to symbolize the devil. It says the devil prowls around LIKE a roaring lion. That is not symbolism—that is a simile.

Who can guess what the next step is? Yep—you got it. Hold on a sec while I consult my good friend Mr. Webster.

Symbol:

“1. The sign or representation of any moral thing by the images or properties of natural things. Thus the lion is the symbol of courage; the lamb is the symbol of meekness or patience. Symbols are of various kinds, as types, enigmas, parables, fables, allegories, emblems, hieroglyphics, &c.

2. An emblem or representation of something else. Thus in the eucharist, the bread and wine are called symbols of the body and blood of Christ.”

Simile:

“In rhetoric, similitude; a comparison of two thing which, however different in other respects, have some strong point or points of resemblance; by which comparison, the character or qualities of a thing are illustrated or presented in an impressive light. Thus, the eloquence of Demosthenes was like a rapid torrent; that of Cicero, like a large stream that glides smoothly along with majestic tranquility.”

Obviously, the two words have similarities. But they aren't the same, and the Bible supports that statement.

Evily: Well, now—that's an interesting thought. Let's follow through with it. Take a look at Revelation 3:3:

“Remember, then, what you received and heard. Keep it, and repent. If you will not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come against you.'”

Do you see the implications of Aarick's argument? If, “the devil prowls around like a roaring lion,” means that the lion is being used as a symbol of the devil, then, “I will come like a thief,” must mean that the symbol used for the Holy Spirit here is a thief. But there's something wrong with that, because the eighth commandment forbids stealing. Why would the Bible use a lawbreaker as as symbol for the One who created the law itself? That makes no sense.

There you have my argument against one kind of symbolism misuse.

Well, well, well—my first tag in Blogishdom! *Is excited* My friend Emma over at Literature and Laughs has awarded me with the “Honest Scrap Award,” and now you get to read ten dazzling honest facts about Yours Truly. Won’t that be fun?

*Taps forehead in Pooh Bear fashion* Think…think…think.

            1. I love cold weather. I love cold weather. I LOVE COLD WEATHER! It’s Fall now, and I don’t care what the thermometer says—Summer got its turn, and now it’s OVER. Goodbye. This is me, getting dressed in the morning: “Ooh, its in the 60’s! Fall! Cold!” *Reaches for Christmas skirt, slaps own hand away* “Not yet, silly. Just a little longer.”

*Huff* “Fine.” *Pulls on plum-colored, long-sleeved tee*

2. I like color in my food. Not Food-Coloring, but real, natural color. I mean, come on. A bright green salad with lighter green avocado, juicy red tomatoes, and maybe some orange bell-peppers. Put some shredded chicken on the top. Isn’t that prettier than plain ol’ brown everything?

3. I have the weirdest pet-peeves you ever heard of. For example: I can’t stand nylons, because if they rub together at all…I’m cringing just thinking about it. I can’t talk about it any more. (Same if someone scratches an itch through their clothes. Please, if you value my sanity…don’t.)

4. I have weird scent preferences too. I hate chemical scents, like what they put in laundry detergent. I hold my breath when we walk down that aisle in Sam’s Club. But I love the smell of rubbing alcohol (dry-erase markers, mmm!) and…get this…Play-Dough.

5. I have the Writer’s Itch. If I see a blank page—there better not be a pen next to it, or you might have to physically restrain me from writing on it. If I can’t think of anything to write, I’ll doodle. I’ve ruined things all my life by writing on them.

6. According to my mother, I could read by the time I was four years old. I could talk well before my second birthday, too—and I would cry if someone pronounced a word wrong. While I don’t cry anymore, I still appreciate proper punctuation and spelling. :-)

7. They say I’m a bookworm. In fact, I say it too. I never tire of talking about books and writing. In fact, I often have to pull back on my own reins so as not to overwhelm people with recommendations. By the way, what do YOU like to read??? *Look of excited anticipation*

8. I am left-handed. What? Yes, I promise not to turn you into a snail. (But I do tend to smudge my paper when I write, if I’m not careful…)

9. Musicals make me really excited. Especially when I find out that they’ve based one off of a favorite book!!! There’s this feeling, sitting in front of a live play, that just doesn’t happen with the TV. Someday I’d like to have a lead role in a musical. But there are some major obstacles to that, which leads me to my last fact…

10. I am quite dramatic. In my bedroom, that is. I’ll prance around my room and lip-sync till my face is tired acting out Les Mis songs or Jane Eyre. Even Newsies! When I read to myself out loud, accents and facial expressions are essential.  Get me in front of even a few people...and it all goes away. I’m sure it’s down there inside me somewhere—but I would have to practice a long time for drama to become easy for me.

            I still love it.

So. I’ve tried to think of interesting things that would either make you laugh or make circles around your ear with a pointer-finger. Either way, I hope you enjoyed it. Thanks, Emma!!

*Rubs hands together* Now I get to tag someone else. I tag: Shannon and Joy, since everyone else I know has already gotten it!!

God bless,

~The Rose

So my last post was a little bit short and blunt, because I'm afraid I've scared readers away with my previous long ones. I read it over this morning and it felt abrupt. Maybe I can reach a happy medium today.

Now you know about the Telling problem, so I can move on to another biggie: Head Hopping—also known as POV Violation. (POV stands for Point of View.)

There are three major POV styles. They're called:

1^st Person—Written as if the main character is actually the one telling the story. Jane Eyre is a good example of this.

“I jumped up, took my muff and umbrella, and hastened into the inn-passage: a man was standing by the open door, and in the lamp-lit street I dimly saw a one-horse conveyance.”

Notice the, “I”? That's 1^st Person. You're in one person's head through at least a certain scene or chapter, if not the whole book. You see things only as the character sees them, and you know only his or her thoughts. This style is not the easiest of the three, but it is such a good read.

2^nd Person—“You did this, and you said that.” This style is pretty hard to make look good, and it's uncommon to find in novels. I hear it's been done, but I've never read it. We'll leave that one there.

3^rd Person. This is the most popular and easiest of the three. It is written as if the narrator is telling a story about the main character. “She did this,” or, “He said that.” There are lots and lots of authors who write this way—Jane Austen, C. S. Lewis, Tolkien, Louisa May Alcott, to name a couple of examples. We're going to park here for a while, because this is where the issue of Head-Hopping rises.

Head Hopping: A weak writing technique in which the author skips from one character's thoughts and perspective to another's without appropriate pause.

I was browsing through a book in the YA section of the library the other day. The female character was looking at the male character, and she was noting the color of his eyes.

THEN, all of a sudden, we find the male character looking at the female character, noting the color of HER eyes!

This is a really confusing thing to do when writing a novel, and jars the reader from the story. When a reader picks up a book for the first time, he often doesn't care one way or another about it. He's thinking, “Hmm—wonder if this is any good?” The task of the first few pages is to reach out and grab his attention, pull it in, and keep it there. A POV violation is like a speed bump that makes the reader think, “Hold on—what? Now we're over here with THIS guy? Weren't we just...and who is...HUH?”

It may not be that extreme, and he may figure it out very quickly and settle in again. In fact, he may barely even notice that it happened. But it did. And focus, once broken, isn't as easily captured the second time.

Think of words as doors. He opens the cover. Grabs the doorknob. Opens it, and is immediately captured by the actions taking place on the other side. He's watching a...well, a horse-race, shall we say. He sees a horse he likes. Decides to root for it. Is just watching it glide towards the finish...

When he realizes that he's still standing at the doorway.

You DON'T want to draw attention to the doorway when the race is where you're trying to catch the eye.

You know how with tour buses, they have rules against sticking hands out the windows, or jumping out before the bus stops? It's the same thing in fiction. A stop can be a scene break, a chapter break, the break between parts one and two, or two books in a series. But don't get out and find another character's thoughts to hang out in 'till the bus has stopped.

Let me know how it works for you.

“Instead of telling us a thing was 'terrible,' describe it so that we'll be terrified. Don't say it was 'delightful'; make us say 'delightful' when we've read the description. You see, all those words (horrifying, wonderful, hideous, exquisite) are only like saying to your readers "Please will you do my job for me.”

~C. S. Lewis

This is one of the top weaknesses in Christian Fiction writing today. I say, “weaknesses,” not, “mistakes,” because, especially in writing, rules are made to be broken, and every great writer breaks rules. There are times when Telling IS appropriate, but in general, it's just not as powerful as Showing. Some people say, “Show, don't Tell.” How about this for a change: “Don't Tell until you know how to Show.”

You can't break a rule until you know how to obey it.

So instead of saying, “The lady was kind to me,” say, “the lady's wrinkles melted into a smile, and she handed me a plate of chocolate-chip cookies.”

Instead of saying, “He hated me,” say, “And without so much as a blink of his ice-blue eyes, he dropped my thousand-dollar camera into the depths of the canyon.”

Make sense? Try it out, and let me know how it works for you.

[Those of you who are reading the book for the first time: you've been warned. It WILL spoil the book if you read ahead. If you decide to do so anyways, then don't blame me, if you please. I told you. *Grin*]

Little Women is my favorite book.

That may come as a surprise to some of you who know what a Jane Austen/Bronte sisters fan I am. But it's true. I didn't always think so—for a long time I honestly couldn't tell you what my favorite book was, because my favorite authors were all so wonderful. Then I read Little Women again, and it was decided. That book never fails to bring a full range of emotions out of me. I always end up laughing at some point, and I always end up crying. And it isn't always at the same part. Last time I read it, the scene in which the Hummel's baby dies made me go bezerk, when it hadn't ever really done that before. The time before that, Laurie's proposal. Even though I wholeheartedly believe that Jo did the right thing.

Oh, yes. And that brings me to the point of this article. (Notice title?)

I know many people who think Jo should have married Laurie. I disagree.

Now, as noted in the title, I am only a young girl. I'm sixteen. I haven't been married. All of my knowledge in these matters comes from the Bible (through the teaching of my parents, mostly), history, literature, and observation of others—not from personal experience. I fully acknowledge that. (But I still think I'm right. *Grin*)

Jo is a headstrong girl. She has strong opinions, and she doesn't hesitate to voice them or act on them. She doesn't easily let go of them, either (Stubborn). She is very independent—she doesn't like relying on others for her needs. She's a do-it-herself person. She either loves or hates—she doesn't really have an in-between view. Staunch and hearty. Bold and brave. Doesn't really think before she acts. Clumsy, but she sort of gets over that.

Laurie is very similar to Jo. He's got strong opinions, he's stubborn as a mule, and he doesn't do a lot of looking before he leaps either. He's tired of the usual, like Jo. Wants something different to satisfy his curiosity. That's why they both hit it off so well. They're very alike, and they're equal in most respects.

So they become very good chums—and as chums they suit each other very well. Neither has to defer to the other—they can argue to their hearts' content, or run races, or anything else, without much trouble, because, as I said, they're equal.

So after a while, Jo figures out that Laurie is getting a little more sentimental towards her than she likes. She goes to Marmee.

“It may be vain and wrong to say it, but--I'm afraid--Laurie is getting too fond of me."

"Then you don't care for him in the way it is evident he begins to care for you?" and Mrs. March looked anxious as she put the question.

"Mercy, no! I love the dear boy, as I always have, and am immensely proud of him, but as for anything more, it's out of the question."

"I'm glad of that, Jo."

"Why, please?"

"Because, dear, I don't think you suited to one another. As friends you are very happy, and your frequent quarrels soon blow over, but I fear you would both rebel if you were mated for life. You are too much alike and too fond of freedom, not to mention hot tempers and strong wills, to get on happily together, in a relation which needs infinite patience and forbearance, as well as love."

"That's just the feeling I had, though I couldn't express it. I'm glad you think he is only beginning to care for me. It would trouble me sadly to make him unhappy, for I couldn't fall in love with the dear old fellow merely out of gratitude, could I?"

THEN, Laurie asks Jo to marry him. Apparently he's had it in his mind ever since he met her, but never let on.

Jo's reaction is as follows—not the whole passage, of course, but the most important part.

"I agree with Mother that you and I are not suited to each
other, because our quick tempers and strong wills would probably
make us very miserable, if we were so foolish as to..."
Jo paused a little over the last word, but Laurie uttered it
with a rapturous expression.

"Marry--no we shouldn't! If you loved me, Jo, I should
be a perfect saint, for you could make me anything you like."

"No, I can't. I've tried and failed, and I won't risk
our happiness by such a serious experiment. We don't agree and
we never shall, so we'll be good friends all our lives, but we
won't go and do anything rash."

**I read an excerpt of a book in which the author said that Laurie was more like Beth than Jo—she quoted various descriptions from the book—“bashful,” “wistful,” “very polite,” “all alone and sick.” Also, they both love music. That made some sense to me—I think he's like Beth in some ways, and like Jo in others. Anyways, I hold to my view even more with this point, because Jo leads Beth—not the other way 'round.**

Look at what the Bible says about the husband-wife relationship. Women must obey their husbands. Women must be submissive. Women must respect. (Husbands must respect too, of course.) Can you see Jo and Laurie being this way?

So they each go their seperate ways. Now let's skip ahead to Professor Bhaer. Professor Bhaer is an older, absent-minded, German professor. He's very kind and thoughtful of other people. He is strong in his beliefs. Jo very soon learns to respect him, and to hold his views in high esteem. She unconciously tries to earn his goodwill, and seeks his opinions on some things. He almost takes a fatherly role. And he, recognizing the vulnerable position of a young woman far away from her family, sort of looks after her.

“...presently several of the philosophers, each mounted on his
hobby, came ambling up to hold an intellectual tournament in
the recess. [...]
She looked round to see how the Professor liked it, and
found him looking at her with the grimest expression she had
ever seen him wear. He shook his head and beckoned her to
come away, but she was fascinated just then by the freedom
of Speculative Philosophy, and kept her seat, trying to find
out what the wise gentlemen intended to rely upon after
they had annihilated all the old beliefs.
[...]
He bore it as long as he could, but when he was appealed
to for an opinion, he blazed up with honest indignation and
defended religion with all the eloquence of truth--an eloquence
which made his broken English musical and his plain
face beautiful. He had a hard fight, for the wise men argued
well, but he didn't know when he was beaten and stood to his
colors like a man. Somehow, as he talked, the world got
right again to Jo. The old beliefs, that had lasted so long,
seemed better than the new. God was not a blind force, and
immortality was not a pretty fable, but a blessed fact. She
felt as if she had solid ground under her feet again, and
when Mr. Bhaer paused, outtalked but not one whit convinced,
Jo wanted to clap her hands and thank him.

She did neither, but she remembered the scene, and gave
the Professor her heartiest respect, for she knew it cost him
an effort to speak out then and there, because his conscience
would not let him be silent. She began to see that character
is a better possession than money, rank, intellect, or beauty,
and to feel that if greatness is what a wise man has defined
it to be, 'truth, reverence, and good will', then her friend
friedrich Bhaer was not only good, but great.”

He doesn't require her obedience, but she gives it unknowingly because of her high opinon of him.

“Mr. Bhaer caught sight of a picture on the [newspaper] hat, and unfolding it,
said with great disgust, "I wish these papers did not come in the house.
They are not for children to see, nor young people to read.
It is not well, and I haf no patience with those who make this harm."

Jo glanced at the sheet and saw a pleasing illustration
composed of a lunatic, a corpse, a villian, and a viper. She
did not like it, but the impulse that made her turn it over
was not one of displeasure but fear, because for a minute
she fancied the paper was the Volcano [the paper for which she writes suspense stories]. It was not, however,
and her panic subsided as she remembered that even if it
had been and one of her own tales in it, there would have
been no name to betray her. She had betrayed herself, however,
by a look and a blush, for though an absent man, the
Professor saw a good deal more than people fancied. He
knew that Jo wrote, and had met her down among the newspaper
offices more than once, but as she never spoke of it,
he asked no questions in spite of a strong desire to see her
work. Now it occurred to him that she was doing what she
was ashamed to own, and it troubled him. He did not say to
himself, "It is none of my business. I've no right to say
anything," as many people would have done. He only remembered
that she was young and poor, a girl far away from
mother's love and father's care, and he was moved to help
her with an impulse as quick and natural as that which
would prompt him to put out his hand to save a baby from
a puddle. All this flashed through his mind in a minute,
but not a trace of it appeared in his face, and by the
time the paper was turned, and Jo's needle threaded, he
was ready to say quite naturally, but very gravely...

"Yes, you are right to put it from you. I do not think
that good young girls should see such things. They are made
pleasant to some, but I would more rather give my boys gunpowder
to play with than this bad trash."
[...]
As soon as she went to her room, she got out her papers,
and carefully reread every one of her stories. Being a little
shortsighted, Mr. Bhaer sometimes used eye glasses, and Jo
had tried them once, smiling to see how they magnified the
fine print of her book. Now she seemed to have on the Professor's
mental or moral spectacles also, for the faults of these
poor stories glared at her dreadfully and filled her with dismay.

"They are trash, and will soon be worse trash if I go
on, for each is more sensational than the last. I've gone
blindly on, hurting myself and other people, for the sake of
money. I know it's so, for I can't read this stuff in sober
earnest without being horribly ashamed of it, and what should
I do if they were seen at home or Mr. Bhaer got hold of them?"

Jo turned hot at the bare idea, and stuffed the whole bundle
into her stove, nearly setting the chimney afire with the blaze.

"Yes, that's the best place for such inflammable nonsense.
I'd better burn the house down, I suppose, than let other
people blow themselves up with my gunpowder," she thought as
she watched the Demon of the Jura whisk away, a little black
cinder with fiery eyes.”

I know I'm quoting very long passages here, but you really have to read the whole book to understand the Jo-Professor relationship as it gradually blossoms. I'm doing my best to represent it condensed here.

“Grief is the best opener of some hearts,
and Jo's was nearly ready for the bag. A little more sunshine to
ripen the nut, then, not a boy's impatient shake, but a man's hand
reached up to pick it gently from the burr, and find the kernal
sound and sweet. If she suspected this, she would have shut up
tight, and been more prickly than ever, fortunately she wasn't
thinking about herself, so when the time came, down she dropped.”

In the light of all this, let's compare two heroes with very similar roles. Take Professor Bhaer for one, and Colonel Brandon as the other. Now, Colonel Brandon isn't absent-minded, but he is around the same age, and takes a protective role over Marianne.

What makes it so wonderful when Marianne marries Colonel Brandon, but so disappointing when Jo marries the Professor?

***

I'll be quiet now. *Grin* But I'd love to hear what you all think, because I just don't understand. I hope I've given someone a little food for thought.

Oh, and another footnote. I do like Laurie very much. I believe I mentioned that his proposal has had me in tears. It had Jo in tears too. Just because she cared very much about him and loved him as one of her best friends doesn't mean that she had to marry him.

   Hi, everyone! I know it's been a while—that's just the way my blog is going to be. If I planned to post regularly every week, I'd find myself writing rather random and sometimes meaningless articles, which wouldn't be fun for either of us. *Grin* So I just wait until I get a bee in my bonnet, and go from there.

  Well, today I've been thinking about—guess what? Fiction! This post may be a little bit rabbit-trail-ish, but I hope you enjoy it.

If you've read through my blog at all, you'll know that I like to read popular books and analyze them. With the past few popular books, I haven't been very impressed. There are a lot of themes and ideas mixed into Twilight, Harry Potter, and Eragon that I don't agree with. But especially with J.K. And Stephanie, one thing that did impress me was their writing.

And that's why they're so popular. Even many Christians who disagree with the author's worldview read and love these books because they are very engaging. Christians read them, and at the least, sort of shrug. “Oh, well—yeah, I see the problems, but I still REALLY LIKE the characters!” Or something like that.

My question is this: Why isn't it the same way with Christian books? Why don't non-christians say, “Yeah, I know they have weird ideas, but the book is GREAT anyways!”

Well, there are two reasons, and they are somewhat intertwined.

The first one is, well, writing! I've heard stories about authors who never re-write because they, “got this story straight from God.” Well, first of all, that isn't entirely wrong, because everything we have comes from God, so undoubtedly, so do the stories we write! But if I'm not mistaken, even preachers have to learn how to preach. Some Christian authors have awesome messages, but never took the time to learn how to present them. It's kind of funny how this works. The writing, story, and characters have to be the first priority, otherwise the true first priority, the theme, means nothing. The people who need to hear the message won't come near it because it isn't presented well, and the people who already believe it have nothing to gain from the book. And that leads right into my next reason.

Even if an author's writing is good, if they spend too much time trying to emphasize a theme, they are actually taking away from it.

This is really only another application of the old rule, “Show, don't tell.” If an author wants to emphasize forgiveness in their story, he or she should have their character learn the lesson through actions and happenings—not have him sit and listen to a pages-long lecture on the subject. If a non-Christian won't go to church and listen to a sermon, why would he take the time to read one in the middle of a novel? This is much more subtle, and in my opinion, more effective for a writer.

Take the classic authors, for example. People like Dickens and Austen, and the Bronte sisters. All of these were Christians, and their books definitely teach godly principles! But even non-Christians enjoy them. Because really, you don't have to try to put your views into a novel. They get there by themselves, and to try and underline them is to make them too obvious, and so spoil their effect.

Those are, in my opinion, two huge problems with many Christian authors today. I think this might be the beginning of a series on writing tips. Because once you emphasize a problem, you have to find a way—or let someone else find a way—to fix it. Otherwise it's just being pessimistic. And I have been accused of that before. *Grin*

What do you think?

God bless,

~The Rose

A lot. And it was 9:00—a half-hour past bedtime. Plates and silverware from dinner, a cutting board covered in rock-hard dough remnants, the salad bowl, at least two dirty pots, and the dirty trays we'd used to bake pizza. Oh, and I'm fairly certain there was at least one colendar to rinse out. Maybe it doesn't sound like a lot, but trust me, tired eyes make wonderful magnifying glasses, and an, “ugh,” rose in my heart.

I rinsed. I scrubbed. I wiped. I scrubbed. I scrubbed. I scrubbed. Goodness—those dough remnants WOULD NOT come off!

Well, I started thinking about the article on Willfulness I'd just written a couple of days earlier. For me, willfulness often makes itself manifest in grumpy thoughts—the opposite of a servant's heart. So then that got me thinking about Proverbs 31, and how industrious she was, and I thought: what part of Proverbs 31 can be applied to what I'm doing right now?

And you know what? That helped me. Standing there, picking the dough off with my fingernails and exhausting my supply of elbow-grease, I was helped by thinking, “She girds herself with strength—she makes her arms strong,” and, “She works willingly with her hands.” It reminded me that a virtuous woman, who's price is far above jewels, does exactly what I was doing, and does it with a truly humble, willing spirit. This is how I work my way as close to that woman as I can get, and this how I try to please the Lord.

So after being uplifted, I thought I'd share with you all, and encourage you to think about whatever task you might not be enjoying at the moment in the light of Proverbs 31.

I love old books.

I love their look, their musty smell, and just the feeling that runs up my arm when I open one. It's almost like every one of the book's memories since the publishing all wait, enclosed in the pages, and fly out to greet me at once. Yes, books have memories. Take my word for it. (I hate to think of that Nancy Drew I once dropped in the toilet by accident—it probably has arthritis now, and grimaces every time it thinks of me.)

So when, shortly after Christmas, Mom casually mentioned a box of old books she'd found at a yard sale, my ears perked up.

“What? Huh? Old books?” I asked, sitting up straight.

“Yeah. Dad doesn't want 'em—doesn't like their smell,” she replied. “I wanted to give them to you for Christmas, but he said they were too old for a Christmas present.”

I almost yelped. Too old for a Christmas present? “Where are they?”

“Under the window, next to my bed. Go take a look. You can have them.”

I immediately got up and went to the bedroom. I don't remember if I walked unusually slow, trying not to let my legs match the speed of my heartbeat, or if I just didn't care and dashed. Whichever it was, I found the box and carried it back into the living room. There were ten books, all part of a series. I picked one up. My arms trembled—or if they didn't, my heart certainly did.

“THE WORLD'S FAMOUS ORATIONS

William Jennings Bryan

Editor-In-Chief,”

it said on the cover. “Vol. V: Great Britain III.”

There was one on Rome, one on Greece, Ireland, Four on Britain, and three on America, all filled with speeches—from Winston Churchill to King Phillip of King Phillip's War.

“Dad didn't like the smell?” I breathed. “These are treasures!”

Then I opened to the copyright date.

1906.

“These are one hundred and three years old!” I gasped in delight.

I spent the rest of the afternoon shuffling books around in my room to make space for them.

Here is a gem I found in one of the volumes from America. It's a little lengthy, but SO SO worth it. Can you imagine a modern president saying these things?

EEEEEEWWW!

So. Let me specify.

First of all, I have to say that Stephanie Meyers writes very well, and her character creation is very good. I admire that very much.

Now, on to why I did not like the book.

1. Good vampires

This is the thing that I knew I wouldn't like about the book even before I read it. In my family, we don't appreciate it when authors/movie makers/etc. take creatures or symbols that have been evil in the christian culture for centuries, and make them righteous.

Isaiah 5:20:
"Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil, who put darkness for light
and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet
and sweet for bitter!"

I believe that authors are very subtly doing just this, in the way they twist the symbolism in their stories. Vampires have always been evil. I searched them on Wikipedia, and skimmed the article. From their origins, hundreds of years ago, they have always been wicked monsters. In fact, in the christian culture, a vampire can be defended against with crosses, and, in Bram Stoker's Dracula, communion "wafers," among other things. Christian symbols.
Why is it that NOW, within the past few years, Vampires, Dragons (especially dragons, because in Revelation God calls Satan a dragon), Witches, Sorcerers, and even Goblins, have been portrayed as the good guys (as our culture shifts towards being less Christian)? I don't agree with this.

2. The Inappropriate Romance

At first, when I heard about the story, I thought Bella was going to be fourteen or fifteen, so I was relieved to find out that she was older. But still, even if I DID believe in having boyfriends or dating, I would still have a huge problem with Edward SPENDING THE NIGHT in her BED with her, not to mention other major physical contact throughout the book. Lots of kissing and really close stuff. Oh, and by the way, isn't it interesting that Edward says he doesn't think that getting married would work? There is something wrong with that picture. AND, all of this is done without parental guidance, which brings me to my next point.

3. Deceit

Throughout the whole book, Bella is majorly tricking her parents and lying to them. Her father doesn't even KNOW she's friends with Edward at the time of the *ahem* sleepover. And when he comes to check on her, Edward hides until he's gone. None of this is portrayed as bad--actually, it comes across as good! Because we all know that parents are just oblivious, stupid people. Um, not. Moving on...

4. Stupid Adults

That pretty much sums it up. I HATE HATE HATE books that make the kids the savvy, smart ones, and the adults (especially parents) the stupid, oblivious, clumsy ones who have no idea what's going on, and wouldn't be able to comprehend it it even if they were told. Either that or they are evil. This theme is EVERYWHERE today.
I'm not saying that adults are never stupid, and I'm not saying that children should never under any extreme rebel against their parents, because I know that is sometimes (if the parents are going AGAINST God's Word) unavoidable. Neither am I saying that children should not be portrayed as smart. But fictional parents in GENERAL nowadays are being shown as dumb, and despised by the all-knowing children, and that contradicts the fifth commandment. Adults are, in fact, usually much wiser than children, and are given to us to instruct us and guide us through our learning years. We should honor that, and Twilight doesn't.

5. Idolatry

Bella worships Edward. She idolizes him above everything and everyone else. In her eyes, he is perfection. In reality, God is the only perfection, and He is who we worship.

So there is my Twilight rant. Please tell me what you think.

God bless,
Hannah

If you've read the last few posts of mine, you'll know that I love to be exact. I love to get the exact definition, read the exact verse, figure out what the exact meaning is, and make sure it all fits together exactly.

Today's post is going to be a little different, simply because I am discussing something that isn't talked about in the Bible a whole lot. It is the subject of much confusion in the world. Some people write long articles, going back to the Greek and Hebrew roots of every word, trying to prove their case. Believe me, I've thought about doing that. Because if I have a good reason for a certain decision, why doesn't everyone else think it's pretty good too?

The problem is, God didn't always give us exact commands. He often gave us very general guidelines, leaving the freedom for us to make choices that vary from household to household. This is one of those instances. So today, I am going to share my personal reasons for wearing skirts.

First, let's look the one verse that is the center of all of the kafuffle.

Deuteronomy 22:5:

“A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.”

This is a theme that we find often in scripture—dating back from the very beginning. Man and Woman were created differently, with different roles, and God wants them to look different too. I won't write down all of the verses that uphold this theme, because there are so, so many. I heard someone refer to men and women as complimentary. Complimentary colors look wonderful together, yet they are distinct from each other. I think this is a good analogy.

The idea of masculinity and femininity is ingrained into our hearts. When you hear the word “Feminine” what do you think of? What about “Masculine?” I'm willing to bet that they're different. In very general terms, my idea of masculinity is bold and hardy, femininity, soft and pretty.

So even if it is a general idea, everyone pretty much knows what feminine means, and what masculine means.

Another important thing that I consider is modesty, because there is a lot out there that is feminine, and not modest—or modest, and not feminine.

1 Timothy 2:9a:

“...likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control...”

Modesty is hard too, because again, mostly God doesn't give us exact boundaries.

In summary, the two general things that God does require in scripture for women in terms of clothing are modesty and femininity.

So, why have I chosen skirts above pants in my persuit of these traits?

(It goes without being said that many many skirts are immodest. They are either too tight, or too short—or both—or the way they are shaped emphasizes certain points on our figures that really don't need to be emphasized. When I say “skirts,” as opposed to pants, I am not talking about that kind.)

~Shape

I think that pants are just really hard to figure out. Yes, they can be feminine. Yes, they can be modest. But can they be both at the same time? I'm not sure.

Think about it. Women's pants are cut to flatter a woman's figure. If I saw a man wearing women's pants, I'd know it, and I'd be disgusted. So they are feminine. But in my opinion, women's pants are too revealing of the thigh/rear area. I know I feel exposed in them. So I go to the looser pants, but as they get looser, they start working towards the men's section, and that isn't what I want either. Pants are really hard to get right.

Here's an idea I love the look of, and am hoping to be able to try soon. In my opinion, it is both modest and feminine, while wearing pants at the same time.

I would get some cute women's pants or capris, and either wear a tunic, or a dress that would be too short without anything under it. I personally favor the dress idea because I think it would probably be more tailored, and there are so many dresses that are made of adorable fabric, but they're just too short! I see them all the time at the thrift store, and always wish I had something I could do with them. I can't wait to try this out!

~History

This is definitely not the first reason, but as an old-fashioned kind of girl, I tend to lean towards skirts because it was the feminists who first brought women's pants into the scene. I, of course, don't advocate pounds of undergarments and suffocating corsets, as was the style during the women's suffrage period, but nowadays, skirts are easier than they have been for a long time, and maybe ever.

As a side note, many people who think it is weird to wear skirts all the time, call those who do, “Prairie Muffins,” and similar terms, indicating that it's frumpy, and that we need to get out of the past and live in the 21^st century. I'd like to say two things. One, skirts don't have to be frumpy. Many are beautiful—and I have yet to see a pair of pants that made me go, “Ooh! Those are gorgeous!” as skirts and dresses certainly have. (Cute and flattering, yes—just not gorgeous.) One just has to use good taste and learn about which styles suit her figure. Two, about the Prairie Muffin thing, I'd like to say that, though we don't want to go back and exactly copy history, we do want to learn from the mistakes, and seek to imitate the godly examples (of course, adapting to our time-period as needed). Personally, I'd rather imitate an older part of history that we know to be a blessed and godly era, than be “in style” and imitate a culture that is becoming more and more secular every day.

~Personal preference

Skirts are pretty! Skirts flow, skirts twirl, and even if they aren't the only feminine attire to be worn, skirts in this era are a unique women's garment. I love pretty skirts, because they're girly and they make me feel like a princess. Skirts say, “Yes! God made me a woman, and I love it.” I believe that, and I want to say it with the clothes that I wear.

So, while I don't believe that pants in general are to be shunned or avoided, I think there are certain things we can do to make them more modest, while staying feminine at the same time—and vice versa—and I think that lots of skirts do a pretty good job of being those things anyways, so I might as well wear them. :-)

***

  Continuing on the theme of relating to parents...

“Obey your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.”

Right? I mean, even if that's not the exact wording, that's what honor pretty much means. Remember, back when we were little, and our parents quizzed us on what it meant to honor our parents? What was always our answer? “Obey.” And what did Mom and Dad say? “Yes, that's right—very good!”

So what's the big deal?

Let's start by flipping open our bibles to Exodus 20. Verse 12:

“Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land which the Lord your God is giving you.”

Well, it's pretty clear that the verse does say “Honor.” Before we go further, though, I'd like to look at the New Testament—for good measure.

Ephesians 6:1-3:

“Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 'Honor your father and mother' (this is the first commandment with a promise), 'that is may go well with you and that you may live long in the land.'”

Obviously, the bible connects and overlaps the two ideas. So, why am I writing this blog post, anyways? Cuz it's looking sort of random and pointless so far.

Stick with me here. If I've got my facts right (and I may have them wrong, so if someone sees an error in this statement please let me know), Toyota Corollas are cars. Am I straight so far? From what I hear, they're good cars, too. But I don't think anyone will argue with me when I say that all cars are not Toyota Corollas. They're connected; they overlap. But 'car' and 'Toyota Corolla' are not exact synonyms that can be replaced by each other always. They're not exactly the same thing.

Here is my concern. When you hear the fifth commandment, it is really easy to say,

“Sure—I come when my parents call me; I do what they tell me to do. I don't yell at them, and I don't smash their things. Yeah, I honor my parents just fine.”

My recent theory has been that perhaps it actually isn't that simple. Perhaps we're saying we know cars inside-out, when really all we're familiar with is the Toyota Corolla. So if you'll be patient with me, I'd like to explore and see what we can find on this issue.

The first logical question that comes up at this point is, “Well, what does the word 'honor' mean?”

Urgh...mmm...rrrah!

Sorry—I was lifting my Webster's 1828 off of the shelf. It's a little hefty.

Okay—here it is. I'm going to read all six definitions, so that we can get a really good picture of what honor means.

“Honor:

1. To revere; To respect; to treat with deference and submission, and perform relative duties to.

2. To reverence; to manifest the highest veneration for, in words and actions; to entertain the most exalted thoughts of; to worship; to adore.

3. To dignify; to raise to distinction of notice, to elevate in rank or station; to exalt. Men are sometimes honored with titles and offices, which they do not merit.

4. To glorify; to render illustrious.

5. To treat with due civility and respect in the ordinary intercourse of life.

6. In commerce, to accept and pay when due; as, to honor a bill of exchange.”

Wow. Let's go through those one by one.

1. “To revere; to respect; to treat with deference and submission, and perform relative duties to.”

a) To revere.

What does 'revere' mean, then? Oh, goody—more Webster's! Let's look it up.

“Revere:

To regard with fear mingled with respect and affection; to venerate; to reverence; to honor estimation.”

Hmm. Maybe this means that we should fear our parents in terms of discipline—fear doing wrong, because we don't want to be punished, or make them mad. But we want to mingle that with respect and affection. Respect ties in with the last post. Look at them, and see the qualities that you admire. My father wakes up early every morning, drives to work in the dark, spends his day striving to teach unruly middle-school children, and comes home sometimes late in the evening, dead tired. For me; for my mom; for my brothers. Is that not worthy of respect? My mother gave birth to me, took care of me, and did everything for me as a baby, stayed home and taught me herself, so that I would grow up with a strong biblical foundation. And she is still doing it—for me and my six brothers. Is that not worthy, friends, of amazing respect?

And we need to love them for it too. Affection. Hugs, kisses, sharing friendship. Folks, everyone needs hugs, no matter how old (or what gender) you are—and even if you think you don't, I'm telling you now, your mom does. Affection is all of the little things we do every day to show that we care about people. Smile when you bring your mom a drink, or when you carry your dad's stuff in from the car. Ask about how their day went. Give meaningful gifts, even if they are not expensive. This is all part of affection—and only part, too. There is lots more you can do to be affectionate.

b) To respect.

We pretty much covered that already, but I'll expand a little bit. Respect means, according to the third definition in my trusty Websters:

“To view or consider with some degree of reverence; to esteem as possessed with real worth.”

I love that definition. In our culture, even if we generally do what our parents tell us to do, we forget how much they actually are worth, and how much they do for us. We shuffle our feet as we walk by, we answer questions in monosyllables, and we don't even look them in the face. We get away from them as fast as we can, because either we're embarrassed of them, we're angry with them, or we're under pressure from other peers. Do any of those reasons look like the definitions of honor we've seen so far? I don't think so. Treasure your parents.

c)To treat with deference and submission.

Deference is like respect In a lot of ways, but mostly I think in the outer form as opposed to the inner attitude. To defer means to yield—to opinions, to their superior “rank,” or to whatever they want you to do. Obeying is very much included in this. Note that stomping off and sitting bed for an hour before doing what Mom told you to do doesn't look much like yielding—even if you do eventually do the chore. Let your parents pass by first when your paths cross ways, let your parents speak first without interruption (unless necessary), and in decision making, let them have the first say. This leads right into Submission, which is also yielding, and obeying. Your parents are in charge of you. AND they have your best interest at heart. EVEN WHEN YOU DON'T THINK SO. They have reasons you may not even dream of for making the decisions that they do, or telling you what they need you to do. So just trust them, and obey. Submit.

2. “To reverence; to manifest the highest veneration for, in words and actions; to entertain the most exalted thoughts of; to worship; to adore.”

Definition 2. is mostly reserved for the worship of God, so we'll move on—but still, be sure and read it. We need to learn how to honor God too.

3. “To dignify; to raise to distinction of notice, to elevate in rank or station; to exalt. Men are sometimes honored with titles and offices, which they do not merit.”

a) To dignify.

If you please, Mr. Webster?

“Dignify: To invest with honor or dignity; to exalt in rank; to promote; to elevate to a high office.” OR

“To honor, to make illustrious; to distinguish by some excellence, or that which gives celebrity.”

Wow—friends, this is big. It means that honoring our parents is not only how we treat them, but how we represent them to others. WE ARE IN CHARGE OF OUR PARENTS' REPUTATIONS. People look at us to find out about our parents. We may NOT

*complain to others about our parents

*make our parents look silly or embarrass them in public

*expound on all of the things we AREN'T allowed to do because “Dad won't let me.”

In contrast, we should be

*Gushing to others about our parents and what they have done for us—and wonderful things about them

*Striving to save them embarrassment on our account

*If you must mention that you aren't allowed to do something, don't whine about it. Either try to explain why your parents have chosen this position, or wait until later when you can ask them about it (respectfully!) and try to get a feel for the reasons that they have decided to do things this way. Note that it is not their obligation to tell you all of their reasons for things. But really, your parents do want you to understand how important it is, and if you show a willingness to submit and be humble about it, then often they will be more than happy to let you know at least a couple of reasons. :-) I know my parents are.

*Being ladylike or gentlemanly in public shows other people that your parents have raised you correctly. When we are stopped in Sam's Club by some elderly couple who has noticed us, what do they say? Not,

“Wow—your children have done such a good job in disciplining themselves to be polite!”

They say,

“Wow—I want to compliment you [emphasis added] on your well-behaved children. Keep up the good work!”

Even when you aren't directly telling someone about your wonderful parents, you are doing so indirectly when you behave in a correct way. Note that the misbehavior has the opposite effect.

“Oh, dear—that child's parents aren't doing their jobs.”

“Goodness—where is his father?!”

“I wonder if that girl has a mother at home.”

To quote Anna Sophia and Elizabeth Botkin (www.visionarydaughters.com),

“We can either build our parents up, or tear them down.”

God says our job is to build, not destroy.

b) To raise in distinction of notice; to elevate in rank or station

This is pretty similar—again, build them up, don't tear them down. And don't think that you can just be neutral. It isn't possible. If you think you're doing nothing and just being safe and leaving the situation as it is, the probable truth is that you are tearing down without even realizing it.

c) Men are sometimes honored with titles and offices, which they do not merit.

It is better to be looking through rose-colored spectacles in regard to your parents than to be looking through sunglasses. Don't exaggerate or tell lies about them, but if you happen to think that Mom's pie was better than all of the others at the potluck, or that Dad's chicken coop is the coolest even when he only won fourth place, that is so much more beautiful than refusing to eat Mom's pie just because it was hers, or rooting for the other coop because it isn't Dad's.

4. “To glorify; to render illustrious”

a) Pretty much what I just said. Put your parents on a pedestal; don't bury them in a pit.

5. “To treat with due civility and respect in the ordinary course of life”

a) This is complimentary to definition 3. While we shouldn't honor them to their faces and gossip about them behind their backs, NEITHER should we extol our parents in public and neglect to pay them due attention at home, in the ordinary swing of things. In fact, that would be very deceitful and DIShonorable, because it would mean that your public compliments are not genuine, and that you are just praising your parents to other people to really praise yourself for being such a good child. Obviously, it would mean the opposite. You've got to have both. Honor your parents in public AND at home to their faces. Otherwise, neither is legitimate. Don't forget civility at home.

6. “In commerce, to accept and pay when due; as, to honor a bill of exchange.”

a) In commerce, and at home. If you owe your parents something, whether it is work you were given to do, or something you promised, or what God says you owe to them in the bible, PAY IT. Forgetting isn't an option, and neither is just pushing it aside. This is a good definition to close with—it's somewhat like the rule that says, “Obey the rules.” We've been given these responsibilities towards your parents—now we need to go and be responsible with them. Act on them. Believe them. Honor our commitments.

We may point out that we haven't committed to it yet, that we're still thinking it out, or that we need some time still. Guess what? It doesn't matter. Because God committed us to it, by commanding it. And now we've got to honor him by honoring his commandment to honor our parents.

~~~

I hope this little exploration has been beneficial to those who have taken part—I know it has been to me. Who would have thought that one word can mean so much? Please feel free to let me know if you see an error in any of my points—I am open to discussion. God bless you all as you embark on this new quest to really, truly, honor your parents. I'm still working on it too.

The other day, probably a month ago, I was sitting in my living room watching the bustle of the household. Mom was working in the kitchen, and she was getting stressed about something—or lots of things. Probably lots of things. She was pouring out her woes to dad, and he was listening. Now, Dad had several options open to him at this point. He could have:

a) Answered by telling her all of his stresses, and letting her know that she wasn't the only one with problems.

b) Argued that it wasn't his fault.

c) Told her that she was stressing out, and that she needed to go cool down before she took care of these issues.

 

He could have. But he didn't.

What he said was not an unusual thing. I've heard him say it many times before. But I realized that it is not the way in which today's average husband would react. He said,

“Tell me how I can help you.”

He didnt' try to deflect the blame, whether it was his fault or not. He didn't try to hurl the blame right back at her, or at someone else. He very gently and calmly asked how he could help. And as I watched this scene unfold, I realized that is how I want my future husband to be.

What is the moral of this story? Well, being calm and humble in a stressful situation is a priceless character trait that nobody would regret cultivating. But what I really want to stress is the fact that your parents have beatitul character traits too. And some of them they have worked very hard on. I know for a fact that my dad did.

In this day and age, children are taught to see the worst in their parents. They are taught to see their silly habits and their crazy quirks and their faults, and magnify them to themselves, to their friends, and to everyone else in their lives by the way they snub and put them down. Friends, this is NOT God's plan. Proverbs 15:20 says,

“A wise son makes a glad father, but a foolish son despises his mother.”

I want to challenge any teen who reads this to look at your parents objectively. Search them, and bring their wonderful qualities to light. Everybody is sinful, therefore everybody has faults. But most people have merits too, And I am willing to bet that your parents do as well, if you will look for them. Praise your parents—to themselves and to other people. Instead of laughing and making fun, discuss what you love about them. It is one of the ten commandments, and one that I think is not brought to it's full height often. Exodus 20:12:

“Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.”

Blessings,

Rose in the Wilderness