So, last I wrote I had a handful of questions and complaints. And, well, as time passes, I'm taming the complaints, and getting some answers. I still have a number of questions, though, but I'm trying to patient about those until I see my doc for the follow-up next week.
But, I will sure some good news/answers that I have received. My biggest complaint, you will recall, had to do with ibuprofen. And, admittedly, I am still lamenting its loss from my diet. However, I have found that acetaminophen actually helps more than I'd expected. I'm glad for something to help with pain in any case, even if something to reduce inflammation would be better. To that end, though, I have also found help and am grateful for the internet and friends for the answers to these prayers. I found a web page with an article that listed a number of pretty common things that help with inflammation, namely ginger, turmeric, and rosemary; fish oil, Vit. C and Vit. E, and a few less common things as well. But these I'd heard of and figured it wouldn't be too heard to implement them into my diet, especially since my primary doctor wants me eating more fish anyway.
So, initially I planned just incorporate them naturally into my diet and just bought some of the herbs and actual fish to eat. But as the week has worn on and I come to recognize the difficult of incorporating these things into the quick diet of a breakfast on the run and lunch munched on at my desk through the afternoon, I've realized that only having these things for dinner and not even always at that, is probably not going to cut it. I hadn't made any definite resolutions with this realization, but with it in mind, when my friend B... told me about a time when she'd had an inflamed thyroid and was encouraged to take 6 fish oil capsule-things a day, I realize I should probably by some of those fat pills rather than relying on just eating fish for dinner.
The immediate results of these changes, of course, have yet to make themselves as apparent as I would like, but I have confidence they will prove for positive changes in my diet. And I'm already loving the taste of turmeric mixed with thyme. I'd heard of turmeric before, and had of course tasted it in foods before without knowing it, but I'm glad now to discover it more completely. I found, but didn't buy, a supplement that is entirely turmeric and am now wondering if that might be better than fish oil--it will probably taste better in any case, just not sure if it's as effective.
I also have to give Kudos to my mom for realizing that I was not getting sufficient vitamins and minerals in my diet, which I was kind of realizing before though not able to put all the pieces together. And well, she recommended first a Multi-Vit supplement, which I'd recently read was completely ineffective, but then she suggested Ensure and so I've started drinking that pretty regularly and found a good increase in my energy level. Way to go, Mom!
And so, now I should apologize to any of you who thought you were following a great blog about books, because it hasn't really gone in that direction, has it? Obviously, my dietary dilemmas are top on my mind at the time, and reading about these things has been my most interesting study. However, never fret, because I still love fiction, and have continued to read a healthy dose of it. In fact, if you're looking for something good, I've just finished the trilogy of the Mysterious Benedict Society and would very highly recommend it. I actually listened to the whole thing rather than reading it, and really love Del Roy's voice for it. It kind of reminds me of Pres. Monson. He has his own unique voice--you would never mistake them--but the rhythm and pacing of his inflections are very similar, as well as his having a very kind old man's voice.
Sometimes I'll write about my job, sometimes about my faith, sometimes about my hobbies, talents, miscellaneous interests. You'll see.
Showing posts with label fiction. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fiction. Show all posts
27 June 2010
04 June 2008
The Cult of the Book
In spite of the title of my blog, I actually am not a fan let a lone a member of the cult of the book. "-phile" just means you like or maybe love something, but I don't put that on the same level as adoration or worship. But I do think there is a dangerous trend toward this.
The inspiration for this post--it's something I've thought about a lot, but last night I began reading "Inkheart" by Cornelia Funke, which I've heard is excellent. But the cult came out loud and strong in the first chapter. Their house was covered with books, piles here and there and everywhere; the main character Meggie and her dad seem to be constantly reading; his profession is repairing old books.
Really, I don't see anything terribly wrong with this. But it does tend toward the border of wondering if these people live outside of their books. Isn't there also life outdoors? I guess I'm not 100% positive on any statistics to this effect, but is there any evidence that it's not just television but also reading that might encourage a lack of outdoor activity?
Aside from that, the more disturbing part (though still relatively mild) came when Meggie made a negative remark about the stuffy man who brought in Bibles to be repaired by her dad. On the surface there's nothing terribly wrong with this either. The man who brought in Bibles to be recovered might have been stuffy and unpleasant. But it's fiction--he's not real. And he has no other significance to the story. That's why I find it significant that of all the books she mentions, the one she associates with negative things is the Bible.
Of course I'll keep reading. It's not terribly offensive, just borderline. And it might have some redeeming religious relations later. Not likely, but maybe. It does stir up in my mind what I'd been pondering before--that there is this trend toward adoration/worship of books, and not just books generally, but books with the exception of the scriptures.
It's fairly common practice to include in young adult and middle grade books a character who loves reading--some promotion in one way or another of reading. Along with this, many reading advocates promote reading of anything and everything. As long as a child is reading it's great. And then as I've read on many blogs, read in the articles in that Judy Blume censorship collection, and heard more times than I can count, there's this idea that parents should not "interfere" with what their children are reading but let them read anything they want--with Bravos to parents who place no restrictions on their children and don't even give a hoot about what their children read.
Why? So of course, literacy is a concern, and I do understand that when children learn to love reading, their literacy will progress and we'll have more informed and educated citizens and this will all lead to the greater good. But everything? I'm not sure about that.
Why do these people have such confidence in the mass of books out there to instruct better than parents? Does it actually discourage literacy if parents are mindful of their children's reading habits? My guess would be quite the opposite. What children need more than book instruction is loving attention from their parents. Of course, not all parents are good parents, but still. Why should a parent be bravoed for not parenting over such a huge mass of potential influences on their child? That just doesn't make sense to me.
And why, at least in this one case, though it seems a broader feeling, should there be encouragement toward any books but the scriptures? Could it be that the scriptures would be one source that would discourage this cult of the book? Well, I haven't actually memorized the Bible, unfortunately, though I'm pretty familiar with it--had seminary and have attended Sunday School forever. But I haven't really studied the issue of books and such influences specifically in the Bible. In any case, I can't think of something in the Bible that would directly contradict the encouragement to read books.
But there is the verse in Philippians, (Philip. 4: 8) also referenced and reiterated in the Articles of Faith, that says this:
"Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. "
I like the positive turn this gives to the subject, don't you? It doesn't say don't do this and don't do that, although we do sometimes need that kind of guidance as well (eg. The Ten Commandments do have a handful of don'ts). But it seems with so much good there is out there, as recognized, if we spend our time looking for the good, then why should we waste our time plundering in the bad stuff?
The Doctrine & Covenants, though not as widely familiar as the Bible, also talks to this same point, but actually does address books specifically: 90:15:
"And set in order the churches, and study and learn, and become acquainted with all good books, and with languages, tongues, and people."
So, there you go, another cool verse, --eeh, with a reminder that I shouldn't just be studying fiction, too--learning is a great thing, but it is specific to "good" books, not just any books.
While it doesn't directly address the definition of good here, I think the context as shown in the Philippians verse is revelatory--true, honest, just, pure. Definitely good things there. (In defense of fiction--since the question of truth comes up--I'll say, in case it isn't obvious, that some important truths are masked in tales--Jesus himself taught in parables for the benefit of the people to see at the level for which they were prepared.)
My favorite verse about defining good goes right along with these, the one in Moroni which I mentioned in my long essay about what makes a good picture book, (I think the first post I copied into this blog)--Moroni 7: 12-15:
"12 Wherefore, all things which are agood cometh of God; and that which is bevil cometh of the devil; for the devil is an enemy unto God, and fighteth against him continually, and inviteth and enticeth to csin, and to do that which is evil continually.
It sounds kind of black and white, doesn't it? Just like the definition of charity is broken up into all the things this means (actually in this same chapter, but also in Corinthians in the Bible)--patient, long suffering, kind, etc. I appreciate being able to combine this verse with the Philippians verse to understand better what does bring a person to Christ. Of course there's a feeling to it, some obvious things, or he couldn't say so easily the difference is like night and day, but still. I appreciate the details.
For one, accompanying these also with the D&C verse, we know that the scriptures, although the best at bringing souls unto Christ, aren't the only good books available. And indeed, we need to seek for all or many of the good books and good things there are to be found.
And so, considering the multitude of scriptures that talk about raising up your children well, (which I won't quote because there are far too many), I would think there's room for interpretation that parents might be wise to encourage their children in reading good books. And by personal extension, it would seem that this might best come about by their own reading of good books. As my interest lies in children's and young adult books, I'll put my plug in, too, that parents and other adults alike--particularly those with influence on children---might be wise to read some good children's books! :)
So there's my two cents. Parents can be good parents by reading and encouraging reading, of good books, and promote both literacy and parent-child loving relationships. Don't you think it's great how these things can work together? What do you think?
The inspiration for this post--it's something I've thought about a lot, but last night I began reading "Inkheart" by Cornelia Funke, which I've heard is excellent. But the cult came out loud and strong in the first chapter. Their house was covered with books, piles here and there and everywhere; the main character Meggie and her dad seem to be constantly reading; his profession is repairing old books.
Really, I don't see anything terribly wrong with this. But it does tend toward the border of wondering if these people live outside of their books. Isn't there also life outdoors? I guess I'm not 100% positive on any statistics to this effect, but is there any evidence that it's not just television but also reading that might encourage a lack of outdoor activity?
Aside from that, the more disturbing part (though still relatively mild) came when Meggie made a negative remark about the stuffy man who brought in Bibles to be repaired by her dad. On the surface there's nothing terribly wrong with this either. The man who brought in Bibles to be recovered might have been stuffy and unpleasant. But it's fiction--he's not real. And he has no other significance to the story. That's why I find it significant that of all the books she mentions, the one she associates with negative things is the Bible.
Of course I'll keep reading. It's not terribly offensive, just borderline. And it might have some redeeming religious relations later. Not likely, but maybe. It does stir up in my mind what I'd been pondering before--that there is this trend toward adoration/worship of books, and not just books generally, but books with the exception of the scriptures.
It's fairly common practice to include in young adult and middle grade books a character who loves reading--some promotion in one way or another of reading. Along with this, many reading advocates promote reading of anything and everything. As long as a child is reading it's great. And then as I've read on many blogs, read in the articles in that Judy Blume censorship collection, and heard more times than I can count, there's this idea that parents should not "interfere" with what their children are reading but let them read anything they want--with Bravos to parents who place no restrictions on their children and don't even give a hoot about what their children read.
Why? So of course, literacy is a concern, and I do understand that when children learn to love reading, their literacy will progress and we'll have more informed and educated citizens and this will all lead to the greater good. But everything? I'm not sure about that.
Why do these people have such confidence in the mass of books out there to instruct better than parents? Does it actually discourage literacy if parents are mindful of their children's reading habits? My guess would be quite the opposite. What children need more than book instruction is loving attention from their parents. Of course, not all parents are good parents, but still. Why should a parent be bravoed for not parenting over such a huge mass of potential influences on their child? That just doesn't make sense to me.
And why, at least in this one case, though it seems a broader feeling, should there be encouragement toward any books but the scriptures? Could it be that the scriptures would be one source that would discourage this cult of the book? Well, I haven't actually memorized the Bible, unfortunately, though I'm pretty familiar with it--had seminary and have attended Sunday School forever. But I haven't really studied the issue of books and such influences specifically in the Bible. In any case, I can't think of something in the Bible that would directly contradict the encouragement to read books.
But there is the verse in Philippians, (Philip. 4: 8) also referenced and reiterated in the Articles of Faith, that says this:
"Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. "
I like the positive turn this gives to the subject, don't you? It doesn't say don't do this and don't do that, although we do sometimes need that kind of guidance as well (eg. The Ten Commandments do have a handful of don'ts). But it seems with so much good there is out there, as recognized, if we spend our time looking for the good, then why should we waste our time plundering in the bad stuff?
The Doctrine & Covenants, though not as widely familiar as the Bible, also talks to this same point, but actually does address books specifically: 90:15:
"And set in order the churches, and study and learn, and become acquainted with all good books, and with languages, tongues, and people."
So, there you go, another cool verse, --eeh, with a reminder that I shouldn't just be studying fiction, too--learning is a great thing, but it is specific to "good" books, not just any books.
While it doesn't directly address the definition of good here, I think the context as shown in the Philippians verse is revelatory--true, honest, just, pure. Definitely good things there. (In defense of fiction--since the question of truth comes up--I'll say, in case it isn't obvious, that some important truths are masked in tales--Jesus himself taught in parables for the benefit of the people to see at the level for which they were prepared.)
My favorite verse about defining good goes right along with these, the one in Moroni which I mentioned in my long essay about what makes a good picture book, (I think the first post I copied into this blog)--Moroni 7: 12-15:
"12 Wherefore, all things which are agood cometh of God; and that which is bevil cometh of the devil; for the devil is an enemy unto God, and fighteth against him continually, and inviteth and enticeth to csin, and to do that which is evil continually.
14 Wherefore, take heed, my beloved brethren, that ye do not judge that which is aevil to be of God, or that which is good and of God to be of the devil.
15 For behold, my brethren, it is given unto you to ajudge, that ye may know good from evil; and the way to judge is as plain, that ye may know with a perfect knowledge, as the daylight is from the dark night."
It sounds kind of black and white, doesn't it? Just like the definition of charity is broken up into all the things this means (actually in this same chapter, but also in Corinthians in the Bible)--patient, long suffering, kind, etc. I appreciate being able to combine this verse with the Philippians verse to understand better what does bring a person to Christ. Of course there's a feeling to it, some obvious things, or he couldn't say so easily the difference is like night and day, but still. I appreciate the details.
For one, accompanying these also with the D&C verse, we know that the scriptures, although the best at bringing souls unto Christ, aren't the only good books available. And indeed, we need to seek for all or many of the good books and good things there are to be found.
And so, considering the multitude of scriptures that talk about raising up your children well, (which I won't quote because there are far too many), I would think there's room for interpretation that parents might be wise to encourage their children in reading good books. And by personal extension, it would seem that this might best come about by their own reading of good books. As my interest lies in children's and young adult books, I'll put my plug in, too, that parents and other adults alike--particularly those with influence on children---might be wise to read some good children's books! :)
So there's my two cents. Parents can be good parents by reading and encouraging reading, of good books, and promote both literacy and parent-child loving relationships. Don't you think it's great how these things can work together? What do you think?
28 May 2008
Roald Dahl
Since I've just finished a little parade of Dahl books, I thought maybe I'd make a few comments about his writing.
First the ones I read over the past week or two:
Matilda
The Fantastic Mr. Fox
The Giraffe, the Pelly and Me
The BFG
The Twits
In the past I've also read: James and the Giant Peach, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, and Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator
Of them all, I would have say there is really no argument. Matilda is the best, hands down. The characters were best developed, the story line was most engaging, it was well paced and not overly didactic. It's funny to me that some critics get down on the early children's books for being didactic and remarking how far we've come, and though I haven't necessarily heard them compare the old to Dahl, I would say he kind of defies the idea of progress in that area. However, he definitely has advanced in the aspect of silliness, generally speaking. Of course Alice in Wonderland is pretty silly and so is Edward Lear's collection. Interestingly, however, neither of these earlier works is very didactic.
Well, I don't think my critique is getting too far, kind of hard to comment on the slew of them, but overall they're pretty good books. If anything, I was just surprised at how slow they were. Matilda was and I remember James and the Peach keeping up a good pace, but the BFG and The Pelly were terrifically slow. You'd think they'd be quick reads, being rather short books, but my attention wasn't as readily captivated.
First the ones I read over the past week or two:
Matilda
The Fantastic Mr. Fox
The Giraffe, the Pelly and Me
The BFG
The Twits
In the past I've also read: James and the Giant Peach, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, and Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator
Of them all, I would have say there is really no argument. Matilda is the best, hands down. The characters were best developed, the story line was most engaging, it was well paced and not overly didactic. It's funny to me that some critics get down on the early children's books for being didactic and remarking how far we've come, and though I haven't necessarily heard them compare the old to Dahl, I would say he kind of defies the idea of progress in that area. However, he definitely has advanced in the aspect of silliness, generally speaking. Of course Alice in Wonderland is pretty silly and so is Edward Lear's collection. Interestingly, however, neither of these earlier works is very didactic.
Well, I don't think my critique is getting too far, kind of hard to comment on the slew of them, but overall they're pretty good books. If anything, I was just surprised at how slow they were. Matilda was and I remember James and the Peach keeping up a good pace, but the BFG and The Pelly were terrifically slow. You'd think they'd be quick reads, being rather short books, but my attention wasn't as readily captivated.
2nd Novel
Although I would never ever in a million thousand years suggest it, I'm coming to learn that the true test of your learning in an MFA program doesn't come in the completion of your thesis, but in the completion of the second book after your thesis. I think it's absolutely wonderful to get so much help with workshops and lessons and everything on the thesis, and I'm so glad I've had the help I have on it. And actually, I'm glad too that I'll have the continued opportunity to workshop another potential novel. But as I've finished the first novel, and I await comments from my thesis advisor, I'm trying to write another and finding myself pretty stuck. I have a few ideas, actually, so it's not for a want of ideas, as I've struggled with over the years, it's getting them going. I hear Keisha's lesson from last year on ignoring the internal editor, which I argued about with her --well not really, I was just trying to get it--But now I get it! And yet, I can't get it.
Press on, I guess, right? I'm so looking forward to one more summer at Hollins!
Press on, I guess, right? I'm so looking forward to one more summer at Hollins!
12 March 2008
Writers' Tools
I'm not a big advertiser of things, generally. I don't think. Maybe.
Anyway, so I get this e-newletter Write for Kids, and they occasionally have these fun links to other things. Today one of their links was this cool baby name thing--a graph that allows you to see the trends of names over the past hundred and twenty or so years. Pretty interesting.
http://www.babynamewizard.com/namevoyager/
They also had a nice article about being humble in your writing, which was pretty good. It was speaking mostly to people who say "this kind of book was published, why can't I do that?" when the people who type x type of out of the ordinary book generally have acquired a name for themselves. But until then, just sit tight and follow the rules.
Anyway, so I get this e-newletter Write for Kids, and they occasionally have these fun links to other things. Today one of their links was this cool baby name thing--a graph that allows you to see the trends of names over the past hundred and twenty or so years. Pretty interesting.
http://www.babynamewizard.com/namevoyager/
They also had a nice article about being humble in your writing, which was pretty good. It was speaking mostly to people who say "this kind of book was published, why can't I do that?" when the people who type x type of out of the ordinary book generally have acquired a name for themselves. But until then, just sit tight and follow the rules.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)