The Great Tolkien Debate

via tumblr

I've spent the last half-hour reading Christopher Tolkien's opinion on the LOTR movies, and then a bunch of comments.  [Note: if you don't want your faith in humanity destroyed, don't read comments.  Ever.]  So now of course I've got to give my opinion.

First, to the commenters (who obviously aren't reading this...): have some respect.  Christopher Tolkien was extremely close to his father and made maps, advised, and acted as his copyist for years.  The man knows what he's talking about.  He's the next-best thing to having Tolkien himself available for criticism.  (Tolkien père would probably have been much more communicative and explanatory, but that's beside the point.)  And Christopher Tolkien is eighty-seven years old.  You can't expect him to be either active in the LOTR phenomenon or accepting of changes to his father's beloved work.

At any rate, in principle I agree with Christopher Tolkien.  There is a great "chasm between the beauty and seriousness of the work, and what it has become."  The changes and many of the choices made by Peter Jackson do make a Tolkien purist, or anyone who understands his vision of his works, cringe.   

However.  First of all, one cannot expect perfection, least of all from Hollywood. Also, there is a huge gap between the culture of the era in which the books were written (and hence Christopher Tolkien's era) and modern culture of the era in which the films are made. I think it would probably be literally impossible to make a film that grasped Tolkien's ideas, was accurate as to characterization and events, was stylistically accurate, and didn't leave anything out.  Peter Jackson is guilty on multiple counts, but he did get some things right - sometimes amazingly right.  Considering what he was up against, he did a fairly good job.  Sometimes.  Agh, I don't know.  It is very confusing.  And I actually haven't even seen The Return of the King.  Anyway, what I wanted to say is that the films, in and of themselves, are gorgeous, glorious works of fantasy.  It's just when you compare them to the books that you run into issues.  But of course, every bookworm knows the maxim that the book is always better than the movie.
 (Note: now I feel a slight bit guilty for my positive-ish review of The Hobbit.)

So yes, Christopher Tolkien is right in condemning the film franchise's deviations, but I think that if you realize that the films are flawed (and make sure you don't get too wrapped up in them), you're fine.

Just in case anyone was wondering, yes, I have had a slight (oh, very slight) relapse into active Tolkien fangirling.  It has to do with reading The Silmarillion and seeing a certain independent film which I shall post about another time.

So, comment and give me your opinion on the LOTR books-vs-movies debate.  I love to discuss these things and hear others' opinions.

Don't Be Alone

via

I'm not really sure if I'm an introvert or not.  I do spend a lot of time alone, I need my space, and I don't like noise or large crowds, but on the other hand, I can definitely be a chatterbox and if I don't see anyone for too long I turn into a mushy mess of self-pitying loneliness. Introvert or not, we all need people - not just to make us happy, but to show us ourselves.   I know that sounds a bit pretentious and silly, but really.  We think we know ourselves best, that others don't understand us.  In reality, other people see things about us that we miss - quite often, unpleasant things that we shut our eyes to.  I think that when we spend too much time alone, we start to think that we're the best thing in creation.  Living in your own mind, you get all wrapped up in yourself, your preferences, your thought processes, which is nearly always bad.  I know that personally, when I spend too much time alone I start to think that I'm this extraordinarily superior, intelligent being, forced to suffer through the inferiority of a mundane, unintelligent world.  (That sentence would have been more effective if you could have heard the way my mental voice said it...)  When I go out among other people, though, all of a sudden I realize that I'm a normal person, not as smart as I could be, with plenty of annoying qualities and issues just like everyone else. Society (of the right kind) is quite humbling.


So basically, what I'm trying to say is don't be alone.  Not all the time.  I do not, of course, recommend a whirlwind of social events - indeed, I'm a firm believer in the value of quiet - but make sure you're not always alone.  It's especially easy (and tempting) to be too much alone in this day and age, with our iPods and laptops and whatever other gadgets we've got now.   But don't do it.  Call up a friend and make a date, help your mom make dinner,  hang around after church, whatever it takes.  Heck, sit in a mall and people-watch, if you have to.  But don't be alone.

via

A Ramble-y Post on *The Scarlet Letter*

 People.  This book.  I thought I was going to hate it, but I don't.  It's full of interestingness and ideas and STUFF, which I will now proceed to ramble about.  Oh, and I must put out a major spoiler alert.  Don't say I didn't warn you.  You won't understand what I'm talking about, if you haven't read the book, by the way, because I'm not going to explain who or what I'm discussing.  I have to do that all the time in real life, and I very much dislike it.

First of all, The Scarlet Letter made me very grateful to be a Catholic.  Catholic confession would have been the saving of Dimmesdale!  He wouldn't have had to struggle with all that guilt and hypocrisy, because his sin would have been cleansed by the sacrament of Penance.  But no, he was a Puritan, and so he had to struggle with his guilt and try to avenge it on his own.  I do feel very, very sorry for him, even if he was a spineless jerk most of the time.  But shame is a horrible thing to bear.  It's not even explainable, it's so ghastly.  So I feel for Dimmesdale, and I wish I could hop in a TARDIS or something and bring him a Catholic priest.  (Do TARDISes go to fiction?  I'm not very well-versed in Who-ology.)  I did like that the author had confession (in a general way) be essential to Dimmesdale's redemption.  Hawthorne didn't just have him say "oh, in my heart I'm sorry for this, and that's all it takes so everything's fine now.  Glory hallelujah."  Also, the author didn't make excuses for the sin.  I mean, the whole book is about the consequences of a couple's adultery.

Random point #2: Pearl scares me.  I know she's supposed to be the living incarnation of her parents' sin and their punishment, but the girl is freaky.  You have no idea how relieved I was to find out that she was "humanized by sorrow" and eventually married and had a child.  I would have liked to see what she was like after her "transformation."  Too bad Nathaniel Hawthorne is dead.  A Pearl-centered sequel would have been interesting.

Speaking of weirdness, I was a bit confused by all the mentions of witchcraft.  Did Hawthorne mean to imply that all the flying about in the sky and whatnot actually happened, or was he just giving  the local opinions?  Very strange.

I found the characterization to be very good.  All the characters were three-dimensional: no one was  all good or all bad, yet the division between good and evil was very visible.  Even revengeful old Roger Chillingworth had his sympathetic moment in the beginning of the story, when he admits that he was wrong to marry Hester.   One almost feels sorry for him at that point.

Well, I'd better wrap this up.  It's nearly dinnertime and I'm too hungry to think anymore.  But I shall make this into a proper review by giving The Scarlet Letter 7 stars out of 10, a PG-13 movie-style rating (for mature themes), and recommending the book for readers age fifteen & up.

Note: I did not give the "mature readers"/"ordinary readers" distinction because once a reader is old enough for the mature themes, he/she is already old enough to be comfortable with the style.  Hope that makes sense. 

If you've read The Scarlet Letter, what did you think of it?  (Seton students, my eye is upon you.  I know you've read it because it's required for 11th-grade English, so I am expecting your comments.  Muahaha.)

In Which I Rant On The Phenomenon Of The Crush

*Warning for male audiences: very girl-oriented post ensues*

Modern parlance is really something.  When a girl likes a boy (or vice versa), we say that she has a crush on him.  Ummm....please tell where this term came from?  The etymology must be fascinating.  For my part, when I hear it I think of cans of crushed pineapple.  Seriously.

I have many levels of distaste for this word (which I will admit I use in daily life because I'm too intellectually lazy to think of a better term), but the aspect which I encounter most often is the all-encompassing meaning of the word, especially when used as a synonym for "like" - which is, incidentally, another rant-worthy topic itself, which I shall not go into at present.  A crush can be anything from "the really cute cashier at Giant" to "Ohmygawsh the actor who plays X (insert fangirled movie character here)" to "that random person I just talked to for three minutes" to "my neighbor/friend/companion-in-hanging-about-after-Sunday-Mass who just happens to be a guy."  All these people (and you know about most, if not all of these situations, I know you do), lumped under the one term: "crush."  I cringe just seeing it, it's so expressive of teenage drama and silliness.  I think some of this very silliness could be dispelled if we called things by more proper terms.  What you feel for the good-looking young man at the grocery-store cash register is just passing admiration of his external features.  What you feel for the movie character is something between the cashier situation and what can only be called obsession.  The guy whom you had one short conversation with has inspired interest.  And as for your partner in after-church socialization (or whatever) - it could be simple friendship, or a sort of infatuation, or maybe, possibly, it could be a liking which will turn out to be much more.

You can easily see that all of these situations are vastly different, and ought to be considered as such.  (And, if I may say so, teasing is always called for, EXCEPT in the pure friendship case.  In the others, it provides a comic relief for overly-dramatic drama.)  I think we girls would be much less confused about these matters if we called them what they are.  Personally, when I was first introduced to the concept of "having a crush" I was horribly muddled and very anxious.  I thought that it was something very serious which one was pulled into against one's will.  I would frantically review every male being I knew and apprehensively try to ascertain if I had a crush on any of them.  My journals from 2007 and 2008 are the most mortifying (and laughable) things you can imagine.   This was one of the few matters in which I wish I had had an older sister to ferret things out and show me what was what.

The other aspect of crushes, intertwined with and illustrated by my first objection, is that of every single guy near one's age being, as my little sister used to put it, "crushed upon."  This is basically what happens to a girl who is called boy-crazy.  Everyone is looked upon as possible crush material when really they should just be looked on as a possible friend.  We girls confuse the two.  Sometimes we decide that we "like" a person when really all we want is to be friends with them.  This is the biggest thing I have had to contend with.  I think that when our feelings start getting carried away, we should sit down, give ourselves a mental shake (and perhaps some non-caffeinated tea) and really think what we want from this person.  Sometimes a so-called crush is just a desire to know more about someone.

Well, I believe I've exhausted my ranting capacity for the day - for two days, actually, since my rambling has now brought me to midnight.  See how much I love you all, to stay up till midnight for you?  Anyway, so, if you've made it down here, what do you think?  Do you disagree?  If you do I'd love to hear about it, with the reasons why you think that way.  I've had some awesome discussions in the comments section - particularly on the Hunger Games posts.  And of course if you agree I'd love to hear that too.  Always nice to know that one is not alone in one's strange opinions.

This is a peace offering in case you were discouraged by what might be construed as cynicism, on my part, about "love." :)

Book Review: The Hunger Games Trilogy {Part 1}

**Note: I have tried to keep this post as spoiler-free as possible, but it is difficult.  Minor spoilers may be given away, and I think I have made the ending rather obvious.  If you have not read the series,you somehow don't know the storyline yet, and you don't want to know what happens, you mayn't want to read on, especially where I discuss the plot.**

Oh, and just so you know, I'm having strange font-size problems, so if it's too big or too small, I apologize.

When a bunch of people in the writer's club I belong to said how much they loved this series, I became rather interested.  When I found out they were making a movie of it, I got more interested.  When two close friends of mine read the series and liked it (one loved it), I became desperate to read it.  Finally one of those two friends lent me the books.  (I finished them in four days, of course.) I was extremely curious as to exactly why these books are so popular.


Well, I am glad to say that once again I am not obsessed with what the rest of the world is obsessed with.  *pokes nose in the air*  It's an okay series, but it's definitely got problems. Like most things, it has good points and bad points.  I shall now proceed to ramble on about it all in no particular order.


Before I begin, I must say one thing.  WHY did Ms. Collins give her characters such odd names?  Some of them are okay, like Gale and Prim, but Katniss? Even worse, Peeta???  *shudders*


Apart from the names, I found the majority of the main characters to be largely unlikeable and a bit flat.  I did understand them, which is important, but I didn't particularly like most of them.  The one exception was - you probably guessed it already - Peeta.  The boy with the bread, he-whose-name-is the-worst-in-the-entire-series, the one truly good character.  Peeta is the only one whose love is true and unselfish.  (This goes back to the true love post, if you missed it.)  Oh, and I also liked Rue, but she's not really a main character.  I didn't like Katniss.  I understand that she had a shocking amount of hardships to bear, but I still couldn't stand her selfishness.  Most of the time she only does what will help herself, not taking into account anyone else.  The only one she seems to truly love is her sister Prim.  


 The series has a lot of morality problems, even if one leaves out the fact that nudity seems to be entirely acceptable in the world of Panem.   Supposedly the books are meant to protest violence, and to a certain extent I can see that, but the thing is, violence doesn't seem to be protested against if the "good" characters commit it.  Katniss's countless killings.  Gale's ruthless traps that play on human sympathy and charity in order to murder the most people possible.  (One may argue that the traps were not presented in a necessarily good light, but I don't think it was clearly against them, either.)  It's hard to explain it properly without giving away major spoilers, but you probably get the idea.  The books seem to subscribe to the philosophy of the ends justifying the means, which is of course wrong.


 Now for the fun part - style/plot/characterization critiques. (Mwahahahaha...)  The first thing that struck me when I began The Hunger Games was the first person, present tense writing.  It took about a third of the book for me to get used to it.  I'm not necessarily saying it was a bad choice, just different.  It actually makes sense, really, given the action-driven plot.  It adds to the feeling of immediacy in the series.  I don't think it's something I personally would have chosen, but I didn't write the book, so it doesn't matter.  It was quite interesting.  I've never read a book written like that before, so points to Ms. Collins for originality there.  I did find the actual writing to be a bit simplistic and limited, but given the audience and, once again, the plot, that is understandable.  There were some nice descriptions, mostly in the first book, but for the most part the vocabulary was unremarkable.


As for the plot, in general it was pretty tight.  I do rather believe in history repeating itself, so I find the idea, mentioned in Mockingjay, of a Panem et Circenses world believable.  The Romans kept it up for a while.  It's not like it's unprecedented, though the Romans didn't use children.  They were not averse to killing entire families, though, if sources are correct, so it makes little difference.  I shudder to think what they would have done with modern technology like that in The Hunger Games.   Anyway, enough with the history lesson.  The one MAJOR problem I have with the plot is District 13.  It's part of what makes the series so depressing: the leaders of the rebellion which is supposed to free Panem don't seem much better than the Capitol.  The monotonous, gray life led by the residents of Thirteen is not something I'd be happy about!  Sure, they're warm and they don't starve to death, but they are allowed no individuality, no self-expression.  Realistically, I doubt people could live like that.  Humans have an all-too-apparent need to express themselves.  Perhaps I am reading into it too much, but by her characterization of Thirteen Ms. Collins seems to degrade humanity into something that needs only the basics of bodily survival - food, clothes, shelter.  At least the Capitol made some twisted sort of concession to beauty, and it did not meddle in the daily life of its subjects.  Thirteen seemed to be, far from a savior, only a new power ready to take total control.  It is very sad.  


Well, that's all for today.  This was beginning to be one of my excruciatingly long posts (and perhaps already is), so I've split it in two.  Tomorrow I shall post the second part, where I discuss what I actually liked about this series and give my final evaluation.  I promise that it's shorter than this one.
 

Wuv, Twoo Wuv

About the title - I just couldn't resist.  But I promise, I will try to make this a serious post.

True Love.  It's a common phrase.  "True love" is everywhere - music, films, stories, and especially daydreams.  But what is true love?  What makes the difference between true love and false love?  Perhaps you already know.  But do you?  Here's an example.  We tend to think that love and like are synonyms.  "Oh my gosh, I love your dress," or "I just love pizza."  Really?  You do?  You are willing to sacrifice your life for the dress or the pizza?  Hm.  I should hope not.  No, darling, you like pizza and you like your friend's dress.  "Love" is so overused nowadays, it's not going to add any extra conviction to your sentence anyway.  (Note: I myself am not always innocent of this transgression.  Just thought I'd make that clear.) 

The same goes for love and romance.  Romance itself has been degraded to mean something much worse, but never mind that right now.   Love doesn't just mean walking on air and chocolates and roses, people.  You can be "in love" without truly loving the person at all, because true love is not an emotion, not a feeling.  It's an act of the will - something that you choose to do.  This is why, as a certain rather brilliant acquaintance of mine once pointed out, the arranged marriages so common in the past actually worked out when the couple sincerely made an effort.  They made the choice to love each other. (Note: I am not advocating arranged marriages.  I would freak if someone arranged a marriage for me.)


If I have true love for someone, my greatest aim is not to be with them forever.  My greatest aim is to do whatever is best for them, even if it means being with someone else, because my love isn't selfish.  All that matters is their welfare.  I am unimportant except where I can be of use, and I will do whatever it takes to for that person's true happiness.

Also, true love is not reserved for just a man and a woman.  One can truly love anyone - parents, friends, siblings, students, whatever.

True love is not a feeling.  It's not destiny.  It's not a chemical reaction.  It's a conscious choice by which a person puts someone else above himself or herself in all things.  It's what Our Lord has for each one of us.  And it's very beautiful.

Made with Pixlr and Picmonkey.  I quoted from memory, so I apologize if I got the wording wrong somehow.

Feast of the Holy Innocents

I'm aware that posting about feast days when they're almost over rather defeats the purpose - I do apologize, my dear patient readers.  I was so entirely absorbed in reading North and South that I forgot...  *sigh*

Since it's so late, I'll just give you a couple links and a song.  You can read about today's feast at my usual sources, if you'd like - here and here.

The relatively obscure Coventry Carol is about today's feast.  It was first used in medieval mystery plays, sung by the mothers of the children murdered by the soldiers of King Herod.  Just thinking about it makes me tear up...those poor, poor mothers.  But these innocent children, killed because of Our Lord, merit the title of the first martyrs even though they knew not what they died for.  (If you don't believe me, read the second link.)  They were rewarded in Heaven.
I'm sure I can't be the first one to have thought of this, but the Holy Innocents must be special protectors of unborn children in danger of abortion.  We could invoke their prayers for all the babies threatened by a death worse than theirs because unsanctified by martyrdom or baptism.

This is the version of the carol that I own.

Holy Innocents, pray for us and for all children, born and unborn.

On Not Dating

I came across this article from The Catholic Young Woman - one of my favorite blogs -  and I thought I'd repost it here for those of you who don't read it.  (Is there anyone here who doesn't read it?)

Clare gives a no-nonsense, convincing post about her particular reasons for not dating.  I find it so sad that nowadays young people seem to think dating is an absolutely necessary part of growing  up - what's even sadder is the amount of really young kids who think they're old enough to take on a relationship like that.  Seriously?  I'm unready (not to mention unwilling) to date, and I'm in my mid-teens.

You know, I also feel like dating really isn't that romantic, after all.  It seems so....I don't know....sort of insipid and fake.  Can you imagine Pride and Prejudice ending with Darcy asking Elizabeth to go out with him?  It would be horrible, wouldn't it?

Enough of my blabbing now.

Why I Don't Date

It still surprises me a bit when some preteen girl casually mentions her boyfriend to me. Boyfriend, sweetie? Aren't you a little young? Of course, I do know that little childish crushes have been around for at least a century. One only has to read L.M. Montgomery's books to hear young Davy confiding to Anne his plans to marry a girl at his school, or see baby Rilla watching young Ken with big adoring eyes.

But it's strange to me to see little boys and girls caught up in the world of casually dating and casually breaking up. Why would they date? It's just a fact that they're going to be getting married no time soon.

Maybe they date because they see their olders and presumably wisers doing it. I find it no less surprising that adult people are dating with no thought of marrying the person they're in a relationship with. The life of casually dating seems to be a setup for unnecessary confusion and heartache.

The only reason I've heard for dating that even sounds good is the reason: you have to learn how to relate to members of the opposite sex. Sounds good, I say, because I grew up without a single date and ended up better at relating to men than to women. I had friends who were men, and I spent time with them in group and family situations where they really acted like themselves... not dressed up to impress me.

The reasons I've had for not dating, however, been many.

Why would I get involved with a man if the relationship were only 'casual' and not seriously determined to explore the possibility of marriage? It would be dishonest of me to go into such a relationship without letting him know that I wasn't that serious. But even if I were honest about it upfront, a relationship of that nature invites attachment and because of that, heartache.

Why would I want to waste time in a series of casual relationships when I could be working hard and preparing myself to serve God? It may be true that youth is a unique time of being free with time and energy to have fun, but it's also true that youth is the best time to serve and build character. I don't like to think of what kind of habits I would be forming in pursuing a series of casual dates.

I don't date because the young men I like and appreciate I like and appreciate too much to toy around with their hearts... and the young men I don't like, I wouldn't date. I don't date because love doesn't signify just 'fun' to me, but commitment and sacrifice. I don't date because I'd rather use that time learning to serve God better. I don't date because I believe both he and I are worth the commitment of a relationship that looks towards marriage.

Visit The Catholic Young Woman to see the original post (it has a nice picture) and to read more amazing articles by Clare and the other wonderful contributors!

Homeschooler

I've been homeschooled my entire life.  I have never set foot in a public school, and, truth to be told, when I see them I shudder.  They look like gaudily-painted prisons.

When I was stubborn or uncooperative about my schoolwork, my mom used to threaten to send me to public school.  Luckily for me, I have only one year of school left, so I think I'm fairly safe.

My mom has many reasons for homeschooling me, and I have many reasons to appreciate it!


First, there is the matter of religion.  Of course I want to preserve my faith, and I feel that I can do that much better at home.  I have significantly less temptations, and very little peer pressure.  I study out of predominately Catholic books, and since my parents and I are in control of what I learn, I get to explore alternative views of things like history and science.  Instead of being taught evolution, I was presented with the hypothesis and the refutations of it and allowed to draw my own conclusions.  (Obviously my book - Exploring Creation With Biology - is against evolution, but it was not dogmatic about it.  That book is really good.  My biology-major dad loved it.)
I mentioned peer pressure.  Obviously that has a large bearing on religion as well - being homeschooled, it's easier for me to choose who I want to be around, and of course I choose people who are like me.  My friends don't put pressure on me to wear tight jeans or dye my hair pink or act impurely or anything like that, because they themselves would never do those things.  I'm not saying that I refuse to be friends with somebody who doesn't share my views, but as it stands now, most of my friends do.

Another reason I like being homeschooled is that I feel that I'm getting a better education this way.  I'm not trying to brag, but there are statistics showing that homeschooled children do consistently better on tests like the ACT.  (If you don't believe me, look it up.  You can start here.)  Really, I'm not trying to be a snoot.  I'm only sharing my personal experience (and the test results).  I know that there are public-schooled people who are eons ahead of people like me in intelligence.  Only....I haven't met too many of them. 

Homeschooling, if done right, increases one's self-discipline.  This is very important, because in today's world, self-discipline is the last thing on most people's minds.  It's all about gratifying ME, and instantly, too.  We can't restrain ourselves - we're not taught to!  And so we're morally weak - lots of times, physically weak as well.  With homeschooling, most of the time you have to do it yourself.   You're not herded from class to class, your mom isn't going to walk you through every lesson and every subject, and it's oh-so-easy to stop taking that Religion test and start blog-hopping instead....
Now, I am by no means perfect in this.  Far from it.  I've struggled many times (including now) to keep up with everything.  I may be way ahead in some subjects, but I'm still doing a couple subjects from last year, too.  But nevertheless, I'm working on it, and learning from all my responsibility.  I'm very much involved in my schoolwork.  I feel like this way I'll be much better prepared for the responsibility of an adult than if I were public-schooled, being spoon-fed my information and having everything tidily taught to me.

I know that one of the most common objections to homeschooling is that homeschoolers are "anti-social".  You hear it all the time: "Homeschoolers have no social life!  Those parents are depriving their children of normal interaction and therefore forcing them to become shy, socially-unskilled recluses!" *insert glare of righteous horror at homeschooling parents*

I could go on and on and on about this.  As a matter of fact, there was much more that I wanted to cover in this post - but I'm kind of running out of steam now.  Perhaps I'll do a "Part II" sometime, if I remember what else I wanted to say.  Anyway, this post is getting rather long and seeming to get more confused the longer I go, so I shall end presently. 

If you have any questions about homeschooling, comment and ask me!  I'll be happy to answer them - perhaps with another post.  Homeschooling is rather misunderstood, on the whole, and I'd be glad to help clear up the confusion.

What do you think of homeschooling?  I'd love to hear your opinion.

Picture not mine - unfortunately I don't remember where it came from.