I read this book two years ago, but when we discussed it this month for book club, I remembered how much I liked it. A good discussion always ups my a...moreI read this book two years ago, but when we discussed it this month for book club, I remembered how much I liked it. A good discussion always ups my appreciation of a novel as does an ending that makes me requestion my givens in the story. I find myself reading contradictory interpretations and agreeing with both sides. That's the beauty of symbolism: as long as you back up your cause, it's plausible.
Initially it took me several weeks to get into the book. The beginning reads more like a textbook with inserted clips of the main character's future self. While the knowledge I gained about zoology and theology was interesting, it wasn't intriguing enough to keep me awake for more than a few pages at a time and often I found the tidbits a confusing distraction. But with distance I enjoyed the backdrop information it offered. If you're struggling through the initial background, jump ahead to the second section. Yeah it's important, but it's not vital. And maybe once you've read the story you'll want to come back and appreciate his analysis.
I highly enjoyed this strange journey at sea and found it almost believable--until the castaways encounter the island at which point I wondered how much of his sanity wavered. Being shipwreck is one of a plethora of phobias I have. Throw on top my even stronger fear of tigers and this was a story straight out of a nightmare, one that kept me intrigued for a resolution. How could a boy keep the upper hand shipwrecked with a tiger? I had a picture in my head of Pi clinging to the side of the boat to avoid both the salty water infested with sharks and a foodless boat housing a hungry carnivore.
I found myself stuck in the unusual place where as a reader I find a story plausible with full knowledge that had this story been presented in real life I would have doubted its authenticity. I wanted to believe the story and all its fantasy. The end initially annoyed me, but if you look at the rich metaphors in the story, it becomes delectable for a story analyst like me. There is nothing I enjoy more than tearing apart a story and pulling out the intentions and symbols buried inside. Instead of just a fantastical story, you find a fable with a moral.
Spoilers here. (view spoiler)[I want to reread the story now and analyze Richard Parker as Pi's alter ego, seeing that alpha and omega struggle as an internal one. Even the name Richard Parker is a hint at cannibalistic roots since it is the true account of a sailor who died at the hands of his cannibalistic crew members. I keep going back to that moment when Pi calls for Richard Parker to join him on the ship and then is appalled at what he has done. Once Richard Parker has joined his voyage, there is no banishing him. If they are one and the same, they beautifully represent that internal battle between the civilized vegetarian and the animalistic instinct to survive, showing the compartmentalization he needed to prevent madness.
You would not expect the small boy to conquer the beast (whether animal or himself), and yet he keeps the upper hand for an unimaginable 227 days. Had the cannibal overrun his pysche, he would have lost his battle and landed a madman. When the duo landed on the beaches of Mexico, Richard Parker took off, never to be noted by civilians again, but alive and surviving. Thus the horror of the incident will always live in Pi's memory but he chooses to repress it as it has no part in civilization.
I enjoyed the portrayal of the characters on the boat as animals. I could envision the quiet maternal sadness the orangutan gave his mother. Since the crew would be blamed for the demise of the ship, the wounded sailor as the zebra lying as prey to a demented and angry foreign chef who is just as crazy as we view the viscous hyena. The symbols were perfect and I think a second read would bring out their traits even stronger.
Some of the richest symbolism comes from the cannibal island and sailor. I think Pi's childlike mind could not deal with the cannibalism of a loved one and lets this theme leak into other story elements. The blind sailor is a second portrayal of the French chef, a character too big and conflicting to fit into one projection. At first he is the mean animal thinking only of his own survival, but as the journey progresses, Pi is conflicted with his friendship for the man. A bond is bound to happen between the only two survivors in limited space and Pi could not come to terms with his human feelings for the barbaric man. So he invents a second character, one whom he can make human, worthy of connection, but in the end is still untrustworthy and Pi must kill or be killed.
So what of the strange island? In his hallucinating state, it serves as a mirage where life is not as sweet as he suspected. The island parallels his own problems at sea with rich religious symbolism of the Garden of Eden. No matter what one's ethical code, the will to survive trumps one's moral haven. These vegetarians (person and island) don't want to harm, but are killing to survive. Something happened out at sea that his waning mind (and blindness both real and spiritual) could not substantiate and like all else he twisted it to a socially accepted tale. Since the island is discovered just after the sailor dies, maybe finding one of the chef's tooth on board turned him. Or maybe Pi happened upon a pile of garbage infested with rats and this boy, starving and demented enough to have tried his own waste, sees it as a heaven. His civilized nature knew he should scorn the filth but his barbaric needs were grateful for the nasty feast. The bones in the boat, proof that his experience was real, could have been rat bones.
Whatever the cause of his epiphany, he had to enter the depths of his own personal hell to realize this was not a heaven, or Garden of Eden, and a return to civilized behavior was vital for his own survival. Richard Parker was winning as he felt completely detached from civilization. He almost wished to stay and die at sea, to live at a level of base survival, instead of have to emotionally deal with his ordeal to progress. But his innate need to survive wins out as he realizes that as the lone castaway if he does not fight his mind's descent into madness, the sea will eat him mentally and literally.
One of my favorite interpretations of the island is a religious fork in the road. Whatever truly happened, the island cements your belief in the first or second account. Either you see the meerkat remains as proof that the beauty of the first story is true or the island is the point at which you start questioning the credence of his tale and believe he threw in this unbelievable turn of events to ready you to accept his alternate ending. As readers we are given the choice between two stories. We can pick the miraculous version of the first story, an icon of those who believe in God, or we can pick the grim atheist view of the pessimistic--although reasonable--second story, as do those who believe science disproofs God. In section one, Pi references religion to not only show where his beliefs give him strength but to give backbone to the religious allegory. He shows disdain for the indecisive agnostic (see quotes below) and bids you chose your path. The island serves to question your own religious devotion, but you have to pick what you think it represents, which story you care to believe.
Pi states this is a story that makes you believe in God. As a believer in God and the second story, I don't think there is merely an atheist interpretation to the second. Either you accept God with a leap of faith despite dissenting controversy or you take the bleak realism and see God saved him from death at sea and even more protected him from mental anguish by healing his soul from the horrors he experienced. Both stories can justify the belief in God or justify your belief in nothing. Just as I don't believe people who buy the second story are atheists, I do not believe people who chose the first story follow blindly or idiotically. It's a matter of interpretation. The story isn't going to make you believe or disbelieve God anymore than you now do.
At first I was annoyed he recanted his story because I wanted to believe his original story. It is imaginative and well written and I didn't like being called out for believing fantasy from the fantasy itself. But how could I not love an allegorical explanation to a literal story? So now I love that he presents both stories: the imaginative far-fetched one and the plausible horrific one and leaves you the reader to decide which one you want to buy into and let you ponder what it says about you. That is the point of the story. (hide spoiler)]
Some of my favorite quotes from the book: "Life is so beautiful that death has fallen in love with it, a jealous, possessive love that grabs at what it can." "It was my luck to have a few good teachers in my youth, men and women who came into my dark head and lit a match." "Doubt is useful for a while...But we must move on. To choose doubt as a philosophy of life is akin to choosing immobility as a means of transportation." "All living things contain a measure of madness that moves them in strange, sometimes inexplicable ways." "Memory is an ocean and he bobs on the surface." "First wonder goes deepest; wonder after that fits in the impression made by the first." "The main battlefield for good is not the open ground of the public arena but the small clearing of each heart."(less)
An interesting subject matter to tell us of the pitfalls of the adversary by showing how one devil would twist and use our situation, even good, posit...moreAn interesting subject matter to tell us of the pitfalls of the adversary by showing how one devil would twist and use our situation, even good, positive things against you, to bring you down to eternal hell. I found myself several times thinking "oh I do that" and wondering how hard and how often they are whispering and coaxing me. My favorite image in the book is when a man dies he will recognize the adversary by the release of the evil spirit who has constantly been nagging at him. My favorite part of the book is Screwtape Gives a Toast when he encourages these devils to use the buzz word democracy to encourage a socialist, crab-drag-you-down-to-your-misery society. That is definitely a pitfall we fall into in this nation.
But while I think it's a good read and one worth reflecting upon, I was often bored when Screwtapes wandered ramblings. He could have gotten to the point quicker and he could have showcased more memorable pitfalls. So the topic was of value, but the telling was long and it felt like homework to read it. (less)
It's not that it's a bad book, but I just couldn't care. I had to force myself to pick it up and push myself through pages that were mediocre. Halfway...moreIt's not that it's a bad book, but I just couldn't care. I had to force myself to pick it up and push myself through pages that were mediocre. Halfway through I asked myself why I kept trying. Because the book was forced. I liked the idea of the letters written in poor English, but they didn't have to nuances of another language. They carried the invariable tone of someone who had written something intelligible in English, full of its cliches and colloquialisms, and then systematically tweaked with a thesaurus until the meaning wasn't pure. It could have been funny, but it was awkward. I liked the translator and his quirky family, but his not-quite-authentic letters bothered me.
Also, Jonathan's interpretation of what he thought his many-greats grandmother must have been like: tragically sad yet beautiful and eccentric in her intelligence was unbelievable. It's what Jonathan would have wanted to think and be like, not what an actual person over a hundred years ago would have been like. Nor was anybody from that town authentic. They were all little bits of Jonathan broken up in little pieces a little too homogeneous of his own quirkiness so I wasn't believing anything about their story. I love his quirkiness and his humor, but too much of it felt forced to me.
I'm sure the story eventual drew tragic and beautiful and worth it and maybe I wasted the poor part of the book never to be rewarded with the good, but if it hasn't drawn me in by now, I give up. Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close is leaps and bounds better than this book. This was just a warmup.(less)
I liked this C.S. Lewis better than Screwtape Letters. There was still much to ponder and my mind occasionally followed its own wanderings away from t...moreI liked this C.S. Lewis better than Screwtape Letters. There was still much to ponder and my mind occasionally followed its own wanderings away from the text, but I wasn't as slow of a read and the story itself was entertaining. Instead of just meat there was flow too.
Basically the point of this book is are you willing to give up your vices and pitfall, all the devices you implore to further your own pride in order to get into heaven. If you are willing to humble yourself and admit your own nothingness and your own faults and engulf yourself in the love and servitude of others than you are read to accept heaven. But if in your heart you want to hold onto a piece of hell a all, a piece of life where we are in hierarchy than it is your own choice to deny heaven.
The book is a dream where the narrator boards a bus along with other curious souls tired of the life they live in hell to know what's better on the other side. The protagonist overhears varies conversations between the ghosts and spirits who have found the glory in heaven trying to convince them to give up the particular pitfall that has become their comfort zone. But pride is a barrier not that easy to overcome. I found the book interesting and reflective. It's left me questioning the way I view love, service, relationships, religion. Selfish or selfless.(less)
Halfway through this movie about a man who has a stroke and is left completely paralyzed but with a fully functioning mind (locked-in syndrome) able t...moreHalfway through this movie about a man who has a stroke and is left completely paralyzed but with a fully functioning mind (locked-in syndrome) able to communicate only by blinking his left eye, I found myself at the library. His alphabet--ordered by frequency of letters in the French language--running through my head (ESA... ESARINTULOM... ESARINTULO... ESARINTU... ESAR) I see the book on display. How could I not check it out? I wanted to know what a man would have to say who lies in a hospital bed at the mercy of visitors with a painstaking process of communication.
Bauby is eloquent and poetic. Knowing every chapter was memorized so he could dictate it letter by letter, you would expect the short novel it is, and yet he did not back down from the art of writing. Despite his depressive condition (or maybe because of it), he is humorous, honest, unapologetic, and often thought-provoking.
But herein lies his downfall. His honesty about his own self-consuming life--even now with all his superficial joys removed his selfish nature struggles on--left me wanting. While I found what he had to say interesting, I didn't care for a man who cared solely about his own luxuries in life and not about his children or the women in his life or truly anyone beyond what they could provide for him.
Bauby chronicles his life before (his butterfly mind able to see and do anything) and his life after (his diving bell body sinking in his confined cage) for internal motivation to continue his mundane day-to-day routine. The memoir isn't offered as a gift for the reader with inspiration or insight. I wanted to be inspired. I wanted to be moved by a spirit reformed or at least reflective on its purpose and contribution to humanity. But I was more amazed at the length and effort of his words than what he had to say. Eloquence without depth. (less)
This book humbled me. Trapped in a 4x3 bathroom with seven other woman for three months, Immaculee focused on prayer and soul searching as her way to...moreThis book humbled me. Trapped in a 4x3 bathroom with seven other woman for three months, Immaculee focused on prayer and soul searching as her way to survive. She listened to direction from God to escape, find purpose in her life once she did, and discover a way to heal. Instead of letting hate eat her, she recognized the down spiral of revenge and took pity on the friends and neighbors who turned on her and her family. I can't imagine knowing the people hunting you with machetes after killing your family and still finding it your heart to forgive. The writing's not great, but Immaculee's heart-wrenching story is definitely inspiring.(less)
A small collection of thoughts on how powerful our minds truly are, this is book you'll want to turn to again and again because though it's short, it'...moreA small collection of thoughts on how powerful our minds truly are, this is book you'll want to turn to again and again because though it's short, it's deep with meaning. There is no fluff to distract our brains from epiphany to epiphany. Some of my favorite quotes: Thought and character are one. The dreamers are the saviors of the world. In all human affairs there are efforts, and there are results, and the strength of the effort is the measure of the result. Chance is not. A man is literally what he thinks, his character being the complete sum of all his thoughts. Act is the blossom of thought, and joy and suffering are its fruits. Circumstance does not make the man; it reveals him to himself. Men do not attract that which they want, but that which they are. Indigence and indulgence are the two extremes of wretchedness. He who has conquered doubt and fear has conquered failure. Thought allied fearlessly to purpose becomes creative force. They who have no central purpose in their life fall an easy prey to petty worries, fears, troubles, and self-pityings. Victories attained by right thought can only be maintained by watchfulness. Men imagine that thought can be kept secret, but it cannot; it rapidly crystallizes into habit, and habit solidifies into circumstance. There is no physician like cheerful thought for dissipating the ills of the body; there is no comforter to compare with good will for dispersing the shadows of grief and sorrow. A man cannot directly choose his circumstances, but he can choose his thoughts, and so indirectly, yet surely, shape is circumstances.
Why the four stars? There are a few statements that did not quite win me over. Such as: Wrinkles are not manifestations of age but poor character, and health issues are manifestations of a poor mind. I'm not denying that thought affects health, but it is not the only cursor for poor health. Suffering is always the effect of wrong thought in some direction. Only most of the time. Sometimes we suffer most in our vulnerability to those we love when they do wrong or hurt us or suffer themselves. This godly sorrow may not be what he means by suffering, but I also can't imagine suffering at the unforseen death of a loved one to be suffering of our own making, unless you are considering it to be a challenge in life you chose to encounter. Calmness is a virtue every human should aspire. While steady demeanor is a worthy goal, there is much to be said for enthusiasm, emotion, and variety in personalities. While tempers and impatience are not good qualities, neither is a lack of emotion, and there is nothing wrong with a happy animated person, a person I would never describe as calm. Calm is a great quality, but it's not the all-inclusive. If he had said peace, I would understand. (less)
Good, insightful, thought-provoking. But in trying to drag out the lesson in order for you learn the most from it, the book would become slow and repe...moreGood, insightful, thought-provoking. But in trying to drag out the lesson in order for you learn the most from it, the book would become slow and repetitive. More often than not I would forget the point and remember the dragging on. So the book could have been at least half its size and more impactful, but nonetheless a good read.
While I am not a big fan of over-explaining, or in this case spending more time saying you are going to explain than explaining (the book could have been half as long), the book struck a chord with me because of my thoughts on pride. The points of the book that I had not considered before were these:
* Because Christ atones for others' sins, he takes on not only their pain but the pain they inflict. So when we feel victimized, if we come to Christ and see the Savior as paying for their sins, we offer forgiveness to a perfect being and can give up our right to seek justice more easily.
* The parable of the workers in the vineyard receiving the full wage no matter how long they had been there, not only applies to the amount of time we endure to the end, but also our amount of sin. If we see ourselves better than those who have sinned more than us and therefore deserving of a better reward, we deserve less because we are not willing to give mercy and forgiveness to all.
* Sin is addictive. The more we sin, the easier it is, the more me give up our agency. It is sin that makes us aware of others' sins. When we sin against someone, in our own discomfort, it is easier to accuse that person of wrong-doing and be unforgiving. If we were perfect, we would be more merciful and loving.
There were also some great reminders of offering mercy and forgiveness to everyone, judge least ye be not judged, giving unconditional love despite whether we receive in back, and fully understanding the awesome healing power of the atonement. I would recommend the book.(less)
I had Stephen Robinson as a New Testament teacher and learned much from him not only on the background of Jewish life in New Testament times, but also...moreI had Stephen Robinson as a New Testament teacher and learned much from him not only on the background of Jewish life in New Testament times, but also much about his lessons in the gospel. The glimpses I got about the premise of the book from class were thought-provoking and I think one we need to focus on more often. I have owned this book for years, but never finished it, so I finally pulled it out.
As Latter-day Saints, we tend to focus more on works that grace as we attempt to work out our own salvation by being so perfect we deserve the Atonement. Robinson reminds us that we cannot be saved but by the grace of God through the Atonement of Christ. The balance between being grateful and dependent on grace and being aware that our works (repentance) make us worthy to receive the gift is a fine balance.
To think we are unworthy of the Atonement because we are too sinful or to assume we can achieve our own salvation by making ourselves perfect means that we do not believe Christ. We believe the idea of Christ for humanity, but do not believe Him personally as our Savior. He can heal us. He does understand us. He can wipe away our personal sins. He does know us intimately. The Atonement may be a concept our human minds cannot fathom, but it is a topic worthy of our frequent contemplation, not on a general, theoretical level, but how it personally affects us. I enjoyed my own reflections of my relationship with my Savior that sprung about by this book.
My one issue with the book is that in reminding us that we cannot be perfect, cleansed, sanctified, justified, all that is needed to return to Heavenly Father without Christ, he relies too heavily on the grace side and berates us for our emphasis on works. For example: in one part he mentions that he cringes when well-meaning members point out the areas we need to improve in our path to perfection. Yes I understand that Mormons get overwhelmed and have one of the highest levels of depression because of this expectation to be perfect despite our knowledge that we can repent and be better, but I personally go to church to feel the pricks of the Spirit telling me I have not done so good in this area and need to improve in that one. Those reminders are good and useful and I don't want members to stop the encouragement toward perfect because someone may be down about their own lack of it. Yes we need to be reminded often that we are saved by grace, but we also need to be reminded that we receive that grace by accepting it and choosing it in our efforts to keep the commandments.
And I'm going to disagree with Robinson on an opinion. He believes members misinterpret 2 Ne 25:23: "for we know that it is by grace that we are saved after all we can do," thinking we must save ourselves and then we're perfect enough to receive grace. I personally don't know anyone who thinks that's what this (my favorite scripture) means. We know—again on a theoretical level—that no matter what we do, we need Christ's grace to be saved. We know what the scripture means, we just need to be reminded that we need to turn to our Savior for strength, for forgiveness, when Satan's whisperings tell us we are alone and unworthy.
Quotes: Thus the most important goal in mortality is becoming one with Christ. We believe in him, but we don't trust him. We get so frightened and intimidated, so horrified, by our own imperfections that we don't see how he can possibly save us from then, and we lose faith. To this union, we bring our righteous desires and our loyalty. He brings his perfection. You can make yourself just and terrestial by your own good works and best efforts, buy only Christ can make you perfect and celestial. There are many who want to serve God and keep his commandments, who hunger and thirst after righteousness, but who, because of the very loftiness and nobility of their desires, despair at the reality of their performance. If we could be justified by our own efforts, then we wouldn't need a savior at all, and Christ's infinite sacrifice would have been all for nothing. No matter how proud we may be of our relative ability to keep the commandments, until our aptitude is right, until our hearts are broken and our spirits are contrite, our relative goodness is of little benefit. We are both beggars at the mercy of God. Therefore, I can feel superiority over the least struggling member. Above all else, God wants our hearts. ... Weakness can be saved; rebellion cannot. God loves us not because we're so lovable he can't help himself—he loves us because his nature is loving, because God is love. We humans did not earn or merit the offer of a new covenant. Quite the opposite: the gospel covenant was only necessary in the first place because of our disobedience and our inability to keep the commandments. We didn't earn it—we needed it. God may be predisposed in our favor, he may put within our reach what was once beyond us, and he may remove every obstacle in the way of our salvation, but he will not force us down the path he has cleared, nor will he save us without our consent. Salvation comes through a covenant relationship in which both faith and works play their parts. To insist that salvation comes by works alone, that we can earn it ourselves without needing the grace of God, insults the mercy of God and mocks the sacrifice of Jesus Christ in our behalf. On the other hand, to insist that salvation comes by belief alone and that God places no other obligations upon the believer insults the justice of God and makes Christ the minister of sin. Trying our hardest to keep the commandments and be like Christ is part of our covenant obligation, not because we can succeed at them in this life, but because the attempt, the commitment to try, demonstrates oursincerity and our commitment to the covenant. While success is not a requirement of the covenant of faith, my best attempts are. Some of us who are relatively good at keeping the rules also trust in ourselves that we are righteous. Such are inordinately proud of their own goodness; the exalt themselves. But whenever we are proud of how good we are instead of being humbled by how imperfect we are, our hearts are not broken, nor are our spirits contrite. Those who fail to appreciate their utter dependence upon the Savior and who insist they are working out their own salvation are guilty of this same satanic attitude. There is transforming power in the grace of Christ for those whose hearts break in humble acknowledgment of their need for grace and mercy. Rejection of the idea of mercy amounted to a rejection of Christ. Anyone can pretend to be doing their best and pretend to be justified by faith in Christ and to enjoy the companionship of the Holy Ghost, while in truth they remain obstinately committed to their sins. Learn the difference between wanting righteousness and wishingwishing they wanted righteousness. Individuals who commit the moral and doctrinal error of refusing to do what they could very well do seek to be saved in their sins rather than from their sins. But that is a vast difference between viewing my sins as enemies from which I'm trying with difficulty to escape and viewing my sins as comfortable old friends I'm reluctant to leave behind. The good news is that God will not require of us more than the best we can do, but the bad news is he will not accept less than that either. Faith in Christ, repentance, and the cleansing of the Atonement cannot be one-time events in our lives. Although they may begin on a particular occasion, faith, repentance, and forgiveness are part of a continual process of rejection our mistakes, reaffirming our desires and our goal, and realigning our lives to Christ whenever and wherever we are off track. Human beings are inevitably the arsonists of their own happiness. Jesus Christ did not just assume the punishment for our sins—he took the guilt as well. If Jesus had assumed only the punishment for our sins but not the sins themselves, then when the penalty was paid, we would merely "guilty but forgiven," instead of being sanctified through the Atonement, being perfect-in-Christ, and being innocent and worthy of the kingdom of God and the presence of the Father. Thus through his vicarious atonement, Jesus knows more than anyone about the dark side of being human. No one has ever been as alone as Christ in the Garden. Still, however we may try to understand the Gethsemane experience, we are doomed to underestimate it. Thus when we are tempted to think that our sins have put us beyond the understanding of reach of God, we are simply mistaken, and we grossly underestimate the scope of the Atonement. In that infinite Gethsemane experience, the meridian of time, the center of eternity, he lived a billion billion lifetimes of sin, pain, disease, and sorrow.(less)
This book was so not what I expected. In fact, this is the second book in a row I've expected to be an American Indian tale from the title. That's the...moreThis book was so not what I expected. In fact, this is the second book in a row I've expected to be an American Indian tale from the title. That's the fun of not checking out the blurbs on a book: you get to be surprised.
This story is actually set in the time of Christ. The main character, Daniel, is a Jewish rebel (zealot) living in the mountains waiting for the opportune time, or person, to banish the Romans from Jerusalem. It was interesting to see the expectancy for a Messiah who would be a warrior to overthrow the Roman Empire, a concept we often forget. As well as the good of the Pharises, a word we take to be synonymous with hypocrite. The assumptions we have about Christ today with 2000 years of hindsight are easily taken for granted, particularly the completion of the highly honored law of Moses with the new gospel he spread and the understanding of two Messianic visits: one as a spiritual salvation and the other a physical one. Speare did an excellent job showcasing Jewish tradition and law and how the unexpected messages of love and acceptance would have been strange and contrary to what the Jews were waiting for. I really enjoyed the well-researched picture she presented of Jewish life at the time of Christ and that despite the religious undertones of the book, it is not a preachy sermon but a fictional tale.
Daniel has found a reason to live in his plans for revenge on the Romans by whom he has felt wronged. During his work to rile the people against the Romans he happens across some of Jesus' sermons. It was interesting to see the sermons of Christ from a third-party almost uninterested party as he happens upon glimpses of healings and messages received in this ingrained Jewish tradition mindset instead of the Christian ingrained tradition with which we read his passages. We as readers also get a feel for how hard it was to see Jesus for the throngs of followers. In the scriptures we only see the stories of those who push their way to the front of the crowd, not those in the back left wanting a glimpse of the prophet.
Faced with the options of giving up on everything that has made his existence important to find healing in peace or continuing on the path his life has lead him, Daniel struggles to accept the message that the Romans deserve love and that maybe hate isn't a savior. He must compare Jesus' soft-spoken inactive message with Rosh, the robber he has grown up believing is the physical Messiah foretold in scripture.
But hate however worthy of a cause it may start off with is never a strong enough motive to keep one altruistic. Rosh has turned from idealist out to save his people to embittered thief who preys on his own people for sustenance because he resents the Jews paying taxes to the Romans as much as the Romans themselves. Hate is all consuming and if left to fest, it will consume. Daniel's justifications for hating the Romans starts off as understandable (although I sympathized with the Romans too) and progresses to a blind fury where he is blaming the Romans for incidents in which he was more to blame than them. I was often exasperated at Daniel for holding onto his hate, but I don't think it's unrealistic to give up something you have blindly followed for so long.
Sometimes the messages we least expect are the hardest ones to accept. To change everything we have taken as given takes a large mental u-turn and a lot of humility. Like the rich man who could not give up all he owns to follow Christ, Daniel does not know if he can give up all his righteous indignation, particularly for someone so prideful. The realization that Christ may be the chosen Messiah and maybe his message of love is the salvation for which he has been waiting comes gradually to Daniel. He must weigh his personal salvation against the vow his has made to save his people from bondage. And he must give up on everything he has fought his entire life for in order to accept the message. Even though it is not as big of a shock or as large of a leap for us today, the message still remains the same: love heals all. Can we give up our own odious grips to allow forgiveness to give us peace?(less)
This book is the perfect example of why checkpoints are set up in the literary industry so that not just anything gets published. If nobody wants to b...moreThis book is the perfect example of why checkpoints are set up in the literary industry so that not just anything gets published. If nobody wants to buy your book, that means something is wrong with it. Go back to the drawing board, get someone who understands literature to critique your writing, rework your book, even have someone else write it. Don't turn around and self publish when the industry just told that you can't write. I feel bad criticized Ramsdell's testimony, but I felt like I was reading a poorly written eight-grade term paper where the writing is frustrating and distracting, you can't get to the meat of the story. I read this book on my mother's insistence and she had the whole book underlined in red. If someone had marked it up in red before he published, just maybe the story would have shone through.
Probably not. What Ramsdell should have done is have somebody gifted with the art of writing tell his story. Right off the bat when he says things about the CIA being out to get him and displaying what a chip he had on his shoulder, he looses credibility by stating opinion as fact. If someone else had written the story and said "Ramsdell felt like the CIA was not interested in his welfare," then that's a fact and I can sympathize with him instead of being put off. And he shouldn't have tried to sell the story as an exciting tale of espionage. It's not. For about a chapter it looks like something exciting might happen, but most of the book is him sitting on a long train ride and then stuck in a cabin by himself meandering down the long and boring road of memory. The book is about his spiritual experience coming to terms with his life and therefore there are a lot of Mormon references that most readers won't be interested in. I have the feeling that Ramsdell is gifted with the spoken word and when people hear his experience tell him he should record it. The scene where he has his big spiritual moment could have been powerful, but unfortunately his voice just doesn't translate on paper.
Just so you know. Don't go into it expecting a great read or an exciting story. Read it for the testimony if that's what you're looking for.(less)
I wanted more depth from this book. I know it's middle grade, but I've read depth in middle grade. I wanted to feel for Kate, ride this story along wi...moreI wanted more depth from this book. I know it's middle grade, but I've read depth in middle grade. I wanted to feel for Kate, ride this story along with her, with all her heartache and doubt, but it felt more like the story was told to me. Like it was a story in a Sunday School lesson to answer the question "Why does God allow bad things to happen to good people?" and the teacher says, "Let me tell you a story about a girl named Kate who had that same question."
Added 4/4: my daughter just finished this book. She's the one I got it for and she liked it, read it rather quickly. She didn't seem too emotional about the story, which I would have hoped considering the subject matter, but she got the message out of it.(less)
Loading...
