Old Sample Text

Again, from my old website:

...sample text, sample text...oh, I had the strangest conversation with my sister the other day. We were discussing the expression "I'd lose my head if it weren't attached to my shoulders," because really, who wouldn't? And I was thinking, maybe I wouldn't. Afterall, my braid would make a pretty convenient handle - then I got the weirdest picture in my head, you know like those old monks who swing incense lanterns as they go? Well I was imagining this headless me walking along in monastic garb swinging my head by my braid...how's that for sample text?

...to test scrolling capabilities I need yet MORE sample text...hmmm...oh, the phrase "certain unalienable rights" comes from The Declaration of Independence, at least the version found in a little pamphlet called something like The American Citizen's Pocket Handbook, also in both text and picture versions in the World Book. That is also how most people will discuss it. However, I used to always quote an online version I found and it said "inalienable rights." Now get this: I looked up both "unalienable" and "inalienable" in 3 different dictionaries. One had both with independent definitions. One had both but "unalienable" tells you to see "inalienable." One had only "inalienable," and in all cases "inalienable" is the one that uses rights as the example. How weird is that?

While on the topic of things that don't make sense, let me just briefly mention significant figures. According the rules for sigfigs outlined in my HS Chemistry text, which covers more conditions than other references I've seen, there is an inherent incosistency. Basically, if you multiply a number such as 5.11 by exactly 2, you assume 3 sigfigs and your answer is 10.2. However, if you add this number to itself using the column method you can see that numbers are allowed to accumulate on the left thereby giving a different answer:

  5.11
+5.11
_____
10.22

Because multiplication is really just exalted addition, this shouldn't happen. Although this seems trivial, what if instead of multiplying by 2 you were multiplying by 1000? Ok - should see some scrolling now... Come to think of it, I coulda just resized the window...*blush*!

Personal Anecdotes

I'm considering taking down my website, so I'm just gonna start consolidating here:

DON'T IGNORE THE SOUNDTRACK
When I saw Dances with Wolves my little sister was watching too. At the part where he first sees the wolf I thought (out loud) the guy's all alone, that wolf is dangerous, there could be more of them, maybe he's even the leader of a pack, they'll attack him in his sleep...shoot the darn thing already!...do you wanna be eaten?...just shoot it!...why doesn't he shoot it? My sister turns to me with a pleading look of sympathy for the wolf, and says, "Because there's soft music playing."

'G' IS FOR GIRLS DON'T ***
There's a really stupid movie called 102 Dalmations, and years ago my family rented it. Cruella DeVil has gone through some kind of therapy in prison, and now she loves dogs and is being let out on parole. The leading lady is her parole officer, and has some dalmations. Well, unbeknownst to Pavlov-or whoever orchestrated her rehabilitation-this spell of classical conditioning can be broken by really loud bell ringing. Cruella is exposed to such cacaphony, and reverts to her old self. Meanwhile, accross town is a guy who owns an animal shelter, and is struggling to keep afloat. Actually maybe it's just a dog shelter, he only has dogs...and a parrot that THINKS it's a dog - but ANYWAY, there is a scene where the guy eats dog food to entertain the 'dogs.' This guy is the leading man. To make a long story short, the leading man and lady go out to dinner in a slightly cute scene where the dogs stay at home watching the date scene from Lady and the Tramp and shots of the the guy and girl's almost identical evening are interspliced. So now to the real joke - my little brother (pretty young at the time...10 I think?) came up to me and just asked out of the blue, "Jennifer, I don't get it. That guy is practically living on dog food, so where does he get the money to take the girl out to a nice spaghetti retaurant?" I was thinking, it's a stupid Disney sequel movie, you're not supposed to analyze it like this - but tried to think of something to pacify his youthful inquisitiveness. Finally I said, "Maybe the girl paid." His expression of perplexity quickly changed to one of horror. Sounding guilty for even hearing me say this, he whispered a grave admonition, "Jennifer, the girl would not pay in a G movie."

BRAIN FREEZE
My sister was trying to explain a haircut to me, and was having trouble putting it into words. Finally she thought of a way to make me understand, brightened, and said, "Oh! You know - like the girl in Josie and the Pussycats!!! The lead singer, what was her name?...um...um...um...it's on the tip of my tongue, I'll think of it...oh yeah! JOSIE!!!!! Yeah, that was it."

DRIVING RELATED PARANOIA
I constantly get teased for stuff related to driving. I was one of those atypical teenagers who didn't want to drive. My older brother was like that too, but because he didn't want to be saddled with chauffering siblings. I was just plain scared - not exactly of dying or being maimed, but more of being pulled over, of causing a wreck, forgetting to get gas and feeling stupid for being on the side of the road, or just generally getting into trouble unintentionally. I was terrified of the responsibility. Finally, when I started taking concurrent courses at Oral Roberts (all the way across town from where we lived), my mom insisted that I get my driver's license. I did fine on the written exam. I only missed one question - something about the maximum sentence for drug usage - like that has anything to do with driving...But I was so nervous during the driving exam that I made too many mistakes. The second time through, the officer was a nice old grandfatherly type, very reassuring, and I passed.

Because I don't driving standard, my parents have always thought I should learn, and every now and again undertake to teach me - but whatever I learn I quickly forget, and I'm not sure that I forget on accident. Anyway, once my mom and younger siblings and I were taking a long trip to visit my grandparents. We were at a gas station out in rural Oklahoma, and my mom decided this would be a good time for us to switch so that I could practice. Of course I didn't want to, but an arguer I'm not, so I did my best to get the right movement ratio going between gas and clutch. I failed miserably. The entire car had an epileptic episode then died. Some man filling his tank was watching, and I guess he was Catholic 'cuz he crossed himself. Everybody started laughing. I wished I had had the epileptic seizure instead. Actually - that'd be awesome. People like that get their driver's licenses revoked!

My first (and so far only) wreck occurred on Halloween night of 2000. It was after dark, there was alot of traffic due to Halloween, and I was on a highway undergoing construction. Suddenly a traffic jam sprung up in front of me. I hit the brakes and I think they locked. If I'd had an instinct to pump them or go for the emergency brake maybe I could've stopped in time. I think I tried to steer towards the shoulder, but we were almost at bridge and there was a bit of an embankment, so I don't think I really went that direction - or maybe my steering locked too. I don't know. Maybe if I'd been paying better attention I could've stopped in time. I don't know. The point is I didn't, and slammed into the van full of kids in front of me. The driver got out and there was blood streaming down his face. I almost had a heart-attack. After a few moments I realized that the blood was his costume. If you have any imagination then surely you understand that my relief can't be verbalized. Fortunately, my braking had accomplished something, and the impact was actually pretty mild and nobody got hurt. My car didn't even show any damage - though the van's bumper was dented - but that might've been there before. I remember thinking that their bumper looked higher than the nose of my car - and a van vs. a Honda Civic? Mine should've shown something.

 

When I moved out to Oklahoma State, even though I was < 100 miles from home and my grandparents lived in Stillwater, I think my parents worried about me. My older brother had gone to Oral Roberts and so this was really the farthest away that any child had moved from them for a significant amount of time. Every few weeks I would get a story from them like: a girl at a gas station went into pay, it was broad daylight, when she came back out a man told her not to get into her car 'cuz he thought he saw someone get in. They called the police. Sure enough, there was a guy in there who was supposed to rape and kill a girl to enter his gang. Another rumored gang membership activitiy was that a prospective member drives around at night with his lights off, the first one to flick their lights at him he is supposed to shoot. Also, on the weekends I often watched crime documentaries, because I really like mysteries, detective stories, and stuff like that. But, it probably heightened my sense of fear of assault. Then too, living on campus there was often news of some girl getting raped at a frat party, or about video cameras in the showers, and all kinds of stuff like that. Once my parents forwarded an e-mail to me about some special forces guy who gave presentations to womens groups on how to avoid victimization. For instance:

You should yell "fire" instead of "help," 'cuz you're more likely to get help.
If you're not too close to somebody and they pull a gun on you, run. Even trained police officers have a very low accuracy rate with moving targets, and the hits are hardly ever in vital spots.
If someone is chasing you, the best thing to do is get under a car and hold onto whatever you can, it's almost impossible to get somebody out from underneath a car (growing up with cats I know this is true).
Short of learning martial arts, the best thing to know about fighting is to go for the eyes.
When parking, park so that you won't have to back out, should you need to get out in a hurry you then can.
Always lock your car, and bend the front seat forward because the best place to hide in a car is in the back seat. If the seat is pushed back you'll know someone has been in there.
Et cetra

I was pretty faithful about following the car related suggestions. When I moved back home, my sister and I started taking some sewing lessons together. They were in the evenings and so whenever we would go out to the car it would be dark and of course I had locked the doors and put the seat forward. Coming back I would always creep up to the window rather stealthily and look inside to make sure the seat was positioned where it should be and no one was inside, then announce something like, "Ok. No robbers." She gave me a really hard time about all this, and would never cooperate by locking her own door either. One night I had just finished declaring the coast clear, and we were just getting into the car when my sister suddenly shouted, "Jennifer! There's a bloody knife on the dashboard!" I screamed and practically fell out of the car onto the pavement before I realized she was kidding. She of course enjoyed quite a laugh at my expense. The sad thing is that she repeated this every week or so, and it still had the same effect. One night, in a more convincing voice than ever, she said, "Jennifer! There's a dirty sock on the dashboard!" I jumped out of my skin and she's never gonna let me forget it. But I got her back *evil grin*

When we moved to Colorado, we took two cars. I was following my parents, and it was just me and my sister in my car, listening to the radio. My parents weren't always good at remembering that I was following, and would often speed a bit, or make a quick lane shift and lose me. There's more coming on this later, but I'm also a terrible navigator, so getting lost in a foreign state was always weighing in the back of my mind. Most of the highway driving I'd done in Oklahoma was with speed limits of 65. The limit here was 75, I'd been driving for several hours already, curvy terrain was new to me, it was dark and the oncoming headlights were really starting to irritate, and there was a thunderstorm in progress. Needless to say I was terrified. My sister is often with me when I drive, and she can tell you that incidents that provoke road rage in most people simply make me start chanting "I hate driving. I hate driving. I hate..." That happens if I simply get cut off. This night I was freaking out. I was probably hyperventilating at that point. Suddenly a commercial came on and said, "Do you have anxiety about travel?" We both cracked up. The lady in the commercial then went on to ask other more specific questions, and my answer to about 3/4 of them was "yes." It was the perfect tension breaker!

My Review of The Count of Monte Cristo

Again, really just an old HSA discussion. I was part of another HSA group read, led by someone else, where they decided to read Crime and Punishment based on a poll vote. I wasn't really interested in Crime and Punishment, but wanted to do a group read and have discussions. By the end, I thought it was a really depressing book, and I was the only one who finished it so nobody else had any discussion ideas :P So, this time I decided to take the helm, and not poll anybody about it! At the worst, I'd be reading a book I wanted to read anyway, and maybe just discussing it with those who had already read it:

Maece aka Jennifer 
Fri Jul 06, 2007

The group read will begin next Monday (July 9th). Everyone is welcome to join and discuss. If you don't have the book and can't get it quickly, there is an online version available here:

http://www.online-literature.com/dumas/cristo/1/

I am planning to read about one chapter per day on business days (subject to change). If you read faster or slower, that is fine, just try not to post spoilers before they come up in discussion.

Finnbar
Fri Jul 06, 2007
hmm, the Count, so tortured! so afflicted! maybe I'll reread it with ya'll..

Heather Belle OFC
Sat Jul 07, 2007
I've already read it so I'll just lurk and see what y'all say about it. :D Is that permitted?

Elisabeth Starr
Sat Jul 07, 2007
I haven't read it yet, but have intended to for a while now :D So I'll join you.

Carolyn
Sat Jul 07, 2007
Heather wrote:
I've already read it so I'll just lurk and see what y'all say about it. :D Is that permitted?

Me too. It's been awhile but I seem to remember liking it overall. Because... never mind. I shan't spill anything and I shan't display a potentially faulty memory. ;)

Charlyn
Sat Jul 07, 2007
I might have to start a little late. I am going to a camp tomorrow and I..m not sure I will have time to read. But I..m a fast reader and will be able to catch up quickly Smile

Angie I.
Sun Jul 08, 2007
That's one of my favorite books! I'm in! :D

Patrick Eklektos
Sun Jul 08, 2007
I have already read the book and I was mightily pleased with it. I think I shall do so again. Count me in (there is NO pun here). A chapter-a-day eh? That is easy. I look forward to this post tomorrow! Mr. Green

Sola Deo Gloria

Maece aka Jennifer (Online)
Mon Jul 09, 2007
Lurking is definitely permitted! We may speed up the pace if it seems everyone wants to go faster.

Patrick Eklektos
Mon Jul 09, 2007
I finished my quota of the day! Mr. Green
I would like to observe Dumas' painting of his characters. That is, I would like to take early note of the fact that Dantes is painted as morally good in his conduct of his duties on ship and in his amiable respect for his father. It is interesting to note that, while Dantes did not like Danglars, he did not slight his work. Whereas, the reverse is true of Danglars.

SDG

Maece aka Jennifer
Mon Jul 09, 2007
Yeah - my edition (1936!) has an introduction that includes the following:

Quote:
...the moment a character appears, the reader knows at once whether it is a hero or a villain. If a villain, he "darts an oblique glance, sparkling with hatred"; if a hero he is"tall, sinewy, with a fine pair of dark eyes and and an air of composure and of resolve."


...in the first chapter I recognized this tendency. From what I have heard of Dumas, he is overly simple. In fact, most of his books are written by a group of authors rather than himself alone, and his critics referred to him as "Alexandre Dumas and Company, Fiction Factory." However, his books (particularly The Count) have withstood the test of time and become classics. Just shows what critics know ;)

Also in an insert that came with the book, mention is made of a French lit. professor who declared that there are only 36 plots. Of those, The Count is now considered the archetypal revenge plot. So, while fiction for it's own sake may be little more than fun, it is interesting to me to note that certain works of fiction have greatly impacted other works of literature, and the whole of knowledge in general. I remember reading a short abridged version of The Count when I was very young (complete with many pictures), and loving it. I am glad now to go back and read the whole which I have missed until now.


Daniel J. Mount OFC
Mon Jul 09, 2007
I'll have to catch up with this on Thursday, since I'm busy getting ready to fly out to Atlanta (through Wednesday night). Sorry for the delay on my end! I look forward to catching up with you all then. :)

Maece aka Jennifer
Tue Jul 10, 2007
I read the 2nd chapter but don't really have any new comments at this point.

Antonia I. SA 1030
Fri Jul 13, 2007
I'm sorry that I haven't been on here, but we've had a revival this week, and I just haven't had any time to read. I'll get caught up over the weekend. Where are we at? Chapter 5, isn't it?

Maece aka Jennifer
Fri Jul 13, 2007
Yup. It's been a bit hard to come up with discussion topics yet...

Angie I.
Fri Jul 13, 2007
It seems I have less time on my hands than I thought so I guess you will have to count me back out. Sorry about that. :(

Maece aka Jennifer
Fri Jul 13, 2007
That's ok - it will probably take us around a month to finish, so you can always jump back in later ;)

Maece aka Jennifer
Tue Jul 17, 2007
OK - just finished chapter 7. If you are not caught up (and have never read the book), be forewarned of spoilers.

Anyway, characters I found interesting:

1. Caderousse. He is basically a good guy, but ends up doing the wrong thing out of fear and weakness of character. However, it was weakness of character that gave him the opportunity to do good in the first place. If he had not been drunk, Danglars and Ferdinand would not have dared to create their plans in front of him. Yet, if he had a stronger character, he would not have been worried about being associated with a Bonapartist in order to expose trickery against a friend and a good man.

2. Villefort. Another interesting character. Likable, but shallow. I like the sincere description of shallow joy. First is a list of all that Villefort stands to gain from marrying Renee, then the following description "All the elements combined constituted for Villefort a ravishing sum of happiness; so that when with an inward view he contemplated steadily his interior life, it was as if he looked at spots on the sun." HAHAHA! Not quite sarcastic but almost.

Heather Brooke
Tue Jul 17, 2007
Quote:
Quote:
...the moment a character appears, the reader knows at once whether it is a hero or a villain. If a villain, he "darts an oblique glance, sparkling with hatred"; if a hero he is"tall, sinewy, with a fine pair of dark eyes and and an air of composure and of resolve."


...in the first chapter I recognized this tendency. From what I have heard of Dumas, he is overly simple. In fact, most of his books are written by a group of authors rather than himself alone, and his critics referred to him as "Alexandre Dumas and Company, Fiction Factory." However, his books (particularly The Count) have withstood the test of time and become classics. Just shows what critics know Wink


I totally have to agree with you! I found myself already picking out which characters that I will love throughout the book, and those that I will dread!

Maece aka Jennifer
Thanks to another thread, I just discovered that many of the chapters are available in audio format for free.
http://librivox.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1005

Antonia I. SA 1030
Tue Jul 17, 2007
This is terrible! I want to join in this discussion, but I already know everything that is going to happen, and I'm afraid it will color all my remarks. I would really hate to spoil the story for all those who haven't ever read this before, so I guess I'll just hang back and wait for a safe opening!

Caderousse was definitely weak, and I always felt sorry for him. He was just so lame! Villefort... [great, here is where I have to leave off so not as to give anything away]. Danglars was totally rotten, and Fernand really needed to get hold of himself!

Mr. Green[/i]

Patrick Eklektos
Thu Jul 19, 2007
Sorry I have not been with you all of late, but I have to punch out as I am trading my afternoon Classics for Theology. However, I am still reading Classics in the evening, but, as that is already taken by War and Peace, it does not matter in the slightest. Sorry about that.

SDG

Maece aka Jennifer
Fri Jul 20, 2007
Chapter 10:

The king is funny - he doesn't quite seem kingly enough though. I liked the description:

Quote:

...with the self-satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own while he is but commenting upon the idea of another...


Who would ever say something like that today? He says it as if it is common knowledge that an original idea is something VERY separate from a commentary. I agree that it is separate, but it's certainly not a distinction that people seem to make very often today.

Maece aka Jennifer
Fri Jul 27, 2007
I just finished Chapter 17 - am I getting ahead? I skipped a few days then made them up all at once and I think I may have miscounted how many. Anyway, The Abbe is cool - he reminds me of Robinson Crusoe.

I thought that it was interesting that Dantes confided to Fria that he would not have retained Danglars if the choice were up to him, as he had found inaccuracies in his work. Yet, he never told this information to his own employer. Hmmm.

BTW - how many people are still in this thing? We originally had 16 (anonymous) votes for The Count, and two have since bowed out, and three (including myself) have posted comments. Unless I missed something somewhere...

Loshie
Sat Jul 28, 2007
oh! Tell me where you are and I may try and read it again with y'all.

I read it a few months back, and I have to say it knocked Jane Eyre off for Favorite Old Novel. =P

Maece aka Jennifer
Mon Jul 30, 2007
I guess Chapter 18 as of now - though I think I'm about 2 chapters ahead of where I originally set the pace. Tomorrow I may be further ahead - it's kinda hard to put down :D

Lord Jarodicus
Mon Jul 30, 2007
I randomly grabbed the book at the library, and I'm about half-way finished. Maybe a little more. Very Happy I appreciate a book that I can attack for days on end and still not be done with

Maece aka Jennifer
Tue Jul 31, 2007
OK - I just finished Chapter 21, so if any of you are not there yet, beware spoilers!

One thing that is just a little annoying is that descriptions/illustrations have anticipatory details, so that you know what's going to happen long before it actually does. For instance, the picture on the page where he was thrown into the sea told me what was going to happen before he even was carried outside... there were little clues in the narrative all along and yet he was SURPRISED when he wasn't buried (probably because the "grave diggers" were referred to as such). Or, so much attention had previously been drawn to the fact that he kept the knife with him inside the bag - it's not like I didn't know how he would escape *Rolling Eyes* Or the old man telling him about the treasure - the old man had described the treasure to so many other's before, and I certainly never believed that he was mad, it's not like you couldn't see it coming...

And yet, I think that this "I know what's going to happen" actually gets me more interested than if I had no clue. It's kinda like when you're a kid on vacation and you keep asking your parents "Are we there yet?" I KNOW what's coming, I just don't know when, and so I get impatient, and I read more energetically (if that makes sense - reading energetically), looking for the closure that I anticipate. Hmmm...

Daniel J. Mount OFC
Wed Aug 01, 2007
I, too, overestimated the time I had available. But if I can spare the time, I'll catch up with you and start commenting!

Maece aka Jennifer
Thu Aug 02, 2007
Chapter 29: This guy is starting to remind me of Ghost Rider...

Lord Jarodicus
Fri Aug 03, 2007
Okay, an awesome quote from chapter 55:

"But really, my dear count, we are talking as much of women as they do of us; it is unpardonable!"

Mr. Green

Maece aka Jennifer
Tue Aug 14, 2007 11:08
Haha - someone sounds a bit arrogant in the battle of the sexes. Anyway, I'm only through chapter 38, so I guess I'll find out who/if/why about the arrogance later. Anyway, I liked the character Cocles, M. Morrel's loyal, senior accountant. He thought of life as a ledger. Moreover, the idea that everything will add up was like a moral law of the universe for him. If something didn't add up, it was if you had violated gravity. Particularly, if a solid business could not pay, or if a shaky one could, it was like violating the law of gravity. If it happened, he felt he might just as well be insane. I identify with that guy.

Maece aka Jennifer
Thu Aug 23, 2007
Maece wrote:
That's ok - it will probably take us around a month to finish, so you can always jump back in later ;)


When I wrote that, I didn't realize that there were four volumes, and that the thirty chapters listed in the index only represented the first. So, it WILL take over a month. Now that I've been reading more, hopefully it won't take four months.

Maece aka Jennifer
Fri Aug 24, 2007
I just finished Chapter 50.

I find it very interesting that this story is written at the time of The Enlightenment, The French Revolution, and generally speaking, the dawn of democracy and modern civilization. Yet, the Count seems to be a contrasting personification of vigilante justice, and even cruelty at times.

Think of his slave Ali - the Count felt no duty to save this man's life. In fact, he said that he deliberately waited until the man's tongue has been cut out before he did save him. He seems to have done this simply because it was a whim of his to own a mute slave. He once told a servant of his that Ali was more like a dog than a servant, and were Ali were to fail in his duties, the Count would kill him. His lover (if that is what she truly is - it is hard to say at this point) is also a slave.

He does not believe in philanthropy in general, and in every case where he seems to be practicing it he has a good and selfish reason (for this I admire him, I really believe that any philanthropist who belies himself to be a true philanthropist is deceiving himself, and is therefore dangerous).

The count seems to really believe in physiognomy, and employs it immediately to ascertain the character of everyone he meets. Even if phrenology was popular at the time, for me this seems too naive a belief for one such as the count :-/

I realize that the count did not make friends with Albert and Franz simply from coincidence. Yet, his interest (particularly in Albert) dragged on so long without the slightest hint why Albert was the chosen one??? It was nice to see that finally resolved. Albert is basically the son he would have had by Mercedes, had misfortune not befallen them both. Yet, Albert is also Fernand's son... so if the count loves Albert as a son, it seems in stark contradiction to the general trend of the story that sons are like their fathers. Maximillian, for instance, or either of the boys begotten by Villefort.

It was interesting to see the reference to Rousseau's Emile'! Rousseau WAS French, and from what I've read that book was considered quite an authority on child rearing at the time. I have actually read that book, and it is interesting, though I would not advise taking too much parenting advise from an absentee father of five...

Lord Jarodicus
Thu Aug 30, 2007
I finished weeks ago. :P I really respect a book I can attack for weeks on end and still not finish. I finally put in a few late-nighters and got it done.

Maece aka Jennifer
Enjoy it while you can. It's hard to pull late nighters once you get married.

Anyway, I just finished Chapter 73. I never expected the Count to work as a matchmaker... or un-matchmaker as the case may be. Though, I do think it's quite unfair to be pairing Bendetto with Ms. Eugenie Danglars. She hasn't done anything wrong except to be in love with music rather than a man (and that could change if she met the right guy...), to be independent and strong rather than traditionally feminine, etc. I'm not saying that Albert ought to love her (she doesn't love him either, for that matter), but why do they have to try to set her up with BENDETTO?? I mean, he basically tortured his adopted mom to death! What did she do to deserve him? ...besides, aren't they actually half-siblings?

Oh, and I don't remember what chapter this was from, but I loved this quote about the Count:

"Has the eccentric committed any new originality?"

...as if being original were a crime.

Maece aka Jennifer
Fri Oct 19, 2007
OK - I've been busy lately, but I did finally finish Volume 3. Anybody else have any comments?

Grace
Fri Oct 19, 2007
I haven't been involved in this group read, so I don't know where you all are. But, when you get to the end, I want to have a discussion on whether the book or the movie has a more satisfying ending. I have a definite opinion, but I don't want to spoil the ending for anyone.

Antonia I. SA 1030
Mon Oct 22, 2007

I want in on that discussion too! Mr. Green I have some very strong opinions about the endings! ;)

Grace
Mon Oct 22, 2007
MonteCristo LSP#8 wrote:

Great! Someone let me know when the majority is finished with the book and I'll start a thread.

Maece aka Jennifer
Wed Nov 07, 2007
I think I'm the only one who is still reading it - and I think Jared is the only other one who read it. Anyway, he's finished and I'm at Chapter 105, and I've placed the movie on hold at the library. Interesting thing is, I also put Robin Hood Prince of Thieves on hold (I've never seen it), and lined up like that it was interesting that they both have the same director, and that I'm 10th in the queue for RH and 1st for MC. Hmmm.

...oh! In Ch. 105 he mentions Abelard and Heloise... a story that I studied in my college humanities class. It's so cool to see all of these rather obscure references that most people have never heard of brought up again, I feel like I didn't study them for nothing afterall :D

Another point, I sincerely doubt that marijuana could produce the prolonged fake death of Valentine.

Maece aka Jennifer
Tue Nov 13, 2007
Well, I finished the book! YAYYYYYYYY! Anyway, the "wait and hope" was a very good summary of the book, I thought. I got the movie from the library... but didn't watch it because the sound was bad :( So, I put it on hold again and hopefully the next copy won't have any problems. Feel free to start discussing... :)

Grace
Tue Nov 13, 2007
Great! Ok, I'll have to watch the movie again so I can make sure I've got the particulars right. Going off my reading of the book and watching of the movie several years ago, I thought the book ending was horrible! Why does he let Mercedes live out her life alone and grieving and go off with his underage servant? What was the point of that? He's supposed to have gotten over his need for revenge and then he ruins her life. She's not the one who put him in prison, but he destroys everything she loves and leaves her to live with it. Was she just too old for him at that point? Was she too needy? Why did he do that?

The movie ending fulfilled my sense of poetic justice much better. Bad guy and good guy have thrilling sword fight, good guy marries girl and it turns out has a son. So, the bad people have bad things happen to them and the good people have good things happen to them. Not exactly realistic, but Monte Cristo wasn't written to be philosophy, it was a novel and it should have a better ending. The same sort of thing happens in Les Miserable and The Hunchback of Notre Dame. All the characters get to a point where they can live happily ever after and then they either all get killed off, or the story continues on until they are dead so that we know they didn't live happily ever after.

Did anyone else feel the same, or am I being a sappy girl?

Antonia I. SA 1030
Wed Nov 14, 2007
Well to start off, let me say that I haven't watched the new Count of Monte Cristo movie. I've only seen the old TV version with Richard Chamberlain (of course, I do not like this movie as well as the book, but Chamberlain is absolutely fabulous at flipping cloaks). However, judging from the above post, they have just about the same ending, with Dantes ending up with Mercedes, and the boy being his son. I personally hated that ending. First of all, Dantes made a big deal at the beginning of the book that Mercedes was his finance, not his lover. So how did she get pregnant, hmm? Sounds a bit fishy to me. Also, in the book Mercedes doesn't want to go with Edmond, she chooses to live out her life in exile, and the Count, only after being rejected by Mercedes, turns to what's her name, who would have done anything in her power to make him happy, though he was pretty far gone by this point. The Count was just too bitter to lead a normal, happy life. I just hate "forced" happy endings, which is exactly what the movie felt like to me. You know, no matter how bad things have been, no matter how far you have walked down a dark path, all you need is that one special girl, and "poof" you're on top of the mountain again. All the past is wiped away like it never existed, and even though you have completly destroyed the world that the girl has lived in and loved for so many years and have turned into a dark and twisted creature, she is happy to jump into your arms again. Bah! Humbug! Absolutely ridiculous.

As for Les Miserable, I realize that it has been a couple of years since the last time that I read it, but I am almost certain that the one couple (Jean Valjean's daughter and her "young man") ends up okay. True, Valjean has rather a rough time of it, but for Victor Hugo, this is a very, very (and I could add more very's, but I think you get the picture) happy book. In truth, I don't really see how The Hunchback of Notre Dame could have ended "happy". Hugo really liked to kill off all of his characters. One book that I read by him (and forgive me forgetting the name) everything was finally going fine at the end, when, all of a sudden, the two main characters get killed (I think one of them committed suicide, but that is beside the point, they were dead) in the very last paragraph. I mean, really, was that necessary? He could have just as easily let them float down the river on that raft, without killing them, and it would have made the book much more pleasant. Of course, if he had done that, I probably wouldn't have remembered the book, so maybe he knew best after all.

Disclaimer: This is all strictly my opinion. I am not saying that it is the one and only true opinion, nor do I intend to put anyone else's opinion down. I sometime come across that way, but it's genetic, and I can't help it. ;)

Maece aka Jennifer
Wed Nov 14, 2007
GA2007 wrote:
I thought the book ending was horrible! Why does he let Mercedes live out her life alone and grieving and go off with his underage servant? What was the point of that? He's supposed to have gotten over his need for revenge and then he ruins her life. She's not the one who put him in prison, but he destroys everything she loves and leaves her to live with it. Was she just too old for him at that point? Was she too needy? Why did he do that?

That bothered me too, but MonteCristo makes some good points, that Mercedes refused him (at least, if she did refuse him this is a good point - but when did he ask? Did I miss something here?). It did occur to me to think that he was leaving her because she was too old, or at least because she was too absorbed in her own grief to feel love. Still, I did find myself wishing that they could have ended up together... perhaps in heaven :) Anyway, I wouldn't want to see this happen at the expense of compromising either of their noble characters (ie an out-of-wedlock child... that is for Villefort and Madame Danglars, NOT Edmond and Mercedes!). I also wouldn't have been completely satisfied with Mercedes leaving Fernand for Edmond, but given that Fernand kills himself...

Haydee was ready to die without him. He started out loving her as a daughter, but she loved him as something else, it's not as though he was taking advantage of her. But, even if he were taking advantage of her, I think that his acceptance and use of slavery was meant to be a pointed contrast to the rise of democracy that came with the French Revolution. You have to remember that this book actually was written about the same time and place the story takes place.

He didn't ruin Mercedes' life, he only unveiled how Fernand had ruined it. He was pursuing justice, and part of the tragedy of sin is that it does hurt innocent people as well as the sinner himself.

GA2007 wrote:
Monte Cristo wasn't written to be philosophy

I take issue with this statement, and I could do so from two angles:

First - the weaker position - everything is philosophical whether it intends to be or not. This is true even of the most trivial things. As Jack Sparrow would say "That is a sad commentary in and of itself."

But - the stronger position - I think that this novel fully intends being at least somewhat philosophical. I agree that it is not a dry doctoral dissertation (neither is life for that matter), but novels very often have a purpose and a point beyond mere entertainment. I believe that some of the main philosophical points of this book were:

1. There is a God, and he does punish the wicked and reward the good... even in this life.
2. There is no such thing as pleasure or pain, only the comparison of the two. You cannot fully appreciate either in the absence of the other.
3. Children, innocent though they may be, often suffer for their parents' crimes, as the Bible says "To the third and fourth generation."
4. "Wait and hope" - meaning that human knowledge is limited, and there is always cause for optimism.

Now, having stated those, I must say that I disagree with number two. What I am about to say may not apply equally to all people, but in most cases I do believe that innocent bliss can be appreciated within itself. Pain hurts, and often even after the tragedy is passed the pain can remain, marring what might otherwise have been a happy resolution. If pain reoccurs too many times, or occurs without any apparent reason, or for reasons beyond one's control, it will lead to an insecurity that will never allow happiness to be fully enjoyed ever again. The doubt will always remain that happiness can be taken away at any moment, for any reason, or for no reason at all... my two cents ;)

This is why I REALLY think he should have told Morrel about Valentine before the month was up. I can understand if he didn't do so right away, because he needed her death to be convincing - but most of the family didn't even know about Morrel yet, and anyway he was willing to tell Noirtier, and everybody noticed his apparent lack of grief! I don't think that Edmond had the right to cause Morrel this month of grief.

Antonia I. SA 1030
Wed Nov 14, 2007
Did Dantes ask Mercedes to come with him?

Maybe I read a bit more into that than was actually there. I am almost certain (though I haven't read the book in over a year) that Edmond at the very least offered her assistance (which I guess is different than proposing) and she refused him, choosing instead to leave (didn't she go away?). I am now beginning to confuse myself as to the ending. I guess I need to go back a read that part again.

Justice
I guess you are right about the Count merely unmasking Fernand, but I don't see how you can say he was pursuing "justice". He wasn't after justice, he was after revenge, brutal revenge and he would use any means to acheive it. For instance, rescuing that condemned criminal (the one without a tongue) just so he could have a mute servant. And while he was rather good at revenge, he wasn't very discriminating. Caderouse hardly had anything to do with the whole plot (all he did was not do anything, and he had the added excuse of being drunk) yet the Count murders him. Danglars, the mastermind behind the whole thing, gets off basically scot-free, only losing his money (which, granted, for him was pretty bad, but still...).

Morrel.
I think that the Count did this on purpose to test Morrel. I can't say why, because I don't really have any conclusive evidence, but that's the way it seemed to me. It was only one month, which might sound like a long time to grief for someone who really isn't dead, but remember that without the Count's intervention, Valentine would really have been dead, which would have been much worse. My guess is that the Count told Nortier, because finding out that his beloved grandaughter was dead just might have killed him. After all, he was a rather frail old man, with no purpose in living.

Maece aka Jennifer
Wed Nov 14, 2007
MonteCristo LSP#8 wrote:
Justice

"Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord..." and that is what makes it justice. But in this case, The Count obviously felt he was the Lord's agent of justice. Now, he believed this because of some rather extraordinary circumstantial evidence, but in my mind that is hardly a command from God. However, this is not my book, so let's assume the book's logic and say that The Count is God's agent of justice... and I am not sure that he would actually use any means to get it. Afterall, he never actually killed anyone.

In the case of rescuing the criminal so that he could have a mute servant, I do not think he did that either for justice or revenge. Neither do I think he did it for mercy, I think he did it mainly because he wanted a mute, and secondarily because he wanted someone loyal. In this case I think The Count's reasons go back to what I said about the contrast between slavery and the new democracy. Though, non-Western punishments are well-know for not fitting the crime, and to have your body permanently mangled, to become disabled, and then to die - merely for stealing - is not quite just IMHO.

In the beginning Caderouse actually wanted to help Dantes, though he was a coward. For that, The Count rewarded him. However, Caderouse became greedy to the point of committing murder. When The Count discovered this, his mercy towards Caderouse was over! Even so, The Count did not murder Caderouse, he merely did not save him from being murdered by another. Even if The Count had murdered him, it could be called self-defence given that he caught Caderouse in the act of breaking and entering.

In the case of Fernand, The Count did not kill him, he killed himself. Also, in the case of Villefort, The Count did not actually kill anyone. Did he give poison to Madame Villefort? I can't remember now. However, he was not the murderer. When he saw how many had died because of his actions, he felt sorry that it had gotten out of control (perhaps he only meant to disgrace the family with scandal, both through Madame Villefort and Benedetto), and lost some of the zeal for his mission. That is why he did not pursue Danglars further... though even if he had his zeal, I don't think it was ever his intention to murder anyone, as no one had actually murdered him or Mercedes or his father (Despite his dramatic comments at the execution in Rome ;) ).

Antonia I. SA 1030
Thu Nov 15, 2007
I agree with you about the servant. That was a last minute addition to my post, and it didn't come out quite like I wanted it to. I was trying to use that as an example that he wasn't necessarily interested in justice, or he wouldn't have rescued him (for he was quilty). The Count definitely felt that he was God's agent of justice, but I didn't get the feeling that the book agreed with him, if you know what I mean. But that could just be me.

Maece aka Jennifer Thu Nov 15, 2007
Hmmmm - I'd never considered that the book might disagree with him... though at the end he had some doubts about his position.

I was just reading over this thread again, and a few things occurred to me:

1) I CAN'T BELIEVE I DIDN'T MENTION THIS BEFORE!!! Anyway, the scene with the telegraph operator, where he bribes the gardener who is talking about not sleeping so that he can guard his 16 (or whatever pitiful number it was) strawberries from mice! Ha! I just loved this because I love gardening! Anyway...

2) It's really poetic justice how Caderouse met his end because Dantes didn't expose his enemy, when the reason that Dantes suffered was because Caderouse didn't expose his enemies... except that Caderouse, a murderer, deserved what happened to him and Dantes did not deserve what happened to him... also, Dantes actually did expose Caderouse's enemy after Caderouse died.

Grace
Sun Nov 18, 2007
Well, I'm out of my depth here because I haven't read this book since 2003. But, ya'll have made me want to go back and read it again.

Off topic, I know that Hugo kills off all his characters, but I don't like that he does that, even though I loved all the moral philosophy in Les Miserables. I think he did it because he was getting paid by the word and when he counted up the happy ending total it wasn't enough to make rent, so he tacked on another few chapters by killing them all off and got his paycheck.

Antonia I. SA 1030
Mon Nov 19, 2007
That's great! I think that may be the funniest thing I've read lately. Mr. Green

Maece aka Jennifer
Tue Nov 27, 2007
Wow. Talk about random motivations... couldn't he just invent longer happy descriptions?

Antonia I. SA 1030
Tue Nov 27, 2007
I seriously doubt that he could even if he wanted to. I think the guy must have been seriously depressed or something, why else would he write such gruesome stuff? Les Miserables is still one of my favorite books, but it certainly isn't something you read to cheer yourself up. For that you'd have to go with P.G. Wodehouse, The Hitchhikers's Trilogy, or Don Quixote.

My Review of Atlas Shrugged

OK, really more of a discussion (old HSA) than a review, but anyway (I mildly re-edited a few of my original replies to include more info):

Maece aka Jennifer
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2005  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyone ever read any Ayn Rand (I've read only Atlas Shrugged)? I find it really interesting that she is both VERY right wing, and also anti-christian/religion. Anyone else have comments on that?

My two main arguments to hers would be:

1) She is equating communism and Christianity in a sense because they both command/suggest that those in need should be served. However, she does not address the fact that communists are vehemently anti-Christian, as God totally defeats the secular materialist mindset necessary to support the whole philosophy behind Marxism. As someone who actually lived under communism, I think she should know better. Since I haven't lived under that, perhaps I shouldn't criticize her. But, my husband has lived under it, and he certainly backs up what I've always heard that they really don't tolerate religion.

2) I agree with her that A=A. A good worker is not the same as a bad worker. Money does not grow on trees. Skyscrapers don't build themselves. Yet, I must then go on to question, did intelligence build itself? Did the intelligence of the human species - which she has so much respect for - merely evolve? ...whereas progress of all other kinds cannot? She doesn't like the evolutionary conclusion that we are just animals, but I haven't seen her explain why or how we could be anything else if there is no God.

I was once debating about this, and he said - supposing I'm right, what does it matter if there is a God? I said because if God created us, then He owns us, and He probably has something to say about how we live. He said, that didn't work because people are free agents and they cannot be owned - citing as an example that parents do not actually own their children. I said that parents do not create their own children, if they did, they should have much more control over how they turn out, even at birth. They merely throw the switch that sets off a natural process, already in place, and that process creates the child. They did not create or invent that process, and even now we can't alter that process very much. Parents don't own their children because the real Creator already does. (Granted, I do believe in free will - but not as anything inherent to humans, rather as something that God gave to us because it served His purposes to do so.)

Another complaint I have against Ayn Rand is that her philosophy results in the obsessive pursuit of money. I agree with her idealized version of what money should represent. But, in a fallen world it doesn't always represent that, and in a perfect world it probably wouldn't have much use.


Nicole
Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2005  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ayn Rand: I've read her Anthem, and it's really quite good...recognizing that her books do have the problems you pointed out in your post. It's main point is, if I'm remembering correctly, how important the individual is. I need to re-read it b/c it's been several years, but I definitely found it worthwhile the time I read it.

I began "Atlas Shrugged" about a year ago and decided to put it down part way through because of some of the sexual overtones. I didn't feel comfortable, as an unmarried woman, getting into THAT much detail about some desires. Other people may not feel that way... fine with me, I just did not think it the best thing for me at that time. That said, I liked where it was going. I was taking some frustrating classes then that ignored basic rules of capitalism & economics and her book provided a nice contrasting viewpoint, or the part that I read did.

- Nicole


Maece aka Jennifer (Online)
Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2005 10:37 am    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah - she does take some things farther than necessary. When I read it I wasn't married, so perhaps I should have waited to read that - but I was determined to find out what this Ayn Rand woman was all about and thus plunged ahead. Though, she was making an interesting point with what she did include. Although she doesn't see anything particularly necessary about marriage, or even devotion to a lifetime partner, she does see sex as something that must be respected, as something inherently good, something that should not involve shame (and the best way to avoid involving shame, IMHO, is to get married, but anyway...). This is very unlike her "looters" who looked upon it as an animal act, and who used it primarily to purposely hurt others. I remember one time she was describing a young couple heading off into the night, and she said the girl looked inebriated and the guy had a look on his face as if he were a school child off to write some graffiti. She is not as private about sex as I think she should be, but she is completely against the way that it tends to be degraded.

I think that was a good point - although marriage IS necessary - and hopefully I've summarized it enough here that people can understand what's she's trying to say without getting into her somewhat graphic descriptions.

That said - I really did like the book, her emphasis on individuality is great! But over time, the thing that bugs me most about her book is not so much her atheism, but how she encourages the pursuit of money above all else. She presents it in such a way that it's hard to to feel any differently - but now that I've put some time between me and the book, I think that it's important to remember that her's is a work of fiction based on her ideals. The pristine ending for those leading such a lifestyle is completely made-up. This is true not only of those who absorb themselves in self-interest and the pursuit of money, but also those who devote themselves to the pursuit of physical pleasure. There are no unplanned pregnancies (in fact, children hardly enter the book at all - which is really saying something for 1100 pages!), no STD's, and each time she finds a better guy to move on to, the old lovers are sad to have lost her but always let her go (wimps!) without any hard feelings. To think that the real world actually works like that is delusional. 

Gwenhwyfar BychanLee 
Thu Dec 29, 2005

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was always bugged by the fact that Any Rand's followers considered her to be infallible. She was truly a cult leader in every rotten sense of the word. If you'd like a laugh, look at " The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult" by Murray Rothbard. The writers on that site have different opinions about her, but there's some good articles warning about her cult-leader behavior. It's really sad that Ayn Rand has a monopoly on capitalism in the general public. If you try to convince anyone that the free market works, they'll accuse you of promoting her pornographic, atheistic novels. -GB


Prof. Higgins
Thu Dec 29, 2005 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have read it, it has been some years though. I found it very interesting. Some have mentioned the cult like following she has. It is typically termed the philosophy of Objectivism. I have not done enough study to comment on it however. I do suggest a good quick way to understand just some of it, is her article "The Virtue of Selfishness". Very enlightening. She strongly misrepresent's Aristotle in my opinion as do many of her followers.

GB mentioned Rothbard and the Lewrockwell site, you will find that many economists who agree with Rothbard like Rand. Not all, not even the majority, but many.


Gwenhwyfar BychanLee
Thu Dec 29, 2005

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think that it's funny that many people who are best described as "socialists" find her work so fascinating. This is one reason why I can't take her seriously. Laypeople read her novels for the smut and remain completely oblivious to her doctrine. Why do free-market economists believe that she's helping them promote liberty? –GB

My Review of The Divine Conspiracy

As I mentioned in an earlier note, I convinced a friend of mine to read Gatto's magnum opus, and hence could hardly refuse when she gave me a book of hers in return. With a few exceptions, I tend to avoid Christian literature. Especially anything written very recently that is popular with a "church" crowd. Perhaps I am being unfair and prejudiced, afterall, one should not judge a book by it's cover. Still, I've read one piece of Christian fluff too many and I really don't want to read anymore. I've also read secular fluff... just saying. Anyway, suffice it to say that the book far exceeded my expectations, and if this particular friend gives me any more books, I'd be happy to read them (well, except for the fact that I've already got 33 titles listed on my to-read list).

First off, the author is Dallas Willard. The back cover says that he is a theologian. Aside from the fact that he obviously writes Christian books, it doesn't state any qualifications or credentials for assigning him the status of theologian. However, it does mention that he is a philosophy professor at UCLA. Hardly the kind of guy I'd expect to find writing this kind of book. But, hey, I'm always game for an interesting read ;)

I cannot help but say that, from the start, I simply wish to describe this as "a happy book." I mean, the idea of "the gospel" and "the good news" really seems to pour into me from every word of this book. I guess I've gotten used to Christianity as mainly being about sin and guilt. The whole idea of Christianity is based on the fact that all have sinned and need a savior, and that God hates sin, and it causes pain and problems, but we all still sin anyway, and thus we should be in a constant state of...well, I don't know what exactly, but something bad. Now, I'm not belittling that or saying that any of that is untrue (except the very last bit), and neither does this book. But, this book suddenly reminds me that it's possible to move past all that. I can't think of a better way to say this than to quote the Bible. Everybody knows John 3:16, but here's verse 17:

"For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him."

Willard likes to dwell on the phrase "Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand." Now, most people have probably heard that before - I had always interpreted it to mean something like "Hurry up and feel guilty for your sins, because you never know when you're gonna die and face judgment day." Willard interprets it much more simply, as "Living in the Kingdom of Heaven is now one of your options." My first reaction to that is "Huh?" The problem here is that I, probably like many Christians, have seen "The Kingdom of Heaven" as some vague and probably metaphorical phrase. If we've thought of it as a real place at all, we've thought of it as synonymous with heaven - that is to say, where Christians go after death.

But forgetting the phrase for a moment, he simply focuses on the word "kingdom." What is a kingdom? I think of castles, and knights and ladies and, well, kings. He defines it as whatever is within your sphere of control. For instance, each of us has a kingdom. At the very least, for most of us, our own body is our kingdom. My brain tells my hand to wave up and down, and, it does! In a more general sense, my house is part of my kingdom. If I want to rearrange the furniture, I have the ability to do that. For most people, they have a degree of control in their jobs, whatever that job may be. Some people have very large spheres of influence, such as CEOs, or political leaders, for instance. "Heaven," in this case, he simply interprets as "air" or "the atmosphere" - meaning it's all around us. God created the universe, it is part of His kingdom - always has been and always will be. However, on the Earth, within human activities, he currently allows His control to be absent (I suppose to allow free will - which really should be a whole 'nother blog of it's own). But, since Jesus came, we have an open invitation to join ourselves to His Kingdom, that is, the natural order and the way things should be. In fact, we were created to do so, and it is the only way that we can truly improve and strengthen our own kingdoms. And, He does want us to improve and strengthen our own kingdoms. That is what it means to be created in His image. We were created to be co-rulers of creation, in creative cooperation with Himself.

Now, that is not to say that this will happen overnight, or that it will be easy. There is a certain amount of work that is expected of us. However, we do it with Him, and somehow that softens the load. When I hear the word "discipleship," I tend to think of discipleship programs in churches, which are usually some kind of official arrangement where specific people in the church teach Christian skills to newer Christians, or young people - some vague social activity that I see as fairly pointless for myself. Or, maybe, I might think of how Christians complain that modern evangelism is just about an alter call, with no discipleship follow-up. In that case, like the great commission "Go ye therefore into all the world and make disciples of all men," I think of it as something that's expected of me, something I don't feel equipped to do with any sincerity, and I find it a very distasteful word. But, to think of it as something that I do with Jesus, "apprenticing yourself to Jesus," as Willard would describe it, had never occurred to me. But as I do think of it, it again reminds me of a cherished verse (my favorite version of this verse is from The Message, the end of Matthew 11):

"Come to me...I'll show you how to take a real rest. Walk with me and work with me - watch how I do it. Learn the unforced rhythms of grace. I won't lay anything heavy or ill-fitting on you."

One of the very reasons why I refer to this as a "happy book," is that it offers "heaven" now. But, that is not to say that this eclipses the traditional view of heaven. There certainly still will be an eternal life after this life, and it will be different from this life. But, you can begin your eternal life now. You don't have to wait until you die. In fact, the only way you can have eternal life is through an apprenticeship with Jesus. There were times in my life when I was very depressed. I used to think about suicide, and wonder if it was really a sin? The Catholics seem to think so, but the Bible never mentions it specifically. I would be putting myself in the position of having to explain to God why I thought my timing was better than His - but after all, given how unhappy I was, I thought it was possible he might forgive me. I began to think of the Biblical description of the current state of Earth - paradise lost. Fallen beings roaming an almost forsaken wasteland. What was the point of being born here anyway? I already believed in Him - couldn't I just move on to heaven now? But perhaps that whole train of thought came simply from thinking of "heaven" as a place, rather than a mindset. Now, I think that heaven still is a real place, and that Jesus will probably physically return to Earth at some point, but it may very well be that if you don't first develop a "heavenly" mindset, you'll never be able to appreciate what the future holds in store for us. Kinda like "the dwarves are for the dwarves" at the end of CS Lewis' The Last Battle.  Discipleship - that is, apprenticing oneself to Jesus - is the only way to eternal life, now or later. Again, a verse, John 10:10b:

"I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly."

I think trust has been a big issue for me. I believed in God, but I guess I wasn't really sure if He was good. I sidestepped the whole question with a bit of circular reasoning: God creates everything, and defines good, so if He says he's good, who am I to question that? He's good basically by definition. His own definition. But, if I was really honest with myself, I'd admit that I wasn't entirely sure that his definition of good coincided with my definition of good. In which case, for all I know, His idea of loving and blessing me might very well turn out to be torture from my point of view. There have been alot of good things that have happened to me in my life, and there have also been alot of things that happened that I wish would have gone differently. It's still possible that in the end, when I see everything together as a whole, I will feel that they were for the best - but it's also quite possible that I won't feel that way in the end. Why the heck should I trust God?? My only response up until this point has been, basically, that I don't really have any choice. If he turns out to be untrustworthy, then all is lost, and there ain't nothin' anybody can do to fix it. How you gonna fight God? But, there's a certain amount of bitterness in that position, and bitterness isn't exactly trust. What Willard had to say about trust didn't exactly change any of my thinking on this, it just made me realize that this was something that I needed to deal with. That maybe I didn't, as Willard puts it, feel that "the universe is a safe place" for me. He made me realize that this wasn't something I could push to the back of my mind, or weasel out of with clever arguments, without consequence. I think he was able to do this, because he always writes in a tone that doesn't exactly prompt guilt. Maybe I couldn't admit my lack of trust before because everybody else made it seem like a sin I should feel guilty for, instead of simply a problem to be solved. Anyway, it prompted me to pray about it - not so much in the sense of repenting as in explaining my feelings and asking for help. I can't say that my thoughts have really changed, but, at least for now, the bitterness and fear is gone. Childlike trust actually seems possible, perhaps even present. Like I said, I think this is "a happy book" :D

Anyway, the coolest part out of all of this, is the kind of picture that I come away with of what real eternal life might be like. The book, as I said above, presents the idea that He does want us to improve and strengthen our own kingdoms. But, we can only do this with His power. Willard makes an analogy with physical power. With the strength of your own body, you can accomplish a certain amount. With mechanical power, even more. With electrical power, even more. With nuclear power, almost more than you can imagine (in fact, it's so much power, that we can't really use it because it's so hard for us to control). Likewise, joining the "Kingdom of Heaven," is kind of like someone living in a rural area getting hooked up to the electrical grid for the first time. The main difference is that God's power is somewhat directional - there is plenty of room for creativity, but you can't "use God" to do evil. I can only think of this other power as will power. I think that being created in the image of God basically means that we are meant to basically be able to do whatever we can imagine, and whatever we desire. Like Phoenix/Dr. Jean Grey from X-men! But think about what happens in that movie, her power is directly linked to her will, and her emotions, and even the slightest lack of self-control on her part has disastrous consequences. She kills the man she loves and who loves her, she kills a man who is trying to help her, she almost kills another man who loves her, and in the end she kills herself. Her power is beautiful and terrible! I think we are all meant to be like that - but God can't give us the power to do what we want to do, because we haven't learned self-control yet. As we begin to learn self-control, and patience for His timing (impatience isn't self-control), He will be able to give us more of His power, and then we will be able to do more of the things we want to do. Like Phoenix. How cool is that?!?!?!

Beef & Cabbage Calzones

Easy to make alot and freeze. Very convenient as work/school lunches. My mom used to make these for co-op lunches. Yummy!

* Equal Amounts ground beef and shredded cabbage
* 1/2 diced onion (for 1lb beef)
* salt & pepper to taste
* frozen bread dough

Brown ground beef in a skillet. Add shredded cabbage & diced onion. Cook until done with lid on, stirring occasionally. Salt & pepper to taste. Roll out bread dough into large rectangle 1/4" thick.  Cut into 5" to 6" squares. Put 2-3 Tbsp filling in the middle. You must not get any grease on the edges. Fold into triangle and seal (wet edges if necessary). Place on greased cookie sheet. Bake @ 350° until brown (20-30 minutes).