Wednesday, March 16, 2011

Book Review

I just finished reading "The Portrait of a Lady". I do not have an excuse, reason, or idea as to why it took me so long to finish it. I do recommend it. Lovely. Enjoyable. Interesting. Good character development. Not so many details that I can't remember what happened between the readings.

Why did I choose a Henry James? Honestly? See below.

Hugh Grant saying that Henry James is worthwhile? Good enough for me!

Anyways, Isabel is lovable and obnoxious is a not too obnoxious way. She stands alone. But then, she "enslaves" herself to marriage. Now, as I am a huge supporter of marriage it may be surprising that I wished for her to maintain her independence. Yes, marriage is wonderful. But as Isabel shows, this is not always the case. It is a shame that the idea of marriage and the "duty" is not as evident as that time period.

I enjoy realist books where there is no happily ever after. Not always, sometimes you need a good romance where the hero ends up with the heroine. But not always. Sometimes you just want to read life as it is. This was one of those books.

Why is it that in books like these we begin to wish the cousins would get together? That happens often with older lit. If that was the storyline of a novel today even alluded to this relationship I would probably not finish the book (I can't even think of a time when I did that... except for a school book). Why it is so much more romantic if it happened in a different time period? Not even that far past?

On a different note, this book came out yesterday. I am not endorsing it by any means. But still, it's there.

I don't think I'll read it. Maybe someday if someone has a copy I can borrow. I don't really want to buy it. I tend to know which books I'll like and which I won't. People say I have to read it to be sure, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't like this one.

Why? Because I know some of Bell's doctrinal beliefs that I don't agree with. I don't anticipate this book being filled with much besides these fundamentals. Sure, he is not all wrong. But there are some key facets to the Christian faith that I believe he has overlooked. Better put, there are parts of the Bible that he has turned away from and blocked out.

People who believe that the Bible is a good book and Jesus was just a good man are kidding themselves. Either the Bible is the inspired word of God cover to cover... or it is not. Either Jesus is the son of God and what He said is true... or it is not. One or the other. If Jesus is not who He says, then He is the biggest liar in all of history. That does not make Him a good man.

People think they can have it both ways. They pick and choose what they like about the Christian faith and disregard other portions. It's sad really. As I've grown up (and I still have a LOT of growing up to do) I have figured a lot out about the faith I choose to follow. Not in a "I know everything" kinda way. But in a "I know why I believe what I believe" kinda way.

Not going to get into all the theological issues, but maybe someday I will. If you're interested, we can grab coffee. I don't like getting into online debates. That is why I am writing this here. No comments allowed. Instead of posting on facebook.

Worth a thought, however.

No comments: