I located this site because it was added to the Moderate Christian Blogroll. The writer uses stories in a very inspirational way. I intend to keep track of it, so even though I display the Moderate Christian Blogroll, I’m going to add it to my standard blogroll of writing blogs.
I’d particularly commend the post titled The Missing Baby. It’s a creative combination of story and scripture. Good stuff!
My wife introduced me to J. D. Robb, and I have been enjoying Eve Dallas ever since. Occasionally she and I exchange books, though to be honest, our reading lists don’t overlap all that much, either in fiction or in non-fiction. A few days ago she handed me a couple of Nora Roberts books (I’m sure most readers know that Nora Roberts writes also as J. D. Robb), and said she thought Roberts was warming up for the Dallas books with these.
The first I read was Sacred Sins, which I have just finished. I will read the next book which she also gave me. I don’t like these as well as the J. D. Robb books, and a little look at the types of things I do read would probably tell you why. I’m not long on books with a great deal of characterization, and romance normally has to be kept to a minimum.
At the same time, this book would make an excellent place to discuss the difference between a mystery, and a romance that has some mystery in it. I think this is a romance with a touch of mystery. The male lead character is a homicide detective, and thus it is natural that police procedure and investigation would be involved. But Roberts doesn’t dwell as much on crime scene issues and the investigation as she does when writing about Eve Dallas, for example.
The female lead is a psychiatrist, contracted to provide a profile of a serial killer. There <em>is</em> action of the normal crime type, but the <em>real action comes between those two characters, whose nature, background, and training makes them see things differently. They are nonetheless attracted to one another. As someone married to a woman with a very different personality than mine, I can empathize.
I was surprised by the quality of the portrayal of the thinking of the characters throughout. I was also surprised by the ending, though I thought of it a few pages before it happened and then dismissed it as impossible. As soon as I had done that, it happened. So much for my guessing abilities. I’ll blame it on the romantic nature of the book, and the unsystematic presentation of evidence, and go on.
I’m not going to make a habit of reading romances, but if I were to do so, this would be the kind I’d go for. I rate this a 4.
This post uses the phrase “prescriptivist blowhards,” which I wish I had coined, about this prescriptive nonsense, which surely deserved it.
The meanings of words are determined by the way in which they are used.
Syntax is determined by the way people actually write and talk.
Prescriptive grammarians can yell and talk all they want, but it will still work that way, just as it always has. “They,” for example, is a plural pronoun because people used it that way. It can become a singular pronoun in certain circumstances for no better reason than that, surprise, people use it that way.
I do want grammarians and grammar teachers to be a bit conservative about the language. They shouldn’t be early adopters of every new way of expressing a thought. But uptight prescriptions are just silly, and can, nay should be ignored.
(I think much the same way about artistic and literary value.)
I just finished this book by Carole Nelson Douglas, and as usual I loved it. Definitely a 4, maybe better.
I could just rate this one a three, and let it go at that, but then I might be unfair to the author. You see, the book is well written, but unfortunately had the bad luck to hit too many of my pet peeves, not about writing, but about people. I just plain didn’t like the characters all that much, and sometimes I really don’t enjoy reading books about people I truly would not care to meet.
Basically, I felt that the action started slowly. The first half of the book kept me busy disliking the major characters. It got better toward the end, but I never did warm up to the people. Carlotta Wren’s parents have abandoned her and her younger brother, whom she has raised. He’s pretty much a 19 year old obnoxious ingrate, and spends his time messing up her life.
She, of course, being his sister, continues to put up with all this and kind of babies him along, while being threatened by various loan sharks and other unsavory characters. She is, nonetheless, the most likable character in the book.
The mystery is good, but it seems to me that the folks in the story solve it rather accidentally, which didn’t exactly excite me.
If you don’t have the same pet peeves as I do, you may well like this, because the story and the characters are built up quite well. I do like the technique by which we become acquainted with each person and learn more of the background. Because of those factors, I will certainly read another book in this series at some point. I’m just not in a hurry.
Occasionally one of my Christian acquaintances will question my taste in reading, movies, TV programs, or even games, though having attained 50 years of age, video and other online games are less a part of my life than they used to be. I don’t think their question is inappropriate, but I do very often disagree with their suggested choices.
But I was thinking about this today, and it occurred to me that we have a much bigger problem with how we read than with what, and this problem not only applies to fiction and other entertainment, but also to our informational reading. No matter what we read, we have two choices: 1) We can be led along by the author wherever he leads, or even to places he may not have intended, or 2) We can read with an active mind, discernment, and will.
For my wife and I, TV programs in the evening often result in ethical, political, or religious discussions. We watch characters and ask questions like these:
. . . and there are often many more.
When I listen to a news story, I’m asking questions like these:
Now I’m not some sort of paragon of virtue who checks every single fact he reads or hears. But before I make something my own, I do check references and determine whether it is well-supported or not.
Finally, I will also ask just how much of my time I want to spend watching that particular kind of show, or reading that particular kind of book. Is it constructive for me at this point in my life? Is the time I spend with it balanced?
Many times, people will spend hours watching a disaster or true crime story on TV, and feel superior to a person who watches a violent show or plays a violent video game. But were the folks who watched O.J.’s odyssey in the white Bronco using their time any more wisely than the most addicted teenage video game fanatic? Were they improving their minds or their bodies? Were the truly engaged in recreation?
Despite the title, I think there are things that are better left unread or unviewed. But I think that is a much less important issue than your decision to live your life with mind engaged. It may not all be in how you read, but much of it is.
I’ll take the risk that you may decide my blog is not the best way to spend your reading time!
