The Tall and Short of It: Appearances

Anyone who has a visible disability. Anyone who is different---taller. Fatter. Missing a limb. Using a wheelchair. Has eyes that are two different colors. Wears clothing that differs from the norm. Anyone, in short, who attracts attention. We all know it.

I was perusing an interesting post on the blog, Feministing. http://feministing.com/archives/006185.html

It was written by a tall woman. Taller, in fact, than many men. And one paticular paragraph caught my eye

"I've come to realize that I can learn a lot about people I meet by how they react to my height. Lately, having just moved to a new place, this has been happening a lot. Most of them will wait until the second or third time we've hung out to casually insert into conversation, "So.... how tall are you exactly?" This is a question I realize probably occurred to this person within the first few minutes of our meeting, and the time elapsed until they ask it aloud is the time it took them to feel comfortable around me."

Anyone is slightly unusual or different recognizes this situation. You're causally chatting with a stranger, in line, or you both just happened to be surveying the grocery store's array of pickles, and they started to talk. Then, comes the moment. Their voice becomes just slightly apologetic or embaressed, and their eyes flick from your face to the pickles, and back again. And then they ask,

"So...why do...what happened...how did...I hope you don't mind but I wondered....is it hard to X when you're Y?"

Or:

"I knew someone like you once, and they..."

Sometimes I don't care. But more and more, I just get this tight clenching in my stomach, and I want to get my pickles and abandon them in mid-sentence. The realization that this whole time, they were just working up the courage to ask you a question, a question that you've probably answered dozens, or even hundreds of times before. You realize that, to this person, no matter how polite or kind, you are reduced to your missing hand or your wheelchair. Your clothing. They noticed that you were different, and that was all.

You glibly answer the question---the answer has been rehearsed and acted out so many times that you can get it under a minute by now. You try to be soothing. Underlying your words, a slight panic, and reassuring messages.

Don't be afraid of me.

I'm not that different.

Really, I'm just like you.

If you succeed, they relax, you chat for a minute or two more, you get your pickles, and you leave. But sounding in your mind again is that eternal message: you're different, you're different, and that scares me. You're different, and I'm unsure if you're really quite human like the rest of us.

Some people never manage to work up the courage, and they stare at you from around a corner, or from the corner of their eyes. Sometimes, your eyes meet, and they stare blankly for a moment, startled. Then they jerk away, quickly assuming a causal, I wasn't staring at you face.

Some people translate their fear into mockery, or rudeness. I was in the mall, and a boy, passing with his buddies, called out, "Hey Amish!" I was surprised enough that I didn't say anything; either about his jerkiness or his improper grammar. I am not Amish. The Amish don't deserve to have their name used as an insult.

Another time, a college age guy felt that it was appropriate to, as I was sitting, obviously reading in a Barnes and Noble, call out "Amish?" Next time, I might just yell back, "Stupid?"

You're torn. You don't want to be a jerk. You don't want to be rude. But a natural defensiveness developes. You remain cautious when you begin to speak, wondering if they just want to satisfy their curiosity. If the inevitable question will be asked once more.

This has made me very aware---and wary---of judging or asking anyone about their differences. I don't want to be one of the faceless people who feel it is their right to single you out for your difference---to ask, to interupt, to sidle up in a friendly manner until your question has been worked up to, and answered.

I have a face. I have a name.

And so does every different person in this universe.

Know it, and think before you speak.

Paradise Lost, Prada, Poetry

When you're debating over whether to blog your experience of Paradise Lost, lament your idiotic lust of handbags you will never own, or the poetry reading at your local Borders, you know that you need to stop right there. Just dropping a note to let people know that I am alive and intend to 'blog Paradise Lost' in my next post. I feel guilty, as though I were coping that guy who blogged the Bible, but since iyov asked...

http://www.blogger.com/profile/16900943829679088001

Paradise Lost and Personal Libraries

I always buy books thematically. About six months back, it was poetry. Ted Kooser expanded my shelves, Garrison Keillor's Good Poetry suddenly arrived, I memorized long passages from Beowulf. Then it swung to early American history, and Alexander Hamilton and debates about the constitution started arriving in the mail. Then, a fit of children's fantasy took over, and their shining covers still brighten my shelves. After that, Greece and Rome (I bought the Iliad, technically poetry, but it's the same idea) Bibles have now taken a large chunk out of my pocketbook, and I still can't resist them, especially if I find them used.

Now, it is come full circle to poetry. It started with the Norton Critical Edition of Paradise Lost. Brand new from Borders, and jammed with all those wonderful juicy extras that Norton always includes, it cost me $10. That's right. $10. Try your Borders, that's a steal.

I am currently trampling my way through, recording some observations in a separate notebook, refusing to defile those shining margins. At least, until I've read through it at least once. When Milton's sentences have thoroughly saturated my mind, I pick up Wordsworth, his Prelude, in another Norton Critical edition.

I resisted temptation mightily when trying to decide between Wordsworth and Tennyson at the bookstore; I love Tennyson, one of the few poets that I do love, and yet I knew that I needed to broaden my horizons. I hadn't read enough of Tennyson. I nearly hurled both of them back onto the shelf and grabbed Robert Browning, but I knew, deep inside, that it was a compromise. I don't dislike Wordsworth or Browning, I simply love Tennyson very much.

At least I have decided on one thing: I will purchase my poetry more systematically. Because those Norton Critical editions are well-designed, jammed with extras and extraordinarily cheap (usually from $12-14, with a few in the $20s) I intend to buy my poetry in that format, and lend at least a show of order to my disorganized, wild, and crazy library.

The author realizes that this post somewhat contradicts the previous, however, said author has decided to call it 'tension' instead of contradiction, and feels quite happy about hitting upon such a neat solution.

One Book At A Time--Not Me!

There's one book that I read every day, and that is the Bible. There. But maybe the Bible simply illustrates my reading habits.

I almost never, ever read one book at a time.

Occasionally, there's a book that I sit down and read straight through, front to back, because it's a really good book. But most of the time, I have five or six various reading 'projects' going on at the same time. I inhale the written word. Whether this is a good or bad habit, it goes on and on.

My reading is sometimes thematic. I'll bang out several poetry books in a few weeks. Suddenly, acting is fascinating. If I had the money to buy all the books that I thought I needed to study my current obsession, I would own a private library. And then again, I could be reading an old childhood favorite, such as "Journey from Peppermint Street" alongside "Trading Territories: Mapping the Early Modern World", which, while well-written and fascinating, is a bit higher on the reading scale than Peppermint St.

I would love to get reading suggestions from people on nonfiction books. Although I own various poetry volumes, half a dozen Cadfaels, the afore mentioned children's story, and some other fiction books, I actually read more nonfiction than anything else.

Current reading obsession: mathematics.

Modesty

OK, so I just copied the title of a post from teampyro.blogspot.com. But I admitted it! Here's the original post, and if you want to have some interesting reading, check it out

http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2007/05/modesty.html

I managed to throw in a few words. When I attempted to comment again, my scintillating and insightful...insights...were lost to the blogging world. I'm pretty sure that it's just my computer or me, messing it up again. I gotta figure out where those comments are going. Maybe you have never had the experience of a brilliant yet humble, gentle but unyielding, stern but gentle reflection upon the human condition get eaten by blogger. Well, it's tragic.

I've combed through many posts about modesty. Some, controversial (SEE ABOVE) and some on those pink and purple blogs that Christian women seem to feel obligated to use. I'm serious. What is with that hideous pink that Moms always seem to use? You're hurting my eyes. Oh, and those are never controversial.

There are many assumptions made in people who want to see modesty. For the sake of clarity, let me define what modesty actually means in most posts. (And I'm not simply talking about teampyro's post, which has certainly received a busy pummeling)

"Modesty/Modest: Clothing that meets fuzzy cultural or subjective standards of conservative, good girlness. Modesty is a virtue most needed by women, who arouse lust in men by their inappropriate clothing, or lack thereof. Men just need a side note about modesty, and certainly not an entire blog post. Men, however, do get lectures (and sometimes very good ones) about lust. Modesty is a lost virtue that, if regained, would help to restore this sex-crazed society or at least help curb whole sale lusting. I'm talking to you, young lady!"

It is my contention, however, that most arguments or pink and purple blog posts about modesty are busily hacking the weed off---at ground level. Modesty is EASY to make rules about. It's EASY to make fun of the 'dumb girl' who doesn't realize that her hot bod is doing to the guy across the aisle, it's EASY to make fun of the parents who froth at the mouth when anyone gently suggests that it might be a good idea if Lil Honey didn't wear jeans with JUICY across her bottom.

It is NOT EASY to face the root of it. It's not hard to challenge a society that glorifies porn, that turns women into separate body parts, that tells you that you have failed, as a women, if you are not sexy and desirable. That's why you can see unattractive heroes, but never (almost) unattractive heroines in the movies. Because no one can love an ugly women---a woman is defined by her looks.

So when Helen in her JUICY pants walks down the aisle to sit next to her friends, your first thought is not "Who told her that she needed to be juicy?" your first thought is "Wow---she IS!" Or the girl in the short shorts and the flimsy top is now just long legs and breasts. Women aren't people. They are simply a collection of gratifying lust objects.

This root causes lust in places like Saudi Arabia. If guys mentally undress immodest women, than the guys there just have to take a little bit longer. I'm serious. No amount of clothing stops lust. Maybe it stops some of the fleeting thoughts that cause some people so much guilt---they get obsessive over it, when they should recognize biological realities and simply say "I'm a human, and they are humans, too, not just there to please me"---but it sure doesn't stop lust.

Lust is not stopped by clothing. Lust does not come from someone other than yourself. Immodesty (according to your culture) can help feed your lust, but it does not create it. Immodesty does not create lust. LUST, and a fallen society, create immodesty. Lust flourishes the world over, it does not matter what the women or the men wear.

Then why is everyone so worried about modesty, if lust can and does flourish no matter what?

Because it is easy. Our human minds don't like to let other people choose so freely, we want to be able to set up rules, it's fun and self gratifying to make fun of people who don't meet those rules or standards. It's easy to blame someone else who forced you to sin, because all pity is immediately transferred to you. Adam started it, and it's been a long and 'glorious' tradition ever since.

It is not easy to confront a corrupt culture. It is not easy to realize that we must

"Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. (Eph 6:11-12 TNIV)

Immodesty, culturally bound as it is, is not the enemy. Satan probably enjoys the in-fighting, the bickering, the skirt measuring, the mental standards that we measure other people with. Meanwhile, he is busy telling us that he is not the enemy... the women are. Lust is not the enemy...immodest (women/men) are...lust doesn't create immodesty or porn...immodesty and porn create lust...if you just got modesty right, all your problems would go away. Once you find the perfect standard, once you find the perfect, fulfilling wife/husband, once you put on the right clothing--you will win.

But lust is the enemy. Lust does create porn. People do have wonderful spouses, and they still struggle with lust. People have created 'perfect' standards, and they've found that the enemy isn't without...it's within.

I can and am irritated by the various other problems with many modesty arguments and mistakes (Women aren't really tempted visually, and if they are, it's just weirder and a recent phenomena produced by a wicked society, all immodest women are flaunting their bodies to seek affirmation, not sex, all immodest women want you to notice their awesome body, women should be more concerned with modesty than men should, women need to be more modest and careful, women create sin with their bodies, blah, blah)

But I didn't devote my blog post to that. Because once we recognize the real enemy, we can fight it.

Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. (Eph 6:10)

TNIV Spotting!

On reflex, when reading a book that quotes the Bible, I check the copy right page, just to see what translation they're using (no need when the KJV is used, the Kings English can be spotted a mile away) and almost invariably, it is the NIV. The few exceptions are usually the NASB.

Imagine my surprise and delight when I turned to the copy right page of the book above....and saw that the TNIV was used!

The book itself was interesting and frustrating. Jarrett Stevens wrestles with our various misconceptions of God, and provides some tantalizing insight...but it feels like the book stopped short of an all out smack down, a real wrestling match with our doubts and fears and questions. I wanted Stevens to take names, and really Chuck Norris 'em. Still, it was a humorous, interesting Borders read---the type of book that's short enough for me to read in one Borders visit.

(The Message is also used in spots in the book)

Still, it was nice to make my very first TNIV spotting!

My (Non)Favorite Preacher!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKHILew-laI

Let me clarify right off the---OK, I can't think of the right word, but let me clarify right away that I do not intend to demonize Mark Driscoll. It would be dishonest to say that this dude is a jerk freshly-dipped in hell fire, ready to gobble down your children. I've listened to one sermon by him, and appreciated it. So you have to understand that I have limited contact with his preaching, appreciate some of what he is doing, and bang my head against the keyboard at the rest. I mean, look at this quote

Mark Driscoll

“So the question is if you want to be innovative: How do you get young men? All this nonsense on how to grow the church. One issue: young men. That’s it. That’s the whole thing. They’re going to get married, make money, make babies, build companies, buy real estate. They’re going to make the culture of the future. If you get the young men you win the war, you get everything. You get the families, the women, the children, the money, the business,
you get everything. If you don’t get the young men you get nothing. You get nothing.”

So young women do not get married, make money, make babies, build companies, buy real estate, they don't make the culture of the future (despite making up 51% of the population) and if you get young women, you don't win the war, you don't get everything, you don't get the families, the women, the children, the money, the business, you don't get everything. If you don't get young women, you're not losing out too bad. If you don't get young women, it doesn't matter.

He seems to be stating, basically, that once you get young men, the women are dragged along inside. Good for macho Driscoll, 'cause that way, he doesn't have to worry about appealing to the "feminine" half of humanity (a very dirty word for Markie) because that would be really below him. In fact, to appeal to women, he would have to soften his theology, sing love songs to Jesus, and wear a pink suit, because according to Mark, that's what women want. In fact, the feminization of the church is a big concern for Mark, because you see, feminine equals silly, vapid, empty, directionless, soft, liberality.

See, what Mark and "God" know is that the church needs a big shot of masculinity, because masculinity equals strong, no-nonsense, pure, vision-oriented, conservative, intelligent churches. It doesn't matter to Mark that men historically have started the major cults, and have lead the church. The church is dominated by male leadership and male theology. So to take the mess that is our current American church and dump it into the laps of women/feminists is silly and immature.

Oh, and churches that don't target 22-25 year old men aren't innovative because the innovators aren't there? OK, that's sexist beyond belief. Because the huge implication is that women are not and cannot be innovators.

Lame, lame, lame.

And I leave you with this.

So the question is if you want to be innovative: How do you get Caucasians? All this nonsense on how to grow the church. One issue: whites. That’s it. That’s the whole thing. They’re going to get married, make money, make babies, build companies, buy real estate. They’re going to make the culture of the future. If you get the white people you win the war, you get everything. You get the families, the blacks, the children, the money, the business, you get everything. If you don’t get the Caucasians you get nothing. You get nothing.

Why is it OK to be sexist?

Duhhh...Complementarianism Strikes Again!

I did something that I shouldn't have done. I searched "women" on a complementarian blog. I seemed fairly innocuous, most of the stuff you've heard before. But this one really cracked me up.

Here's a link to the original post Genesis 3: Curses, Consequences and Covering and the excerpt

She was also told that her husband would rule over her. The headship of the man existed before the fall, so this ruling over her is not evil in and of itself, but Eve did assert herself by taking the fruit while Adam looked on. The seed was planted for women to feel under appreciated and they would at times be rebellious to their husbands, but the men would ultimately rule over them, as God’s definition of the family can not be usurped by any act of man.

On that last phrase "God's definition of the family cannot be usurped by any act of man."

Exactly. God doesn't redefine sin because humans think that adultery is fine. However, humans go right on committing adultery. It is utterly silly to suggest that men continued to rule over their wives because if they didn't, it would mean that God's definition of the family would be redefined. If, as I anticipate, homosexuals are allowed to marry, does this redefine GOD'S definition of marriage! Of course not, that is simply illogical. Women disobeying God's supposed decree that husbands rule over their wives wouldn't redefine God's definition of marrige, anymore than homosexual marriage would.

People misuse language, but doesn't change the language. Despite humankind's redefinitions of all of God's laws and decrees, they still stand. People simply disobey them.

OK, so let's check out what Genesis says here, and I'm using the ESV, no stealthy TNIV here.

Genesis 3:16 To the woman he said, "I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children.Your desire shall be for[e] your husband, and he shall rule over you."

Sounds fairly simple. However, for fun, let's make a version that makes it easier to swallow this complementarian's interpretation.

NEW COMPLEMENTARIAN VERSION! Genesis 3: 16 To the woman he said, "I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children.Your desire shall be for[e] your husband, and he shall rule over you and even though him ruling you isn't really evil or part of the curse, you will feel under appreciated, and you'll try to rebel against him, but he'll manage to keep you in line anyway.

Genesis seemed pretty simple.

Oh, and I love "Eve did assert herself." Oh my goodness. Even though God actually told them not to eat the fruit, the really tear-jerker for a complementarian is the idea that Eve "asserted" herself. The problem isn't that she disobeyed his husband. She disobeyed God. The problem is not that Adam obeyed his wife----the problem is that in obeying his wife, he disobeyed God.

Overall, this is an even worse argument than the "he ruled her before the fall, but now husbands would be mean rulers" one.

Sigh. I really shouldn't have. It's a guilty pleasure. And it's a pain. I should give myself a rest sometimes.

Chocolate People Are Funny!

I was browing seventypercent.com, a site devoted to chocolate. 70% referring to the amount of cacao---the part of a choco bar that makes it chocolate. I admire their dedication, enjoy chocolate, but this review really amused me!

Aroma transfers to flavor both in content and in intensity, as this is by no means a shy chocolate. Ash surges on the tongue, but it quickly settles down and is then followed by sweet whisky with mild tropical fruits laid on top, which is further succeeded by shy blackberries.

Down with shy chocolate, I say! I'm tired off these wall flowers chocolates hiding in tiny whole food stores and hip cafes! And those durn blackberries...no wonder I can find them!

I also enjoyed the review that referred to a chocolate as actually being a virgin bride in her white wedding dress---not an exact quote. Still, you gotta think that too many 100% percent bars went to the reviewer's head on that one.

Teehee.

Teehee.

"shy-no-more"

opinion-minion

Wow! A Wide Margin Bible Blip on my Life Radar

New King James Wide Margin Reference Bible NKJV Leather

Check out that recently ended auction. It's pretty good for a bonded leather Bible---it reminds me of an Oxford KJV interleaved that went for $500. I remember squinting at the somewhat shadowy picture of it, and wondering vaguely why someone would pay that much money for a Bible with some blank paper in it. It looked nice, but not $500 nice, at least, in my opinion.

OK, so was this NKJV Bible really worth $318? The short answer is no. A bonded leather wide margin Bible, insert your favorite translation (except of course, the TNIV, which causes Rick Mansfield much grief) is worth around $35 to $40. Add genuine leather cover, and you're looking at the very least fifty, and the price just climbs from there.

The long answer, and one that I think is interesting, is that there were four different people, all willing to pay over $100 dollars to own a wide margin Bible in their favorite/preferred translation. 3 of those bidders went over $200.

Now, it must be added that this Bible is out of print, or, as booksellers put it, OOP. Thomas Nelson didn't slap a retail of three hundred dollars on this Bible. 2000 pages of text with fat margins to scribble in, even with a fako-bako leather cover just isn't worth it. But...it was, to several people.

I think that there's a interesting tension between the fact that Thomas Nelson stopped printing the Bible, presumably because of low sales, and the fact that several people are willing to pay that much over the original price tag (which, unfortunately, I do not know)

Women, Last Names, and Feminism

I've seen this brought up several times in a debate. Whether someone is squabbling over the TNIV, or debating egalitarianism vs patriarchy, any women who has dared to keep her own last name is immediately pegged.

She has "noticeably" kept her own last name. It's mentioned in a tone pregnant with meaning, hands coming up to shield whispering mouths. For someone who doesn't attach any evil meaning to a woman keeping her own name, it looks distinctly silly and malicious.

If I wanted to do exegesis the way that I've seen it done many times, I could come up with an argument that CLEARLY SHOWS that MEN should TAKE THE LAST NAME OF THEIR WIFE. Anyone who doesn't is obviously showing their unwillingness to obey the clear teaching of Scripture. Here it is

Why Men Should Take their Wife's Last Name

Genesis 2:24 ESV Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh

As is so clearly illustrated in this text, the man is leaving his father and mother. He's going to become the spiritual priest of his own home, and bring his wife under his covering {interjecting: that sounds wrong} thus forming a new family unit.

However, people don't like to take the Bible the way that the Bible is. They like to make it fit their societies, and what they want it say. They have "itching ears." I'm just giving you some background here, so you'll understand why I condemn the practice of women taking the last name of their husband.

When a man keeps his last name, it's a symbol of his connection to his old family. It's a sign of dependence, not autonomy. He's forced to stay connected, in a perverse way, to his old family, making a weird conglomeration of two households--with him and his father forming a wrong two headed priesthood.

The MAN is to LEAVE. It is NEVER said that women leave their families. When she keeps her last name, it's a symbol of female dependence and need for connection and support. When a man takes his wife's last name, he's simply severing his connection with his own family, and showing his Christ-like acknowledgement of the fact that his wife just needs more emotional shoring up than he does.

In conclusion, I have clearly proven that men should take their wives's last names. Anyone who disagrees with me is a godless liberal who is discarding orthodox doctrine. Anyone who agrees with me is one of the godly remnant, who are holding fast to the faith once for all delivered to the saints. Thank you.

My Beef with the TNIV

I just couldn't believe it when I saw it. How could the TNIV do this? Could any honest person with a knowledge of Greek actually justify this unwarranted tampering with the text?

OK, OK, I'm being a little silly here. But I really wish that the TNIV would simply put brackets around contested passages like the ending of Mark, and the story of the woman caught in adultery. Now, they've put the entire passages into italics, and this is NOT good news for this lil lady's eyes.

Away with the italics!

(Warning, this is!) A Poem

I love our rhythm
we fall in beside each other; mellow.
There is an even tenor to all our ways.

I love your small smiles
that blossom under my sunshine
No one else can see
how beauty full you are

I love - the idea of love
and the untenable longings that quiver
between us: we will never
be satisfied. There will be
an ache behind our contentment.

You will never understand how I love -

the way I can never exhaust you as a subject.

I’ll always be able to describe the way
you lean your cheek into your hand, the soft
and supple flesh escaping around white,
concentrated fingertips; your frown of concentration.

The subtle shift of light in your eyes
as you drop the Wall Street Journal
and turn your eyes to me
shining.

We will not go to work today.
We will breath in hazy sunlight.
Under this whole wide sky
we’re the only ones ready
to rise to meet God in the air.

Yeah. I really love the way we spin out
onto reality’s finest edge, the black ice.
I love the way you make it the best thing in the world
to go crashing through.
Swept away.

And I’ll spend all day telling you this
and you will smile and nod.

Both of us will send messages
with our fingertips, delicately
catching
at paper-thin air.

Pigma Micron---Perfect Bible/Moleskine Pen

Isn't it perfectly hideous and marvelous at the same time? I picked up a Pigma Micron yesterday, size 03, and have been perfectly thrilled with it. I've used it in my fire engine red TNIV, and despite the fact that the paper is very thin (to keep the Bible under an inch thick) there has been NO bleed through. Yes, there's 'ghosting'--you can see it on the other side, but no ugly blotches, or anything. I expect it would be even better with higher quality paper.

It writes very smoothly, giving you the sensation of writing with an ordinary gel or Pilot pen (I call them "inky pens" although that is perfectly idiotic, considering that every pen is inky) without any of those sudden, uncomfortable scratchy feelings, or blots on your finger-tips. Although, since this gives me a delightfully self satisfied feeling (the ink blots) I may pick up my spluttery Pilot once in awhile.

It looks exactly like the type of pen that will last FOREVER. I certainly hope that it shall. (It writes very well in a Moleskine, by the way, it's pure, smooth, ecstasy.)

One Buck Short--or, Buying God

Three times today, someone was just one buck short.

I put back the packet of pens, too impatient to take the time to pick up the extra dollar that I needed.

I tapped my foot as I waited to purchase my one pen, and watched the man ahead of me deal ot a handfull of wrinkled tens and fives.

"Just one more," said the cashier pleasantly.

He put down a wrinkled one.

My friend came from the store, frustration written over her face. She held an unpaid bill in one hand.

"You dropped a dollar when I gave you that envelope to hold," she said "Give me a dollar."

I pulled a crushed dollar from my pocket, and handed it over.

Naturally, fiendish person that I am, I had to cannabalize a series of concidences to make an interesting blog post, but at least I admit my guilt.

I picked up a brilliantly red TNIV today, and my pen was a Pigma Micron, sacred pen, at least according to many people. It is a beautiful Bible, and it will certainly shine among the dignified navys, burgundies, powdered blues, dull gold and browns of my Bible collection. However, as I rummaged about for my Borders card, I questioned myself.

Was I searching for some Holy Grail Bible, some magically perfect volume---was I buying a Bible, or buying God? Or, buying my way to God? Buying some experience---"as the Borders register rings, a deep God experience from heaven springs?"

I don't just buy God through Bibles. Sometimes, I buy God through Bible study. When I turn over the pages of my wide margin Bible, and the colourful notations speak of my smug, self-serving Bible study, I fairly scream to myself "Wow! You've really bought God this time---look at that hard work!"

It's much easier for me to buy God than to speak with God. Because then, he's a person, and I'm too impatient to deal with people.

But I have a problem. I have to buy God every day. If I didn't...I'd come up short. I'd lose everything that I'd been working for. My god feeling, my self-righteousness. I'm pretty sure that's what Philippians 3 is about. I'm not quite as plain as Paul is, it's hard for me to grasp what it's about when I figure out that my self-righteousness doesn't mean anything. So, I come to God, and say this:

"Father, I know that I can't earn you. But I still try. In fact, I feel self-righteous when I tell you all of this. I feel smug that I realize that I'm hopeless. I feel smug that I admit my smugness. It pretty much ends up being a big advert for me, me, me. I'm sorry. Forgive. Help me. Really, really help me. Thanks for listening to lame prayers."

Faith is believing that.

Why can't Preachers Preach like Gerard Manley Hopkins Writes?

If preachers could preach like Gerard Hopkins (A Jesuit priest who converted to Catholicism against his parents wishes, he said he could not read their letters twice, they were so terrible) then you might have more people listening. He sounds more thrilled with God than anyone I know.


God's Grandeur

by Gerard Manley Hopkins

The world is charged with the grandeur of God.
It will flame out, like shining from shook foil;
It gathers to a greatness, like the ooze of oil
Crushed. Why do men then now not reck his rod?
Generations have trod, have trod, have trod;
And all is seared with trade; bleared, smeared with toil;
And wears man's smudge and shares man's smell: the soil
Is bare now, nor can foot feel, being shod.

And for all this, nature is never spent;
There lives the dearest freshness deep down things;
And though the last lights off the black West went
Oh, morning, at the brown brink eastward, springs--
Because the Holy Ghost over the bent
World broods with warm breast and with ah! bright wings.

Nope, Mark Driscoll

Mark Driscoll, in discussing the ESV...


The ESV upholds the complementarian nature of gender in Scripture.Unbeknownst to the average Bible-reading Christian, there is a great debate raging in academic circles about the language of gender and how it relates to biblical translation.

It must be pointed out that, in its more insidious forms, the push for gender-neutral language is in fact a push against Scripture. For example, Scripture states that God made us “male and female” (for example, Genesis 1:27). Consequently, in God’s created order, there is both equality between men and women (because both are His image-bearers) and distinction (because men and women have differing roles). This position is called complementarianism and teaches that men and women, though equal, are also different in some ways and therefore function best together in a complementary way, like a right hand and left hand

Actually, Mark, complementarianism--what a stupid word! And I mean in an artistic sense, that is a very ugly word, like egalitarianism, which is saved by the fact that is actually means what the word suggests--- says that for some reason, even though the left hand can do exactly what the right hand can do, we should forbid the left hand from doing it.

Mark, you're a bit like the Catholic nuns who didn't allow my left handed father to write with his left hand, because it was "unnatural." Complementarianism does NOT teach that men and women are different---it simply forces them to conform to their definition of different. And, if you happen to be a female who fits better into their male position, than you, like a left hand, are forbidden to do what you can do. NOT because you are different, because you're actually not that different from their definition of male. But because you are the Left Hand. Only, and simply, because you are the Left Hand.

This should be admitted. You see, because everyone acknowledges that women can be effective leaders. What is debated is whether they SHOULD be effective leaders, of men as well as other women. Bad example. Especially when you have ambidextrous people who use their hands...equally...oh dirty word!

Why the ESV Bible Will/Won't Succeed.

By succeed I mean that it is consistently used by a significant number of people...a Bible that's taken for granted the same way that a KJV or an NIV is.

Why the ESV Bible Will Succeed

1. Because the ESV has managed, by hook or crook, to connect with many critical people.

Critical people are pastors, authors, bloggers. Bloggers love the ESV. Bloggers LOVE the ESV. And if they don't, their dissenting posts rahing for the TNIV, NASB, whatever, simply fade into blogdom oblivion...unless, of course, someone says that the TNIV could be better than the ESV. Then, stand back!

2. The ESV blog.

This is very, very smart. This is the future of how people will get all of their news. Their generous habit of mentioning those who blog about their Bible has to help.

3. Those funky, crazy, hip covers.

The Journaling Bible, in my mind, personifies Crossways' grasp on what people like, what looks pleasing and snazzy to the modern eye. They just draw attention.

4. Its position, real or imagined, as an alternative to Mother-God translations of the Bible. Its position, true or untrue, as an alternative to brain-softening "dynamic equivalent" versions. The way that it's posed as the youthful, cool young child of the outdated, archaic NASB...but it still comes with all the classic words and phrases.

5. The fact that it is a good translation, in many aspects.

I have no trouble using a myriad of versions, but I find that the ESV manages to help carry the flow of a Biblical passage. The ands, buts, therefores---it helps to mantain a connectedness that I haven't really found in "easier" translations, which tend to break the Bible into smaller bites.

Why the ESV Bible Will Not Succeed

1. Crossway.

I'm really sorry, but when people who love your translation are begging you to sell it to another publisher because you're doing such a shoddy job, you need to sit up. Crappy bindings, lousy paper, lousy layout, the ridiculously small print in the Journaling Bible---people want to love their Bible for years, not have it collapse after one. That, as I've heard, is not uncommon.

2. Its opposition, real or imaginary, against the TNIV.

Look, brag about your translation all you want, but when one of your most prominent translators (WayneGrudemcoughcough) is on an all out campaign to destroy another Bible, you're going to get mixed up in it. Modern people are going to think that you're stupid when your biggest concern is that some nuance of essential maleness is lost when you say "people" instead of "men." They don't give a damn, and you come off sounding like a fuddy-duddy.

3. ESV, the Red-Headed Stepchild of the Bookstore

I think that it was on Dan Edelen's blog ceruleansanctum.wordpress.com, that the ESV first got this title. I have to agree. In all of the bookstores that I have visited, the only ESV that I see are some Tru-Tone thinlines, hidden in boring black and silver boxes, an ugly Battlezone Bible, or some beat up paperbacks. The only exception is the imposing Reformation Bible, which, by its very title, possess a limited market. Meanwhile, every other version has cheaper, more visible, and just MORE on the shelf.

4. The fact that it's a literal translation

People want to give their children something that they can understand. People want to be sure that the Bible they're sharing with a non-church person will make sense to them. The fact that the ESV retains classic terms, such as propitation, are great for the churchese speaking Christian. Not for those who just want to know what the hell this book is trying to say.

5. The fact that it's not used in many study Bibles

Right now, there's the Reformation study Bible. And the children's Bible, which looks very nice. Meanwhile, we have NO

ESV Open Bible
ESV Life Application
ESV Thompson Chain
ESV Women's Bible
ESV Men's Bible
ESV Teen's Bible (other than the 3Story)
ESV Study Bible(which I understand is coming soon)
ESV by Cambridge publishers

Lots of great covers, but they're all basically text editions.

So there you have it. Five reason why the ESV will, or will not succeed. Anyone have more suggestions?

Coming Soon: Two New ESV Journaling Bibles

Coming Soon: Two New ESV Journaling Bibles

Ye gods!

If only I knew that they'd chosen a bigger font! Blind people can't read a 7.5 font!


And then to wrap the whole package in those lucious bindings!

I HATE CROSSWAY! WAHHHHHH!

Drool. New Calfskin Thinline ESV

Coming Soon: Cowhide Leather Thinline Bible

Now, if more every Bible publisher could just jot down a note about this..... This IS droolworthy.

Thank God for Priscilla!

"We're shocked, really."

The TNIV committee last week issued a statement, defending their inclusion of the story of Priscilla, found in Acts 18:25-27, in which Priscilla and her husband took aside a young preacher, Apolles, and instructed him further about the gospel.

"It's not a passage contested by anyone," one translator complained "It seems to be part of a larger attack concentrated on the TNIV. This is irrational."

However, Wayne Grudem, in his recent article on the subject, stated that "It's a clear example of feminism biasing the work of the translators. The Bible clearly says that a woman isn't supposed to teach a man. Therefore, without any manuscript evidence, I'm declaring this passage a spurious inclusion by early feminists attempting to enlarge the God given role of women---to support, affirm, and encourage the leadership of men. I'm sure that the evidence will turn up someday. Meanwhile, the TNIV is lending support to a radical feminine agenda by giving credence to this---this screed!"

opinion-minion

Note: Although it has been rumored that future editions of the ESV will omit this passage, it has not yet been confirmed by Crossway or Wayne Grudem, whose fans are now advancing upon a certain blog writer

A Call To KJV People!

Actually, this is a call to anyone who possesses some knowledge about Bibles. A friend is looking around for a new Bible---apparently the binding on her Bible is falling apart. She's had it for some years, and although she'll probably lay it away, swathed in silken cloth and tender memories, she needs something more sturdy to pound at church.

Requirements.

1. King James Version (no, it doesn't have to be the 1611)

2. It has to "look like a Bible." None of those pink/purple/neon/metal hybrids. She prefers black, or a dignified navy.

I'd throw in these

3. Sturdy binding

4. Clear, legible type

5. If possible, a decent cross-reference system. I like the Jewel-reference verse thing, I believe that Holman does that.

I refuse to buy on of those plasticy, el-cheapo, yellow paged "Gift & Award" Bibles. Who'd give someone such a shoddy piece of work? Oh, and don't make it too expensive. (Grinning here, because my list of requirements is too long already)

Does anyone have a decent, quality Bible that they've used or heard recommended?

God Talking to People

I envy these people.

So damn much.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/march/2.44.html

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/TasteAndSee/ByDate/2007/2021_The_Morning_I_Heard_the_Voice_of_God/

The Preacher of Cedar Mountain

I paid two bucks for a single page of writing the other day. This page.

"A burnt, bare, seared, and wounded spot in the great pine forest of Ontario, some sixty miles northeast of Toronto, was the little town of Links. It lay among the pine ridges, the rich, level bottomlands, and the newborn townships, in a region of blue lakes and black loam that was destined to be a thriving community of prosperous farmer folk. The broad, unrotted stumps of trees that not so long ago possessed the ground, were thickly interstrewn among the houses of the town and in the little fields that began to show as angular invasions of the woodland, one by every settler's house of logs.

"Through the woods and through the town there ran the deep, brown flood of the little bog-born river, and streaking its current for the whole length were the huge, fragrant logs of the new-cut pines, in disorderly array, awaiting their turn to be shot through the mill and come forth as piles of lumber, broad waste slabs, and heaps of useless sawdust."

I looked at the faded green volume in my hand, with an uncertain $2.00 written on the first page, as if the people running the tiny booksale weren't sure that anyone would pay that much for a worn hardback printed in 1920. That first page was enough to convince me. If you can read that, and not understand why, then I have no use for you. If you do, then you can pick up cheap copys of "The Preacher of Cedar Mountain" by Ernest Thompson Seton at amazon.com.

Now, to read the entire book.

Too Many Freaking Bibles

I've barely even started. And I already have this many bibles, about two were bought new, and the rest picked up used.

1. God's Story ESV
2. Single column side reference '77 NASB
3. Make It Count CEV
4. Good News for Modern Man (the hardcover gold version, with the sweet pictures inside?)
5. Waterlogged pocket KJV that needs to hit the trash
6. Youthwalk Devotional Bible NIV
7. Blue cowhide NIV (v. nice)
8. Duo-tone NIV

There's just this deep instinct that leads me to mindlessly purchase Bibles. I still need

1. The Living Bible
2. NKJV
3. NCV
4. TNIV (I'm using the ESV, but would love to see these two side by side in one edition. It would just be priceless, after people have been mindlessly pitting the two against each other. I don't give a damn if they do use man, and nothing has been lost when they say people, God is not angry, I promise)
5. Decent copy of the KJV
6. Updated NASB
7. ASV (Picked up an actual original, 1901, dried, leathery, crumbling, sold it for $45, woot)
8. RV
9. RSV
10. NRSV
11. HCSB
12. Geneva
13. Tyndale
14. Bishop
15. The rest that I've forgotten right now.

Anyone Want to Memorize the Bible With Me?

After marching through Ephesians 3:14-21, I've decided that I want to do the entire book. This is the first time that I have ever decided to memorize the Bible. My church has a weird verse memorization thing going on, but they seem to have no plan or direction. This week, it's Matthew 4:19 And he said to them, "Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men."

That, in any case, doesn't require much "oh, I forgot the memory verse, let me quickly review it on the way to church" festivities.

And what is very, very strange is that I looked up Bible memorization on the 'net, and everyone seems to be memorizing Ephesians. V. strange.

OK, I'm starting at the beginning. Here's my current plan.

1. I'm memorizing from the English Standard Version. I come from a KJV-only background, so don't blame me for not memorizing from one of them dang-blasted perVersions. My training makes it feel naughty to read anything but the AV 1611. Besides, when I compare the ESV rendering of Ephesians 3:14-21 to most of the "free-er" versions, I like the beauty of the ESV better.

2. I'm taking it at two verses a week. Yes, just two. Now, when working on 3:14-21, I finished it faster. However, I only require myself to learn two verses each week. I often learn more---but I don't make myself do it.

3. I'm keeping it mostly private. My immediate tendency is to go shout my verses at some hapless listener, but I'm just killing that for now by totally avoiding quoting what I've learned. For now, it's best.

4. I am starting in Ephesians.

5. I'd like company.

Even if you're memorizing another book, I'd love to hear from you. Or if you're inspired to start. Don't feel intimidated---I've barely started.

So, join in!

Brief Note: God's Story ESV

I noticed something weird about my hardcover copy of the ESV "God's Story" Bible. It is supposed to have three ribbon markers.

I have no ribbon markers.

I'm enjoying reading and memorizing from the English Standard Version (and reading all the various news about it---pro and 'agin' it) but this discrepancy is disturbing. I picked it up at our local Borders last month.

Weird.

Weird Old Ladies and Muddle House

I realized that I'd promised an update on the whole Bible retreat deal. I was mulling over a different subject, and decided to opt for some variety, so I would not bore the non-existent readers of this blog.

The retreat was good. The first message was half personal testimony and half getting such a huge vision of what God wants to do in our respective lives that only the wily trickster could've pulled it off. OK, v. bad summary. It reminded me of a sermon that was preached, and I condensed my notes, and stuck on a Post-It in my Bible.

A Successful Vision

1. Starts with strong desire
2. Is cultivated into a specific direction
3. Becomes reality through reaching specific, practical goals that are neccesary to achieve (the overall vision)
4. Will not allow distractions
5. A lack of vision is dangerous

The second message at the retreat was fairly tame and harmless, but it gained an edge when you knew the speaker's background. When she sums up her marrige relationship with a reference to the story of Nabal and Abigail, you know that this woman is speaking from gritty experience.

The afternoon drained away with various short talks, lunch (if men had attended, they wouldn't have dared to feed them only salad! Egad! Bring me the fine meats and honeyed pastries!) and wound up with a message delivered by a very strange little woman.

She's one of steel-spined packages that must be over 60, and yet you know there's something beyond the wispy white hair and odd, outdated hat perched firmly onto her head. She was short, compact, and animated as all get out. Back and forth she walked, waving a skinny, wrinkled hand, and occassionally dropping her voice to a whispery, dramatic tone.

"I don't know how to explain it," she said "But when I looked at the preacher, I saw someone beside him---and I just knew it was Jesus. And I was changed!"

For two years, she mystified her non-religious family with her devotion to, um, Christianity. However, she continued dramatically, she finally caved in to their evil suggestions when she relented and said that she would take her younger brother down to the movie theater on Saturday (oh movie theater of the 1940-50s, brothel from which all evils emanate) and she did. But she knew that Jesus would not go with her into that brothel---oops, movie theater.

She did, but was dismayed to find that Jesus wasn't waiting outside the theater for her!

"I'd LOST HIM!" She said, strained, soft, raspy old woman voice as emphatic was possible "For two years..."

Marvelous, yes, she could tell a story. But something made me uneasy about her story. She "sees Jesus" "loses Jesus" and finally, "regains" Jesus, via another appearance of him on a streetcar. Yes, I told you that she was old.

What made me uneasy was that Jesus didn't come to us because of anything we did, he doesn't stay because of anything that we do, otherwise we'd never "have" him. The whole "I will never leave you or forsake you" bit? Nope, she never mentioned that. If I'd had the courage (or the time, the evening was wrapping up) I'd have challenged her on that.

What is it with weird old ladies and religion? Did Anna at the temple set some sort of precedent, or something?

Unique, Traveling Bible

OK, so I have billions of ideas every day. I think this one is cool. (That, by the way, is the lucious ESV Classic Reference Cordovan Bible. Schlurp.

Take a Bible, preferably one that will be tough, with easy to read font size, and something that you can write in without qualms or the notations showing really badly on the other side of the page. Wide margin could be nice.

There’s this one Bible coming out this month that I think would be perfect for me---hardback, wide margin ESV. It’s that, or this elegant cordovan edition that could really last.

Pick a book that you’ve been studying, or feel that you have some insight on. Then, with painstaking care, make relevant notes/notations throughout the text that will aid understanding. No high-lighters allowed. You could insert an article that sheds light on that book, or that simply encouraged you in Bible study. Naturally, some books are very large, so this would have to be flexible.

When this is done, you find someone agreeable, and pass the Bible on to them. They do the same. They pass the Bible on to someone else, and so on and so on. Hopefully, by the time it comes back to you, your traveling Bible has unique and helpful notes and notations that are fresh and new. This could really spark some interesting conversations with the people who have taken the time to do this.

Naturally, the particulars of this idea have not been worked out. That will take time and careful consideration---in short, it will be work. Still, I think there could be potential in it.

Any ideas?

Bible Study for the Jaded

This post comes from vast (ha) experience and watching other people get fired up over a project---only to slowly, but surely, lose any ground that they've gained. A good sermon can leave many people eager to jump into Bible study feet first. They've read the books, bought the highlighters, the coloured pencils, the study Bible, the wide margin Bible, the "through the Bible in one year" Bible, they've dragged out the commentaries, downloaded the software. They are ready to go.

And yet in a few weeks, they're back to their usual snatching method of reading the Bible. They snatch a Proverb, snag a Psalm, or simply reread their favorite books and leave alone anything else.

Then, they read a book about Bible study. Wow, they think, I did it all wrong. With this new method, I can really dig into the Bible!

A few weeks later, their Bible is full of colored pencil markings (thank you, Kay Arthur) and they can't even pick it up anymore. Their failure stares them in the face.

Frustrated, angry, they hear another sermon, read another book, attend a seminar.

"Now, I really am going to study the Bible!"

A few weeks later....

They are jaded. They've tried the Bible study for the smart, they've tried the never-fail methods, they've promised that this time, they'll stick with it.

Many books tacitly acknowledge this by assuring you that "It's not that hard" "Anyone can do this" "Read a chapter a day, anyone can do that!" "Read a verse a day, anyone can do that!" "Hundreds of people, including the Apostle Paul, used this method---and you can, too!"

Well, I'm going to turn all this on its head.

1. Bible study is hard. It takes work. If you want to learn the Bible, it will take work. If you come to the Bible expecting to scoop gold off the ground, you're going to get discouraged very quickly.

2. Don't read a chapter a day. Don't read a verse a day. Sit down and read an entire book. Instead of doing something that anyone can do, do something that people rarely do: read the Bible the way it was meant to be read. This applies especially to epistles.

3. Stop look at your Bible as a repository of commands and promises. Yes, they are there. But you'd actually benefit more from circling all the verbs with your coloured pencil (thank you, Kay Arthur)

4. Pick a book that you don't like. For instance, I've always liked the gospel of Luke. He's my type of guy. Details, details, and he's just writes beautifully. But I'm not studying Luke. I'm studying John. Distance yourself from your faves. Don't worry---they'll still be there, waiting for you.

5. If you want to read through the Bible in one year, don't start in Genesis. If you've tried and failed before, you have probably already read Genesis more times than you can remember. If you are like me, it takes time for you to grasp the "gist" of a book, so don't alternate or mix NT and OT readings. You lose the overall perspective. Pick a book, and stick with it.

6. Avoid the Psalms like a holy plague. You've read them enough. Starving yourself of Psalms will give you a new appreciation for them. Here's an idea, mix your Psalm reading with a book of contemporary poetry. Compare them to other ancient poetry. Quit dragging the Psalms into your world and superimposing them onto your culture.

7. Avoid Proverbs like the holy plague. See above.

8. Kiss your schedule goodbye. That's right. Give yourself time to dwell on one book. Jesus doesn't hate you if you don't read your Bible through in one year. In fact, he doesn't love you more if you do.

9. Read a book backwards, preferably in one sitting. Read the Bible backwards. Both force you to get a grasp on what's really going on.

10. Whatever you do, stick with it. I don't want this post to be one of many that you read and become more jaded when you fail. It's better to feel totally unexcited and bored and to consistently do XYZ than to get very excited, sharpen your coloured pencils (thank you, Kay Arthur) and stop. If you can only study the Bible once a week, fine. Just make sure that you do it once a week.

And that's it. If you can only find one thing that suits your personality, than keep going. Don't neglect your ability, just because you can't out-scribble Kay Arthur. Be a boring---and consistent---plodder.

All sarcasm towards Kay Arthur and the Inductive Study method are purely the results of someone who could never sharpen a pencil without breaking the tip. Kay, core of my heart, forgive me.

Quick Note

Bible retreat was much better than expected. Updates to follow.

Retreating with Bibles

In a few moments, I will be off for a weekend at a "Ladies Bible Retreat." Now, if the weekend consisted of everyone retreating into corners with Bibles, I would perfectly happy.

Instead, I am anticipating lots of focus on the key passages (if you are a woman, you know what I mean) concerning women, and probably irritating exegesis of said passages. By irritating, I mean incorrect. For instance, using 1 Peter 3 to forbid all jewelry.

Still, there's more reasons to why I am apprehesive about this retreat. I have always found it much easier to debate or talk with men about religion. There's a very simple reason; men do not usually burst into tears and accuse you of being evil or hateful because of your argument. They usually tackle the argument. (Hopefully)

I am sure it will be better than I am anticipating.

Hopefully.

what draws us to create

what draws us to create

I really love that phrase for some reason. Now, I've ripped it totally out of context, but you can find it in context in my post Connections Between Art and The "Real" World here. Is there a way to explain to someone what draws you to your paticular art? What draws you to create anything, at all?

There's this wonderful DVD series out there, called the Life of Birds. not surprisingly, it's about birds, narrated by one of those random British gentlemen who seem to have nothing to do other than narrate documentaries. In any case, you'll soon find that the vast majority of a bird's attention is focused towards begetting baby birds. No, they don't love baby birds, they just want to make certain that their bloodline is carried on. Or DNA. Color me ignorant of what exactly those fluffy things want exactly.

In the same way that birds seem to be driven to leave their mark on the world (love the green and white ones they leave on the windshield) all people, carpenters, designers, poets don't want to think that the world will go unchanged without them.

As a writer of all forms, I find my best, most enjoyable expression lies in writing. In speaking. Words are my craft, to borrow an unspeakable cliche. A poem calls out different skills than a blog post. A letter requires other abilities---although it would not be a tragedy if someone wrote a poetic blog post, or brought the same common sense to a poem that they do to a poem.

Pleasure, then, is what calls me to create. Writing---paticularly poetry---is maddening. I don't care that I have absolutely no carpentry skills. I have no interest in carpentry. However, it can drive me to wild distraction when I'm pouring a poem onto the sacred page, it's flowing, and the end disappears. It's like yo-yoing, and then discovering that the wooden spool has rolled away. The right words do not come. And the poem withers, slowly, in your notebook.

I think, by the way, that I was born wanting to write. Even at the tender age of seven, my favorite possesion was one of those small, fat, 500 page notebooks with a swirly space cover. I eagerly filled it with poetic squiggles. Man, I just filled up 500 pages with stuff that looked like real writing! I always hate those smug author stories about how the author came from the womb with a pen clenched between their teeth----unfortunately, I fall into that category. Oh, yes, except for the published bit.

So, I suppose, it's all genetics. Or DNA. Or Fate. I'd much prefer Fate, it's more poetic.

Connections Between Art and The "Real" World

I was skipping through the rosy pink world of the blogosphere (cough) when I ran across this request on Michael Spenser's blog, internetmonk.com. The post is called Blogs I’d Like to Read (or How To Perk Up A Boring Blogosphere)

I’d like to read blogs by artists discussing the artistic process, particularly writing poetry, acting and film-making. I’d enjoy hearing about the connections between art and real life. I don’t want to read technical, insider geek info. I want to understand the moments of insight and inspiration; what draws us to create in the first place.

I fit into the poetry writing category----and, well, writing every else, as well.

One particular statement caught my eye.

I’d enjoy hearing about the connections between art and real life.

I'm not sure how to get this across, so I'll put it bluntly; art is real life. Writing is not automatic, such as breathing, but it is as "real life" as using a hammer. But, I will try to oblige with a personal anecdote as to how those worlds intersect.

Real world: I am sitting in church. I am not listening to the sermon. In fact, I am, but trying to block it out. I am more interested in the swift snowfall outside. Finally, frustrated by what I do hear, I stop pretending to take sermon notes. The poem begins.

The Art---the poem that results.

God shudders with anticipations
as he pulls on his boots.
Ready to roam, explore the old
stomping grounds. Earth, freshly
spiced with snow,
settles into winter rhythm.
He tramples through drifts up to his knees
and his hair glitters
with snow; snow softening into water beads
as he sits down by the fire and
tugs off his boots and then settles back:
satisfied, drunk on weariness, winter-wine
running through his veins.
Yes, winter, beautiful, very beautiful.
It’s lovely to be alive
while everyone is asleep, sleeping
peaceful---sleep peacefully, my loves.


Now, this poem stems from my very real frustration with distant and fuzzy pictures of God and my personal interest in the snow. In the real world, does God wear boots and trample through snow drifts? Well, I might make a case that Jesus wore boots...anyway.... The art lies in the form. The real world seems absent, but it provided the foundation for the entire poem.

I almost think that the worst poetry results from when someone sits down and decides to write a poem. Cold. Starting with no idea, other than to "write a poem." It's a good exercise, and some people use it successfully, but if you have no ideas, you'll end up writing a revved version of roses are red, violets are blue.

I'll probably address his statement further, but I am attempting to avoid longer posts...bad habit.

Signing off.

Moleskine

It was with a curious sense of "Duh" that I realized that I managed to write about my writing and my horribly disorganized notebooks without mentioning WHAT notebook that I use.

I use the Moleskine. It comes in a million different formats. I used to use the large reporter format, but am currently 'stuck' on the book format.

I had to giggle when someone talked about my 'journal'--a giggle born of futility---I have no journal. I have journal/sermon-note/poetry/story/address hybrids that are born of a mind not diseased with disorganization, but born with that malady gently called by some, spontaneity, but a CURSE by those so afflicted!

Cough.

I have a question for my currently non-existent readers: How many Moleskine do you have? I currently own 13, and I am absolutely convinced that one has disappeared, thus pulling the total count to 14. I buy the things because

1. They're serious looking. No pink, Orlando Bloom, heart bespectacled 80 page floppies for me!

2. They're the perfect size---not too large or too small. And the lines aren't huge like those stupid 365 page one page a day diaries that you find at the Dollar Tree

3. There's something delicious about wasting $15 dollars on a single notebook---it makes you feel like a suffering artist.

Very few people will admit the last point. And, frankly, I will say that Moleskine are probably "worth" $15, but there's still something true in the suffering artist bit.

Cheers. And remember to answer the question

How many Moleskine do you have?

Kooserites!

First of all, I have nothing against Ted Kooser. I've enjoyed his subtle and understated poetry and he seems to be one of the few poets that would be enjoyable to rub elbows with for a few hours. The fact that he is the poet laureate has not seemed to affect him at all. However, I dislike the disturbing trend that I've seen in poetry: people trying to write like Kooser, but failing totally.

You recognize them immediately. The poem starts on some mundane subject, and your eyes sort of slither down the (usually) very tall and slender poem. You don't get it, and try again. Slither. You try again and still don't understand why you're wasting your time reading this poem. Ted Kooser gives you a reason to bother; Kooserites never do. Their poems usually sound/look like this:

Grand-dad never gave me a reason
to want to sit in his lap
lean, wind-whipped,
he talked too loud
and too much
about stuff I didn't
understand, stuff I knew
my business-suit dad
didn't want to here
but I still held up
my arms
so I could watch
that Adams apple
bob and jerk
in that chicken-skinny throat

That's a Kooserite poem. Like every bad poem in the world, it gives you no reason to reread it. It doesn't even give you a reason to hate it---those poems often catch and linger longest in your mind. It's the stuff that, after the writer finishes and glances around the art center, people cough and look embarrassed, trying to find something interesting about chicken-skinny throats.

Kooser's poems have a place. But I'd rather have a brash, raw, honest, untutored poem than some depressing, empty poem that wears a slimy veneer of mysteriousness, pretending to have some magic meaning that reappears to Those Who See. It's easier to shoot down someone who writes a happy poem than someone who talks about the way that someone fingers the mole on their throat.

I find it much more likely that someone enjoyed one of those icy-warm spring days when the neighbors chimes tinkle and you're barefoot, even though your toes are turning blue and the ground is still frozen, the sun is shining than someone who talks about the grungy guy who picks his nose at the cafe and does nothing else. Poets fake their way through so many poems; it's ugly. Did they really care about that guy?

Most of the time, they didn't give a darn, they were just afraid of the old crone who runs the local writer's group who told you that romance and love are cliches.

Don't be a Kooserite. Feel your way through a poem with your hands before you force other people to slither through it.

Muddle House & the Ferocious Muddlers

And so here you are at Muddle House, reading the very first post, ever. Hopefully, you first had to browse through the years' worth of scintillating prose and poetry first to fight your way to very first hallowed words that spilled from the fingers of opinion-minion.

If you have, then you've already realized that I possess a innate sense of sarcasm and a devotion to myself. If this blog is still young, then you might as well be warned.

The name Muddle House was invented because I had no other way to refer to the absolute disgrace that are my notebooks. Poetry, journal entries, essays, rants, no matter how I resolved that this would be the Poetry Notebook, invariably some hideous happening would explode in my world and the poetry notebook would include the account of some snowy car trip that ended in a nasty motel.

Sometimes, I would justify myself. My sermon notes share room with poems about God and death. Well, sermon notes...God...that's related.

Finally I simply swept my whole unhappy mess under one label: Muddle House. Poems take the derisive and accurate name of Muddlers, because half the time, I'm slowly killing them through revision, so the various versions are almost as bad as the general state of my notebooks.

You have been warned. Muddle House can and will take many directions. It do exactly what my notebooks do; endure my ever-changing and inconstant moods. Woot.

A muddle indeed.