a christmas carol. charles dickens. (83)

i have to start off by saying that i hate blogger. i had just finished my entry for this and went to add a second picture and it somehow deleted my entry. what you are reading is a second draft and sadly prolly not as good as the first one.

charles dickens has been on my to read list every since i started my classics mission. with christmas coming up, i decided to read "a christmas carol". i started reading it on the 21st and planned on reading a stave a day so that i would be finished on christmas. (i learned on wikipedia that a stave is a stanza so it goes with theme of it being a carol!)

i, like majority of people, am familiar with the story due to childhood cartoons but have never read the story. i mean, this christmas alone, i saw bits and pieces of a smurf's version, mr. magoo's version, a looney tunes that referenced it and the disney version with jim carrey (i plan on watching this in its entirety simply because colin firth voiced fred). however as i was reading, i kept on thinking to myself, "how is this kid-friendly"?!?! i mean the ghost of christmas yet to come and the discussions on poverty at death are quite serious for a kid. then again the tales of brother grimm are quite dark yet they are staples for kids everywhere.

"a christmas carol" is a beloved christmas classic but i didn't enjoy it. i will start by saying that it wasn't due to the writing. dickens is dickens and though at times he left me scratching my head because i had no idea what he was rambling on about, it was well written. i will say that i did enjoy some ramblings like the opening discussion on the phrase "as dead as a doornail". and even though the story is now apart of popular culture and is retold every year and there are countless adaptions, (i mean there is a matthew mcconaughey/jennifer rom com based on it) the story premise is still interesting. a man is visited by three ghosts and sees the error of his way and changes for the better. still solid stuff.

so why didn't i enjoy it?

first it's because christmas has turned into this crazy capitalistic machine. i might sound crazy and maybe it's because i am miserly and heartless but scrooge made perfect sense in the beginning. i might be jaded by the problems of the current welfare system in america and the abuse of it i see in delano, but i agreed with his argument for not giving to charity. it is true that those who receive charity are idle because they receive charity. i can speak from first hand experience, my unemployment check did not motivate me to get a job because i was getting a consistent check each month without any work. in addition to this, i do not believe in the concept of wealth = greater christmas. one does not need money to be able to celebrate christmas, all one needs is love. and in the immortal words of j.lo, "love don't cost a thing." furthermore, jesus was born in a manager, christmas is definitely a holiday grounded in humility not extravagance.

i also agreed with his words on holiday pay. it is unfair that he was expected to pay for a day of work when he did not receive any labor in exchange. i mean i am all for paid vacation time but let's be honest it is greedy of us to expect it. we want sick pay, vacation pay and holiday pay, and in essence it is pay for absolutely nothing. there is no labor so there should be no wages.

furthermore, i saw nothing wrong with scrooge not celebrating christmas or recognizing the holiday. where does it say that one has to celebrate christmas? and don't say the bible. i had never read it in its entirety but do not recall god ever saying "thou shalt celebrate the birth of my beloved son jesus by exchanging gifts, decorating a tree and drinking eggnog every 25th of december". also wasn't jesus' birth in april? if scrooge wanted to spend his day by himself than so be it. i am a very festive person but i don't judge or ostracize individuals that don't celebrate it. it's jesus' birthday and you should do as you please (well except breaking one of the ten commandments), plus his lessons were all about tolerance so he would be okay with it. jesus just wanted everyone to be included so would be okay with however someone wanted to honor them, even if it is a lack of honor, he is that humble. christmas day of all days should be the one day in which we respect others' beliefs and allow them to celebrate as they please.

so the story became kinda pointless because i didn't think scrooge needed to change. he's an old man and like they say you can't teach an old dog new tricks. he was set in his way about christmas so they should have just let him be. but then again he wasn't really harming anyone. he was greedy but he made his own money and if he wanted to keep it all for himself than that's his prerogative! and sure he cracked the whip on cratchit but i mean that is how business goes. a nice boss in england during that time would have been the exception not the rule.

in addition to being okay with how scrooge was, i wasn't completely sold on their tactics for changing scrooge. i did believe that the ghost of christmas past did a good job but not the other two. i think the memory of his sister was important for scrooge to experience because he forgotten the importance of family. it was sad that he loved his sister so much but neglected his nephew. it is an important lesson for all to set aside any differences one may have with his/her family for at least one day. family will always be drama but regardless they are your family and will always be a source of love. it is important to celebrate them on christmas.

i didn't agree with the ideas the ghost of christmas present presented. yes the cratchits were poor in terms of money but they were rich in love and happiness. the ghost was the ghost of christmas spirit so he should have understood that one does not need wealth to be happy on christmas. so it was insulting that he sprinkled their meal, they has enough love in this household do make the meal wonderful. they didn't need his pity, it seemed superfluous to give them more joy when they had so much. again, it's this idea where those who live in poverty can not understand happiness. yet all major religions promote this ideal of giving up worldly wants and desires. yet her is the ghost of christmas present helping those who don't necessarily need it just because they are poor in terms of material things.

random digression but was the ghost of christmas present supposed to be jesus or the holy ghost. when discussing business closing on the sabbath, scrooge referred to it being done in his name or the name of his family? also they traveled whenever scrooge touched his robe. this reminded me of jesus and how lepers and the blind were healed when they touched his robe.

last but not least i did not like what the ghost of christmas yet to come represented. i do agree that it was important for the ghost to show how scrooge could prevent tiny tim's death. if at any time charity can help the life of a child than it should be given. i agreed with this aspect of the vision.

i did not agree with death being the motivation for scrooge. we should not be motivated to do good works during our time here on earth because we are scared of dying, the source of our good works should be love. to do something because you are afraid of death is to do something in vain, your reason for being positive is selfish because you are actually only thinking of your own well being. this is going to sound horrible but a lot of times when christians want to help others they are doing it with their position in heaven in mind, when in fact they should simply do it out of love for what god has created. love should be the source of life and not the desire to outlast death.

furthermore, i did not understand the evasdropping on people to see if they were talking about scrooge's death. everyone dies, there is no need for an audience. yes everyone wants to leave a good legacy but still it seems silly to be upset if people aren't talking about you after you die. i would love for their to be a memorial for me but if there isn't, it's okay because guess what, i'm dead! in addition to that i would not be sad if someone stole from my deathbed cos i'm dead. as like my grandma bea says you can't take it with you. i understand that one's death spot should be sacred but i mean if you are than sad of person who wants the bed curtains of a dead person than help yourself. it is more of a demonstration of how creepy you are fore stealing than saying anything about the dead.

i also could not sympathize with the couple that were happy that scrooge died because they were in debt to him. pay your creditors people, don't wish for your creditors' death. that made him worse than him.

so that is it. i didn't think scrooge needed to charge nor did i agree with what the ghosts presented. it was all based on this idea that in order to truely have the christmas spirit, you need money. and as we all hopefully know that is not the case.

the edition that i read was illustrated by quentin blake of rolad dahl fame. i love his drawings and so was excited to find this edition. i loved the drawings in this book except the cratchits women's bows, that hair was awful.

and i hate to be such a perv but seriously this drawing for a man described as "with a pendulous excrescence on the end of his nose that shook like the gills of a turkey cock."

i know my mind is in the gutter, but so was dickens' narrator. the narrator describes the grandchildren of scrooge's ex pouncing on their mother.
the kids are touching her lips, eyelashes, and hair. to which he adds "in short, i should have liked, i do confess to have had the lightest license of a child and yet been man enough to know its value". how inappropriate!!!!

you lost me there. rosecrans baldwin. (72)

after reading and loving "paris, i love you but your bringing me down", i decided to read baldwin's debut novel. though i did not find it as delightful a read as "paris" (this subject manner was heavier), "you lost me there" was still a good book.

"you lost me there" is the story of a neuroscientist, whose research focus is alzheimer's, and his struggle to remember the details of his now-deceased wife and their marriage. it's ironic because as much as victor studied memory and the brain, he misconstrued the past and created false memories of his wife. his misconstruction also leads the reader to wonder if he has fallen victim to the very disease he is trying to cure/prevent.  the book moved randomly through victor's inner thoughts to present life to memories, which also make a reader weary of his mental health.  and of course, his meltdown episode on the rockerfeller's boat was a red flag  (his dead wife did speak to him from beyond the grave).

random digression while we are discussing memory loss/mental health. but one night victor's goddaughter cornelia brought up a case study H.M. that she studied in school. H.M. was a gentlemen who suffered from epilepsy as a child.  in an attempt to cure him, scientist removed parts of his brain.  though his epileptic seizures did stop, he lost his short term memory.  he could not not remember the present. his memory was restricted to twenty seconds.  something would be taught to him but twenty seconds later it would be gone, his mind unable to create new memories.  a extreme version of "50 first dates".  i was familiar with this case study because i saw a wonderful video installation of this case study at the whitney in nyc.  the piece was by kerry tribe.  tribe created a film, which she ran simultaneously side by side as a duplicate, but with a twenty second delay (the time frame of H.M.'s short term memory).  at inital watching, i did not understand the delay, but once i discovered the biography behind the man feature in it the film, it was quite profound.  it was sad how quickly he lost what had just occured to him, and how he was unable to create new memories.  luckily, his long term memory was not effected so he still had those memories and was not completely alone in his mind.  it makes one realize how much we take our memories for granted because life without it would be sad, lonely, and scary.  (to read more info on H.M. click here.  to learn more about the video installation click here.)

back to the novel.  i think why i lacked a connection to this work (and an indication of baldwin's great writing skill) was because victor was cold and distant.  he was a very difficult character to sympathize with because he was cut off from everyone.  all of his relationships seemed superficial (even his marriage) because he never was 100 percent there for the other person.  i often became frustrated with him because he never seemed completely focused when interacting with others (this could also be a sign of his alhezimer's).  he would balantly ignore others that were having conversations with him.  it was rude and i could not imagine how his wife survived this or why regina put up with it.  and sadly he was often forgiven for it because of his brilliance.

i will add that this book does hold a valuable lesson.  it demonstrates that regardless of how brilliant a mind can be, our minds create biased or flawed memories.  incidents in one's history may not have been accurately recorded by one's mind.  victor thought he knew his wife but in fact he did not know her at all.  and that is because at times we take bits and pieces of stories that better fit the perspective we want. when i think of all the arguments i have ever had, i can always restructure it so that i am the victim, even though i am the one at fault.  every memory we have, which we may want to call capital t truth, is in fact something that has been framed by our perspective.

it's interesting because victor shares how he had an epiphany one day of how he and his best friend may have different perspectives of the world.  this inspires him to study neuroscience, yet he is unable to apply it in his actual life.  he can't understand how his actions effect others or understand others may have a different point of view from him.  and as one becomes frustrated with victor's narrow-mindness, the reader discovers that they should strive to be more open-minded.  

before i close, i will say that as i read this, i casted the movie version in my head (every book is turned into movies now).  as i read about victor, i pictured colin firth especially scenes where he was in his lab.  regina would be played by olivia munn (she kinda played regina in "magic mike").  and his wife would be rachel weisz.

as a special treat for reading this, i included a came victor played with his wife.  they would describe a movie with just three sentence.  i got the first two but can anyone help me with the last?

southern lawyer has a way with kids. can't get an innocent off the hook. boo.

vito shouldn't buy fruit. michael won't talk business. diane keaton?

men embark on spaceship. spaceship disembarks men. sorry, dave.

pride and prejudice. BBC mini-series and 1995 film.

since this is a blog about my library use, i decided i can blog about DVDs I check out from the delano branch. i am sure if francie nolan could check out movies, she would have.

so after reading "pride and prejudice", my colin firth obsession caused me to request the DVD. and i will say, oh so glad that i did. simply for the bath scene. (sorry if this post reads like a "the scarlet letter" book report from "easy a". lol)

but seriously BBC did an excellent job with their adaption. every character looked just as i had imagined. though at the risk of sounding shallow, they could have cast a prettier jane. but i read her mom played jane in the 67 bbc production so that is sweet. also found it funny that anna chancellor missed out on firth twice (she was his fiancée in "what a girl wants". lol)

mrs. bennet was perfect. her voice was so annoying which matched her annoying character. i really felt bad for mr. bennet for having to be married to her. and she was seriously too much for me, playing proud mother to lydia after being bed-ridden by her scandal. also it was horrible how she was okay with her brother footing the bill for lydia's marriage. such poor manners! alison steadman did well because i disliked mrs. bennet equally in both the book and on the small screen.

the only thing that i disliked was the double wedding at the end. that was way too cheesy for my taste.

i also checked out the 2005 movie with keira knightly. which i did not like at all. i will say that i thought keira knightly did well as elizabeth. i actually liked her more than jennifer ehle (ps doesn't ehle remind you of meryl steep?). there was a boldness and fierceness that knightly embodied that ehle didn't. but that is where the praise stops. also i could have done without knightly smiling in this movie, it was not cute.

their darcy was attractive but he was no colin firth. and he butchered the proposal scene. his delivery was too fast paced. and the whole rain did not add dramatic flair, it's was only excessive. another bad scene was the dancing scene when it cuts to jane and darcy alone in the room then it cut backs. there could have been a better way of displaying their attraction. and shame on the writer/adapter for not including a line about elizabeth's "fine dark eyes"! i also missed miss bingley's teasing of his admiration for those eyes. they could have cut that scene of elizabeth spinning after finding out charlotte was engaged to make room for those lines. also they could have left that last scene on the cutting room floor. way too cheesy, i actually preferred the double wedding ending!

last but not least, i missed crispin bohman-carter's voice!

pride and prejudice. jane austen. (56)

before i start, this is not the bookcover i checked out. the one i checked out was old, blue and plain. i choose this cover because it shows my newest obsession thanks to "pride and prejudice" . . . colin firth.

i have to say that at first i didn't care for "pride and prejudice." maybe i was blinded by my pride, there were times when i found darcy's and elizabeth's conversation hard to follow, were they flirting with each other?!?!
or maybe i was unjustly prejudice against it, the brönte sisters didn't win me over with their "great" romances, so jane austen didn't stand a chance. i wasn't completely invested in elizabeth and darcy's romance, maybe because i knew it would sort out from. so my anticipation resulted in impatience and so the book moved too slowly for me. i mean it was like get on with it already. and stop with the weird stares, darcy!

however, like elizabeth's feelings toward darcy did a 180. so did mine. i read "pride and prejudice and zombies" immediately after and found mr. darcy, oh so more romantic on my second reading. (the zombies didn't help, but the re-reading of austen's text did.) then i checked out the BBC mini-series and of course after watching colin firth in that bathtub and diving into the lake, i was smitten, with firth and "pride and prejudice".

that lake scene is not in the book. but it sure is in the mini-series. and i mean he doesn't even get close to naked but watching him walk around wet afterward, sure is sexy!

prior to reading the book, i had never seen the mini-series, only knew colin firth played darcy. yet as i read, i visualized firth as darcy, even more random it was firth as mark darcy from bridget jones' fame that i actually imagined.

nonetheless, it resulted in me being obsessed with colin firth afterward. the embarrassing kind of obsessed. i.e.:

a. watching "what a girl wants" (yes, starring amanda bynes) not only once but twice (abc family and MTV randomly aired it)
b. watching "love actually" (it's the only firth film i own) and fast forwarding to watch his scenes
c. watching the mini-series twice in 1 week (i wanted to get my viewing worth before returning it to the library)
d. buying "fever pitch" on ebay (i had no idea it existed until i amazoned "colin firth dvd", okay maybe amazoning "colin firth dvd" is the embarrassing part)
e. borrowing "a single man" from friend (though this isn't that bad)
f. buying the pride and prejudice BBC companion novel cos he was on cover
g. buying "the king's speech" book cos he was on the cover (in my defense it was only $1)
h. contemplating buying the episode where he proposes in the mini-series so i can have it on my kindle to watch whenever i want

sad, i know. i realize that i am not actually in love with the colin firth but it's the lloyd dobler effect that chuck klostermann writes about in "sex, drugs, and cocoa puffs". (women love john cusack because we are in love with his character lloyd dobler from "say anything".) colin firth has the mr. darcy effect. and i know, he is 20 years my senior and happily married with a family but in a perfect world, we would have a "lost in translation" friendship. we'd meet in some hotel bar (maybe at the four seasons), i'd take him karaoke-ing (in k-town) and wear a pink wig. we'd end the night at some random taco truck and when we'd part, he'd whisper something in my ear that only i could hear and would never share with anyone . . . okay, i'll add:

i. making up fantasy about hanging out with him in LA ala "lost in translation"

oh and i have to share one last "pride and prejudice" purchase! this adorable tank that i got at uniqueLA. i was a little tipsy when i bought it and had this longest discussion about "pride and prejudice", colin firth, the bbc version, the keira knightly version and the zombie novel. ps this doesn't get a letter cos its not embarrassing.

sorry i know this a book blog, so some thoughts on the actual book. i had seen bits and pieces of "becoming jane" so got that storyline confused with the book. but i guess if austen wrote about her life than this makes sense. i now want to read her memoir.

this too was on flavorpill's 30 before 30. though i am not sure if it would make my list. i did admire elizabeth for her boldness and unconventionality; not accepting mr. collins' proposal, standing up to lady catherine (at dinners and the proposal inquiry) and of course landing darcy. and she does have a great cinderella story, a girl without strong social relations marrying a man having ten thousand a year! and it is a reasonable love story. although i love romances (and romantic comedies), i am also very skeptical of them. (i have also never been in love so that is probably where my doubts spring from.) however, with this romance, elizabeth's love for darcy grew throughout the book so their love was "real" because it wasn't based on an instant attraction but something that strengthen as elizabeth learned more about the real darcy. (though austen still has a place for love at first sight with jane and mr. bingsley). so i take that back. maybe it will make my 30. i need to read more of her works to decide.

ps i also hated how lydia and wickham were saved from their mess. but will get to that in my "pride and prejudice and zombies" entry.