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!!!!

too many tamales. gary soto. (82)

my uncle boon used to share a joke that went like this:

q: why do mexicans have tamales on christmas?

a: so they could have something to unwrap!

no exactly pc but hilarious nonetheless and in that case the epitome of my uncle boon.

it's only been recently that i have equated christmas time with tamale time! i never realized this as a kid. though i didn't like tamales as a kid so that could be the reason for my ignorance. however now i am a tamale fanatic and look forward to christmas because it means an abundance of tamales, it means tamales for breakfast, lunch, and dinner! and seriously they are little bundles of joy.

since it is christmas time and i love tamales, i decided to check out "too many tamales". i hadn't read the book before but i think i saw it on reading rainbow.

"too many tamales" is the story of a girl maria who loses her mom's diamond ring in the mass while tamale making. she discovered the lost after the tamales were made so she and her cousins than eat the tamales trying to find it. does maria find the ring? if you want to know than you should check this book out!

so the story premise is cute but the storyline is kinda weak. first of all, the title, its blasphemous! there is no such thing as too many tamales. second, there is no way that any family would not notice that the kids were eating all of the tamales. if this happened in my house, i would have been called out for being a porker and scolded for being greedy. third, the kids ate like 6 tamales a piece and complained that it was too much. again, maybe i had a big appetite but 6 tamales would be nothing for the kid version of me. it's definitely nothing for the adult version of me.

this aside, it is a great story and especially great because it captures an important christmas tradition, tamale making. and well of course, tamale eating!

ps its things like this that make me grateful i grew up in delano.

two from galilee. marjorie holmes. (80)

after his death, i checked out a collection of essays by gore vidal. i didn't have time to read it (i was bombarded by requests from the library). but i did read part of an article, "the top ten bestsellers according to the sunday new york times of january 7, 1973". for the article, vidal read all ten and wrote about them. this is how i discovered marjorie holmes' "two from galilee"

vidal was a witty, no-nonsense, tell-it-like-it-is kinda writer. he must have been the perfect sitting at a bar and shooting the shit partner. i loved his wit and feel guilty for not reading his essays but will redeem myself in the future. anyway, this is what he wrote about "two from galilee":

…what about a love story starring the mother and step-father of our lord? A super idea. and marjorie has written it.

seriously, how could i not be interested?!? we all know that i'm not religious but i love jesus-y things (unless they are forced upon me by christians to save my soul, i don't like that).

the novel is just as it is subtitled, "a love story of mary and joseph". it's like christian fan fiction though they think jesus is real so i guess more like christian historical fiction. however you label it, i had to read it, it's like a prequel to the christmas story. and yes i did save it until now to read right before christmas.

according to her bio on the back flap, marjorie holmes isn't a certified jesus expert, no mention of a theology degree nor religious studies, all we get is that she graduated from cornell college of iowa and she taught a writing class at catholic university in maryland. however, her other works include "i've got to talk to someone, god" and "who am i, god?" so she is some type of god expert? i mean she did get me to pick up a bible for the first time in about 5 years (to see what exactly was written about mary and joseph, surprisingly not much) so she has to be some sort of vessel for the work of god.

but in all honesty, i think it's a clever premise for a book. i mean if someone were to claim what mary was claiming today, we would think she was bat shit crazy. we can only assume that it would have been the same back then. and that is something we don't see in the bible. seriously it's bare bones in the bible, angels appear to bring messages from god and she gives birth. no real insight on the whole being pregnant and a virgin or the whole giving birth in a manager. just like men to gloss over that when they are recording the life of jesus, way to go matthew, mark and luke.

so "two from galilee" let's us know about mary and joseph, b.c. before christ. according to holmes, mary was this great beauty that everyone wanted to marry. but she was in love with joseph who was six years her senior. by the way, their ages: mary 13 and joseph 18, which in modern times ewwww, but back than, prolly like whatever, but holmes paints it as something odd. however, her mother (who vidal described as the epitome of an overbearing jewish mother) did not approve of joseph because he was poor and his father was an alcoholic. (good thing jesus wasn't joseph's kid cos we can't have the son of christ with those genetics).

however when mary becomes a women aka gets her period, she than takes fate into her own hands and manipulated her parents into letting her marry joseph. this part felt far fetch to me.

all is well in the world until an angel appeared to inform mary, she was the chosen virgin to birth the christ child. i am disappointed with god on this one, given the gravity of the matter, god should have appeared before mary himself to tell her know what was going on. furthermore, i find it interesting how god and jesus found the time to appear before joseph smith, of mormon fame, but not the mother of jesus.

then she had this weird body experience, which seemed like the ulitimate orgasm the way holmes described it (there was sweat, ultimate bliss and screams of "oh god"), when god impregnates her. again this seemed weird to me, no need for mary to feel anything physically, you're god, just fertilize that egg. in this regard, i find zeus the better god, he had the decency to take on forms like swans to impreganate women.

so mary told her mom, who thought she was bat shit crazy, which i think is a reasonable reaction. her father who always knew mary was special, believed mary but then mom convinced him otherwise. and joseph was just confused because he loved her. anyway, like all premarital pregnant girls, mary was sent away to a cousin. and that cousin was elizabeth who the angel told mary would be pregnant as well. i didn't undertstand why mary didn't tell her parents about elizabeth as proof of her immaculate conception. holmes had mary keep silent for fear of sounding really crazy, unmm too late. also for some odd reason, the part about the john the baptist jumping in elizabeth when mary arrived stayed has stuck in my brain all these years. no idea why. also all of these art pieces with john and jesus playing as babies, are they a sham? they never hung out as toddlers, right?

with mary away, galilee became a buzzed with gossip about what was going on with her and joseph's marriafe and she brought shame to everyone. the rumors were that a) joseph couldn't keep his penis in check or b) mary commited adultry. joseph had to decide what to do, everyone wants him to divorce her but than an angel appeared and he decided to marry her. mary returned because elizabeth gave birth and it's not good for pregnant women to be near. then ceasar put out his tax rules and mary and joseph travel to bethelem. and everyone knows the rest, well christians do.

i did appreciate how holmes did give details about the birth. because no one thinks of mary sweaty, bloody and near death as she gives birth. we just think of her in this cute little manager with sweet animals around her and a glowing christ child. in the story, holmes used the birth as a metaphor for the suffering that jesus would eventually take upon himself. which got me to thinking, if he was the christ child, shouldn't he have taken on the most pain during his birth? shouldn't marry have felt nothing? and once again, where was god? couldn't he have helped with the easing of pain? i get that he don't help jesus on the cross but jesus is god while mary is human, he could have cut her a break. maybe teleport out the baby like i hope will happen in the near future before i give birth.

so on to my critiques. my first is the view of female and male sexuality in this book. i understand it was an indication of the times but there was a double standard because male sexuality was accepted even if it was taboo back then. the only form of acceptable sex for women is one that comes from true love, which i guess mary and joseph would eventually have one day. other than that sex was scary and unenjoyable for women. helene, mary's mother, was scared of sex when she was first married and kept on warning mary of its pain. and then after the wedding of her cousin, mary wonders to herself

"and the bride and the groom. were they growing eager for their hour? how soon would deborah be led to her couch, stripped of her finery and made to lie down to await her husband in the still throbbing music of the darkness? and the groom, slightly drunken, flush and persirpring garland askew, his pudgy hands outstretched."

what nice imagery a woman stripped and waiting for drunken husband to have his way with her. this sounds like rape's first cousin. (thank god i live in modern times where i can be just as drunk as my husband.) and to top it all of mary's cousin was a little risqué wanting to kiss and thinking she should have done more before marriage. yet on her wedding night forced to be the virgin.

and as the double standard goes, men get to spread their seed like no other. no one bats an eye at cleophas who is rumored to have many lovers at ports but everyone wanted to shame mary for possibly committing adultery. furthermore, mary's
father actually felt bad for joseph for having to wait to have sex until their marriage especially after their betrothal. after a discussion with his wife he though to myself:

"hannah had no idea what it was like to be a man--this waiting. no women could comprehend physically passion. . . [mary] but was a child; she did not have the faintest concept of the demon-god that entered a youth's loins at puberty and gave him no peace after. that drove him, a whip goading, lashing him sometimes beyond all reason and honor . . . six months could be an eternity to when you were enflamed by a woman and already bound to her."

disgusting, according to this, it would have made sense if joseph knocked her up before he should have. and once gain the virginal woman not knowing anything about passion.

another critique i had was the talk about marriage for love. it was silly how fortunate mary and joseph felt because they were actually in love and how they talked about how in the future more people would marry for love. it was as if jesus would show people the folly of their ways. no offense but jesus had more important issues than marriage like maybe the whole love thy neighbor, turn the other cheek, repent of your sins, and stop with the temple sacrifices, to take on marriage. plus we all know the christian right aren't for love in marriages, they don't believe in love because if they did, they would let gays marry.

there was also a lot of period talk in this book. and if you follow my twitter i like to talk about periods. as i reading about mary explaining to her mom that she was pregnant because she missed her period, i realized i was a naive preteen and my mom failed on the period talk. i didn't get the correlation between period and pregnancy until i had been bleeding for a good three years or so. if i was 12 and the chosen virgin, i would not have gotten the whole, hey i have no period something must be up. i wouldn't know i was pregant until i started showing.

and last but not least, i have to critque how holmes christianized the story especially since jesus was not born yet so the whole christian spin on the world didn't make sense. for example, in the end, when joseph realized all the suffering that his child would endure being the christ child, he discussed how jesus would have the ultimate cross to bear. joseph was right, but this idea of a cross to bear seems to me more of a christian idea than a jewish one.b plus i am pretty sure it's popularity came with jesus' crucifixion, though i know jesus is not the only person to ever be crucified. i also thought it was odd how they discussed the men studying scriptures at home. i am not an expert on this but if in the story joseph couldn't afford to send a reed letter to mary, how could he afford torah scrolls for the home. furthermore, weren't most people illiterate? the novel had both mary's father and joseph not going to school yet they both study scriptures at home? and this isn't saying that jews don't study at home, i just think back than they probably did it at temple. also maybe it's just cos i was raised mormon, this whole study your scriptures at home was a daily task. and last but not least there was talk about mary seeing joseph at the synagogue. i thought the sexes would have been segregated but turn out after googling there is no indication architecturally that there was a divide between the sexes. so holmes got it right.

all in all, a wonderful spin on the christmas story. and if i was a christian i would probably love it. i did love it for purely blasphemous reasons and will probably go to hell due to my life, but that is only if this tale of a virgin giving birth to the christ child turns out to be true.

oh and seriously this was the best part of the whole book:

[deborah, mary's cousin, said,]"his lips--they're like kissing a sausage."

mary gasped, shocked if amused. a sausage was heathen food.

the chanukkah guest. eric a. kimmel. (79)

due to the holiday season, i have added two christmas books to my reading list. however, this morning i realized that hanukkah started today and decided to check out what books the delano library had. i found two online but only found one at the library. i found "the chanukkah guest" by eric a. kimmel. (note: you can spell hanukkah with or without the c, not sure why that is. however, i prefer the non-c.)

i read "the chanukkah guest" with brother bear at sunset (when hanukkah officially starts) and taught him about the cultural hanukkah things like dridels and latkes. also informed him that jesus was a jew and also nephi from the book of mormon.

the story was adorable and of course includes a great grandmother, bubba brayna. bubba brayna made the best latkes and always hosted the first night of hanukkah. however, this time she had a surprise. old bear came out of hibernation and the first thing he smelled were latkes. following the smell, he ended up knocking on bubba brayna's door. since she didn't see or hear that well, she let the bear in, thinking he was the rabbi. they had a lovely evening, they lit the menorah (the bear "said" the prayer, so i guess growling sounds like hebrew?), they played dreidel and the bear ate all of the latkes with jam. (brother bear and i agreed we would eat our latkes with sour cream). bubba brayna even gave old bear a scarf as a gift and the bear licked her face which she mistook for a kiss.

after old bear left, everyone showed up. bubba brayna explained that the rabbi ate all the latkes but her grandchildren discovered the paw prints and that it was a bear not the rabbi! but as sweet as bubba brayna is, she just laughed and said "that was a very clever bear . . . or a foolish bubba brayna". then everyone pitched in and made latkes and a wonderful hanukkah!

it was a very cute story and had brother bear and i laughing. it also made me extremely hungry for latkes. but being in delano, not sure where i will find them. when i told my friend larry that i might just eat hash browns and applesauce, he suggested mcdonald's hash browns. i was impressed by his innovation because micky d's hash browns are very latkes-esque. so hopefully will get my fill over these next few days of hanukkah!