Alison Mueller Mueller itibaren Adol Kh., Maharashtra 443403, Hindistan
Bu kitabı Chicago'daki en sevdiğim suşi restoranı Katsu'da öğrendim. Duvarda, ana karakterin Katsu'nun en sevdiği suşi restoranı olduğunu söylediği kitaptan sayfa var. Ne tesadüf! Harika bir kitap, üzgün, bırakamadım.
Güneydeki ırkçılığın büyüleyici bir keşfi, büyüleyici ve güçlü kadınların sesleriyle anlattı. Bu kitap harika bir film olabilir. Her zaman bu kitabı okuyan herkese hangi karakter olduklarını soruyorum. Çoğu Skeeter, Minnie olurum!
Highly recommended.
Listened to the audiobook, narrated by the author. Fascinating.
This book is surprisingly fun! Kind of a cross between "eat, pray, love" and anything by Bill Bryson.
I'm not usually one for "chick lit" but I really loved this book. I have loved Judy Blume since I was a kid (Superfudge, anyone?), and this was the first adult novel I ever read by her. She does such an amazing job of developing the characters, making them real people to the reader, and taking us through their lives to the almost inevitable ending. When I got close to the end, I stopped reading, lingering over each page, not wanting the book to be over. I felt sad when I finished it, as though I'd just lost two of my friends. An incredible novel about the complications of friendship.
The interestingly informative introduction is nearly as long as the text, and the notes are longer than both combined. The introduction, as if anticipating my reasons for study, glossed quickly through some facts and dwelt at length on the compelling history for the unacceptability of the Latin version of scriptures in the west. This went a long way toward explaining the peculiar nature of Felix’s piece (authored by a Roman advocate), which occurs as a challenge, statement of case, rebuttal, and happy ending which did not even require the prepared arbitration. Clarke sadly summarized this as “a marginal opuscule in the corpus of classical literature,” useful merely for locating Christian apologetics and culture in time and place (32, 48; contrast with high pseudo-contemporary praise on 4-5), and he pointed somewhat rightly to the odd “parsimony of Christian doctrine” (30). I trust Felix’s conclusion as to intent, if not exactly in power of accomplishment: “. . . I was completely lost in profound amazement at the wealth of proofs, examples, and authoritative quotations he had used to illustrate matter easier to feel than to express; by parrying spiteful critics with their own weapons, the arms of philosophers, he had shown the truth to be so simple as well as so attractive” (125). This was indeed the consuming concern of the Christians for centuries, and Felix trails off with the promise that the participants in his—altogether simplistically transacted—dialogue will later speak more of doctrine now that the antagonist is persuaded unto conversion. Yet Felix’s very purpose in carrying out Ciceronian dissertation wins a surprising concession, given the style of presentation overall, that certain oratory may “[fail:] to separate correct from incorrect and . . . falsehood may lie in what seems likely and truth is what sounds improbable” (72). Caecilius launches into a somewhat typical Roman diatribe against the “ignorant” Christian masses, even pointing to the curious manner in which “they are afraid to die after they are dead, but meantime they have no fear of death” (63; see 68). He clearly practices the old school/new school belief that “all is doubtful” (56, 71) in trying to weaken anyone’s fortification of “dogmatic” assertion. The age-old accusation imputed against Jews of child sacrifice (how is it that Moloch turns his crimes against God’s people?) was simply transferred onto the Christians. So many of his charges are duplicated in our day in some form or another. I’ll reproduce another, and would that more of us were still accused of this! But in the meantime, in your anxious state of expectation, you refrain from honest pleasures: you do not go to our shows, you take no part in our processions, you are not present at our public banquets, you shrink in horror from our sacred games, from food ritually dedicated by our priests, from drink hallowed by libation poured upon our altars. . . . The result is, you pitiable fools, that you have no enjoyment of life while you wait for the new life which you will never have. (70) Octavius’ response, in defense of “morals and modesty,” against such “display of indecencies” (122-123), is highly reminiscent of Lactantius and Tertullian’s urging that Christian parents protect their children against that which was depicted on the Roman stage. (Athenagoras bemoaned this accusation in saying, effectually, “How could Christians be guilty of what they shudder to contemplate?” This view was mirrored several times in Felix’s work.) He wrapped it up with a tragi-comical, “We can only conclude that murder is what you demand in fact and what you weep at in fiction.” (As usual, I’m thinking Hollywood, with respect to murder, adultery, and other unseemly conduct.) Early in Octavius’ rebuttal, he asserts something ahead of its time, as to the equality of mankind in the possibility of attainment to wisdom (75-76), even going so far as to say that wealth may even distract one from such a pursuit. (Clarke made much of the defense of Christian poverty, given in 118-119.) He also uses one of the clearest, strongest, oldest, and surest proofs of God in creation itself (77-78, 112). Pretty soon, however, he employs a typically weak inductive fallacy in seeking a pattern for heaven from an earthly monarchy (80), proceeding to as implausible language for monotheism as I have read used to support the Trinity from nature, and winding up with the usual absurd depersonalization of God Himself (81-82). One can also see the early stirrings of predestination controversy (68), reasonably well answered by the Christian (118-119). Clarke prepared our minds for the realization that Caecilius sought to undermine Christianity on grounds of its being a new innovation. This successfully counters by showing up the contradictions in traditional Roman beliefs (such as with auguries on 98-99, which, like Origen, he attributed at some times to the presence of demons), a shocking lack of morals in Roman history (96), and certain ancient philosophers’ predilection for what the Christians believed (85, 114-115). Like other Christian apologists, he almost gleefully points to documentation that many mythological gods originated in mortals and specific locations (87, 91-92). Among his defenses that I appreciated were the proposition that Christians did not “worship or desire” crosses (106), that “women who swallow drugs to stifle in their own womb the beginnings of a man to be” committed “infanticide before they give birth to their infant” (107-108). He proposed an idea floating through the work of Justin Martyr and, much later, Pascal: whence the impossibility for a man to live again, if he was born in the first place? This contains elements of shadowboxing, subjective arguments that would normally fly past each other, and dredging up of usual philosophical arguments. I didn’t detect much originality, but it was still a short and enjoyable enough composition. All told, I’d say this more nearly wins a place for Christianity in the forum than successfully converting anyone. It represents an early Christian attempt probably more impressive in the original tongue for force of language, but also not lacking in the arena of factual recitation (that is, in terms of what the Romans were discussing, and not of Christian belief and practice).