This one is going to be a little bit shorter and not as indepth as the last because I accidently returned two of the books I was supposed to review....OOPS!
So to start off I read The Godmother by Carrie Adams. The main character telling the story is named Tessa King, haha, but she couldn't be any less like me. She is 35, single, and British. She is also the Godmother to all of her friend's kids, four total. But she has no kids. I didn't really know how to get into this book at first because I felt so far removed from the situation. I'm almost 20 years old, in a relationship with no plans of kids on the way. But yes, my best friend does happen to have a little girl and I'm kind of sort of like a Godmother figure in her life when I can be. But thats it. Plus Tessa is a lawyer and has just gotten back from India on a Yoga retreat. I've never done that! So it was difficult. Since it was an easy read though I pushed on through it and by the time I was half way through it I'd been sucked in. Tessa is a good person but struggles with her emotions and statements a lot like I do,and she's an extremely devoted friend like I am as well. Her friends are all wonderful people and I learned to love them as much as character Tessa does. It's a book that I plan on reading again when I'm about 10-15 years older because I feel like I'll appreciate it even more by then. I do recommend it to anyone, female, who wants to try something a little beyond their years [content wise] and just needs to get a way to something different than their lives. Am I going to add it to my "To Buy" list though? No.
I then tried to read A Man of the People by Chinua Achebe and I had to stop after just one chapter. I very raretly do that with any book. It's probably been over 10 years since I've put a book down and stopped reading it. But it was HARD. I read Things Fall Apart by the same author about 2 years ago in AP Lit and really enjoyed it. But this one was much much harder to read. I tried looking up reading guides/cliff notes to try and get through it but everything I found you had to pay for. So I gave up. I'm hoping that its a book that pops up again in a class I take or a book club I may join. That way I can read it with some help......
The next book I read was The Alexander Cipher by Will Adams. Apparently Alexander the Great's tomb has never actually been found so the Adams wrote his book off of this concept. About 6+ different characters are interwoven in this story about finding his tomb. I loved the idea and thought it would turn out being really good and twisty turny like Dan Brown's books but I was so wrong. He spent maybe a page and a half on each point of view, per character, and it was awul. I never really got to know any of the characters personalities so I didn't really get drawn in. I just really wanted to know how they'd find the tomb, and if anyone would die... The ending was also really bad. It was short and ended the story but if he'd taken at least 100 more pages I think it would have been a lot better. His writing isn't bad which is why I could deal with it, it was just the whole jumping around and what not that I didn't enjoy. I don't recommend this book and won't be buying it ever.
I just finished, today, Purple Hibiscus by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichi. I really really enjoyed this one. It's about a 15 year old Nigerian girl, Kambili, who's father is a rich business man and devote Catholic. They have a beautiful house and attend a very nice missionary school. But everything is not so wonderul in their family life. Her Papa [father] is not this wonderful man that the village or their priest, Father Benedict, thinks he is. One thing that I really loved about this book is the writing itself. "She spoke the way a bird eats, in small amounts" is a good example. Wonderful descriptions throughout. Like with The Romance Reader from my last blog, I feel like I learned a lot about Nigerian culture. There are the Catholics and then there are the "traditionalists" or the "heathens" as Kambili's papa calls them. The ones that would not convert and still pray to the gods and what not. Kamili's Papa-Nnukwu [grandfather] is one of these people. Neither Kambili, or Jaja her older brother, are allowed to have anything to do with him except for 15 minutes every Christmas.
At one point Papa-Nnukwu is talking about when the missionaries [white] first came to his part of Nigeria. He says, "One day I said to them, Where is this god you worship? They said he was like Chukwu, that he was in the sky. I asked then, Who is the person that was killed, the person who hangs on the wood outside the mission? They said he was the son, but that the son and the father are equal. It was then that I knew that the white man was mad. The father and the son are equal? Tufia! Do you not see? That is why Eugene (his son) can disregard me, because he thinks we are equal."
Another part that stuck with me was near the end when Jaja is talking to Kambili. Kambili has just said, "God knows best...God works in mysterious ways." and her replies, " Of course God does. Look what he did to his faithful servant Job, even to His own son. But have you ever wondered why? Why did He have to murder his own son so we would be saved? Why didn't He just go ahead and save us?"
The final part I will quote comes from her Aunt who has written Kambili from America and is discussing the way people talk about Nigeria/Africa. "There are people who think that we cannot rule ourselves because the few times we tried, we failed, as if all the others who rule themselves today got it right the first time. It is like telling a crawling baby who tries to walk, and then falls back on his buttocks, to stay there. As if the adults walking past him did not all crawl, once."
It's poignant statements like these, that the characters make, that make it such a wonderful read. You are able to catch a feel for the culture in Nigeria and at the same time feel like you are very much the same as these people. That really, they are no different than us, than Americnas. I definitely suggest this book and am adding it to my "To Buy" list.
So to start off I read The Godmother by Carrie Adams. The main character telling the story is named Tessa King, haha, but she couldn't be any less like me. She is 35, single, and British. She is also the Godmother to all of her friend's kids, four total. But she has no kids. I didn't really know how to get into this book at first because I felt so far removed from the situation. I'm almost 20 years old, in a relationship with no plans of kids on the way. But yes, my best friend does happen to have a little girl and I'm kind of sort of like a Godmother figure in her life when I can be. But thats it. Plus Tessa is a lawyer and has just gotten back from India on a Yoga retreat. I've never done that! So it was difficult. Since it was an easy read though I pushed on through it and by the time I was half way through it I'd been sucked in. Tessa is a good person but struggles with her emotions and statements a lot like I do,and she's an extremely devoted friend like I am as well. Her friends are all wonderful people and I learned to love them as much as character Tessa does. It's a book that I plan on reading again when I'm about 10-15 years older because I feel like I'll appreciate it even more by then. I do recommend it to anyone, female, who wants to try something a little beyond their years [content wise] and just needs to get a way to something different than their lives. Am I going to add it to my "To Buy" list though? No.
I then tried to read A Man of the People by Chinua Achebe and I had to stop after just one chapter. I very raretly do that with any book. It's probably been over 10 years since I've put a book down and stopped reading it. But it was HARD. I read Things Fall Apart by the same author about 2 years ago in AP Lit and really enjoyed it. But this one was much much harder to read. I tried looking up reading guides/cliff notes to try and get through it but everything I found you had to pay for. So I gave up. I'm hoping that its a book that pops up again in a class I take or a book club I may join. That way I can read it with some help......
The next book I read was The Alexander Cipher by Will Adams. Apparently Alexander the Great's tomb has never actually been found so the Adams wrote his book off of this concept. About 6+ different characters are interwoven in this story about finding his tomb. I loved the idea and thought it would turn out being really good and twisty turny like Dan Brown's books but I was so wrong. He spent maybe a page and a half on each point of view, per character, and it was awul. I never really got to know any of the characters personalities so I didn't really get drawn in. I just really wanted to know how they'd find the tomb, and if anyone would die... The ending was also really bad. It was short and ended the story but if he'd taken at least 100 more pages I think it would have been a lot better. His writing isn't bad which is why I could deal with it, it was just the whole jumping around and what not that I didn't enjoy. I don't recommend this book and won't be buying it ever.
I just finished, today, Purple Hibiscus by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichi. I really really enjoyed this one. It's about a 15 year old Nigerian girl, Kambili, who's father is a rich business man and devote Catholic. They have a beautiful house and attend a very nice missionary school. But everything is not so wonderul in their family life. Her Papa [father] is not this wonderful man that the village or their priest, Father Benedict, thinks he is. One thing that I really loved about this book is the writing itself. "She spoke the way a bird eats, in small amounts" is a good example. Wonderful descriptions throughout. Like with The Romance Reader from my last blog, I feel like I learned a lot about Nigerian culture. There are the Catholics and then there are the "traditionalists" or the "heathens" as Kambili's papa calls them. The ones that would not convert and still pray to the gods and what not. Kamili's Papa-Nnukwu [grandfather] is one of these people. Neither Kambili, or Jaja her older brother, are allowed to have anything to do with him except for 15 minutes every Christmas.
At one point Papa-Nnukwu is talking about when the missionaries [white] first came to his part of Nigeria. He says, "One day I said to them, Where is this god you worship? They said he was like Chukwu, that he was in the sky. I asked then, Who is the person that was killed, the person who hangs on the wood outside the mission? They said he was the son, but that the son and the father are equal. It was then that I knew that the white man was mad. The father and the son are equal? Tufia! Do you not see? That is why Eugene (his son) can disregard me, because he thinks we are equal."
Another part that stuck with me was near the end when Jaja is talking to Kambili. Kambili has just said, "God knows best...God works in mysterious ways." and her replies, " Of course God does. Look what he did to his faithful servant Job, even to His own son. But have you ever wondered why? Why did He have to murder his own son so we would be saved? Why didn't He just go ahead and save us?"
The final part I will quote comes from her Aunt who has written Kambili from America and is discussing the way people talk about Nigeria/Africa. "There are people who think that we cannot rule ourselves because the few times we tried, we failed, as if all the others who rule themselves today got it right the first time. It is like telling a crawling baby who tries to walk, and then falls back on his buttocks, to stay there. As if the adults walking past him did not all crawl, once."
It's poignant statements like these, that the characters make, that make it such a wonderful read. You are able to catch a feel for the culture in Nigeria and at the same time feel like you are very much the same as these people. That really, they are no different than us, than Americnas. I definitely suggest this book and am adding it to my "To Buy" list.
As I sit here writing my first Reading Blog I’m mildly freaked out because I put “Marry The Night” on by Lady Gaga and just realized the first book I’m reviewing is The Meaning of Night. Kind of spooked.
Anyway. The Meaning of Night is by Michael Cox. It was a very tough read but I definitely count it as one of my favorites. I have too many favorites….
Cox loves Victorian Fiction and chose to write his first novel in the same style and he definitely succeeded. The story is about a man named Edward Glyver and it starts out with, “After killing the red-haired man, I took myself off to Quinn’s for an oyster supper.” Glyver has just killed a man in practice for killing someone who he considers to be his enemy. He felt that he needed a trial kill in order to know if he could actually murder someone. The entire novel is written in the style of a confession, and in fact states that on the cover.
There is an “Editor’s Preface” at the beginning that starts out stating, “The following work, printed here for the first time, is one of the lost curiosities of nineteenth-century literature. It is a strange concoction, being a kind of confession, often shocking in its frank, conscienceless brutality and explicit sexuality that also has a strongly novelistic flavor.” It leads you to believe that what you are reading could in fact be true; perhaps exaggerated at times, but fact. There are footnotes throughout that sometimes lead to further confusion. One chapter is titled Vocat and the footnote says, “He calls’. The significance of the title of this section is not altogether clear. Ed.” As if during the “analyzing” of this recovered confession they could not understand why Edward would have used this title. Another contribution was that one of the characters is Phoebus Rainsford Daunt (1819-54) who is a poet who has 13 published works. He is the antagonist of the story and is the only real character. I have yet to try and find any of Daunt’s works and read them but if I do I will try and mention them in any later posts.
I had never read a novel written like this before and it was quit a trip! If you have any sort of love for Victorian Fiction (Dickens anyone?), or the era in general, then I highly suggest this book. It was not nearly as difficult as say A Tale of Two Cities but it was a harder book to get into initially. Ultimately though, the mystery, love, and beautiful descriptions are definitely worth it. My favorite passage/quote (which I will shorten slightly) would have to be, “Do not ask my why I loved Miss Carteret. How can such an instantaneous passion be explained? She seemed beautiful to my eyes, certainly, more beautiful than anyone I had known in my life…I knew from direct experience that she could claim musical ability well above the common. These accomplishments – and no doubt others of which I was yet unaware – were worthy of admiration and respect…but I did not love her for them. I loved her because – because I loved her; because I could not help succumbing to this irresistible contagion of the heart. I loved her because choice was denied me by some greater force. I loved her because it was my fate to do so.”
I next read The Orchid Thief by Susan Orlean which is non-fiction and sort of a memoir about Orlean. The movie Adaptation is about the book actually if anyone has seen it or is interested. Any who. I am not entirely sure how I feel about this one. It was not a bad book. It was written well and does have a lot of interesting elements to it. It just isn’t for me.
The jist of it is that Susan Orlean, a journalist, was in Florida and had read a newspaper article about a man named John Laroche and three Seminole men who had been arrested with rare orchids that had been stolen out of the Florida swamp called the Fakahatchee. She was curious about it and set out to kind of write a book about him. It is full of facts about Orchids, the people who collect them, and Florida history. It’s rich with history and facts. Maybe because I really am not in interested in Florida or Orchids I found it boring. But if you’ve ever found yourself fascinated by the intricate flower then definitely pick this up. Even if you just have a love of flowers, and maybe some history, then try it out.
I have always heard that Orchids were considered to be a “sexual” flower and this book confirmed it. Apparently Victorian women were forbidden from owning orchids because the shape of the flower was considered too sexually suggestive for their shy constitutions. That’s pretty much a direct quote so the page number is 75 if anyone is interested. I have to laugh at this though because this made men the primary collectors of Orchids in the 1800s and the women couldn’t own them because they looked like Vaginas. How this makes any sense, you know considering women have vaginas and all, I have no idea.
The last book for this post is called The Romance Reader by Pearl Abraham. I had not so much as read the back cover of this book when I got it. So I had no idea what to expect, but I was not disappointed. It is about a girl named Rachel who is the daughter of a Rabbi and the oldest of seven siblings. I can’t seem to stop thinking about this book and I’m not really even sure why. The writing was not anything unique and the characters were as real as any other good book I’ve read, but it still sticks with me. The culture sticks with me. The author herself grew up in a Hasidic community which is extremely Orthodox Judaism.
Because I’m not really sure how to talk about this book I’ll use some of the passages that I dog-eared. For this first one Rachel tried to go to the library and get a library card while her father was gone, but she got caught. Her father has come into her room to talk to her, “I’m afraid. He never raises his voice or hits me; I don’t know what to expect. In his hand he holds the first book of Isaiah. He opens the book and reads, his voice hard, harder than I’ve ever heard it. It is the prophets warning to the people of Judea. The words speak of destruction, pestilence, and plague. They speak of the sin of assimilation, of trying to be like other nations, of wanting to be liked by them, and of never succeeding.
‘A Jew,’ Father says, looking at me, translating for me, ‘is never liked by other nations. A Jew reads only Jewish books and must remain separate.’” (I’m mildly freaked out again because “Judas” by Gaga is now playing…)
This next one is from when Rachel, her parents, and a few of her younger siblings went to Seagate (a gated beach place) and found a secluded area to swim. Her father and brother, Levi, went off since they are male and left the females. I’ve shortened the passage some. “I lift my skirt higher and go in deeper. A wave comes, and the bottom of my underpants gets cold and wet with warning. I want to get all wet. Wet, my clothes will stick so hard it will be like going naked. I can peel them off and let myself float away to the middle of the Atlantic…Without clothes on, I will be naked Eve in the garden before sin…
‘Rachel, you’re old enough not to lift your skirt up like that,’ Ma says, ‘You’re old enough to know better.’ She’s speaking softly, as if the sun has quieted her.
‘There’s no one here to see me,’ I say.
‘God always sees,’ she says.
‘God sees underneath my clothes too. He sees me naked.’
‘That has nothing to do with it. You know that,’ Her voice is harder. ‘It’s a matter of modesty. A girl who can lift her skirt like that is a pruste meude.’ … Father and Levi come back with their hair wet and their clothes dry…It is obvious that they removed all their clothes and went in for a good swim. But they’re men, and they’re not ashamed of their bodies. They are not the sinning Eves we are.”
Apparently the Yiddish word for “like” is the same as “love” and Rachel wonders what, and if, there is a difference.
This last one comes from when Rachel is reading a book. “There are questions the characters in this novel ask that I’ve never heard asked. Is there a God? Would a God allow so much suffering? The two boys each want what the other has. It’s always this way, I think. You want what you don’t have. If I know that, can I just live with what I have?”
I think I favor this book because I found the culture astonishing. That women can be treated the way they are just appalls me, and yet the majority of them, with the exception of those like Rachel, just go along with it because it is all they know. I could not believe that, once married, the women has to shave their hair off and from that moment on they could wear a wig instead but wig or not their hair must be covered by a kerchief. I can not understand this. But I loved Rachel and I loved learning about a culture that was written as straight facts. It was very enjoyable.
So there it is! My first one. I hope it was not too dry, too boring. If you have ANYTHING to say please comment. I appreciate any sort of feedback. I'm working on the next batch of books now.
FDA reveals bigger, graphic warning labels for cigarette packages
I am appalled by this piece of news. I can not believe that the FDA is being allowed to put such awful things on something so simple as a cigarette pack. I understand that their motive and intention is to get people to quit but then why aren't they putting other graphic images elsewhere? Why aren't there pictures of the consequences of drinking posted on cans and bottles, or even just the cases? I'm not saying I would support that either but it seems very unfair to single out smokers.
"'President Obama is committed to protecting our nation's children and the American people from the dangers of tobacco use. These labels are frank, honest and powerful depictions of the health risks of smoking and they will help," Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in an FDA statement. 'These labels will encourage smokers to quit and prevent children from smoking. President Obama wants to make tobacco-related death and disease part of the nation's past, and not our future.'" I do not agree with any portion of this statement. Why isn't Obama committed to stopping drunk driving or helping alcoholics quit? Their addiction is just as serious, if not more so, as a smokers. There might be no such thing as "second-hand drinking" but growing up with an alcoholic parent, or two, is just as harmful as living with a smoker. Especially if Alcoholism runs in the family. I also don't believe that the labels will encourage smokers to quit, nor will it prevent children from smoking. First of all no one wants to see these images and I've heard of several studies that concluded that showing people drastic images made no difference than just telling them what the affects are. Second, kids are going to smoke no matter what. There are always going to be people who make smoking look cool whether its a neighbor, a peer, a parent, or whomever. Because of this there are always going to be kids who want to try it. My feeling is that it doesn't matter if the entire pack of cigarettes is covered in images and warnings, a 12 year old, or a 16 year old is still going to try it if their curious.
"Thomas Glynn, director of cancer science and trends for the the American Cancer Society, said the old labels have been virtually invisible because they're small and have been around for so long. He said people have become immune and don't really "see" them anymore, but the new labels will be hard to ignore and will help focus attention on the problem." I'm curious, again, why nothing is being implemented toward the cases, bottles, and kegs of alcohol that are available. I'm 90% sure that they all have some sort of warning and I guarantee its just as non-noticeable as the labeling on cigarette packs.
Glynn also says that, "The labels are not just for smokers, the labels are for anyone interested in public health." I don't want to see these labels. I have been a non-smoker for approximately the last 3 years and these pictures are disturbing to me. I don't want to see them. Even if all my friends manage to quit and all of them are non-smokers I don't want to see them when I walk into a 7-Eleven or conveniencestore. I shouldn't have to.
R.J. Reynolds is a maker of many best-selling brands of cigarettes and says that the new requirements violate the First and Fifth Amendments. He also states that "the government is not warning consumers about smoking risks -- it is telling consumers, 'Don't buy or use this product.'" Which I must agree with. What happened to a the Government allowing the PEOPLE to make their own decisions? Shouldn't they in a sense be thanking smokers for fueling the economy?
Apparently 39 other countries have picture warnings on their cigarette packs. I'm not really against having picture warnings, but the sheer size of them is very disturbing. As Philip Morris' letter said, "the sheer size of the warnings violates the First Amendment."
I feel like in many other areas our rights are violated but this is the most recent occurrence and it disgusts me. I have no problem with campaigns for tobacco users to quit but they need to be done tastefully. My concern is that smokers are going to be so disgusted and pissed off by these new requirements that its not going to deter them from quiting at all. Instead they'll buy stylish ways to store their cigarettes or just plain tune them out. That is not going to be successful at all.
I am appalled by this piece of news. I can not believe that the FDA is being allowed to put such awful things on something so simple as a cigarette pack. I understand that their motive and intention is to get people to quit but then why aren't they putting other graphic images elsewhere? Why aren't there pictures of the consequences of drinking posted on cans and bottles, or even just the cases? I'm not saying I would support that either but it seems very unfair to single out smokers.
"'President Obama is committed to protecting our nation's children and the American people from the dangers of tobacco use. These labels are frank, honest and powerful depictions of the health risks of smoking and they will help," Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in an FDA statement. 'These labels will encourage smokers to quit and prevent children from smoking. President Obama wants to make tobacco-related death and disease part of the nation's past, and not our future.'" I do not agree with any portion of this statement. Why isn't Obama committed to stopping drunk driving or helping alcoholics quit? Their addiction is just as serious, if not more so, as a smokers. There might be no such thing as "second-hand drinking" but growing up with an alcoholic parent, or two, is just as harmful as living with a smoker. Especially if Alcoholism runs in the family. I also don't believe that the labels will encourage smokers to quit, nor will it prevent children from smoking. First of all no one wants to see these images and I've heard of several studies that concluded that showing people drastic images made no difference than just telling them what the affects are. Second, kids are going to smoke no matter what. There are always going to be people who make smoking look cool whether its a neighbor, a peer, a parent, or whomever. Because of this there are always going to be kids who want to try it. My feeling is that it doesn't matter if the entire pack of cigarettes is covered in images and warnings, a 12 year old, or a 16 year old is still going to try it if their curious.
"Thomas Glynn, director of cancer science and trends for the the American Cancer Society, said the old labels have been virtually invisible because they're small and have been around for so long. He said people have become immune and don't really "see" them anymore, but the new labels will be hard to ignore and will help focus attention on the problem." I'm curious, again, why nothing is being implemented toward the cases, bottles, and kegs of alcohol that are available. I'm 90% sure that they all have some sort of warning and I guarantee its just as non-noticeable as the labeling on cigarette packs.
Glynn also says that, "The labels are not just for smokers, the labels are for anyone interested in public health." I don't want to see these labels. I have been a non-smoker for approximately the last 3 years and these pictures are disturbing to me. I don't want to see them. Even if all my friends manage to quit and all of them are non-smokers I don't want to see them when I walk into a 7-Eleven or conveniencestore. I shouldn't have to.
R.J. Reynolds is a maker of many best-selling brands of cigarettes and says that the new requirements violate the First and Fifth Amendments. He also states that "the government is not warning consumers about smoking risks -- it is telling consumers, 'Don't buy or use this product.'" Which I must agree with. What happened to a the Government allowing the PEOPLE to make their own decisions? Shouldn't they in a sense be thanking smokers for fueling the economy?
Apparently 39 other countries have picture warnings on their cigarette packs. I'm not really against having picture warnings, but the sheer size of them is very disturbing. As Philip Morris' letter said, "the sheer size of the warnings violates the First Amendment."
I feel like in many other areas our rights are violated but this is the most recent occurrence and it disgusts me. I have no problem with campaigns for tobacco users to quit but they need to be done tastefully. My concern is that smokers are going to be so disgusted and pissed off by these new requirements that its not going to deter them from quiting at all. Instead they'll buy stylish ways to store their cigarettes or just plain tune them out. That is not going to be successful at all.
Am I Gaga obsessed? Probably. Or at least that's probably how a lot of people see it. The ones that don't call themselves "Little Monsters." Am I ok with this? Absolutely. I have to stick by what I love just like everyone else should and if this means I talk about her a lot, play her music over and over again, or attempt to dress like her now and then, then so be it. Hopefully my friends will still love me....
Gaga's new album comes out on the 23rd of this month and I am sooooooo excited. More excited than I've been for any CD in a long while. She's put out three singles from it and I absolutely love all of them.
Born This Way: When this song came out there was a lot of hype surrounding it because apparently it sounds like some song that Madonna put out a long freaking time ago. I looked it up and listened and don't hear a damn similarity. I have found close sounding songs before but I don't understand the issue with these two. Stupid critics. The music video is 7:20. That is very long in music video standards and I LOVE it. She pushes those standards away and makes her own. My favorite lines from the intro include, "And thus began the beginning of the new race / A race within the race of humanity / A race which bears is no prejudice / No judgement, but boundless freedom," and, "It seems easy, you imagine, / To gravitate instantly and unwaveringly towards good / But she wondered, / 'How can I protect something so perfect without evil?'" The entire song is then about how it's ok to be yourself. Don't let people tell you how you should be, you are perfect. I absolutely love the message she sends with this song because I've been, and still am, fighting with the concept for a long long time. "I'm beautiful in my way / Cause God makes no mistakes / I'm on the right track baby / I was born this way" We should ALL try and pass this message on to our future generations. If you don't believe in God then fill it in with what you will but tell them that the way they are was no mistake. Also, Gaga said that anyone could have wrote this song, because of how simple it is, but she was lucky enough to be the one to do it. I am so glad it was her.
Judas: This song and music video has the Catholic Church engraged. I do not know how to explain how hilarious, awesome, and amazing I find this. I grew up going to a Catholic Church for the first 12 years of my life. Sunday School, Communion. All that jazz. Luckily I got out before I had to do all the other stupid shit that I don't even remember the names of. First time I heard this song I thought, "wtf?" is she TRYING to spark controversies? Then I watched her hour long interview with Google and in it she mentiones that we are not truly in the light unless we have shadows. I am totally miss quoting it. But more or less we have to acknowledge the bad parts of our past [our Judases] in order to truly be in the light. Now, I LOVE the music video. I think it is her best one yet and am blown away. The Church does not like the way she portrays Mary Magdalene and as I said before is very angry about all of it. Gaga made a comment in an interview that she absolutely loves Religious Art and was in no way trying to be offensive. I believe her. We, as a people, need to stop being so offended about everything. I think the video is beautiful actually. The dancing is awesome, the way it was filmed is fantastic, and the scenes are just spectacular. I like that she made it more present tense too. I also think this song and video should push more people to read the bible and any books they can get ahold of on Jesus, Mary Magdalene and that time. I watched this video the first time with my boyfriend's 12 year old sister. She did not understand most of it. This both saddens me and makes me happier. I'm sad that the younger generartions are losing these wonderful stories, but at the same time maybe religion as a whole is dying out(?) which would not be entirely bad. I do not believe in the things that the Church teaches. I consider myself Agnostic, if anything, but I enjoy reading about Jesus and such in a ficitional sense and which other people could seem for what they are, amazing stories. Just that, stories. Getting sidetracked.... Part of my point is that this video has inspired me to read more about Mary Magdalene because of all the labels surrounding her, or as Gaga puts it, "Fame hooker / Prostitute wench." If you are not familiar with the figure, then I will inform you, Gaga is not inaccurate. She made it a little bit harsher but those are the more common terms used for Magdalene. This blurb turned out longer than I ment it, but clearly I have a lot to say about the song and video... I actually now really enjoy the song. As for the video. I've watched it twice while writing this portion...total = 5 times I think... My final thought on "Judas" is that I wish I'd written it. I consider myself to be quite poetic and she makes the song seem so simple, like even I could have done it. I love that the more you listen to it it kind of becomes more personal, like you could say "Judas" is symbolic to your own whatever. You're own exboyriend, your own shadow, your own bad past, etc. It is what you want it to be. And the video is intriguing. I would say it is not inaccurate that many singers and songwriters stay away from controversial stuff in the way of the Catholic religion, but no, Gaga will not be frightened off by anyone. *paws up* [I also really really really want to learn the dance moves....so bad!]
The Edge of Glory: I literally just heard this song today and LOVE it. It makes me want to get up and dance and have a crazy good time. I have not been able to catch all of the lyrics because I'm just not good at that, and unfortunately it's so new that I really can't find any of the lyrics on any site except for, "I'm on the edge of glory / and I'm counting on a moment of truth / I'm on the edge of glory / and I'm counting on a moment with you." They are good lyrics, but dammit I want them all! But regardless this song is just so fun and up beat. I love that, at least based off these three songs, her album is seeming to be very promising. I also love the that three songs are all quite different. This one has a bit of a techno feel to it at times and an 80s (?) feeling too and I love that. I didn't know it was possible to make a modern song feel old school and still feel fresh. Go Gaga! There's no video yet, but hopefully there will be. I can't wait to see what she does with it if she does make one.
I was concerned with how I'd end up feeling about this album and so far so good. I acutally love her album cover now. My intinial dislike is gone. Maybe I was influenced but so what? She is an AMAZING artist and very crazy. She is in touch with who she is and I wouldn't ask her to tone it down if I could.
Gaga's new album comes out on the 23rd of this month and I am sooooooo excited. More excited than I've been for any CD in a long while. She's put out three singles from it and I absolutely love all of them.
Born This Way: When this song came out there was a lot of hype surrounding it because apparently it sounds like some song that Madonna put out a long freaking time ago. I looked it up and listened and don't hear a damn similarity. I have found close sounding songs before but I don't understand the issue with these two. Stupid critics. The music video is 7:20. That is very long in music video standards and I LOVE it. She pushes those standards away and makes her own. My favorite lines from the intro include, "And thus began the beginning of the new race / A race within the race of humanity / A race which bears is no prejudice / No judgement, but boundless freedom," and, "It seems easy, you imagine, / To gravitate instantly and unwaveringly towards good / But she wondered, / 'How can I protect something so perfect without evil?'" The entire song is then about how it's ok to be yourself. Don't let people tell you how you should be, you are perfect. I absolutely love the message she sends with this song because I've been, and still am, fighting with the concept for a long long time. "I'm beautiful in my way / Cause God makes no mistakes / I'm on the right track baby / I was born this way" We should ALL try and pass this message on to our future generations. If you don't believe in God then fill it in with what you will but tell them that the way they are was no mistake. Also, Gaga said that anyone could have wrote this song, because of how simple it is, but she was lucky enough to be the one to do it. I am so glad it was her.
Judas: This song and music video has the Catholic Church engraged. I do not know how to explain how hilarious, awesome, and amazing I find this. I grew up going to a Catholic Church for the first 12 years of my life. Sunday School, Communion. All that jazz. Luckily I got out before I had to do all the other stupid shit that I don't even remember the names of. First time I heard this song I thought, "wtf?" is she TRYING to spark controversies? Then I watched her hour long interview with Google and in it she mentiones that we are not truly in the light unless we have shadows. I am totally miss quoting it. But more or less we have to acknowledge the bad parts of our past [our Judases] in order to truly be in the light. Now, I LOVE the music video. I think it is her best one yet and am blown away. The Church does not like the way she portrays Mary Magdalene and as I said before is very angry about all of it. Gaga made a comment in an interview that she absolutely loves Religious Art and was in no way trying to be offensive. I believe her. We, as a people, need to stop being so offended about everything. I think the video is beautiful actually. The dancing is awesome, the way it was filmed is fantastic, and the scenes are just spectacular. I like that she made it more present tense too. I also think this song and video should push more people to read the bible and any books they can get ahold of on Jesus, Mary Magdalene and that time. I watched this video the first time with my boyfriend's 12 year old sister. She did not understand most of it. This both saddens me and makes me happier. I'm sad that the younger generartions are losing these wonderful stories, but at the same time maybe religion as a whole is dying out(?) which would not be entirely bad. I do not believe in the things that the Church teaches. I consider myself Agnostic, if anything, but I enjoy reading about Jesus and such in a ficitional sense and which other people could seem for what they are, amazing stories. Just that, stories. Getting sidetracked.... Part of my point is that this video has inspired me to read more about Mary Magdalene because of all the labels surrounding her, or as Gaga puts it, "Fame hooker / Prostitute wench." If you are not familiar with the figure, then I will inform you, Gaga is not inaccurate. She made it a little bit harsher but those are the more common terms used for Magdalene. This blurb turned out longer than I ment it, but clearly I have a lot to say about the song and video... I actually now really enjoy the song. As for the video. I've watched it twice while writing this portion...total = 5 times I think... My final thought on "Judas" is that I wish I'd written it. I consider myself to be quite poetic and she makes the song seem so simple, like even I could have done it. I love that the more you listen to it it kind of becomes more personal, like you could say "Judas" is symbolic to your own whatever. You're own exboyriend, your own shadow, your own bad past, etc. It is what you want it to be. And the video is intriguing. I would say it is not inaccurate that many singers and songwriters stay away from controversial stuff in the way of the Catholic religion, but no, Gaga will not be frightened off by anyone. *paws up* [I also really really really want to learn the dance moves....so bad!]
The Edge of Glory: I literally just heard this song today and LOVE it. It makes me want to get up and dance and have a crazy good time. I have not been able to catch all of the lyrics because I'm just not good at that, and unfortunately it's so new that I really can't find any of the lyrics on any site except for, "I'm on the edge of glory / and I'm counting on a moment of truth / I'm on the edge of glory / and I'm counting on a moment with you." They are good lyrics, but dammit I want them all! But regardless this song is just so fun and up beat. I love that, at least based off these three songs, her album is seeming to be very promising. I also love the that three songs are all quite different. This one has a bit of a techno feel to it at times and an 80s (?) feeling too and I love that. I didn't know it was possible to make a modern song feel old school and still feel fresh. Go Gaga! There's no video yet, but hopefully there will be. I can't wait to see what she does with it if she does make one.
I was concerned with how I'd end up feeling about this album and so far so good. I acutally love her album cover now. My intinial dislike is gone. Maybe I was influenced but so what? She is an AMAZING artist and very crazy. She is in touch with who she is and I wouldn't ask her to tone it down if I could.
May 1st, 2011 Osama Bin Laden is pronounced dead.
SO much has been going on since then. Some still think that he's not really dead and that it's some publicity stunt to get Obama re-elected. Maybe so, maybe no. I personally think that's crazy. Other's think that it was a waste of the government's time because Osama apparently had nothing to do with 9/11. That too I can't agree with.
But what is driving me up the wall is all of this talk about where the credit should go.
I posted a status that I saw a friend of mine post [whose husband is in the Navy I believe] that says, "Let's be clear on this: OBAMA did NOT kill Bin Laden. An American soldier, whom Obama just a few weeks ago was debating on whether or not to PAY, did. Obama just happened to be the one in office when our soldiers finally found OBL and took him out. This is NOT an Obama victory, but an AMERICAN victory!! REPOST IF YOU AGREE!"
But then my best friend sent me this message from her friend who is a military mom and used to be in the Army, "Just an FYI for the civilians (and perhaps the overworked service-members out there). First - the video about Osama's killing is a virus. Do not open. Second - the viral post about it being a soldier who killed him and not Obama needs to be revised. It was a Navy Seal... not a soldier (always refers to Army). Third - it was a handful of Senators and Representatives that didn't want to pay our service-members, deeming them non-essential. (They should now know exactly how essential they really are!)
Lastly - we are a team. Obama was in office the day last Aug. when he made the order to act on Intel regarding Osama. He was also on duty last night when he made the order to use a handful of Seals to enter Pakistan and take out the target. He may not do everything right, but he's a part of the TEAM that made that operation possible. You cannot credit one President and not the other based on your political stand point. If that were logical, I could give all the credit for 9/11 to Daddy Bush and Clinton for letting some of these terrorists go when we had them years ago, and for ignoring threats to do exactly what they did. Fact is - they all do their best. And both Presidents deserve kudos for sticking to the right thing, the hard thing, and tenaciously sniffing these guys (Osama and Saddam) out and landing blows to middle eastern terrorist regimes."
And it makes me feel bad for posting the first status... Part of me wants to try and revise it so that it's more accurate but honestly I think I'm finally to the point where I'm just DONE. I hate discussing politics and it seems like when I feel like I agree with something I get proven wrong and then feel bad for what I thought before. I know this is just apart of becoming informed, the whole getting shown a better way to see it, etc, but still. I'm sick of it for now.
I'm glad Osama Bin Laden is dead. Whoever is responsible for it doesn't matter to me anymore (or at least for now...). I'm glad that our Navy Seals could pull it off, and I'm glad that Obama gave them the go. But I guess for now what really matters to me is that a bad man can't hurt people anymore. I hope that the rest of the military men and women over there are not faced with more danger because of retaliations and I hope that all of this drama cools down in the near future.
Why can't we all just get along?
SO much has been going on since then. Some still think that he's not really dead and that it's some publicity stunt to get Obama re-elected. Maybe so, maybe no. I personally think that's crazy. Other's think that it was a waste of the government's time because Osama apparently had nothing to do with 9/11. That too I can't agree with.
But what is driving me up the wall is all of this talk about where the credit should go.
I posted a status that I saw a friend of mine post [whose husband is in the Navy I believe] that says, "Let's be clear on this: OBAMA did NOT kill Bin Laden. An American soldier, whom Obama just a few weeks ago was debating on whether or not to PAY, did. Obama just happened to be the one in office when our soldiers finally found OBL and took him out. This is NOT an Obama victory, but an AMERICAN victory!! REPOST IF YOU AGREE!"
But then my best friend sent me this message from her friend who is a military mom and used to be in the Army, "Just an FYI for the civilians (and perhaps the overworked service-members out there). First - the video about Osama's killing is a virus. Do not open. Second - the viral post about it being a soldier who killed him and not Obama needs to be revised. It was a Navy Seal... not a soldier (always refers to Army). Third - it was a handful of Senators and Representatives that didn't want to pay our service-members, deeming them non-essential. (They should now know exactly how essential they really are!)
Lastly - we are a team. Obama was in office the day last Aug. when he made the order to act on Intel regarding Osama. He was also on duty last night when he made the order to use a handful of Seals to enter Pakistan and take out the target. He may not do everything right, but he's a part of the TEAM that made that operation possible. You cannot credit one President and not the other based on your political stand point. If that were logical, I could give all the credit for 9/11 to Daddy Bush and Clinton for letting some of these terrorists go when we had them years ago, and for ignoring threats to do exactly what they did. Fact is - they all do their best. And both Presidents deserve kudos for sticking to the right thing, the hard thing, and tenaciously sniffing these guys (Osama and Saddam) out and landing blows to middle eastern terrorist regimes."
And it makes me feel bad for posting the first status... Part of me wants to try and revise it so that it's more accurate but honestly I think I'm finally to the point where I'm just DONE. I hate discussing politics and it seems like when I feel like I agree with something I get proven wrong and then feel bad for what I thought before. I know this is just apart of becoming informed, the whole getting shown a better way to see it, etc, but still. I'm sick of it for now.
I'm glad Osama Bin Laden is dead. Whoever is responsible for it doesn't matter to me anymore (or at least for now...). I'm glad that our Navy Seals could pull it off, and I'm glad that Obama gave them the go. But I guess for now what really matters to me is that a bad man can't hurt people anymore. I hope that the rest of the military men and women over there are not faced with more danger because of retaliations and I hope that all of this drama cools down in the near future.
Why can't we all just get along?