Book Reviews and Feminist Rant
Oct. 30th, 2010 01:55 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dweomeroflightI just finished reading Philip Pullman's new book 'The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundral Christ.' Now don't get me wrong. I love Philip Pullman. He is the brilliant writer who brought me both His Dark Materials and The Sally Lockhart quartet (two series that are in my top five of all time). But this book? I can't help but feel Pullman was being lazy.
Ok so for those who don't know the general plot of the book, basically Jesus is born with a twin brother named Christ and the story is from Christ's perspective about the way of life Jesus preaches and the way he goes against the establishment of the time. Naturally, Pullman writes the book from the perspective of Jesus being a man whose actions are misinterpreted as being God like. I picked up the book expecting it because Pullman is after all athiest. I was actually quite surprised by the message of the book because though Pullman is critical of Christ's insistance on instiutionalism of religion ie The Church, he is very respectful of Jesus as teacher and he is actually quite ambiguous about how Jesus performs his miracles. I wonder if Pullman's ongoing dialogue with Christians in the UK is softening his stance on Jesus?
Anyway, enough conjecture and onto reviews. Most of the book is him putting the Gospel into his own words, which is boring because there are no surprises. I know how Jesus was born, how John The Baptist died, Jesus' parables. If Pullman had explored these Gospel sections with his own slant, I would have been interested, but the book is essentially a copy of The Bible (or as someone else put it more uncharitably 'a shameless for profit Bible fan fic') with bits of extra storyline added in.
The problem with the extra storyline was that the story was too short for me to get to know both Christ and Jesus which made the book ride just meh. Christ was essentially a stand in for Judas which again made things predictable.
Actually, the whole time I was reading this book, I had the urge to grab my ipod and listen to Jesus Christ Superstar because frankly JCS was a far more complex a musical, than Pullman's story ever got. Random interlude: I watched some of the JCS movie remake on YT and wow it was not as good as the 73 one! Why would you try and remake that movie? HOW CAN YOU TRY AND REPLACE CARL ANDERSON AS JUDAS. World stop failing.
Back to the book. There were however, two parts that sort of salvaged the book for me. Jesus in the garden of Gethesmane. Lovely and heartfelt (though again, I kept wanting to listen to JCS's Gethesmane which again was more touching than the scene in the book). And also the very last chapter when Christ realises what he has done and he looks at his dinner table and the wine and the bread are gone.
Still not enough to salvage the read for me. Better luck next time Pullman.
I am also reading Dan Brown's The Lost Symbol. I know that Dan Brown is no literary genius but he has really hit an all time low with this one. I will blog a proper review when I finish the book in case I somehow get wow'd later on and take all of this back.
In other news: more fandom gender fail. Someone is trying to tell me that Ruth Evershed from Spooks is a Mary Sue because she is 'too smart and no one is that perfect.' Wow. I actually am really insulted by the stupidity of this statement. The implication of this statement being that 'real women' arn't smart and that intelligence in a woman is a negative trait.
ASIDE: This is actually insulting to everyone who happens to be smart, let alone women who happen to be smart. It reminds me of the whole bullying culture I experienced in Primary School because smart was associated with negativity and uncool. I mean REALLY. REALLY HAS THE WORLD DEGENERATED TO THE POINT WHERE INTELLIGENCE IS NOW A BAD THING?
Also, how the heck is Ruth a perfect character? Are we watching the same show? Ruth is only a perfect character if we measure perfection by a woman's intelligence. It's not like Ruth is young, glamorous, drop dead gorgeous and abounding in confidence or anything. It's not like the entire point of the complexity of the character of Ruth is her intelligence and analytical skills as offset by her extreme social skills fail. It's not like Ruth represents a whole group of women who fight shyness all the time and really freaking associate with her love life fail. Not at all.
Ironically, back when I was onto series five of Spooks I wrote this re Ruth: River and Alex are who I wish I'd be when I'm in my 30's, but Ruth is who I am, or at least who I'm heading towards. In fact, I would argue that Ruth is one of the most realistic female characters I have seen on TV ever. Guess I was way off about realistic women eh guys?
Rant under cut.
And yeah I am insulted. Because you know, I actually am very like Ruth from Spooks thank you very much and I do not appreicate being told I am a 'too perfect Mary Sue.' I am smart and fall in love with men occassionally and get all shy and awkward but still live my life and continue to be smart and all just like "Mary Sue" Ruth. In fact, when the heck did being smart but awkward about love=Mary Sue.
One of my best friends![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
travertineskies is super smart and creative and yet the last time I checked, she was real and not denigrated as being a negative Miss Perfect by friends and aquaintances, despite shock horror being smart and having a vagina. Another example; my family friend speaks English, Mandarin, French, Hebrew and by extension basic Arabic. This friend? He is fourteen years old. He is also good at music (going to perform in Berlin next year)and is super smart. In fact, he is probably a secret field agent for ASEO already. But you know he is no Gary Stue just because he is good at things. He has his own set of doubts to deal with. BUT HE IS STILL A REAL PERSON THANK YOU VERY MUCH. And the last time I checked, so was I?
I remember feeling annoyed by the whole River is not a real woman argument at the time but at least it didn't affect me on a personal level. Like I was annoyed about the implications River hatred placed on gender, but I didn't feel like my womanhood was being attacked on a personal level. Last time, there were people quite upset because they knew Mum's, sisters, best friends,themselves etc who were very much like River and that was why they identified with her so to have a bunch of people tell them River was "an unattainable vision of womanhood" was really insulting and/or upsetting.
But this time I feel like I am being personally attacked.
According to fandom, on one hand River is not a real woman because she is hot, older, smart and confident, and on the other Ruth is not a real woman because she is super intelligent but still intuitive and caring and in love with a male. In both cases these characters get written off as Mary Sue and unrealistic women? FINE THEN FANDOM, TEACH ME YOUR WISDOM! WHAT IS A REAL WOMAN? HOW DOES THIS MYTHICAL WOMAN ACT/ LIVE HER LIFE? HOW SHOULD I STRIVE TO BE HER? Inquiring 'too perfect and smart' Mary Sue's such as myself would like to know. I mean please fandom? Way to silence a whole range of female voices. Just write us all off as "unrealistic Mary Sue's."
I will probably blog properly about this later because it actually REALLY bothers me.
Ok so for those who don't know the general plot of the book, basically Jesus is born with a twin brother named Christ and the story is from Christ's perspective about the way of life Jesus preaches and the way he goes against the establishment of the time. Naturally, Pullman writes the book from the perspective of Jesus being a man whose actions are misinterpreted as being God like. I picked up the book expecting it because Pullman is after all athiest. I was actually quite surprised by the message of the book because though Pullman is critical of Christ's insistance on instiutionalism of religion ie The Church, he is very respectful of Jesus as teacher and he is actually quite ambiguous about how Jesus performs his miracles. I wonder if Pullman's ongoing dialogue with Christians in the UK is softening his stance on Jesus?
Anyway, enough conjecture and onto reviews. Most of the book is him putting the Gospel into his own words, which is boring because there are no surprises. I know how Jesus was born, how John The Baptist died, Jesus' parables. If Pullman had explored these Gospel sections with his own slant, I would have been interested, but the book is essentially a copy of The Bible (or as someone else put it more uncharitably 'a shameless for profit Bible fan fic') with bits of extra storyline added in.
The problem with the extra storyline was that the story was too short for me to get to know both Christ and Jesus which made the book ride just meh. Christ was essentially a stand in for Judas which again made things predictable.
Actually, the whole time I was reading this book, I had the urge to grab my ipod and listen to Jesus Christ Superstar because frankly JCS was a far more complex a musical, than Pullman's story ever got. Random interlude: I watched some of the JCS movie remake on YT and wow it was not as good as the 73 one! Why would you try and remake that movie? HOW CAN YOU TRY AND REPLACE CARL ANDERSON AS JUDAS. World stop failing.
Back to the book. There were however, two parts that sort of salvaged the book for me. Jesus in the garden of Gethesmane. Lovely and heartfelt (though again, I kept wanting to listen to JCS's Gethesmane which again was more touching than the scene in the book). And also the very last chapter when Christ realises what he has done and he looks at his dinner table and the wine and the bread are gone.
Still not enough to salvage the read for me. Better luck next time Pullman.
I am also reading Dan Brown's The Lost Symbol. I know that Dan Brown is no literary genius but he has really hit an all time low with this one. I will blog a proper review when I finish the book in case I somehow get wow'd later on and take all of this back.
In other news: more fandom gender fail. Someone is trying to tell me that Ruth Evershed from Spooks is a Mary Sue because she is 'too smart and no one is that perfect.' Wow. I actually am really insulted by the stupidity of this statement. The implication of this statement being that 'real women' arn't smart and that intelligence in a woman is a negative trait.
ASIDE: This is actually insulting to everyone who happens to be smart, let alone women who happen to be smart. It reminds me of the whole bullying culture I experienced in Primary School because smart was associated with negativity and uncool. I mean REALLY. REALLY HAS THE WORLD DEGENERATED TO THE POINT WHERE INTELLIGENCE IS NOW A BAD THING?
Also, how the heck is Ruth a perfect character? Are we watching the same show? Ruth is only a perfect character if we measure perfection by a woman's intelligence. It's not like Ruth is young, glamorous, drop dead gorgeous and abounding in confidence or anything. It's not like the entire point of the complexity of the character of Ruth is her intelligence and analytical skills as offset by her extreme social skills fail. It's not like Ruth represents a whole group of women who fight shyness all the time and really freaking associate with her love life fail. Not at all.
Ironically, back when I was onto series five of Spooks I wrote this re Ruth: River and Alex are who I wish I'd be when I'm in my 30's, but Ruth is who I am, or at least who I'm heading towards. In fact, I would argue that Ruth is one of the most realistic female characters I have seen on TV ever. Guess I was way off about realistic women eh guys?
Rant under cut.
And yeah I am insulted. Because you know, I actually am very like Ruth from Spooks thank you very much and I do not appreicate being told I am a 'too perfect Mary Sue.' I am smart and fall in love with men occassionally and get all shy and awkward but still live my life and continue to be smart and all just like "Mary Sue" Ruth. In fact, when the heck did being smart but awkward about love=Mary Sue.
One of my best friends
travertineskies is super smart and creative and yet the last time I checked, she was real and not denigrated as being a negative Miss Perfect by friends and aquaintances, despite shock horror being smart and having a vagina. Another example; my family friend speaks English, Mandarin, French, Hebrew and by extension basic Arabic. This friend? He is fourteen years old. He is also good at music (going to perform in Berlin next year)and is super smart. In fact, he is probably a secret field agent for ASEO already. But you know he is no Gary Stue just because he is good at things. He has his own set of doubts to deal with. BUT HE IS STILL A REAL PERSON THANK YOU VERY MUCH. And the last time I checked, so was I?I remember feeling annoyed by the whole River is not a real woman argument at the time but at least it didn't affect me on a personal level. Like I was annoyed about the implications River hatred placed on gender, but I didn't feel like my womanhood was being attacked on a personal level. Last time, there were people quite upset because they knew Mum's, sisters, best friends,themselves etc who were very much like River and that was why they identified with her so to have a bunch of people tell them River was "an unattainable vision of womanhood" was really insulting and/or upsetting.
But this time I feel like I am being personally attacked.
According to fandom, on one hand River is not a real woman because she is hot, older, smart and confident, and on the other Ruth is not a real woman because she is super intelligent but still intuitive and caring and in love with a male. In both cases these characters get written off as Mary Sue and unrealistic women? FINE THEN FANDOM, TEACH ME YOUR WISDOM! WHAT IS A REAL WOMAN? HOW DOES THIS MYTHICAL WOMAN ACT/ LIVE HER LIFE? HOW SHOULD I STRIVE TO BE HER? Inquiring 'too perfect and smart' Mary Sue's such as myself would like to know. I mean please fandom? Way to silence a whole range of female voices. Just write us all off as "unrealistic Mary Sue's."
I will probably blog properly about this later because it actually REALLY bothers me.