To reread, or not to reread? That's hardly a question! Reread!

So, yesterday was a pretty full day for me. Not because I was running all over the place trying to accomplish fifty different things simultaneously, I just had no time to myself. I haven't had an entire day to myself for a while now. I miss those lonesome hours. Regardless, my full day yesterday, I had a few great conversations, all which challenged me, forcing me to reconsider some of my beliefs, my standards and morals. (Now, don't mistake me. 'Reconsider' does not mean 'completely dismiss'. Thanks.)

The conversations I had yesterday reminded me of many of the books I've read, some of which I couldn't quote perfectly. I couldn't even remember the names of the characters I was trying to describe. This bothered me greatly: if I can't remember names of characters, or the exact words of the quotation I might as well just pull the words out of my butt! I might be using these examples out of context, and I hate doing that. I hate manipulating words to me what I want them to mean. I can't just throw away the author's/writer's intent--I'd be a traitor. Every author/writer entrusts his readers to take into account his intent (except, maybe, for deconstructionists). Who am I to impose my thought?

side note: I am not suggesting that I couldn't 'correct' someone's thinking--were I able to do that in the first place--but I like to think I allow the author/writer to think his own thoughts. Only when I understood the author/writer would I feel able, or ready, to offer a rebuttal, or reinforcement.

So!- because of this, I really ought to reread the book's that've, so far, influenced my thinking. I ought to read the books that influenced those books. I really need to read more. I really need to reread. I need to memorize.

Oh, geez. I have to memorize now.

Excuse me while I pull out my index cards.

Giving up Religion for Awareness, or Awareness for Religion. Can it be done?

No, I don't believe the question I've placed in the title of this blog can be answered, nor do I intend to answer it. I only intend to bring up more questions.





This is going to sound fairly typical of me, but I am always amazed when I discover things I didn't know that I really should know about, and I've only read the little snippets, and watched 2-3 minute commercials about these things. What surprises me even more is that now that I know, I have the desire to be willfully ignorant; I know that's wrong, and I can't tell you how many times I've fought the urge; I can't tell you how many times awareness has overcome ignorance, but not without a few well-earned battle scars.

Now, that coming from a Christian like me, is a particularly difficult question, but only because if I act upon my awareness I may not be seen as a Christian anymore.

You might ask, "Is that really such a bad thing?"

Well, yes, it's about as bad as someone no longer seeing me as Asian. It's about as bad someone mistaking the stranger next to me for me. A case of mistaken identity is always a bad thing. I have related to Christianity my entire life, and I am not ready to give that up so easily; but how can that mean I remain willfully ignorant of the things that go on around me? That have gone on, and that will go on around me? That's unfair.

People cannot ask me to pick between Christianity and awareness.

When were the two ever separate?

I have reasoned that this is just my personality. I have reasoned that because I like people I like to be aware of what's going on in their lives, and have a growing desire to help them, but I find that the more I desire this the more 'liberal' I become. The more 'worldly'. All the more 'secular'. Oh, if I ever learned to hate something, it is labels--how was I to know that my curiosity and hunger would merit detriment? How was I to know that my interests bordered on heathenism? (I'm not even sure I know what 'heathenism' means, I do believe I just made that up.)

But how can helping people ever be considered heathenism? How can helping people ever merit detriment?

Frankly, if I may, when God became man incarnate...if that's not the most secular thing a deity can do, I don't know what is. So then, if the God I worship became something he detested, perhaps there is some truth to "Faith without deeds is dead", but you could just as easily say "Deeds without faith is dead"!

I'd learned John 3.16 in Sunday school. It read...it still reads, 'For God so loved the world that he gave his only son so that whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life.' You know, I do believe that we emphasize the latter portion of that verse without acknowledging the former. Who does God love? The world. Who's the world? What a perfectly vague and, yet specific answer that is: 'the world'. The world is everyone who's ever lived, who lives, and who will live. How can it mean anything else? Have Christians ever read what happens after John 3.16?

John 3.17, "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him." Did you read that? He came not to condemn, but to save."
John 3.18, 19, "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (19) And this is the judgement: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil." What bothers me most about this passage are its interpreters. No, I've not read many interpretations, of course, I haven't, but I have observed that Christians, often unknowingly, separate themselves from the 'dark' world because they have accepted the 'Light of the world'. If Christians are so separate from the 'dark' world then we sing 'This Little Light of Mine' in vain. We read the Bible in vain.

We forget that having a light does not make us better than those who have none. In fact, those who have a light are better at seeing their own personal terribleness. I believe the willfully ignoring things that go on around the world also means willfully ignoring the things that go on within yourself.

John 3.20, 21, "For everyone who does wicked things hates the light," (surely you've heard of Christians leaving their faith behind, and sometimes I question if it's not The Light they hate, but those who profess to carry that light.) "and does not come to light, lest his works should be exposed. (21) But whoever does that is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out by God." Who carries out the work? God. Always, always God. 

If to be willfully ignorant of the things in the world is also to be willfully ignorant of the things within yourself, then it is also to be willfully ignorant of the work God wishes to carry through you because in James 2.14-26:

What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? (15) If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, (16) and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? (17) So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. (18) But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. (19) You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! (20) Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? (21) Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? (22) You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; (23) and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God. (24) You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. (25) And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? (26) For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.

Written in James 4, the only worldliness James ever writes about are mistreating people. "You desire and do not have, so you murder." Yes, murder might the epitome of mistreating people; James never even suggests torture...

I cannot help but think... God became man incarnate to help people. I have heard time and time again in sermons and lectures, and biblical commentaries that God came to help people who do not deserve it, who still don't deserve it, and who never will earn the right to deserve it. I can't remember a time when I was not a part of this undeserving people. 

If God asks me to be like his Son, Christ, who went around helping people, why am I deterred by so many who thoroughly believe I am enabling or, worse, conspiring with the world. I still live in this world, what else am I supposed to do? 

Even monks who live solitary lives will give aid to any stranger who walks into their sanctuary. If Christ, who never asked for his patients' history (but already knew of it anyway) helped so many, how much more should we (Christian, non-Christian, anti-Christian) help whichever patient comes our way?

Of course this will bring about debate. Hello! This is an imperfect world here, how many dystopias do you need to read and watch before you understand that life this side of death is not going to be perfected, nor is it ever going to be understood. We'll always have age-old questions, dilemmas, and misconceptions. 

Then on I shall struggle. 

Oh, I'm insane. I know, don't remind me.

^^ if you need a song to remember our duty to the world.

My Greatest Fear

I am writing a story, and so far, I am loving it. I have all these ideas and they're all meshing together so wonderfully, it's like someone's writing through me! I've had this sensation before, but never for an extended period of time--no, it's not this constant high (I'm not under the influence, not illegally, at least), and it's also not made me ignore all of my other responsibilities. I am thoroughly enjoying this story and I can't wait until I'm done with it...although that may not be for another year or so.

Now, while I enjoy writing this story (it's fantasy/science fiction, by the way), and though I want to finish it...what do I do with it after I'm done?

"You publish it! Online! With a major publishing company! Or an independent publishing company!"

"Well, yeah, but...what if they hate it?"

"Who cares?! This is your work! Let your story shine!"

"No, no, no, I don't think you understand. I care a great deal if people enjoy my work. It's- it's my work. What if people don't like it? What if it just collects dust on the shelf? What if it ends up like-?"

"Like what?"

"What if it ends up like that one book?"

"What book?"

"Exactly!"

"You're being ridiculous."

"I know, it's just...I want people to like my work."

"And they will."

"How do you know? Who's they? Why do we keep talking about them? They don't really matter but they do! I mean, I envy a posthumous sort of fame but, that's my mind. Would my heart be able to work through a posthumous fame? Could I be an Emily Dickinson or a Vincent van Gogh?"

"But you're not either of them so it doesn't matter."

"You're right. You're right."

"Didn't van Gogh consider a posthumous fame? Didn't he write that down in a journal?"

"Yes! But not because he actually wanted it! He just wanted the stars and breezes. Oh, I can never be as good as him. He wanted fame neither before nor after death! What a selfless human being. How dare I want posthumous fame."

"...are you going to have your story published or not?"

Working in a book store I lay my hands on a lot of stories that won't ever be read, or, at least, read and recommended for future generations. I cannot tell you how many times I've accidentally seen my name written on the byline and shivered. What if my story is overlooked, overwrought with well-meaning but pointed criticism? Such as:  "Miss. Triunfo, though attempting to write a fantasy novel after the fashion of Tolkien, Le Guin, and Gaiman, has, instead, single-handedly murdered, with her trite tale, the very Respect the fantasy genre has had to build over decades. Any who wish to seek out fantasy literature as a prescription for under active bowel movements should read Triunfo's work, unless her work caused your under active bowel movements."

And I would say, "Is this the part where I wear white for the rest of my life? How about cutting off my ear?"

But this is just a dramatization. It is, right?

'The Paper Bag Princess' a Modern (?) Take on the Classic Fairy Tale

I am not a hardcore feminist. Frankly, I'm not a hardcore anything! I know, it's my fault that I'm not a hardcore anything, and as for the blatant disregard of feminism's constructs: that's my fault. I haven't delved into its politics or agenda. For that, I know I must apologize because there are so many things of which I should be 'hardcore' and am not. I am really, really sorry.

So then, why, suddenly, am I approaching the topic of feminism?  Because I think that every modern woman (and just being born in the past two centuries is license enough to be considered 'modern') is a feminist whether or not she would label herself as such. I am of the latter group, only to realize that the former has been beckoning to me for some time now.

Last night I was at work, and I sat down to take a little break since there were no customers around, when I spotted this book I'd never before seen: The Paper Bag Princess by Robert Munsch; illustrated by Michael Martchenko.

What makes her a paper bag princess?, I thought. I had to read it with that question on my mind! Allow me to read it to you, or, at the very least, explain it to you. (What you're about to read next is a simplistic retelling of an already beautifully simple story.)

We meet Elizabeth and Ronald.

I don't even have to hear Ronald speak before I know that I already won't like him. He looks like a snooty little thing, and poor Elizabeth just oogling over this snooty little man. But who am I to dash a little girl's dream of marriage? Anyway, Elizabeth is convinced she is going to marry Ronald, and Ronald's all: "Cool." (He probably says so with a snooty accent, I mean, look at that racket he's holding! All snooty people hold rackets.)

But then a dragon comes by, eats the castle, and burns everything up, including all her clothes and kidnaps poor, snooty Ronald! Snooty as he is, no one should ever be kidnapped by a dragon. That is a fate I would not wish upon my worst enemies...had I any.

Elizabeth, however, finds the courage to find that mean old dragon and save her Ronald! Hey, "Hell hath no fury like a woman [denied]', right?! But she can't go streaking, and it wouldn't be very wise to fight a dragon nude, but the only thing she can find that isn't burnt is a paper bag. Ah, well! What are clothes for if only to cover up the body and protect it, ah?

The dragon is easy enough to follow for he leaves a trail of burnt forests, and horses' bones. What luck!

Elizabeth's first attempt to enter the dragon's lair is denied, but on her second try she compliments the dragon. She gets him to show off.

He burns down fifty forests, then one hundred, then, on the third try, is all out of fire! Then Elizabeth asks him to fly around the world as quickly as he can, which is ten seconds on the first try, and twenty on the second try. The dragon comes back so tired that he faints and sleeps.

Elizabeth has saved the day! Yeah! She can get her Ronald back! Whoo!

But Ronald...

' [Ronald] looked at [Princess Elizabeth] and said, "Elizabeth, you are a mess! You smell like ashes your hair is all tangled and you are wearing a dirty old paper bag. Come back when you are dressed like a real princess." '

Now, I almost went kung-fu on his snooty little racket, when ' "Ronald," said Elizabeth, "your clothes are really pretty and your hair is very neat. You look like a real prince, but you are a bum." / They didn't get married after all. '

At this point, I am laughing so hard I can barely contain myself, but I have to as customers began to appear. "You are a bum" echoed through my mind the rest of the night, a smile plastered onto my face.

I'm not suggesting that Munsch or, the illustrator, Martchenko, are feminists, I can't even be sure that this is the main theme for this story, but I do know that they intended to pull away from the stigma of classic fairy tale literature: the prince saves the princess and, as a reward, marries her.

I don't negate marriage. I don't negate relationships in general (but who am I to speak, I've never had a relationship). I don't believe this book does either, but I do believe that this horribly wonderful children's story humorously and pointedly explains that if the dude is a prissy jerk, you better dump that bum! Especially after you just saved him and his snooty little racket from a castle-eating dragon!

This might not be very feminist of me, but the story, I think, could go both ways. If Elizabeth and Ronald switched places; if Ronald were the nice once, and Elizabeth were prissy, Ronald you better leave her bum, or she go'n whip you like cattle.

Perhaps that's why I've never been a 'hardcore' feminist: I already think everyone needs to be treated equally, that anyone regardless of gender, social class, culture, etc., deserves respect, for not only are we proud that Elizabeth has taken away the hand of marriage from Ronald, we hope, or, at the very least, I hope, Ronald will one day turn around and turn out to be a gentleman for another princess.

warning: this next quotation will have swearing.

"The truth is I love fashion, and I'm always asked to reconcile my feminism with that. But I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. In fact, I think that fashion is an incredibly powerful means of expressing your political views. As women, our bodies are objectified. If we use our bodies to flip the power dynamic by placing our political views across our tits, we can be damn sure people will pay attention. / The first T-shirt I made was for me. It boasted 'The Only Bush I Trust Is My Own,' the title of a book I was working on, and people went totally wild for it. People kept asking me to make shirts. It was pretty amazing to see people galvanized by this idea. Of course, it's not enough to just wear them, you have to walk the walk, you know? But wearing them is a great first step." -Periel Aschenbrand, from Kenneth Cole's Awearness

 Now, personally, I don't believe that's how I'd like to showcase my political views--that style is no where near my personality, but Aschenbrand's right: 'you have to walk the walk' with anything you believe.

James 2.14-26: What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”And he was called the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.