Lord Jim by Joseph Conrad

1/10

This is a historic moment in my blog's history. The picture above is an actual picture of the book that I read. I took this photo myself (on our Mexican-style outside table that was given to us for free). Usually I find the same book cover photo online somewhere. I think only about three or four times I wasn't able to find the actual book cover and just selected a random one. But not today. Enough was enough.

This book is easily one of my top five least favorite books that I have ever read. I read it back around 2006 or 2007. I was so disappointed too because I had just recently read Heart of Darkness by Conrad and loved it, so I was expecting this one to be very good.

I was immediately disappointed that he was using the same device as that used in Heart of Darkness, namely to have a character in the book named Marlow basically tell the story to a group of other characters in the book. It worked splendidly in Heart of Darkness but was instantly ridiculous in Lord Jim. The reason being that Heart of Darkness was a short novella whereas Lord Jim is a long 400-plus page novel. I can buy into a guy sitting around telling a campfire-esque story to a bunch of dudes if the story can be told in one sitting. Am I really to believe that he is telling a 400-page long story to guys and they are still sitting there listening at the end? What did it take, five days straight uninterrupted? And it's something like that which can get me to not buy into a book from the get-go. And I didn't.

Plus, the story wasn't all that cool or interesting anyway for Marlow to even tell, unlike Heart of Darkness. It was kind of a confusing story overall and Marlow's telling of it built on the confusion.

I will end with this one quote:

"[W]ho once gives way to temptation, in the very instant hazards his total depravity and everlasting ruin. Therefore resolve fixedly never, through any possible motives, to do anything which you believe to be wrong."

Trusting Jesus by Jeffrey R. Holland

8/10

I was given this book by a lady in one of my ward's on my mission. I read it, according to the date written on the inside cover of my book, in March of 2004. It is a collection of some of Elder Holland's talks. And since we all know how awesome his talks are it goes without saying that this book is likewise pretty awesome.

There is a talk from this book which I have always remembered ever since reading it. It is from his talk called "Teaching, Preaching, Healing." He quotes Matthew 4:23 which says, "And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people." He then summarizes the next few chapters which involve Christ's sermon on the mount as well as many more instances of him healing others. Then he quotes Matthew 9:35 which says, "And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people." He uses this to explain that we too must be the kind of teacher's who in the process of teaching can heal others. Christ wants our teaching to lead to healing of the spiritual kind. I found this talk and his breakdown to be very interesting and informative. The other talks are excellent as well.

The Color Purple by Alice Walker

2/10

I just finished reading this today. Not a fan. I didn't know really anything about the book going in but knew that BOTH Whoopie Goldberg and Oprah were in the movie, which should have been a dead giveaway that this one is not for me.

I really didn't like it much at all. I didn't like the characters or the story. But I think I was mostly bothered by how the story was presented. It is a bunch of letters, first written by the main character to God, and then a bunch of letters written back and forth between sisters. This approach is fine I suppose so long as it is done in a way that is more believable.

First of all, her letters to God are pretty vulgar at times. I get how she is writing openly and honestly and all, but does she really have to drop out of nowhere f-bombs and describe other borderline explicit conversations and events in detail? I get maybe(!) writing that in your own personal journal, but if you do then seems weird to address the entry to God. But maybe that's just me.

And second, the letters the main character wrote to her sister were the most annoying for me for several reasons of which I will only name a few. Similar with the letters to God, she continues to write about some crude details to her sister which would be fine I suppose if not for the fact that her sister is a missionary in Africa. Seems like a little restraint should be involved based on this fact.

But the worst were the letters containing conversations she had with people about things she learned from her sister's letters of how things are in Africa. Instead of writing something like, "And then I told him about that thing you told me concerning how it is in Africa" which is what would happen in a real-life letter, she goes on to explain the exact entire conversation she had with the person in which she full-out explains what she learned from her sister. And she's writing this to her sister. I'm like, "Uhh, seems like the sister already knows about what you're explaining to her since she's the one who explained it to you in the first place." Clearly the author is explaining stuff to the reader and not the sister writing a letter to her sister.

If you're going to commit to the letter-writing being the storytelling then at least do a better job at it so that it doesn't drive me nuts the whole time. Other than that I guess there was lots of discussion about racism and sexism which is always fun.

New British Poetry

2/10

On the heels of my Shakespeare sonnets post, I will add this poetry book I read back in 2008 I believe. And I will again reiterate that I just don't really get poetry. At all.

In the intro it explains that the poet is trying to say "something original, something they had not said before, in a way they believe no one had said before." I get that and it seems like I should like poetry. But I usually don't. I just read these lines that are extremely vague and confusing and don't seem to have any point or purpose.

The intro also says that poets "attempt to reward the reader for their investment." I get that part of it too. But this isn't my full time job where I can sit and ponder a poem for hours on end. I would prefer for a poem to be entertaining combined with some brief moments of pondering and reflection. But most poetry, at least the poems in this book, requires far more pondering and reflection than I am willing to commit for the final payoff of whatever weird point the poet was trying to make. A little reward for even bothering to pick up your poem and read it in the first place would be nice every once in a while.

Plus, poems that don't ever rhyme? I just can't ever reason myself into liking non-rhyming poems. And 95% of this book is non-rhyming poems.

Lastly, I looked through the entire book for a quote to share and didn't find anything. Seriously, seems like poems should be loaded with quote material but it just doesn't happen like I think it should I guess.