Wednesday, June 13, 2012

To Win Her Heart by Karen Witemeyer



 Okay, here’s the deal with Karen Witemeyer, I have learned the secret to her popularity : it's a cotton candy read.  You don’t have to pay close attention, you will most likely finish the plot in your head before the she finishes it on the page and you won’t leave having interposed some universal truth.

You might think I mean this in a bad way; I don’t --- not to the right reader.  Sometimes people watch candy movies: those fluffy, candy-coated excursions into marshmallow land.  You’ve done it: you see 13 Going on 30 on tv one night and you can’t turn away.  You feel comforted in the fact that you KNOW she will end up with Mark Ruffalo. There aren’t any surprises; but it DOESN’T matter. It’s candy, fluffy fun.   This is the Christian book equivalent.  There is nothing challenging within To Win Her Heart: you know that Levi the reformed convict-turned-blacksmith will win the hand of Eden the upright librarian; but it DOESN’T matter; the prose trips along so easily you can read it in that dream state before bed.  It’s not my fictional ideal; but I do admit it takes some talent to spin one of these easy yarns and I applaud it.



This the kind of fiction you drop off to your grandmother on a Sunday afternoon.  There is no edge. For me, there is no spark; but it’s solid and conservative.   The other Witemeyer book I read and appreciated of this ilk was Head in the Clouds: that was a cute, fluffy book not unlike its title.
I absolutely loathed Tailor Made Bride ----not because it strayed from the devices aforementioned but because as a Christian and a woman who prides independence and intellect I still find it one of the most begrudgingly offensive offerings in the market.  (Honestly.  I was offended and still feel small ripples of rage when I think about it).  Short-Straw Bride is on its way to me for review and I’ll read it, and review it here; but I recollected that I hadn’t spoken to To Win Her Heart yet; so….here….


I think I already kind of mentioned it: convict –turned-blacksmith falls for librarian.  Librarian is at first intimidated by convict-turned-blacksmith’s large physiognomy and skeptical of his passion for Jules Verne; but soon there are sparks flying from the smithy and beyond.   

I want to mention one incredible aspect of the novel.  Witemeyer has an ALMOST Lynn Austin moment ( I say ALMOST; because no one but Lynn Austin can have these moments really).  You know ( as I have mentioned often ) that moment in a Lynn Austin novel when your ears perk up and your eyes widen and your heart pulse quickens because she throws in something: however, fleeting and serenely quiet ; but tantamount to the experience and you go….”oooooo”; well Witemeyer almost gets into this realm of writing when she explores Levi’s lisp.  Levi has difficulty saying ‘s’ words and so to keep his pride and his face he will remove them from his sentences…. Deciding, instead, to craft the same emotion or statement with alternative words.  This proves Levi to be a great reader; but also proves Witemeyer to have put some careful thought into her dialogue.  In this respect, I was impressed. She took this book a step farther than others in this regard.


There’s still the usual: bad guy wants heroine, good guy hates bad guy wanting heroine, crisis that rallies the townspeople, crises of faith; but, whatever, you get what you paid for.  There aren’t any surprises here and I think that’s the lasting appeal.  Sometimes we all need cotton candy. 

Tuesday, June 12, 2012

A Walk with Jane Austen: A Journey into Adventure, Love and Faith by Lori Smith


“It’s a difficult, romantic thing to be a dreamer” admits Lori Smith in one of many, many quotes I would love to appropriate and cross-stitch and frame and hang on my walls as the story of my life.

A Walk with Jane Austen: A journey into Adventure, Love andFaith should rightly be called the Difficult Musings of a Romantic Dreamer for the book is, at its core, Lori Smith’s relatable reflections as she stumbles through singlehood, depression and faith.

There are certain books that tug your heart strings and catch your throat and make you squeal aloud at every moment where you realize that the author has taken words and thoughts out of your mouth and heart and slapped them on a page. A Walk with Jane Austen is very much A Walk into Rachel’s Psyche.  It is Smith’s blatant and commendable honesty, her frustratingly poignant stream-of-consciousness and her willingness to spill her thoughts and pangs like a tipped-over inkpot that make this story the most poignant caption of a literary infused life I think I have ever read.



It speaks to those of us who love Austen, certainly, as Smith weaves her way through the English tapestry: beguiled at Bath, cloistered in an abbey, bewildered at Lyme as she traces through her beloved’s footsteps. Mostly, however, this book speaks to a specific type of Austenian: those of us romantic sorts who are blessed and cursed by a passionate devotion to Christianity in our single thirties.  Cursed, you ask? Yes. Smith realizes, as so many of us do, that the limited dating pool and strict moral requirements of what a Christian match should be can make the odds seemingly impossible.  Add to that a passion and heart for romance and a God-given desire to seek that which is beautiful, fantastical, witty and light and you are caught with Lori Smith in a modern web: where educated women feel at a loss--- so likely are they to cherish their post-feminist independence while guiltily admitting contradiction as they ache for an Austenian match. It’s a difficult, romantic thing to be a dreamer, yes; but to be cursed as a Christian with a romantic, dreamer’s mind? Even worse.  Like lapping water out of a sinking boat with a plastic pail.

Readers of this blog know that I was on work leave for 5 months recently with debilitating anxiety.  As someone who has struggled with a mental disorder her entire life ( one that was only recently given a name), I fell in love with Smith’s vulnerability as a depression sufferer plagued with a malady that is not christened until near the end of the novel.  Some might find the dark, smoky edges of this romantic Walk to be a tad over-bearing; but that is what makes it special.  Smith does not shy away from using her plight as a balm.  She admits to being smack in the middle of a life-long dream ( traipsing through Austen-land) while still admitting moments of defeat.  Just because you are chasing Darcy-coloured rainbows, doesn’t mean that the curses of real life will fail to set in.  To add to this, Smith writes eloquently about Christian lamentation: and a modern weakness inducting believers into a world of radiance and light while scorning natural human lamentation.  From the book of Job to her flitting, irreplaceable thoughts, Smith guides us through the happy and the sad: the rainbow-tinted and the melancholia.

 If you are a single Christian woman, this book will speak to you so strongly, you’ll look up and be surprised that a best friend is not spilling all deliciously confusing details across from you over a glass of wine.  Lori Smith GETS it: she gets that “…the other skill that single women possess is overanalyzing every conversation” and that “Of course, a single woman who wants to be married has, ironically, no sharper skill than that which rules out potential suitors before fully understanding their character.”   Smith provides a delightful paradox:  she re-imagines Austen’s tone and timbre while inserting the quite different dilemmas plaguing single Christian females.  Certainly we do not have the constrictions of sex nor of money or patriarchy in Austen’s society; but Smith works that we have the same obstacles, we crave the same matches, we trip over ourselves in the pursuit of love: bewildered, shamed, uninhibited.    To add to the perilous puzzle, Smith “gets” the evangelical cadences of an upbringing so familiar to all of us: “She didn’t have to deal with the evangelical culture I was raised in---“, she explains, “the one in which Christian things are separate from other normal (or as the church sometimes describes them “worldly” ) things.”

Further, she understands the scathing imp at the back of our minds which brings to forefront our questioning of our path.  For a contingent of women taught to pray for their future husbands and families in children’s church and through youth group to the same sect of women in their 30s, she understands that making sense of the nonsensical is part and parcel of the plight.   “He’ll be normal”, she hopes, “Someone I could actually introduce to my non-Christian friends without cringing.”  If you are in the datingsphere as a Christian single woman and you have not thought this; then you are either lying to yourself or are much more decent at heart than I am.   Smith is an automatic ally who understands how difficult it is to seek God’s path and timing when our impatient human nature forces us to explore the great world beyond: “Our conversations range from incisive devotional thoughts to solving poverty to the creepy, ogling married guys buying us drinks downtown.”  Like she says of Jane Austen, Smith is able to engage with the world around her. She fully epitomizes the contradictory nature of modern Single Christian females: those who are cursedly frustrated at God’s ridiculous timing while steering into moment of secularism in order to discover if there is light and love and passion available. Those who worry that one does not have the luxury of standards when there are so few male believers left to choose from (many marry young; there are twice as many single Christian males as females in North America).  She IS NORMAL.  Further, she muses, on the seeming unavailability and awkward friendship nature of connections with Christian men over a certain age: “It is a truth universally acknowledged among single Christian women that single Christian guys beyond a certain age are weird.”  Harsh, perhaps, and most likely not universal; but, again, she mirrors Austen-- bringing the peripheral subject of her thesis to forefront and honestly revealing a thought that actually got published in the Christian market (God bless you, WaterBrook).   “ I still want it so much”, she says of marriage as her 33 year old self traces Austenian heritage, “And if that sounds crazy to some, since I’m currently thirty-three and still very marryable, it may help to know the expectations in the conservative Christian world in which I was raised. Girls were supposed to grow up, go to college, and get married. “  To put that into further context and to heighten the stress and significance, I will echo that the first time I had the thought that I was abnormal for being single and pursuing an education and wanting a career was at 18.  There are zillions of readers who will not understand  the moments of vacuous inadequacy one feels as an aging single Christian woman; but they are there.  In a world where we are supposed to be supportive of differences, to seek God’s will and to find God outside of human expectations, to realize you are someone not quite like the rest of the flock is a constant sting. Moreover, to be an intelligent someone out of the flock who seemingly chose education and career outside of early marriage (I’m talking 18-25 here, the average Christian marrying age), further removes one from the idealized domestic sphere.  

Smith quotes writer Sue Monk Kidd’s talk about the defining choice every woman makes between love and independence.  Smith further investigates its ramifications and contextualizes it in the Christian sphere. But, as an independent woman on an independent excursion, she allows room for ruminations on love: realized and mentally constructed. There are a few major relationships in the book which make up the “love” component of the subtitle.  One being Jack: the odd, Christian friend-sorta-date who occupies Smith’s time at Oxford 
( and her thoughts long after), one being Smith’s reconciling her love for herself and God against moments of shadow and Smith’s love for Austen: what Austen stood for, what she wrote, how she was ahead of her time, how she provides a metric against which we should all attempt to live and love. She also speaks to the relationship she longs to have. A beautiful one with adored looks, not unlike the one Darcy gives to piano-playing Elizabeth during a scene in the 1995 BBC miniseries.


Smith, like me, believes herself to have been inherently compliant: to want to please her parents, her God, her church, the expectations told and untold and with this heavy weight she loses herself, if momentarily, and often just as reality comes  galloping back in, in the world of Jane Austen.  I realize that I spoke far more to the personal resonances of this book than to the Austen-centric mold of this Walk; but that is because that is not what hit be so hard about this reading experience.  I know a lot about Jane Austen and I have read dozens of books and studied thoroughly in University so, truth be told, I don’t need a literary travelogue
 ( though this one is so much appreciated); but I do need an author who understands me. I do need someone who is brave enough to spurt out on page what wrestles so acutely in my heart and mind but has rarely found a voice.  Smith, in the guise of a beautiful homage to a great female writer, speaks up for those who cannot speak for themselves and in this case, she speaks up for me and my ilk: we trusty, conflicted band of Christian single females intelligent and contradictory: wanting love and independence, sitting over coffee wondering why he said this or who he is or why we are attracted to guys outside of the fold and what it is to be equally or unequally yoked and why can’t EVERYONE BE MR.FRAKKIN’ DARCY --- she speaks for us.   And while she is speaking for us she takes us on a rollicking rural journey through the mind and thoughts and, yes, heart of the greatest female writer of all time.

Thursday, June 07, 2012

A Spiritual History in Sung Liturgy: How Hymns are largely responsible for my ongoing Christian walk

I have never been without church music.  I don't remember a time when I didn't know the workings of a hymnal and many, many hymns, to me, are as familiar as breathing.

For all I know, I always knew all the words and the melodies and different musical settings. To this day, I am amazed at my brain's capacity to elastically hold and unfold the hundreds of hymns I recollect from my childhood.   While the Pentecostal Church ( the church in which I grew up ) has largely depleted its greatest musical resource and, in turn, replaced many hymnals with the trendy wave of outreach found in worship choruses, I still recall my earliest memories. I still feel that part of my strong attachment to the written word and the fact that I was always a strong reader is testament to my running my eyes weekly along the verses of the hymnal and slowly piecing out the words and memorizing them, recognizing them, due to their marriage with the music.



My dad is a retired Pentecostal minister and from the time I was born until the time I left home for university, I never knew a world that did not include the Evangelical church.   To say that being a minister's kid is easy is a horrid falsehood. It was difficult. The restrictions in our traditional home seeming even more so because we acted as unofficial emblems of the morality and regulations my father preached from the pulpit. Don't get me wrong---there are very few ways of doing it otherwise.    In fact, from the Bronte sisters to L.M. Montgomery (a minister's wife), you'll rarely hear of those involved in a minister's family without hearing of the consequences of the appointed role.

It also leaves little room to decide what measure religion will play in your life.  Evangelical Christianity was ingrained in my being from birth and I never knew a world without it.  As well as attending church two times on Sunday ( Sunday school before; then morning and evening service... when I grew older .... orchestra rehearsal BEFORE Sunday school), Wednesday Bible Study, Friday night Youth Group alongside a bevy of other tasks and showers, weddings, receptions, hymn nights, plays, Church dramas, ministries, conventions, etc.,


As an adult raised in an environment so overtly Christian as mine it became ( as it is for many ) difficult in my early adult years to reconcile any personal convictions I might have had against a background so steeped in one form of Christianity.   Now, while I maintain my Christian faith and solidly continue to rely on it; I cannot say that I haven't struggled with how the sect of Christianity which informed my upbringing, my moral compass and fibre, my life lessons and the rigidity of regulations I placed on myself can act at a discord with the beliefs I currently harbour.  A lot of the issues so proudly pronounced on Evangelical stages have, after years of ruminating, reading, and sculpting my own personal belief system while still taking the most potent constructs of my childhood in stride, disconnect with my personal viewpoints.  Simplistically, I try to be the Atticus Finch type of Christian: one who replaces judgment and condemnation with a willingness to embrace moral certainty and servitude against a conflicted world.  (I'm serious about the Atticus Finch thing.  If you want to know my definition of Christianity, look to a book like To Kill a Mockingbird or re-visit Joe Gargery, the gracious blacksmith in Great Expectations).



From the age of 5, music became an even more important part of my religious life because I began singing publicly in church.  This would continue and I credit my interest and voracious study in music ---alongside the fact that my post-secondary career saw me certain that I would pursue musical performance. I always sang in church and I always loved it. The confidence and joy that I conveyed in my musical competence  inspired my parents and I to invest in vocal training.  I began at age 12  in a largely classical way and continued in my first year University (as my area of study) and, when I transferred schools and programs to the niche of English Literature-- my other, and somewhat synonymous passion,  I continued study at the Royal Conservatory of Music here in Toronto---also in classical study. Since then, I have had intermittent classical training---all of which I credit to my upbringing singing in the church and the music I loved.

Funnily, in festivals and competitions as a kid, my favourite area of performance was always the Religious or Sacred category: it allowed me to blatantly explore my love of traditional and gospel music on stage.


As my older self struggled (as all those raised in a conservative Christian home) to create my own identity and as I reached that crucial moment where I had to decide ultimately if I believed in my faith because it was my faith; or whether it was the ramification of my having known nothing else my entire life, I thought largely to the music of the church.  It married the two things in the world I love most: music and the written word.  From a young age, I began taking note of the composers and lyricists noted in the hymnal and the dates of their birth and death bracketed beside their name.  I began to pay close attention to where one stanza ended and where the next began: recognizing the lyrics as separate poetry and not something merely recited and sung because it was as familiar as breath.


In any moment of struggle or disdain I have felt with the church as an organization (I have never felt disdain toward the Gospel message of Christianity; rather only how its executed and practiced by fallible humans and victim sometimes to the organization and politics of Churches), I would take myself to the purest part of the religious experience: the hymns.   No matter what sermon I heard, no matter what book I signed out of the library or convention experience I had with my youth group or doubt that I belonged more with the traditional Anglicans than the charismatic Pentecostals ( a thought I had as early as 10 years old), I knew that the beauty of the Church rested largely in its musical history.  The perfect music: often commissioned from the most talented composers of the age or settings borrowed from the repertoire of history to fit the words of the most powerful songs with the perfect Poetry.  The hymns I loved most, and the Christmas Carols I loved most ( for Christmas music remains some of my favourite music of all: not the secular jingle stuff; but the real, traditional CAROLS) were those which had lyrics bespeaking the entire gospel message.  As a kid and teenager I loved this.  As I found my voracious reading and rather liberal and equalist ideals beginning to show kernels of clash against the conservative and rather right philosophy of my community, I found the purist spiritual experience in hymns.



I loved them. They were God's way of speaking just to me. Sometimes I felt, while sitting with a hymnal open in hand or playing the notes of the hymnal with my flute ( when I wasn't leading worship, as I grew older, I played flute in our church orchestra), that God was nodding directly at me: knowing that I would get ridiculously excited if I saw a playlist boasting one of my favourite hymns.

As I began singing at other churches in solo roles or at different events which required me to perform a religious song: weddings, funerals, anniversaries, the like...  I relied on my love for the traditional.
In an era where the Evangelical church seemed to be replacing hymnals with over-head projectors and, progressively, powerpoint presentations flouncing the words of the catchy worship choruses, I would take my personal passion with me.

Hymns were constructed (especially those I prefer: those written in the 18th through early 20th Centuries) to provide the entire Gospel message to an illiterate population.  To secure understanding of those who would ramble in off of the street.  To ensure that the easy repetition that would follow when words are sung to music and thus conscripted to memory would remind all congregants and seekers of the most important tenets of faith.

As I've evolved in my Christianity, so modern Evangelism has devastatingly turned from its history and origin and, in some instances, instead of providing a hybrid of both traditional (perhaps explored in an innovative modern way, for example -- as I have heard successfully performed) and contemporary services, it has developed a generation or two with little to no knowledge of the music that precedes it.
In short, the hymns and carols that so supplemented my Christianity and the services of believers hundreds upon hundreds of years before me lies restless while replaced by worship largely (generalized statement here) reliant on the experience of worship in musical form: rather than the sole conviction of the words to relay the Gospel message in a rudimentary and stern way.

I could go on and on and on and on about this subject ( a personal conviction of mine since a young age and, because of its intensity, I feel part of my Higher conviction and personal walk); but this long tangent  is supplemental to my revisiting my favourite Christmas carols and hymns on a near daily basis.

With the illness (see anxiety portion of the blog) I am being treated for, a lot of the past has had to be exhumed and I have had to, once more, craft and carve my personal belief system while remembering, diffusing and processing my serious and deep integration with Evangelical Christianity--- it has not been a smooth ride. Never, again, as a direct result of my disbelief in the Gospel or the Bible (I have intensively studied it and its varying translations in personal and academic spheres---much as I have the history of religious music); but as it pertained to the more rocky facets of my childhood experience in a Pentecostal Church AS a Pentecostal minister's kid.

Rocky, yes, self-reflecting, yes...

This process, coupled with my current nervous state in crowds and confined spaces, has made Church attendance near-impossible in the past few months. While I haven't attended a Pentecostal Church regularly since my early 20s (I am 30 now), my parents still attend and it is still in near periphery.  Something about the propensity and potency of remembrance and my complete immersion in the more political and organized facets of Church have caused it to bring an immediate wealth of emotion---especially with the music I love...

 I cannot escape this music. In fact, in those severe moments we have when parts of our brain defy even our most deeply rooted faith and cause it to slightly tremble or waver with the ease of casting off-- I have admitted to myself ( as I had in previous occasion remarking on the work of Catherine Marshall, Lynn Austin or D.L. Sayers), that I will never be able to abandon Christianity partly because I will never be able to admit that the Carols and Hymns that so defined me were not inspired by Divine presence.

For me, the proof of a Supernatural Higher Power and the evidence of His great love through his Son's (see, I've got all the "good and important" stuff in line, don't I?) interposition of human sin, is often relayed at its most glorious when penned and composed by vessels used as inference of Higher Power in human worship.   It's a very Biblical thing and a very sacred thing...  The moment a Church congregation links itself in history (through music, the written word, narrative) to its forebears and recognizes the link threading every generation of believers, the more it is able to appreciate the contextuality which strings it in a fermented and solid way. What better way for history to invade modern liturgy but through song?



Jesus Hates Dead Religion by Eric Metaxas


"…it was people who go to church and do not show the love of Jesus. it was people who know the Bible and use it as a weapon. People who don't practice what they preach. People who are indifferent to the poor and the suffering. People who use religion as a way to judge others. I had rejected that....Jesus had also rejected that. He railed against that. And He called people to real life and real faith.... So keep in mind when someone says 'I'm a Christian', it might mean absolutely nothing'


Eric Metaxas is super cool.  My dad ( who is the world’s biggest William Wilberforce fan ) and I went to see him speak at Tyndale here in Toronto a few years back (even shook his hand as he signed my Wilberforce book--- AUTHOR LOVE)and I remember thinking: “This guy--- if this guy is a Christian, I SO want to be one!”  Oh wait! I already was a Christian; but hyper-intellectuals like Eric Metaxas make me proud that we’re on the same “team.” 

Eric Metaxas doesn’t settle for ignorance or stupidity or shy from debate.  Famously, he has engaged in conversation with atheist Christopher Hitchens and he is the noted founder of Socrates in the City: a forum wherein dignitaries and scholars and theologians and writers can argue (in an informed manner) about a cornucopia of topics.  Yale-educated, funny and outwardly passionate about philosophy, academia and the world of the thinking, life-changing Christians, Metaxas is a beacon of thoughtful light in a faith of ignorance, prejudice and conformity. (He currently hangs out at Breakpoint)

I read and thoroughly enjoyed his banter-y series for WaterBrook: “Everything you ever wanted to know about God (But were afraid to ask)” and its sequels and was, of course, smitten with his conversational forage into the life of William Wilberforce and the mammoth work-turned-unexpected blockbuster that was his perspective on noted theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

You see, Metaxas hits on celebrities from my formative years. Celebrity, you ask, right word? In my house, yes.  Next to God was CS Lewis and next to CS Lewis was Dietrich Bonhoeffer.  Should there be assigned seating at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb, my minister father would have it thus:  CS Lewis, Bonhoeffer, William Wilberforce, Philip Yancey (so cool!), Guy who founded the Salvation Army…William…something or other… BOOTH! Yes, BOOTH!, John Stott and Ravi Zacharias.  They all get a table and dad would want to be positioned somewhere near so he could hear EVERYTHING.  Corrie Ten Boom might be allowed a drop-in before dessert.  But, he would want to meet her on her own time.  Christian heroes became Christian celebrities: inasmuch as they peppered Dad’s sermons and formed his voracious reading habits.  Metaxas, delving into the lives of two of these magnum Christian entities, fleshed out in conversational and bewildering and awed tone, his own appraisal of two men who lived by REAL faith.

REAL faith, you ask?  Well, it’s Metaxas’ undercurrent and casual thesis when we mete out his prayer breakfast speech.

But, to begin, let’s speak to the ease in which Metaxas continues his excessively readable nature.  When you read Wilberforce or Bonhoeffer or when you see him on 100 Huntley Street ( go CANADA!...it’s like our 700 Club; but with fewer moments of awkward judgment and un-PC behavior) as he spreads a smile for that astronaut who took communion on the moon, you feel as if you have been invited to tea and Metaxas is sitting directly across from you and telling you little secrets --- all the while determined to make you laugh, think and rejoice.  JesusHates Dead Religion has a precursor, a witty and beguiling prologue preluding the interred National Prayer Breakfast speech. Herein, readers are given first-hand look into Metaxas’ busy speaking schedule, his playful ideas for possible speech topics, his disbelief that he is the KEYNOTE speaker at a function attended by the Obamas and Joe Biden and, well, every big American ever, his pressure and stress at having to type a speech for transcribers (odd for someone who usually works off a short page of notes and a lot of conversational improvisation) and the long night before he is about to speak about faith to the president of the United States and one of the most powerful figures in the world.

Is Metaxas nervous?  Damn skippy; but not in the way I would be. I would be having a conniption fit; Metaxas believes that opportunities like this are a platform given by God. …..And what a platform! With his trademark wit and ease, Metaxas addresses some of the most famous politicians of our age in front of a group of over 3500 and he speaks honestly, blatantly and without the watered-down conservative, colouring-in-the-lines one might expect of a speaker at such a juncture. Instead, Metaxas owns his faith, his thought, his intellect, his belief ( and such a true one ), that Christianity has been muddled down by religiousity.  Indeed, Metaxas is of the lineage of Martin Luther and Wilberforce and Bonhoeffer---amazing men and thinkers who knew that to love God was to LIVE by God; not just tote his high-faluting and monumental consternation from lofty platforms. Prayer, Metaxas believes, is the first extension of ‘real’ faith: it is not practiced or dictated; rather a firm and floating communication: a two-way signal combining our hearts and minds with God’s.  Bonhoeffer learned this and was able to act in faith in a time of extreme pain and prejudice.  More still, Wilberforce was able to learn this and set the wheels in motion for social reform.  In both cases, these men were wrought of an unsettling time in history and were able to see through with God-given clarity. Metaxas does not shy away from the same undercurrents of evil in modern society.  He advocates questions, thinkers, believers, the expelling of religiousity in exchange for real, active faith.

I was convicted and moved.  In more than one fleeting instance, he inserts a few more political stances; but as I was not reading this from a political standpoint and as I know far less than I should ( or care to ) about American Politics ( I spend enough time staying informed on my own country’s policies), this was not the intent of my reading; nor did it colour it at all. 

This is a great sort of devotional, a battery-recharger, a momentary dive into the waters of someone frustrated by the complacency of modern religion and the taint it is giving our flawed world.



This is the best 4.99 I have ever spent on a book. 

Tuesday, June 05, 2012

"Phantom" by Susan Kay


My voice was my one beauty, my only power, my only hope; my voice would open a magic pathway into her life. I could not steal her body---but I could steal her voice and weld it irretrievably with mine; I could take it and mold it and make it mine forever, one little part of her that no other man should ever possess. All I had to do was break the silence that stood like a wall between us

Oh Phantom of theOpera, like every other grade 7 Canadian I was so buzzed about you.  You ran at the Pantages forever. I’ve seen you 7 times on stage , I devoured the Gaston Leroux novel (free on kindle---click link) like there was a drought of demon-possessed opera ghosts, I saw all the bad film incarnations (including one with Burt Lancaster that no one should see), I sat through Emmy Rossum andGerard Butler in the Joel Schumacher version, I started taking classical voice lessons because I wanted to be Christine.

My story and life-long love affair with you ( and, let’s face it, mostly with Colm Wilkinson )  is nothing new.  So, of course, my grade 7 self ALWAYS wanted to read the Susan Kay novel. But, it was long out of print and I didn’t figure I’d fork over whatever gargantuan asking price was listed on ABEbooks or amazon.  However, e-bookversion? Damn right!  So, away I went.

The thing is, you guys, that this is FAN FICTION! This is the stuff that people write on fanfic.net ALL the time. However, Susan Kay was fortunate enough to be able to spin a yarn excavating the fictional past of a fictional character at an inspired time.  Phantom-mania ricocheted around the world, and Kay picked up the fire and ran with it.  She did it, I’ll admit, remarkably well.

Yes, she speaks directly to her fanbase: those like me who are all “GAH! MUSICALS! MUSICALS! MARIUS! MUSICALS!RAOUL, YOU SUCK! MUSICALS! MISS SAIGON! MUSICALS! BLOCKBUSTER! MUSICALS NIGGGGHTTTTIMMME SHAAAAARPENS! MUSICALS MUSICALS POOR PHANTOM! JAVERT!”  by tossing in slight and knowing references to  the Lloyd Webber adaptation; but she also knows her Gaston Leroux and her Phantom universe and, moreover, she has an incredible sense of 19th century history and a penchant for heartbreaking, melodramatic, melancholic narration. I would expect nothing less of the silver platter serving up Erik’s story.

It poses an interesting question; can fanfiction stand on its own as  real, plausible literary endeavor? This memoir of a fictional personage is so well-drawn and intertwined with such believable and well-strung details that you feel as if Erik really lived… does that not speak to the compelling and timeless nature of a character so well-drawn out he is able to spring from his creator’s mind and into a book wholly his own?  Kay paints a winding, mystical backstory that is at times spiritual and reverent and at most awe-inspiring and disturbed.


Hi! I'm Colm Wilkinson. I am the best at everything


The innocent part of myself that felt sorry for the Phantom/Erik and was all, like “ Oh my god! Raoul, you suck! See, Christine! He can pop up in a mirror and he has a boat! On a lake! Under a theatre! With candles! Who lit the candles? Does he light the candles! They are MAGICAL CANDLES! They float! So cool! MASQUERAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADE” was rattled by the sexualized and synergized masochism of this mentally disturbed hybrid human/creature.  From the beginning, he cannot keep his mother’s love, his visage is one of a rotting corpse, his ingenious nature is baffling beyond prodigious prodigy and there seem to be darker forces at work.  Is Erik a satanic stand-in? It would seem thus.  He joins a gypsy circus, he works with a kind-hearted stone mason until warped by unintentional murder, he is educated in the craft of magic, torture and booby traps in India and finally he makes his way to the Paris Opera where he becomes resident Ghost in Box 5 and the cool stuff all we Phantom-ites were waiting for begins to transpire.

He hears Christine: she has long dark hair and looks like his mother--- he has so many issues he decides to make her his.  He lures her into his damp, molted lair and they sing together. He sits by his foreboding organ and pounds out Don Juan Triumphant.  Upstairs, Christine is drawn to Raoul: the most cardboard character since David Grantland met Gilbert Blythe (HAD David Grantland met Gilbert Blythe). It’s fascinating. There are mirrors. There is a statue of Apollo on the rooftop.  It so harkens back to the Leroux novel and to the musical source material that one’s recollection of both, in perfect symmetry, are sprung into overdrive.

This is a cool experience, kids.  And it is WELL-WRITTEN!  It’s a little cheesy and hokey; but SO IS THE WHOLE FRIGGIN’ plot of the original….

So, if you find yourself clapping whenever “Prima Donna” pops up on your ipod, jump in.

Monday, June 04, 2012

Over at Dickensblog....

Gina was nice enough to let me ramble about Esther Summerson from Bleak House and our society's obsession with physical appearance




Friday, June 01, 2012

faith, god, doubt and asking the hard questions in catherine marshall's Christy

What ho, fair readers of ye olde bloggie!

Today I AM FAMOUS ELSEWHERE

I have once more contributed to Femnista at Charity's Place  and you can find me on p.24-25 of the May/June Issue: HERE

Did I write about Christy? yes.  Do you want a gratuitous Christy and Neil MacNeill picture from the cheesy tv adaptation? Okay. Well.....


Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Where the Heart Is by Billie Letts


I first read this book in my last year of high school and I strongly remember selecting a passage to read aloud to my writer’s craft class when our teacher prompted us to pick an example of good descriptive writing.
 
I loved Letts’ descriptive flounce and flourish. Even as a teenager who liked to write, I thought hers was a style to emulate. Her characterization, my favourite part of a novel, was also rather remarkable in its execution. I loved the way this mismatched community found a bit of a makeshift family and saw each other in themselves: a rag tag crew of heftily believable characters like something out of a witty John Irving novel.   I loved the love story: not just between Novalee and her eventual ( and highly engaging ) suitor; but with her new home, her new family, her new friends, her young daughter, her life as she picks up and starts anew and wields talent and grace she never knew she possessed. An undervalued woman finds great worth through a maze of others. An outcast finds solace in a community where each feels detached and through detachment and fervor melds a sort of innocent family with high regard and rippling trouble, with solace and strength and perseverance.

The story is very familiar ( largely because they turned it into a film ): 17 year old Novalee Nation is deserted at a Wal-Mart by her jackass boyfriend. She’s 7 months pregnant, she has nowhere to go.  She lives at the Wal-Mart and even has her baby there, innocently writing down in an account ledger all that she owes the large chain store: from stolen canned goods to medicine…. A hiding place of survival.

The residents of Sequoyah, Oklahoma are quick to welcome her and are colourfully coated with Dickensian aplomb: from the hearty Moses Whitecotton, who takes photographs of babies for laced and ribboned keepsake books and challenges Novalee to choose a name to mean something for her baby to Sister Husband: a delightfully batty Christian woman who attends AA meetings and fornicates with her gentleman caller Mr. Sprock ( don’t worry, she always asks for forgiveness after), to Lexie Coop: a rotund and delightful incarnation of the plight of women in the lower economic scale: feisty and colourful and attempting to raise a large brood on her own ( all children named after delicious candy)  to Forney Hull: the librarian who gave up a college education to nurse his alcoholic and now mentally diminished older sister.  Novalee learns about love and the meaning of home in a patchwork quilt of heart-warming circumstances and relationships forged between society’s obsolete and over-looked.

I started reading this book again because, well, it had been about a dozen years and because I was speaking to my friend about James Frain ( who plays Forney in the movie).  I  remembered what a lovely, lovely book character Forney is and how he is frustrated, baffled and then completely smitten with Novalee. His reverence for her as a diamond in the rough, his seeing her true kaleidoscope beauty when she has just been cast off, pregnant and alone, by her nomad boyfriend is the very heart of the novel.  It gives light to circumstance, it gives grace to bleak and gritty undermining of humanity, cruel acts, desertion and despair.

It’s my favourite kind of love story: one built entirely on a burgeoning friendship and one where the unrequited pulse beats supreme until resolution.  Forney PINES ( I used this word quite a bit when describing the character to my friend ) for Novalee and feels her worth all that is good and right and wonderful in the world.  While she doesn’t initially believe it and has trouble viewing her own worth or believing that she is good enough for the educated pseudo-librarian, we believe it from the moment we encounter her: all spirited and elastic and willing to make love out of hatred and something colourful and warm out of sandy nothingness.

There are so many incidents of despair and desertion and abuse.  There are so many tales of economic woes and substandard living.  There is so much that we look down on, perhaps unintentionally…. People we scorn and judge and spurn.  Not unlike Dickens, Billie Letts excavates these voices and paints them in vibrant, relatable colour.  It’s a story of love wrapped in the purest of humanity.

It’s all effervescence and joy and I loved my re-read.

Les Miserables trailer




that is all.

Sunday, May 27, 2012

Theatre Review: West Side Story




{pictures used are from our touring cast}


A girl friend and I traipsed out to the Toronto Centre for the Arts the other night to see the new Broadway production of West Side Story: by all accounts one of the most memorable and difficult musical undertakings in the history of theatre.

We are all familiar with this story: many from the popular 1960s film and many from recognizing the many, many famous tunes ripped from Leonard Bernstein's score ( as lyricized by Stephen Sondheim).  In short, the story tells the tale of two star-crossed lovers: the young and beautiful Puerto Rican girl Maria and the dashing former-gang member Tony amidst the gang violence of warring West Side Jets and Sharks and the juvenile turbulence stemmed from racism, hormones, lust, delinquency and passion.



This is very much, like its source material, Romeo and Juliet  an exploration in teen angst.  We find it hard to believe that Maria and Tony could look at each other at a colourfully confetti-lit school dance and fall immediately in eternal love; but we do DO believe that they could fall into teenage lust and so, their tragedy, is acting on their hormones.

As with the Jerome Robbins' choreography ( famous for its ballet-infused fight sequences, incessant snapping and moments of sheer, lucid dream-like fanaticism), the play itself moves liquid and fluid through a timeless world of heart-palpitating action and stern moments of sheer, stolen bliss.  The score is, indeed, another character in the triad of Tony and Maria's renowned tragedy as it propels all action with minor chords, odd-incidentals, clashing score and melancholia.  It is, I believe, one of the most operatic score treatments in musical theatre and, as a vocalist who sings Maria's part along to CD recording for warm-ups often, is cringe-worthy in the sheer magnitude of its forced effort.   To do West Side Story justice, you need, need, NEED to have a flawlessly talented vocal cast. Fortunately, this is where the production excelled. 

There are some noted changes to this most recent adaptation which gained a lot of buzz during Tony's season a few years ago when this production was re-mounted: most popularly the fact that many of the Sharks songs and dialogue is performed in Spanish rather than English. I thought this was brilliantly effectual and allowed the audience to greater sense the divide and the misplaced diaspora plaguing the young Puerto Rican teenagers who idealized America clashed so greatly from the harsh reality they are daily confronted with.  This is not a land of dreams but of ignorance and misunderstanding.
This tension, and the conflicts erupting continuously between the feuding gangs was well-placed against the brash diagonals of the set design and the odd, melodious lighting which painted dream worlds and dirty street-corners.



The performers were pitch-perfect, the singing was as ethereal as the playful and complex score and the choreography harkened back to that we know from Robbins' original conception.   My one complaint was the odd way in which the song Somewhere was realized: here, with Tony and Maria sharing the stage with the young, androgynous Anybodys: the feisty tomboy who yearns to be a Jet rather than a girl.  While they muse on what could be the rival gangs are seen dancing liquidly against a backdrop which recalls a fantasy island.  I found it odd and disconcerting: especially for one of the landmark numbers in the show.


All-in-all a GREAT production and it is touring everywhere: so, for my Toronto readers, catch it here; for those elsewhere, look for it nearby

Film Review: Hysteria

Hysteria is a tongue-in-cheek, heftily innuendoed Victorian sex comedy loosely based on the events leading up to the invention of the vibrator.

It extols great efforts to place a succinct and believable world wherein women were treated with misunderstanding and true bafflement by posh British physicians who labelled anything from anxiety to loss of appetite as hysterical and, thus, a feminine problem mostly diagnosed in housewives that need to be cured by massage, oils and, in extreme cases, sanitariums and hysterectomies.  

Mortimer Granville (the dashing young Hugh Dancy) is a handsome and well-read young physician who is seen flitting from one job to another when his backward employers still find solace in primitive medical efforts including leeches and bleeding. Granville believes in the recent scientific theories surrounding germs and sanitation and is seen as heretic by many more prominent doctors with more experience.  He mopes to his long suffering friend Edmund St. John Smythe ( the equally dashing Rupert Everett) about his convictions to his Hippocratic oath and how he largely wants to do good in the world and live up to his passion and education.   He finally lands at the door of women's physician Dalrymple (Jonathan Pryce) who spends his days providing comfort for his upper middle class house wife patients by "curing" them of their hysteria. Once a week he provides comforting massages barricaded from view by a sumptuous red curtain and the women are momentarily relaxed from his useless diagnosis and medical treatment.  Believing he will do good and impressed by the dutiful beauty of Dalrymple's gorgeous daughter Emily ( Felicity Jones ), Granville becomes a live-in resident.



His handsome stature and apparent skill with massage make him very popular and the practice is booming.  So much so that the young doctor develops carpal tunnel syndrome ( as of then undiagnosed).  His routine only slightly varied by the willful and excessively volatile nature of Dalrymple's oldest daughter, vocal suffragette Charlotte (Maggie Gyllenhall).  Perplexed by Charlotte's conviction to the unfortunate and her squandering her lady like duty of finding a husband in exchange for long hours working at a sort of community centre which houses meek and lowly women and provides health and education to young unfortunate children, Granville sees in this spirited fire-cracker the innate passion he knows he should have and a purely charitable core.

When Smythe unintentionally invents a vibrating feather duster that saves time and energy in curing women of their hysterical ails, unprecedented fame comes to Dr. Dalrymple and Granville and Granville finds his heart wandering from the perfect angel of hearth and domesticity, Emily, to her brasher and more interesting sister.

This film was mostly interesting for its inclusion of a baffling history wherein the medical practice seemed to completely misunderstand female health and, more devastatingly, did seeming nothing to ensure they were making advances.  Sanitariums and hysterectomies seemed an all-encompassing cure for the plagues of female illness and, according to the film and the limitation of women's rights and voices, a way to silence women who may only have been speaking out of dissatisfaction and or normal anxious states.

At this point in history, women were not known to derive any pleasure from sexual acts; nor were they supposed to so the paroxysms (or modern orgasms, as we know them ) when experienced were very incidental and by-the-way.  Contrast this methodology and medical discovery with the raging voice of women like Charlotte: a sort of proto-suffragette and emblem of skepticism and disbelief at the lack of control and choice she had over her body and you have an interesting paradox of good intentions versus severe male-dominated ignorance.



At one pivotal point in Granville and Charlotte's well-meted and perfectly executed relationship, Granville mentions that Charlotte is at time's complimentary and at others disagreeable and hostile and Charlotte laughs and proudly pronounces that she is a woman: inclined to remain an enigma to the male sphere.  Rather than shy from the winning puzzle, we see Granville slowly become attracted to an idea of an equal partnership and not the patriarchal role so carefully patented with a winsome, docile female and a standard private practice.


I encourage women to read more about the ways in which our medical rights were skewed by male research and experimentation for centuries--- and up to at least the 1950s (when the last medical diagnosis of hysteria was made) .   We have come a long way and we cannot be ignorant of the many women who suffered due to ignorance and misunderstanding.  Women are multi-faceted and beguiling and, it seems, as in several cases like this particular historical moment that rather than attempt to unravel the mystery and service the rights of women it was far more common and a lot easier to lump sum all of the dichotomous and multi-faceted moments, passions and emotions with a single word, a single case, a single (and misguided) cure.

Tuesday, May 22, 2012

Author Interview: Victoria Connelly

I am so thrilled that Victoria Connelly, author of Mr. Darcy Forever took the time to answer a few questions for me :)




Rachel:

First off, this is a statement rather than a question; but I LOVE this quote: “Why is life a constant disappointment?”
“Because we read fiction.” Mia said

V.C.
- Glad you like it – it reflects how I feel sometimes!

 Rachel:
Q.)I was really impressed with the narrative structure of the novel and how it seamlessly transitioned between three years back and forth: what inspired this creative direction and how did it influence your writing process?

V.C.
- I think writers should always push themselves to try different things.  I’ve always wanted to write a dual narrative and this seemed like the book to try it with.  I knew that something had come between these two sisters and that they would meet in Bath at the Jane Austen festival and I wanted to ‘drip feed’ their back story using flashbacks.  I actually wrote it pretty much as it appears in the book and I found that the dual narrative really added pace to the story.  It was challenging but really enjoyable.

 Rachel:
Q.)Mia loves jogging and the fresh outdoors: Marianne Dashwood and Elizabeth Bennett also enjoyed exercise: do you think that this says something about their disregard of social precaution and a certain deviance to societal norms of their era?

V.C.
- I do.  These were women who knew what they liked and weren’t afraid to be themselves.  I really admire them for that.  They are strong and independent and didn’t have time for people who hid behind social conventions.

 Rachel:
Q.)There is obviously a plethora of Jane Austen references in the novel and throughout the Festival our heroines attend in Bath. Which is your personal favourite of Austen’s work?

V.C.
- It’s got to be Pride and Prejudice for its warmth, its wit and its love story.  Not only does it have the best hero and heroine ever but there’s a cast of fantastic ‘love to hate’ characters too.  Mr Collins and Lady Catherine have got to be two of literature’s greatest creations!

 Rachel:
Q.)This is the second Jane Austen novel I have read this year dealing with mental disorder and Austen (the first being Compulsively Mr. Darcy). Sarah, who suffers from OCD, becomes somewhat of an Elinor counterpart: do you think Elinor showed some of these tendencies in Sense and Sensibility  thus informing your decision?

V.C.
- I do.  Elinor Dashwood was very in control of herself, her family and her environment and I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if she was a list maker.  I kept wondering what a modern-day Elinor would be like and I thought she might well suffer from OCD.  I played around with the idea for a while and really thought it fitted her character.

 Rachel
Q.) Mia and Sarah and Shelley love watching Jane Austen adaptations. Which is your personal favourite?

V.C.
- I think it has to be the 1995 BBC adaptation of Pride and Prejudice because Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle give such wonderful performances as Mr Darcy and Elizabeth and there are some magical moments like Mr Darcy watching Elizabeth when she is at the piano; the moment he helps her into the carriage and their hands touch; and Elizabeth’s mortification when she bumps into him at Pemberley when she thought he was away from home.

Rachel
Q.) Mia and Shelley both confess to liking the “bad boy” Willoughby despite the heartbreak he brings Marianne.  Why do you think women keep falling for these charming rascals…. Even in Jane Austen where gentlemanly conduct and honour reigns supreme?

V.C.
- I think women will always be drawn to the bad boy – it’s that element of danger that’s so attractive.  I also think that women believe that they’ll be the ones to tame them.

Rachel:
Q.)This is not your first Jane Austen-inspired tale and you are obviously very comfortable in jubilantly painting women and men inspired by Austen in the contemporary world. Is there another author you are equally as passionate about?

V.C. 
HE Bates is my favourite author of all time.  I adore The Darling Buds of May quintet and happily quote him in my everyday life.  He creates characters that are so real and his style of writing is warm and funny.  I’ve just named three hens after his characters: Mariette, Primrose and Florence!

You can find Mr. Darcy Forever and other Austen-esque yarns by Victoria Connelly on amazon
Visit Victoria Connelly on the web to read her blog and learn about her other novels 

My thanks to Sourcebooks for the review copy and to Victoria Connelly for stopping by the blog 

Wednesday, May 16, 2012

I have nothing to say....

dear blog,

i have been busy with work and my personal life and have been travelling a lot for work and for pleasure and i have not devoted the time i should to you.

more still, i have read books; but been too lazy after a day of work to do anything but get my pilates on before slinking into my arm chair with a glass of pinot and blandly watching 'smash' before reading a chapter and falling asleep.

but, blog, i love you. you're pretty. so i am going to commit to you again.  my busy season is winding down ---and though my personal life and travel plans are not,  i want to devote more time to you.

i apologize for my silence blog, and to compensate, provide you with this awesome picture of Jude Law and Keira Knightley in the new adaptation of Anna Karenina


Wednesday, May 09, 2012

Alpha who?: musing thoughts on selected gender roles of page and screen


 “'No woman really wants a man to carry her off; she only wants him to want to do it.' ---Elizabeth Peters

Women want to be strong and self-serving; but they also want stories of initiative, of passion, of strength, of the man who will sweep them away. They work all day to make equal salary, to prove that what their foresisters fought for has come to light; but they curl up in the evening with their Jane Austen dvds or the latest chicklit or, egads, a Harlequin on their e-reader.
In many of these cases, women retreat into stories where gender roles are clearly defined:  the man is the 'alpha' in presence, physicality, initiative (he takes the lead in pressing the romance forward) and the ultra-protector.  The woman is offered solace, financial and familial stability. She may "tame the rogue", yes; but the rogue will still provide. 

The Alpha male drives women to read and recollect and sink into fictionland again and again....

But....

Do we need the alpha male for romance to be realized?

I read this article on Castle ( which I have watched intermittently; but confess to not having followed with any dedication) by Christian romance writer Jenny B. Jones who argues that every romance needs an alpha…. An alpha male at that and that her viewing of Castle was  conflicted by Kate Beckett, the heroine, and her having usurped the “male” role. I am not agreeing or disagreeing with Jones in this musing and this is certainly not a counter to her words ( as mentioned, I don’t follow Castle); but it turned my brain on and inspired me to share and muse and hopefully kick-start dialogue.



Fifty Shades of Grey, the erotic bestseller borne of Twilight fan fiction, inevitably paints a heroine who is very much the submissive: in every crass sense of the word when paired with the ultra-masculine dominant Christian.  Part of the sexual contract explored in the book requires Anastasia ( ironically surnamed Steele; because she is any matter but)  to completely resign her independent life, her will and her routine to her new counterpart.  One would hardly argue this is romance ---- rather than erotic exploration---but still--- it climbs the charts.  My hypothesis is this: partly for the shock content; partly for the alpha male.


What used to be characterized mostly as brute strength ( watch Victor Mature in, say, anything ) has redefined itself to strength of heart, character, wit and grace.  As easy as it is for women to want, umm, Thor, so are they attracted to the softer, more adorkable geeky heroes that are prominent in our world.  We want Superman, yes; but we really want Clark Kent, too. Question this? Look at the show Grimm -- Monroe, the geeky watchmaker who plays the cello, likes fine wine and has difficulty mustering the courage to finalize his crush on the spice shop lady it the fan favourite and not the dashing police detective with the dimple in his chin: the snuggly, be-spectacled vegan with the quick intellect, plaid, penchant for Christmas decorations and inescapable curiousity.

books. he likes books. score for Monroe


We want, ostensibly, to know that Clark Kent can be Superman. An alpha male who can hide the alpha or in whom the alpha is so carefully embedded--- and most of all, who can forge equilibrium with us. 

If we’re in it together --- then who cares who has the upper hand?  And, in a world where gender roles have changed, what does alpha really mean? Who defines strength and who can turn the roles over like a salt shaker and go to town?

The Hunger Games poses an interesting reflection of this.  Unlike Twilight where two brute alpha males are paired with ostensibly the weakest heroine in the history of the world, Collins gives us Peeta the ultimate literal breadwinner, Gale the Hunter and Gatherer and a woman who is just as strong and sufficient as either of her male counterparts.  While Peeta is not outwardly as “strong” ( I delineated quotations for emphasis) as Gale, he harbours an amazing sense of cunning reserve.  I recently re-watched the film and was, as at first viewing, immediately beguiled when lovely, quiet and stern Peeta plays to the crowd by turning and waving to the audience to win admirers lining the streets of the Capitol.  If, as I believe Collins means us to, we survey every one of Peeta’s steps as a plot in which to secure Katniss’ safety and his actions : whether meted out blatantly or seen in somewhat minimalized retrospect, to ensure that she is the winner of the Hunger Games, then strength, Peeta-fied, comes from creative intelligence, ingenious intuition;rather than the ability to snare a deer in the forest.  Strength deepened further by his long time affection for the girl who didn’t notice him.

I'll eat the berries if you do
When you pair a heroine who is as equally as “strong” to watch as the two prospective suitors rounding the triangle at what point do you establish the need for alpha in romance?  Is equilibrium enough?



My favourite romance of all time is the Blue Castle. Herein, Barney and Valancy meet as friends, they have an easy companionship, are kindred spirits, can laugh and can see that their camaraderie is laying a solid foundation for a life-long romance.

There is no love at first sight. Valancy notices Barney physically; but it is his elusively winsome manner that attracts her more and more…. She has to like HIM as a person ---with his freedom and nonchalant aura before she notices more definitive aspects of his physiognomy: that his eyebrows are mis-matched, the colour of his eyes, the thin dimples in his cheeks… his lackadaisical grace.  She falls in love with the person before he has a chance to exhibit the alpha.  She is more inclined to desire his freedom on an island and what that could serve her as a repressed woman than she is the prospect of him rescuing her.  While she dreams of princes who will ride from the walls of the Blue Castle and secure her favour, she acts in real life--- deciding to throw her affection on a man she views as a preternatural equal.

Barney, the automatic alpha, doesn’t necessarily need to save Valancy who, at the point in the novel when their relationship is developing has already made galloping strides toward self-sustenance; but CAN and shows he will…. Not in the fairytale way; but in Montgomery’s meta-fairytale way--- spiriting her away from unwanted suitors at the dance at Chidley Corner’s, rescuing her from Roaring Abel’s drunken debauchery when he sets off with her in their tin lizzie to Port Lawrence to see a film.

Sure, Valancy is alpha when she proposes --- but Barney immediately turns and gains upper alpha hand when he kisses her. That’s right.  Physical initiative is on his end, not hers.  She may have initiated the “let’s be friends for all time and live on your island… and by all time I mean the year I have left to live “ ; but Barney sealed it.

Both Barney and Valancy have alpha moments. Both are strong and willed and wise and winsome and funny and lovely and THAT is why they work: two halves to a whole.  Their passion develops and foremost in words and kinship before in physical consommation…..


When I speak of romance I speak of it as a genre: a genre which calls to mind knights in armour and ladies willing to be rescued. But I also call to mind the connection that most of us want to find in life with a significant other --- If we are what we read, watch, see, listen to--- then we must recognize that we are informed by the stories that shape us.  We become invested in the pairings that most closely match what we would like in our real life. Love triangles work so well because you can Choose Your Own Adventure:  Katniss and Peeta, Katniss and Gale, Bella and Edward (god help you) and match your personal preference to the movie playing in your mind. 

If, like me, you want equilibrium of smarts and chats and laughter where you allow that gender roles can be rooted in natural biological make-up; but there is room for personal growth and the colouring of personality and individuality, then you recognize that many guys have the desire to be the alpha : whether the alpha means smashing down things with a hammer or strongly staring resolvedly at a woman they have quietly loved for years. In the same way that females want to be seen as equal; but still get jelly in the knees when thinking that some man would protect, provide…

We don’t have to be one or the other and our romance does not have to define one or the other.  We should look at romance as a reflection of the best parts of human companionship: as a rainbow-flavoured, sunshine-y ideal, as the mecca, the i-ching, the best of ourselves.  Your self can ride a white horse or fall for a guy who has one; or be the guy who waits in the wings while another presses his suit.


It’s not clear cut, it’s not black and white because we are not cookie-cutter humans and we are melded with different shapes, attractions, desires….

Formulaic romance would like us to subscribe to one thing; personal preference re-imagines those scenarios: the best laid example of what we hope our lives to be in a fictional light.

I’ll take Barney, you take Thor….

There are many different kinds of love in the world --- and many different kinds of strength.