Without intending to, I have started for myself a tradition. A couple of Saturdays ago I attended Olde Town Arvada's annual "A Chocolate Affair" which is a chocolate tasting festival and fund raiser I discovered only last year but which is now a decade old. So, I jumped on the bandwagon late. Still, I came, I ate, I conquered. Or something like that. The deal is you buy tickets at a buck a piece (bargain hunters take note: 6 tickets for $5) and use those tickets to purchase samples of chocolaty goodness from local, regional, and national vendors -- bonbons, cake, cookies, chocolate milk, donuts, ice cream, etc. The money goes to a local charity that provides counseling and treatment for abused children. There were carriage rides and storytelling (which I hadn't known about until after the fact, so I missed it, sadly so, as I love a good story.) And there was a treasure hunt with clues given at many local merchants in Olde Town Arvada.
A word about Olde Town Arvada. If you don't live in the metro Denver area, put some gas in the car and go. If you do live in the metro area, and you've never wandered about Olde Town Arvada... well, you're missing out. It's a small oasis inside of a rather large suburb, a bit of a refuge from hectic urban life. Pick a day. Mark it on your calendar. Use a pen. Come. No, I am not on the city council, nor do I work at the visitor's bureau. But I know whence I speak. Olde Town has a Mayberry-like charm, although it does have a bit more traffic.
Rheinlander's Bakery, which I've written about in a previous post, was one of the vendors at the Affair; they're the people who can make chocolate taste good even without sugar or gluten. How cool is that? There's Cheesecake Therapy, which is pretty much self explanatory, methinks. Do you like French fries? Do you think McDonald's or Wendy's has the best fries? Sorry, the best fries are served by Griff's, and their onion rings and cheeseburgers are pretty dang good, too. DiCicco's has lasagna that would make Garfield a very happy cat. There's a book store - a real bookstore, not a chain, and the public library is two stories high, with a nice quiet room that on a sunny day is a nice place to quietly read and catch forty winks. (Um, so I've heard -- I've never actually dozed off there...) There's a paint-your-own pottery store, and a candle store with a really cool double staircase which brought out my Inner Hardy Boy, although not enough so that I was brave enough to ask the proprietor if I could go exploring.
Insert note here about the many historical buildings in Olde Town - buildings that had character, before architecture became a cut-and-paste industry. The Arvada Historical Society resides in the Olde Town part of Arvada, as well, and the volunteers there are happy to tell you anything you want to know about any of the buildings or Arvada itself, which started with Colorado's very own Gold Rush.
There's an Army-Navy Surplus store there -- who doesn't love those? There's a candy store selling old fashioned candies (remember Rocky Road, Idaho Spud, Cherry Mash, Big Hunk, Zotz, candy cigarettes?) and old fashioned sodas and root beers (Cherwine, Duffy's, Stewart's) . Etta's Place is a tiny grocery store housed in a quaint (egads, did I just use the word quaint?) Victorian house -- among the groceries the sell are tasty Wisconsin cheeses and homemade jams; but what I really liked here was the memory it evoked of the little mom-and-pop grocery 4-1/2 blocks down the street from my grandmother's house, which I am my siblings oft haunted during most our visits in our childhood.
I frequent the conglomerates, the big chains, because of their convenience, because of their pricing. But sometimes I want to slow down and enjoy life at a more leisurely pace. This particular day started out sunny and not exactly warm, but seasonal. After getting an emissions test done on my car, I headed over to Mayberry -- I mean, Olde Town Arvada -- and somewhere along the way as I wandered in and out of shops, looking for clues and sampling chocolate, it started to snow. A few flakes at first, growing suddenly blustery, and for just a moment I considered heading home before the streets got icy. But I decided I wasn't yet finished. That might not seem significant unless you know me, and how much I dislike snow, especially if I have to drive in it. Give me a good torrential rainstorm over a moderate snowfall.
No, my tummy full of chocolate (it might be true what they say about chocolate containing endorphins) , my too-small hat not quite keeping the snow out of my ears, I found myself relishing even the snow. It was part of the experience. I was happy to be there. I felt more relaxed than I had all week. The snow temporarily abated. A friend came to join me, the snow kicked up again, we ate more chocolate and collected more clues for the treasure hunt (missing the deadline), and we visited Penzy's Spices while the snow continued its bipolar behavior between random flakes and mini-blizzard.
As I drove home, I found the traffic heavy in volume but the roads easy enough to navigate thanks to a Christmas present to myself of new tires. One segment of that journey treated me to a breathtaking vision of snow covered tree skeletons on both sides of the road which made me glad I hadn't wimped out and left early. Surprising to know I can enjoy snow at times other than sitting inside staring out the window with a good book in hand (although that's still my favorite way -- not even chocolate has the power to change my mind on that.)
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Christmas Favorites
I love Christmas tales. Whether it be schmaltzy Christmas movies on the Hallmark Channel, the yearly Anne Perry Christmas mystery offering, or Richard Paul Evans's yuletide tear-jerker, or a perennial favorite - I love them. I don't necessarily wait for this time of year to read them, either. The themes of these tales are of love and forgiveness, redemption and reconciliation.
There is no shortage of children's picture books on the Nativity, some retelling the story in simplified language, and others taking the text directly from the Gospels of Luke and Matthew and some from Isaiah. Those are my favorites, because the prose tells the story beautifully and I don't feel it's too difficult for even small children to understand, so it doesn't need to be re-written. Two of these I love because of the artwork as well as the text. Both sadly are currently out of print, but happily are available inexpensively at used bookstores online.
First is "The Nativity", illustrated by Juan Wijngaard. His beautiful watercolors drawn in a Renaissance style and framed to appear as church windows, with calligraphic text, make for a very enjoyable read.
Second, and probably my favorite, is Jan Pienkowski's "The First Christmas". Pienkowski's illustrations leave a lasting impression. They have at once both fairy tale and somber qualities to them. Vividly colored backgrounds and black silhouettes fit together beautifully. The author plays a bit with place and time - the manger is in a forest and the flight into Egypt is set against the background of a Gothic castle - and fashion - Mary's hair is in pigtails as she hangs laundry taken from a modern looking laundry basket. It sounds like it shouldn't work. Perhaps the anachronisms is what does make it work; the illustrations give the tale a timeless quality, and for this reader at least eloquently shows the love of God for all people through all ages. Search for it under the author's name and the two titles it was published under during its 25 year publication history: "The First Christmas", and simply, "Christmas".
------------
Three of my favorite Christmas titles are texts in the Public Domain: Henry Van Dyke's "Keeping Christmas", William Sydney Porter's (more commonly known as O. Henry) "Gift of the Magi", and Charles Dickens's "A Christmas Carol". All of these are available for as little as a dollar or even for free in various electronic formats on such sites as Project Gutenberg.
"Keeping Christmas" is a sermon Henry Van Dyke delivered in 1924, based upon Romans 14:6. In less than 500 words, he asks simple questions and gives much food for thought, starting with contrasting observing Christmas Day and keeping Christmas Day, and then reminding us to step outside ourselves to meet the needs of others, to do our part to make the world a better place: "to trim your lamp so that it will give more light and less smoke, and to carry it in front so that your shadow will fall behind you." This is a piece well worth reading every month of the year.
O. Henry's 1906 short story "Gift of the Magi" begins with: "One dollar and eighty-seven cents. That was all. And sixty cents of it was in pennies." How many opening sentences grab you like that? Many of you already know the story: young financially struggling married couple sell their most cherished possessions to buy a Christmas present for the other. It's been adapted but once for the big screen and but a few times for television, with a contemporary retelling coming to the Hallmark Channel this month. I mention this because here is a story primed for the likes of Hallmark: heavy on the sweet and sentimental. Don't get me wrong: I like sweet and sentimental, especially in Christmas stories; I've been watching syrupy Christmas tales and sappy Christmas romances for two weeks on the Hallmark Channel. But O. Henry's tale is more than just a tear-jerking tale. It is the simple story of two people who love each other so much that they are willing to give up what they most value to acquire something for who they most value. And what could be more Christmasy than that?
I don't generally count among my own personal favorites what others have deemed "classics". Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" is an exception. After watching many movie adaptations and listening to a few radio plays (my favorite being Jonathan Winters' reading for NPR), last year I discovered the full text hiding many years upon my bookshelf. Everybody knows the tale: old miserly curmudgeon visited by apparitions who force him to examine his life, past, present and future, and reintroduce him to the human race. It's a powerful morality tale of second chances, of redemption from our own worst enemies - ourselves. And although there are many great radio plays and movies adapted from the book, I think the book offers a great deal more.
------------
Last but not least is Richard Paul Evans' picture book "The Christmas Candle" from 1999. Evans's selfish protagonist Thomas is anxious to get home to his family of a cold Christmas Eve, and he stops in at a chandler's shop for a candle for his lantern. He scorns the beautifully designed candles in favor of a plain and simple and cheap one. But after he leaves the chandler's shop, with a cryptic warning ringing in his ears, he discovers the plain candle illuminates in strange - and at first unwelcome - ways. Oil illustrations by Jacob Collins show poor beggars and waifs which under the light of the candle appear in turn to be Thomas's mother, brother and sister. It is not until Thomas has given away everything he possesses to care for those he supposes to be his family members that the lantern's light show him the truth. And it is not until he arrives home, cold and broke, that the light of understanding enters his mind and heart. I've gotten a little choked up when I have read this tale aloud to family and friends. It is a great tale of giving of oneself, seeing things in a pure light - the light of Christmas.
There is no shortage of children's picture books on the Nativity, some retelling the story in simplified language, and others taking the text directly from the Gospels of Luke and Matthew and some from Isaiah. Those are my favorites, because the prose tells the story beautifully and I don't feel it's too difficult for even small children to understand, so it doesn't need to be re-written. Two of these I love because of the artwork as well as the text. Both sadly are currently out of print, but happily are available inexpensively at used bookstores online.
First is "The Nativity", illustrated by Juan Wijngaard. His beautiful watercolors drawn in a Renaissance style and framed to appear as church windows, with calligraphic text, make for a very enjoyable read.
Second, and probably my favorite, is Jan Pienkowski's "The First Christmas". Pienkowski's illustrations leave a lasting impression. They have at once both fairy tale and somber qualities to them. Vividly colored backgrounds and black silhouettes fit together beautifully. The author plays a bit with place and time - the manger is in a forest and the flight into Egypt is set against the background of a Gothic castle - and fashion - Mary's hair is in pigtails as she hangs laundry taken from a modern looking laundry basket. It sounds like it shouldn't work. Perhaps the anachronisms is what does make it work; the illustrations give the tale a timeless quality, and for this reader at least eloquently shows the love of God for all people through all ages. Search for it under the author's name and the two titles it was published under during its 25 year publication history: "The First Christmas", and simply, "Christmas".
------------
Three of my favorite Christmas titles are texts in the Public Domain: Henry Van Dyke's "Keeping Christmas", William Sydney Porter's (more commonly known as O. Henry) "Gift of the Magi", and Charles Dickens's "A Christmas Carol". All of these are available for as little as a dollar or even for free in various electronic formats on such sites as Project Gutenberg.
"Keeping Christmas" is a sermon Henry Van Dyke delivered in 1924, based upon Romans 14:6. In less than 500 words, he asks simple questions and gives much food for thought, starting with contrasting observing Christmas Day and keeping Christmas Day, and then reminding us to step outside ourselves to meet the needs of others, to do our part to make the world a better place: "to trim your lamp so that it will give more light and less smoke, and to carry it in front so that your shadow will fall behind you." This is a piece well worth reading every month of the year.
O. Henry's 1906 short story "Gift of the Magi" begins with: "One dollar and eighty-seven cents. That was all. And sixty cents of it was in pennies." How many opening sentences grab you like that? Many of you already know the story: young financially struggling married couple sell their most cherished possessions to buy a Christmas present for the other. It's been adapted but once for the big screen and but a few times for television, with a contemporary retelling coming to the Hallmark Channel this month. I mention this because here is a story primed for the likes of Hallmark: heavy on the sweet and sentimental. Don't get me wrong: I like sweet and sentimental, especially in Christmas stories; I've been watching syrupy Christmas tales and sappy Christmas romances for two weeks on the Hallmark Channel. But O. Henry's tale is more than just a tear-jerking tale. It is the simple story of two people who love each other so much that they are willing to give up what they most value to acquire something for who they most value. And what could be more Christmasy than that?
I don't generally count among my own personal favorites what others have deemed "classics". Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" is an exception. After watching many movie adaptations and listening to a few radio plays (my favorite being Jonathan Winters' reading for NPR), last year I discovered the full text hiding many years upon my bookshelf. Everybody knows the tale: old miserly curmudgeon visited by apparitions who force him to examine his life, past, present and future, and reintroduce him to the human race. It's a powerful morality tale of second chances, of redemption from our own worst enemies - ourselves. And although there are many great radio plays and movies adapted from the book, I think the book offers a great deal more.
------------
Last but not least is Richard Paul Evans' picture book "The Christmas Candle" from 1999. Evans's selfish protagonist Thomas is anxious to get home to his family of a cold Christmas Eve, and he stops in at a chandler's shop for a candle for his lantern. He scorns the beautifully designed candles in favor of a plain and simple and cheap one. But after he leaves the chandler's shop, with a cryptic warning ringing in his ears, he discovers the plain candle illuminates in strange - and at first unwelcome - ways. Oil illustrations by Jacob Collins show poor beggars and waifs which under the light of the candle appear in turn to be Thomas's mother, brother and sister. It is not until Thomas has given away everything he possesses to care for those he supposes to be his family members that the lantern's light show him the truth. And it is not until he arrives home, cold and broke, that the light of understanding enters his mind and heart. I've gotten a little choked up when I have read this tale aloud to family and friends. It is a great tale of giving of oneself, seeing things in a pure light - the light of Christmas.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
"The Best Burger in [George]town"
Yesterday a friend and I hung out in Georgetown, walking around and checking out all the little shops there. And wondering about why the people of Georgetown and neighboring Silver Plume have such an affinity for the color purple. I didn't make a tally of all colors of all buildings, so perhaps since it is such a unique building color there seemed to be a disproportionate number of purple buildings. I've nothing against purple; I'm just not used to seeing it. Perhaps, as my friend suggested, at one time there was a sale on purple paint. One building was closer to mauve; we speculated that was the last of the purple paint, mixed with white in order to stretch it.
All that walking around in brisk mountain air considerably cooler than what we've been used to in Denver stimulated our appetites. At the visitor's center we looked at a list of local restaurants and the woman who worked there told us Ed's 1859 Cafe had "the best burgers in town." Well, a statement like that, you just have to check out! Not having sampled the hamburgers in other area restaurants, I cannot say if they truly have the "best in town" - we plan to return to Georgetown for further investigation - but their cheeseburgers were good! I got mine with all the fixins, save mayonnaise, and all the lettuce, tomatoes, onions, catsup, mustard and pickles fell out the edges of the burger. Now, I know that many people think a "real" burger is nice and neat, staying inside a bun and having minimal condiments and vegetables. Nope, sorry. A real cheeseburger has all the fixings, requires two hands to eat and requires at least two napkins. Their Angus burgers come with your choice of cheeses and in quarter or half pound sizes. We didn't try the sweet potato fries, but they did look yummy, as did the soups I saw many of the customers ordering.
It's a popular spot, apparently: it was so busy we had to arm wrestle an elderly couple for the last table. Okay, I made that up. A table did open up by the time we got to the counter to place our orders. But clearly there was both a regular clientele there and other tourists like ourselves, and although there was outside seating available, they weren't hurting for customers.
The back of their menu had a picture of "Ed", also known as "Edwina", a dog who lived for 16 years before going to doggy heaven. Next time I go I'll have to ask for the story behind the naming of the cafe.
All that walking around in brisk mountain air considerably cooler than what we've been used to in Denver stimulated our appetites. At the visitor's center we looked at a list of local restaurants and the woman who worked there told us Ed's 1859 Cafe had "the best burgers in town." Well, a statement like that, you just have to check out! Not having sampled the hamburgers in other area restaurants, I cannot say if they truly have the "best in town" - we plan to return to Georgetown for further investigation - but their cheeseburgers were good! I got mine with all the fixins, save mayonnaise, and all the lettuce, tomatoes, onions, catsup, mustard and pickles fell out the edges of the burger. Now, I know that many people think a "real" burger is nice and neat, staying inside a bun and having minimal condiments and vegetables. Nope, sorry. A real cheeseburger has all the fixings, requires two hands to eat and requires at least two napkins. Their Angus burgers come with your choice of cheeses and in quarter or half pound sizes. We didn't try the sweet potato fries, but they did look yummy, as did the soups I saw many of the customers ordering.
It's a popular spot, apparently: it was so busy we had to arm wrestle an elderly couple for the last table. Okay, I made that up. A table did open up by the time we got to the counter to place our orders. But clearly there was both a regular clientele there and other tourists like ourselves, and although there was outside seating available, they weren't hurting for customers.
The back of their menu had a picture of "Ed", also known as "Edwina", a dog who lived for 16 years before going to doggy heaven. Next time I go I'll have to ask for the story behind the naming of the cafe.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Words that simply aren't used often enough
Okay, I admit it. I am a word geek. There, I have said it. There are some words which simply say things better than their more common counterparts. Here's a challenge for my readers: use these words in conversation during the next week.
>>> akimbo
with hands on hips, elbows bent outward.
Peter Pan stood akimbo whilst mocking Captain Hook. In comic books, the villains stand akimbo while laughing maniacally over their nefarious plans, while costumed superheroes stand akimbo, their country's flag flapping majestically behind them, after defeating nefarious malefactors. Don't just stand there, people! Be you good or evil, if you truly want people to take notice of you, stand akimbo!
>>> gelid
very cold, icy, frosty. Latin, 1600–10; gelidus icy cold.
Choosing to take public transportation rather than driving to work, I find myself being exposed to extremes in temperatures which challenge the wisdom of that choice. Most days, I don't mind; I relish the relative coolness of early morning in late summer or the "brisk" walk to the bus stop in the winter before the sun has risen. But there are days where the descriptions of "hot" and "cold" fall short. I discovered a splendid word last year. A coworker asked me how cold my walk in had been. I replied it was positively gelid. At his request I defined the word and he suggested I might be but one of a handful of people on the planet who would ever use it. Nonetheless, I insisted, for the day in question, no other word would do. A week or so later he pointed me to a story in the local paper where a sportswriter describe a recent game night using that very term. I felt justified; my coworker remained unconvinced. A couple months ago, I came across the word in Christopher Fowler's mystery The Victoria Vanishes. So I see the word isn't entirely extinct. However it might need help of people like you to give it the recognition it deserves.
>>> kerfuffle
a great commotion.
This is a great word I used once to quell an escalating argument among the children of some friends. "Hey!" I demanded, "What's all the kerfuffle about?" Each child immediately began to defend his own stance, and then the commotion petered out as the new word sunk in. I believe the meaning was readily discerned - after all, they knew they were squabbling, and that an adult would intervene for no other reason. But new knowledge rendered their arguments moot, and peace was restored, at least temporarily.
>>> malefactor
a criminal; a person doing harm or evil toward another.
>>> nefarious
wicked, vile, from Latin nefarious, equiv. nefās offense against divine or moral law.
The sorts of deeds malefactors commit. Some criminals are merely bad; others are nefarious!
>>> rascal
a dishonest or unscrupulous person; a mischievous person or animal.
Whichever meaning you chose, unscrupulous person or mischievous person, this word has sadly fallen out of common use. How could this happen? I was reminded of this wonderful word by being referred to as such (second meaning, thankfully) a couple weeks ago. Not as common as they once were, but are still recognized by most people, are hooligan, whippersnapper and scoundrel. Meriting honorable mentions are rapscallion, varlet and miscreant.
So there you have it: a dozen words which not only convey specific meanings, but are fun to say and will make you the life of any party. Well, maybe not the life of the party. But using these words will certainly leave an impression upon others.
>>> akimbo
with hands on hips, elbows bent outward.
Peter Pan stood akimbo whilst mocking Captain Hook. In comic books, the villains stand akimbo while laughing maniacally over their nefarious plans, while costumed superheroes stand akimbo, their country's flag flapping majestically behind them, after defeating nefarious malefactors. Don't just stand there, people! Be you good or evil, if you truly want people to take notice of you, stand akimbo!
>>> gelid
very cold, icy, frosty. Latin, 1600–10; gelidus icy cold.
Choosing to take public transportation rather than driving to work, I find myself being exposed to extremes in temperatures which challenge the wisdom of that choice. Most days, I don't mind; I relish the relative coolness of early morning in late summer or the "brisk" walk to the bus stop in the winter before the sun has risen. But there are days where the descriptions of "hot" and "cold" fall short. I discovered a splendid word last year. A coworker asked me how cold my walk in had been. I replied it was positively gelid. At his request I defined the word and he suggested I might be but one of a handful of people on the planet who would ever use it. Nonetheless, I insisted, for the day in question, no other word would do. A week or so later he pointed me to a story in the local paper where a sportswriter describe a recent game night using that very term. I felt justified; my coworker remained unconvinced. A couple months ago, I came across the word in Christopher Fowler's mystery The Victoria Vanishes. So I see the word isn't entirely extinct. However it might need help of people like you to give it the recognition it deserves.
>>> kerfuffle
a great commotion.
This is a great word I used once to quell an escalating argument among the children of some friends. "Hey!" I demanded, "What's all the kerfuffle about?" Each child immediately began to defend his own stance, and then the commotion petered out as the new word sunk in. I believe the meaning was readily discerned - after all, they knew they were squabbling, and that an adult would intervene for no other reason. But new knowledge rendered their arguments moot, and peace was restored, at least temporarily.
>>> malefactor
a criminal; a person doing harm or evil toward another.
As most translations of the Bible render Luke 23: 33, Jesus was crucified between two "criminals". At least one translation refers to the other men as "evil-doers", which comes closer to the Latin root malefactor: to act wickedly, do an evil. Both the King James version and the Darby translation give us a little extra flavor: "And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left." Now doesn't that just sound more intriguing than "criminals"?
>>> nefarious
wicked, vile, from Latin nefarious, equiv. nefās offense against divine or moral law.
The sorts of deeds malefactors commit. Some criminals are merely bad; others are nefarious!
>>> rascal
a dishonest or unscrupulous person; a mischievous person or animal.
Whichever meaning you chose, unscrupulous person or mischievous person, this word has sadly fallen out of common use. How could this happen? I was reminded of this wonderful word by being referred to as such (second meaning, thankfully) a couple weeks ago. Not as common as they once were, but are still recognized by most people, are hooligan, whippersnapper and scoundrel. Meriting honorable mentions are rapscallion, varlet and miscreant.
So there you have it: a dozen words which not only convey specific meanings, but are fun to say and will make you the life of any party. Well, maybe not the life of the party. But using these words will certainly leave an impression upon others.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Re-read: "To Kill a Mockingbird"
This past July marked the 50 year anniversary of the publication of "To Kill a Mockingbird". It has long been one of my favorite books, one I read every five years or so. I had planned to re-read it this year before knowledge of the anniversary came to me, so the many news stories I heard on NPR made for a happy coincidence.
This time I had decided to listen to the audio version. I don't know how many times I have read the book nor do I remember how old I was when I first read it (I think I was around twenty.) Each time I read it my own life experiences give me the opportunity to experience the story with new eyes, and this time was no exception. Part of that might be listening to it rather than reading it. Having someone read to you is a delicious experience, especially if the narrator can speak in the character's voice. I don't mean voice imitations; I don't mean a woman narrator speaking like a man or vice versa, although that does add richness to the experience (anyone who has ever heard the myriad of voices Jim Dale evokes while narrating the Harry Potter books knows what I mean there.) Rather, I mean a narrator who draws the listener into the story so completely as to make it sound like you are hearing the story firsthand. Roses Pritchard narrated the version I listened to, and she is such a narrator.
The story is one of the handful of books Hollywood ever got "right". But as powerful as the movie was, and as wonderful as Gregory Peck portrayed Atticus Finch, the movie pales in comparison to the power of the book. It is of course a tale of racial prejudice and injustice and a small town's awakening consciousness. Some have criticized the novel for what they consider its one dimensional portrayal of African Americans, and for perpetuating a more subtle form of racism by an equally one dimensional portrayal of whites as saviors. If the story were set today, or even at the time the book was written, fifty years ago at the height of the Civil Rights movement, I might agree with that assessment. But the story was set in a different time, in post Great Depression America.
I am certainly not saying that the times made those prejudices and injustices right. They were wrong then just as they are wrong now. They did, however, exist, much more strongly and blatantly then than they do now. What rights were conferred by law and what actually took place were unfortunately different things. It took men and women of both races to stand up against their friends and courage to challenge society's beliefs - and their own - to make those laws a vibrant reality for all regardless of race. That is the second reason I challenge that one-dimensional assessment: the book is full of characters who did the right things despite being afraid or confused, despised, ostracized and even persecuted for it.
Atticus Finch defends the falsely accused Tom Robinson not only because he is court appointed to do so but puts his full efforts into it because it is the right thing to do, and he actively teaches his children Jem and Scout a better way to live than what the community is teaching, preparing them for greater challenges he knows are coming, and the way in which he handles bitter disappointments and failure. Despite their own flaws, Calpurnia, Reverend Sykes, Miss Maudie, Aunt Alexandra and Uncle Jack each teach the children something. Even "minor" characters Dolphus Raymond, Link Deas and Walter Cunningham Sr. prove themselves more valiant than they first appear.
The movie focused on the two main intertwining stories of Tom Robinson's trial and the mysterious neighbor Boo Radley, but left much out. The novel also explores the themes of drug addiction, social and economic class, fascism, and being a Christian not only in word but also in deed. Pretty heady stuff for a child to witness and try to make sense of - and the story is told entirely through the eyes of young Jean Louise "Scout" Finch. Wise beyond her years she may be, she is still growing up in a confusing, rapidly changing world. Still, make sense of it she does, through keen observation, loving relationships with her father and other adults, growing first apart from her brother and then drawing again closer to him, and finally, the passage of time and the greater understanding that brings. Perhaps that passage of time is why I myself see the story with fresh eyes every time I read it.
This time I had decided to listen to the audio version. I don't know how many times I have read the book nor do I remember how old I was when I first read it (I think I was around twenty.) Each time I read it my own life experiences give me the opportunity to experience the story with new eyes, and this time was no exception. Part of that might be listening to it rather than reading it. Having someone read to you is a delicious experience, especially if the narrator can speak in the character's voice. I don't mean voice imitations; I don't mean a woman narrator speaking like a man or vice versa, although that does add richness to the experience (anyone who has ever heard the myriad of voices Jim Dale evokes while narrating the Harry Potter books knows what I mean there.) Rather, I mean a narrator who draws the listener into the story so completely as to make it sound like you are hearing the story firsthand. Roses Pritchard narrated the version I listened to, and she is such a narrator.
The story is one of the handful of books Hollywood ever got "right". But as powerful as the movie was, and as wonderful as Gregory Peck portrayed Atticus Finch, the movie pales in comparison to the power of the book. It is of course a tale of racial prejudice and injustice and a small town's awakening consciousness. Some have criticized the novel for what they consider its one dimensional portrayal of African Americans, and for perpetuating a more subtle form of racism by an equally one dimensional portrayal of whites as saviors. If the story were set today, or even at the time the book was written, fifty years ago at the height of the Civil Rights movement, I might agree with that assessment. But the story was set in a different time, in post Great Depression America.
I am certainly not saying that the times made those prejudices and injustices right. They were wrong then just as they are wrong now. They did, however, exist, much more strongly and blatantly then than they do now. What rights were conferred by law and what actually took place were unfortunately different things. It took men and women of both races to stand up against their friends and courage to challenge society's beliefs - and their own - to make those laws a vibrant reality for all regardless of race. That is the second reason I challenge that one-dimensional assessment: the book is full of characters who did the right things despite being afraid or confused, despised, ostracized and even persecuted for it.
Atticus Finch defends the falsely accused Tom Robinson not only because he is court appointed to do so but puts his full efforts into it because it is the right thing to do, and he actively teaches his children Jem and Scout a better way to live than what the community is teaching, preparing them for greater challenges he knows are coming, and the way in which he handles bitter disappointments and failure. Despite their own flaws, Calpurnia, Reverend Sykes, Miss Maudie, Aunt Alexandra and Uncle Jack each teach the children something. Even "minor" characters Dolphus Raymond, Link Deas and Walter Cunningham Sr. prove themselves more valiant than they first appear.
The movie focused on the two main intertwining stories of Tom Robinson's trial and the mysterious neighbor Boo Radley, but left much out. The novel also explores the themes of drug addiction, social and economic class, fascism, and being a Christian not only in word but also in deed. Pretty heady stuff for a child to witness and try to make sense of - and the story is told entirely through the eyes of young Jean Louise "Scout" Finch. Wise beyond her years she may be, she is still growing up in a confusing, rapidly changing world. Still, make sense of it she does, through keen observation, loving relationships with her father and other adults, growing first apart from her brother and then drawing again closer to him, and finally, the passage of time and the greater understanding that brings. Perhaps that passage of time is why I myself see the story with fresh eyes every time I read it.
Monday, September 6, 2010
The Food Police vs. Common Sense
One of my pet peeves is those individuals who many refer to as "The Food Police". These are the people who don't simply tell you to eat healthy, but have grandiose guidelines which border on the insane. These are the people who appear to believe that the Common People are too stupid to realize that a small fast food restaurant cheeseburger has fewer calories and less fat that the quadruple patty with 3 ounces of cheese, battered and deep fried "Super Deluxe Special" burger does. These are the people who tell you that a large movie theater popcorn with butter has thousands of calories and a week's supply of saturated fat and you're "better off not going for that free refill!" Has anyone other than the Incredible Hulk ever eaten two large buckets of movie theater popcorn all by themselves?
I figure if someone thinks I'm stupid, they should tell me straight out, rather than hint at it.
I used to read these "Eat This, Not That" lists until I realized I got angry every time I read one. I didn't get angry because my favorites were in the "Not That" column (in fact, sometimes they were in the "Eat This" column.) Nope, my ire was raised by the comparisons themselves. Did you know that four ounces of all natural, no sugar added fruit juice is a healthier alternative than 32 ounces of a sugary carbonated soft drink? Gwarsh, Mickey! Okay, that's a slight exaggeration. How about this one: four ounces of all natural fruit juice is better for you than four ounces of fruit juice cocktail? Do the people who put together these list truly think nobody reads nutrition or ingredient labels, or don't know that "cocktail" means "a little bit of juice flavoring with a bunch of sugar added to reduce the company's costs"? Other lists compare eating a candy bar to the healthier rice cake with an eighth of a teaspoon of artificially sweetened jam. Hey, you've convinced me! Goodbye, chocolate bliss, hello strawberry flavored Styrofoam!
Equally annoying are the lists that compare only calories or only fat, and state that Choice B is better than Choice A because it has 30 fewer calories and 1 fewer grams of saturated fat. The reason the people making these lists think no one reads nutrition labels is because they don't read labels themselves. The (slightly) higher calorie and (marginally) higher fat choice has significant amounts of protein, vitamins and minerals that the "healthier" choice does not. It's all important, folks. Watching those fats and calories might give you that slim figure you're after, but it won't make you healthy. Yes, it's true that carrying around extra weight and clogging your arteries with trans-fats will shorten your lifespan. So will malnutrition. If you don't get sufficient nutrients your internal organs will get diseased and wither, and you will die. Your body, however, will look fantastic in your casket.
Recently a friend sent me a recipe for chicken prepared in a way supposedly comparable to a popular Chili's entrée. The recipe compared fat, calories, protein and other nutrients between the two dishes. Chili's is one of my favorite restaurants, so I looked closely at the comparisons. I checked out the nutrition information of that particular dish from Chili's website and added up the numbers from the individual ingredients from the "make it yourself at home and save money as well as fat and calories" recipe. The numbers-per-serving of the home recipe were pretty accurate. The numbers from the Chili's entrée -- well, a little bit of tweaking took place there. I can overlook the discrepancy in the initial counts, as the recipe was a few years older than the currently posted Chili's nutrition information; I reasoned that Chili's had adjusted their recipe over those few years which would account for the slightly lower amounts. But the real subterfuge in the Food Police's comparison came with what actually ended up on the plate.
The numbers cited for the Chili's entrée were "as served" - which means "served with two side dishes." As anyone who has eaten at Chili's knows, most of their side dishes are sautéed. Even those which are not are going to add at least calories if not additional fat. The numbers for the home recipe, however, were for an individual serving of chicken, no side dish included. In addition, the home recipe served four people and the Chili's recipe served one - with the same amount of chicken! Yes, folks, four servings do indeed contain more fat and calories than one!
These restaurant comparisons always assume that just because your server puts the plate in front of you, you have to clean your plate. Mom made you do that when you were growing up, but I've yet to eat at a restaurant which required it. With the exception of all-you-can-eat buffets, every restaurant will give you a bag, box, or carton to take home what you cannot (and probably should not) finish in the one sitting. Chili's is one of my favorite eating establishments but I seldom leave without taking home half the meat and sometimes a portion of the veggies as well. When I go out to eat with friends, those who don't ask for take-home containers leave the remainder on their plates for the server to take away. Places like Chili's give you a lot of food for your money. I'm sure many people do clean their plates. In my experience, most people do not - because we're not used to eating two or three meals all at once.
If those who made food comparisons made honest comparisons, I wouldn't be annoyed. I'd still eat whichever choice made my mouth and tummy happiest; sometimes that is the "healthier" choice and sometimes it is not, and I'm smart enough to realize a smaller portion will satisfy the craving just as effectively as a larger portion will. But you cannot honestly or accurately compare a serving of meat (regardless of whether it is skinless and broiled or still-skinned and fried) to a complete meal, or an apple to a box of jujubes, or a glass of water with lemon twist to a tall glass of lemonade.
Anyone - Food Police or those who buy into the subterfuge - who thinks such comparisons contain any truly useful information has been eating "healthy" for far too long, and the lack of proper nutrients has rotted their brains.
I figure if someone thinks I'm stupid, they should tell me straight out, rather than hint at it.
I used to read these "Eat This, Not That" lists until I realized I got angry every time I read one. I didn't get angry because my favorites were in the "Not That" column (in fact, sometimes they were in the "Eat This" column.) Nope, my ire was raised by the comparisons themselves. Did you know that four ounces of all natural, no sugar added fruit juice is a healthier alternative than 32 ounces of a sugary carbonated soft drink? Gwarsh, Mickey! Okay, that's a slight exaggeration. How about this one: four ounces of all natural fruit juice is better for you than four ounces of fruit juice cocktail? Do the people who put together these list truly think nobody reads nutrition or ingredient labels, or don't know that "cocktail" means "a little bit of juice flavoring with a bunch of sugar added to reduce the company's costs"? Other lists compare eating a candy bar to the healthier rice cake with an eighth of a teaspoon of artificially sweetened jam. Hey, you've convinced me! Goodbye, chocolate bliss, hello strawberry flavored Styrofoam!
Equally annoying are the lists that compare only calories or only fat, and state that Choice B is better than Choice A because it has 30 fewer calories and 1 fewer grams of saturated fat. The reason the people making these lists think no one reads nutrition labels is because they don't read labels themselves. The (slightly) higher calorie and (marginally) higher fat choice has significant amounts of protein, vitamins and minerals that the "healthier" choice does not. It's all important, folks. Watching those fats and calories might give you that slim figure you're after, but it won't make you healthy. Yes, it's true that carrying around extra weight and clogging your arteries with trans-fats will shorten your lifespan. So will malnutrition. If you don't get sufficient nutrients your internal organs will get diseased and wither, and you will die. Your body, however, will look fantastic in your casket.
Recently a friend sent me a recipe for chicken prepared in a way supposedly comparable to a popular Chili's entrée. The recipe compared fat, calories, protein and other nutrients between the two dishes. Chili's is one of my favorite restaurants, so I looked closely at the comparisons. I checked out the nutrition information of that particular dish from Chili's website and added up the numbers from the individual ingredients from the "make it yourself at home and save money as well as fat and calories" recipe. The numbers-per-serving of the home recipe were pretty accurate. The numbers from the Chili's entrée -- well, a little bit of tweaking took place there. I can overlook the discrepancy in the initial counts, as the recipe was a few years older than the currently posted Chili's nutrition information; I reasoned that Chili's had adjusted their recipe over those few years which would account for the slightly lower amounts. But the real subterfuge in the Food Police's comparison came with what actually ended up on the plate.
The numbers cited for the Chili's entrée were "as served" - which means "served with two side dishes." As anyone who has eaten at Chili's knows, most of their side dishes are sautéed. Even those which are not are going to add at least calories if not additional fat. The numbers for the home recipe, however, were for an individual serving of chicken, no side dish included. In addition, the home recipe served four people and the Chili's recipe served one - with the same amount of chicken! Yes, folks, four servings do indeed contain more fat and calories than one!
These restaurant comparisons always assume that just because your server puts the plate in front of you, you have to clean your plate. Mom made you do that when you were growing up, but I've yet to eat at a restaurant which required it. With the exception of all-you-can-eat buffets, every restaurant will give you a bag, box, or carton to take home what you cannot (and probably should not) finish in the one sitting. Chili's is one of my favorite eating establishments but I seldom leave without taking home half the meat and sometimes a portion of the veggies as well. When I go out to eat with friends, those who don't ask for take-home containers leave the remainder on their plates for the server to take away. Places like Chili's give you a lot of food for your money. I'm sure many people do clean their plates. In my experience, most people do not - because we're not used to eating two or three meals all at once.
If those who made food comparisons made honest comparisons, I wouldn't be annoyed. I'd still eat whichever choice made my mouth and tummy happiest; sometimes that is the "healthier" choice and sometimes it is not, and I'm smart enough to realize a smaller portion will satisfy the craving just as effectively as a larger portion will. But you cannot honestly or accurately compare a serving of meat (regardless of whether it is skinless and broiled or still-skinned and fried) to a complete meal, or an apple to a box of jujubes, or a glass of water with lemon twist to a tall glass of lemonade.
Anyone - Food Police or those who buy into the subterfuge - who thinks such comparisons contain any truly useful information has been eating "healthy" for far too long, and the lack of proper nutrients has rotted their brains.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Dementors, Misery Eels, and Echthroi
I'm sure there is a word to describe these, but I do not know what it is. These are a particular brand of bad guys. They are scary creatures. You hope they are not real, but secretly fear they might be. My three favorite scary creatures from literature:
3. Dementors, from the Harry Potter series by J.K. Rowling.
Fans of Harry Potter, either the books or the movies, know about Dementors. These are wraith like creatures which feed off human joy, sucking out happiness and hope until only misery and depression and bad memories are left. They are used to guard Azkaban, the prison for the baddest of the bad, in the world of Harry Potter. I always thought that was an unwise decision, as it didn't exactly encourage repentance or positive change.
2. Misery Eels, from Sarah Prineas's The Magic Thief series.
Misery eels are slithery shadowy creatures which thrive off of and intensify fear, loneliness and misery. They can be repelled by light. I'm reasonably certain I ran into a few of these in my childhood, years before these books were written, as the night creatures of my childhood were also slithery-shadowy and were chased away by light.
1. Echthroi, from Madeleine L'Engle's A Wind in the Door and A Swiftly Tilting Planet.
Okay, these guys have to take my number one spot. First, the word is even fun to say: echthroi! It sounds like something caught in your throat you desperately want to get out of your system. And the Echthroi in these two books are not things you want inside you, either. The sole purpose of the Echthroi (from a Greek word meaning "enemy") is to destroy, extinguish, annihilate, all joy, all happiness, all life and beauty, every single thing that is good in the universe. They have no bodies of their own but can be recognized by their foul decaying stench and a cold clammy feeling. They cannot be fought with anger or hatred, as those feelings only give them strength. They can be fought only with love, pure, unconditional love for all, even the unlovable, and by "naming" or affirming the essential nature of every being great or small. That's it in a nutshell, although my summation falls somewhat short.
If you like your evil vague and not completely defined, stay away from these books. If you like your evil to be obvious from the moment they walk into the room, from the moment you hear or read their names, Dementors, Misery Eels, and Echthroi are for you. Don't say I didn't warn you. Remember the power of Love, and make sure your flashlight is working.
3. Dementors, from the Harry Potter series by J.K. Rowling.
Fans of Harry Potter, either the books or the movies, know about Dementors. These are wraith like creatures which feed off human joy, sucking out happiness and hope until only misery and depression and bad memories are left. They are used to guard Azkaban, the prison for the baddest of the bad, in the world of Harry Potter. I always thought that was an unwise decision, as it didn't exactly encourage repentance or positive change.
2. Misery Eels, from Sarah Prineas's The Magic Thief series.
Misery eels are slithery shadowy creatures which thrive off of and intensify fear, loneliness and misery. They can be repelled by light. I'm reasonably certain I ran into a few of these in my childhood, years before these books were written, as the night creatures of my childhood were also slithery-shadowy and were chased away by light.
1. Echthroi, from Madeleine L'Engle's A Wind in the Door and A Swiftly Tilting Planet.
Okay, these guys have to take my number one spot. First, the word is even fun to say: echthroi! It sounds like something caught in your throat you desperately want to get out of your system. And the Echthroi in these two books are not things you want inside you, either. The sole purpose of the Echthroi (from a Greek word meaning "enemy") is to destroy, extinguish, annihilate, all joy, all happiness, all life and beauty, every single thing that is good in the universe. They have no bodies of their own but can be recognized by their foul decaying stench and a cold clammy feeling. They cannot be fought with anger or hatred, as those feelings only give them strength. They can be fought only with love, pure, unconditional love for all, even the unlovable, and by "naming" or affirming the essential nature of every being great or small. That's it in a nutshell, although my summation falls somewhat short.
If you like your evil vague and not completely defined, stay away from these books. If you like your evil to be obvious from the moment they walk into the room, from the moment you hear or read their names, Dementors, Misery Eels, and Echthroi are for you. Don't say I didn't warn you. Remember the power of Love, and make sure your flashlight is working.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)