The First Half of Captivating

I'm a bit reticent to post, since I don't think my experience with this book has been as significant as the rest of yours. I'm really struggling with the construction of the book, and finding it hard to overlook some of the flaws in order to accept the content, which seems pretty good, or at least well-intentioned.

While I appreciate the inclusion of various pop culture texts (I laughed aloud when I saw The Alchemist and I love that they mention Strictly Ballroom), I find their citation extremely shoddy. There is no bibliography, and even within text they are sketchy on details. Especially disconcerting is their use of texts like The Last of the Mohicans without differentiating between the book and the movie. While I haven't read the book, I'm aware that it varies greatly from the 1992 film (there are other versions as well, but again I am guessing/assuming this is the one the Eldredges mean) and has no romance between Cora and Nathaniel. If I didn't have any familiarity with the text, I would have assumed that they were talking about the book, since it was never clarified.

I feel as though a lot of the references to films and books rely heavily on the reader's prior familiarity with them. I realize this is a tricky line for an author--do you assume the audience has been living under a media blocking rock for the past two decades and explain everything, or do you just drop things in and hope that your reader can make the connection? I have read/watched most of the texts that they mention, but I think I would feel lost if I hadn't because these quotes are just tossed in left and right without much effort to connect them with the chapter. (Ex. the first full paragraph on p. 52 in Ch 3--where they talk about a bunch of movies starting with Jerry Maguire.) The references are barely explained, but they are expected to stand as 'proof' of the point. There needs to be more explication--it's the author's job, not the reader's to show how an example supports a thesis.

All the stories of women, are these interviews they've had with people? Things they've made up? I don't think it's especially clear (ex. Carrie's story in Ch 4), and it makes a difference to me whether this is an actual person they're talking about or a fictitious character.

Some of the problems I have with the lack of connection with their quotations I also have with their use of scripture. While there are moments that the Bible is deeply engaged with--the idea that Eve was the pinnacle of creation was quite provocative and well argued IMHO--more often, scripture seems to be tossed in with less frequency than pop culture and with nearly the same treatment. I haven't read very many psychology books, but there are times when I feel this is mostly pop psychology (childhood wounds, etc.) with a veneer of Christianity.

Ok, enough with the questionable writing, onto the content. I'm struggling with a lot of the absolutes that they attribute to females and femininity. While they do give some attention to trying not to pigeon-hole women, I think they do: "It's why little girls play dress up. Little boys play dress up, too, but in a different way. Our sons were cowboys for years. Or army men. Or Jedi knights. But they never once dressed up as bridegrooms, fairies, or butterflies. Little boys do not paint their toenails. They do no beg to get their ears pierced. (Some teenaged boys do, but that is another story.) Little boys don't play dress up with Mommy's jewelry and high heels. They don't sit for hours and brush each other's hair" (p. 13). This entire paragraph doesn't tell me anything about the souls of women or men, all it does is catalogue what is culturally accepted, what our particular society teaches about masculinity and femininity.

A cornerstone of their argument comes in Ch. 3 "Haunted By a Question" ; they suggest "Little girls want to know, Am I lovely? The twirling skirts, the dress up, the longing to be pretty and to be seen--that is what that's all about" (original emphasis, p. 46). THIS IS NOT ME. I rarely if ever remember playing dress up. I relate much better to what they say is the little boys' question "Do I have what it takes?" And the while much of the argument that follows, how women go about answering that desire to have their beauty affirmed, has some resonances, it makes me feel as though some how I'm not feminine, I'm not right because I don't relate to that core issue.

They later catalogue two types of perversion of femininity--dominating women and desolate women--and I can see some traces of myself in the dominating woman, who seeks to control and be perfect. The Eldredges suggest "this is not to say a woman can't be strong. What we are saying is that far too many women forfeit their femininity in order to feel safe and in control. Their strength feels more masculine than feminine. There is nothing inviting or alluring, nothing tender or merciful about them" (52). Yet they don't explain how a woman can be strong, and I'm left again feeling as though I'm not feminine.

While one could argue that I've just tried to deaden myself to this core feminine issue--that rather than deal with the pain of trying to feel as though I have worthwhile beauty, I've ignored that desire. But I don't think so. Much of what they are saying I find relateable on a human standpoint. The fact that we need to learn how to God first as our sustainer, provider, lover, savior, all and all is so true. I loved the verses from Hosea about placing thornbushes around her, and the thought that "In love, he [God] has to block her attempts until, wounded and aching, she turns to him and him alone for her rescue." (96) If these sorts of thoughts were framed in the context of how an individual responds to God, rather than a woman, I think I'd be much more affected. For now, I mostly feel uncomfortable about my apparent lack of femininity.

Painful Reading

Most everything is painful these dyas so it isn't surprising that each chapter brings a new stab to my already broken heart. I'll have to address each chapter individually to try and disect it all. You'll have to forgive me, but I take in everything these days through the painful lenz of my current experiences, which since I am still trying to work though everything can be hard to hear.

Chapter 4 made me cry. All the horrible things that happen to people...it is easy to empathize with the broken and wounded when you are in that state yourself. Then there were the parent things. My own dad...love him so much and know he loves me and yet he doesn't speak the words often, something which has always left me crippled in a way. Three times I remember the words...the day in high school when I asked him why he didn't say it more often ("It's not as special that way"), my wedding day, and two weeks ago when he had to tell me to say whatever I needed to to my mom because she may not survive this ordeal. Then my mom...anything about moms makes me withdraw into a painful silence if not tears.

Chapter 5 - interesting because we had a Sunday School class on women and the teacher said she thought Satan had a special enmity for women, so this wasn't the first time I'd heard that idea, though I think I liked the way Stasi explained it much better...makes more sense to me than the other way it was explained. The issue of abandonment hit me hard. I'll admit it has always been one of my biggest fears...being abandoned, being alone. My parents had a solid marriage, my husband is very faithful, and yet it's always been there, a fear lurking in the dark. And now...somehow in my mind the one person who would never abandon me was my mom. She was the one who always loved me no matter what. She prayed for me, encouraged me, nurtured me, and gently pushed me towards Christ. As a woman I think I secretly felt that men could never quite be trusted, but women we are close to...they won't leave us. How do I feel now...painfully abandoned in a way I couldn't even imagine and that extends to my feelings towards God. "God, where are you, where were you that night and why have you seemingly abandoned me, my mom, our family?" Finally I fear abandonment from all those that are now helping us. What happens 2 months from now, 4, 6 , a year when we are still faced with this? Will everyone else stop praying? Stop helping? Stop remembering that we still live in perpetual painful limbo?

Chapter6 - Appropriately named, "Healing the Wound," I found this chapter intriguing and it made me wonder how I would have read or interpreted it differently just three weeks ago. The section on being afraid, on letting God rescue the frightened shaking little girl from under the bed...seems to speak to me both now and probably for my whole life...again my living so much in fear my whole life. I also found the section on letting the tears come so intriguing both for the many tears I've cried recently and for the beginning where it talks about trying to keep it all together. That is me...feeling I have to put up an appearance to everyone. Again, this is driven by pain and fear. I think I am definately seeing how pain and fear have driven and controlled me for so much of my life, though I think the realization of fear and its hold over me has been dawning on my concience for quite some time now.

And the Suspects are...

Does anyone else here feel like the suspect list keeps growing while the likelihood of the suspects being guilty becomes more clouded? I am suspicious of Sir Julien for sure, but as I commented, I'm not sure if my suspicions are that he's involved in the murder or if he's involved with Mrs. Levy. I find the fact that he loved her and never married even after she did, highly suspicious. I still suspect Mr. Levy may have had a hand in his own disappearance and now the info coming from Sir Julien about his visit...well, something is going on there.

I also want to say that while the other servants seem to sympathize with Bunter(after all he has to pull all these round the clock tasks for an employer with fanatical crime solving tendencies), I think Bunter really enjoys being a part of it. I think he likes playing the little roles that he does and helping on the forensic side of things. I think it probably makes his life as a gentleman's gentleman far more exciting and extraordinary than most and he realizes and appreciates that.

I also find myself interested in the forensics of the case. They also have me questioning the time and era the book was written in because I'm wondering what type of mystery Sayers writes. Is she a writer who weaves all kinds of vagaries for her reader and then whams them in the end with an unexpected twist we could never foresee? Or is she the kind of writer who leaves subtle clues along the way, allowing us to see and analyze the clues as her characters do and thus giving us a chance to solve the crime as well. Time will tell!

CSI: London

I must say that I'm very intrigued by the amount of forensic work they (well, Bunter) are doing in the case. So often we think of forensics as a very contemporary science, but it's been around for nearly 100 years. I wonder if it will solve the case a la most detective shows nowadays.

My other thought during these chapters is that I hope/imagine that Peter is going to prove to be a genius. Right now he's very much got the lounging, non-active playboy act going for him. While he seems to be lazy and just lucky, I'm hoping that's a bit of an act on his part. And that he'll reveal some sign of activity at the end. I suppose he already did this a little by insinuating to Parker that he was just off to have lunch at a club, when he actually was going to slyly interrogate Levy's business rival (I forget his name, with the red-headed secretary). I get the sense from the fact that his career seems to be in media res (i.e. there are allusions to other cases he's solved previously) he must be clever and not just amusing.

since no one else is posting...

I'm wondering if perhaps everyone is bogged down in life stuff. Everybody okay? Everyone still want to do this reading and blogging thing?

Well, I just finished chapter 6, so I wanted to post so I could start reading 7-10 next. It's unbearable to read Wimsey so slow, but i must confess it's probably good for me.

I have my doubts about Sir Julian Freke. I would immediately suspect him, but the Dowager seems to like him and she's pretty insightful. But I don't know, he worries me a bit. And the american oil guy. I'm pretty sure it wasn't Thipps maid and her man. :)

My favorite thing about these mysteries is how they (parker and peter in this case) follow up every little thing, even if it's a rabbit trail. And Ms. Sayers writes it so well that you can't really tell what's important to know and what's filler. That's good story telling.

I continued to love it and hope all of you do as well, because well, when you find such a good character you want to share it will everyone you know.