You may have seen this phrase roaming around social media recently; it seems to be popping up all over the place. There's even a couple of pages by the name now - which is where this pic came from:-
As you can see, it's a Polish proverb, so I asked a Polish friend what it means, so I got the sense of it right (though, to be honest, it's pretty straightforward). She told me it's basically the same as 'none of my business'; though much more expressive. Which may tell you something about the English character.
Anyway, the phrase kind of stuck in my head and made me think about monkeys. I went to Kenya a couple of years back now, and when we were there, we saw plenty of monkeys. They weren't everywhere, but they were quite common, and there was one feature of monkeys that soon becomes obvious - monkeys do what they want to do. They're pretty much uncontrollable; and completely chaotic. So, what does that say about life? If the 'monkeys' are our circumstances, our feelings, everything that goes to make up our personal situations, does that mean that life is barely controlled chaos?
After all, even though circuses are made up of well rehearsed performances; they're still bright and colourful and explosively eye-catching, with what look like incredibly risky close calls sometimes. Certainly sounds like a much better description of life than business. Relationships should never be treated just as a business transaction. Ever. Relationships mean treating people as people, seeing them as interesting unpredictable individuals who can be worse than you fear and kinder than you dream - which will definitely be chaotic, and probably messy at times. But that's the difference between love and tolerance - which I also wrote about in this other post involving Polish people.
(And apart from the fact that God wants us to love everyone - not just tolerate them - there's always the fact that if you help others deal with their monkeys, they may just help you deal with yours...)
Showing posts with label acceptance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label acceptance. Show all posts
Monday, 8 December 2014
Tuesday, 30 September 2014
What's The Point Of Christian Fiction, Anyway?
I recently wrote a review of a novel by a new Christian author, and am currently reading 'Heidi' by Johanna Spyri; both of which talk about God clearly, but in completely different ways.
Hardly surprising, as one is set in a dystopian future and the other is set in the Swiss mountains in the late 1800s - I'll let you guess which one is which. However, one thing they do have in common in this regard is that they both talk about God in how He is there, and involved in the characters everyday lives.
But 'Heidi' wouldn't ever have been regarded as 'Christian fiction'; indeed the author would have probably had trouble understanding what the term meant. But it's not because 'back then' everyone wrote about God so it wasn't anything special - that's clearly wrong, for instance, Jane Austen's novels have hardly any mention of God, and yet she was a vicar's daughter who wrote poems and prayers that are full of faith - but rather the opposite. There was no 'Christian fiction' because it was quite 'normal' to read about God. Not everyone wrote about Him, but no-one thought it anything out of the ordinary when people did. And, more importantly, no-one minded particularly.
But now, the prevailing opinion is that 'no-one wants to read about God'; or, at least, not enough people to make it worth trying to market it. And so, a market has grown up for those who do - and for those who naturally do want to 'write about God' (or at least include Him), this has become the natural market to aim for. Seems sensible to find the people who will probably want to read what you want to write.
But 'Christian fiction' means more than that, or it has come to. It was designed for those who were fed up with not being able to find something to read that didn't contain bad language, drunken excess, violence and sex scenes. You may ask what's wrong with having those in a book, and I can say 'nothing, as long as it adds to the story'. Having them in doesn't make a book good, or not make it bad - that's my view on it. And I've read plenty of both.
And I can also say that I have a lot of sympathy with this view. I read a lot of chick lit/romantic type fiction and I have to say that after a while sex scenes begin to get a little...boring. There's only so many ways you can describe it, after all. I often find myself wanting to skim through those scenes in order to get back to the story. There's one series of books I read set in Regency times, and in pretty much all of them the couple has sex before the wedding day. Now I realise there were quite a few 'honeymoon babies' who came suspiciously early - or might have - but it would have been far less than in modern times. Still, every single one of the books also features a love match, and that certainly wouldn't have been the case.
The problem comes if or when it becomes more important to have certain elements and exclude others. In both the books I mentioned at the start, God appears naturally, because everything that could be included naturally is, and a relationship with God is treated exactly the same way. Which is exactly the way things should be (and how John Grisham, for instance, gets away with openly talking about faith issues in his novels), but while we still have a situation where, for the most part, God is 'excluded', then unfortunately, the current situation is the best we're going to get. We just have to hope that Christian writers (and readers) get more daring with what is acceptable.
Hardly surprising, as one is set in a dystopian future and the other is set in the Swiss mountains in the late 1800s - I'll let you guess which one is which. However, one thing they do have in common in this regard is that they both talk about God in how He is there, and involved in the characters everyday lives.
But 'Heidi' wouldn't ever have been regarded as 'Christian fiction'; indeed the author would have probably had trouble understanding what the term meant. But it's not because 'back then' everyone wrote about God so it wasn't anything special - that's clearly wrong, for instance, Jane Austen's novels have hardly any mention of God, and yet she was a vicar's daughter who wrote poems and prayers that are full of faith - but rather the opposite. There was no 'Christian fiction' because it was quite 'normal' to read about God. Not everyone wrote about Him, but no-one thought it anything out of the ordinary when people did. And, more importantly, no-one minded particularly.
But now, the prevailing opinion is that 'no-one wants to read about God'; or, at least, not enough people to make it worth trying to market it. And so, a market has grown up for those who do - and for those who naturally do want to 'write about God' (or at least include Him), this has become the natural market to aim for. Seems sensible to find the people who will probably want to read what you want to write.
But 'Christian fiction' means more than that, or it has come to. It was designed for those who were fed up with not being able to find something to read that didn't contain bad language, drunken excess, violence and sex scenes. You may ask what's wrong with having those in a book, and I can say 'nothing, as long as it adds to the story'. Having them in doesn't make a book good, or not make it bad - that's my view on it. And I've read plenty of both.
And I can also say that I have a lot of sympathy with this view. I read a lot of chick lit/romantic type fiction and I have to say that after a while sex scenes begin to get a little...boring. There's only so many ways you can describe it, after all. I often find myself wanting to skim through those scenes in order to get back to the story. There's one series of books I read set in Regency times, and in pretty much all of them the couple has sex before the wedding day. Now I realise there were quite a few 'honeymoon babies' who came suspiciously early - or might have - but it would have been far less than in modern times. Still, every single one of the books also features a love match, and that certainly wouldn't have been the case.
The problem comes if or when it becomes more important to have certain elements and exclude others. In both the books I mentioned at the start, God appears naturally, because everything that could be included naturally is, and a relationship with God is treated exactly the same way. Which is exactly the way things should be (and how John Grisham, for instance, gets away with openly talking about faith issues in his novels), but while we still have a situation where, for the most part, God is 'excluded', then unfortunately, the current situation is the best we're going to get. We just have to hope that Christian writers (and readers) get more daring with what is acceptable.
Labels:
acceptance,
books,
change,
communication,
creativity,
God,
romance
Thursday, 14 August 2014
Not Really About Robin Williams
By this point, anyone reading this will know the sad news of the death of Robin Williams on Monday. You may have seen or heard it on the news, but you've definitely seen and heard it on the internet. All over the place. On blogs and all over social media everywhere.
And if you've seen that, then you must have seen the massive outpourings of grief that followed this news. The same sort of reaction that follows whenever someone famous dies (well, almost). The sort of reaction that I just don't understand. And will never understand. Just to be clear here, I know that this is my issue - I am somewhere on the autistic spectrum, and this is something I will always have difficulty processing. I just point that out to show that this is something that doesn't come naturally to me.
So, why does this happen? I think that the tribute paid to Robin by his daughter gives us a clue.She said that he was one of the kindest, most generous souls... and that the world is forever darker, less colourful and with less laughter now he is gone. This is the same for everyone, but some people do appear to shine more brightly than most. And that reflected light is how we are supposed to look at the world - so let's not leave it until it's too late; untill the light goes out.
I tried thinking about how I might feel when someone famous I really like might go at some point. Like my favourite musicians:-
For those of you who are unfamiliar with them, they are Alice Cooper, Dolly Parton and Steve Taylor, none of whom I am likely to meet in this lifetime - but they are all Christians, so it's not totally out of the question that I may well meet them in the next. So I have the hope that when they pass on from this world, that won't be the end of the story for them. So I would be sad, but not devastated. I would miss their music; but, again, I have the hope that they won't stop making music...
And if you've seen that, then you must have seen the massive outpourings of grief that followed this news. The same sort of reaction that follows whenever someone famous dies (well, almost). The sort of reaction that I just don't understand. And will never understand. Just to be clear here, I know that this is my issue - I am somewhere on the autistic spectrum, and this is something I will always have difficulty processing. I just point that out to show that this is something that doesn't come naturally to me.
So, why does this happen? I think that the tribute paid to Robin by his daughter gives us a clue.She said that he was one of the kindest, most generous souls... and that the world is forever darker, less colourful and with less laughter now he is gone. This is the same for everyone, but some people do appear to shine more brightly than most. And that reflected light is how we are supposed to look at the world - so let's not leave it until it's too late; untill the light goes out.
I tried thinking about how I might feel when someone famous I really like might go at some point. Like my favourite musicians:-
For those of you who are unfamiliar with them, they are Alice Cooper, Dolly Parton and Steve Taylor, none of whom I am likely to meet in this lifetime - but they are all Christians, so it's not totally out of the question that I may well meet them in the next. So I have the hope that when they pass on from this world, that won't be the end of the story for them. So I would be sad, but not devastated. I would miss their music; but, again, I have the hope that they won't stop making music...
Sunday, 10 August 2014
Meghan Tonjes Is Fat (Oh And Gorgeous, By The Way)
This is Meghan Tonjes (pronounced as spelt). If you don't know who she is, she's a singer/songwriter and vlogger from Los Angeles who posts a lot of videos on youtube. Some of her singing, and some of her talking about things. All sorts of things, but a lot about things to do with self image and self confidence. And she started a youtube channel dedicated to the same idea called Project Lifesize. Also, she's appeared on the Ellen DeGeneres show.
So, she's been quite busy over the last few years. And up until recently, I'd never heard of her. What I heard about first was the controversy over this photo, which she put up on her Instagram page as part of a series detailing her weight loss journey. Which got taken down. No warning, no explanation, except to say that someone had complained that it was 'offensive'. Whatever that meant - as I said, there was no explanation. I must admit I was puzzled, because I couldn't see anything particularly outrageous about it - it looks like hundreds of other photos that get put up every day on social media.
But she figured she knew why, and put up this video saying what she thought:-
And when I watched it, I thought 3 things. First, I thought she had a great smile, and was/is very pretty. Second, I thought that she's actually pretty smart as well. She has a problem, and she puts it across well without shouting or throwing a tantrum - which is getting quite rare on the internet these days. And, third, I noticed just a few musical instruments in the background. Reading the article again was when I registered that she is, as I said, a singer/songwriter, so I looked her up on youtube. Where this video comes from. And listened to a few of her songs - and then a few more. And watched some of her other F.A.T. (Frequently Asked Tonjes) videos, like this one. Well worth watching, all of them.
And, after that, I was pleased, annoyed, and challenged. Pleased because I'd found another good musician, annoyed that I hadn't found her before, and challenged because it made me wonder. How often do I behave like that? I didn't find that picture particularly outrageous, as I said, but how often do I respond to something that's essentially harmless as if it's really a problem. I don't know the answer, except to say 'too often'. And, also, how do I respond when someone else has a problem with me - do I respond as well as she did? Something to think about, I think - and keep thinking about. And working on changing. So I'm following her on youtube now. Not because I think she's attractive, though she is; but because she has a great voice, and she says things I could do with listening to.
By the way, Instagram restored her picture, and apologised. But they still didn't give an explanation, except to say that they 'sometimes get it wrong'. Hmm.
So, here's another few photos of her



So, she's been quite busy over the last few years. And up until recently, I'd never heard of her. What I heard about first was the controversy over this photo, which she put up on her Instagram page as part of a series detailing her weight loss journey. Which got taken down. No warning, no explanation, except to say that someone had complained that it was 'offensive'. Whatever that meant - as I said, there was no explanation. I must admit I was puzzled, because I couldn't see anything particularly outrageous about it - it looks like hundreds of other photos that get put up every day on social media.
But she figured she knew why, and put up this video saying what she thought:-
And, after that, I was pleased, annoyed, and challenged. Pleased because I'd found another good musician, annoyed that I hadn't found her before, and challenged because it made me wonder. How often do I behave like that? I didn't find that picture particularly outrageous, as I said, but how often do I respond to something that's essentially harmless as if it's really a problem. I don't know the answer, except to say 'too often'. And, also, how do I respond when someone else has a problem with me - do I respond as well as she did? Something to think about, I think - and keep thinking about. And working on changing. So I'm following her on youtube now. Not because I think she's attractive, though she is; but because she has a great voice, and she says things I could do with listening to.
By the way, Instagram restored her picture, and apologised. But they still didn't give an explanation, except to say that they 'sometimes get it wrong'. Hmm.
So, here's another few photos of her




Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)






