Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - SarahG

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 37
Brandon Sanderson / Re: Gathering Storm Title
« on: May 06, 2009, 09:12:30 PM »
I suppose if you really want to salvage your theory, you could speculate that Robert Jordan had some sort of psychic premonition of his death, a few years ahead of time while writing Knife of Dreams.  Or that an Aes Sedai Foretold it for him.

But yeah, I think probably he just realized he'd better start tying things up if he wanted to finish the story in 12 books, which turned out not to be possible after all.  He should have had this revelation a couple of books sooner.

Rants and Stuff / Re: Happy Things 2009: We're Still Here
« on: May 06, 2009, 09:06:40 PM »
Yes, I believe it's the highest rank you can achieve within Boy Scouts.  Besides a bunch of merit badges, you have to do some sort of service project.  Most Eagle Scouts I know attained the rank during or right after their senior year of high school, but I don't know how typical that is.

Brandon Sanderson / Re: Gathering Storm Title
« on: May 05, 2009, 10:09:20 PM »
According to Wikipedia, Knife of Dreams came out 10/11/05 and Robert Jordan announced his diagnosis 3/23/06.  Of course, he may have been ill for awhile before that, but it's unlikely he knew he was dying while he was actually writing Book 11.

Books / Re: Favorite author
« on: May 05, 2009, 07:38:57 PM »
I agree with Eerongal that it should be the person's work that matters, not his/her attitude toward fans (or, for that matter, his/her lifestyle or moral decisions).  After all, I can appreciate Mozart's music while not admiring his personal choices.  But of course Maxonennis is right too; once we have a certain impression of a person's personality, that inevitably colors our judgment of their work.  It's possible that had I met Mozart at a party, I would thereafter find it hard to enjoy his music.

Maybe it's just one of the dangers of book tours and interactive websites and such: authors need to be likable as well as knowing how to write.  It might be wiser for some of the grouchier authors to cut back on the fan interaction, if it does their reputations more harm than good.

Rants and Stuff / Re: General Religious discussion
« on: May 05, 2009, 07:03:51 PM »
Renoard, the literalists I am thinking of are not serious Bible scholars who have done their best to use all the tools at their disposal to determine the author's original intent, and determined that he was writing a literal, historical account.  I can respect them, even when I disagree with their conclusions.  Not that I always do disagree, of course - I believe that much of the Bible is meant to be read as historical narrative.

I'm thinking of people who say, "Why bother going to seminary and studying all those languages and history and archeology?  You don't need any of those liberal intellectuals to tell you what the Bible means - just read what it says and believe it.  Forget the lexicons and commentaries; all you need is the Scripture and the Holy Spirit.  Research just complicates the simplicity of faith.  Just take the Bible literally: God said it, I believe it, that settles it."  This is the attitude I try to combat with the Psalm 23 question, because it seems to me that these people are reading the text as if it were a science textbook written two years ago in English.  What's worse, they seem to believe that anyone who reads it differently is doubting the veracity of God.

Another, perhaps more pertinent question I like to ask these people is whether they believe in stoning rebellious children, as Moses's law requires.  Basically, what I'm trying to get them to admit is that they do make interpretive decisions and that it's not as simple as just "believing everything the Bible says."  I want to convince them that actually studying the Bible (including other relevant disciplines) is a worthwhile endeavor.  Since we all make assumptions and interpretive decisions, it's better to have some solid foundation for those choices than to make them intuitively.  Does this make sense?  Do you understand what I'm trying to argue here?  Have you met these people, and how do you deal with them?

By the way, if your big words and references to divinity students were intended to intimidate me, I should probably let you know they aren't working.  You see, I myself have been a divinity student; I earned a master's in biblical languages, and in the process I did occasionally encounter such terms as "hermeneutics" and "exegesis".   ;)

Everything Else / Re: What did you have for dinner?
« on: May 05, 2009, 05:23:56 PM »
Have you tried grinding the instant into a flour (with a blender or food processor) then using it for coating on fried chicken, or as the primary starch in crepes?  Hard to complain about them not tasting like "real" potatos then.

Ooh, haven't tried that, but it sounds good.  I do have an excellent doughnut recipe that calls for potato flakes (unground) though.  I heard once that potato dough was Krispy Kreme's secret, and while I don't know if that's true, these doughnuts do taste very much like Krispy Kremes.

Books / Re: Favorite author
« on: May 04, 2009, 10:40:04 PM »
Actually meeting famous people can be like that.  I lost a lot of respect for Elisabeth Elliott when I actually got to meet her and interact with her.  She was better on paper.

Of course, even famous people probably have bad days.

Rants and Stuff / Re: Favorite food?
« on: May 04, 2009, 09:23:48 PM »
Mormons certainly do not have a monopoly on funeral food; most church funerals I've attended also include a meal at least for the family members, if not all attendees.  I wouldn't be surprised if the LDS funeral food is better, though - usually the Lutheran and Presbyterian funeral lunches consist of ham loaf or chicken casserole, with jello and cake.

Movies and TV / Re: Chuck
« on: May 04, 2009, 09:14:11 PM »
I'm kind of sad that Morgan & Anna seem to be finished.  And I agree with Ryos that Chuck can't suddenly be physically invincible like Casey and Sarah.  It seems like the next season (if there is one) will be very different, with no Morgan, no Buy More, and no physical incompetence from Chuck.  Where will they take the story next, and how can it possibly still be as good?

Aprilynne Pike / Re: Hooray for Aprilynne!
« on: May 04, 2009, 08:56:14 PM »
From the bio on her website, it certainly appears that way.

Brandon Sanderson / Re: Hoid??
« on: May 04, 2009, 08:12:16 PM »
Nice finds, Zas!  I definitely like the oddly-white-beard connection, sounds to me like a promising theory.

Rants and Stuff / Re: General Religious discussion
« on: April 30, 2009, 11:03:12 PM »
I guess I don't understand your distinction.  To me it seems like varying degrees along the same spectrum of literalness.  I realize that taking the psalmist to be a sheep is at the extreme end, an extreme that no rational reader would agree to, but to me that's exactly why this example demonstrates that we all engage in at least some form of interpretation when we read, even if it's as simple as the interpretive assumption, "The first half of Psalm 23 employs an extended pastoral metaphor to illustrate the psalmist's relationship with the Lord."  My point is that that is an assumption, albeit a fairly obvious and uncontested one.

I think that readers of the Bible draw lines in many different places as to what should be understood literally and what figuratively - but they all draw the lines somewhere.  For instance, there are differences of opinion on the Jonah story, the Job story, the Gospel stories, the Song of Solomon, and the prophecies of Revelation.  Which are meant to be read as historical narratives, and which are meant to be read as metaphor or idiom or something else?  I don't think the answers are always as clear as is the metaphorical meaning of Psalm 23, but I think it's a cop-out when people say they believe every word of the Bible literally, because that's impossible.  Those people (in my experience - it sounds like Darx and Kaz know some exceptions) still engage in genre judgments - they still make distinctions between poetic portions and narrative portions of the text.  And I don't always agree with what they classify as poetry and prose.

Rants and Stuff / Re: General Religious discussion
« on: April 30, 2009, 10:02:44 PM »
And yet he could still write poetry, while he was a sheep?  Boy, that's even weirder!

Writing Group / Re: Grammar Questions
« on: April 30, 2009, 09:56:41 PM »
Silk, I'd echo Renoard in that I'd hear a sour note if you used "who" in that context - but on the other hand, if you said "whom" I'd definitely peg you as a grammar snob.  (I say that affectionately, as a fellow grammar snob.)  Nobody but grammar snobs ever says whom these days.  So it totally depends on the context.  If you're writing a paper for a class, use whom.  If you're writing dialogue for a story and the speaker is not exceptionally well-educated, use who.

Everything Else / Re: What did you have for dinner?
« on: April 30, 2009, 09:15:20 PM »
Hmm, I haven't actually priced them but I would have guessed that real potatoes are cheaper than instant mashed.  Instant mashed certainly have the convenience advantage, though - as well as a much longer shelf life.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 37