This Blessed House

I always seem to look for the "love" parts in stories and the main part I got was that opposites attract. Clearly Sanjeev and Twinkle were two completely different people brought together by fate. The way they met, I think, was the only way they could've met because of how different they are. Sanjeev is very particular, immaculate, and knows what he wants in life. As for Twinkle, she's very carefree and fun, yet studious. Even though not many people nowadays get married after only knowing each other for 4 months, but it still relates for some people today. Many people get married without really knowing each other. Some will live happily ever after and some will end in divorce. In this case, it was more of a either or could happen. They went through some difficult times already. No matter how small their arguments could've been, to them they were big issues. It seemed that they tried to work them out, but Sanjeev was so stubborn and it was really annoying because Twinkle was so sweet. Even though at first Sanjeev wasn't very understanding, I think most men could learn from him because once he realized this really was important to Twinkle, he compromised with her. But that was only at first, in the end, he was just angry on the inside and wanted nothing to do with any of it. Compromise plays a huge part in a relationship. Twinkle wasn't very sensitive to his feelings either, though. She wanted all the "Christian" things around and she wasn't going to put them up until she had her way. I thought that was a little selfish, but I think she had good reasons behind it. I don't know how long Sanjeev and Twinkle will be together, especially since Sanjeev was already questioning whether he truly loved her or not, but they made it through their first big fight and that showed a lot. It's funny to see how big of opposites can still be attracted to each other and be able to work things out because of love. In this case though, I don't know if their kind of love can withstand each other. Sanjeev doesn't seem willing to work anything out and will remain bitter until he does. All in all, I thought this way a good story and I enjoyed reading it.

What Do We Talk A When We Talk About Love pg 53-64

Unlike some other people I've talked to, I really enjoyed reading this story. There was nothing very exciting or something tragic that happened to any of the characters, but to me it was real. Just some friends sitting around talking about stuff they probably won't even remember talking about later. Mainly because they had been drinking, but also because they're the type of friends who can sit around and talk aimlessly about anything. I think Mel and Terri had a strange kind of love, but love no doubt. In a weird way they were almost still stuck on their previous marriages. At least Terri was. Personally, I don't think the type of "love" Terri and Ed had was true love. That's just not how you love someone. Terri and Mel's love, although kind of annoying and abnormal, was still love in itself. They're the type of couple who can fight and bicker, but can still know in the end they love each other. I like Nick and Laura's love the most. Even though they're pretty much still newly weds, they have that absolute love. They're the kind of couple who don't even have to say anything but know they love each other just by looking at each other, or by kissing a hand like Nick did.
As much as I enjoyed the story, I thought it was a little jumpy. That would be my only complaint, though. The end was a little confusing, but it left me thinking and kind of making up my own rendition of what happened. I think they sat there until night fell, in somewhat of a stupor, contemplating what was just talked about. I think they sat there wondering about love and about the kind of love they had with their spouses. Eventually, they just got up and went out to dinner without another word about the conversation. That's just my interpretation, though.

Reading for Transformation...

Out of the three assignments I read, I decided to write about "Reading for Transformation through the Poetry of Gerard Manley Hopkins" by Francis X. McAloon SJ. This was honestly the only one I found the least boring. However, it could be because I read it when it was stormy and gloomy outside so I was already feeling a little down and not very excited to read. Nevertheless, I did find this piece pretty interesting. I really liked how he took on the daily practice of lectio divina. Usually if I don't understand a poem, I don't take the time to sit and try to understand it. Mainly because I didn't know of any other way to read it to help understand it. I like this method of understanding a poem or any piece of literature really. I know I get frustrated many times with trying to figure something out or get a "deeper" view of it, but can't. I think doing this lectio divina is an interesting way of doing just that. I also like how McAloon talked about the transformation of reading a poem. I've never really thought about being transformed by reading a poem in this kind of way. He said, "In such instances, we not only read for information and aesthetic pleasure, we also engage in a sort of reading for transformation..." Another interpretation of poems used in prayer focused on the world of the text, the world behind the text, and the world before the text. I found that the of part was explaining unclear references, opening the door to perplexing diction, and uncovering intense imagery. The behind part was to clarify and challenge our biasness about a poet's situation. And the  before part made way for the option of new self-awareness. Francis McAloon just really opened my eyes to new ways of interpreting poems and being transformed. I really enjoyed this.

"Active Reading of Literature" pages 5-23

     I can definitely relate to the statement, what you get out of what you read is determined by how you read. If I am to go into reading a piece of literature with a bad attitude I will have a bad connection with what I read. If I go into reading something with high hopes and good expectations, more than likely I'll come out of that reading satisfied. A lot of times I do make the mistake of reading certain books, i.e. certain college criteria like "Kingdom Education", with low expectations because it's not something I look forward to reading and start with the attitude of wanting to just skim through the book and don't care if I get anything out of it. However, I know that's not the way I'm supposed to read a book, whether I think I will find it interesting or not. Using Nicholas Sparks' books as an example, I always buy his books because I know I will love what I'm going to read. I have never read one of his book unsatisfied or felt like there could've been more to it. Because of this I go into reading his books with excitement and the knowledge that I will probably love his new work. The statement, what you get out of what you read is determined by how you read can also be related to how we read the Bible. I know for me, I'll sometimes read the Bible expecting to have some kind of revelation from God in a verse I was just meant to read at that very moment in time. Obviously, I can't read God's Word expecting this every time I open the Book or many times I'll come out of it unsatisfied and possibly be mad at God for not giving me this "revelation". However, I also cannot go into reading His Word as just a checklist off my daily "To Do List". If I do that, then I'll never encounter God in a new way.

Literacy Profile

     My earliest memories of literature would have to be from my toddler years. I remember many bedtime stories and nursery rhymes, such as, Three Blind Mice, Rock-A-Bye Baby, and The Three Little Pigs. There's one book I remember in particular that I won't ever forget. It was called I'll Love You Forever. There was a line in there that I even say to my nieces. It says, "I'll love you forever. I'll like you for always. As long as I'm living, my baby you'll be." It's just one of those stories that will always stick with me. My most recent memory of literature I read was The Choice by Nicholas Sparks. He is by far my favorite author, as I'm sure he is to most women. This particular book is about two neighbors who at first were not very fond of each other, but eventually fell in love. The whole point of it being called The Choice is towards the end when the husband has to make a very important choice that could kill or keep his wife alive. I've read almost all of his books and am starting on his latest one call Safe Haven. The most significant literary text I've ever read would have to be McGrath's book of The Basic Readings. I read this in my Survey of Christian Theology class and it has changed my view about the church, the Trinity, and many other topics related to God and His creation. My thoughts on Professor Corrigan's essay about this course was pleasing. I think he has a good insight into literature and how it should be read to be of more meaning. Also, he gave good directions for the course and what he expects of us. I think it is all fair assignments and, even though it's going to be a lot of work, I know I'm going to get a lot more out of this course than what I originally intended, which is a good thing.