Concerning Halloween...

So... If you're a Catholic (or really any more rooted Christian), you've probably, at least once, run into the controversy of celebrating Halloween. You may only vaguely remember it and what it's about, or you may be so thoroughly sick of it at this point that you ignore that very existence of Halloween. Either way, it's worth another look. Why? Because I believe that there are too many "you're wrong, I'm right," approaches to the discussion (not meaning, of course, that there isn't a solid truth to the matter, but, rather, that people tend to talk over each other for whatever side of the debate they're on, and very rarely try to even understand the other opinion).

For those who don't remember as well, the debate mostly parts into two paths - no, you should not celebrate Halloween (or if you should, do not acknowledge it as Halloween, but merely an early All Saint's Day) because, you know, demonic influence and such; yes, you should absolutely celebrate Halloween (even if detached from All Saint's/Soul's Day) and it's all in good fun and there's nothing harmful about dressing up as human nightmares and pleasuring in darkness. Well. If you're on one side, I apologize for the bluntness, but, in all honesty, I cannot stand either argument a lick. They're both wrong.

Let's tackle the easier one first. If you're a traditional Christian, you're probably already looking at the latter description above and thinking "Eh, duh! - of course there's something wrong with dressing up as human nightmares and pleasuring in darkness - what is wrong with this world?!". You are right. But I have definitely met people who think otherwise. Because the line is so fine between celebrating harmless and harmful Halloween, many people tend to think that, as long as it's not serious, anything goes. Sure, you can have your silly costumes. Sure, you can put up your little cartoon ghost picture. Sure, you can go and tp houses at night. Sure, you can rope up a bloody, misshapen, raggedy doll on our tree outside so that it looks like it's hanging. Ahem. You get the point; it gets out of hand fast.

There is (as I will demonstrate later) absolutely nothing wrong with dressing up or having cartoon figures around the house during Halloween. Both, in fact, are at their root very Christian traditions. What's wrong is making a celebration of all things dark, ugly, and macabre. If you find putting fake bloody fingerprints on your window fun, then you've got a problem. Because we don't understand the difference between mocking and celebrating evil, we often stray towards the latter, patronizing nightmares, fictional mass-murderers, and demons. We can't just say, "you know, some things about Halloween are harmless, so that must mean I can celebrate everything about Halloween!". It just doesn't work that way.

Now. If you're in the other camp, you might already be disagreeing with me that there are some harmless things about Halloween. Well, disagree with major Vatican exorcist, Fr. Vincent Lampert:

"Ultimately I don't think there's anything wrong with the kids putting on a costume, dressing up as a cowboy or Cinderella, and going through the neighborhood and asking for candy; that's all good clean fun."

Fr. Lampert does not in any fashion mean that there is nothing wrong with the current celebration of Halloween; in fact, his point he leads up to in this statement is that it's not cowboys or Cinderella that are walking through the neighborhoods these days; look around Halloween night, and see if you don't find witches, serial killers, and bloody ghosts any way you look. Is that good clean fun? I don't know about you, but Fr. Lampert (and I) would say no. 

In truth, it is actually the kinship with evil that is accomplished which is the true crime oft committed on Halloween: we watch scary, unhealthily gruesome movies, we, in all seriousness, try to dress up as the most grotesque of figures, and we play games invoking a demonic theme (or even, directly, the demonic). Not only this, but, even those of us who merely engage in harmless, cartoonified revelry forget the point of Halloween - God. Halloween is a mockery of evil, a day to triumph, for we know that many have smitten the devil and gotten to Heaven, and many yet may. If we cannot keep in mind the purpose of a celebration, then that celebration becomes mere gluttony. If we're eating candy and dressing up and all such things without even a thought of why we're doing it, then we've just become blind pigs, eating without need for survival, and reveling without joy.

For ages, Christians have celebrated Halloween - we've celebrated it longer than the seculars, and we've celebrated it (despite common belief) longer than the pagans (the pagans did not celebrate All Hallow's Eve, a day for thoughts of Heaven, but, rather like today's common celebrations, merely celebrated a liberation of and communication with evil spirits on a similar date, which, by the bye, they did at the end of every month, and not specifically October). The reasons to not celebrate Halloween are similar to those who might advocate the end of Christmas celebration:

• Bad people, and, in fact, most people now celebrate it wrongly.
• It's become so secularized.
• There was a pagan holiday vaguely associated with its date.
• It's an occasion for evil influence. (Every day with an occult-curious, atheistic, or badly faith-formed person is an occasion for evil influence!)
• Not only God, but morality in general has disappeared from it. 
• Nobody goes to Mass that day anymore.
• And other similarly related reasons of its religious lacking.

Just because a holiday (holy-day) has become abused, we do not have to boycott it. In fact, I would say that is all the more reason to celebrate it - if people are celebrating it wrongly, then let us do it justice. Use the occasion to gain graces available that day, and make spiritual amends for the wrong done by the rest of the world. 

In fact, in addition to condemning the mainstream materialist and occult celebrations of Halloween, the Vatican-endorsed International Association of Exorcists in 2014 encouraged celebrating what they called "Holy-ween" - a vigil with prayer and remembrance of Our Lord's death and Resurrection, as well as a celebration of the saints.

I absolutely love this idea. Whoever thought this up is a genius. My toddler sister saw it and immediately exclaimed "It's a pumpkin Mama Mary - so pretty!"

If there is a harmless Halloween and a spiritual Halloween, then, I believe, we should be celebrating it. If your kid wants to dress up as a superhero, a princess, or, better yet, a saint, let them, and even encourage them! As a fairly recent Catholic article suggested, we should use the occasion to teach children about Halloween, its true meaning, and its opposite, not pretend it doesn't exist. Because Satan has no influence unless we give it to him, we've got to reclaim the holiday as Christian - don't let the seculars take a Christian holiday, and certainly don't let the demonically-inclined do so! Halloween will only get better if we're actually making it what it's supposed to be.

That's it for me. Your thoughts? Agree? Disagree? Anything to add or comment on? Do you celebrate Halloween? Or, more importantly, how do you celebrate Halloween? Are you getting frustrated with the number of slasher villains running around your neighborhood on Halloween? Or perhaps are you (lucky dog) preparing to go to an All Hallow's Eve Mass or saint-oriented costume party? 

An Apologia for Beauty and the Beast, Part One: Introduction

This year, I have the pleasure of being in a splendid production of Disney's Beauty and the Beast. For the rare person who has not heard of it, it's the stage adaption of the 1994(?) cartoon movie by the same name, and a musical of fair renown. It is also more than that - as a Disney movie of that company's Renaissance, it tends to skate on the edge between the commendable and the not-so-commendable Disney movies as far as virtue goes. In fact, there is rather a good bit of controversy around it. Why? Well, for lots of reasons, which I plan to expound upon.

                           

Because of the play, perhaps, I've been doing a lot of thinking about Beauty and the Beast, and, of course, the thin ice that goes with it. As I was going to have to spend a lot of time with it, I supposed I would have to reason out my own thoughts on it. But, you know, there's really much more to the story than meets the eye, as I found out. And I believe it deserves a second chance. Agree? Disagree? Well, either way, I hope to provide my apologia here for the story, coming to my conclusion above through examination of the singular story, particularly from a Catholic and generally Christian perspective.
If you're a Beauty and the Beast fan (or perhaps an enemy thereof), the discussion may interest you; I hope it does. If you're not, I offer my apologies for the blog space and time taken up over the next few months on the topic. But in however many installments it takes, I'm determined to clear the name of this defamed fable, so hold tight...

Some things I hope to cover will be the character of Belle and the villagers, the traditionality/progressiveness of the story, the views on marriage and sexuality contained within, the story's morals and message, the original fairy-tale, movie and play, the artistic aspect, writing, accuracy and bias, and virtue (or lack thereof) of many of the other characters. If you hold (or have heard of) any other bones to pick with the story, just shoot 'em at me - I'll do my best to cover them. If they wreck my conclusion, all I can do, once more, is apologize for the wasted time, I suppose, but I do want to communicate this one point by my efforts: I think the story deserves a second look, and has good in it. If you disagree or, even, when all is through, disbelieve my arguments or conclusion, then that's fine, but I would like to spend some thought on a topic that's very often dismissed. Hopefully you can be patient with me while I do!

My Ink-and-Paper Pack...

Recently, my dear friend, Megan Chappie, has, apparently, unwittingly started a trend. That trend being...? The description of one's ink and paper family via personification as an actual family - and, oh, is it fitting. So I decided that I shall join in the fun as well and dwell a bit on my own bookish brood...
                     

The Mama's Girl

Alomina

My Mina, a young lady by now, is the oldest of my children, and is quite reliable. She's sweet, easy to like, and not too demanding.... but also rather melodramatic. Mostly, she's all grownup and fine, but she has always had a dramatic streak in her, and sometimes it gets the best of her. But, emotional or not, she's a dear little drama queen...

The Charming, Rascally... Triplets

The Top-Hat Gang Trilogy

These three boys are a headache and a half some days. They drive their poor mother nuts to no end - they're a bunch of heartbreakers, I'm afraid. Charming and troublesome, they could probably get away with murder (hopefully they haven't already). They rely on me very little these days, it seems, and tend to do their own thing. They're already a hit with the ladies, and don't they know it. Now the trouble will be to reel them back in enough to make sure they've got their three pretty heads in the right place.

The Headstrong One

The Clarion Call

She's a teen, and it's easily the roughest time with her. Her plots are unruly, her characters stick out, but she knows (or thinks she does) that if I would just let her out once in a while, she would be a star wherever she went. Of course, it has to be her idea, though - she can't be controlled or anything. Even more than going out, though, she just wants to be around other stories... perhaps a little too much. I've definitely had to watch her friends, that's for sure. They're giving her some wild notions about plot and development, and I have no idea where to even start...

Miss Wise-Crack

The Pain of a Memory

Sure, she's younger than her sisters, Alomina and The Clarion Call, but she's got some head on her shoulders, and is determined to go out there and do something with it. Changing the world just seems like the next logical step to her. While Mina clings to me and TCC battles me, TPoaM considers herself ready to move out and face the world - she's pretty much grown now, and she knows perhaps a little more than she should. Unfortunately, I'm not sure I can say no...

The Frustrated Funlover

All's Fair!

He's TPoaM's twin, but hates to be considered as grouped with her. Why? She's 'so dramatic,' 'girly,' 'wouldn't know fun if it kicked her in the eye,' etc. I will agree with him that he has more of a sense of humor than her, but, honestly, he's so messy and irresponsible, sometimes I'm not sure if it's a good thing. He's a good boy at heart and tries very hard to do his best, but he just has difficulty shining over all his older siblings. Due to this, maybe, he tends to go around them and do things very differently... even if it means singing to make himself heard. 

The Hotheaded Middling

The Second Brother

Honestly, it's like the world's against him or something - everything sets this kid off. He's got a temper of fire, but a heart of gold, and he's protective of his siblings like nothing else. Unfortunately, he looks up to only them, and won't listen to me. Perhaps his copying them will turn him out well, though... 

The Other Triplets

In Greater Hands, Against the World, Beyond the Stars

Don't even ask me how I deal with two sets of triplets... I'm not sure. Thankfully, these three are much contrasted to their older brothers, and, while a bit noisy, are quite contented to go off and play little games and stories by themselves for long periods of time. The three gals have barely made a peep in ages, and it almost starts to worry me that they're planning something...

Mommy's Noisy Shadow

Le Ragnatele di Venezia

If I've told her once, I've told her a billion times - she's not my only child, I can help her later, she needs to settle down and leave me alone so I can help her siblings out, etc.... but she never listens. She relentlessly follows me around, a determined squeaky wheel, always asking for this or that and giving me (and her siblings) no peace. Really, I must find a way to teach her to do things for herself.

The Adopted Adventurer

The Treasure of the Twin Temples

I couldn't resist him when I saw his grinning little face - I had to adopt him. Technically, he's not originally mine alone, but he fits into the family like a puzzle piece. He's almost always happy, always has a cheesy joke or prank for his siblings and mama, and can amuse himself well enough. What a ham...

The Early Romantic

A Broadway Waltz

Really, she's hardly tall enough to reach the table, and she's already boy-crazy. She's a hopeless romantic at an early age, and constantly  is talking about princesses and Prince Charmings and weddings and all that, matchmaking for all her older siblings, much to their embarrassment and humor. She's so little... what on earth will she be like when she's older...?!

The Colicky Toddler

My Land, My Heart

She's a frequent cryer, I'm afraid, and can only be consoled by her older sister TPoaM, who she's attached to by the hip, practically. She's a mess most of the time, and I cannot for the life of me figure out what is wrong. Most of the time, I have to just sit back and let her sister hold her - otherwise, I must just cry too.

The Mobile One

The Harlequin Sleuth

He just figured out how to walk. Why is he running now...?! And where on earth is he going? I have to chase after him and watch him constantly, or else he will stop at nothing to explore this strange world with true baby curiosity. In fact, I'd probably better go run after him now, before he pulls a million sequels down on top of himself...

The Babies

Pack Up Your Troubles, By the First Light of Dawn, and Burn the Shakespeareans

Giselle (BtFLoD) is actually adopted as well, and originally from a foreign country, but she's a sweet little darling - hardly ever makes a fuss. PUYT, on the other hand, wants nothing but to be at Mommy's side - as long as she's there, though, she's happy. And then there's the one that's on the way... BtS promises to be a troublemaker as well, and may take up all my time once he's around. Let's hope the day takes a while to come... 

Phew! That's all my family for the moment (thank goodness!), and I think, with my thirteen munchkins, I win as far as numbers go. Now let's see how well I can send them off... Do you have an ink-and-paper family of your own? An unruly one? A really unruly one? Then join the party, be merry, and share your own little works' mishaps and quirks!

From Many Burdened Hearts... A Prayer Request

Not so long ago, one of my best friends sent me a recording of fifteen decades of the Rosary, in Psalter-style Gregorian chant. Of course, I was delighted - what a rare treasure to find on YouTube, of all places! The recording was beautiful, and I cannot express enough thanks to both my friend and the user who put the video up. But there was a catch. As is a bad habit I have, my eye came upon one of the comments on the video. The comment in question claimed that the Luminous Mysteries are not part of the Rosary and not to be honored as the rest. It also called Vatican II the "Judas Council," and claimed that a concern with sedevacantism was motivated by pride and ignorance, as well as being irrelevant. Of course, everyone knows that reading comments online, accidentally or not, is a bad idea because there are such things as trolls. But here's the catch - the comment in question was made by the maker of the video.

I was very confused when I first read the comment, of course - why would such a seemingly orthodox user almost pointblank deny the Pope's authority, as well as insult other devout Catholic listeners? Well, I scrolled back up to the information on the video, and found similar claims by the author contained within, including, even, a link to an essay claiming that St. Pope John Paul II could have been a heretic.

What a horror. Unfortunately, it's not actually that uncommon, this bizarre occurrence. In fact, it's rather become a trend in some traditional Catholic circles - not most, no, but there are a few where its roots are planted quite firmly. The root in question is a mindset which is mostly quite traditional and orthodox, but has two sometimes mortal flaws. Firstly, the more common and less mortal one, is to assume, in a matter where the Church allows open opinion (such as the death penalty, modest dress, movies, or prayer outside of Mass), that one single opinion is the written, de facto, absolute law. This is just snobbery - it's not pleasant, but it's not apostasy. The second flaw is a more serious one: the tendency to view anything given by the Church (including but not limited to the Pope, the councils, and the bishops) that is anything less than 100% traditional as heretical.

It is a terrible mindset. But why is it so terrible? It is terrible because it rips the Church limb from limb, and divides even orthodox Catholics among themselves in a time when unity is so, so very important, and allegiance to the Church even more so. This refusal to accept anything that is not gleaming with idealism is a refusal to accept the Catholic faith, which is not idealism, but, rather, an attempt to reach the immortal idea, and the immortal Good. A defense of Vatican II and its actual traditionalism, or an argument against the sedevacantist viewpoint is best left for another day - that's not the point.

Unfortunately, it takes some bitter medicine sometimes to get the real point to us - this is definitely the case with me. Call me uncharitable (as I can be), but my first thought, coming back to the YouTube user above, was not "Lord, help his soul, please," but, rather, "Oh dear... Why must you spoil this...?". Thank the Lord for memory... because my second thought was to remember something.

A friend of mine who was in the Tridentine Schola with me back when I lived in Virginia was one of the most devout Catholics I have ever met. He was reserved, kind, well-read, and had a devotion and intelligence quite rare. He was even discerning the monastic life... before something else happened. When more scandal broke out in the Church, including the sex abuses, Pope Francis' editing of the Catechism, and word of a few awry councils, my friend left the Church, determining that the seat of Peter was empty - there was no authority left. As far as I know, he is still a sedevacantist, and I have only seen and talked to him once since he left.

That was probably the only thing that connected me to the misled YouTube user - a friend who, despite all goodness and presence of mind, thought exactly the same way. I don't know to what extent the man on YouTube has fallen from the Church. I cannot judge his soul. I could not even tell you if, at this point, he has changed his mind about the statements he made on the video - I pray that he has. But this connection made me realize something: there is so much sorrow, so much suffering in the Church, from being led away by such views, and also, so much more, from the heretical spirit that inverts so many progressive churches, and gives these people so much doubt about the Rock of St. Peter. It is a terrible burden that the Church has, to bear sin upon its shoulders as Christ did, and it is far too easy to despair because of it.

Please, pray for my friend. Pray for the Youtuber. And pray for all those burdened hearts that have lost their grip on the Rock Christ built on. Because they who could be the life of the Church are struggling to live themselves.

The Pain of a Memory - Part XI

The previous part (with the rest of the links) can be found here.

***

Anwynne crossed her arms. Any minute now, Rogan could return and re-request her acquiescence to his proposition. And she was quite sure he would too. But she was quite determined not to give in. Anwynne would do whatever she had to, just to avoid giving Rogan any reason to think she was complying.

And just then, almost as though in response to her anticipation of it, Rogan and Ariff stepped into the cave room where Anwynne was. Speaking of..., thought Anwynne dryly. And sure enough, Rogan nodded to Anwynne. At this, Ariff went to Anwynne, and carried her back into the dark room of before, Rogan following. Once Ariff had set her down in there, he promptly left. And Anwynne was once more alone with Rogan. But she wasn't going to be afraid this time...

Rogan turned to Anwynne as the door closed behind Ariff. He smiled felinely. "I'm sure you know exactly why you're here, Queenship, so I'm going to save words, and cut right to the part where you finally make an answer to my little proposition."

Anwynne folded her hands determinedly. "Why don't you tell me something interesting, rather than boring me with your dull outlaw talk, Captain."
Rogan shrugged. Then his expression hardened a bit. "Why don't you tell me something interesting, Highness, since you're the one who already knows everything about me."

Anwynne nodded stubbornly. "Fine" She looked around, trying to think about something else she might have heard from Rogan and Ariff's conversation. She couldn't think of anything... So she would take another risk. "I have a story to tell you, Captain."

Rogan leaned against the wall in a leisurely manner and nodded to her swaggeringly. "Do tell me your little tale then, Highness."

Anwynne nodded coldly. "I will" She looked out. "There was, come time ago, a man who was alone. Whether he remained alone or not was never known to anyone else, though, because something happened. Something terrible happened to him, and he was taken a prisoner."

Rogan had lost a little bit of his swagger, but he still attempted a cool tone. "By whom, may I ask?"

Anwynne turned to Rogan coldly. "Someone he couldn't protect himself from. Much time passed of his imprisonment, but still he was not free. Soon enough, he lost all hope of ever being released or escaping, and he was locked away in a dark cave, where no one could find him. He was there so long, so, so long... He would even be there now if another thing had not happened."

She glanced at Rogan. Rogan had paled considerably, and his look was grim and stony. Good. At least I am getting to him more.

So Anwynne continued. "Yes, a thing happened which ended his lonely, miserable imprisonment. One day, he died. Alone, with no one to cradle, heal, or miss him. All alone, with only bitter memories to comfort him in his darkest hour. And no one ever missed him, and no one ever knew..."

Anwynne swallowed to prevent herself from choking a sob. When she spoke again, her voice sounded to her very harsh from her shakiness. "All alone... And there his story ended, because no one was there even caring to remember it."

Anwynne looked down a moment, closing her eyes. Then, once she felt herself more steady of countenance, she looked back at Rogan.

Rogan's face was pale, and the expression in his eyes was cold, but surprised. He glanced down at her keenly, with an air of stoniness and shock to his observation of her. He recovered himself quickly in his expression, but in his eyes there was still almost a certain measure of harsh curiosity.

Perhaps he knew of what her story was about... Perhaps she had actually gotten to him... Anwynne glared up at Rogan determinedly. He wouldn't gain any victory over her, nor even believe he had... not for a moment.

Anwynne nodded to Rogan coldly. "Well, I have told you a story, Captain. Now you tell me one."
Rogan shrugged, perhaps in an attempt to recover his easiness of stance, though the action was grim, and little easy-seeming. "Alright, Princess" His expression then turned very hard. "Since you so delight in such stories, I shall tell you one very similar to that one."

He started to pace a bit. "Once there was a boy, a very young boy. He was very similar, perhaps, to the man in your own story, Highness. Only a boy he was, only almost five and ten years. Once his fifteenth birthday arrived, though, a terrible thing happened. A war had long been raging, and it was at its peak at this point. The boy's birthday fell just at its peak, when it was calling men of fifteen or older to fight in the war. So the boy was forced to fight, in the same war that had raged for years, killing everyone he knew. He had wandered alone for so long..."

Rogan turned his back to Anwynne. "He had but only one friend... A friend who was much older, who had found him wandering alone, and yet befriended him. When the boy was called away to war, his friend - his greatest friend - volunteered to fight also, only so that he might accompany the boy. The boy... he thought it would be alright, fighting in this war, since he had his friend with him..." Rogan's tone became bitter.

"He was only a boy, though, and boys have no sense. He knew very well all the terrors and desolations of war, and yet he allowed his own only friend to join him... He was a selfish, ignorant boy, who never thought once of the consequences of his friend's decision. His friend had a family, and was married... His friend had to support a wife... And yet, the boy thought nothing of it, only thoughtlessly allowing his friend to make that choice for his sake." Rogan's fists clenched.

"His friend's family even came to the boy's country, just so that they could see the boy's friend when the regiments were encamped. The very first battle the boy was to fight alongside his friend was not far from them... At that very first battle, against the brutal country that had started the war, the boy's friend..." Rogan's form stiffened.

"Well, the boy's friend died. He died in the battle, just feet away from the boy, right in front of the boy's eyes, leaving the boy all alone in the world. And the boy..." Rogan suddenly cut himself off, and turned back to Anwynne, a statue-like coldness upon his face. "Well, I believe you have most likely grown tired of hearing about the miserable boy at this moment, Highness. Perhaps now you will answer my question of earlier?"

Anwynne remained deliberately still and silent.

"Fine." Rogan turned away from her again, going to the door. "Then our audience is finished until tomorrow."

Then Rogan strode out of the dark room, his cape falling behind him as he took his leave.
Anwynne could not puzzle out the purpose of his story, but could only think of one thing... She had won another day for Errius and Elystra.

***

August Updates

I suppose it's been a while since I've done a general life update post, so I'll remedy that now. As always, I seem to have misplaced my time and written the post after an awkward silence has already arisen... which, also as always, I apologize for. One of these days, I'll get my head on straight and actually blog like a real blogger. Perhaps today will be the start. Anywho… I suppose I'll get onto books first, since that's what's important.

Books

The Lost Cause by E. A. Pollard

Because this book is as thick as a Tolstoy novel, I still have not finished it. It is, however, a highly commendable book from what I have read so far.

 The Lost Cause is a Southern history of the Civil War, and is mostly very accurate (except in battle statistics and a slight pro-Southerner prejudice, it has been quite infallible so far). While it is nonfiction, it reads very much like high fiction, and is extremely light of prose, if rather heavy of bulk. The way the war is characterized in it certainly makes you feel the tragedy that the war was - while it brought about a good thing, it certainly spared no cost to get there, in a "the end justifies the means" sort-of way. 

Overall, I would highly recommend it, providing you have a source of more updated battle statistics for the War to follow along with.

King Lear by William Shakespeare

I  am also still in the midst of this one, due to my policy of having an "at home" book and a "traveling" book. King Lear leaves with me because it's probably about the size of one chapter from The Lost Cause.

As far as Shakespeare goes, the prose (does one use the word "prose" for a play...?) is fairly easy to follow, and the vocabulary is mostly self-explanatory. The plot is, so far, extremely interesting, especially since, unlike seemingly everyone else I know, I actually do not know how it goes (because apparently my education on Shakespeare is very limited...). The characters come through very well, though it is hard to pick a favorite yet, as I am only about halfway through.

As it is Shakespeare, I would be a snob, not to mention egotistic, to give or withhold recommendation of the document to readers - it's a classic, so it should be read regardless. However - for my own opinion and those who have one of similar genre, I have certainly enjoyed the book.

The Slippery Slope by Lemony Snicket

Alas, I am still working my way through A Series of Unfortunate Events rather slowly, but every library trip brings me closer...

This particular episode of Mr. Snicket's was definitely one of the best ones I've read. Honestly, as light and comically-inclined as Lemony Snicket's writing is and all, I have rarely read such a brilliantly simple presentation of the question of evil. Mr. Snicket, through the tale of the Baudelaires and their misdemeanors, asks us all a question that is fundamental to human existence - "What is evil?". And, wordlessly, he gives us the answer as well. While many different characters in the series have many different answers, including evil as a necessary balance to good, evil as an entity all its own, evil as an ignorance of reality, and a good few others, he continually shows us that evil is the crack in a broken glass - a distortion of something that could have been good. While many other running themes in the story definitely bear mention (such as "the ends do not justify the means," suffering as a basic part of life, and the beauty of classical reason), this is probably the one best illustrated in the series.

The whole series is recommended - and this installment no less.

The Grim Grotto by Lemony Snicket

Coming directly after The Slippery Slope, I was slightly disappointed by this one, which was not quite as good. It was, nonetheless, good writing, and an intriguing update to the series. Overall, I think I didn't like it as well just because of the general setting and the side characters, both of which were personal preference, I suppose. As a whole, it continued Mr. Snicket's sterling plot with a razor-sharp suspense that left one roaring for the next edition. The theme could have used a little more fleshing-out as opposed to the book's predecessors, but it was a small detail in light of the plot development. 

Barnstormers by Megan Chappie

If you have not heard of it yet, I suggest looking it up on her blog, here (as I am very bad at summarizing other people's works). Barnstormers, so far, has had a potent flavor and beautifully rustic prose - enough to make one's mouth water in literary awe. I would wholeheartedly recommend it.

(The cover is Catherine's.)

The White Rose by Catherine Hawthorn

Poor Catherine... She's had to put up with one of the slowest (and probably least helpful) alpha readers ever, but has been a doll about it. I am still not even halfway, though I picked up this wonderful book almost a month ago... *cough cough procrastination cough* Anyways, though, so far the work has been quite refreshing - new ideas, thorough setup, and classic romance. What more could a reader ask for?

As a whole, I would certainly recommend it, though I also recommend looking it up via Catherine's blog (here) rather than Belle's ranting. 

***

Unfortunately, as a whole, I did not get in nearly as much reading as I would have liked (so I apologize for the short list) - hopefully this month will be better.

Movies

The Egg and I (1947)

My best friend set to her work with educating both me and my dear friend, Megan Chappie, on the beauty of the Murray and Cole pairing. The Egg and I was her very first attempt, and I'd say it met with fair success. I mean, cute romance, chaotic chicken farming (with screwball comedy), and loveable old movie side characters - how much better can it get?

No Time For Love (1943)

Starring Claudette Colbert (It Happened One Night) and Fred MacMurray (The Happiest Millionaire), the movie was a romantic comedy chronicling an eccentric photographer (Colbert) accidently losing a grouchy ditch-digger (MacMurray) his job, and trying to make up for it by hiring him as an assistant. It was utterly hilarious, with a thrilling climax wherein Colbert is nearly drowned in the very tunnel MacMurray worked in, trying to get him his job back. The movie was another one of my first "Murray and Cole" experiences (shocking, I know, but apologies to any Murray-Cole fans out there), and I must admit I found the pair delightful - the oh-so-feminine and oh-so-clever Colbert with down-to-earth, ultra masculine MacMurray was a paragon of the saying "opposites attract." Aside from a cheesy dream scene, the movie was certainly recommendable.

Family Honeymoon (1948)

This was the top of the Murray and Cole streak for the month. This one was screwball comedy at its best - a widowed mother of three (Colbert) marries a young bachelor (MacMurray) and then finds out that there is no one to keep the children whilst the two are on their honeymoon... chaos ensues. The movie came just a week too late to be added to my movie block of pro-family movies, unfortunately, but I would definitely add it as an honorable mention for its beautiful pro-family theme. The need of a father for children was illustrated both comedically and deeply in it, and the strength of marriage was a theme to save the story. This was easily the best of the Murray-Cole bunch.

Teacher's Pet (1958)

This one was a re-watch, but since it's been a while, and I don't believe I've blogged about it for a while, it's worth bringing up. While definitely a slightly more adult movie as far as Golden Hollywood goes, it's a splendid romantic comedy with splendid acting, courtesy of the star-studded cast of Clark Gable (It Happened One Night, Gone With the Wind), Doris Day (The Thrill of it All!, Young at Heart, The Winning Team), and Gig Young (Young at Heart). Gable plays a cynical newspaper editor who attempts to play a prank on night-school journalism teacher, Doris Day, and gets the butt end of the joke in the end. With Gig Young playing the teacher's best friend, an amiable, know-it-all psychologist as a side character, the comedy was played to perfection. For anyone over the age of twelve who enjoys romantic comedies, I would certainly suggest this one.

The Black Swan (1942)

This one's another re-watch. Tyrone Power (The Mark of Zorro, The Razor's Edge) and a young Maureen O'Hara (The Quiet Man, The Parent Trap) head the action/adventure movie's cast with some swashbuckling splendor. Telling of some of the escapades surrounding the infamous Cap. Morgan's rise to the government of Jamaica, the movie is refreshingly unprejudiced and honest concerning piracy. Neither English nor Spanish is favored or libeled in the movie, and Catholicism is not butchered... *glares at Errol Flynn movies* Likewise, piracy is not really romanticized except by a couple of the pirates themselves, and the movie shows it for exactly what it is - drunkenness, debauchery, thievery, and mercenary violence. It is not at all portrayed as desirable. *glares at The Pirates of the Caribbean movies* And even aside from the splendid figure cut by Mr. Power, the movie is worth watching.

The Black Rose (1950)

I'm sensing a theme in the titles of Tyrone Power movies... Anyways, though, Tyrone Power stars in another action movie here, set in late medieval England, Mongolia, and China. (Other honorable mentions in the cast include the inimitable Orson Welles.) On a whole, it's a slightly odd movie, with the exotic Oriental feel through most of it, but the quality is sublime, and the story is unbiased and truthful... even on the dreaded topic of Normans vs. Saxons, which is unusual even for old movies. 

King's Row (1942)

As the final movie of August, I explored a famous movie of Ronald Reagan (The Winning Team). King's Row was a historic suspense/drama uncovering a sequence of strange and tragic events in a town of the same title, with Robert Cummings (It Started With Eve) and Reagan heading the cast. The movie was about as suspenseful as I could stand - it was all I could do to keep watching. So, as my form of recommendation... a warning - to those who are faint of heart, hesitate before watching. To those who enjoy suspense, have at!

Music

As far as artists discovered in August go, the only one of note was Clamavi de Profundis, a chant/polyphony/fantasy music group that wrote some splendid musical renditions of many of Tolkien's poems. I highly recommend looking them up, especially their take on the Song of Beren and Luthien. 
As for my own music, I have been fairly inactive except for the binge-reading of a few songs over in Lia's corner.

Other General Life Events

This past weekend, I just arrived back home from Amish Country in Northern Ohio. Amish Country was beautiful, with hearty food and hearty society, making one's heart ache for days of yore. It was a beautiful trip, and I hope to visit there again at some point. 

School also started up for me as of today, which will make blogging a bit harder... though I intend to try nonetheless, of course... 

I also recently met the splendiferous Catherine Hawthorn in person, which was a wonderful experience. The authoress of one of my reads above was a pleasure to meet, and I only wish that the visit had been longer.

On a whole, as usual, I have been busy, but relatively unproductive - a horrid combination, if you ask me ("We didn't ask you!"). Anyhow, though, this post is horrendously long, so I suppose I shall sign off despite that rather unfortunate note...

And what of my beloved readers? What have all of you been up to? Listening to any good music? Watched any good movies? Read any good books? Any life updates at all? Chat with me - tell me all about what's up and down with you!

5 Pro-Family Movies Worth Seeing

Hollywood is not my favorite - nor any traditional Christian's favorite - place today. With the long history of left-leaning politics going back to its beginning (even almost to the point of government intervention at one time - see the Hayes Code), it's never been a sterling place, but, today, it's especially hard to find a film that not only doesn't have some unnatural ulterior agenda, but also has a good one in its place. However - Hollywood has had a couple golden moments in the past concerning this, and I intend to explore them. In the future, I shall do a few more of these posts (for the sake of both the avid movie watcher, and because I have really slacked off on doing any Rebellious Writing posts, which these shall hopefully count for) - I shall list five movies of a certain genre, all within the realm of morality, and I shall summarize and rate them for the convenience of the viewer. As a note, any opinions expressed will always be my own, but all ratings expressed will always be laid upon fact. (Another Note: While most movies I watch are old movies, I shall endeavor to include newer movies within these posts to the best of my ability and knowledge. That being said, some genres will have more newer movies than others. I will try to arrange the posts chronologically to help.) And with that said, I intend to start the feature up with a collection of movies bearing a particular pro-family strain in them.

The Legend of Zorro (2005)

This is the one starring Antonio Banderas and Catherine Zeta-Jones. It is the sequel to the first Banderas Zorro movie, The Mask of Zorro (1998), but I have reasons for not including the first one on the list (among which is the fact that it does not follow the theme of the post, but I shall elaborate in a later post on the first movie's flaws). The story tells of how Zorro, now with his wife and son, struggles with being bored as the father - family life as a whole is not fulfilling enough, and he goes away to be Zorro often, despite his promises to his wife, Elena. All the while, Elena herself struggles with the fact that people need Zorro - after all, doesn't his son need him too? Their son, Juaquin, is unaware of the identity of his father and thinks his father a distant and unmasculine fop - a terrible example, in short. Then all three problems collide when Zorro and Elena separate, only to be pushed back together by a threat to their son and the bandit himself, in the person of Elena's sinister new suitor.

The movie definitely has a pro-family theme, with the mutual support and discipline of one another being the focus, as well as getting over what one wants for oneself. Juaquin wants to be rebellious because he can - he wants to be the man he thinks his father isn't. In the end, he is reprimanded for his rebellion - ironically enough, by the allegedly spineless father himself. Zorro wants to continue to wear the mask, even if it means spending more time on himself and less on family, but the end of the movie sees him willing to give it up for Elena and Juaquin. And finally, Elena wants to end the career of Zorro, having her husband all to herself, but, at the end of the movie, when it is Zorro himself who offers to give up the mask, she hands it back to him, freely giving this aid to the people even against her own will. Divorce, and especially its effect upon children, is viewed with unapologetic harshness in the movie, and traditional gender roles, particularly in the realm of parenthood, are played to be absolutely necessary to the family in the movie. Religious themes (this is Catholic Mexican California, after all) run through the movie as well, and, with a counter-theme to the first movie, declares that following one's heart can only be fulfilling when it is with a steady guide and goal beyond oneself (such as a splendid scene where Zorro kneels to pray to the Madonna for guidance in his mission).

There are a few random words of bad language in it, but, if my count is correct, it totals to about four counts of swearing in the whole movie (two of which are by the villain, and one of which is debatably legitimate use of the Lord's name rather than swearing, but mentionable nonetheless). Other than this, and one small innuendo which is quite subtle (it would completely go over a child's head), it is family-friendly. The costumes are historical, so mostly (aside from the inaccurate cover pic) pretty modest. And, while a rather strong anti-Protestant theme does come through (due to a Baptist-esque villain), the general Christian theme (and the pro-Catholic theme) is quite discernable. 

The Patriot (2000)
This one's a Mel Gibson movie with a quality even beyond the commendable acting and direction. The Patriot tells the story of exactly what it sounds like - a patriot in the Revolutionary War for the American side. What the title doesn't tell is the story of some boys growing up with the aid of their father, and eventually braving even death for their family. Now, I'm no Mel Gibson fan - pretty much this and his direction in The Passion are where I cut off - but his acting in this was absolutely superb. I must say, the overall quality of this movie was ten times the average recent release. The music, the acting, the costumes and sets, the story, and all the characters reflected the time period and the theme to perfection.

As to the theme, more on that... The story tells of a widowed father of seven whose oldest two sons - the younger of which being only around fifteen - wish to join the American Revolution against the British. The father Benjamin Martin, remembers losing his wife and so does not wish to split the family up further. But, eventually, he allows the oldest son to join when their state revolts, staying home with the rest of the family himself. When British invade their estates, though, and kill Martin's second son, it's much harder to remain passive. With this, Martin and his younger two sons (neither older than twelve) are forced to fight their way out of the town to family safety, and Martin afterwards has to bear with vengeful feelings and fear of cowardice over the loss of his son. When the oldest, Gabriel, and his new wife, are also cruelly offended by the British, Martin has to choose to be the patriot his sons were - fighting for freedom and for his family, and not for revenge. Overall, the theme is absolutely beautiful, portraying amazing masculine fatherhood, the beauty of marriage and children, the profundity of fear, and many other wonderful things. (My only note is that the movie contains a couple swear words and is pretty bloody.) The movie would be well summed-up in that wonderful Chesterton quote: "A true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him."

Yours, Mine, and Ours (1968)

Starring Lucille Ball and Henry Fonda, this movie is pure comic genius at its best. The plot concerns a widowed mother of eight and a widowed father of ten meeting and getting together, to the chagrin of both Fate and their wayward children. Throughout the movie's various screwy events, the hilarious craziness (and fun) of large family life is portrayed ingeniously, as well as the point of family. The movie is definitely for teens and adults, but the reason for that is that is speaks very frankly (and sometimes quite satirically) about the real point of family and sexuality - it discusses such topics as birth control, large families, and love and marriage with a perspective quite refreshingly down-to-earth (for instance, when asked whether she really wants another baby, the expectant widow says rhetorically that, if she were to answer that, she would have to answer which child she would rather not have - who would she skip over if she had to do it again?). The only cautions morally are a depiction of a Catholic nun as rather rude (but it is just the one, and not nuns in general) and then, like I said above, very frank and open mentions of more mature topics.

The Thrill of It All! (1963)

This movie stars Doris Day and James Garner. It chronicles the story of a happy housewife being recruited by a soap company for advertising after an accidental pitch to the company's boss (one of her husband's, an obstetrician, patients). At first refusing the gig because she prefers her husband and kids to the idea of a career, she is eventually brought in by flattery and the prospect of a huge salary, despite her husband's dismay at it. When the career begins consuming her life, though, and causing her to see little of her children and nothing of her husband, he starts to get irritated. Eventually, their dual work schedules cause neither of them to ever meet on a daily basis. The movie resolves with the poor housewife having to help deliver the baby of her boss when her husband doesn't come in time, and her realizing that that's all she wants - a baby. She just wants to go back and be a wife, and a mother again. She doesn't care about salary, or fame, or career, or anything - she just wants to do what she did before and loved before.

With a romantic, hilarious, and stunningly pro-life climax, the movie was definitely above-par when it came to a pro-family, having what my best friend calls the "pro-life, pro-wife" combination. The affirmation of traditional gender roles and of the need for mothers was unanimous, from the poor, frazzled housewife's need to see her kids to the rich boss-lady proclaiming that the company couldn't matter less when compared with motherhood. While the movie was definitely more for teens and adults (since the main couple was married, it had a lot more, eh, mushy of romantic scenes) due to both mature romantic scenes and mature jokes, it didn't really contain anything objectionable other than a couple immodest costumes/settings. As a whole, it was a splendid movie both morally and comedically.

Children of Divorce (1927)
This one's a silent movie starring Gary Cooper, Clara Bow, and Esther Ralston. I must confess that my original reason for watching this movie was rather shallow - though the plot sounded good and all, I mostly watched it for the promise of a clean silent movie, safeguarded by the name of Gary Cooper (and... for Coops' acting). However... in the movie, I found a gem. While it was a silent movie, it had considerably better make quality than is generally associated with that genre. It had its own soundtrack (rather than dismal, faint Bach organ music, as many have), had top-notch Golden Hollywood acting (and actors - just wow to both Miss Ralston's and Miss Bow's performances), and the sets were actually quite cinematic and un-stagelike, being larger in proportion and fairly detailed. (I know that many people dislike the cheesy-seeming make of many silent movies, which is why I bring all this up, to the contrary.)

As to the theme of the movie, it was most certainly not comical, like most of the movies on this list up to date. It was a drama, and a smashing good one because, like all good tragedies, it was based on a sad truth of life - the wrecked lives that divorce produces. All three of the main characters, Ted (Cooper), Kitty (Bow), and Jean (Ralston), had had their parents divorced, and all of them grew up practically in confinement because their parents couldn't (or wouldn't) take proper care of them at home. And their separate levels of involvement in divorce developed even further their reactions to it: Ted's father remarried once, to a woman that expected Ted to pretend his real mother didn't exist, and so Ted resolved never to marry unless it was absolutely for keeps; Jean's parents divorced, but neither ever remarried, so she remained a tragic heroine, saddened by the fact, but still morally against divorce and not ruined by that history; Kitty's mother remarried five times and divorced every husband, three of those husbands during Kitty's young childhood, and, due to this, Kitty's views of love were very open, and slightly licentious, and she had no respect for marriage or committal love. The plot concerns what happened when all three of their love lives are thrown together after not seeing each other for years, and when a ruinous marriage between Kitty and Ted (against Ted's will) disrupts their friendship. The ending is actually a twist ending, and, while it was sad, it did resolve the plot pretty well.

The view on divorce and the breaking of the family was viewed with unapologetic harshness in the movie, which was refreshing. (It spoke of it with a bitterness that, to my mind, speaks almost of personal experience in the makers of the movie - and in that day and age, I would not be surprised if divorce had affected many of the makers of the movie.) As a note, though, they did approach the question more from a secular rather than religious angle (meaning, things like "divorce is wrong because it messes up a marriage and hurts the kids," rather than "divorce is wrong because Christ said so in the Bible and because the Church teaches so"); I didn't really mind this, but it's worth noting. Other than that, my only moral cautions on it would be an occasional slightly immodest costume. The moral value of the movie was much greater, and I could easily write a post on this movie alone (and perhaps will at some point).

***
That's all I have for the moment, though I would love to add onto the list. Hopefully this feature takes hold! Have you seen any of these movies? Would you? Do you have any favorite family-themed movies?