The Cozy Book Corner No. 3: How do I choose which book to read next?

Welcome to my Monday feature!

Note

I have moved this feature

from Friday to Monday.

In each weekly post, I explore 

my thoughts on several 

book-related topics.

For the longest time now, I've been wondering just what, if anything, influences people's choices of books to read and blog about. There are book bloggers who blog only about a specific genre or type of book. For instance, I've seen a lot of blogs totally dedicated to Young Adult books. Others only cover Christian books, while still others stick with classics, or science fiction and fantasy (these two usually go together), or mostly nonfiction. Then there are others, like me, who tend to be more eclectic, but I've noticed that eclectic bloggers are not as common as those who prefer one particular genre or type of book. This is why I decided to start this blog, which is only for classics, literary fiction, and nonfiction. My other blog, A Night's Dream of Books, is mostly for Young Adult Fiction (I will occasionally feature an adult book from time to time).

In my case, I've noticed that it's one of two factors that influence what I will most likely read next: either my emotional state, or my preoccupation with certain intellectual or spiritual matters. 

The first became very apparent when I fell head over heels in love for the very first time. Not that I hadn't been in love before that, but that particular time, it was especially strong. How did this affect my choice of books to read? Well, I completely lost interest in the types of books I had read until then -- science fiction, fantasy, classics, and nonfiction. (Hmmm, I guess I've always been a little eclectic.) Instead, I started reading romance novels. Once my appetite was whetted, I began obsessively buying and reading them! I was living in a rosy, romantic haze..... The funny thing is, I had previously looked down my nose at these books. I hate to admit that I even thought that women who read this genre were silly and shallow. How ironic, then, to find myself abandoning my loftier subject matters for this fluffy stuff! The irony hit me even then, but I still couldn't stop myself from reading the genre. I read mostly historical romances back then. I still read a lot of romance novels nowadays, but my preferred sub-genre now is paranormal romance. 

I'm now making a concerted effort to read weightier material. I don't want to stop reading romance novels, though. I came to realize that these books fulfill a need for women, a need that no other type of literature can possibly satisfy, and that it's something uniquely ours. I consider myself an intellectual person, but I still have this need for romance, in common with all other women. it's the need to read beautiful, romantic language, to feel the sexual tension in a new relationship, to immerse myself in the plot twists that seem to separate the lovers, but that will bring them together for that all-important 'happily ever after'. These are feminine emotional needs. However, I do want all of these plot elements to be balanced by others. The female protagonist must be a strong character on her own, not 'a female in distress'. She must be willing to assert herself with the male protagonist. Furthermore, it's great when SHE rescues HIM at times!

On other occasions, I feel the need to read other things like science fiction and fantasy, or nonfiction. These are the times that I've come across something interesting on the Internet, which stimulates my mind, and therefore, I need to delve into it further. For instance, I'm currently preoccupied with certain intellectual/spiritual concerns, such as what to accept or reject from New Age philosophy, researching contradictions I have found in the Bible, and exploring the influence of culture, temperament, genetics, and upbringing on a person's individual moral code.

Last year, I read and reviewed The Psychology of Twilight for my other blog. Some people might scoff at this seemingly frivolous reading material. This is not true at all, however. I've found that this book deals with such fascinating things as attachment theory manifesting in the way the main characters in the Twilight books relate to each other. There's also a fascinating discussion of prejudice in the book, and another section, titled "Gestalt and Twilight" goes into depth on this school of psychology, which "...tries to understand the laws of our ability to acquire and maintain meaningful perceptions in an apparently chaotic world." (Gestalt Psychology:Wikipedia)

Interestingly, while reading this book, I delved briefly into other books dealing with the concerns I've mentioned above.  

One of the books I've delved into is titled Myths of the Bible, by Gary Greenberg. Another is titled Awakening Your Inner Light, by Aeoliah. And then there's A Kabbalah for the Modern World, by Migene Gonzalez-Wippler, which is the book that started me wondering about Biblical myths and contradictions. In this book, Gonzalez-Wippler claims that the Septuagint (a Greek translation of the Old Testament) contains the stories of Adam, Eve, and the serpent, whereas the original Hebrew version does not. So now I need to research this topic. In relation to this, I have yet another book somewhere in this condo, titled Biblical Nonsense, by Dr. Jason Long. And then I also want to read The Battlefield of the Mind, by Joyce Meyer, as well as Shattering Your Strongholds, by Liberty Savard. These last two are Christian authors, and they have both inserted a bit of psychology into their books, which makes them even more interesting to me!

Sometimes, I might be in the middle of some exciting novel, only to get pulled away from it because an emotional state demanding some other type of reading interrupts. If I've been having problems at work, for example, I will suddenly want to pick up a book on how to deal with bullying by either bosses or co-workers. If I have an argument with my husband, I will suddenly want to read a book on how to improve communication in marriage. If I'm feeling down, I will suddenly want to pick up a book on  dealing with the blues. And, if I'm feeling inadequate, I will suddenly want to pick up a book on bolstering one's self-esteem, or one dealing with positive affirmations.

In short, I look to books for answers to emotional issues, as well as for answers to intellectual and spiritual concerns. Of course, there are times I simply want to be entertained, to escape. Then I will turn to some type of romance. If I want to escape this planet, I will then turn  to science fiction, and if it's reality altogether, I will seek out fantasy, although paranormal romance and urban fantasy also serve the purpose quite well.

So it seems that, in my case, as well as most likely in the case of many other readers, it's really moods that drive my selection  of reading matter. I would imagine, however, that this is especially true of eclectic readers and book bloggers. We're kind of 'a breed apart', sampling here and there, like hummingbirds flitting from one flower to another. It's not always easy to balance different genres, as well as the constant battle between fiction and nonfiction.

While writing this post, I remembered a book I bought some years ago, and haven't gotten around to reading. It's titled Reading To Heal: How To Use Bibliotherapy To Improve Your Life. The author's name is Jacqueline D. Stanley. This book actually recommends certain books to read, based on emotional issues one needs to heal. Some of these books are fiction, while others are nonfiction. I'm not sure where I put this book (perhaps it's in storage), but I want to get it and discover the books recommended by the author. Unfortunately, Amazon does not offer a preview of this book, so I am unable to check out the Table of Contents.
 

Another such book I want to read is titled Bibliotherapy: The Girl's Guide to Books for Every Phase of Our Lives, by Beverly West and Nancy Peske. A preview of this particular book is available on Amazon, so I was able to take a look at the Table of Contents. Some of the chapter titles are actually hilarious! Here are some samples: Chapter 3: When You Still Think You Can Change Him - Bad Boy Books, Chapter 4: When You're Ready To Make Your Own Kind of Music -- Hearing-Your-Inner-Voice Books, Chapter 5: When You're Wallowing In A Sullen Perennial Adolescence -- Coming-of-Age Books, Chapter 9: When Your Biological Alarm Clock Is Ringing and You Can't Find the Snooze Button -- Midlife Crisis Books, and so on. 

I'm feeling a very strong need to order these books from Amazon right this very minute! I have to reign in this impulse, though.....I might be able to find the first book, Reading to Heal, somewhere on my shelves...... As for the second one, I'll have to grit my teeth and get it as a Kindle edition, since I can't fill our new apartment with books....That's the reason I had to put so many in storage when we moved.

Wrapping up....I'm feeling the need to read something right now, as of this writing. And what book will I be picking up? Well, I had already decided to read Water For Elephants next. But is that what I would REALLY like to read right now? I do have this compulsion to read something about the Kabbalah. Or should I pick up one of my Star Trek TOS novels, instead? Hmmm...


NOTE: All of the books mentioned in this post are available on Amazon, and are listed on Goodreads, as well.
    



 

What are your thoughts on
 this subject?
What factors influence 
your own choice of books 
to read at any given moment?

Book Review: Wuthering Heights, by Emily Brontë

Wuthering Heights
Emily Brontë
Trade paperback, 416 pages
HarperCollins Children's Books
May 1, 2009 
(first published 1847)
Classics, Gothic Fiction, Historical Fiction, Literary Fiction, Psychology

Book Synopsis: An intriguing tale of revenge in which the main characters are controlled by consuming passions. This novel was once considered such a risk by its publishers that Emily Brontë had to defray the cost of publication until a sufficient number of copies had been sold.

My Review 

When it was first published, Wuthering Heights elicited strong criticism. Although Charlotte Brontë's Jane Eyre also received its share of negative criticism, it was not as markedly disliked as her sister's book. As time went by, the pendulum swung in the opposite direction, and it was Emily's book that eventually came to be hailed as superior to Charlotte's, particularly as the 20th century got under way.

I have read the book three times. It was part of a high school English Lit assignment, and that was the first time I read it, or tried to, rather. To be quite honest, I could barely stomach the book back then. It was too strange, wild, and terrifying to me. The second time I read it, several years ago, I was much older. Thus, I was able to more readily appreciate its masterful prose style and brilliant characterizations. In fact, it was these two factors that kept me reading until the very end. I read it yet again not too long ago. Once more I was hypnotized by this horrible tale of people whose lives went so very wrong. It was one character in particular who exerted a rather puzzling pull on me -- Heathcliff. I read almost against my will, hoping against hope that I would be able to find some good quality in him. Of course, I vaguely remembered the plot from the second reading, so I knew that I would not find any such thing.

This book, in its entirety, is really about Heathclif. It's about how the abuse he suffered at the hands of his benefactor's son, Hindley Earnshaw, twisted him into a demonic caricature of a human being. Therefore, it is definitely not a pleasant read. However, it does serve as a testament to Emily Brontë's genius. That such a hideous creature sprang from this young woman's imagination is nearly unbelievable, considering her background. Something dark and cruel stirred in the nether recesses of her mind. M. L. Von Franz, a Jungian analyst writing in Man and His Symbols, edited by Carl Jung, mentions Heathcliff, describing him as Emily Brontë's animus; this is the masculine part of a woman's psyche, according to Jung. The animus can be evil or good. Heathcliff is demonic. The author brings him to life with great vividness, and this undeniably displays her great talent for making a character truly live in a reader's mind.

Therein lies the rub. Heathcliff is so repulsive, so utterly demonic, and so overpowering, that he makes the book sheer torture to read. His influence is strongly felt on every page. The one redeeming quality he possesses -- his love for Cathy -- turns into a sick obsession toward the end of the book.

While I can admire the powerful way the author delineates character, as well as her obvious command of writing style, I simply cannot say that this book is one of my favorites. I find it especially strange to see it referred to as a love story, and tagged as "romance" on Amazon. There is little to none of that in this novel. The supposed "love story" between Heathcliff and Catherine Earnshaw is sketchy at best. They are separated for three years, due to her stubbornness, as well as his pride. When he suddenly reappears, determined to see her, she is already married to another man, one whom Heathcliff despises as a weakling, due to his passionless nature. (At least, this is how Heathcliff sees him.) Yet, it is that very man who treats Catherine with kindness, catering to her every whim. Had she, instead, chosen Heathcliff, things might have been very different. Such a tumultuous relationship could very well have ended in tragedy. Had Brontë taken the story in this direction, the book could, indeed, be classified as "a dark romance". As it stands, however, it certainly cannot, nor should it be.

Catherine Earnshaw herself is not a wholly pleasant character, either, although she never descends to the depths of depravity Heathcliff does. She is, however, a very self-centered creature; her sole reason for marrying Linton is so that she won't be brought below her station by marrying Heathcliff. She attempts to rationalize her decision by claiming that she can use Linton's money to "help" Heathcliff, but this is a rather flimsy excuse.

Through Heathcliff, this also becomes a tale of family dysfunction, and of how that dysfunction poisons anyone who comes into contact with that family, whose most disturbed representative, Heathcliff, engages in a very elaborate plan of revenge throughout the latter part of the book.

Although, again, the writing is brilliant, the book does have one major creative flaw, in my honest opinion, and that is the plotting. Characters are killed off when they are no longer necessary. Now, I do agree that a writer has to include sad and unhappy events in a novel, even if he or she is writing within the parameters of the modern romance genre. However, having characters die every few pages or so is just too contrived. 

Some reviewers have objected to the narration-within-a-narration technique Brontë uses, also. Actually, I found this quite intriguing. This is one of the aspects of the book that actually maintained my interest. Nelly Dean turns out to be a very shrewd, highly perceptive observer, with an especially keen eye for nuanced detail, and I enjoyed her narration.

All in all, although I do recognize the greatness of Emily Brontë as a writer, I have to say that I consider her sister's novel, Jane Eyre, far superior, with a more polished plot structure.  Furthermore, Charlotte's story is, indeed, a love story.  Although the relationship between Jane and Rochester is just as tumultuous as that between Heathcliff and Cathy, it is satisfactorily resolved as a tale of romance, instead of degenerating into one of twisted, perverted evil. 

Online Links

Wikipedia

The Literature Network

The Poetry Foundation

Book Review: The Four Agreements, by Don Miguel Ruiz

The Four Agreements
Don Miguel Ruiz
Paperback, 160 pages
Amber-Allen Publishing
November 7, 1997
Non-Fiction, New Age, Philosophy, Psychology
Source: Purchased from Amazib

This small book contains some down-to-earth, very practical advice for everyday living, presented by a man who is an internationally renowned spiritual teacher, and formerly a neurosurgeon.  The book is supposedly based on the teachings of the Toltecs, an ancient indigenous people who lived in the area now known as Mexico.  According to Wikipedia, "The later Aztec culture saw the Toltecs as their intellectual and cultural predecessors and described Toltec culture...as the epitome of civilization..." This is a primer of the Toltec philosophy, detailing a path that is easy and hard to follow at the same time.  I had been hearing about this book for some time now, but had never picked it up.  It caught my eye while I was browsing in a bookstore recently, so I bought it.

Although I will say that this is a very fascinating and profound book, one that should be re-read, and pondered upon, several times, I find that I can't wholeheartedly support its teachings, despite the fact that there is much I do concur with.  Besides, having read some of the Amazon reviews, I'm now wondering whether all this is really "ancient Toltec wisdom"...

Ruiz asks a very important question, although he does so toward the end of the book: are we really and truly free?  His answer is a resounding "no".  The reason for that is, according to these teachings, that we have an accumulation of negative programming, erroneous assumptions, emotional wounds, and cultural influences which we carry around in our minds.  All of these things keep us from seeing the world as it really is.  Interestingly, psychologists have been saying this very same thing for years now. 

The Toltecs were considered men and women of knowledge, and they founded a community of teachers known as naguals, based in the city of Teotihuacan, Mexico.  After the Spanish conquest, these teachings became secret, being handed down from generation to generation.  Don Miguel Ruiz, a nagual of the lineage of the Eagle Warriors, decided to publish this book in order to reveal this previously hidden knowledge.

The basic premise of Toltec philosophy, as expounded by Ruiz, is that the mind is always dreaming, whether a person is awake or asleep.  When awake, people participate in what is called "the planetary dream", a collective dream consisting of all the societal rules, beliefs, religions, and cultures on the planet.  In addition to this, there is each person's personal dream, each individual's inner programming.  Due to all this, adds Ruiz, we live as if in a fog, which the Toltecs called mitote, known as maya in Indian (from India) philosophy.  Both of these words mean "illusion".

In order to become free, one must break one's old "agreements", as well as adopt the four agreements recommended by Ruiz.  Thus, according to the author, a new dream will be created.

The first agreement is to be "impeccable" with one's words, since words are such powerful things.  They contain the power of creation.  The term "impeccable" comes from Latin, and means "without sin".  According to Ruiz's definition of sin, it's whatever a person does that goes against him or herself.  So "being impeccable with your words" means, to Ruiz, never saying anything derogatory about yourself.  The author adds that words are "the instrument of magic".  He extends this to others, as well, giving as an example the way that parents say negative things to their children, thus unintentionally imprinting them in their children's subconscious minds.  This is part of the personal negative programming referred to earlier.

The second agreement is to take nothing personally.  In practical application, if someone insults you, the insult really says something about the person who insulted you, and nothing at all about you.  In other words, if someone calls you names, that person is speaking out of his/her own prejudices, preconceived notions, and opinions.  They are attempting to send you their personal poison, and, if you take that personally, you take in their venom, thus becoming an easy prey for future insults, or worse -- even black magic, according to the author.  Conversely, if someone praises you, you shouldn't take it personally, either.  Whatever people think of you doesn't matter, according to Ruiz, because you know you're wonderful!

The third agreement is to avoid making any assumptions.  We frequently do just that, asserts the author, and then believe our own assumptions as the truth.  Then we engage in gossip, thus passing our personal venom on to others, and causing problems for ourselves as well as those who take in our venom.  He also cites the example of a couple who get married with different assumptions, or expectations, of what marriage will be like.  Problems arise when these assumptions are seen to be unreal, when the expectations of one spouse are not met by the other.

The fourth agreement is to do your personal best, which will vary according to your health or energy level at any given moment.  In other words, you should always strive to work at your maximum capacity, living your life intensely, no matter what you do.  This means to engage in action, and this will lead to happiness if you do it because of the action itself, without expecting any reward.  What he's actually recommending is to not let life pass you by.

In evaluating this book as a whole, I have to point out some major disagreements I have with the author.  

First of all, Ruiz states, in his introduction, "The Smokey Mirror", that everything and everyone is God.  I do not subscribe to a pantheistic philosophy or religion.  Objectively speaking, however, this can immediately be shown to be a false assumption made by most New Age gurus.  If everyone is God, why is there so much evil in the world?  Surely gods would not intentionally cause harm to their fellow gods!  

I do agree with Ruiz's assertion that the universe is made of light.  Well, the Judeo-Christian God did say, "Let there be light", after all.  Besides, findings in quantum physics bear this out.  Just because everything and everyone is made of light, though, doesn't mean that human beings are gods, or God. 

Another problem I have with the book is with Ruiz's definition of sin.  It's much too narrow; sin, as understood in religious belief, is not only the evil that one carries out against oneself, but also against one's fellow human beings.  Ironically, the author moves from this narrow definition to a larger one when he subsequently states that human beings too frequently use their words to tear others down.  He does attempt to clarify his concept of sin by stating that when you say something negative to someone, you're really saying it to yourself.  Still, this part is a bit confusing, and bears re-reading. 

The agreement I have the biggest problem with is the second one.  If I'm supposed to take nothing personally, what exactly does that mean?  I can see that dismissing an insult by a random stranger will contribute to my own peace of mind, hence, my own freedom.  However, what about betrayal by a business associate, or by my spouse?  Am I not to take such things personally, either?  Does this mean I should not react in my defense in the face of abuse by others, whether that abuse is verbal, emotional, or physical?  If someone beats me up, should I simply shrug, and go on about my business, telling myself that, well, the beating says something about them, after all, and has nothing whatsoever to do with me?  Should I continue to tolerate future beatings?  Are there such things as personal boundaries in Toltec philosophy?

With this agreement, it sure seems as if the author is attempting to exonerate those who do hurtful things to others.  So, if someone does something terrible to you, it's just because of their negative programming, and you should not get upset?  According to Ruiz, you shouldn't.  Okay... so that does away with conscience, as well as morality, in one fell swoop, doesn't it?  And if I do something hurtful to another person, that person should shrug it off, too.  So that means there are no consequences for one's behavior, whether good or bad...  No one is to be held accountable for their actions, then, because they're just acting out of their previous programming.  Very 'inspirational', 'enlightened' stuff, this! 

Last but not least, I find the concept of "the planetary dream" objectionable, as well.  It's true that there are no perfect societies or governments in this world.  One culture may indeed stifle personal freedom, as opposed to another.  The mind may indeed be held prisoner by certain erroneous beliefs.  However, Ruiz (as a proponent of Toltec philosophy) lumps all of the rules, religions and cultures into one gigantic mess that supposedly restricts the freedom of the mind.  This is just too simplistic.  There must be societal rules, as well as systems of belief.  It is our personal responsibility to discern which of them are true, and liberate the mind, and which do not.  To say that they all enslave the mind is totally inaccurate.

There is a grain of truth in what Ruiz propounds in this book.  Each of his "agreements" does have some validity, especially the third and the fourth.  I also concur with the first, especially when extended to include others. 

I believe that the third agreement is possibly the most important of the four.  Making erroneous assumptions about people and situations can have horrible consequences.  In an unbalanced mind, possessed by its own delusions, it can even lead to mass shootings.  In this sense, I do agree with the author that a mind can be enslaved, causing what he terms "the dream of hell".

To sum up, although the ideas presented in this book do have some validity, I believe there are some concepts I simply cannot and will never accept.  I'm planning to study this book to see how I might apply these four agreements.  Ruiz's deceptively simple recommendations do merit some consideration, in spite of all the objections I have raised.  However, the second agreement has to be implemented very carefully, and not in every single situation. So I think it should be tempered with discernment and common sense. 

I might end up revising my opinion of this book to some degree in the future, although I can't see myself completely following or endorsing the author's teachings or suggestions. And I will surely never come to believe that all of us humans are either gods, or part of God. This is, quite simply, an outright New Age lie. Not only are we not currently gods, or even part of God, but we will never be, either.There is a very obvious ontological difference between human beings and the Supreme Being,as anyone with a sane mind capable of reasoning can readily perceive.