But then maybe the search is what is needed after all. I know I am looking for something, and I truely wished I knew what it was. Yet, even if I find it will I be able to accept it? Will I even know if I have found it?
What the Hell am I even looking for!?
At the risk of sounding like I am soul searching (I’m not) I have been thinking about just what it is I like to do. Up until a couple weeks ago I would have very quickly answered, horseback riding. I even had very convincing reasons why. But now, I am feeling rather left in the dark without knowing what it is I like to do.
With horses, it was my life, still is to a certain degree since I still have to care for them. But horses were all encompassing, I spent 95% of my day thinking about them, even when I was working. Now I don’t know what to think about! I can’t work very well without something to obsess over, its just the way I am.
I never did truely find a horse sport that I fit into, I tried eventing and driving and trail riding and endurance I thought about trying polo, but nothing ever stuck. In my non-horse life I tried civil war reenacting, crafting, sewing, spining, writing and probably other things that I am not currently remembering.
The fact is, every time I find something that looks interesting I want to jump into it full bore, I want it to consume my whole life because that is what I like to do in my life.
But now I am without anything to consume my life with, and its very frustrating! I have spent the last couple of weeks reading romance novels because I couldn’t figure anything else out!
Perhaps I need to try several hobbies at once, but I am not sure that my mind can handle that. Or maybe I need to pick what I like best in life then form a hobby around that. Although how I can form a hobby around tall leather boots and old books I am not sure!
When reading Harry Potter did you ever wonder what the love potion would smell like to you? I know what it would be for me, leather and old books!
And they exist in me. Its not that I can be two very different people, but that I like to do very different things. Mostly read very different things. Very, very different things.
It reminds me of two different things I have read; one is from Northanger Abbey and the other is from an Archie comic.
I relate everyday things to the oddest sources.
In Northanger Abbey, the heroine of the book, Catherine, likes to read the popular gothic novels of the time. She is young and innocent and is not worldly enough not let other people know that she indulges in such a frivolous pastime. She merely enjoys the stories. When talking with her love interest Henry (who by the way is one of my favorite Austin men, possibly even surpassing Mr.. Darcy) she assume he does not indulge in novels as all the other young men of her accountiance (which is really very small) do not.
Austin actually stops the story for a rare brief moment, something that rarely happens in her books. She points out how common it is for other female writers to have their heroines show distain for common novels, novels just like the one they are in. Austin goes on to praise many of these novels calling them, well now I can’t find the page, but she says something along the lines of the books showing deep human nature at its best. Jane Austin is much more eloquent then me I’m afraid.
The other reference is to a Betty and Veronica comic, mush easier to decipher! The story is about Veronica, who is showing Betty and her father some new sonnets that she has recently purchased and informing them that she only reads the best books, mostly classic works. Mr. Lodge complains that he is well learned and that now he is more then welcome to enjoy a good light mystery novel from time to time. Betty is smarter and finds Veronica’s very large stash of romance novels in her closet.
My point (I think I have one anyway) is the difference in which “light” or my favorite term “fluffy” novels are viewed. In Northanger Abbey, Catherine thinks that the men around her must have much more important things to do then read a novel, even though she herself enjoys them. She doesn’t take into account that even more light hearted novels can sometimes have great insight to human nature and the point of reading them is enjoyment and not so much educational.
In the Betty and Veronica story, Veronica is trying to seem more worldly and important by reading what she considers “worldly and important” books, even though she does not enjoy them. She tries to hide her enjoyment of fluffy romance novels, so she seems well read.
So what on earth does all this have to do with me and reading opposite things?
Because I have been much like both Veronica (only a little bit) and Henry (you thought I was going to say Catherine did you not?)
By the time I was 15 I was reading books like War and Peace and had read several plays by Shakespeare. I rarely read what I deemed “fluff” novels. When my mom got sick I was just started Don Quixote ( a book that I still have not managed to get through). Somehow having to deal with everything with my mom made in impossible to read a more intellectual book. So did what I thought I would never do, what I despised.
I read a romance novel.
Then another.
And soon I found that I actually liked them. And that they were not rotting my brain. Although I kept it a secrete for a quite a while that I approved of these books.
Now I find a happy medium between the two. I find that I need to read, but when life gets too rough to be able to enjoy a more stimulating book (its soooo hard not to make a sexual comment about that!) I will often read a romance novel (ok I give in!!) which are stimulating in a whole different way. (I’m so bad!)
But now I am trying to figure out how and why this change came about. I love classic novels, I will not read anything written later then the turn of the century, unless its a romance novel and then I only read ones that take place in the Regency era. It seems that if I can’t read a novel (or text) from that time then I have to read one about that time.
I’ve lost track of things, what am I trying to get at?
I had a point somewhere, but I might have lost it! Perhaps I need to clean up so I can find it! Or maybe the romance novels really did rot my brain!
I think the point I am trying to get at is that fluffy romance novels and in depth looks at life and people can co-exist peacefully.
I have also found that sometimes romance novels can show great depth of character and reality and that some “classic” books can be silly and just plain annoying to read (not that I am naming any in particular cough Moby cough dick cough).
Maybe I just have a split personality, how else can I be in the middle of reading a romance novel, a si-fi novel and a book on Babylonian myths and legends? Because they each satisfy a different part of my brain.
The romance novel takes one away from reality and into our best fantasies, ones that we don’t have to work at making seem even a little bit believable nor do we have to exert the brainpower to create them. They are ready made and waiting for us at our local supermarket (or in my case on my phone about 30 seconds after I buy them off Amazon, have I ever mentioned that I think Amazon is a genius?). We know more or less what is going to happen, yet its always so much fun to read!
The si-fi novel I equate to other modern well written and entertaining books. It gives us a look at society through anothers eyes. It mocks our social status quo by placing familiar characters in situations that can be likened to every day life, but with a different twist or edge to make it more interesting.
The Babylonian myths is something not everyone is going to read, but for me I find it fascinating and romantic. Not in the same sense that the romance novels are romantic, but in the exciting and unknown sense. I love anything ancient and I enjoy learning about the ancient cultures that shaped our world. I think they hold more insight and interest then anything modern day.
Ok, as this is the third time I have come back and edited this post I am going to finish it now! I’m kinda getting tired of trying (unsucessfully) to make this post make sence!
Pax Vobiscum!
What a way to be remembered!
So its a rainy day and for whatever reason I am jumpy and just cannot seem to stay in my office. Its oppressive today, I do not know why.
So what does being jumpy on a raining day lead to? being rather wet after venturing out to go to the post office then being rained upon. I almost called my boy toy to come get me but decided I could not be that much of a wimp.
The other thing that I end up doing is reading about Ancient Babylonia fertilizer Gods!
Actually the reason I ended up reading about that is because my boy toy ninjaed my computer to do something with my internet router (one can only hope fix it so that my internet works consistantly, but the best I can hope for is that the internet still works period when he is done) so I read on my phone (I love kindle and amazon and iPhones!).
Now he has my iPhone trying to get it to connect to the router, so here I am!
So back to the fertilizing gods! One of the Gods most often mentioned in the book I am currently reading is the water or sea god Ea, who even has a seaport that is the cult headquarters for him (I have no idea what that is supposed to mean). It turns out that because the rivers Tigris and Euphrates brought down the silt and other such goodies that fertilized the lands, and because Ea was the water/fish god, he thereby becomes the fertilizing god. What a wonderful way to be remembered!
Now the Goddess who had it good was Ishtar:
Ishtar is highest! Ishtar is the queen! Ishtar the peerless daughter of the moon!
Um, yeah. THAT thing!
I only just realized how old the idea of consummating a marriage is. I was looking at the info on Wikipedia about the code of Hammurabi and came across this:
“If a man takes a woman to wife, but has no intercourse with her, this woman is no wife to him.”
I think that is a fairly direct translation. In case you are wondering the code of Hammurabi was the code of law written by Hammurabi the sixth king of Babylonia.
Within the Catholic church a marriage not consummated can be revoked by the Pope himself:
"spouses have performed between themselves in a human fashion a conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring, to which marriage is ordered by its nature and by which the spouses become one flesh."
How interesting.
Of course be careful before you do that little act as in the Catholic religion once you do, nothing can dissolve that marriage. Except leaving your church.
So here is the interesting thing; in the more modern case the reason for consummating the marriage is religious, but in the case of the Code of Hammurabi it was merely his code of laws. Of course Hammurabi did think he was chosen by the Gods to be king. But how many kings didn’t think that?
Why though? I mean besides the obvious why would a man and a woman not consummate the marriage, why is it necessary?
I have a feeling that at the time of when the church decided that a marriage must be consummated (when trying to find some info on if marriage had to be consummated in the middle ages all I found was when the church decided that “no man shall give his daughter or female relative o anyone without priestly blessing”) there were more then likely a lot of arranged marriages going.
However why the church would care about weather the marriage was sacred or not (other then that it wanted more follows from these marriages) I am not sure.
It really makes me wonder (yet again) just how much sex there really is in the bible. Yes, there is a lot of begetting, but I never really got past the all the initial begetting (and by god there was lot of it!). After a while I made the decision that the bible had every intention of listing exactly who begot who for the whole worlds population.
So I didn’t get to far in reading the bible. Why on earth I was reading the bible in the first place might be of consideration, but that is not what I am currently writing about.
Anyway, back to good old sex and religion.
So we know that centuries ago some Babylonian king decided in his code of law that any man that did not have intercourse with his wife, did not really have a wife. In other words a couple had to consummate their marriage to make it real in the eyes of the law.
Then somewhere in the middle ages (1076 according to the website I was looking at) the church decided that a priest had to bless a marriage for it to be real.
Then somewhere between then and now the church decided that the marriage had to be consummated for it to be real.
The Catholic church took its ideals from a culture that from what little I understand (but am reading up on right now) was rather harsh on Hebrews ( I cannot even begin to say how completely untrue that could possibly be, but was the impression I got from the introduction of my current reading: Myths of Babylonia and Assyria).
Where does that leave us now? I personally.. no I won’t go into my own views on marriage and sex as they are not fully formed. I am after all not married.
But these days marriage and sex within (or outside of) marriage seems to have lost a little bit of its tradition. Not that that is a bad thing, but sometimes one could with for a little bit more tradition and sanctity.
By the way, I want to make a couple notes: first of all I capitalize things like Catholic because I have a strong since of grammar and classical teachings, other then that it almost hurts to do so when I know that programs like word would auto capitalize Catholic and Christian but not Buddhist or Hinduism. Second, I use the word sanctity as a worldly, overall goodness. Lately that word has been bantered about with the subject of Gay and Lesbian marriage and that is most certainly not something you want to get me started on.
Christianos ad liones
Ad Meliora
I feel all giddy! Like a silly girl in a new relationship. Maybe part of me is still a silly girl, even though I most defiantly don’t feel like it and people count on me to not be silly.
But Hell I like the word silly! The funny thing about that word is that the only way to describe it is by using it! The word silly just sounds silly!
So now you know that I am insane. At least we are on equal footing.
Speaking of insane, I guess one could say this blog was started because I am feeling a bit off. Funny reason to start a blog. I swore off my passion of the last 10 years and started a new blog. I did it because for the last couple weeks I have been sliding in and out of depression and I am getting tired of it.
Funny thing to do huh? Get depressed. Decide to put my passion by the wayside and start a blog. Only its not just the blog really. The blog is to mark my progress through my quest to turn back time. To turn into the person I was 5 years ago. THAT person I liked. And enjoyed being. This current me sucks. So what does any reasonably sane person do when they realize that they suck? Well probably not start a blog about it. But then I have already decided that I am not sane, so there you go.
One of my quests that I want to mark with this blog is to see if the direction I was headed in back then is still what I want. If not, then I will get to have the fun of finding a whole new direction to go in.
Of course I am a bit worried that I will spend all my time picking new directions but never following through on them. I am horrible on following through on my directions. Guess I never had a dream big enough that I actually wanted to hold on to it. Except maybe future soul mate, who I found at age 9 and never let go of. And am now very happy with. So I did succeed in one dream.
Not too bad!
