First Round
I know I haven't chosen any upsets, and I wish I could have, but I really just don't like any of the lower-rated seeds. The Clippers are the team that, in my opinion, have the best possibility of pulling an upset, but I really dislike them and I'm going to root for them to lose, so I just can't advance them in my bracket.
Eastern Conference
(1) Chicago Bulls over (8) Philadelphia 76ers in 7 games
The 76ers didn't live up to the expectations they set in the beginning of the season, and they're an incredibly hot and cold team. If they're hot (which I hope they are...for basketball reasons...), I think they could put up a real fight against the Bulls, especially with Rose still getting back into the groove of things. They're coming off of a meaningless loss over the Pistons, which followed a 4-game road win streak. If the Sixers can convince themselves they can win, even after losing Game 1 (and maybe Game 2), I can see a really good series where the Bulls surprisingly struggle with the 8-seed. But if they lose the first two games, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the Bulls sweep. It's funny how that works.
(2) Miami Heat over (7) New York Knicks in 6 games
Some "experts" like Stephen A. Smith say that it would be better for the Knicks to play the Heat in the playoffs as opposed to the Pacers, but I think they're dead wrong. They say that the teams like the Knicks match up better against the Heat than teams like the Bulls (whatever that means). But I remind you that the Knicks haven't won a game against the Heat all season long. They are 0-3 against the Heat, and while the playoffs may bring a little more intensity, I really can't see the Knicks taking this one. We know that the
(3) Indiana Pacers over (6) Orlando Magic in 5 games
I'm giving the Magic one win out of respect for Van Gandy, but no Dwight Howard? Forget it. Random aside: Now that I'm living in Indiana, I think I'm supposed to root for the Pacers. Go Pacers!
(4) Boston Celtics over (5) Atlanta Hawks in 6 games
The Hawks ended the season pretty strong, but the Celtics were also straight up killin' people in late March and April. I think that the Celtics will be playing with extra motivation and push this playoffs, so I really can't see Atlanta winning more than 2 games against a super-experienced Celtics team.
Western Conference
(1) San Antonio Spurs over (8) Utah Jazz in 5 games
The Spurs really get no respect. They quietly nabbed the first seed from OKC on an active 10-game win streak, but still no one is talking about them. Many say that the Spurs are a good regular season team, but I don't think this stigma is necessarily true anymore because now instead of guys like Bruce Bowen and Michael Finley, they've got guys like DeJaun Blair and Daniel Green. But really, the Spurs post-season really depends on their big three - Manu, Duncan, and Tony Parker. Can they carry the team into the Finals? Can Manu stay healthy this post-season? We'll see.
(2) Oklahoma City Thunder over (7) Dallas Mavericks in 5 games
I haven't watched much Maverick basketball this year, but I have watched a good amount of OKC ball. The Thunder are freakishly explosive and have a lot of different ways to score, and I just don't see a team like the Dallas Mavericks being able to stop them. Dirk won't be able to bail his team out against a much superior team this year.
(3) Los Angeles Lakers over (6) Denver Nuggets in 6 games
The Lakers are nowhere near as dominant as they have been the last few years, but if Bynum can keep his cool, I don't see how the Lakers could lose this series to the Nuggets, who lack that go-to offensive player. The big question on everyone's mind - Can Kobe win his first ring without Luke Walton? Who knows. I hope so. Kobe also won't have Metta World Peace's hustle and defense this series, but I think the loss isn't that great. Who would you need him to shut down on the Nuggets anyways?
(4) Memphis Grizzlies over (5) Los Angeles Clippers in 7 games
This isn't so much a pick for the Griz as much as it is against the Clippers. Sorry guys, but I just really can't Blake Griffin. He's a flopper and a whiner, and he doesn't even jump over the top of Kias. I think this series is really up for grabs, so what the heck. Grizzlies in 7.
Conference Semi-Finals Prediction
I was going to do descriptions and reasons why I'm picking the way I am...but I got lazy. So here you go. Just the picks.
Eastern Conference
(4) Boston Celtics over (1) Chicago Bulls in 7 games
(2) Miami Heat over (3) Indiana Pacers in 6 games
Western Conference
(1) San Antonio Spurs over (4) Memphis Grizzlies in 6 games
(2) Oklahoma City Thunder over (3) Los Angeles Lakers in 6 games
Conference Finals Prediction
(2) Miami Heat over (4) Boston Celtics in 6 games
(2) Oklahoma City Thunder over (1) San Antonio Spurs in 5 games
NBA Finals Prediction
Oklahoma City Thunder over Miami Heat in 7 games
Closing Thoughts
I know what you're thinking. Caleb copped out. He chose what everyone thought would happen. OKC-Heat Finals. Just know that this is what I think will happen, not necessarily what I want or wish will happen. It was difficult for me not to pick the Lakers over the Thunder, and I'm kind of bummed that they're on the same side of the bracket, because I really don't think any of the teams on the other bracket can beat the Heat. I wouldn't be one bit surprised if the Celtics somehow found a way to beat the Heat in the conference finals (though I can't see Chicago doing it, to be honest), and I wouldn't mind at all if the Heat got knocked out even earlier than that.
Yes, you've figured it out by now. My entire thought process is wrapped around my deep desire to see the Heat lose again this year. Let's go NBA! Beat the Heat!
Happy playoffs, everyone.
Friday, April 27, 2012
Saturday, April 21, 2012
11111 Pageviews - Thanks for Reading!
We did it everyone! 11111 pageviews! Special thanks to whoever was the 11111th viewer, as I frantically kept on refreshing to make sure I captured this important moment. Maybe I should have put up a "Congratulations, you're the 11111th viewer!" that flashed different colors, and said you would win a PS3 if you clicked on it.
For all of you who regularly visit and read what I write, thanks! My blog doesn't really get that many hits, and most of the pageviews seem to come from image searches that lead to some of my more image-heavy posts (like this one on Lebron and this one on the Lakers). I actually think that this blog only started gaining some more traction this past summer when I updated a lot when I was in Taiwan and posted the fun Iris' Taiwan Documentary videos, and I'm glad that whoever of you have started reading this recently has decided to finally click this link or subscribe or whatever. Some of you may have only met me in these last year or two, and may not know me as well and may not have been following this blog for that long, so in commemoration of this awesome milestone of 11111 views, which took four years to get to (but hopefully less to get to 22222), I've compiled a list of some of my favorite posts for your viewing pleasure (some of which I think are my better posts, but that's for you to decide).
[Reading over a lot of posts of the pasts, I realize how knuckle-headed I was in a lot of different places, and how crappy of a writer I am, but whatever. I'm sure I'm gonna look back at me now in five years and marvel at how dumb I am now! ]
I know that a lot of you are studying for finals right now, so I thought it best to give you more stuff to waste your time with, as I know many of you are just sitting in front of your computers bored, just waiting for your distraction. Well, wait no longer! Your distraction is here!
If you want to know a little bit about my church and family history...
 |
[Reading over a lot of posts of the pasts, I realize how knuckle-headed I was in a lot of different places, and how crappy of a writer I am, but whatever. I'm sure I'm gonna look back at me now in five years and marvel at how dumb I am now! ]
I know that a lot of you are studying for finals right now, so I thought it best to give you more stuff to waste your time with, as I know many of you are just sitting in front of your computers bored, just waiting for your distraction. Well, wait no longer! Your distraction is here!
If you want to know a little bit about my church and family history...
- I love my dad (and God)
- I love my family (and God)
- Being an Asian American Christian
- Why I sometimes (okay...often) "tease" Canto people
- What my friends and I did during summer 2010 (hint: it includes a lot of punishments...and embarrassing videos of Iris!)
- "Funny" videos with a Penguin
- How I gave away a brand new Bible to a stranger on the bus
- Interesting conversations with two cab drivers from completely different religious backgrounds
- A little lesson on God's sovereignty
- Why I think college football playoffs is a bad idea
- Some thoughts on the use of technology in sports (with some case studies here)
- What I think about Lebron going to Miami
Some miscellaneous posts that I like ...
- Why Asians are bad drivers
- The future of auto transportation - automated driving
- More than slactivists
- My one haunting college decision
- On quoting Scripture in evangelism
- Kobe's work ethic
- Prayer in sports
- Thoughts on 1 Samuel (and my first series ever!)
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Church Hopping - Final Decision and Lessons Learned
The Final Decision - Northpark Community Church
I've made my decision. In this spring, this is very tough, in this spring I'm going to take my Bible to Flutter Road and join the Northpark Community Church. That was the conclusion I've come to after a few weeks of church-hopping. I feel like it's going to give me the best opportunity to grow and to grow for multiple years, and not only just to grow in life's easy seasons or just to grow five days in a row or three days in a row, I want to be able to grow every day, and I feel like I can learn and grow down there. [Here's what I'm referencing, for all of you who haven't caught it yet.]
So yeah. I've made the decision. I've laid out an overview of what the church was like in my review of it here, so if you want to know what it's like, read that post! The two main reasons that swayed me are below. Needless to say, I think the teaching is solid and the church seems relatively healthy, but the following two factors are what elevated it over the other church I was considering.
Location
It came down to St. Andrew EPC and Northpark, and St. Andrew is in another town twenty miles away, so it would be much more difficult to really get connected into the community there and serve in the church because of the distance. Northpark is only about ten minutes away, with most of its congregation living in Fort Wayne, making it much more possible for me to be a part of the community there.
Young Adults
Northpark already had a small group of young adults, and we just started a Thursday night Bible study in my apartment! We have dinner every week at 6:00PM in my apartment, then we play a game, do a Bible study, and then pray. We are going to start our study of Mark tomorrow night! It's super exciting being part of a new community of fun believers who are committed to meeting together. This small group is just starting, so pray that we can mesh together as a community and grow together in Christ!
Lessons Learned
- How to spell "Presbyterian" correctly on the first try.
- Multi-ethnicity and diversity don't seem important until it isn't there.
- There is no perfect church.
- Hymns can be pretty cool, especially when everyone sings it together.
- A small church with packed pews feels a lot "better" than a bigger church with more people but sparse pews.
- Church websites can tell you a lot about a church, but you have to know what to look for.
- Indiana is really conservative.
- Finding a church is difficult.
I've made my decision. In this spring, this is very tough, in this spring I'm going to take my Bible to Flutter Road and join the Northpark Community Church. That was the conclusion I've come to after a few weeks of church-hopping. I feel like it's going to give me the best opportunity to grow and to grow for multiple years, and not only just to grow in life's easy seasons or just to grow five days in a row or three days in a row, I want to be able to grow every day, and I feel like I can learn and grow down there. [Here's what I'm referencing, for all of you who haven't caught it yet.]
So yeah. I've made the decision. I've laid out an overview of what the church was like in my review of it here, so if you want to know what it's like, read that post! The two main reasons that swayed me are below. Needless to say, I think the teaching is solid and the church seems relatively healthy, but the following two factors are what elevated it over the other church I was considering.
 |
| Northpark's newly built sanctuary! |
Location
It came down to St. Andrew EPC and Northpark, and St. Andrew is in another town twenty miles away, so it would be much more difficult to really get connected into the community there and serve in the church because of the distance. Northpark is only about ten minutes away, with most of its congregation living in Fort Wayne, making it much more possible for me to be a part of the community there.
Young Adults
Northpark already had a small group of young adults, and we just started a Thursday night Bible study in my apartment! We have dinner every week at 6:00PM in my apartment, then we play a game, do a Bible study, and then pray. We are going to start our study of Mark tomorrow night! It's super exciting being part of a new community of fun believers who are committed to meeting together. This small group is just starting, so pray that we can mesh together as a community and grow together in Christ!
Lessons Learned
- How to spell "Presbyterian" correctly on the first try.
- Multi-ethnicity and diversity don't seem important until it isn't there.
- There is no perfect church.
- Hymns can be pretty cool, especially when everyone sings it together.
- A small church with packed pews feels a lot "better" than a bigger church with more people but sparse pews.
- Church websites can tell you a lot about a church, but you have to know what to look for.
- Indiana is really conservative.
- Finding a church is difficult.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Book Review - Following Jesus by NT Wright
At a Glance
Book: Following Jesus - Biblical Reflections on Discipleship (Amazon)
Author: NT Wright, renowned New Testament scholar (wiki)
This book is good for: Newer Christians who want to understand more deeply what it means to follow Jesus, and older Christians who want to be 'wow'-ed by familiar Scripture.
Difficulty level: - Medium-low difficulty - Fairly easy read for most Christians.
My rating: - 7/10 - A worthwhile read, mainly as a supplement. Not an "essential" read.
Overview
This book is split into two halves, where the first six chapters of the book are a collection of sermons focusing on the Eucharist and the last six chapters tackle specific topics concerning Christian life. In each of the chapters in the first half of the book, Wright takes us through a big-picture summary of a New Testament book of the Bible. These chapters are absolutely amazing as we get to trace through the major themes and motifs of the book, many of which aren't very obvious and which were new to me at least, as NT Wright brilliantly shows the connections between passages I had never considered, all spectacularly pointing to the all-important death and resurrection of Christ. I absolutely loved the first six chapters of Following Jesus, as Scripture just came alive to me in a way I've never experienced before as I got a unique bird's eye view of some of the books of the New Testament.
Unfortunately, the second half of the book wasn't quite as spectacular or groundbreaking, but still good reminders nonetheless. Where the first half was more about how all of Scripture declares the supremacy of Christ's death and resurrection, the second half lays out more clearly what that looks like for believers. NT Wright expands on the significance of Christ raised from the dead and its implications in our lives for thinking about things like heaven, hell, temptation, and a new life and new mind. This half of the book would, in my opinion, be helpful for the thoughtful new believer trying to connect all the Christian lingo and traditions he hears with the biblical support for it and the life application for these principles.
Why I read it
I had recently listened to a few NT Wright lectures and I really loved them. I had always known that he was one of the Bible scholars of the day, so I thought it would be worthwhile to read something of his. Looking through the Kindle store, Following Jesus seemed to be a relatively easy (and cheap) read with pretty good ratings, so I just chose bought it to read.
Why you should read it
If you feel like you haven't been getting much out of Scripture recently or have been getting 'bored' with reading familiar passages, I think that reading Following Jesus can really be a breath of fresh air and a big reminder that there's so much of Scripture that we, especially as young people, have yet to discover. If you are a new believer and want to know what Christianity is all about, this could be a good book to read, though I imagine that there are also a million other books that may be more suited for a new believer. All in all, I really enjoyed the book, and I think that you will too!
This book is also a pretty easy read and a great way to ease into Christian literature for all those who aren't big readers. The chapters are written in manageable sizes, easily finished in one sitting. [Personally, I read an average of two chapters a week, finishing the book in a little over a month.] NT Wright writes in a way that is understandable, relate-able, and surprisingly simple for the profundity of the content he presents. To me, his writing in Following Jesus is comparable to that of RC Sproul - simple and understandable yet illuminating and at times, quite profound.
Quotes
[It is somewhat difficult to pinpoint specific amazing quotes here and there from the book that were good because the beauty of the book comes mostly from the interweaving of thematically connected Scripture and the buildup of that Scripture pointing towards the cross and the resurrection. Again, this is a big-picture sort of book.]
"The world is not ultimately divided into bits that are irreducibly good and bits that are irreducibly bad. Everything - the invisible things as well as the visible - was made by the creator, through the agency of his eternal Son, whom we know as the man Jesus."
"The cross was not the defeat of Christ at the hands of the powers; it was the defeat of the powers at the hands - yes, the bleeding hands - of Christ."
"Paul's vision of the Christian life is thus of a life lived between D-Day and V-Day. The decisive battle has been won; the battles we face today are part of the mopping-up operation to implement that victory."
"John does not describe the transfiguration, as the other Gospels do; in a sense, John's whole story is about the transfiguration. He invites us to be still and know; to look again into the human face of Jesus of Nazareth, until the awesome knowledge comes over us, wave upon terrifying wave, that we are looking into the human face of the living God. And he leads us on, with our awe and bewilderment reaching its height, to the point where we realize that the face is most recognizable when it wears the crown of thorns. When John says, 'We beheld his glory', he is thinking supremely of the cross."
Book: Following Jesus - Biblical Reflections on Discipleship (Amazon)
Author: NT Wright, renowned New Testament scholar (wiki)
This book is good for: Newer Christians who want to understand more deeply what it means to follow Jesus, and older Christians who want to be 'wow'-ed by familiar Scripture.
Difficulty level: - Medium-low difficulty - Fairly easy read for most Christians.
My rating: - 7/10 - A worthwhile read, mainly as a supplement. Not an "essential" read.
Overview
This book is split into two halves, where the first six chapters of the book are a collection of sermons focusing on the Eucharist and the last six chapters tackle specific topics concerning Christian life. In each of the chapters in the first half of the book, Wright takes us through a big-picture summary of a New Testament book of the Bible. These chapters are absolutely amazing as we get to trace through the major themes and motifs of the book, many of which aren't very obvious and which were new to me at least, as NT Wright brilliantly shows the connections between passages I had never considered, all spectacularly pointing to the all-important death and resurrection of Christ. I absolutely loved the first six chapters of Following Jesus, as Scripture just came alive to me in a way I've never experienced before as I got a unique bird's eye view of some of the books of the New Testament.
Unfortunately, the second half of the book wasn't quite as spectacular or groundbreaking, but still good reminders nonetheless. Where the first half was more about how all of Scripture declares the supremacy of Christ's death and resurrection, the second half lays out more clearly what that looks like for believers. NT Wright expands on the significance of Christ raised from the dead and its implications in our lives for thinking about things like heaven, hell, temptation, and a new life and new mind. This half of the book would, in my opinion, be helpful for the thoughtful new believer trying to connect all the Christian lingo and traditions he hears with the biblical support for it and the life application for these principles.
Why I read it
I had recently listened to a few NT Wright lectures and I really loved them. I had always known that he was one of the Bible scholars of the day, so I thought it would be worthwhile to read something of his. Looking through the Kindle store, Following Jesus seemed to be a relatively easy (and cheap) read with pretty good ratings, so I just chose bought it to read.
Why you should read it
If you feel like you haven't been getting much out of Scripture recently or have been getting 'bored' with reading familiar passages, I think that reading Following Jesus can really be a breath of fresh air and a big reminder that there's so much of Scripture that we, especially as young people, have yet to discover. If you are a new believer and want to know what Christianity is all about, this could be a good book to read, though I imagine that there are also a million other books that may be more suited for a new believer. All in all, I really enjoyed the book, and I think that you will too!
This book is also a pretty easy read and a great way to ease into Christian literature for all those who aren't big readers. The chapters are written in manageable sizes, easily finished in one sitting. [Personally, I read an average of two chapters a week, finishing the book in a little over a month.] NT Wright writes in a way that is understandable, relate-able, and surprisingly simple for the profundity of the content he presents. To me, his writing in Following Jesus is comparable to that of RC Sproul - simple and understandable yet illuminating and at times, quite profound.
Quotes
[It is somewhat difficult to pinpoint specific amazing quotes here and there from the book that were good because the beauty of the book comes mostly from the interweaving of thematically connected Scripture and the buildup of that Scripture pointing towards the cross and the resurrection. Again, this is a big-picture sort of book.]
"The world is not ultimately divided into bits that are irreducibly good and bits that are irreducibly bad. Everything - the invisible things as well as the visible - was made by the creator, through the agency of his eternal Son, whom we know as the man Jesus."
"The cross was not the defeat of Christ at the hands of the powers; it was the defeat of the powers at the hands - yes, the bleeding hands - of Christ."
"Paul's vision of the Christian life is thus of a life lived between D-Day and V-Day. The decisive battle has been won; the battles we face today are part of the mopping-up operation to implement that victory."
"John does not describe the transfiguration, as the other Gospels do; in a sense, John's whole story is about the transfiguration. He invites us to be still and know; to look again into the human face of Jesus of Nazareth, until the awesome knowledge comes over us, wave upon terrifying wave, that we are looking into the human face of the living God. And he leads us on, with our awe and bewilderment reaching its height, to the point where we realize that the face is most recognizable when it wears the crown of thorns. When John says, 'We beheld his glory', he is thinking supremely of the cross."
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Thoughts on the Decrease of Emphasis on "Not Being Judgmental"
We don't talk about "being judgmental" anymore. I just realized it this morning. Not being judgmental used to be a huge talking point for Christians, but it seems like the phrase has gone out of use recently. There used to be a huge emphasis on not being judgmental in Christian communities, but I haven't heard anyone talk about it in a long time. It could be that the Christian lingo has simply changed in the last few years, but I think that the relation between the church and those outside the church has shifted a bit, making talk of being judgmental somewhat obsolete.
It would be helpful to first define what it means to be judgmental. My definition is as follows - deliberately fingerpointing at other people's sins while being unapologetically hypocritical. Being "judgemental" goes beyond a declaration of both general and specific sin - it is characterized by the pride of the "Thanks God I'm not like that sinner" kind of attitude. Being judgemental inherently stems from a prideful, self-righteous, hypocritical attitude.
[I also think I need to take a quick moment to point out that people can feel judged, even when Christians aren't being judgmental. This is a huge topic and I could spend a lot of time talking about it, but in this post, I'm primarily addressing the decrease of exhortations to Christians by Christian leadership to be "less judgmental".]
The following are two possible reasons for the decline in talk of being judgmental.
1) The church has become less "judgmental".
No, I don't think that the church struggles less with pride and self-righteousness than in the past. Those are human problems that will never go away until eternity, but I do think that the church has shifted attitudes in two key areas in the increasingly secular environment, as described below.
The church has taken greater ownership of its past failures and present brokenness.
In my opinion, the eyes of Christians everywhere have been opened to the brokenness of the church and church leaders are finally admitting to being personally broken. Gone is the idea and the ideal that all Christians are morally upstanding people with perfect marriages. Gone is the illusion that being a Christian will fix your life. Gone is the myth that church leaders are less prone to temptation and sin than their members. As Christians, we've been hit in the face with the reality of the despicable actions by countless pedophile priests and the secret sins of evangelical pastors everywhere. We can no longer pretend that the church is a bunch of holy people led by even more holy ministers. Similarly, we can also no longer deny the historical atrocities of the church. As Christians, we've been taught and forced to confront the failings of the church in the past - the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem witch hunt, and the list goes on and on. More than ever, I think that Christians are forced to recognize and admit the brokenness of the church, dispelling a bit of the previously assumed self-righteousness for being a Christian.
The church has become tolerant, accepting, and sometimes even supportive of sin.
The decline in the seriousness towards sin is so obvious, I don't need to write much to convince anyone of it. The word "sin" itself has become taboo in churches, Christian music, and evangelism techniques all around the country. "Christians" living in licentiousness is almost the norm, and non-Christians can find churches to attend where they are comfortable for the simple reason that the people they see in church are living similar lives to the ones that they live. And then there are the churches far out in left-field encouraging the practice of what the Bible calls sin and even ordaining ministers that unabashedly, unrepentedly practice those sins. However, as easy as it is to pinpoint and blame the liberal, mainline church, we evangelicals are also very guilty for downplaying the seriousness of sin. How often do I find myself euphemising sin in conversation and evangelism with more user-friendly words like "struggle" or "brokenness"! How rare is it to hear contemporary Christian music that properly addresses the wretchedness of the human condition!
2) The objection to the church is much deeper.
In the past, most people agreed generally with the values of the church, but I think that now more than ever we see a divergence between the beliefs of the religious and non-religious. Where it seems like a few years ago, the complaint mainly was on how things were preached, but now it's about what is preached. We have seen the progression from "Practice what you preach, then maybe I will" to "Practice what you preach, but don't expect others to" to finally where I think it is now - "What you preach is wrong." No longer do you need to be carelessly insensitive or obnoxiously self-righteous about your beliefs to offend - simply holding certain beliefs is enough to be cause offense. For example, the mere suggestion, no matter how gentle and loving, that homosexuality is a sin is enough to offend and turn people away. The declaration of the universality of sin itself is considered a needlessly self-deprecating way of making people feel bad about themselves.
When others think that it is simply wrong to believe what you believe and the resentment goes beyond the presentation of your beliefs to the core of your worldview, most talk about being judgmental is moot. People feel judged not simply because of how you act or what you say, but what you believe.
"There is no higher testimony to their fidelity than for the servants of God to evoke the rancour and hostility of the reprobate." - A.W. Pink
In a way, I'm glad that we've started to realize as a church that it is impossible to sugar-coat sin, as Christians have been attempting to do for some time now. We've begun to see just how offensive the gospel really is to those who do not believe. I truly believe that it isn't long before Christians will be not only scorned, but hated for stating their beliefs on sin. Christians in our generation don't know yet what it means to be hated for their beliefs, but I genuinely believe that it won't be long before God bestows on us the privilege of suffering deep scorn and hate from the world.
What are your thoughts? Do you agree or disagree that there has been less talk of "being judgmental" in the Christian community? Do you think it's actually a real change in attitude or just simply a change in rhetoric?
It would be helpful to first define what it means to be judgmental. My definition is as follows - deliberately fingerpointing at other people's sins while being unapologetically hypocritical. Being "judgemental" goes beyond a declaration of both general and specific sin - it is characterized by the pride of the "Thanks God I'm not like that sinner" kind of attitude. Being judgemental inherently stems from a prideful, self-righteous, hypocritical attitude.
[I also think I need to take a quick moment to point out that people can feel judged, even when Christians aren't being judgmental. This is a huge topic and I could spend a lot of time talking about it, but in this post, I'm primarily addressing the decrease of exhortations to Christians by Christian leadership to be "less judgmental".]
The following are two possible reasons for the decline in talk of being judgmental.
1) The church has become less "judgmental".
No, I don't think that the church struggles less with pride and self-righteousness than in the past. Those are human problems that will never go away until eternity, but I do think that the church has shifted attitudes in two key areas in the increasingly secular environment, as described below.
The church has taken greater ownership of its past failures and present brokenness.
In my opinion, the eyes of Christians everywhere have been opened to the brokenness of the church and church leaders are finally admitting to being personally broken. Gone is the idea and the ideal that all Christians are morally upstanding people with perfect marriages. Gone is the illusion that being a Christian will fix your life. Gone is the myth that church leaders are less prone to temptation and sin than their members. As Christians, we've been hit in the face with the reality of the despicable actions by countless pedophile priests and the secret sins of evangelical pastors everywhere. We can no longer pretend that the church is a bunch of holy people led by even more holy ministers. Similarly, we can also no longer deny the historical atrocities of the church. As Christians, we've been taught and forced to confront the failings of the church in the past - the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem witch hunt, and the list goes on and on. More than ever, I think that Christians are forced to recognize and admit the brokenness of the church, dispelling a bit of the previously assumed self-righteousness for being a Christian.
The church has become tolerant, accepting, and sometimes even supportive of sin.
The decline in the seriousness towards sin is so obvious, I don't need to write much to convince anyone of it. The word "sin" itself has become taboo in churches, Christian music, and evangelism techniques all around the country. "Christians" living in licentiousness is almost the norm, and non-Christians can find churches to attend where they are comfortable for the simple reason that the people they see in church are living similar lives to the ones that they live. And then there are the churches far out in left-field encouraging the practice of what the Bible calls sin and even ordaining ministers that unabashedly, unrepentedly practice those sins. However, as easy as it is to pinpoint and blame the liberal, mainline church, we evangelicals are also very guilty for downplaying the seriousness of sin. How often do I find myself euphemising sin in conversation and evangelism with more user-friendly words like "struggle" or "brokenness"! How rare is it to hear contemporary Christian music that properly addresses the wretchedness of the human condition!
2) The objection to the church is much deeper.
In the past, most people agreed generally with the values of the church, but I think that now more than ever we see a divergence between the beliefs of the religious and non-religious. Where it seems like a few years ago, the complaint mainly was on how things were preached, but now it's about what is preached. We have seen the progression from "Practice what you preach, then maybe I will" to "Practice what you preach, but don't expect others to" to finally where I think it is now - "What you preach is wrong." No longer do you need to be carelessly insensitive or obnoxiously self-righteous about your beliefs to offend - simply holding certain beliefs is enough to be cause offense. For example, the mere suggestion, no matter how gentle and loving, that homosexuality is a sin is enough to offend and turn people away. The declaration of the universality of sin itself is considered a needlessly self-deprecating way of making people feel bad about themselves.
When others think that it is simply wrong to believe what you believe and the resentment goes beyond the presentation of your beliefs to the core of your worldview, most talk about being judgmental is moot. People feel judged not simply because of how you act or what you say, but what you believe.
"There is no higher testimony to their fidelity than for the servants of God to evoke the rancour and hostility of the reprobate." - A.W. Pink
In a way, I'm glad that we've started to realize as a church that it is impossible to sugar-coat sin, as Christians have been attempting to do for some time now. We've begun to see just how offensive the gospel really is to those who do not believe. I truly believe that it isn't long before Christians will be not only scorned, but hated for stating their beliefs on sin. Christians in our generation don't know yet what it means to be hated for their beliefs, but I genuinely believe that it won't be long before God bestows on us the privilege of suffering deep scorn and hate from the world.
What are your thoughts? Do you agree or disagree that there has been less talk of "being judgmental" in the Christian community? Do you think it's actually a real change in attitude or just simply a change in rhetoric?
"And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God."
- John 3:19-21
"Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God."
- John 8:43-47
"If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you."
- John 15:8
"If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you."
- John 15:8
Saturday, April 7, 2012
Reminder from a Jammed Pinky
"For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body,
though many, are one body, so it is with Christ...
though many, are one body, so it is with Christ...
If one member suffers, all suffer together;
if one member is honored, all rejoice together.
Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it."
Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it."
- 1 Corinthians 12
 |
| My jammed pinky...look how fat it is! |
Anyone who's ever sustained any sort of sports injury knows that the injury really affects the whole person. I've sprained my ankles pretty seriously a few times, and after you sprain one ankle, the other ankle starts to get sore from the heavy load from walking. Eventually the knees start hurting too, as the body really isn't used to walking without an ankle. The weight of walking is no longer evenly distributed, and after a little bit, you really get the sense that your entire lower half is just exhausted and hurting from limping for so long.
My experiences from sprained ankles have always been how Paul's picture of the one body, many parts has been validated for me. But today, I got another great reminder that no matter how small and insignificant a part of the body may seem, when it suffers, the whole body suffers. I was really surprised at how my jammed pinky, which shouldn't affect my game that much, changed my entire play style and really dropped my level of play today. The Bible is right (surprise, surprise) that when one member of the body suffers, all the members suffer together, and I need to make more of an effort to seek out the other members of the body that may be suffering, however seemingly insignificant, and encourage them and lift them up and honor them.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Book Review - The Hunger Games
Hunger Games Overview
Book - The Hunger Games, $5 on Amazon, average rated 4.5/5 stars
My Rating - 3/5. An entertaining book but not worth the money.
Review in a nutshell - An entertaining but shallow and unsatisfying book of static characters and a predictable plot.
My Thoughts - Overview
I've been so excited to read Hunger Games after hearing about it for a while, and the release of the movie really pushed me over the edge, as I didn't want talk about the movie to ruin the book for me. I was pleasantly surprised to find Hunger Games on the Amazon Prime lending library, so I got to read it for free! I was surprised at how short the book was (only around 350 pages), so it didn't take long to read - around 5 hours over two days. For the most part, Hunger Games moves at an incredibly fast pace (it needs to, for such a short novel!), so it really wasn't hard to sit and read for a couple of hours. I just finished it last night, but I hate to say it, but I'm disappointed, so disappointed. I'm disappointed in, especially because of the intrigue and complexity of the premise, the utter simplicity of the plot. I was actually so disappointed that I couldn't sleep last night, just sort of fuming at how shallow and predictable the book is and imagining alternate, more exciting storylines. I know this review is overwhelmingly negative, but the book was actually enjoyable - it's just that I had much greater expectations for such a best seller. To put it into movie(ish) terms, I was expecting a book on the caliber of The Prestige, but what I got was Transformers (or any other Michael Bay film). Similar to how The Invention of Lying and Stranger than Fiction started with great premises but eroded into chickflicks, Hunger Games built up an amazing premise but eroded into a merely action book. Hunger Games is still a good book that's worth reading, but in the end, it's just intense action without a deeper plot, unconvincing characters without much personality - an entertaining book without much intellectual substance.
My thoughts are below, after this ginormous spoilers warning for anyone who hasn't yet read the book or seen the movie.
There's so many things I can start ranting about. But I'll start with my favorite part of the book, which should set up my other points on why the book was a total letdown.
What I liked
My favorite part of the book was without a doubt Part 1 of the book, from the very beginning all the way until the beginning of the Games. Here, we get a glimpse into the crazy weird society and government that is Panem, and we see the cruel injustice of Capitol on the Districts. We learn the interesting history of the rebellion of the Districts, and we start to get the picture of how power-hungry yet insecure Capitol is. We see through Katniss' eyes the stark contrast between District 12 and Capitol - the contrast bet and how all the poverty in the Districts is really unnecessary. Like Katniss and Peeta, we start to build a real hatred for Capitol, the Careers, and even the Gamemakers, and along with Peeta, we think of a way that the tributes could possibly upset the system and bring it to destruction. I absolutely loved that the Hunger Games was clearly presented as not only a gladiator fight, but a real symbol of injustice.
What I didn't like
The Predictability
The predictability of the book is easily my top complaint against Hunger Games. The only time I was actually shocked was when Primrose's name was pulled from the orb, but after watching the trailer for the new movie, even that won't be a shock to anyone. The predictability of the story is really just a result of the over-simplicity of the plot and the lack of character development throughout the novel.
Katniss' Victory
I don't think anyone in the history of the world reading Hunger Games thought that Katniss was going to die. Not only was the book written in first person (making her death somewhat more improbable), we also know that the Hunger Games is part of a trilogy, making Katniss' death even more improbable. When you're reading a book about a person trying to survive against all odds and have this feeling that she's going to survive, a lot of the edge of reading the book disappears. When the Careers almost caught up with her and forced her up the tree, there wasn't a doubt in my mind that she was going to escape. When Chace had wounded Katniss, I didn't for a second think that she would die. She had gotten this far, why would the author kill her off now, especially by a character she barely developed? This certainty of her survival really made the book less exciting, and I secretly wished that she actually would die, just to make the book a little bit more surprising and more interesting. And as it turns out, Peeta didn't die either, but could anyone really see Katniss killing Peeta after reading the first part of the book? Also, did anyone not think that the Gamemakers were going to force the remaining two people to kill each other? Child, please. Tricks are for kids.
Static Characters
A lot of the predictability of the book stems from the lack of development of any of its characters. I absolutely hate that the characters in the book stay the same from the beginning of the book to the end. Katniss is stubborn and cold from the beginning to the end of the book. Peeta was soft and caring. Cato was angry and hateful. Foxface is sly and resourceful. Rue was shy and innocent. There's no betrayal and similarly no surprising acts of kindness. The "good" characters in the book stay good, and the "bad" characters in the book stay bad. The characters you like from the beginning you continue to like, and the characters you dislike, you continue to dislike.How much more interesting would it have been if Rue turned out to actually be cold-hearted and betrays Katniss by taking all of her supplies and leaving her for dead? What if Peeta, seeing how close the end is, decides to let Katniss kill herself and be the lone victor? How much more interesting would it have been if Cato turned out actually help Katniss survive in with his dying breath? Every character in the book was a cookie-cutter character, doing exactly what you expect them to and not doing anything that would surprise you. To me, the only characters that actually show any sign of development are Haymitch and Effie Trinket. But in the arena? No one did anything unexpected or out of their percieved character, which obviously leads to predictability.
Allow me to rant a little bit - Is anyone else annoyed at how stupid the tributes seem to be in that they lack any critical thinking skills at all? Katniss especially, simply because we get to peek inside of her brain, seems quite...stupid. At what point did you say when you were reading the book, "Wow. That was really smart. I never would have thought of doing that?" Only one time in the entire book was I surprised by the intellect of Katniss - when she was about die of water and wondering why Haymitch still hadn't sent her any aid and she realized that she must already be near water. That's it. She's frustratingly slow about Peeta's feelings about her, and really doesn't seem to be able to come up with a clever plan for anything (her plan with Rue was elementary. You or I could have thought of that).
Hand in hand with this seeming stupidity of the tributes is the seeming fact that the tributes don't experience the same emotions, behaviors, or thought processes as regular human beings do. It seemed like Katniss was really angry that Peeta joined the Careers, but why didn't she ask him about it when they were in the cave together? Why is it that neither Katniss nor any of the other tributes seem to feel any real remorse or trauma after killing people? Why is it that none of the tributes refuse to fight? Why is it none of the tributes commit suicide in utter despair and fear of a worse death? Maybe my examples aren't the best. But just think (like I'm sure anyone reading the book has) - "If I was thrown into the hunger games and wanted to get back at the Capitol, what would I do?" Maybe your strategy will be to stick with the other tribute from your District. Maybe you'll convince the other kids from the poor districts to stick together and fight the Careers together. Or maybe if you're really defiant, you just kill yourself to refuse to give Capitol what they want (I actually thought that is what Peeta was going to do).
The Length of the Arena Fight/Survival Portion
Starting from where I left off before, I had thought that Katniss and Peeta weren't only going to fight the other tributes -they were going to fight Capitol....except they didn't. The majority of the book was spent inside the Arena, as Katniss was simply just struggling to survive...for 150 pages. As an action-movie lover, this may surprise you, but I thought that the time spent inside the Arena was too lengthy in comparison with the entire book. With the suspicion that Katniss was going to win, it really wasn't an issue of "if" but "when". As we followed the tributes get killed one by one, it just felt like a countdown to when the Games would finally be over and Katniss would be victor. Thinking about it, I'm sort of reminded of the movie 12 Rounds, where John Cena has 12 tasks that he needs to complete or else the villain will kill his wife. The tests he goes through are pretty interesting, but it gets kind of dull and repetitive halfway through those tasks. Similarly, the whole Arena thing got kind of dull and repetitive around halfway through, when it became abundantly clear that most of what Katniss was going to do was simply run, hide, and survive. I get it. The author was trying to convey the length and the brutality of the whole matter. The author was trying to convey that the Games actually lasted around two weeks, and she wanted the reader to be as anxious for the end of the Games as much as Katniss was. In reality, the number of pages the author spent on the Games wasn't actually that much, but it was the whole repitition and dullness of it all (and all the other reasons that I've described) that made it seem much lengthier than it really was. I get it. It's just never a good sign when your best-selling book is compared to a John Cena movie.
In this middle part of the book, the only enjoyment I found in reading wasn't to see if Katniss was going to stay alive (I knew she was), but to see how she would stay alive, kind of like watching an episode of Man vs. Wild. With the end result already figured out, it really just became the journey that I had to be entertained by. I had also obviously hoped that she and Peeta would remember their hatred of Capitol and think of something to do about it. To me, this is the biggest conflict in the book, not that of the tributes against each other. Too bad the author refuses to address it (minimally) until after the Games are over.
The Ending
Lack of a "Bigger Picture"
After the movie 12 Rounds, John Cena, along with all of the viewers, realize that the villain wasn't actually just trying to make Cena do 12 pointless tasks, but that there was a bigger picture to the details they had been focusing on. I had really expected something like that to happen in this book. I expected Katniss to leave the Arena and have some bigger realization about the situation at hand. I had thought throughout reading the book that massive things were going on behind the scenes that Katniss just couldn't see, and that after winning the games, she would realize what had been going on the entire time she was in the arena. This suspicion of mine is from the constant attention Katniss pays to the Gamemakers, the viewers, and basically the outside world. She makes a lot of assumptions about Haymitch and her sponsers and Capitol that I had hoped would be disproven in some way. Maybe she would leave the Arena and realize that the Hunger Games were fixed. Maybe she would learn that Haymitch was a rebel of some sort. Maybe there was a rebellion happening out in Panem, but she didn't know about it. But there was none of that. The entire book had the feeling of the entire stage being frozen except wherever Katniss was. The entire world was static and was unchanged whenever Katniss went back
Unanswered Questions...that will probably stay unanswered
Unanswered questions are obviously a great way to end a book that has sequels, but the problem I have with these unanswered questions is that they probably won't be answered in the next book. Even if they are, their application and relevance is immediate. Some of the questions that were burning in my mind as I was reading about her time in the arena - What's going to happen after she wins? Who are her sponsors, and how are they significant? Did she interpret Haymitch's gifts correctly? How did Thresh die? How were those dog beasts related to the dead tributes? The book refuses to answer any of the many questions that were raised in my mind in the arena and just goes on to pursue overly simply plot lines - the friendzone with Peeta and the "anger" of the Capitol. Neither of these are addressed properly, as the book, along with the train carrying the the tributes back home, comes to an abrupt halt.
Conclusion
I enjoyed reading Hunger Games. I really did. I wouldn't have finished reading it in a couple of days if I didn't. But it's the same kind of enjoyment I get from reading Redwall or Harry Potter - a simple, mindless sort of enjoyment. Maybe my expectations were just too high for a 350-page book, or maybe I've just been too heavily influenced from reading the epics of A Song of Ice and Fire. Either way, I was disappointed in the over-simplicity of the plot, the lack of character development, the static nature of the universe and the lack of parallel storylines, and the failure to address the real, huge conflict that the first part of the book seemed to have been building up to. I look forward to reading the next book in the series, and I really hope that some of those bigger, more interesting issues (like the injustice and iron fist of the Capitol on the Districts) will be addressed. I hope the characters are more interesting, the plot is more involved and complex, and I hope the ending won't be a cop-out.
Book - The Hunger Games, $5 on Amazon, average rated 4.5/5 stars
My Rating - 3/5. An entertaining book but not worth the money.
Review in a nutshell - An entertaining but shallow and unsatisfying book of static characters and a predictable plot.
My Thoughts - Overview
I've been so excited to read Hunger Games after hearing about it for a while, and the release of the movie really pushed me over the edge, as I didn't want talk about the movie to ruin the book for me. I was pleasantly surprised to find Hunger Games on the Amazon Prime lending library, so I got to read it for free! I was surprised at how short the book was (only around 350 pages), so it didn't take long to read - around 5 hours over two days. For the most part, Hunger Games moves at an incredibly fast pace (it needs to, for such a short novel!), so it really wasn't hard to sit and read for a couple of hours. I just finished it last night, but I hate to say it, but I'm disappointed, so disappointed. I'm disappointed in, especially because of the intrigue and complexity of the premise, the utter simplicity of the plot. I was actually so disappointed that I couldn't sleep last night, just sort of fuming at how shallow and predictable the book is and imagining alternate, more exciting storylines. I know this review is overwhelmingly negative, but the book was actually enjoyable - it's just that I had much greater expectations for such a best seller. To put it into movie(ish) terms, I was expecting a book on the caliber of The Prestige, but what I got was Transformers (or any other Michael Bay film). Similar to how The Invention of Lying and Stranger than Fiction started with great premises but eroded into chickflicks, Hunger Games built up an amazing premise but eroded into a merely action book. Hunger Games is still a good book that's worth reading, but in the end, it's just intense action without a deeper plot, unconvincing characters without much personality - an entertaining book without much intellectual substance.
My thoughts are below, after this ginormous spoilers warning for anyone who hasn't yet read the book or seen the movie.
WARNING: SPOILERS BELOW. LIKE. TONS OF THEM.
If you haven't already watched the movie or read the book, don't read any more of this post!!
There's so many things I can start ranting about. But I'll start with my favorite part of the book, which should set up my other points on why the book was a total letdown.
What I liked
My favorite part of the book was without a doubt Part 1 of the book, from the very beginning all the way until the beginning of the Games. Here, we get a glimpse into the crazy weird society and government that is Panem, and we see the cruel injustice of Capitol on the Districts. We learn the interesting history of the rebellion of the Districts, and we start to get the picture of how power-hungry yet insecure Capitol is. We see through Katniss' eyes the stark contrast between District 12 and Capitol - the contrast bet and how all the poverty in the Districts is really unnecessary. Like Katniss and Peeta, we start to build a real hatred for Capitol, the Careers, and even the Gamemakers, and along with Peeta, we think of a way that the tributes could possibly upset the system and bring it to destruction. I absolutely loved that the Hunger Games was clearly presented as not only a gladiator fight, but a real symbol of injustice.
What I didn't like
The Predictability
The predictability of the book is easily my top complaint against Hunger Games. The only time I was actually shocked was when Primrose's name was pulled from the orb, but after watching the trailer for the new movie, even that won't be a shock to anyone. The predictability of the story is really just a result of the over-simplicity of the plot and the lack of character development throughout the novel.
Katniss' Victory
I don't think anyone in the history of the world reading Hunger Games thought that Katniss was going to die. Not only was the book written in first person (making her death somewhat more improbable), we also know that the Hunger Games is part of a trilogy, making Katniss' death even more improbable. When you're reading a book about a person trying to survive against all odds and have this feeling that she's going to survive, a lot of the edge of reading the book disappears. When the Careers almost caught up with her and forced her up the tree, there wasn't a doubt in my mind that she was going to escape. When Chace had wounded Katniss, I didn't for a second think that she would die. She had gotten this far, why would the author kill her off now, especially by a character she barely developed? This certainty of her survival really made the book less exciting, and I secretly wished that she actually would die, just to make the book a little bit more surprising and more interesting. And as it turns out, Peeta didn't die either, but could anyone really see Katniss killing Peeta after reading the first part of the book? Also, did anyone not think that the Gamemakers were going to force the remaining two people to kill each other? Child, please. Tricks are for kids.
Static Characters
A lot of the predictability of the book stems from the lack of development of any of its characters. I absolutely hate that the characters in the book stay the same from the beginning of the book to the end. Katniss is stubborn and cold from the beginning to the end of the book. Peeta was soft and caring. Cato was angry and hateful. Foxface is sly and resourceful. Rue was shy and innocent. There's no betrayal and similarly no surprising acts of kindness. The "good" characters in the book stay good, and the "bad" characters in the book stay bad. The characters you like from the beginning you continue to like, and the characters you dislike, you continue to dislike.How much more interesting would it have been if Rue turned out to actually be cold-hearted and betrays Katniss by taking all of her supplies and leaving her for dead? What if Peeta, seeing how close the end is, decides to let Katniss kill herself and be the lone victor? How much more interesting would it have been if Cato turned out actually help Katniss survive in with his dying breath? Every character in the book was a cookie-cutter character, doing exactly what you expect them to and not doing anything that would surprise you. To me, the only characters that actually show any sign of development are Haymitch and Effie Trinket. But in the arena? No one did anything unexpected or out of their percieved character, which obviously leads to predictability.
Allow me to rant a little bit - Is anyone else annoyed at how stupid the tributes seem to be in that they lack any critical thinking skills at all? Katniss especially, simply because we get to peek inside of her brain, seems quite...stupid. At what point did you say when you were reading the book, "Wow. That was really smart. I never would have thought of doing that?" Only one time in the entire book was I surprised by the intellect of Katniss - when she was about die of water and wondering why Haymitch still hadn't sent her any aid and she realized that she must already be near water. That's it. She's frustratingly slow about Peeta's feelings about her, and really doesn't seem to be able to come up with a clever plan for anything (her plan with Rue was elementary. You or I could have thought of that).
Hand in hand with this seeming stupidity of the tributes is the seeming fact that the tributes don't experience the same emotions, behaviors, or thought processes as regular human beings do. It seemed like Katniss was really angry that Peeta joined the Careers, but why didn't she ask him about it when they were in the cave together? Why is it that neither Katniss nor any of the other tributes seem to feel any real remorse or trauma after killing people? Why is it that none of the tributes refuse to fight? Why is it none of the tributes commit suicide in utter despair and fear of a worse death? Maybe my examples aren't the best. But just think (like I'm sure anyone reading the book has) - "If I was thrown into the hunger games and wanted to get back at the Capitol, what would I do?" Maybe your strategy will be to stick with the other tribute from your District. Maybe you'll convince the other kids from the poor districts to stick together and fight the Careers together. Or maybe if you're really defiant, you just kill yourself to refuse to give Capitol what they want (I actually thought that is what Peeta was going to do).
The Length of the Arena Fight/Survival Portion
Starting from where I left off before, I had thought that Katniss and Peeta weren't only going to fight the other tributes -they were going to fight Capitol....except they didn't. The majority of the book was spent inside the Arena, as Katniss was simply just struggling to survive...for 150 pages. As an action-movie lover, this may surprise you, but I thought that the time spent inside the Arena was too lengthy in comparison with the entire book. With the suspicion that Katniss was going to win, it really wasn't an issue of "if" but "when". As we followed the tributes get killed one by one, it just felt like a countdown to when the Games would finally be over and Katniss would be victor. Thinking about it, I'm sort of reminded of the movie 12 Rounds, where John Cena has 12 tasks that he needs to complete or else the villain will kill his wife. The tests he goes through are pretty interesting, but it gets kind of dull and repetitive halfway through those tasks. Similarly, the whole Arena thing got kind of dull and repetitive around halfway through, when it became abundantly clear that most of what Katniss was going to do was simply run, hide, and survive. I get it. The author was trying to convey the length and the brutality of the whole matter. The author was trying to convey that the Games actually lasted around two weeks, and she wanted the reader to be as anxious for the end of the Games as much as Katniss was. In reality, the number of pages the author spent on the Games wasn't actually that much, but it was the whole repitition and dullness of it all (and all the other reasons that I've described) that made it seem much lengthier than it really was. I get it. It's just never a good sign when your best-selling book is compared to a John Cena movie.
In this middle part of the book, the only enjoyment I found in reading wasn't to see if Katniss was going to stay alive (I knew she was), but to see how she would stay alive, kind of like watching an episode of Man vs. Wild. With the end result already figured out, it really just became the journey that I had to be entertained by. I had also obviously hoped that she and Peeta would remember their hatred of Capitol and think of something to do about it. To me, this is the biggest conflict in the book, not that of the tributes against each other. Too bad the author refuses to address it (minimally) until after the Games are over.
The Ending
Lack of a "Bigger Picture"
After the movie 12 Rounds, John Cena, along with all of the viewers, realize that the villain wasn't actually just trying to make Cena do 12 pointless tasks, but that there was a bigger picture to the details they had been focusing on. I had really expected something like that to happen in this book. I expected Katniss to leave the Arena and have some bigger realization about the situation at hand. I had thought throughout reading the book that massive things were going on behind the scenes that Katniss just couldn't see, and that after winning the games, she would realize what had been going on the entire time she was in the arena. This suspicion of mine is from the constant attention Katniss pays to the Gamemakers, the viewers, and basically the outside world. She makes a lot of assumptions about Haymitch and her sponsers and Capitol that I had hoped would be disproven in some way. Maybe she would leave the Arena and realize that the Hunger Games were fixed. Maybe she would learn that Haymitch was a rebel of some sort. Maybe there was a rebellion happening out in Panem, but she didn't know about it. But there was none of that. The entire book had the feeling of the entire stage being frozen except wherever Katniss was. The entire world was static and was unchanged whenever Katniss went back
Unanswered Questions...that will probably stay unanswered
Unanswered questions are obviously a great way to end a book that has sequels, but the problem I have with these unanswered questions is that they probably won't be answered in the next book. Even if they are, their application and relevance is immediate. Some of the questions that were burning in my mind as I was reading about her time in the arena - What's going to happen after she wins? Who are her sponsors, and how are they significant? Did she interpret Haymitch's gifts correctly? How did Thresh die? How were those dog beasts related to the dead tributes? The book refuses to answer any of the many questions that were raised in my mind in the arena and just goes on to pursue overly simply plot lines - the friendzone with Peeta and the "anger" of the Capitol. Neither of these are addressed properly, as the book, along with the train carrying the the tributes back home, comes to an abrupt halt.
Conclusion
I enjoyed reading Hunger Games. I really did. I wouldn't have finished reading it in a couple of days if I didn't. But it's the same kind of enjoyment I get from reading Redwall or Harry Potter - a simple, mindless sort of enjoyment. Maybe my expectations were just too high for a 350-page book, or maybe I've just been too heavily influenced from reading the epics of A Song of Ice and Fire. Either way, I was disappointed in the over-simplicity of the plot, the lack of character development, the static nature of the universe and the lack of parallel storylines, and the failure to address the real, huge conflict that the first part of the book seemed to have been building up to. I look forward to reading the next book in the series, and I really hope that some of those bigger, more interesting issues (like the injustice and iron fist of the Capitol on the Districts) will be addressed. I hope the characters are more interesting, the plot is more involved and complex, and I hope the ending won't be a cop-out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)