'I'dea-licious: June 2008
Dear friends --
You are so very 'I'-dea-licious! So many insights--- thank you!
***
dare to dreamgirl: Maria Carr
I love the process of learning and creating. When I am done with
that I am ready to hand it off to someone else. That is why we need
other eyes...to let us see what can come next what
we can become. Barbara Torris
Thank you Barbara. If you are wondering, how do you become a 'dare to dreamgirl', there are really only two criteria: 1) You need to do something 'big' for you -- and very out of your comfort zone; 2) I need to have helped you, mentored you, encouraged you in your process. So I guess that means there's a 3rd criteria -- you asked to be mentored (and we all know how tough it is to ask) - and I said yes.
Speaking of dare to dreamgirls, will you click the kirtsy button to the left and see what's happening with dare to dreamgirl Dana King. She started her blog less than a year ago, a blog which has helped her find her voice, to hone her idea for the designHop club. And now she's been written up in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Baby steps really can become giant steps.
***
An 'A' or an 'F' on the Galadriel Test?
There has been no mention of Bella's religious belief, so it is safe to
say she is not Mormon, only the creator of the books is. So why should
she have to make her characters in the book exactly like her. She has
already commented that she would never put premarital sex in her books,
so I don't understand your problem with it. Bella and Edward do not
have sex, because Edward has some form of religion. He wants to get
married first. Now, going into the fourth book, they are engaged, and
are going to wait to try until after they are married. I guess I just
don't understand your anger or issue with the books, or Stephenie Meyer.
Rosa, thank you for taking this on. Were you to interview a large sample of Mormon women, I think you'd find this cohort both ambivalent and avid readers of her work. But, BUT, as I wrote in a follow-up post, Et tu Whitney?, I see myself applying a double standard. What's even more fascinating to me is that even as I sort through my ambivalence, I purchased Ms. Meyer's most recent book, The Host and have bought or recommended it to several others as well. There is so much more to be said. Like you, I love Benzion Chinn's thoughtful analysis of Stephenie Meyer and Orson Card's work. Bottom line -- I don't have this one figured out -- this seems to be a fairly fruitful discussion, so let's all keep talking.
***
The allure of the pom-pom
We often want (because it's
easier and more simple) to identify with one or the other -- and act
accordingly to the expectations of that role. I wonder if the fluid and
skillful movement between these "roles" (cheerleader and player) is what generates the energy
needed to accomplish our work, whatever that may be.
As for the Twilight Series, Bella is loved because she exists - not because she does everything right, fulfills expectations, or has a great haircut. I believe that deep down this is what we all want -- to be loved for our very existence.
When we "work" to secure love and acceptance (whether through
showing the nice parts of ourselves, saying what we think others want
us to say, dutifully playing a role that may not be in line with our
purpose, etc.), I wonder if we preclude ourselves from having what we
really want -- to be loved simply because we are who we are. Janna Taylor
We do want to be both -- don't we? I strive so hard to have a
both/and mindset, but seem to so often slip into either/or. Janna, yours is the kind of insight, even systergy, that I think all bloggers hope for. As we talk to one another, we both teach and are taught.
***
As I recently read a number of your entries, I thought that the tone of your posts had moved a bit from the more (extended discussions of your thoughts, experiences)
to the less personal (e.g. cheering on other people, etc.). I wondered
whether this was deliberate or not. Anonymous
Astute, dear friend. Because cheering those I love makes so me so very happy, AND because self-introspection is sometimes tough particularly when I am trying to 'be in the game' and it sometimes feels like the score is 0-28 and I'm in the last two minutes, focusing on others is my more comfortable place. However, because of my deep conviction that we need to learn to be cheerleader and player, nurturer and accomplisher, harbor and ship, my goal is to begin alternating between the two types of posts. And yep -- you can hold me to it.
***
Rachel and Leah: Reclaiming our power to dream
Rachel may have been beautiful and favored. But she was self centered--very; she thought only of her self.
Thank you Maggie. I certainly didn't see this as a both/and when I first starting thinking about Rachel and Leah as a metaphor for ourselves. Seeing the dark side of Rachel and light side of Leah has come with time which I've written about in my post Why I liked Wicked and to a lesser extent in Martha and Mary.
***
When we say No
I have to take a rain check on guest blogging. I have had some health and family 'stuff' come up all at the same time this past week and just can't put my heart and mind into as I should and as I want to...I am learning to prioritize, that is for sure...If in [a few months] you feel that it would still be pertinent to pick this up then I would be happy to refocus on it. Anonymous friend of Whitney's
I was so impressed when I received this e-mail. She said 'yes' to herself, 'no' to guest--blogging now, but yes? to the future. Beautifully done. It is so difficult to say no which is why is why it is Psyche's 4th Task, not her 1st. For those of you interested in a few practical tips, here's a video clip with highlights from O Magazine's How to Say No. One caveat -- I don't agree with everything that's said, but I did find it thought-provoking and on balance helpful.
Thank you again to each of you for your comments both on and off-line! Keep 'em coming!
Recent Comments