|
|
Post by SRL on Oct 21, 2006 21:03:26 GMT -5
Hi, Tegid! Just popped in to take a look at the latest....
|
|
|
|
Post by panopticism on Oct 22, 2006 23:02:52 GMT -5
Okay, I premis this by saying I don't mean to insult or offend anyone, because I think the content question is quite....ridiculous. First, I don't know if anyone has noticed, but their was quite a lot of violence in the book, not that I mind, yet people seem to only be discussing the small amount of "sex" scenes. I'm sorry, but the violence is probably worse and for sure more descriptive than the sex. But, God help us all if their is a desription of people having sex, cause now you know you're going straight to hell. Additionally, the way the book was written was in a very descriptive manor. Look to the visions for example. Following along these lines, Lawhead, in a sense, had to detail what occured, to keep the characters and the writing credible. What was he supposed to do? "And the two went to the tent for a night of wonder and bond building...." It wouldn't make any sense and would ruin the writing itself. And as posted earlier, there was sex in the bible, remember that whole chapter called "the song of songs," which if i might add is a bit more desriptive than lawhead is. All in all, this wasn't written in a manor to be raunchy, or without reason, if so then it could be criticized. It was written in a manor that furthered the progression and development of the book and the characters.
My only regret is that I didn't post this before Lawhead wrote his post.
|
|
|
|
Post by CynanMachae on Oct 23, 2006 12:45:11 GMT -5
Okay, I premis this by saying I don't mean to insult or offend anyone, because I think the content question is quite....ridiculous. First, I don't know if anyone has noticed, but their was quite a lot of violence in the book, not that I mind, yet people seem to only be discussing the small amount of "sex" scenes. I'm sorry, but the violence is probably worse and for sure more descriptive than the sex. But, God help us all if their is a desription of people having sex, cause now you know you're going straight to hell. Additionally, the way the book was written was in a very descriptive manor. Look to the visions for example. Following along these lines, Lawhead, in a sense, had to detail what occured, to keep the characters and the writing credible. What was he supposed to do? "And the two went to the tent for a night of wonder and bond building...." It wouldn't make any sense and would ruin the writing itself. And as posted earlier, there was sex in the bible, remember that whole chapter called "the song of songs," which if i might add is a bit more desriptive than lawhead is. All in all, this wasn't written in a manor to be raunchy, or without reason, if so then it could be criticized. It was written in a manor that furthered the progression and development of the book and the characters. My only regret is that I didn't post this before Lawhead wrote his post. I must add my Amen, but unfortunately it's a lot harder to explain this to a group of young adults and their mothers when they're all intent on bashing the book for the sole purpose of its sexual content. I about got thrown out of the room when I mentioned that the Bible can get more descriptive than Patrick did. |
|
|
|
Post by dgan on Oct 24, 2006 10:07:32 GMT -5
While I agree with you entirely, I would like to defend those who are/were a little put off by the sexual content. As Christians, much of what we do personally is try to control what we take in based on how it affects us. While I can read of violence and play violent video games and, my favorite, study war history, I am not inclined to act violently. Some people perhaps would be, but for the most part, adults reading of violence are not tempted to commit violence.
Sex, on the contrary, inundates society. It is a temptation many Christians find difficult to resist, and thus it is something they try to avoid "feeding in" to their mind as much as possible. I think the argument here is not whether Lawhead was being tasteful or not, but simply is it something that could have been excluded to prevent further saturation of the Christian mind to sexually explicit media.
I think if you read some of the later posts, many people that were a little uncomfortable with it when they first read it have looked at the context in which it was placed and understand from a literary sense why it was there. All in all, I believe we are all in agreement.
|
|
|
|
Post by CynanMachae on Oct 24, 2006 10:11:08 GMT -5
While I agree with you entirely, I would like to defend those who are/were a little put off by the sexual content. As Christians, much of what we do personally is try to control what we take in based on how it affects us. While I can read of violence and play violent video games and, my favorite, study war history, I am not inclined to act violently. Some people perhaps would be, but for the most part, adults reading of violence are not tempted to commit violence. Sex, on the contrary, inundates society. It is a temptation many Christians find difficult to resist, and thus it is something they try to avoid "feeding in" to their mind as much as possible. I think the argument here is not whether Lawhead was being tasteful or not, but simply is it something that could have been excluded to prevent further saturation of the Christian mind to sexually explicit media. I think if you read some of the later posts, many people that were a little uncomfortable with it when they first read it have looked at the context in which it was placed and understand from a literary sense why it was there. All in all, I believe we are all in agreement. Another good point. I think it's useless to beat a point to death, and it DOES appear as though we are all on the same page. Good discussion, though. |
|
|
|
Post by panopticism on Oct 24, 2006 17:53:59 GMT -5
Fair enough. I didn't read the later posts, justs the begginning ones.
|
|
|
|
Post by jontattz on Feb 3, 2007 9:31:14 GMT -5
Patrick as a book rocked....one of my favourite reads so far. A very real account of someones faith, one that does not shirk the more darker aspects of human nature.....
What I loved most was the way this book was the way the sections moved so easily into each other. I was a bit sceptical about how Patrick could have been a warrior or even a roman official...but it just seemed to work, due to the excellent writing and gradual unveiling of Patricks character.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dred on Feb 5, 2007 8:32:59 GMT -5
I couldn't agree more. The smooth transition really did make it all the more real and enjoyable. It's great to read about these people who are strong in their faith but have gone through so much that they aren't super human but very, very human in how they get to where we learn so much about them.
|
|
Iestyn
Student
Med hevede sverd!
Posts: 16
|
Post by Iestyn on Jul 7, 2007 16:50:36 GMT -5
Needed more vikings.
Just kidding. But I didn't like Patrick as much as Byzantium for some reason. For me, the book sort of changed pace too much once it left Ireland; the transitions weren't as easy for me.
His time in Rome, for example, was really boring compared to his experiences fighting barbarians, and even his time tending sheep.
After reading Hood, The Song Of Albion trilogy, and Byzantium, this is actually my least favorite Lawhead book.
Which isn't to say it isn't good. but for me, it just doesn't stack up against the other stuff I've read.
|
|
Jherprincess
Student
In Heaven, I will have pointy ears, and I will live in a tree.
Posts: 48
|
Post by Jherprincess on Jul 7, 2007 17:41:48 GMT -5
Hmm... interesting thread. Well, its confession time for me! I actually put Patrick down after the first few chapters because it was too sexually descriptive. But I was only about 14 at the time. Even so, I find explicit sex unnecessary to a good story. I didn't really mind it in SoA because they were married and it wasn't very descriptive, but in Patrick it bothered me.
|
|
