Some thoughts on Female Protagonists

   I promise that this is not merely another Hunger Games post. I realize that I've been prolifically posting on that particular subject lately, in fact, I've been bordering on fangirling (which is not something I normally do for anything other than Star Wars and Joss Whedon). The feminist movement, as I like to tell the imaginary hordes of people who want to hear what I have to say, was severely damaging to the family and society as a whole in many ways, but that being said, it really sort of had to happen.

This had to happen, too. I definitely support this.

    Please understand, I'm not supporting some sort of radical feminist movement here. I'm supporting something that God ordained from the very beginning-- that men and women are equal and both created in His image. Their roles are different, but they're equal. So yes, woot for us getting the vote and all that.Without going into too much detail, I just have to lay a little bit of that out in order for the rest of the post to follow (it's one of those fancy "sequences", like the board game Sequence. Which I never could figure out how to play. But hopefully you'll be able to follow this sequence. Anyway.) (And, also? Pictures again! I know how much you kiddos love pictures and have taken it into consideration).
    If you look at stories, you basically have two types of female protagonists: the wimps and the butch. Into the "wimps" category would fall all the Disney princesses created before 1970 (Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Snow White), Lucie Manette from Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities (seriously, she is the worst), and, I gather, though not, fortunately, through first-hand experience, that Bella person from those Twilight stories. The wimps don't really do much. They sit around a lot, and they faint, and they are nothing without a man. (again, reiterating, I am not arguing that there is anything wrong with marriage or the man's authority therein. I am arguing against women who are weak and/or dumb.)

I mean...she's clearly not really the proactive type.

      The butch overcompensate by acting just like men. These are all the tomboys and the hardened women-- think any police/detective on any crime show ever, Starbuck, possssibbly Mulan, since she, ya know, dressed as a dude. Not that there aren't enjoyable things about both of these types of characters, but they are both very obviously written for women-- in the first case, conforming to age old stereotypes of how women should behave, and in the second, consciously attempting to buck those same stereotypes.

You see that? That is the look of a man who is questioning his sexuality.

    And then there are women protagonists who are written as people. Of course, this is the way women should be written: not as women, but as people. And an example of this is, yes, Katniss from The Hunger Games-- a protagonist who behaves like a normal human would, not consciously basing her decisions at all times around her gender. Honestly, another example of this would be Jane Eyre, who does not conform to the standard proprietorial ways a woman should behave-- Jane is brutally honest and says exactly what is on her mind, which is one of her most intriguing qualities. E.M. Forster, despite his worldview flaws, wrote women extraordinarily well-- not ignoring their femininity, but merely including it as a part of who they are. Look at this sentence from Howard's End, wherein Margaret, his "toothy" and opinionated heroine is attempting to discern whether or not a man has feelings for her: "She put it to herself as indelicately as possible, in the hope that her brain would cry, 'Rubbish, you're a self-conscious fool!' But her brain only tingled a little and was silent." It is a sentence that rings true as the natural thing that a woman would think in such a situation; not merely because she is a woman, but because she is a woman in that situation. She needs to figure out how to deal with it. Like a regular person would.

It's obvious why Forster knew so much about women. The man was a stud.

    -- I feel I must mention this in passing before I conclude, and it is a confession which will, I fear, alienate almost everyone I know. I don't really care for Jane Austen's protagonists. I'm quite sure that Elizabeth Bennett is very charming and very forward-thinking, and I have an uncomfortably and unfortunately close kinship to Marianne Dashwood...I could just never take them seriously. No matter how shockingly impolitely they spoke, everything still seemed so confined to their miniscule societies that it was hard to feel the weight of any of it, if you know what I mean. I am confident that this lack of appreciation for Austen is a flaw on my part, as people who are far wiser than I am adore her. I just thought that her heroines merited mention, since she has written some of the most famous females in literature. Please don't hate me.

I mean...be honest...she's not exactly gonna survive the Hunger Games, ya know?

   I hope my hastily written and, in all probability, ill-thought out ideas make some sort of sense to you. But if they don't, a thousand pardons and please, feel free to tell me what you think of feminine protagonists: how ought authors to treat them? And etc. et. al.

Let's Talk About...The Hunger Games.

    While I wouldn't necessarily self-identify as a cynic, I'm certainly not overly optimistic when it comes to book-to-movie adaptions. Years of movies like Prince Caspian, Alice in Wonderland, and Eragon have hardened me against the prospect of a good book becoming a good movie. So I was really, really prepared for The Hunger Games to disappoint.
    It didn't. Miracle of miracles, it turned out to be one of the best adaptions I've ever seen. Disclaimer: It's been two years since I last read the book cover-to-cover, so my recollection of minor details may not have been spot on. However, HG managed to stay true both to the spirit of the book I remember reading, and to all of the major details. That's not to say they didn't leave things out; of course, an adaption can't remain 100% the same from page to screen, but nothing necessary was ignored, nothing was changed to the point of serious deviance from the source material, and the small changes that they did make, for the most part, led to a stronger film.

Especially this guy. Every extra scene with him in it was like a gift from the gamemakers.
OF THE MOVIE
#Meta

     I do want to address briefly something I've talked about ad nauseum previously, which is, of course, the subject matter of the story itself. The reactions to it from Christians have been across the board, from  those who wholeheartedly accept it to those who reject it without consideration-- I don't think either of these is the correct response. There is an argument that the entire setup is a false dilemma and displays situational ethics at their worst. (Doug Wilson wrote this article to coincide with the release of the movie, expanding it from a brief review he wrote while reading the book: http://www.credenda.org/index.php/Reviews/christians-and-the-hunger-games.html). It's definitely a legitimate concern, especially when it comes to the book, in which Katniss is willing to do whatever it takes to survive.

    And that, incidentally, is one of the best things that comes from its silver screen debut: a drastic change in the character of Katniss herself. I don't know if this was intentional or not, but Jennifer Lawrence's Katniss was a lot softer than the Katniss of the book. (Of course-- she'd have to be-- we can't read her thoughts, so she has to be expressive and not completely stoic). We, as the audience, never get the impression that she would be willing to kill Rue, or Peeta, or any of the other "innocent" tributes if it came down to that. (In the book, it's a lot more iffy, and she's a lot more pragmatic). In the movie, she retains a moral high ground of a sort by only seriously fighting with those tributes from the first and second districts who are there for their own glory of their own free choice.

This is what a "strong female protagonist" looks like. Take notes, world. 

     The downside of the movie is the visual aspect. While it's one thing to read an account of a death, it's entirely different to see it played out in front of you. It was actually less violent than the hype made it sound, but still-- pretty uncomfortable, to say the least. I was impressed, however, with how non-glamorous they made the violence and how much was kept off-screen rather than shown. It definitely seemed as if the filmmakers were saying, "What is the minimum amount of actual violence we can show that will still establish the seriousness of the situation without glorifying in it?", an effort I appreciated.

  That was obviously a very brief and incomplete attempt to show both sides of some of the Hunger Games issues. You can check out the archives if you're interested in more worldview stuff relating to them. But now, on to the movie itself!!! Caution: Somewhat spoilery, but I'm pretty sure most of you who are going to see the movie have already seen it.

"I don't always not drink. But when I do, I'm pretty awesome."

    Things the movie got absolutely, spot on, perfectly right:

    Katniss. Katniss, Katniss, Katniss. Oh, my goodness, was Jennifer Lawrence perfect. She brought a great balance between softness and stoicism. She was far more likeable than the book's Katniss, and she has pretty much the best speaking voice ever. (As for singing, well, that's another story.)
    Haymitch was amazing, too-- even though I still wish in the dark recesses of my heart that he was played by Hugh Laurie. Woody Harrelson did a tremendous job of making his character believable and developed without a huge amount of actual on-screen time. (Seriously, did anyone else completely lose it when it showed him watching Katniss struggle with her burnt leg, and then going out to try and get her sponsors?? :')
     All of the secondary characters were amazing-- all the tributes, all the people in the Capitol, etc. The movie had a unique feel, some seriously awesome costumes and sets, and , as I said, a near-perfect capture of the spirit of the book. (It was, by the way, an even nearer-to-perfect adaptation than the Harry Potter movies, which had their work cut out for them trying to condense 600+ page books into two hours).
    And.
    My number one favorite thing: They totally, totally, completely downplayed the love story/love triangle as much as they possibly could. I was certain they would try to make a bigger deal out of it than even the book does. But, if possible, they focused on it even less, and they really only showed the "love" angle in the context of the Games and how it saves Katniss and Peeta. I was thankful for that one, because it would have been hard to take the movie seriously if it had focused too much on cave smoochies in contrast to the backdrop of children killing other children.

In other words, these disturbingly cult-like promo images were misleading. 

      Things it got...somewhat wrong: (And let me clarify: I'm not addressing moral/ethical flaws since I've done that above and in earlier blog posts. Also, I'm nitpicking here. The movie was, over all, really good. But like anything, if you look close enough you can find some flaws.  So, here they are.)
   Gale fell into the trap I was afraid he would. (Hahahaha, get it? 'Cuz Gale makes traps?? I didn't even mean to do that!)  He just sort of came across as sensitive and meh, but he was hardly in the movie anyway.  (I will say, his reaction shots during the Katniss/Peeta scenes might be the most heartbreaking thing I've ever seen, though.)
    Lack of development-- the movie did a really good job overall, but there were a couple of things it just failed to explain: Cinna was awesome, but they never really show why he is so personally invested in Katniss or develop his character. They also didn't explain a lot of the backstory of the rebellion, so if you hadn't read the book you would have been confused by the three-finger salute, mockingjays, etc. Also, whatever they were trying to do with Cato's storyline didn't really work. It just came across as confusing.
     And, of course... Peeta. Peeta... was... not... that... impressive. I love Peeta in the books. But in the movie, he just comes across as ... wimpy. And helpless. Rather than being Katniss' moral compass, as he is in the book, he just ... doesn't really do anything.  Their chemistry was awkward, and the cave scene was one of the most uncomfortable things I've ever seen.  But, again, the movie didn't focus on that overly much, so it wasn't distracting.)
     Oh, and his camouflage tactics were downright silly, if I do say so myself.

That is a face that only a mother could love. Because it is the face of a baby. 

      All right, and the one thing that almost ruined it for me was when the tributes from 1 and 2 (and Peeta)corner Katniss and chase her up a tree. In the book, the tree is 80 feet high, and there is no way they can climb that high or shoot her. In the movie, it's about 16 feet high; they take two half-hearted shots at her and then say, "Hey, dudes, let's wait until she starves or something.".Know something, guys? I'm pretty sure if you shot at her a couple more times, or tried alternate angles, you'd get her eventually. But, no, just let her sit up there and potentially find a way to kill your whole group. That's cool, too.

      But these were honestly my only beefs with the movie. I apologize for the incoherence of a lot of these thoughts; I'm operating on like 4 hours of sleep here, gosh!! Long story short: if you liked the book, you should like the movie. And it was really nice not to have an adaptation disappoint for once.

5 Ways the Hunger Games Movie Could Get It Wrong

    The new Hunger Games movie comes out in less than a month, and man, is the world a-buzz. I feel pretty proud of myself, both for having boarded this bandwagon early (usually, I'm the last one to catch on to these things; I have only seen one Star Wars movie in theaters and two Harry Potters.), and for not fully boarding the bandwagon of craziness that is rocketing towards the stratosphere of teen fandom at a speed that puts TwiHards to shame (kind of like how the speed at which that metaphor got away from me puts me to shame). Although, yeah, I liked the books, I'm going to see the movie, and yes, I'm dressing up for the midnight premiere, I like to flatter myself that I can also see the numerous flaws in the books and maybe even predict some that will be in the movie. Here are a few things the filmmakers could do that would completely ruin the story:
     1) Glamorizing the violence. I'm almost certain this will be the case because, after all, this is supposed to be an edgy teen movie about people kicking butt and looking good doing it. While the main characters will probably dialogue endlessly about how pointless and horrible the violence is, I suspect that the footage we see will contradict everything they are saying. We will be encouraged to look at the violence, to cheer when Katniss kills someone, and to get excited over the battle scenes. That contradicts the very message of the book, and, in an ironic twist, transforms us into clones of the detached viewers from the Capital and the districts who watch the Hunger Games for entertainment. While the book showed that these people were desensitized to violence and took voyeuristic pleasure in watching horrible acts of brutality, the movie, I suspect, will encourage us to enjoy the same kind of thing. This is closely related to number two:
   2) Changing the entire mood of the books. Obviously, a movie can't really be done in 1st person present-- not well, at least. The movie is sure to give us a wider vision of Panem, since we will not always be confined to Katniss' viewpoint, but will be able to see what others are doing and thinking as well. While it could be a wonderful thing to see a fuller version of the Hunger Games universe, it could also wind up altering the feel and uniqueness of the book. For instance, the filmmakers might decide to spend a lot of time on the other tributes and the "bad guys" at the Capital during the games, a focus which might distract from the story and needlessly confuse people (like we saw in the second Narnia movie, or Prince Caspian and the Over-Exposition of Miraz and Everyone in His Army Who Speak With Thick, Inaudible Accents, as I like to call it). It also runs the risk of making Katniss mega unlikeable because, well, be honest, the only reason you even sort of liked her is because you could see what she was thinking. If you judged her by actions alone, you'd conclude she was a jerk.
    3) Messing up the relationship between Peeta and Katniss. Seriously, because the way this unfolds in the book, through flashback and then slowly throughout the games, is just perfect-- it's not supposed to be a rushed, love-at-first sight, giddy kind of love, but more of a slow and steady growth. It's going to be hard for the filmmakers to portray all the layers of wrong assumptions and deceptions that go on throughout their relationship, also (think: Peeta really loves Katniss; Katniss thinks he is only pretending to for the games; Katniss goes along; Katniss eventually loves him; she doesn't know if he truly loves her, etc. Exhausting, no? And it's hard enough when you can read thoughts; imagine the challenge of portraying that visually).
    4) Making it too modern. By this, I mean too much a product of the present day alone. I've been concerned about this ever since Taylor Swift's single, Safe and Sound,  for the soundtrack came out. It's a pretty song, and it's on my iPod, don't get me wrong, but it seems like such a teen-beckoning, 2012-y step that I'm legitimately afraid of just how dated this might already be. These fears have been further confirmed by some of the images in the trailer-- what is described in the book as a mysterious, structurally complex gown that can light on fire is pretty clearly just a strapless prom dress that can, presumably catch on fire. And the promo shots of Katniss, Gale, and Peeta, are very, very Twilight (that's not a good thing, kiddos, btw). Which brings me to my last point
     5) Ruining the characters. I know this is a really, really broad statement, so I'll try to focus just on the ways the filmmakers could ruin the characters of Katniss, Gale, and Peeta. With Katniss, my biggest fear is actually that she'll come across as a cardboard jerk. Without her first-person view, without knowing the inner workings of her mind, it would be very easy for her to appear cold, unfeeling, and pretty rude.  I think the  cardboard thing is also the biggest threat to Peeta; he's just a downright good guy, and filmmakers tend to deal with that sort of character either by making him boring and flat, or giving him all kinds of flaws to compensate, either of which would ruin the character. Gale could be too soft and Peeta-like, judging from the trailer; he seems like he's very much the sensitive type, which isn't really how he is in the book-- he's a good friend and it's easy for Katniss to talk to him because they're so similar, but he's not a big cuddly bare-your-feelings teddy bear (that dates Miley Cyrus :/). I guess what I'm saying is, it's going to be hard for these characters not to be influenced by Twilight, and we might just end up with a cardboard girl, otherworldly guy, and sensitive best friend.

    So those are some of my fears about the new movie. Gotta stay positive, right? If you want to read more about the Hunger Games and you're not sick of me yet, you can see my thoughts and incoherent babbline about the worldview of the books here: http://leahrabe.blogspot.com/2010/04/hunger-games.html 
    And heck, if you want to see how the movie might have gone if Disney had made it, check this out: http://leahrabe.blogspot.com/2010/05/derangeder-and-derangeder.html

For the Valentine's Day in Your Life

 This Valentine's Day, I'm thinking about Christ's perfect love.   Here's an amazing article by Regina Doman, Catholic author of several fairy-tale retellings (I love fairy tales, don't you? I also-- don't spit at me or anything-- love Catholic authors. Occasionally. They tend to be really good writers. Ever noticed that? well...that's another discussion for another time, then). Anyway, I tried to find this article online but the internets failed me, so here it is: straight out of the pages of The Chesterton Review Fantasy Literature Issue.  (Incidentally, I posted part of this on my old blog a forever ago, so if you read it there, then a)you get brownie points for being an awesome person and b) it's worth re-reading.) Anyway, here you go:
Author's Reconnaissance: Reflections on Snow White by Regina Doman
The Prince:

The Prince is the most maligned fairy tale element in the modern world today. Only the knight in shining armor garners more pot shots than he. Perhaps it's because of the unfortunate appellation, "Charming"-- a legacy of the Disney film. In my casual reading and viewing I make a point of seeking out modern retellings of fairy tales in the media. So far I have yet to find one truly good prince.
    William Goldman satirizes Prince Charming as "Prince Humperdink" in the movie The Princess Bride. In Stephen Sondheim's fairy tale musical Into the Woods, which puts together a half-dozen Grimm's taes into an ensemble musical, the two Princes are egocentric white males obsessed with the thrill of the chase and low on commitment, symbolized in their song "Out of Your Reach". The exceedingly turgid teen romance novel Just Ella, ... about Cinderella's later life, has Prince Charming turn out to be a flake only interested in his bride for her looks.
         Other examples of ingrained Prince-hatred are forthcoming. The crippled-beyond-repair miniseries, The 10th Kingdom, wavers frustratingly between presenting a real fairy tale world and becoming enamored with satire and sex instead. What gave the overlong miniseries its death blow, in my opinion, was the decision to drop the Prince (Prince Wendell) as the hero and instead raise up a werewolf into a human fit for the heroine to marry.
    In the attempted remake of the "real" Snow White tale, which turned out titled Snow White: A Tale of Terror, and was blocked from major release in the U.S. by the now omnipotent Disney Company, the filmmakers apparently tried hard to believe in the fairy tale, but could not believe in the prince. I have not yet seen the film, but I understand that in this version, Snow White marries one of the "dwarfs" (!). A prince exists in the film, but only as bait for the evil queen's seductions. Seeing these lists of examples, one might well ask: why is it that we no longer believe in princes?
        I think it's not accidental. In the allegorical reading of Snow White, the Prince represents Christ. It is he who rescues the princess from her own deadly choice. He restores her to life, and brings her into his father's kingdom. Unlike in "Sleeping Beauty", he does not wake her with a kiss, but when he vows his love for Snow White (In language that recalls wedding vows) before the dwarfs, they surrender her coffin to him.
    As the servants carry away her coffin, they stumble over a tree stump, and "with that shock, the piece of poisonous apple that Snow White had bitten came out of her throat". The coffin shatters. She awakes and cries out, "Oh heavens, where am I?" "You are with me," the king's son cries out joyfully. "I love you more than anything in the world. Come with me to my father's palace and you shall be my wife." And Snow White goes with him gladly. 
     “The modern female, girl or woman, is sadly unacquainted with Christ the lover. Without him, her only hope for solace is human male love. And the rites of modern courtship expect that she will surrenser her soul not to one man, but to several over the course of her lifetime. The first man or boy she kisses will not be the last. She will fall deeply in love with at least one other man before she marries, and the pain of that breakup, which in many cases will be intensified by the tearing apart of an extramarital sexual bond designed to last a lifetime, will damage her trust and ability to believe in a man significantly, if not irreparably. After losing that first boyfriend (or, sadly, husband) is it any wonder that girls and women begin to doubt that the Prince exists? If they can still believe, it is because of a miracle. But God, even in this modern age, is generous with miracles in His healing of hearts. But apart from healing, how can you believe in the Prince? A female writer or consumer may well have her difficulties, given her own personal knowledge of men. Inevitably, they discover the idea of the Prince coming to save them is too good to be true. He just doesn’t seem like any man they’ve ever met, so therefore, he must not be real.
     The Prince has a hard role, detailed in other fairy tales. In “Snow White”, he comes in at the end and rescues the princess from death. Bit one doesn’t get that kind of power lightly. The Prince in other tales defeats dragons, suffers trials, searches the world on quests, and gains wisdom. He may be born to privilege, but he takes his responsibility seriously. In “Snow White,” he is not drawn to the princess because of her royalty, but because of her distress, which he feels a responsibility to put right. He and his father take upon themselves the responsibility of punishing the evildoers--the witch—at the end of the tale. If we follow the extra-literary coda, he is also responsible for ensuring Snow White can indeed live happily ever after.
      That’s quite a lot to live up to, and it’s unsurprising that many a modern male, artist or consumer, feels uncomfortable when it’s suggested that this might be a real standard he might be expected to imitate. Christ has never been an exactly pleasant role model. It’s too obvious to the appraising man what the consequences of truing to be like Christ might be. Being crucified naked upon a tree doesn't fit into most men’s career goals.
       The anti-Christ culture in the modern world, as much as it hates and vilifies women, in the end, must spew its final venom on that Man. Not only can it not believe in His divinity, it can’t believe in any of His personas. It refuses to believe that there is such a thing as a good man. It refuses to believe in such a thing as a pure man. A strong man with a combination of those qualities lives only in the most insulated halls of myth. It dreads and fears the virility of Christ. Any man who dares to make himself a persona Christi, whether he be a priest, a good father, a youthful activist, or any man fulfilling his calling, must be shot down. 
     But there he is: the Prince. He makes the fairy tales. The fragile bubble of the eucastrophic world can’t exist without him.”

New Year's. And Painting. And Lancelot.

    I apologize in advance for the odd connections, but that's just how my brain works. It'll hopefully make sense after a while. They do all sort of fit together. I promise.
    So, welcome to 2012!...although it's been 2012 for a while now. Almost an entire work week! This is going to be a really exciting year for me...I turn 18, graduate from High School, and head to college in the fall-- some of the biggest changes and choices that I've ever had to face.
    I'm terrified of new years. You know why? Well, in the second semester of last school year, we started painting in my art class. I had never really seriously painted before (I mean, I'd done watercolors when I was a wee child, and some acrylics when I was a slightly less wee child,but not serious adult paint-requires-an-oil-medium-type painting), so I was really excited to paint on canvas with oils and do grown-up painting. Well, when I started my first painting-- an apple-- I sketched the apple quite confidently and then went to paint it on the canvas. The underpainting went well, just large, brown shapes to indicate light and shadow. But then, when I started really trying to paint with colors, I immediately froze. There were so many options, so many different color combinations, brush strokes, tones that I could use that would change the painting in huge ways (or in little ways. the details can be even worse to work with). I was terrified that I would ruin the painting, there were innumerable ways I could mess it up, and there were so many variables I wasn't sure would work.
   I know I'm rambling here. But the point is, for me, a new year feels a lot like that painting. There are so many decisions to be made throughout a year, so many ways I could ruin it. And that's terrifying.
    But then again, I'm not the one painting my life.
     On New Year's Sunday, the pastor (of a little church close to my Grandma's out in the middle of Havana nowhere) preached on a passage which is pretty popular for the New Year, Philippians 3:12-14.

     "Not that I have already obtained it or have already become perfect, but I press on so that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus. Brethren, I do not regard myself as having laid hold of it yet; but one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus."

   So that's what I'm going to do this year. What I should do every year. Strive towards Christ and know that He has a perfect plan.  Forget things that would hold me back (as in, not let them hinder me in the present striving).
    But then that got me thinking, too...what about sin in all of this? I know God is the one who is ruling my life. But what about when I sin-- "ruin the painting"?
   Well, it doesn't ruin the painting, not the one God sees. God sees Christ when He looks at me, and His perfect righteousness. That doesn't mean I can mess up my painting as much as I want, because I want my painting to look as much like Christ's as possible. If I make a mistake in a painting, I don't give up on the painting (well....sometimes I do *sheepish grin* but for the sake of the illustration, let's say I don't). I fix it. It's always fixable.
   And that's when I started thinking about Lancelot (because I always do, eventually, start thinking about Lancelot).  I'm going to assume you already know the story of Arthur, Lancelot, and Guinevere, and if you don't...well then. I don't really have an insult quite strong enough for you (although that's probably good, since "insulting people less" really ought to be among my New Year's Resolutions). T.H. White's The Once and Future King is my favorite retelling of the story, especially because White pays such careful attention to Lancelot's character and motivation. Lancelot, as he is introduced, is strong, valiant, and godly (okay, and also a little rude). He's also a bit self-righteous and believes that he is so strong and even able to perform miracles because of how close he is to God.  But then, after his first sin with Guinevere, he just gives up-- he says, essentially, "I've sinned once. God won't want to use me now. I might as well just keep sinning". He tries to stop a couple times, but that's the ultimate conclusion to which he comes.
   (Aside: I can't believe the plebeian spelling lows I've sunk to for you all just now. Obviously it should be "Launcelot" and "Guenever".)
   We can't have that same mindset. (There's a whole essay in here, by the way, on how Lancelot's failure really reflects the failure of the Catholic Church, which was really the only church at that time. If salvation is found through works, then, obviously, damnation is found through falling, even once. I will write it some day, quite prosumbly). When we sin, we aren't supposed to give up the ghost, but to "forget what lies behind" and "press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus." 
     That's a freeing thought for the New Year. Happy 2012. Our God is amazing.