Rachel,
Don't get all pissy because I called you on what you were trying to do. Now you're trying to be all sarcastic saying "I had you in mind." You enjoyed the book which is great, in enjoying that book you remembered my post and decided to post some alterior motive to discredit my opinion on not liking the book.
You're still doing it.
Fine. I was simply making a suggestion of something you might not have thought of. I didn't think it was that big of a deal. Apparently you have already thought of everything and don't need input from others. Too bad you can't fix your original post that said it welcomed people's thoughts. Apparently that meant to only post about our own personal thoughts that had to do with us. I am sorry that I had a thought about you, thought it might be helpful to you, and posted it. Apparently this is some kind of boundary I have crossed. I honestly don't see it as crossing a boundary, but maybe that is an indication of how far off the mark I still am in many ways.
Again if you want to state why you like the book that's perfectly fine, I've given reasons why I didn't like the book. Is there a specific reason why you feel the need to assign another one to why I didn't like the book? I still do welcome why you liked the book, I don't welcome people telling me why I didn't like something and the three s's: scorn, skeptisism and sarcasm. The only thing you're far off the mark in is your own motivation of posting. If you want to say why you liked the book that is fantastic, if you want to say that you don't feel that she fits the stereotypes of ex-JWs, that's fine too. Brinjin said that she felt the same part that I felt was harmful in showing a child faking an accusation of molestation wasn't harmful and why. I can see her point of view, I didn't jump all over it, the only thing I jump on is people trying to invalidate my opinion by assigning an untrue reasoning to it.
I still don't see how suggesting that perhaps you didn't like the book because you couldn't relate to the main character was undermining your reasons or implying you had some ulterior motive. That just does not make sense to me.
You're essentially saying here "The reasons that he listed for why he didn't like the book is not the real reason he didn't like the book, it's because he didn't relate to the character." It's not a perhaps either, you didn't say "You might not have liked it because you can't relate to the character" you told me in no uncertain terms that I could never relate to the character. Which is ridiculous.
Perhaps you really take yourself too seriously when it comes to books written by former Jehovah's Witnesses about their experiences in the Jehovah's Witnesses
.
I doubt anyone who knows me thinks I'm serious about anything. Some of the people here are on my facebook and I'm sure they'll agree. Maybe this book just hit too close to home for you and someone saying they didn't like it somehow offends you and some similar choices you've made in life. You can't see why someone who would like to destroy all the stereotypes that JWs have of ex-JWs might not like a book that confirms them all? If I were to do like you have here on this thread I could state here that your real reason you liked the book wasn't because you thought it was funny, well written, or indicative of a JW expirience, but you did similar things in your past and you feel validated by reading someone else did as well. To which you felt guilty regarding how you left the JWs and reading someone else's similar expirience takes some of that guilt away, so that you can blame the JWs for your own mistakes, thinking that if more than one person fell into that trap you can finally shift the blame onto the organization. Really though, I'm not saying that's the reason you liked the book and the other reasons you cited are not the REAL reasons, your reasons are perfectly valid. You enjoyed her story, you related to it, fantastic glad you liked the book.
Also, I didn't read the book because I wanted to read a book about a chick who royally f'ed up her life. I picked up the book because I wanted to read someone's unique experience with the Jehovah's Witness organization. I was not disappointed, because I didn't have an incredibly strict criteria going in. I had an open mind. If you want the story to be told in a very specific way why don't you write it yourself and read that over and over again?
Very nice taking out of context, I said that people could read my review and use it as a reason why they would like to pick up the book. I picked up the book because it came recommended as funny and I'm interested in reading JWs expiriences. I posted this because I didn't like the book and since I didn't see any reviews online of people who didn't like the book I figured some balance was in order. I don't have strict criteria, I read the book I didn't like it for some reasons and I posted why. You think I have some sort of preconceived notion of what makes a good JW book and it has to meet those in order for me to like it. Once again you're trying to assign some ulterior motive to why I didn't like the book to invalidate the reasons why I stated I didn't like the book. What is your deal here? Why is it so imperative that the reasons I gave for not liking the book can't be the REAL reasons I didn't like the book? I've read some expiriences on here and other sites that have absolutely broke my heart. There are tons of different JW stories out there, I'm not fond of the ones that confirm stereotypes. As I stated earlier in this thread I don't need to write a book and read it over and over again, there is a fantastic book that I feel is a much better snapshot of life as a Jehovah's Witness, it deals with the teachings, it deals with the criticisms, it's called "Falling In Truth" by Steve McRoberts. Not only do I feel it's a better book, written better, deals with more parts of being a Jehovah's Witness and motivations behind it, but you can read it for free online.
