Armstrong's Interpretation

Wow. I'm slightly confused, I came to look at my blog and found that the blog I had written wasn't there. Part of the reason I don't trust the internet. But I'll try and rewrite what I had previously written.

I try not to be too cynical when reading books that have such a broad history, but I was not a fan of Armstrong's introduction to the book. I often found myself "grouped" in her generalizations about how people saw the world or how she thought everyone saw the world.  I think that it's interesting that she is a Catholic nun, how ever it really throws my interest off again. I REALLY try to be open to the views of people from religious doctrines, but some traditions in the Catholic church really bother me, but I'm definitely not going to go into that. Please don't be offended if you are Catholic, I promise I have nothing against you. Anyways, I feel like in the introduction she uses more opinion and openness than she does in the chapters 1-4 of the book.

When I got to reading the actual chapters of the book, I found myself rereading pages, a lot. I am not the biggest history fan, and without a big enough knowledge of Jerusalem's history already I found myself pretty lost trying to keep up with all the names, dates, and people. I feel like it's necessary for her to cover it all, but it makes for a read that isn't to appealing to me. I am really going to have to find a new way of reading these chapters, whether it is jotting down notes in the book as I am reading or notes in a notebook. It's not that I don't get what she is explaining and telling us about, it's more that I have attention problems, so sometimes my comprehension isn't where I would like it to be.

I am sounding extremely negative, wow. I have really got to work on that, I'm really not usually this bad. I guess this book will need to grow on me, or we will grow together. I'm not gonna give up on it.