Kom ons wy ons aan Hom toe, kom ons streef daarna om ons aan die Here toe te wy.
Die Here sal verskyn, so seker as die son opkom, Hy sal na ons toe kom soos stortreen,
Hy sal ons verkwik soos lentereens die grond verkwik. - Hosea 6:3
Ons leef en dien in Christus-sekerheid

KONTAK ONS seker7seker@gmail.com
Welkom by 'n Skrifgefokusde bestemming vir Bybelstudies, boeke, videos en groei.
Welcome to a Scripture-focused destination for Bible studies, books, videos and growth.
Maretha Blog
Vandag kan anders wees. die uitgewersmaatskappy met boeke en Bybelvertalings wat jou hele lewe aanraak.

Lees dit!

The Book Of Strange New Things

by Michel Faber

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Book of Strange New Things is a 2014 science fiction novel by Dutch-born author Michel Faber. The work was first published in the United States on October 28, 2014 and concerns an English pastor who is sent to the planet of Oasis to teach its reclusive native inhabitants about Christianity. Michel Faber has stated that The Book of Strange New Things may be his last written work.[1]


Peter Leigh, an English pastor decides to leave his wife Beatrice in order to be a missionary. It is gradually revealed that rather than being a missionary on a different country he has been hired by a private American corporation called USIC to preach to the native population of a distant planet called Oasis. Peter expects to find hostility when meeting the native population but finds instead that they are extremely welcoming, already speak English very well and are passionate devotees of the Christian faith, referring to themselves as Jesus Lover One, Two, etc.

Peter sets to work trying to build a church for the Jesus Lovers and trying to live amongst them. On his brief trips back to the base camp where the engineers and scientist who run USIC on Oasis live he tries to contact Bea using a Shoot, a message system which allows him to communicate back on Earth. Though Bea's initial messages are full of love they also include information on severe natural disasters caused by climate change including flooding and famine that have happened since Peter left. After a few months she also informs Peter that she is pregnant with his child, conceived on the last night he was with her. Peter, whose life is full with his missionary work, feels distant from Bea and begins to find it difficult to recall her face and their life together, instead focusing on integrating himself into the Oasan community. While helping them with a harvest, which they trade with the USIC population for medicine, Peter receives a terrible bite from a pest native to Oasis. The community is horrified and treat him as though he is dying. Peter believes he has been poisoned but nevertheless goes back to USIC where he is treated for his wounds and receives a message from Bea telling him that there is no God. In distress Peter decides to go back to the Oasan village in order to die but accidentally finds the village they abandoned before he arrived where he meets the linguist that was his predecessor who warns him that the USIC workers are not as harmonious as they appear and that Earth is dying. The following day he is retrieved by Grainger, the USIC pharmacist who he is closest with who implies he may have been hallucinating as he was severely dehydrated. Back on the USIC base camp he learns that his favourite Oasan, Jesus Lover Five has come to the USIC camp seeking treatment as a fallen painting which bruised her hand has led to her dying. Peter realizes with horror that the reason Oasan's have embraced Jesus so much is because they take the tales of Heaven and Jesus rising from the grave literally.

Based on Bea's attitude and the fact that he has unintentionally deceived the Oasan's Peter decides to return to Earth. He goes back to the Oasan town once more where his congregation, who last saw him receiving severe injuries, treat his return as a miracle. As a parting gift to them he tries to explain that humans are capable of recovering from injuries in a way the Oasan's are not, but they remain faithful Christian nevertheless. Before he leaves for Earth Peter receives a last message from Bea telling him to stay where he is as she has to move houses and the Earth is unsafe however Peter is resolved to return to her and their unborn child and remain with them even until the end of the world.


Critical reception for The Book of Strange New Things has been mostly positive and the work has received praise from io9, the New York Times, and The Independent.[2][3][4] The Guardian praised the work for being "astonishing and deeply affecting" and wrote "This is a big novel – partly because it has to construct and explain its unhomely setting, partly because it has such a lot of religious, linguistic, philosophical and political freight to deliver – but the reader is pulled through it at some pace by the gothic sense of anxiety that pervades and taints every element."[5] NPR was more mixed in their review, commenting that as a work of science fiction the book was overly familiar and compared it unfavorably to A Canticle for Leibowitz while also stating that Faber "tells a beautifully human story of love, loss, faith and the sometimes uncrossable distances between people. It feels, more than anything, like an achingly gentle 500-page first chapter to an apocalypse novel yet to come."[6]

Michel Faber Wrote This Heartbreaking Book While His Wife Was Dying. Now He Says It's His Last.


October 28, 2014

If Michel Faber’s phenomenon-turned-bestseller-turned-miniseries The Crimson Petal and the White is the only fiction of his that you’ve ever read, his newest novel, The Book of Strange New Things, may feel like it’s come from a different author entirely. The Crimson Petal was set in Victorian London and followed the adventures of Sugar, a young, much sought-after prostitute known for her otherworldly bedroom tricks. The Book takes place at an undetermined date in the nearish future on a planet called Oasis, and chronicles the mission (both exploratory and religious) of a British preacher named Peter who has been sent to commune with the natives. The Crimson Petalmanaged to deftly make use of a floating, prodding narrator who spoke in the present-tense and was apt to pointedly remind readers not to grow distracted by secondary characters, or to stay focused on a particular conversation. The Book is linear and unflashy, with epistles back and forth between Peter and his wife, Bea, serving as the only interruptions in the narrative. The Book is also, comparatively, a quick read—it’s almost 500 pages shorter than The Crimson Petal.

Aliens, space travel, planet-colonization—The Book of Strange New Things feels poised to read like science fiction. Instead, it is a harrowing, wrenching work about the intricacies of married life—one made even more poignant by Faber’s pronouncement to The New York Times that he plans on making this novel, which is only his third, his last. Faber’s wife Eva died in July, just days before he handed in his final changes to the manuscript of The Book, and “those who work closely with Mr. Faber say that his decision to stop writing novels may be a manifestation of grief,” according to the Times.

If indeed Faber does retire from novel-writing, he’ll have left on the highest of notes. The Book of Strange New Things is certainly capable of achieving the same popular success as The Crimson Petal, and it is a bold and unexpected work of beauty.

A novel should stand or fall on its own, distinct from whatever we know about an author's life. Fitzgerald's well-known marital drama makes Tender is the Night a more compelling autobiographical artifact than The Great Gatsby, but it does not make it a better novel. Hemingway adapted aspects of his real life for both The Sun Also Risesand A Farewell to Arms (when didn't Hemingway do that, actually?)—but while the former enjoys a reputation as Hemingway's finest work, it is the latter novel that most readers find the most moving and compelling.

But there's nothing wrong with recognizing that the circumstances of an author's life can make a work more poignant. Henry James’s desperate love for his cousin Minnie Temple is the lifeblood that keeps The Wings of the Dove—a famously dense novel—alive. The torment Charlotte Brontë suffered over unrequited love pulses throughVillette, the pseudo-biographical story of a teacher at a girls school in Belgium who falls passionately in love with a married fellow teacher. Understanding the isolation and despair Brontë felt when she was sent to teach (and send home money) at a similar school—and then the devastation of her own attachment to a certain M. Héger—elevates Villette from a middling novel to a fascinating, if problematic, one. Similarly, knowing that this was to be "the saddest thing I’d ever written," as Faber told the Times, and that Faber inserted the married couple's storyline after learning of his wife's terminal diagnosis, grants the epistles an added richness.

Peter, The Book’s protagonist, has been selected by a mysterious corporation called USIC to serve as their latest missionary to an outpost on the alien planet of Oasis, and is to spend an undetermined amount of time there, preaching God’s Word to the native population. The exact nature of the mission—Where will he live? How will he communicate with the natives? Why does USIC think a preacher is the best conduit?—is entirely unknown to Peter at the outset, and this tactic serves the reader well. We know only what Peter knows, when he knows it. Oasis, then, is as strange and wondrous to us as it is to him.

Meanwhile, Peter’s wife Bea remains behind on Earth; she has, for reasons unknown to the married couple, not been allowed to join his mission. Bea, at first, composes letters to her husband (sent through a type of intergalactic email called The Shoot) about the monotonies and tiny dramas of ordinary life—her nursing job, a parish family she’s trying to help through a rough patch, their cat Joshua. Peter’s dispatches back to Bea chronicle his first meeting with the natives, their “whitish pink walnut-kernel faces,” and “soft, reedy, asthmatic-sounding voices.” He explains their living habits, their seemingly primitive and yet startlingly advanced farming tactics and familial patterns, their soft, multicolored robes.

And so Peter’s most dearly held dream begins to come true—the Oasans hunger for Christ, they beg Peter to teach them about the Bible (or, as they call it, The Book of Strange New Things), he is welcomed into their community and helps them build a church. But civilization on Earth is rapidly collapsing. First supermarkets begin to run out of ordinary goods, like chocolate, explains Bea. Then freak weather events grow even more intense. A “large chunk” of North Korea is wiped out. There are mass riots in China. In isolation, the events sound eerily similar to real modern life. But as they keep coming in rapid succession, it’s clear that someone has pulled out the pin holding the world together. And so Peter is, implicitly, put in the position of deciding between the work he does for his God, and the love he has for his wife.

While Peter’s mission is ostensibly the pole around which the rest of the novel circulates, it’s the story of a marriage in crisis—a relationship stretched to the very limits—that resonates most clearly. The settlement on Oasis, the collapse of modern society on Earth—those are only mechanisms (albeit, extreme ones) keeping Peter and Bea from understanding one another, from operating in tandem, from working towards one another. It’s a storyline that could easily have grown hackneyed. But Faber’s sincerity keeps The Book honest, and his talent steers him away from cliché.

Selfishly, I hope The Book of Strange New Things isn't Faber's last novel—but even if it is, what a note to depart on.

Hillary Kelly is the digital media editor at The New Republic.

Voetnoot: Michel Faber, skrywer van The Book of Strange New Things, is ‘n ateïs.

Dié volwasse en emosioneel openhartige boek handel oor die Christelike geloof, getuig van diepgaande kennis van die Skrif en die Christelike geloof, maar is nie vanuit die Christelike geloofsoortuiging geskryf nie.

Is jy 'n kennisvraat?

Jy gaan nie jammer wees dat jy gaan uitvind het nie. Al waaroor jy jammer gaan wees, is dat jy nie alles kan doen nie!
Geniet nog meer wat jy nie verwag het nie! Rol verder, geniet die rol!

Waarom jy met die verkeerde persoon gaan trou
Hierdie is een van die beste artikels in jare vir getroudes en verliefdes.
Geniet, wees verras, stuur aan nou jou volwasse kinders!
Met vreugde, Hennie en Maretha.


Hennie en ek wil ‘n film of video uit die video-winkel vir elke getroude paartjie aanbeveel.

Nee, dis nie ‘n Christelike film nie. Ons wens Christelike films was so rou, so eerlik, en het so ‘n goeie storielyn gehad, tot die einde.
Ons kan geen volwasse huweliksfilm wat ‘n stormagtige huwelik so goed uitbeeld, uit ons fliekervaring noem nie. En selde, indien ooit, het ons twee mense, ‘n man en vrou, so innerlik verskeur oor ‘n skynbaar onafwendbare egskeiding en oor die toekoms van hulle twee amper-tienerkinders op die TV skerm of op die groot doek gesien.
As dit woes in jou huwelik gaan, kyk hierdie film.
As jy egskeiding oorweeg en vroeër baie meer gelukkige tye as nou beleef het, kyk THE STORY OF US.
Nee, die kinders moenie saam kyk nie. Behalwe as hulle bo 16 is.
Ja, begin praat nadat julle die film gekyk het. Met mekaar.
Hier is The Story of Us in ‘n neutedop:
1999 film
After 15 years of marriage, Katie (Michelle Pfeiffer) and her husband, Ben (Bruce Willis), have grown apart. While they keep up the facade of having a contented marriage, mostly to not worry their children, they aren't happy together and argue frequently. While the kids are away at camp, Katie and B… More
Initial release: October 15, 1999 (USA)
Running time: 1h 35m
Box office: 58.9 million USD
Did you not SEE it?
Author: nkleszcz from Fairfield, CT
23 April 2001
When "The Story of Us" opened in 1999, the critical disdain was so overwhelming, that my fiancee and I opted not to see it. After all, the ads focussed on its romantic comedy aspects, directed by Rob Reiner (When Harry Met Sally), and starred Bruce Willis (who had just undergone a public divorce).

In retrospect, it's easy to assume why it got panned... this is NOT a romantic comedy, although there are comedic elements. Those expecting a Harry/Sally II would be clearly be disappointed. Those expecting some insight to Bruce Willis' marriage, too, would be disappointed. The film is neither of those things.

Of course, had the associations not existed, and the ad campaign refocussed its efforts, the film would be far better respected. That's why time will be very kind to this film.

Not everything works. Some scenes, like the language of the women, are too profanity-laced to sound like real women (making David Mamet's writing seem like Jane Austen by comparison). There's a terrible scene with Willis in a restaurant--unrealistic, unfunny.

Why then recommend the film? Because the agony, the depth of painful emotions, are real. Find a better acting job by Willis or Pfieffer. Find one!!! Can't be done.

Do you not see it? Do you not recognize that this film has one foot firmly planted in the light comedy world, and another foot firmly planted in the incredible realism (almost too realistic) angst of a failing marriage? Do you not see it? Do you not hear Reiner's concerns projected in the scene where Willis requests to Reiser his dream of writing a book on his grandmother--is this not Reiner saying that he WOULD go further with the serious story here, but the audience, too set by his own past achievements, will not let him? Is this not exactly what happened, when _Story of Us_ was released?

Don't be fooled. This is one serious movie. It should be required viewing for all engaged couples. It's a fantastic wake-up call. The circumstances that lead up to the arguments are simplified, but the emotions are raw. I repeat, time will be very kind to this movie.
Realistic, well-made, and a true testament to the fact that true love is forever. . .
Author: Moon Child
12 July 2001
When I first saw the trailer for "The Story of Us" I thought that this film was going to be different from anything I had ever seen. I had been disillusioned by all these movies coming out that are basically the same and it was sort of refreshing to see that finally someone was trying something different. So I set my plans to include this movie--until I heard the reviews. Everyone seemed to hate this film--even my movie-loving cousin admitted she walked out in the middle because she couldn't stand it. She told me that it's more of a "married person" film than a film for teens like us, so I canned my idea. BIG MISTAKE! I wish I could have seen this marvelous film on the big screen--there's something about actors that makes them seem so much better when their faces are as big as you are. Not that that's necessary. After finally seeing the film (my mom bought it and "forced" me to watch it) it just made me realize why almost every movie now is a cliche: some people cannot appreciate truly unique art, which is why I think this movie caught a bad rap.

I honestly cannot say I have any first-hand experience on the subject of divorce. My parents are still married and have never really had to consider that option. I am still at that stage where marriage is a distant pit-stop on the road to my future. So why did I love this movie? It told me the truth. All of my life I have seen love depicted as an all-powerful, all-conquering thing. And I have no doubt that it is--this movie told me that too. But it also showed me that maybe being in love isn't always a perfect, happy thing. You've got to take the good and the bad. Ben said it best when he told Katie "Nobody said it was going to be easy." Finally. Finally someone tells me it's NOT going to be easy. Now some people think that this film will make you not want to get married. I feel quite the opposite, because it shows you that if you truly love your partner you can get through the tough stuff.

I don't understand how people can say this movie had bad acting. Were they watching the same movie I saw? Both Bruce Willis and Michelle Pfeiffer were amazing in this movie. I swear that as I watched them I completely believed they were a married couple. And the passion that went into their arguments was not "overacting" as I have seen it dubbed. Have you seen married people fight? It's just like that. And the good thing is the movie didn't choose sides. It just showed the arguments and the feelings behind them and left no one looking the bad guy. And Michelle Pfeiffer's beautiful performance during that closing monologue was worth watching the entire movie, even if you didn't like it. And the cinematography was brilliant. Sometimes flashbacks in movies can be risky, especially if they happen often as in this film. But the movie just seemed to flow wonderfully, and Katie's flashback in the car on the way to pick up the kids from camp is one of the most beautiful scenes I've ever seen in a movie. It's amazing to see 15 years of marriage in 15 seconds and not feel shortchanged. That scene captured everything brilliantly. And Eric Clapton's music adds a lot to the movie. He is definitely talented, but it's also because the music seemed to capture the mood of the film. All in all, this was an amazing experience and is definitely one of the best movies I've ever seen. It's funny, entertaining, moving, and very well-made. I'd recommend it to anyone. Even if you don't like it, you will take something from it.

A three handkerchief movie
Author: Michael Radcliffe from Perth, Australia
21 March 2000
Bruce Willis, Michelle Pfeiffer and a wonderful cast make this movie one of the best experiences of recent times. The story of a married couple losing each other and neither knows why; trying to hide it as the children grow through their early teens must touch the heart of most parents but this portrayal will reach right down inside you and tear you apart. I can feel the tears coming back even as I write this. This is a film of pure emotion so well written and beautifully directed with just the right balance of humour and tragedy and so insightful no one contemplating /in/out of a relationship should miss it.
Everyone's marriage nightmare come true
Author: FlickJunkie-2 from Atlanta, GA
24 February 2000
This is a disturbing, bittersweet romantic comedy about two people who's 15 year marriage is unraveling. Actually, it is more of a romantic tragedy than a comedy. Ben and Katie Jordan (Bruce Willis and Michelle Pfeiffer) are two mismatched people in the marriage that never should have been. He is spontaneous, romantic and impulsive, with low frustration tolerance and an explosive hair trigger temper. She is pragmatic, a compulsive perfectionist with unrealistic expectations, and a high need for control. She takes everything personally and never forgives or forgets a slight. They both blame each other for their disappointments. The pattern is clear. He doesn't meet her standards so she snipes, he explodes and then she accuses him of not listening. She then throws up every mistake he's ever made and every fault he's ever had. This goes on ad nauseam as their romantic obsession with one another continues to get the best of any sense they might have to call it quits. Like moths to a flame, they keep returning for another scorching.

This film is thought provoking in that it portrays marital difficulties that are all too familiar in our society. The problem is that it tries to give every problem known to man (with the exception of wife beating) to this couple and relies on the single strand of a long forgotten romance to be the only chance of keeping them together.

In watching the behind the scenes featurette on this film, Rob Reiner and writers Alan Zweibel and Jessie Nelson discuss how the story evolved. As it turns out, it was a montage of all their own marital problems. So the film was, in essence cathartic dumping ground for the writers and director.

As filmmaking, it was terrific. Rob Reiner weaves the story together expertly, creating a stark contrast between the joy of the romance and the reality of the relationship. The film was punctuated by numerous funny and sweet moments that make the viewer smile and glow with delight.

Michelle Pfeiffer gives a splendid performance of a very emotionally complex and neurotic character. It took a lot of courage for her to take this part because she was playing the least likeable character in the film, something of a departure for her. Bruce Willis was as good as one could have expected considering the fact that nobody was blowing anything up. Actually, he was quite good as the impulsive, childlike romantic, but when it came to the arguments and the serious displays of resentment, he played the scenes too harshly, almost commando style.

Reiner does good camera work and puts together some good rapid fire scenes that have impact and give great insight into the relationship. He also took the film on location in Venice to add a little romantic interlude, and somehow got Eric Clapton to write a great theme song.

The problem is the story. Reiner stated in the featurette that he intended this to be a realistic bittersweet look at the real problems relationships face. But he tried to do too much and made this film a grossly exaggerated caricature of a relationship in crisis. It is really "The War of The Roses" lite only it takes itself too seriously. No one I know who saw this could believe that this couple could possibly have stayed married for 15 weeks, no less 15 years.

The result is a noxious marathon of petty arguments that get under the viewers' skin after a while. It is about as entertaining as watching your best friends have a niggling argument in a public restaurant. The whole thing leaves you very uncomfortable and you don't go home feeling like you've had a nice evening.

So, while it succeeds as filmmaking, it fails as a film. I gave this film a 6/10. There were so many good elements to it that I can't see trashing it. But the story is one that requires a level of emotional endurance that few viewers will be willing or able to invest to get any enjoyment out of it.
Heart Felt and Funny - Just like Middle Class real Life
Author: patdwyer4 (patdwyer4@aol.com) from NY, NY
1 December 2005
I was miffed the first time I saw this film. Miffed that I had allowed the opinions of others to steer me away from it until it came out on DVD. What a lovely bitter sweet/sweetly bitter film. After seeing The Story Of Us and talking to others about it, I came to the pejorative conclusion that the folk I spoke to just didn't get the film because they simply had not been there. I realized that no one I talked to at first had shared his or her lives with anyone for any more than a few years. This film deals with the daily wear and tear of ANY truly long-term relationship. It is an accurate, albeit theatrical, portrayal of the way high ups and devastating downs that can come to two people who love each other … hate each other … need each other … want each other desperately … hate each other some more and finally love each other again. I concluded that those who had never been to the end (and I mean the it's over and I am outta here end) of a relationship and still been able to pull away form the precipice and put things back together again, just didn't have a clue. So there my partner and I were after 16 years together truly touched by all that we saw, nodded our heads to, laughed at and balled our eyes out over and, in the end, really uplifted by in this gem of a film. Michelle Pfeiffer's final monologue alone would have been worth the price of a movie ticket just to watch – All Actors should be made to watch her has she creates brilliant comedy by bursting into tears. It is a true lesson in comic artistry while still touching the heartstrings. I HATE THE KIRBYS TOO!!!!
A wonderful movie, but probably not for everyone
Author: sbooth1@bigpond.net.au from Australia
15 June 2008
The Story Of Us is a wonderful movie in its own subtle way. I won't go into specifics about the plot, as many others before me have already done that. All I will say is that it's probably not for the younger crowd. In all honesty, if I had seen this film in my early twenties (and I'm now almost 40), I wouldn't have appreciated its subtlety on long term relationships. It's aimed at those of us who have been married, or in a long term relationship. Although I don't have children, the rest of this movie had many "oh yeah" moments for me. The Story of Us, is a complex, yet ultimately simple, explanation of long term relationships...all those 'little' things about the other person that drive you insane about them, but that if you're both willing to work on, make the relationship all that much richer for it. Wonderfully thought provoking. If you have ever been in a long term adult relationship, I'd be hard pressed to see how you COULDN'T relate, at the very least, on some small level to this film.
Romance in a marriage never dies, people kill it
Author: shosee from Appleton, WI
18 October 1999
Bruce and Michelle play the part of almost everyone who has been married. The tug and pull of everyday life separates them from each other, but mostly from their true feelings about each other.

The truth is, based on the Hollywood mythical marriage created for oh so many years now, everyones marriage is terrible. What our couple are able to sort out at the end is that no one is perfect and by looking at yourself through your partners eyes can be a revealing and frightening thing. If you can face it, there is a future in your relationship. If you can not, you may have to move on.

This movie will be mostly lost on the younger crowd, simply because they have not experienced the problems the forty something and above audience have been through. However, it is a film they may go back and see once they have been there and down that. When I think about it, Rob Reiner (aka Meathead) has been expressing the thoughts and concerns of our generation for a number of years now. He is very good at it.
Absolutely Wonderful--And I Hate Lifetime Movies
Author: Katherine Howard from United States
26 March 2007
Okay, let's set the stage: I hate Lifetime movies for their poor acting, cheesy scripts, lack of realism, and ridiculous soap-opera style plots and "emotions." (And I just ain't into all that Kleenex.) Can't stand mush and not much on tearjerkers. But I truly can't relate with those saying this was an awful movie. I laughed my tail off! Hilarious! So real (well, for the most part); you'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll hold your breath, you'll just want more. The "moments" were very real and well-done and I agree that Willis and Pfeiffer rendered stellar performances. It WAS a romantic comedy. (Did YOU see it?!) Such a well-written script and excellently directed. Virtually no complaints from start to finish. (Although, admittedly, I watched an "edited" version and missed all the language.)

Anyone who's been married any length of time (and especially for a number of years) will appreciate the reality and depth of emotion and meaning in this poignant movie. Sense of humor required.

Totally worth seeing again and again!
Sweet, sad and, um, that's it
Author: IKeiller
26 October 2000
This is a pretty film, often poignant, and a bit too close to the bone at times for my liking. Still, it carries you along quite nicely - making it's point that time grinds marriages down more often than affairs - and then sort of stops.

The leads were great: Willis was really good, Pfeiffer was fantastic (hey, i'm a fan, okay). But, the characters were tough to take. The self-pity was intercut with nice bits of comedy, but it felt like Reiner was cutting from a wake to a pratt-fall on occasions.

The final scenes, with Pfeiffer's frightening display of multi-emotional skill (at once excellent and utterly ghastly), betrayed the characters. Normality was implausibly resumed, and Pfeiffer came across as at fault for taking the whole film to get real, and Willis looked much relieved that she'd taken the sanity pill and he could quit trying to change himself.

And the end was a surprise. I thought there was going to be more: a deeper level of story. But it ended without a sense of closure.
Very close to being great, but doesn't quite make it...
Author: Grann-Bach (Grann-Bach@jubii.dk) from Denmark
29 January 2006
This movie holds so much truth; it cannot possibly be watched by anyone, man or woman who are or who have been in a serious relationship without any such crying at some point during it, or at least being strongly enough emotionally affected to do so. I cried. I cried before the opening credits song was more than a few lines in. It spoke to me like few movies have. It is the first movie about the subject of love that I've watched since I became this involved, physically and emotionally with my wife-to-be. That alone makes the movie have an impact on me, good or not. That it dealt with a subject that has so recently become so important to me. A successful marriage. But while I was this into the film, while it had this impact on me... I can't claim that it was great. The performances are. The editing is. The script is. Most of the parts are. But somehow, the sum, it just doesn't add up to being that... great. It might be that the ending feels flat. It might be that the movie offers no answers, only observations. The movie goes back and forth between present day chaos/unhappiness and fond memories... these were particularly difficult to watch without crying. This works to the film's advantage and creates a sense of more than a non-linear time-line; a life-time, years upon years of memories returning to this old married couple. The story of two people who love each other... they do. They've just tired of each other, of the differences, of the arguing. Comes very close to being great, but it just doesn't quite make it, I'm afraid. Worth watching for any fans of the genre, and has plenty of insights to offer. I recommend this to anyone who is or has been in a serious relationship. 6/10



SOURCE: YOUTUBE: JULIUS MALEMA TALKING FRANKLY ABOUT HIS LIFE. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnp5kK015Lg

  • Venetia Burney, wat die naam Pluto vir die pas ontdekte dwergplaneet voorgestel het;
  • Die ma van Clyde Tombaugh, die ontdekker van die planeet Pluto, toe sy dertien jaar oud was;
  • Lily Offerson, wat 'n reis na die VSA gewen het in 'n kompetisie wat met ons sonnestelsel te doen gehad het;
  • 'n Onbekende dogtertjie van die 1930's.
Lees verder.
Het jy geweet
dat Pluto se naam deur 'n elfjarige dogtertjie voorgestel is? Hier is die storie soos wat Nadia Drake dit in National Geographic Magazine van Julie 2015 vertel:
... Right away, Lowell Observatory had to figure out what to name the new planet. Hundreds of letters poured in. “Minerva” was an early front-runner. Lowell’s widow, Constance, who’d held up the search for Planet X while battling the observatory for Lowell’s fortune after his death, suggested “Percival” and “Lowell”—and then, abandoning humility altogether, “Constance.”
Across the ocean, an 11-year-old English girl named Venetia Burney casually proposed the name “Pluto,” after the Roman god of the underworld. It seemed an appropriately dark name for a planet on the dusky fringe, and it followed the mythological naming convention. Conveniently, the word also contained Percival Lowell’s initials. And so on May 1, Lowell Observatory announced that Planet X would be named Pluto.
Het jy geweet
dat die New Horizons ruimtetuig waaruit foto's van Pluto geneem is, 'n klein flessie met die ontdekker van die planeet, Clyde Tombaugh se as daarin, aan boord het? Die New Horizon ruimtetuig sal dieper in die Kuipergordel ingaan, en die as van 'n mens gaan saam.
Bron: National Geographic Magazine, July 2015. Nadia Drake: Spacecraft Will Reach Pluto in July, Revealing Last Face in Solar System
Vir 'n Bybelse besinning oor die Koning van Pluto, klik hier: http://www.seker.co.za/default.aspx

Happiness Equation: U = I - R
Het jy geweet dat vaskleef aan een of ander idee/image/konsep van wat jou lewe behoort te wees, jou geluk bepaal?
'n Baie interessante video!
YouTube: Happiness Equation: U = I - R https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYNkGTb2Zr4

How to Stick With Good Habits Every Day by Using the “Paper Clip Strategy”
In 1993, a bank in Abbotsford, Canada hired a 23-year-old stock broker named Trent Dyrsmid.
Dyrsmid was a rookie so nobody at the firm expected too much of his performance. Moreover, Abbotsford was still a relatively small suburb back then, tucked away in the shadow of nearby Vancouver where most of the big business deals were being made. The first popular email services like AOL and Hotmail wouldn’t arrive for another two or three years. Geography still played a large role in business success and Abbotsford wasn’t exactly the home of blockbuster deals.
And yet, despite his disadvantages, Dyrsmid made immediate progress as a stock broker thanks to a simple and relentless habit that he used each day.
On his desk, he placed two jars. One was filled with 120 paper clips. The other was empty. This is when the habit started.
“Every morning I would start with 120 paper clips in one jar and I would keep dialing the phone until I had moved them all to the second jar.”
—Trent Dyrsmid
And that was it. 120 calls per day. One paper clip at a time.
Within 18 months, Dyrsmid’s book of business grew to $5 million in assets. By age 24, he was making $75,000. Within a few years, outside firms began recruiting him because of his success and he landed a $200,000 job with another company.
Habits That Stick vs. Habits That Fail
When I asked Dyrsmid about the details of his habit, he simply said, “I would start calling at 8 a.m. every day. I never looked at stock quotes or analyst research. I also never read the newspaper for the entire time. If the news was really important, it would find me from other ways.” 1
Trent Dyrsmid’s story is evidence of a simple truth: Success is often a result of committing to the fundamentals over and over again. 2
Compare Trent’s results to where you and I often find ourselves. We want to be consistent with our workouts, but struggle to make it into the gym. We know we should write more Thank You notes or eat healthier meals or read more books, but can’t seem to find the motivation to get it done. We’d like to achieve our goals, but still procrastinate on them.
What makes the difference? Why do some habits stick while other fail? Why did Trent’s paper clip habit work so well and what can we learn from it?
The Power of a Visual Cue
I believe the “Paper Clip Strategy” works particularly well because it creates a visual trigger that can help motivate you to perform a habit with more consistency.
Here are a few reasons visual cues work well for building new habits…
Visual cues remind you to start a behavior. We often lie to ourselves about our ability to remember to perform a new habit. (“I’m going to start eating healthier. For real this time.”) A few days later, however, the motivation fades and the busyness of life begins to take over again. Hoping you will simply remember to do a new habit is usually a recipe for failure. This is why a visual stimulus, like a bin full of paper clips, can be so useful. It is much easier to stick with good habits when your environment nudges you in the right direction.
Visual cues display your progress on a behavior. Everyone knows consistency is an essential component of success, but few people actually measure how consistent they are in real life. The Paper Clip Strategy avoids that pitfall because it is a built-in measuring system. One look at your paper clips and you immediately have a measure of your progress.
Visual cues can have an additive effect on motivation. As the visual evidence of your progress mounts, it is natural to become more motivated to continue the habit. The more paperclips you place in the bin, the more motivated you will become to finish the task. There are a variety of popular behavioral economics studies that refer to this as the Endowed Progress Effect, which essentially says we place more value on things once we have them. In other words, the more paper clips you move to the “Completed” bin, the more valuable completing the habit becomes to you. 3
Visual cues can be used to drive short-term and long-term motivation. The Paper Clip Strategy can provide daily motivation, but you start from scratch each day. However, another type of visual cue, like the “Don’t Break the Chain” Calendar that I described in my article on the Seinfeld Strategy can be used to showcase your consistency over longer periods of time. By stacking these two methods together, you can create a set of visual cues that motivate and measure your habits over the short-run and the long-run.
Creating Your Own Paper Clip Strategy
There are all sorts of ways to use the paper clip habit for your own goals.
  • Hoping to do 100 pushups each day? Start with 10 paper clips and move one over each time you drop down and do a set of 10 throughout the day.
  • Need to send 25 sales emails every day? Start with 25 paper clips and toss one to the other side each time you press Send.
  • Want to drink 8 glasses of water each day? Start with 8 paper clips and slide one over each time you finish a glass.
  • Not sure if you’re taking your medication three times per day? Set 3 paper clips out and flip one into the bin each time you swallow your pills.
Best of all, the entire strategy will cost you less than $10.
  1. Grab a box of standard paper clips .
  2. Get two standard paper clip holders.
  3. Pick your habit and start moving those bad boys from one side to the other.
Trent Dyrsmid decided that success in his field came down to one core task: making more sales calls. He discovered that mastering the fundamentals is what makes the difference.
The same is true for your goals. There is no secret sauce. There is no magic bullet. Good habits are the magic bullet.
Good habits in bad and confusing times?
Setting an example is also a habit of character, I guess.
Wrote a bloggie in Afrikaans about it. Click here to read VROLIK IN DIE SEMENTDAMSLIK:

John Piper on the need we never outgrow. YouTube:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3psJWtT68WE
When you need strength, you'll not find it in yourself. There is but one source of strenth.

One of the most poignant poems I have ever read.

1. Johnny's mother had three children. The first child was named April. The second child was named May....What was the third child's name?
2. There is a clerk at the butcher shop, he is five feet ten inches tall and he wears size 13 sneakers....What does he weigh?

3. Before Mt. Everest was discovered,...what was the highest mountain in the world?

4. How much dirt is there in a hole...that measures two feet by three feet by four feet?

5. What word in the English Language...is always spelled incorrectly?

6. Billy was born on December 28th, yet his birthday is always in the summer.....How is this possible?

7. In California, you cannot take a picture of a man with a wooden leg. ...Why not?
8. What was the President 's Name...in 1975?

9. If you were running a race,...and you passed the person in 2nd place, what place would you be in now?

10. Which is correct to say,..."The yolk of the egg are white" or "The yolk of the egg is white"?
11. If a farmer has 5 haystacks in one field and 4 haystacks in the other field,....how many haystacks would he have if he combined them all in another field?

1. Johnny 's mother had three children. The first child was named April. The second child was named May. What was the third child's name?
Answer: Johnny of course.

2. There is a clerk at the butcher shop, he is five feet ten inches tall, and he wears size 13 sneakers. What does he weigh?
Answer: Meat.

3. Before Mt. Everest was discovered, what was the highest mountain in the world?
Answer: Mt. Everest; it just wasn't discovered yet. [ You're not very good at this are you?]
4. How much dirt is there in a hole that measures two feet by three feet by four feet?
Answer: There is no dirt in a hole.

5. What word in the English Language is always spelled incorrectly?

6. Billy was born on December 28th, yet his birthday is always in the summer. How is this possible?
Answer: Billy lives in the Southern Hemisphere.

7. In California, you cannot take a picture of a man with a wooden leg. Why not?
Answer: You can't take pictures with a wooden leg. You need a camera to take pictures.

8. What was the President's Name in 1975?
Answer: Same as is it now - Barack Obama [Oh, come on ....]

9. If you were running a race, and you passed the person in 2nd place, what place would you be in now?
Answer: You would be in 2nd. Well, you passed the person in second place, not first.

10. Which is correct to say, "The yolk of the egg are white" or "The yolk of the egg is white"?
Answer: Neither, the yolk of the egg is yellow [Duh]

11. If a farmer has 5 haystacks in one field and 4 haystacks in the other field, how many haystacks would he have if he combined them all in another field?
Answer: One. If he combines all of his haystacks, they all become one big one.

300 fantastiese hulpmiddels... gratis.
Een van die lekkerste ontdekkings van die jaar is die freebies op hierdie lys
300 awesome free things: A massive list of free resources you should know
Hmmm. As dit freebies reën, neem en geniet.
Kyk net of die freebie nie deur hierdie meneer gedryf word nie.
Hierdie meneer het al dinge oorgeneem hierlangs. Ons en ASK sit nie om dieselfde vuur nie.

Lees meer...

Lees meer...

WAY BETTER THAN POPCORN. Hendrik Rocher’s testimony: On Mother’s Day 2002 God sav
Lees meer...

DIE KRUISKONING deur Maretha Maartens. Hierdie Evangeliese toneelteks handel oor die aardse bedie
Lees meer...
      Tuis | Blaaier | Kontak Ons    |    Vrywaring | Privaatheidsbeleid | IBS | Webmeester
© 2022 Seker.co.za