39 of 67 people found the following review helpful
Well written, but . . .,
By A Customer
This review is from: Astrology for Lovers (Paperback)I will admit that this book is probably one of the better-written astrological texts that I have come across, but I can't help but notice that the author, while trying to avoid stereotypes and the typical astrological myths, still seems to get caught up in quite a few. I think that the two most misrepresented signs are Virgo and Scorpio, and I was pleased to know that I am not the only one who feels that way, as the author herself professed that she feels the same way. While doing a fantastic job of representing Virgos for who they actually are, instead of the neat-freak, obsessive-compulsive image that is amusingly used to represent them most of the time, I feel that the author completely missed her mark while trying to describe Scorpio, the other most misrepresented sign of the Zodiac. When are people going to stop portraying Scorpios as these enigmatic, strong-willed, yet emotional mysteries? All my life, I have been surrounded by Scorpios, and even after evaluating each of the ones that I am closest to individually, and with an open mind, I still don't see them as these 'penetrating, all-knowing, all-feeling, mysterious creatures.' This image is so ridiculous. I have no shame in writing that Scorpios are by far the absolute most selfish of the signs, even though they abhor this trait in others. Every single Scorp I know is self-pitying, and in a lot of ways, incredibly weak. Look, we'd all love to believe that there is one magical sign that seems so seething and unbearably erotic and exotic and just plain unique in comparison to the others, but honestly, is this the way that you REALLY perceive the Scorpios in your life? I used to believe this image until I gave it some serious thought, and I now accept Scorpios for being pretty basic, with human faults, not these "fantasy" faults that astrologers try to mythologize. Secondly, I wonder why the author uses Sigmund Freud as an example of how simplistic the sign of Taurus is, yet when the tables are reversed, and the author is writing about what an interesting, perplexing, mystical sign that Scorpio is, she mentions the fact that Freud has Scorpio rising. Why, just a few chapters earlier, Freud was a simpleton made legendary just because he had a few "ideas"! But now, because she is writing about Scorpio, he is considerably much more complex and cutting-edge because he has Scorpio on the ascendant? Shouldn't this point illustrate that within every sign, there is always room for ascendants and moon signs and other complex housing situations? And shouldn't it then be taken into consideration that a lot of signs are simply not as dull as one may think? I have known Librans who just aren't very bright, and Aquarians who aren't very curious, and Sagittarians who aren't very visionary (yes, vision is in the eye of the beholder, but if the author can have her own vision of what is 'visionary,' then why can't I?), and Taureans that can't do math equations to save their life (not to mention caring about money or dealing with it at all). Astrology is a science and is very accurate, but when authors begin to spin their own tales and over-generalize instead of giving simplistic, straight facts, this is when people begin to believe their own truths about signs.
And to change the subject briefly, everyone has a "shadow," as Greene points out, but what I don't understand is why she feels that shadows don't "really" represent the "actual" sun sign. To her, the Leo "shadow" has a bullying side, but God forbid that a Leo actually just genuinely be a bully. Capricorn may have a shadow that sometimes actually feels an emotion, but God forbid a Capricorn just be a mixture of varied emotions and a hundred different moods, instead of the straight-laced, money-grubbing bore that he supposedly is. Greene illustrates basic truths about every sign in beautiful detail, but it's when she begins to go off on metaphorical tangents that she begins to lose sight of what astrology actually is. I can see that Liz Greene is a very talented and gifted writer, as well as a knowledgeable astrologer/psychotherapist, but it's a shame that she had to direct these talents toward following the same creative-writing/novelized trend of every other astrology book out there. To be quite honest, the preface was actually the best part of the book.
Tracked by 1 customer
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-1 of 1 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jan 5, 2011 5:37:04 PM PST
Really, you find Scorpio rather selfish? I find it hard to believe--they can be ruthless if you think you're insincere or disloyal, and they keep their emotions really private. But they're deeply emotional and loyal individuals. They will love you so much that they want to bite and squeeze you lovingly all the time... to say the least.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›