Feb./March 2008 Book Club Selection: Redeeming Love by Francine Rivers

[Tarin]

The votes are in! Redeeming Love by Francine Rivers is the selection for the Feb./March period (historical genre). Official discussion of the book will open on Feb. 10th. Please don't post opinions until then, in order to give everyone an opportunity to finish the book. Happy reading!

[pprmint777]

uh-oh! I thought the poll shut down Jan 31st! I'm gonna have to run to the bookstore for Redeeming Love.

Goodie, goodie, goodie!!!

[Tarin]

Sorry about that! Everyone agreed to close the poll early, since we thought most everyone had already voted.

[joyful_grace_18]

...sounds great, I guess it's time for me to read that book now...I've been putting it off forever...

[m_d]

Redeeming Love was the very first Christian fiction novel I purchased. I haven't read it in awhile. I think I will take this month to re-visit it. I look forward to the discussion about it.

[ProfessorAlan]

It's starting off (about 20% in) as a "not for me" -- I'm a guy -- but I'll stick with it.

[Tamera]

I imagine at first, it wouldn't appeal to a guy as much, Professor, but I do think you're making the right decision by sticking with at. At one point, the story starts becoming less about Angel and more about God's love for us.

[ProfessorAlan]

I've committed to the Book Club, so ... I've no choice but to stick with it.

[pprmint777]

Aside from the story, I've enjoyed reading Rivers' style. She shifts between two POVs in the same scene subtly and masterfully. I'd love to be able to do that!

[Tarin]

Let's hold off on discussion until the 10th, guys. Not everyone has read the book yet. :)

[Tamera]

Let's hold off on discussion until the 10th, guys. Not everyone has read the book yet. :)

Sorry. :o;)

[Tarin]

No problem. Just didn't want a full-blown discussion to get started before everyone was ready. ;)

[Timber Wolf]

It's starting off (about 20% in) as a "not for me" -- I'm a guy -- but I'll stick with it.

I thought that when I first saw the genre being voted on fot the first go 'round.

[PattyU]

So today's the 10th. I believe that means we can start talking about the book. Is the book discussion supposed to be in this thread?

[pprmint777]

I haven't quite finished it yet--actually got over my writer's block, so I've been working instead. But I'm far enough along to join in the discussion when it starts!

[Tarin]

So today's the 10th. I believe that means we can start talking about the book. Is the book discussion supposed to be in this thread?

Yep, today's the day and this thread's the thread.!thumbsup! Here's my thoughts:

Overall:

I have to say I really enjoyed it. It's by far the best I've read of Francine Rivers. Kept my interest throughout and delivered a satisfying tale. It engaged my emotions and made me think - two things I highly prize in fiction. The copy I borrowed from the library was printed in 1991, before it became such a big hit with Christian audiences and was picked up by Multanomah. I don't know what all was changed in the Multanomah version beyond the language, so I can't comment on what was gained or lost between versions. But I have to say that the very "roughness" of the original version lent much to the story. Angel's profanity went a long way toward portraying her character’s hard edges. Although I didn't appreciate and can't support Rivers's use of blasphemy, the overall effect of the profanity gave the story an edge that the censored version can't compete with. But, as we've discussed the use of profanity in fiction in many other threads, I shan't comment further on that. ;)

In many ways, the story didn't feel like a romance novel, and I appreciated that. It had a much deeper feel. A lot more was happening in that story than just two characters falling in love. As an allegory of Hosea, I felt it was splendid. I dislike allegories as a general rule, mostly because they are too blatant. But, save for Michael's last name, I thought Rivers handled the allegory with superb subtleness. Although the story of Angel's prostitution and redemption was gripping in its own rights, the underlying message of God's love, frustration, and redemption of his bride, Israel, was what moved me most.

Although sex (both illicit and marital) was obviously a tremendous part of the story, I did feel that the middle part of the book bogged down with too much love-making. I got a little frustrated with the fact that Michael and Angel were making love every other paragraph. :eek:

The story surprised me on a lot of levels: most noticeably its edginess (although why that surprised me, I'm not sure, since Rivers is almost always edgy;)), but also its near perfect uniformity. A strong story, and a strong book. I give it 4 stars out of 5.:)

Now, for my more technical analysis:

The Good

I thought Rivers did a fantastic job of bringing Angel to life. Few Christian writers have coped with prostitute characters as well as she has done here. Angel's reactions rang true every step of the story. Her stubbornness, her fear, her denial all fueled even the most frustratingly infuriating of her actions. Even when you wanted to slap her upside the head, you still understood her, you still cried out for her.
The closer I got to the ending, the more I held my breath, hoping Rivers wouldn't cop out with another of her deus ex machina endings. In the climax scene, in Duke's saloon, when Angel is forced onto the stage and sings "Rock of Ages" (a very powerful scene, I thought, BTW), I was exceedingly relieved to discover that her rescuer, banker Jonathan Axle was not an angel or some other supernatural hero sent to her aid.
Probably because the book was originally written for a mainstream audience, the religiosity of the story is quite subtle and generally masterful. The "still, small voice" that whispered throughout the book in short, italicized sentences captured very well the urging of God upon a person's heart without being overbearing, schmaltzy, or ridiculous. Angel's conversion was without theatrics, without theophany, and without preaching. Very well done, I thought.


The Bad

IMO, the prologue should have been cut. Almost all the information conveyed therein was explained elsewhere in the story. Cutting it would have presented a much sharper, cleaner opening in the first chapter. I find it interesting that the "previews" found on major book distributor websites (such as Amazon and CBD) all begin with chapter one, leaving the prologue out entirely.
Rivers is all over the place with her POV. One paragraph she'll be in Angel's head, the next she's in Michael's, or Miriam's, or Paul's. Generally speaking, I seriously dislike this method (not to mention that, generally speaking, it's considered wrong), but I have to say that Rivers did handle it pretty well. In fact, the narrative distance it lent the story may actually have helped instead of hindered. The only reason it worked was that she carefully separated POVs in paragraphs; you didn't find her switching POVs in the middle of a paragraph, and she generally did a good job of distinguishing who was thinking what. Still, I would have preferred it if she’d stuck to a standard, solid 3rd-person narrative, with proper delineations whenever she “switched heads.”
In the final scene, where Angel returns to Michael, I disliked the fact that Angel stripped off all her clothes. Although I understand that Rivers was trying to indicate her humility, my reaction was that Michael has got to be thinking she's trying to seduce her way back to forgiveness. All in all, though, that's a very minor gripe.
Finally, I thought the epilogue unnecessary. I'm not a fan of epilogues simply because they tend to tie everything up in a pat little package. I much prefer to think that the story isn't finished after I close the covers on a good book. It diluted an otherwise powerful ending.


Good selection, everyone! I'm glad ya'll finally made me get around to reading it! !thumbsup!

[pprmint777]

Yikes! I hate disagreeing with my mentor!

I'm really glad the profanity was cut from the version I read. To me, it proved that one can effectively describe the coarseness of life without having to stoop down to it. I'm not adverse to tossing around a four-letter word occasionally, but I don't believe it's necessary to keep up realism. Rivers did an excellent job of portraying the worst life has to offer without a blow-by-blow description of the events or the demeaning language that goes with it.

And I liked the prologue. It gave me a chance to see Sarah as an innocent, and allowed me to develop a sympathy for her, and cry over the lost child when her innocence was taken from her. The backstory contained the vital information concerning why Sarah became Angel, why she felt the way she did toward God, why she hated men, while developing that sympathy. I really don't think Rivers would've accomplished the same effect had she just dribbled it in here and there throughout the book. Besides, when Rivers has Angel looking back at her past as an adult, it has a different effect then Sarah experencing something she didn't understand as a child.

I thought the way she allowed us to feel what each MC was experiencing as they experienced it was masterful. It never once got in the way of my understanding. To have a scene switch to portray each one's reaction to the other would have been burdensome. Personally, I love the way she did it. Whether or not it's considered wrong -- I'll leave that to people more experienced than myself.

I loved Rivers' Mark of the Lion series, but several of her other books simply let me down. I quit reading her after a couple of disappointments. But this book really held my interest and kept me emotionally engaged in the story. I'm glad it was chosen for our discussion!

[m_d]

Well it's been a few years since I've read this (I didn't get around to re-reading it :o), so I'll just write from what stuck with me over the years.

Like I said, this was the 1st Christian novel I read. Something about it just stuck out to me as I was browsing the shelves (and I'm not one who's into historical westerns). I read a newer version of the book, and though I read the section at the end of the book where the author talks about her journey in writing, I am surprised that original had curse words and blasphemies.

But on to the book review:
I think that the author did a good job of portraying the angst between the two main characters. I really felt bad for both of them at different times in the novel. The scene where she met her father all those years later? It was so tragic and sad. :( And when she kept running away after their marriage I really felt for him.

I found myself rooting for Angel in a way that I hadn't previously while reading stories. I didn't condemn her for the choices she made, I just wanted her to get it right (it's how I imagine angels must feel when watching the human drama play out).

I thought it was a great book and have subsequently purchased or read almost everything else she wrote after this book. Her books always wrestle with the tough issues and leave me feeling satisfied at the end. Years after reading her books that's the impression they leave with me.

[pajarita_deDios]

I absolutely LOVE "Redeeming Love", in fact it's been being passed around my friends since I finished it over a year ago and I still don't have back in my possession.

What I love about Rivers is that rawness that she seems to be able to bring to her stories. The stories themselves are so raw, no gloss or perfumes to lay over the subjects she broaches.

Redeeming Love is amazing because it is unafraid to show that only when two people truly love God can they love each other in a way that lasts forever. It also doesn't shy away from showing the passion and physicality of the two main characters.

[pprmint777]

BTW -- my favorite paragraph in the book (so far. I haven't quite finished):

Her eyes were blue and fathomless. He could read nothing in them. She was a wall, an endless ocean, a clouded night sky so dark he couldn't see his hand before his face. He saw only what she wanted him to see.

I just love that!

[Tamera]

This is my favorite CBA book. I loved it. Even though it seems like a romance, it's more of a romance between us and God. I walked away feeling I had a better understanding of just how much God loves me.

I thought the prologue was very effective. Normally I don't like prologues, but in this case, it was needed to show Angel the way God saw her, with all the hurt that brought her to the place she was. I don't think I would have had as much sympathy for Angel if I hadn't read it.

I also love the way Rivers changed POV from time to time. She never changed abruptly, but she let us know what each character was feeling. She did an excellant job of breaking this "rule".

Personally, I loved the love making scences between Micheal and Angel. While not showing things we didn't want to see, it showed the passion and love of marital sex and contrasted it to the depravity of sex in prostitution.

One of my favorite allegories was when Angel tried to wash away her sin in the river but scrubbing herself until she was raw and bleeding but couldn't. Then she tried to earn the forgiveness she was freely given by trying to work herself to death. I loved when she was picking out yardgoods and tried to pick out the most drab materials. Micheal came along and picked out bright colors for her. Isn't that the way some Christians are? They try to be holy by being drab, and God is trying to give them bright colors.

I agree that the Rock of Ages scene was very strong and well written. I also loved the scene where Michael asks God why she left again and God tells him it's because she's made Michael her God. I also love the scene where Paul asks for forgiveness from Angel.

I loved the end. I loved her stripping down. It showed the emotion in a way that nothing else would. I also loved the epilogue. It would have been incomplete without knowing what happened to them. But I have to admit, if there isn't going to be another novel to finish a story, I'm a big fan of epilogues.

Basically, I love this story. It is such a good remake of the story of Hosea in the Bible and yet set in the old west. I think everyone should read it. 5 STARS.

[Tarin]

I'm really glad the profanity was cut from the version I read. To me, it proved that one can effectively describe the coarseness of life without having to stoop down to it. I'm not adverse to tossing around a four-letter word occasionally, but I don't believe it's necessary to keep up realism.

I wasn't necessarily condoning the profanity; more just commenting on its overall effect to the story.

I also love the way Rivers changed POV from time to time. She never changed abruptly, but she let us know what each character was feeling. She did an excellant job of breaking this "rule".

Rules are made to be broken, but Rivers got away with breaking this rule only because she was an experienced writer who knew exactly what she was doing. A less experienced writer would have not fared so well.

[Tamera]

Rules are made to be broken, but Rivers got away with breaking this rule only because she was an experienced writer who knew exactly what she was doing. A less experienced writer would have not fared so well.


That may be true. But she still did it very well, and I think it was effective.

[GentleJourneyAu]

Is there a list of questions to consider? Do we just plunge in and say what we think? Ready to discuss.

[Tarin]

Yep, dive right in. You might want include your overall opinions (how many "stars" you'd give it), as well as any comments on "good" or "bad" techniques used by the author.

[joyful_grace_18]

ok, I know this is short and brief and does not give justice to this book and what I got out of it, but...

I absolutely LOVED this story!...Allegories are my thing...and I've been waiting nearly five years to read this one. Honestly I have no critiques, every element was sublime and perfect...even the details of marital sex and otherwise was tasteful written, without the hesitation most Christian writers use to avoid that issue. I totally dig the way she switches back and forth between provs. I wouldn't dare say I am capable of writing like that at the present moment, but that is where I would like to be someday. (who cares about rules...lol) The comparison between the two lives of Angel, her former life and her life with Michael was clearly related and well written. I diffidently agree that this story was not just about the romance between two people, but obviously was symbolism of God's love for His bride. In fact every word Michael speaks to Angel, I could just hear God saying...whispering...shouting. I don't know who read the note Rivers wrote at the end of the book, right after the epilogue (which I liked very much) but she talks a little bit about her testimony and how she got into writing and all that, and near the middle she says that writing this book was an act of worship to the Lord for her. And that is exactly how I see it...the ending was incredible!

Anyway, five stars all the way from me. I think this will diffidently be one of those books I will look back on as a major influence in my life.


[oh, and I love the element it added with Miriam and Paul, where the roles were switched...]

[GentleJourneyAu]

Redeeming Love was well written, no doubt about that. Some things I liked about it were that Ms. Rivers veered often from the trite solutions to situations and problems. Though I knew it was the story of Hosea and God’s infinite love and mercy for us and gentle patience in molding us to a point where we can accept his love, I was surprised time and again by the turns and complications. The loveable characters were drawn well. I am not so sure about the villains being three dimensional. There were times when she went beyond mere prose, as well; i.e. “It was a quiet that was so quiet it screamed.” “Something inside her cracked. She writhed inside to escape the feeling, but it was there nonetheless, growing with the light touch of his hand on her shoulder, with every soft word he spoke. She was sure if she put her hands against her heart, her palms would come away with her own blood. Was that what this man wanted? For her to bleed for him?”
Only once did I get confused about whose head I was in, and that was near the end. I had to back up to realize I was in the brother-in-law’s mind. I too admired her ability to hop around in POV, but I was aware that was what she was doing. As a reader, should I be so aware?
I had bought this book on recommendation, but put it away after about forty pages feeling do I really have to be dragged through this with her? When is it going to end? When I was a teenager, I read the book Sybil because it was popular and I was into psychology. I am so visual when I read that there are passages in that book that still haunt my dreams. This is why it is difficult for me to recommend the book to any of the gentle souls I know, yet I do believe it is a great book. I agree with those who say the prologue was unnecessary. Sarah constantly plays a record in her head (which any depressed victim of abuse who has not had help would do) which brings back the scenes of her abuse and reinforce the idea that she is undeserving, unwanted, and unforgivable. Much of the prologue showed up in these thoughts and any more that Ms. Rivers wanted to include could easily have been included in spurts in these reminiscences. Usually, when I read a book, I hate it when things are repeated. I feel like the author either thinks I am stupid and can’t remember, or she did not remember it was there, or she is just trying to stretch to 100,000 words. In this case, I was not so bothered because, having a bipolar mother who was a victim of child abuse, I know this is exactly what they do: play a scratched record of their life with the needle caught in the groove.

[GentleJourneyAu]

Reading your comments, Tarin, it's odd: I finished reading the book two weeks ago, and I don't even remember the epilogue. All I remember is her tearing her clothes off and running to him in the field. I do remember earlier in the book when Sarah suggests she might just do that, Michael commented that it "might be interesting." I had to chuckle at that.

[Gina123]

Its been awhile since I read the book but I did think it was very well done and a grippiing story. I am one who would not have read the original version (which I did not know existed until mentioned here) I'm not shocked at language such as you described, I have just made a decision some time ago that I'm not going to read books with that type of content. But I'm not being judgemental toward this author, thats a personal decision of mine.

I have yet to read anything of hers that I did not like. My very favorite is "Leota's Garden." My least favorite is "The Last Sin Eater". I believe that has more to do with what the story is about rather than the style. Her style is very good in anything I have read.

I would give "Redeeming Love" a 4.5 just because I would give "Leota's Garden" a 5 star.
The main reason I reserve the higher rating for the latter is due to the great craft in writing it takes to make such a story really shine when it has no 'romance subplot' etc to grab the readers attention. Love and Sex is easier to sell to the public than an old woman's family problems and tensions.

Or maybe in the review we are not supposed to compare with her other writings.... sorry if that is the case.

[ProfessorAlan]

I have very mixed feelings about this book. Parts I appreciated, parts I didn't like at all, and parts I didn't know what to make of.

I never got the feel that the 1850's were a critical part of the story, and for me that's key in a historical novel. The setting and place seemed simply to "be there" and not contribute greatly to the story.

And the language and attitudes were very late 20th Century, and that kept me at a distance, as well. Michael is a very modern man who seems well aware of modern psychological concepts and terminology. He wants to discuss their feelings a lot, work things out between them, improve their comunication ... in the mid-19th century? :confused: I appreciate the psychological insights that Rivers has, and that she communicates, but her characters shouldn't have had those insights. On that subject, I appreciated the prologue, as a way of laying her psychological groundwork.

The story could have just as well be told in modern times, and maybe if it had been, the above would not be such an issue for me. But it is a historical, so I have to take it on those terms.

As for POV, I got used to the mind-jumping after a while. Not my style, but it was 3rd person omniscient, so OK. Actually, since we even know what God said, it was really omniscient.

Epilogue was OK. Wish they hadn't had children, but that's an authorial choice.

If I take the book solely as an allegory, I can get over some of these problems, and some of my reactions to the characters. But it was not only an allegory, it was particular characters living out that situation (knowingly, in Michael's case) in a particular time and place.

Loved Angel, loved her spirit, well-drawn an dmotivated character. I was bummed that her spirit seemed be broken by the end of the novel. Was saddened by the totality of her arc, never getting out of the cycle of moving from dominating, controlling man to dominating, controlling man.

Michael, Michael, Michael. I just shake my head. Is "hate" too strong a word? Let's go for "profound distaste," instead. Calling Angel whatever name he wanted, grabbing and otherwise being physical with her, relentlessly bending her to be the wife he wanted ... he kept telling Angel he loved her, but I never saw it acted out.

Looking over this, I guess the negatives outweighed the positives.

[pprmint777]

Professor Alan wrote:

Michael, Michael, Michael. I just shake my head. Is "hate" too strong a word? Let's go for "profound distaste," instead. Calling Angel whatever name he wanted, grabbing and otherwise being physical with her, relentlessly bending her to be the wife he wanted ... he kept telling Angel he loved her, but I never saw it acted out.

Hmmmmm. I saw the love acted out every time he tried to teach her the difference between marital love and raw sex; between honest, hand-dirtying work and prostitution; between her past and her future with him.

Being physical with her? Yeah, I guess so. That's one of the things that kept him human. Physical when he desired her and physical when he was frustrated out of his mind. Quite frankly, I'm surprised he didn't knock her cross-eyed a time or two. In that era, no one would've thought twice about it. But that's not how God deals with us, and that's not how he dealt with her.

"Relentlessly bending her to be the wife he wanted?" Ya betcha. Once we accept God, He teaches us what pleases Him, too. But, aside from the spiritual, it's typical and very realistic. Men and women have been trying to bend each other throughout eternity. Nothing new there.

I have a sneaky suspicion you're being deliberately controversial. Great way to keep the discussion going! ~~~ ppr

[ProfessorAlan]

Being physical with her? Yeah, I guess so. That's one of the things that kept him human. Physical when he desired her and physical when he was frustrated out of his mind. Quite frankly, I'm surprised he didn't knock her cross-eyed a time or two. In that era, no one would've thought twice about it. But that's not how God deals with us, and that's not how he dealt with her.
That's the only thing I found that fit with the time period. The physical nature of the relationship would not fly today as well, but if that's the only reason the story had to be put in the 1850s ... I don't know ...

"Relentlessly bending her to be the wife he wanted?" Ya betcha. Once we accept God, He teaches us what pleases Him, too. But, aside from the spiritual, it's typical and very realistic. Men and women have been trying to bend each other throughout eternity. Nothing new there.
But it wasn't pure allegory, it was actual human characters. Maybe that's the leap that I couldn't take, to it being just an allegory, like Pilgrim's Progress or Hind's Feet. And if we take it as human characters, yes, as you say it's common and all too human, which makes it a reasonable reason for me to not like the guy.

I have a sneaky suspicion you're being deliberately controversial. No, though I admit more of the negatives came out of the fingers when I was typing, but it's no "pose," as the kids say. I was often disconcerted by the novel.

[Dorothy Raye]

CHARACTER:
Angel – Rivers succeeds in getting the reader to have sympathy for Angel in spite of who she is. Angel is a strong character who impacts everyone her life touches whether in a negative or positive way.
Michael – Knowing and recognizing that Rivers has written this story as an allegory helps me to accept the character of Michael, a depiction of God’s love seeking us out. Otherwise, I find Michael to be too good to be true.
Paul – Paul is an excellent depiction of a hypocritical Christian: rough, weak, and struggling.
Rivers use of the Altman family as an example to show love, commitment, and devotion to Angel is well done.

PLOT:
Rivers’ Redeeming Love is one of the most realistic Christian books I have read. It reveals an ugly side of life many of us would rather not see. After the prologue, I almost stopped reading, because of the emotional difficulty dealing with the seduction of a child. Thankfully, the story jumped to an adult level. The prologue was a good foundation setting the tone and feeling for the story to come. The prologue establishes a bond between the reader and the vulnerability of Sarah, which carries throughout the book, in spite of, Sarah’s rawness as an adult called Angel.
Francine Rivers lays out the plot clearly. The first part of her book establishes the lead character and the problem of sin in her life. The middle of the book describes the struggle Michael has with Angel trying to get her to see and understand unconditional love. The resolution at the end of the book is expertly handled by Rivers. Angel is led away from worshiping Michael into true salvation in a still, quiet way. The years Angel spent in San Francisco growing in her faith before returning to Michael pulls the plot of the book together into a cohesive, complete depiction of the growth and development of a believer. Prior to this, Rivers depicts Angel trying to find redemption on her own through offering herself without any true emotional commitment, hard work, washing herself, trying to live under drab, rigid standards, and worshipping another person. Rivers succeeds in depicting the struggles of salvation without sugar-coating it.

SETTING:
I love historical fiction, this time period especially. There were references to historical events, such as, the gold rush, tent towns, saloons, the growth of San Francisco, etc. Some historical fiction spends too much time describing the era or the setting, so that the story line is lost. Other fiction has so little references to the history of the setting that the reader is left afloat as to where and when the story is happening. Rivers adds historical tidbits, but I would be interested in a little more to add to the setting.

ANALYZE:
This is one of the best Christian books I have read. Too many of this genre are sugary sweet with a happy ending. Life is more complicated than that. For Christian readers who have to live with ugliness in their lives, Rivers offers hope. There will be struggles, successes and failures, but our relationship with Christ, surrounded by His love is paramount throughout. I give this book a 4.

- Dorothy Raye

"Writing is an invitation to participate with God in the creative act to draw our readers closer to our creator."

[Tarin]

@Dorothy: Guess you found the thread! !thumbsup! Sorry I didn't get back to you before this; been out of town for the last week.

[Dorothy Raye]

Thanks for the reply. Yes, I finally found it.

[grimsleygl]

I too read Redeeming Love years ago and I'm glad I did not get the original version from all that has been discussed about it. What I did read blew me away though! I had never been able to get much past the first few chapters in any of the few Christian novels that I tried. Had decided that they were just not for me...until someone convinced me to at least try Redeeming Love.

I was curious before I got to the first chapter, but on the very first page of that first chapter, I was hooked and I knew it! I cried at the depth of God's love for us...which I saw in a new light. I was amazed at the undying commitment of love portrayed by Michael through out the entire book. I was so tenderly touched by the patient courting, and a love that continually forgave even when forgiveness seemed far from warrented.

I can truthfully say that my love for the Lord was deepened because of this book as I was reminded of so many times when I have been unfaithful to the Lord but yet He has waited...longing, yearning for me to turn my heart back.

Somehow, though I remember very little of the details and almost none of the writing style, I do remember a feeling of aggitation for some reason with the words in italics...at least until I became used to it. I understood it was a conversation with, or by, the Holy Spirit but it seemd somewhat distracting to me.

I have shared it with several others, including my mother who told me she cried all the way through it. Happy ending, and I drew closer to the Lord. I could not ask for anything more! !thumbsup!!thumbsup!