Dark Night of the Soul

Rating:
Summary: a masterpiece marred by a misled translator
Review: Dark Night of the Soul is no doubt a masterpiece, but Mirabai Starr has taken it upon himself to touch it up. Beware of such irresponsible and arrogant work by a translator. A translator trying to cut out the undeniably Catholic view from which St. John of the Cross is intrinsically deriving is likened to a museum curator trying to make Mona Lisa's smile less winsome.

Do read this work of art, but find a different edition. We should all boycott buying stolen work at all costs. Starr has tried to pass off work that is not his own, NOR St. John of Cross' as it originally was.

Rating:
Summary: My All Time Favorite Book
Review: Next to Holy Scripture that is, but then again I do not consider the Bible to be compared with any other human work.

PROS - The first time I read DARK NIGHT OF THE SOUL I couldn't understand it, but could tell it contained something worth study. The second time I read it, I began to glimpse that it spoke of something beyond me, but extremely important. The third time I read it, it made my theology feel like that of a preschooler. I finally went to stay in a monastery for a few days so I could be tutored in understanding this book. The next time I read it, it began to make sense. Though it is still over my head, today this is my all time favorite book, no matter who does the translation.

CONS - That being said, translation is very important to understanding this book. John was distinctly Christian. Any attempt to universalize his writings might yield something of value, but of far less value than John intended. Mirabai Starr's translation minimizes Christian references intentionally.

VERDICT - I personally give this and all other translations 5 stars. I am happy to have this translation in my library. However, it lacks some of the punch of others I have studied.

Rating:
Summary: Terrible
Review: Starr writes in the preface "Who was I to speak for this enliughtened being and assign myself as his personal editor?...John is a Christian mystic known fo rusing only the lightest touches when it comes to direct Christian reference. These have been minimized still further, not out of disrespect for Christianty, far from it, but because I felt that this way the universality of his wisdom would shine through even more brightly...."

In the very least Starr has defaced a work of art. At worst, Starr has created an abomination. She calls John an enlightened being and then tries to improve him. Would you try to improve Michelangelo's art work? What arrogance.
John would be shocked at this purposeful mistranslation that seeks to lead people away from Christ. John lived among Muslims and could have easily written his book to help them, but he did not. For he believed, very intensely than anything else, that Christ was supreme and that there is no salvation in anyone else. (Acts 4:12 "There is Salvation in no one else")
Stay away from this book.