BOOKFEST

The True Story of Hansel and Gretel, by Louise Murphy

2008-12-02T21:03:00.000-08:00

Note: Okay -- obviously, I'm way behind on posting this, but I did review it on my own blog some time back, and I've been meaning (since October!) to post it here as well. So, here goes...

I'm a little on the fence about this one, largely because I don't quite know how to approach a recommendation. I'm left with the choice between commending the author for a creative and fascinating twist on a traditional story and criticizing the author for what was (for me, at least) the use of distastefully graphic details in certain places.

There is no question that Louise Murphy's idea for this book was excellent: she started with a fairy tale and made it into a feasible story set in Poland at the end of World War II. Two Jewish children, known only as Hansel and Gretel (assumed names to protect their heritage), are more or less abandoned in the forests of Poland because their father and stepmother believe that they will have a better chance of surviving on their own. In Murphy's story, the father is a kind but slightly impractical man, and his wife is bitterly pragmatic but certainly not cruel. She encourages that the children go on their own, not because she hates them, but because she knows that the four of them together stand no chance of getting past the Nazis. In this way, Murphy takes a simplistic idea -- father, angry stepmother, and two children abandoned -- and gives it a realistic twist, while also explaining the various and complex motives that people have for their actions.

Forced to survive alone, the children stumble upon the cottage of a Gypsy woman named Magda who lives on the outskirts of a tiny Polish village as something of an outcast. Magda is considered a witch by the locals, but they also rely on her for her medical knowledge. Her Gypsy background is kept quiet (although everyone knows about it), because the Nazis are quick to deport Gypsies as well as Jews. She decides to take the children in, giving them new papers and a history, and she tells everyone that her niece and nephew have come to visit her. Meanwhile, the children's father and stepmother manage to connect themselves to a group of Russian rebels who are picking off Nazis as they go and waiting for the Russians to push the German soldiers out of Russia and back through Poland.

Back in the village, Magda faces a variety of challenges with the children, not the least of which is the arrival of a German SS officer who has been sent to locate and take back with him all children who appear to have an "Aryan" background. Unfortunately, the little girl Gretel fits this description perfectly (I rather love that Murphy includes this little detail: the Jewish girl is everything that the Germans want in an Aryan child), but fate steps in and provides an escape for Gretel -- quite tragically, it turns out. She goes into the forest alone early one winter morning to enjoy the "wonderland" of snow and ice, and she is set upon and raped by two men.

This is where my criticism of the story comes in. I'll accept that authors use very tragic circumstances for the storylines, and I won't fault Murphy for including this one. What bothers me is that Murphy saw the need to explain the rape in graphic detail. I. Didn't. Need. To. Read. That. I would have been properly horrified and saddened by the aftermath scene of an innocent little girl who is now broken and violated. As far as I'm concerned, that's more than enough to indicate the tragedy that has occurred. But apparently Murphy didn't think so, and I've struggled with her reasons for including this scene. I just don't think it contributed anything to the storyline itself except excessive and unnecessary detail. I have a feeling that Murphy was trying to provide as authentic a description of the cruelties of life for these people as she could. (I'll certainly say that I came away from the book with a new appreciation for what the Polish people -- Jew, Gypsy, and otherwise -- suffered during the Holocaust.) But the entire scene was just too much for me. I wish I could say that I saw it coming and that I could have turned the page and read past it, but unfortunately it creeps up on the reader very quickly. One second Gretel wonders who the men are, and the next second she is being assaulted. Truly horrific. I don't need to read things like this to be aware that they happen and to be appalled by them. Others might think differently, but that's my own perspective on this issue.

I'm sorry to say that this isn't the only moment of unnecessary detail in the story, although this is by far the most graphic. There are a few other places where I felt as though Murphy got carried away with her need to provide a clear image of the Holocaust and lost sight of the main story. At the end of the day, this is a new take on the story of Hansel and Gretel, and Murphy should have stuck closely to that.

I'm going to recommend this book, because I think it's fresh and interesting in its approach, and I think it offers an important look at the end of the Holocaust and the struggles that all of the Polish people faced in surviving. At the same time, be forewarned that there are some distasteful moments of detail in this story. (If you want to avoid the scene noted above, skip the chapter entitled "Ice Storm.")

Year of publication: 2003
Number of pages: 297

Comstock Lode - by Louis L'amour

2008-10-02T12:12:00.000-07:00

I cannot tell you how magnificent I feel being back on this book blog, I have tried to pull my brain out of soccer, school, puddles of potty and baby spit up to give a good review and I hope you enjoyed the journey this book took you on!

I own almost a thousand books, and being a Navy wife I’ve grown accustomed to the packers groaning as they see my bookshelves.

Hardbacks are great because they don’t fall apart as fast as paperbacks but for my favorite books I prefer the feel of softness and lovingly worn pages that a paperback gets, Comstock Lode is one of these.

Louis Lamour was a rigid researcher, he didn’t write anything unless he could back it up historically in some way, in this book he takes an historic western town and gives it life. Each character is put in for the strategic reason of getting to know the time, the place and the people who lived there.

I love books that have a vast cast of people woven in and out of the pages, it takes great imagination and a whole lot of work to write a plot that encompasses an entire continent and dozens of people.

Through these pages we follow the life of Val Trevallion, witnessing the most horrifying moments of his life and seeing him grow into a man able to cope with the hardships of the western frontier. We meet his friends, people like Crockett the mine owner, Jim Ledbetter the packer and Melissa the lonely woman.

We respect Val because he works hard and has the valor to help those who need help and kill those who need killed. For it was men like Val and women like Melissa and Grita that made the West a safe place for families, they were the law before there was structured law, without good people fighting for right and justice the scum of mankind would have thrived off of the pioneers, taking what they wanted and leaving a trail of blood behind.

My favorite side characters is Jacob Teale, he is an excellent example of what kind of men tamed the West, yes he is definitely on the rough side, and he had killed before but never “without a cause” and he did cross the line of the law when it suited him to do so. However he also had a strong sense of honor, and once that honor had been appealed to he had the compulsion to follow through with it, and he does, all the way to the end. As he says when Grita first approaches him; “Ma’am you don’t need to give me nothin’. My old mammy would turn in her grave did she think I was takin’ money for protectin’ a lady.”

I also like how much we get to know the villain Albert Hesketh, we understand him and feel a pity for his hopes, for the dreams that he has killed so many people to fulfill. Yes, we feel sorry for him but do not regret his end. And he dies the way he should, no honor, no glory, just death.

This book is full of the west, the good the bad and yes, the hardworking man who just does what he can to make a home for his family.

I have had the privilege of being to Virginia City, it is very strange to walk the hills that not so long ago were a part of our Wild West.

To view the rocks and sagebrush you would never think that anyone would survive there long enough to live. It took tough men and women to carve out their place in history and leave a legacy behind.

Comstock Lode is a great fiction to read if you want to get a feel for the western people that blazed the trails for the rest of us.

And maybe, just maybe we will feel the western hospitality and help a neighbor once in a while, out of remembrance to the ones who had no one but the stranger next to them on the hill.

The Decline and Fall of Practically Everybody, by Will Cuppy

2008-09-13T21:23:00.000-07:00

Once again Rose picked a winner for our group to read. I absolutely loved it! Calon Lan has already gotten around to reviewing it and did a good job. Pop on over and read her review because I don't have too much else to offer.

I would describe Will Cuppy as the Wodehouse Historian. The sense of humor is almost identical. It is entertaining and delightful in every way. Cuppy does deal with mature subject matter but does so in such a way as to make a suggestion, drop a hint, but never outright say what it is he is trying to say. You get the point.

My favorite description in the book is of Aspasia, "companion" to Pericles:

"Aspasia believed in women's rights. That is, she thought women were as good as men, a notion that is always cropping up here and there. The position of women in Athens was not perfect, but it might have been worse. A married lady was permitted to dine with her husband unless there was company, when she was expected to keep to her own quarters. At ordinary meals she sat on a chair and he reclined on a sofa because he was all tired out discussing Truth, Beauty, Goodness, Justice, Freedom and Moderation with his men friends.
Greek wives could not go gadding about the streets, but they could look out the window and have babies. After the age of sixty, they could attend funerals. Yet many of them were dissatisfied with their lot."

I think the thing that most impressed me about Cuppy himself is that he apparently read everything he could get his hands on, on any particular subject or topic, and amassed tons of 3x5" note cards on subjects before writing one word himself. He wanted to make sure he knew his subject matters as best as he possibly could before expounding on it to the world. That is an admirable trait and one I respect, regardless of whether or not I always happened to agree with his historical opinion.

This book is excellent for teaching history in an entertaining way. Whether or not you like reading about history, you will have a hard time NOT having fun with this book. I loved it! Thanks, Rose, for the recommendation!

An Artist of the Floating World, by Kazuo Ishiguro

2008-09-11T05:17:00.000-07:00

"I cannot recall any colleague who could paint a self-portrait with absolute honesty; however accurately one may fill in the surface details of one's mirror reflection, the personality represented rarely comes through as others would see it."

As a retired artist of the imperial war machine, Masuji Ono must now redraw his own self-portrait to come to terms with his new life in post-war Japan. With the great cause of his life discredited, with his years of artwork packed out of sight, his children can only offer the consolation that he wasn't all that significant and certainly doesn't need to commit hari-kiri to atone like many of his peers.

This book fascinated me on several levels. The writing, with multiple depths to the simple surface of family conversations and recollections.The character study, as Ono is unable to see himself truly, and yet unable to conceal who he really is. The historical and cultural setting.

Most of all it moved me to reflect on my life. As my children get old enough for me to see my own judgments of my parents in their eyes, I wonder what they will think of my life in the end. Will it seem wasted to them? Will I spend years chasing down the wrong goal? They will know me too well to accept the shining mental picture I have of myself, yet I still hope that my "labor will not be in vain" and that I will have something to look back on with content.

In the end Ono does have something worthy he brought through the war, though he never thought of it as his important work: the lives of his two daughters, and then of their children, who will be part of restoring his country.

Feint of Art, by Hailey Lind

2008-08-22T12:44:00.000-07:00

This summer I’ve indulged myself by trying out several new mystery writers and series. Some stories I have enjoyed, while others were too much of a stretch to be believable, or just badly written. But the popularity of the amateur detective is greatly evident when you stroll through the mystery section of the bookstore, and see series after series involving shopkeepers and writers and store owners and party planners, all of whom suddenly blossom into private investigators, with the typical motivation of helping out a friend combined with personal nosiness. (I reflected briefly on this phenomenon when I reviewed three such novels on Leaf and Frame.) Creating a believable scenerio wherein a (typically) self-employed young professional discovers private-eye talents and uses them convincingly, is difficult, I believe. When in real life can a florist or coffeeshop owner succeed where a police detective can’t? In a market burgeoning with “same formula/new setting” mystery series, creating a fun, unique character who finds a legitimate reason to sleuth around is the author’s first and most challenging imperative. Some of those I have read over the summer succeeded in that goal, while others did not.

In Feint of Art, Hailey Lind did a decent job of giving her detective a convincing cause and motivation for tracking down some missing persons together with missing works of art. As a reformed art forger turned legitimate businesswoman, Annie Kincaid’s background is original and gives her a slight edge in a case involving the “art underworld,” so to speak. Other than that, Annie is a formula character with the prerequisite traits of inquisitiveness, tenacity, money troubles, fashion obstacles, and a suffering love life. (Seriously, all the heroines that I have encountered in this type of mystery novel have these same characteristics.) But Annie’s particular incarnation is enjoyable enough, and the plot’s rising action involving deception, murder, art renovation and flirtation, was interesting and swift enough to keep me turning the pages.

Feint of Art is one of the better examples of the amateur detective subgenre, and it was nice indulging in a bit of candy reading this month. It nowhere reaches the cleverness of Agatha Christie nor the witty depth of Dorothy Sayers; but readers who like modern mystery writers will enjoy this light entertainment.

A Year in Provence, by Peter Mayle

2008-08-06T17:36:00.000-07:00

I posted this on my own blog a while back but completely forgot to post my review of the book here during July. Very sorry about that.

This book is a delight from beginning to end. The subject matter, the writing style, the local characterizations -- from the first page to the last, I was drawn in and fascinated by life in Provence. Mayle is a gifted writer and has a talent for selecting just the right moment and describing it in perfect detail. As a result, there are gems to be found on every page and a laugh in just about every paragraph.

The premise of the book is the many experiences of the first year that the author (or narrator, depending on how the reader chooses to distinguish the two) and his wife have after moving to Provence. They buy an old French house -- apparently the one in the picture below -- and then set themselves to the task of remodeling it and assimilating into Provençal life. As expected, there are all kinds of new adventures along the way, from getting accumstomed to the local way of measuring time to getting used to the vast changes in weather, from learning the variances of the French language in Provence to braving the many guests who invite themselves down. The house that is supposed to be remodeled within a matter of a month or two doesn't get completed until December, and then only because the author and his wife lure the builders into finishing the job by throwing a cocktail party and inviting them and their wives. (The ploy is quite brilliant actually: no self-respecting workman from Provence would let his wife see that his work is only half-finished.) But the year and the story moves very quickly, and by the time the reader reaches December, it's a little disappointing to know that it will all be over soon.

Although the remodeling of the house is the central element of the plot, Mayle doesn't focus exclusively on the challenges of getting contractors to finish a job in a timely manner, which is just as well since that seems to be a universal and not terribly original problem. While their house is being torn apart and rebuilt, he and his wife take the time to experience the local culture and get to know the part of Provence in which they are living. There is hiking to do, truffles to hunt, (lots of) wine to drink, cafes to enjoy, and even a goat race to watch. The book was originally published in 1989, so I suspect that no matter how "provincial" Provence might have remained, much of what Mayle describes is now obsolete, but it's fun to read about anyway. For myself, I have to admit that I hope the cafe bathrooms have improved and that many of the cafes now take credit cards (which I would assume they do, or at least some of them). But I enjoyed Mayle's take on everything and his willingness to allow Provence to reveal itself to him and to accept Provence as it is and not as he thought it would, or should, be.

To me, the best part of the book has to be Mayle's descriptions of the people encountered along the way. From the trigger-happy neighbor Massot to the industrious tenant Faustin and his wife Henriette to the delightfully philosophical electrician Menicucci, Mayle breathes life into each of these characters and shows the reader how they make up the Provence that he has learned to love. My personal favorite, though, might be Mayle's description of the hapless English friend Bennett who accidentally caught the backseat of his rented convertible on fire (while driving down the autoroute, no less) and then put the fire out by urinating on it. (He did pull over to perform that task.) I laughed for about three days when I read this.

Two thumbs up for A Year in Provence and a big recommendation. Mayle's wit is wonderfully dry and his sense of humor keeps the reader interested. I realize that this one isn't exactly fresh off the printing presses, but the writing style is fresh enough to keep it relevant and enjoyable for some time.

Year of publication: 1989
Number of pages: 207

Cross-posted to Dwell in Possibility.

Cordelia Underwood, by Van Reid

2008-07-07T17:27:00.000-07:00

Totally fun. And just a little bewildering.

This book reminded me a lot of Pickwick Papers: a club of bungling bachelors, who ought to be men of the world but instead are hopeless innocents, marauding the countryside. Only it's late 19th century Maine and there are bears and politicians and lady parachutists and Captain Kidd's lost treasure to enliven things. And a sometimes intertwining plot with a young heroine and her peculiar inheritance from her sailor uncle.

There were a lot of characters, and a lot of plot threads, not all of which were tied up neatly. (Really, hardly any of them. But there seem to be quite a few more books in the series, hurrah!) Although I found it confusing at times, mostly it was just part of the effusive fun of the book.

Robinson Crusoe, by Daniel Defoe

2008-06-13T12:11:00.000-07:00

I selected this book to read because I'm trying to make up for all the classics I avoided reading during high school. Why is it that I find I'm spending most of my adult reading life trying to catch up on classics that I should have read much earlier? Probably because they weren't presented as "fun reads." Most high schoolers I know do not hear the word "fun" in association with "classic." Say "classic" and immediately you are thinking about Moby Dick. And who REALLY wants to read Moby Dick? I barely made it through the cliff notes. (Yeah, I admit it.) Anyway, I thought Robinson Crusoe would be an entertaining and enlighting read. I found it to be both but it's also not a particular favorite of mine.

What I did not realize about RC is that it is touted as being the precurser to all other stories about castaways. Published in 1719, this book comes before Swiss Family Robinson (which I read and reviewed here) and, certainly, before Hollywood's many adaptations (Gilligan's Island and Tom Hank's Castaway come to mind). Because all the good castaway stories have drawn from this (more) original work, and because I read this book after having read and experienced the other stories, Robinson Crusoe was not altogether unfamiliar. In short, I found so much of it familiar in nature that I was frequently bored.

This book serves to make me more aware of the need for classic literature in school curriculum. (I was raised home schooled and my mom was a strong proponent of the use of classics in curriculum. I just didn't like that then. Probably because I had little choice in the matter although I do honestly recall her doing her best to encourage me to think outside my Nancy Drew box.) Instead of Choose Your Own Adventure books it would behove us to market "the old books" as adventure stories entertaining enough to compete with Eragon) et al.

. . . Getting off the soap box . . .

The two things I liked best about this book was the inclusion of Defoe's faith. He freely discusses his Christianity through the development of his main character, RC. Defoe himself was a Presbyterian dissenter which makes certain theological arguments that RC holds in and through his relationship with his man Friday to be most interesting.

The second thing I liked about this book is that, contrary to the obnxious and nauseating all-knowing father in the Swiss Family Robinson, Robinson Crusoe confesses his lack of knowledge about the flora and fauna surrounding him. His experience on his island is more trial and error than knowledge and bizarre fact. That makes this story infinitely more believeable than the Swiss family's. It is easier to identify with an imperfect character than a perfect one.

It is interesting to note that Defoe himself was a poor man who spent the majority of his life in debt and running from creditors. However, he gives his character Crusoe relief in the monatary department and it is easy to think that Crusoe's own feelings of relief in God's provision for his life were feelings that Defoe believed he would also have in such circumstances. The contrast between his real life situation and his "hope in a better tomorrow" in the form of Crusoe is intriguing to say the least.

In summary - this was a great book that I'm glad to have read. I only wish I had read it long ago. It's worthy of time and attention and I hope you get a chance to read it. Yes, it is on the longer side. However, the chapters are short and the story easy to follow. Try it! I think you'll like it.

Race for the Park Street Treasure, by Sigmund Brouwer

2008-06-03T09:10:00.000-07:00

Written in the tradition of Christian youth fiction, the Accidental Detectives series by Sigmund Brouwer feature young teenagers who get into adventures and scrapes, get out again through inspired audacity and friendship in action, and learn a few important lessons about God and themselves along the way. This is not a bad formula; it is one you expect from this type and level of fiction, and it works well, particularly if the author creates interesting characters to people his action-driven plots. Race for the Park Street Treasure wasn’t fantastic or hugely original, but it was a quick, fun read, with a couple quirky characters and a satisfying conclusion.

Reading Race for the Park Street Treasure brought me back to the days when I would constantly read similar youth fiction series, some of my favorites being The Northwoods Adventures by Lois Walfrid Johnson and the Cooper Kids series by Frank Peretti. These books are pure entertainment; even when I was in junior high I never considered these types of books with their moral/spiritual lessons to be the first or last (or any) word in Christian guidance. But even if Christian fiction doesn’t draw you closer to God, you can always point out that at least they are clean.

I would recommend the Accidental Detectives to Christian kids, but only as candy reading. I would hope that their parents insist upon them reading classic literature first. A well-written story with life lessons woven into the character development will take a young person a lot farther than a handful of tepid young adventurers who occasionally mutter a prayer of help.

Life Among the Savages, by Shirley Jackson

2008-05-31T21:03:00.000-07:00

Bah. This book wasn't really all I was hoping it would be and that's probably Erma Bombeck's fault. It was very Bombeck in nature. If you like Erma's style, you'll like Jackson's style. Probably.

The interesting thing that sets Jackson apart, I think, is her lifestyle choices (i.e., smoking & brandy). You can be reading along, as happy as a lark, when all the sudden she mentions that she lit up a cigarette. And she's always pregnant when she mentions this. It's a stark reminder that times have changed since the 1940's! What I also found interesting was that neither she nor her husband could drive and she was the one first pushed into learned. That also just strikes you a bit odd as you are reading along. It's really no fault of Jackson's. It's just period dated which you are constantly reminded of.

I think I like Bombeck better than Jackson because while Bombeck frequently paints a chaotic picture of her life, you just get the feeling that some of it is for the reader sake and she has more control over the situation that she gives off. Somehow, someway, it feels like Bombeck's world hosts more order while Jackson's world is pitiable at best. Her kids really do come across as savages and I really don't admire that characteristic in people of any age or size. I kept wondering if Jackson's children grew up with some degree of normalcy and became somewhat productive members of society. At least with Bombeck's children (I like to think anyway!) that they could grow up saying, "Yeah, I'm a Bombeck. Life was crazy but I sure do love my mother!" I don't get the same feeling from Jackson's "savages."

Another thing that sets them apart to some degree is Jackson's monologue descriptions of various conversations that she had with people. It's a bit disjarring (at least to me) and throws you off kilter a bit when she goes from describing a situation and telling you a story to launching into a conversation. It's easy to get lost in the conversation and you have to remember what it is that she's really trying to say or tell you about. I think Bombeck does a better job completing her stories without losing you.

I don't mean to make it sound like I really hated this book. Because I didn't. Jackson is a very humorous writer. But you really can't read her after you've read a lot of Bombeck otherwise it just spoils the whole thing. I didn't hate it. I was just bored. That's all. I can't say I wouldn't recommend this book - because I probably would. I'd just recommend something - ANYthing - by Bombeck before I'd suggest Jackson. That's my take.

Fountain and Tomb, by Naguib Mahfouz

2008-05-20T08:14:00.000-07:00

This was a unique and enjoyable book, consisting of over seventy brief vignettes (some only a few paragraphs long). Speaking in present tense, the narrator describes life in the Cairo neighborhood where he grew up in the 1920s. The stories focus on the people and customs that surrounded the boy and made an impression on him, defining not only his life but the life of the alley. He tells of romances and heartaches, marriages and deaths; he describes both highborn and lowborn neighbors, pious people and lawbreakers. In his telling he neither judges these characters nor asks the reader to. He presents a distinct look at a distinct culture, but is not compelled to defend, explain, or propagate the religion and customs of his people. He merely weaves, in spare but picturesque language, a fascinating portrait of life as seen and interpreted by an observant and impressionable young boy.

I found this book easy and fun to read; the structure makes it easy to read in short segments, although often I was enjoying myself too much to put it down. I loved the brief look at so many different, fascinating people. Sometimes I couldn't help thinking, Are there really this many interesting (even eccentric) people to be found in one close-knit neighborhood? I wish I could observe such types of people and be able to describe their story in such a succinct yet poetic way!

(This review also posted on Leaf and Frame.)

The Name of the Rose, by Umberto Eco

2008-04-09T16:44:00.001-07:00

Probably one of the deepest, most literary mysteries I’ve ever read! This novel contains as much (or more) discussion of philosophy, history, Apocalyptic revelation, ecclesiastical politics, and the purpose of knowledge, as it does of character and plot development, to say nothing of actual “detecting.” But while I felt bogged down in a few places, for the most part the characters and the mystery, as well as the richly portrayed medieval and monastic culture, kept me fascinated and turning pages quite eagerly.

The Franciscan monk William of Baskerville is an admirable protagonist and “detective” (not by profession, of course, but the role he assumes in the story). To me he resembles a combination of other characters I like: Brother Cadfael (another monk who investigates murder), Sherlock Holmes (uses similar methods of reasoning), and Albus Dumbledore (the wise mentor of great intelligence, keen shrewdness and courteous manners).

In the 1320s, there is upheaval in the Holy Roman Empire, marked by power struggles between Emperor and Pope, and accusations of heresies between various monastic orders. A meeting is arranged between two religious factions, one supporting the Emporer and one the Pope, to address the issue of the monastic lifestyle of poverty, which is divisive not only among the clergy, but has acquired political significance as well. William of Baskerville is one who will speak in favor of poverty, and arrives several days early at the designated location of the meeting, an unnamed but ancient and magnificent abbey. Accompanying him is Adso, William’s young novice pupil, who like a faithful Watson is the narrator of the story.

William is renowned for his wisdom and cleverness, and for this reason the abbot of this particular abbey beseeches William to look into the recent death of a young monk. Naturally, the matter proves to be more grave and complex than it first appeared. Over the course of the week that William and Adso spend at the abbey, several more deaths occur, together with apocalyptic portents and rumors of illicit sexual relationships and forbidden books full of dark secrets. As William attempts to unravel the clues, he and Adso encounter a mysterious reticence among the abbot and older monks regarding the restricted library, and William becomes convinced the key to the puzzle lies in that quarter. But discovering how to access the library and make sense of its labyrinthine passages is a whole other challenge. Adding to these difficulties is the arrival of the Pope’s contingent, accompanied by an Inquisitor, who desires to destroy the credibility of the Emperor’s supporters by discovering connections to heretical sects.

Obviously, this story is complex and involved! But despite the intricacies of the plot, the actual episodes of sleuthing and character interaction comprise only half the length of the book. The rest of the 500-some pages are devoted to long passages of discussion and meditation on the other topics I mentioned at the start, particularly the history of the monastic orders involved in the story, and the rise of heresies and doctrines that have led to all the political/ecclesiastical strife. There are also discussions of the value of knowledge and books; the grandeur of the abbey’s treasury; the various kinds of lust that can afflict the monks (not just carnal, but also lust for knowledge); and religious disputes such as whether or not laughter is a holy or a wicked thing, to name some. I confess my attention wandered during some of these passages. But they do enrich the story and pertain to the development and motivations of various characters, so they are not merely excessive rabbit trails!

The Name of the Rose provides a fascinating glimpse into medieval monastic life and the intrigue that could surround people of power, even in the church. Beyond this richness of setting, the portayal of the characters is equally riveting, and together with the skillfully constructed murder mystery, makes for an excellent and enjoyable novel.

Will in the World, by Stephen Greenblatt

2008-04-08T18:15:00.000-07:00

The subtitle of Stephen Greenblatt's book Will in the World is How Shakespeare Became Shakespeare. The subtitle of my review of this book is Why Literary Scholars Should Not Write History. Now, in all fairness, Stephen Greenblatt is a great Renaissance scholar. He is (according to the back of my book) the University Professor of the Humanities at Harvard and is widely recognized as an influential voice in the field of Renaissance studies. My professors in graduate school noted that he is considered the voice in Renaissance studies at this time, so I have to tread lightly with respect to criticism of his work. Additionally, Greenblatt is considered a founder of the New Historicist movement with literary studies. Boiled down to its most basic, this movement is essentially the attempt by literary scholars to read history through literature. Greenblatt does this often in Will in the World. He quotes a passage from one of Shakespeare's plays and follows the quote up with an explanation about how one might read this passage in terms of Shakespeare's own life.

Notice the use of the word "might." I was only about five pages into this book when I began noticing something that disturbed me. Greenblatt claims to be examining the way that "Shakespeare became Shakespeare," but his theories are so speculative as to make this subtitle somewhat dishonest. Words and phrases such as "maybe," "perhaps," "it is possible," "almost certainly," and so forth are sprinkled throughout the book, but the story that Greenblatt weaves is so clever as to make this element less noticeable. But it is a problem in this book. I have no doubt that Greenblatt can handle a solid interpretation of Shakespeare with aplomb. In fact, he does it repeatedly throughout the book, and many of his close readings of passages from the plays and sonnets are beautifully done. As soon as he begins speculating on how these passages might relate to Shakespeare's life, he loses some authority. For instance, Greenblatt makes general observations about the marriages between characters in a number of plays and concludes that Shakespeare's marriage must have been unhappy. He notes some rather random points from Shakespeare's plays about fathers and makes what I would have to call sweeping statements about Shakespeare's own father. The problem is not that Greenblatt is necessarily wrong. The problem is that we have absolutely no idea if he is right or wrong and no way of finding out.

There is, in short, a dearth of information about Shakespeare. Apart from a smattering of mentions and name listing on a few legal documents, there is almost nothing tangible that modern readers have about Shakespeare's life. Thus, Greenblatt turns to the plays. The problem with this, however, is that the plays don't really provide anything more than a vague possibility for what was happening is someone's life. Case in point: after the publication of Lord of the Rings, a number of critics concluded that Tolkien must have been making a comment about World War II. Were we lacking information about and from Tolkien, this might appear to be a good argument. The problem is that Tolkien stated quite clearly on a number of occasions that this was not the case. I would have to say that the same potential exists in Shakespeare's writing. It's very possible that Greenblatt is making legitimate inferrences from the plays. It's even more possible that he's just creating a fantasy, however well-written.

I have to admit that far from convincing me, Greenblatt's book only raised more questions in my mind about who Shakespeare was. This review isn't the place to have a debate about the topic, but frankly, if I were a Shakespearean scholar I would have some major questions about the lack of information available about him. And that's what I took away from Greenblatt's book. I learned a great deal about Elizabethan England but almost nothing about Shakespeare. In fact, I feel that I know even less about him from reading this book than before I read it: in the process of opening the door of speculation, Greenblatt only managed to open the door of doubt. As a result, I have to say that I can't recommend Will in the World. It's certainly interesting and extremely readable, but it falls too short as a solid look at Shakespeare and is highly disappointing from such an accomplished academic.

Cross-posted at Dwell in Possibility

The Bookseller of Kabul, by Asne Seierstad

2008-03-05T11:52:00.000-08:00

Originally I was not planning on participating in this Bookfest read because I just didn't think I would enjoy it. Mirlandra made a library run and picked it up, read it, and passed it along to me. Since she went through the efforts of handing me the book, I figured the least I could do was read it. I am now so very grateful to Ani for recommending it, Mirlandra for getting me a copy, and that I had the time to sit and read it. I really, really appreciated it.

There are so many comments to make about this book. Seierstad lived among this Afgahni family for a period of time in order to learn their family story and write a book to share with the outside world. She lived among them, ate their food, wore their clothes and adapted to their habits (somewhat). It's a fascinating look into the life of a "middle class" family in Afghanistan.

Obviously there are hardships in just about any culture that you look at. Sin is everywhere and can be avoided by no one. (Romans 3:23) Everyone is both a carrier and a victim of it. Every culture fosters and breeds its own contempt for morality and Biblical law. Afghanistan is no different. They should not be pitied anymore or less than a Russian, American or Chinese man. We are all the same before Christ without His compassionate grace and mercy in pardoning our sins and making us holy so that we can stand pure and wholeheartedly before Him.

I think this is one of the rare books in which the story teller gives you the facts of the matter - as black hearted and dirty as possible - without feeling the need to open up all the gory details. You get the point without the graphics. I appreciated that very much because it allows you to stay tuned to the story instead of wondering if there is very much value in the time you are spending reading it. She shows the desolation without making you want to turn your eyes away. Because of this, I feel I can safely recommend this book to anyone -- and would!

Obviously there is a great deal of difference between a Muslim and a Christian culture. Anyone who has spent 10 minutes studying either "religion" could tell you so. As a Christian reading this particular book and hearing about Muslim culture and custom, I can affirm that there is more freedom in Christ that in Mohammad. The differences are sometimes huge and sometimes small and minute. Take for example Sultan's (our main character and the leader of the family which we are a part of for the purposes of this book)approach to taking care of the poor and needy. He quotes Mohammad as saying, "First take care of yourself, then your closest family, then other relatives, then neighbors, and last the unknown poor." (Page 57). Contrast that with the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) in which we are instructed to love our neighbor as ourselves. And who is our neighbor? Anyone near us who needs help, essentially. Friend and foe, slave or free. Why? Because we all have equal standing in Christ. (Galations 3:28)

Seierstad spends most of her time focusing on one of the main areas of oppression in Afghanistan culture and that is the oppression of women. In Afghani culture women are subserviant to the men. They do not have the right to speak against their authority figure in any manner, be it the clothes they wear, the people they talk to, whether or not they may leave the house, and who they marry! (An unthinkable thought in western culture.) Men rule, women drool, for lack of a better phrase. It would almost be better if women did not have brains for then they wouldn't feel the sorrow of not being allowed to use them. Again I will reference Galations 3:28 where scripture (God) clearly states that He makes no distinction between male and female. All have equal standing in His eyes. Both are welcome to come before the throne of grace. Either sex may find their completeness and joy in Him without having to ask the other for permission. His gift of salvation and freedom is freely given.

This is the obvious culture difference and naturally I agree with Seierstad's "western sentiments" but not just because they are western culture ideas. I agree with it because it is Biblical truth. Women are due honor, respect and dignity just as much as any man. Each are given different roles to play in the home and society but the roles compliment each other and are not beaten down and discriminated against by the other. They are supported, defended and each revered for being a special creation in Christ. As a Christian man, it is his responsibility to defend the honor and dignity of the woman -- more specifically his own wife. He is to love and treasurer her as a great gift. As a Christian woman it is her duty to honor and respect the man -- specifically her husband -- and support him in his life's work and endeavors. Each role compliments the others, bows before the other and humbly submits itself to the position of being the servant. In that servitude we see a picture of the marriage of Christ to His bride and it is beautiful.

I am grateful for many things that I previously took for granted before reading this book. Again I'd like to thank Ani for bringing this selection to the group. It was both insightful and enjoyable and I hope that everyone gets a moment to read it! I'm looking forward to hearing what everyone else thought of the book!

Peace Like A River by Leif Enger

2008-02-16T18:36:00.000-08:00

I had never heard of this book before, but upon picking it up the jacket seemed interesting enough. Things had been pretty busy, but I packed it up for our 600 mile road trip to Redding, CA. Even in the first few chapters I was laughing out load.

Enger writes with the depth of Annie Dillard, and a control of pros equal to any author I have ever read. And while the quality of writing is top notch, the story is engaging, uplifting, driving, deep, powerful, comical, present, sad, happy and fully satisfying.

The story follows the Land family with the patriarch Jeremiah at the head as his eldest son, Davy, is accused of murder in a killing that is really more about self defense. After the trial seems to be hopeless, Davy breaks out, and goes on the lamb. His family, desperate for his return, takes to the road in an Airstream trailer searching throughout marvelous territory for him.

As the warp and weft of the plot carry us through this journey, the driving force is certainly Ruben, the second oldest child who believes he is here on earth to bear witness to the miracles that follow his father. Though his character cannot be outdone by his sister Swede whose writer's nature and epic poetry make her a fascinating eight year old. Through in massive allusions to various Biblical stories and plot lines and you get one whopper of a great read!

I expected a good book and left with a book that really tugged at me in many different directions. I was deeply touched by Ruben and Swede's committed relationship, and the family's dynamic in general, which very accurately portrays the emotional commitment and closeness of a family that has experienced the abandonment of one parent. And Swede herself is my newest favorite literary hero. And then there was Jeremiah.

His faith is inspiring, the very way he lives his life is amazing, but the defining moment seems to be his encounter with God in a tornado. It seems to me that during this experience he had an encounter that changed the bedrock and foundation of his life, that after that experience everything was different and it effected his family profoundly.

Bottom Line: I'm scouring used book shops for more copies for family and friends, loaning my copy out, and declaring it one of my new favorite books of all time! It gets a 10 out of 10 and then some and maybe a place of honor next to Annie Dillard and Chris Anderson on my shelf. If you liked this, definitely try Dillard, maybe Andre Dubus (specifically Meditations From A Movable Chair), and Tim O'Brien if you are comfortable with war literature. If you are fascinated with the way Jeremiah Land lived his life, pick up a copy of Face to Face With God by Bill Johnson, but be prepared it packs a punch.

Holes, by Louis Sachar

2008-01-31T21:39:00.000-08:00

This was another book that I started out not liking and ended up really enjoying. So far I'm impressed with the selections for this year's reading. I'm even more encouraged about what's to come at this rate!

This is the story of Stanley Yelnats, a falsely accused teen who is sentenced to Camp Green Lake to "serve time" for the offense of stealing a pair of tennis shoes. In this camp, the going philosophy is that digging holes will build up a man's character in a boy and so each boy is required to dig one hole a day. The conditions are harsh and the authority figures harsher. None of the boys seems particularly enviable.

I think part of the motivation behind this book was to draw attention to boy's "prison camps." Certainly by presenting a likable character, the author does a good job at pulling your heart strings and making you think ill of the Texas department of juvenile corrections. The camp "Warden" is particularly loathsome and spiteful as you could predict her to be right from the get-go. Everything about the court system seems to be a joke and intends to motivate the reader to want a complete overhaul. While I do recognize the fact that prison camps are not all that they are cracked up to be, and, in fact, abuses does happen - I still think that there is a place for them. Anyone who holds a position of power has the means of abusing their position at any place and at any time. There are no exceptions. Just because we've had some examples of abuse in prison camps like the one described in Holes, we should not be driven to "throw the baby out with the bathwater." I may not personally be settled on "the ultimate solution" but right now we must use the options available to us . . . one of them being prison camps.

Aside from that emotional focus, the book also weaves a good western mystery into the plot involving ancient curses and a really fun mysterious outlaw. I enjoyed the mystery aspect of the book a great deal. I thought the author did a fabulous job weaving together two separate stories into something relevant to our main character. Very well done!

I would encourage anyone to read this book. I'm curious to know if anyone has seen the movie version that came out recently? If so, please do share your thoughts on it. I can't imagine that I would enjoy it as a political statement, but I would enjoy the western outlaw bit.

I thought this book was imaginative and creative and despite it's somewhat depressing scenery, really had a lot of heart and enthusiasm. It's not one I think I'd want to own but it is worth a read.

Things Fall Apart, by Chinua Achebe

2008-01-11T18:55:00.000-08:00

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

--W.B. Yeats, 1920--

(I got this one done early, so I thought I'd post my comments on it now.)

Chinua Achebe's Things Fall Apart is one of those stories that seems deceptively simple at the start, but then unwinds itself into a rich, complex story that can't be easily defined or categorized. In brief, this is the story of Okonkwo, a man who is entrenched in his own cultural heritage (and more importantly, in his level of success within that culture) and in unable to accept the changes that inevitably come when tribal Africa meets industrialized Europe. What makes Okonkwo such a difficult protagonist is that he really isn't one throughout a good portion of the story. He is stubborn, arrogant, narrow-minded, and difficult to like at times. He is also hard-working, ambitious to improve himself, surprisingly gentle at unexpected moments, and thoroughly in love with his homeland. He is at all times a fascinating character and one that demonstrates the complexity of human beings. Perhaps to undercut any European expectation of the African as simplistic, Achebe presents a character who is far too complex to ignore. He is not always likable, but he is always real and struggles with very real. Yes, Okonkwo appears easy to categorize at times, but he is not. He is the image of a dying way of life, and shows readers that--for Okonkwo, at least--so much is lost when that way of life fades into obscurity.

The passing of one way and the emergence of another lies at the heart of the challenge in reading this book. Central to all of the conflict is the appearance of the Christian missionary into Okonkwo's village and the gradual conversion of many of the tribe's members. There is a temptation to read this book and to assume that Achebe is anti-Christian and anti-West, because Western Christianity destroyed the traditional way of life in Nigeria. And yet such a comment fails to tak the big picture into account. For one, Achebe himself is a product of the Western influence in Nigeria, having been very well educated. What is more, the Christians are not necessarily portrayed badly; in fact, Achebe makes it clear that the first people they reach out to are those who have been rejected by the village. An example is a woman who runs from her husband during her fifth pregnancy because each of the previous pregnancies has resulted in twins--a very bad omen. The children had been abandoned to the wild, and the woman feared losing her babies again if she gave birth to yet another set of twins. The missionaries slowly but surely make progress, bringing much good to the people. But with this good comes the defeat of the traditional gods, which also means the defeat of a huge part of the village's cultural history. It's an interesting problem and one that doesn't have an easy solution. I think that Achebe's goal is not to much to mourn the loss of something as it is to explore what happens when this loss occurs. It is the loss of an identity for many people, in particular Okonkwo.

In the end, Okonkwo cannot accept the changes, and the book ends rather surprisingly on a negative note. But what this does is remind the reader that the story has not been fully told, even today. The story of Africa and Europe (and America, I suppose) is being written every day. Much can still be changed in the perception of "the West" toward Africa, and that--I think--is what Achebe is trying to say. I do recommend this book, because it is definitely a classic but also because it is a nice change from the typical "classics" that fill the canon of Western literature. I'm certainly not going to suggest that it replace anyone but rather that it be added for its qualities as a piece of literature.

As a final note, the poem quoted at the beginning explains the title of the book. Yeats is a tough nut to crack, and I wouldn't say that the poem properly conveys the tone of the book toward Christianity. Nevertheless, it does offer a glimpse of how great a conflict occurred when Christianity appeared in Okonkwo's village.

Cross-posted to Dwell in Possibility.

Surprised by Joy, by C.S. Lewis

2008-01-04T21:46:00.000-08:00

Having recently read Jack: A Life of C.S. Lewis, by George Sayer, I found Surprised by Joy very enlightening and a nice "filler" (although, perhaps, I should have read them in the opposite order). I am still finishing a book about Lewis thinking that I would like to have been friends with him while knowing that that would not be remotely possible due to the wide gap in our intellects. To put it simply, he would not have liked me and I think I would have a.) frustrated or b.) bored him. I, on the other hand, would have been fascinated -- I AM fascinated.

Lewis was definitely "brainy" in every sense of the word. I used to think that anyone that intense was really overblown but now I think that the world needs one or two Lewis' to give us all something to think about. Without the Lewises God has placed on this planet, I'm quite certain that most of us wouldn't think at all. So I've concluded that although such personality types are frequently snobby and lofty in their view of the world and others, they serve a great purpose (as much as I generally don't appreciate the attitude). Does that make sense?

In this particular work, Lewis spends his time explaining how he mentally came to the place where he believed in God. It is a story of his conversion. According to Sayer in Jack, Lewis wrote so as to work things out in his own mind. If that truly was the case, then I think Surprised by Joy was Lewis' attempt to walk through his own conversion experience and see how God worked all things together for good. It was a self-serving purpose which educated his foes and colleagues as to his mental processes. It's an interesting read, but more so to get a taste for his childhood and personality quirks than to hear what changed his mind.

I realize more and more how much I love to pay attention (and poke fun at) people's personality quirks. I confess it! I do! Lewis certainly had a boat load, but then, we all do! My favorite quirk of his is one that I share. He hated playing games. SO DO I! Of course, he words thing so nicely (in referring, particularly, to sporting games - but I feel it with all games). . .

"Not, indeed, that I allow to games any of the moral and almost mystical virtues which schoolmasters claim for them; they seem to me to lead to ambition, jealousy, and embittered partisan feeling, quite as often as to anything else. Yet not to like them is a misfortune, because it cuts you off from companionship with many excellent people who can be approached in no other way. A misfortune, not a vice; for it is involuntary. I had tried to like games and failed. That impulse had been left out of my make-up; I was to games, as the proverb has it, like an ass to the harp." (page 129-130)

As a non-gamer who married into a family of intense gamers, I found this particularly hilarious.

Sky suggested this book and then blessed me with my own copy (which I, surprisingly, did not own). I really don't know why it is taking me so long to get to Lewis' writings. You'd think if I were willing to name my son after him, I'd have taken some time to get to know Lewis better first. All the same, I'm happy with what I do know, what I have discovered, and what I know I will continue to discover. Lewis was an amazing man and an interesting one. I look forward to meeting him someday!

Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, by Mark Twain

2007-12-16T09:30:00.000-08:00

I originally posted this review on my blog, but Carrie asked if I would post it here as well. I apologize if someone else was hoping to post it; since the book wasn't one of my choices, I was hoping not to step on any toes.

Simply put, Huck Finn is a classic. It's one of those books that everyone should read at least once in life, and possibly more than once. Due to my own educational choices, I managed to read it once in high school and then twice in college (in separate classes, no less). But I can't complain. The first time through was a little tricky, particularly with the dialect, but the story only grows in analytical potential with each reading. The best thing about Huck Finn is that there are so many angles from which to approach it. There are the characters, the relationships between and among characters, the setting, the role of the raft (I'm not kidding--this is what lit people spend their days doing), the socio-economic considerations, the racial considerations, and the list goes on. I even had one teacher who made the startlingly apt comparison between Huck and Jim's voyage down the river and Dante's journey through hell, forever cementing my love for this book. Were I specializing in American literature, I could probably spend the rest of my career writing about Huck Finn alone, and I feel certain I wouldn't exhaust the material. Now, that's when you know you have a good book.

What makes this story so special is its unique place in literature. Literary critics often consider Huck Finn to be the first truly American novel, and rightly so. This is arguably the first novel by an American writer that embraces specifically American themes. In many ways, literature reflects landscape. I had a teacher (a different one, I think) who pointed out that European novels are called "drawing room novels" for a reason: there really wasn't anywhere for the characters to go, so all action takes place in a small setting and within a clearly defined society. In American literature, however, there is a tendency to send characters on a journey of escaping or, even more significantly, to drive all action westward, indicating an escape from society. In Huck Finn, both elements occur. Huck and Jim travel downriver, and then at the end of the story, Huck decides to throw off the bounds of society all together and go West. These themes were not necessarily unique to the American psyche prior to Twain, or unique even to Twain's writing before Huck Finn, but it was this book that established their influence within American literature.

I realize that where Twain is concerned, controversy follows. I remember when I was first reading Huck Finn in high school, my dad commented with some irritation, "Twain? He was an atheist!" Well, who knows. And more importantly, who cares. As a student of literature, I'm not in the business of dragging an author's religious or moral beliefs (or lack thereof) into my interpretation, unless said beliefs demand attention in the story. And, of course, sometimes they do. There are some writers who are unable to separate ideology from art. But then these tend to be poor writers, because they are not trying to produce art but instead are generating propaganda. I honestly believe that the best writers can produce art--which I equate to the presentation of truth and beauty, whatever the medium--independent of their beliefs. This is what makes a book like Huck Finn great. Where this book is concerned, it doesn't matter what Twain believed in or what his personal life may have been like (and I've heard some rather seedy things). For a comparison, I'm not a fan of many of the ideas/moral positions of W.B. Yeats, but that doesn't make him any less a great poet.

Apologies for the rant. After reading Carrie's post (on her blog) concerning The Golden Compass, this topic has been on my mind and seems appropriate for a discussion of Twain, who has undergone his share of censorship over time. As far as Huck Finn goes, my recommendation is basically that everyone should read it: for those who haven't already, it should go on the reading list, and for those who haven't read it in a while, it should be dusted it off and experienced all over again. I promise that there are gems to be discovered within the pages.

(And as a note of interest, the title of the book is correctly Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, without a preceding "the." No, I don't know why. And, yes, everyone gets it wrong.)

God's Smuggler, by Brother Andrew

2007-12-05T10:23:00.000-08:00

This is a Must Read book for any Christian. You want to talk about living the Christian life, wholeheartedly devoted and trusting in God for every single thing? This is a man who lived it and did it. Brother Andrew was born in Holland in 1929 and, as far as I can figure, is still alive. (Maybe LT can enlighten us a bit more on his whereabouts and activities now?) LT suggested this book as Brother Andrew began a mission smuggling Bibles into communist countries, which is a topic near and dear to her heart.

BTW, Brother Andrew calls himself such in part because it was safer for him to drop his last name, enabling him to continue his work with more anonymity. I don't really get into the "brother/sister so-and-so" stuff myself, but I can see why he would choose to be titled as such.)

I really don't to spend a lot of time focusing on the book or his particular story because I think this is one that you just need to read. I will, however, say this much: God used the story of Brother Andrew's life to reveal to me that I am not living wholly devoted. I trust far more in myself and my own abilities to carry the day, than I do in God. I think of my life in terms of "What I Can/Want to Accomplish" rather than "What God Wants to Accomplish With Me."

I am not saying buy me a plane ticket to China with a suitcase full of Bibles. I AM saying that the planner recognizes that she needs to not plan so much and she needs to see where God wants her to go and what He wants her to do before she takes a step in any direction. Make sense?

What impressed me the most about this book was that B. Andrew relied on God to meet the needs and go the distance to see that His will and His plan was carried out. If ever there was a need that arose, it was entrusted to God. This is a man who was Spirit led. This past year I've read and thought a lot about following the Spirit. I've approached it theologically, thoughtfully and tried to be more discerning about who and what it is that I'm listening to when making decisions. However, God's Smuggler suddenly made things clear in a practical way. It inspired me to make a list of the things that I want (or think I do) to see happen in my life (to me and through me) and really lay that list before God and see what the plan is. I thought I was looking for Him, but I'm not certain that I really was.

I do admire the work of Brother Andrew and think he is very brave. Maybe he wouldn't say so, but it does require some courage to go about doing what he did. Some might say that it is unfortunate that in writing this book he virtually put an end to his participation in carrying the Word into various countries. Suddenly he put himself on the map and put his name in the spotlight. This automatically eliminated his ability to travel unnoticed. However, his work continues.

If you are interested in learning more about his work, you can go to Open Doors International website at: http://sb.od.org/

This is also not the only book that B. Andrew wrote. I've copied and pasted the list of his other works here for your convenience:

Brother Andrew; Sherril, John; & Sherril, Elizabeth (2001). God's Smuggler. Chosen Books. ISBN 0-8007-9301-3.
Brother Andrew (1974). The Ethics of Smuggling. Tyndale House Publishers.
Brother Andrew & DeVore Williams, Susan (1990). And God changed his mind. Chosen Books. ISBN 0-8007-9272-6.
Brother Andrew; Becker, Verne (2002). The Calling. Revell. ISBN 0-8007-5838-2.
Brother Andrew & Janssen, Al (2004). Light Force. Revell. ISBN 0-8007-1872-0.
Brother Andrew; Sherril, John; Sherril, Elizabeth; featuring Jars of Clay (2001). The Narrow Road: Stories of Those Who Walk This Road Together. Baker Publishing Group. ISBN 0-8007-5793-9.
Brother Andrew & Janssen, Al (2007). Secret Believers: What Happens When Muslims Believe in Christ. Fleming H. Revell.

I'm particularly interested in reading "The Ethics of Smuggling" and his latest booked, "Secret Believers: What Happens When Muslims Believe in Christ." If anyone else out there has read either of these two books, I'd enjoy hearing about them.

Andrew has a relaxed style of writing that is personable and comprehensive. I think you will get a lot out "God's Smuggler." Again, I would encourage you to read it and thank LT for recommending it to us in the first place!

Bookfest, year 3

2007-11-07T17:18:00.000-08:00

Well here we are again, preparing to embark on our third year of Bookfest. The contrinbuting members have been selected and confirmed and selections made. This year Bookfest welcomes contributing member, Mirlandra, which makes for a grand total of 8 members, each with 3 selections.

The list for 2008 is as follows (for those of you who might wish to plan ahead to read along):

JANUARY
1. Surprised by Joy, C.S. Lewis (Sky)
2. Things Fall Apart, by Chinua Achebe (calon lan)

FEBRUARY
1. Holes, by Louis Sachar (Rose)
2. Peace Like a River, by Leif Enger (QOC)

MARCH
1. Safely Home, by Randy Alcorn (Carrie)
2. The Bookseller of Kabul, by Asne Seierstad (Ani)

APRIL
1. Will in the World: How Shakespeare Became Shakespeare, by Stephen Greenblatt (Mirlandra)
2. The Name of the Rose, by Umberto Eco (Alaina)

MAY
1. Fountain and Tomb, by Bauib Mahfouz (calon lan)
2. Race for the Park Street Treasure, by Sigmund Brouwer (Rose)

JUNE
1. Life Among the Savages, by Shirley Jackson (QOC)
2. Robinson Crusoe, by Daniel Defoe (Carrie)

JULY
1. A Year in Provence, by Peter Mayle (Ani)
2. Cordelia Underwood, by Van Reid (Sky)

AUGUST
1. Feint of Art, by Hailey Lind (Alaina)
2. Redeeming Love, by Francine Rivers (Mirlandra)

SEPTEMBER
1. The Decline and Fall of Practically Everbody, by Will Cuppy (Rose)
2. An Artist of the Floating World, by Kazuo Ishiguro (calon lan)

OCTOBER
1. The True Story of Hansel and Gretel, by Louise Murphy (Carrie)
2. Comstock Lode, by Louis Lamour (Sky)

NOVEMBER
1. Leepike Ridge, by N.D. Wilson (Alaina)
2. Middlemarch, by George Eliot (Mirlandra)

DECEMBER
1. A Thousand Splendid Suns, by Khalid Hosseini (Ani)
2. The Chosen, by Chaim Potok (QOC)

Birds of a Feather, by Jacqueline Winspear

2007-10-19T11:48:00.000-07:00

Anyone who writes a genteel mystery set in Twenties London must count on being compared to Golden Age detective writers, so I won't apologize for doing so. Ms. Winspear follows pretty much all the rules well and writes an intriguing, well-plotted mystery. Even Maisie's reliance on intuition is fair enough, since her intuitions are not unaccountable--indeed, they hardly seem worth the fuss given to them.

And that touches on my chief complaint with the novel, which was that it takes everything so very, very seriously. Not grimly, or darkly. Just terribly in earnest. It felt like a five-hour session with a counselor who wants you to get in touch with your innermost feelings and divulge your deepest hurts so that you can be made whole and all you can come up with is the desire to go get a hamburger.

I don't know whether this is just the author's natural style or she thinks it necessary to the difficulties of depression and post-war stress, but the people who actually wrote and lived during the time seem to have liked things a bit lighter, and to have coped more by laughing at themselves. Personally, I much prefer the occasional wry twist that makes a Christie or a Sayers novel so engaging.

Nonetheless, I did find it a compelling and even enjoyable read. I finished it up with a spatula in one hand, cooking supper. I might pick up another one of her books if it were lying out on a library table. But I probably wouldn't go hunting for it.

A Wrinkle in Time, by Madeleine L'Engle

2007-10-05T08:49:00.000-07:00

L'Engle's love of ideas and literature and her keen interest in the spiritual world are evident in this book. A character who quotes Euripides and Shakespeare, a seraphim who takes a purposefully vague name in order to reveal itself to humans, and discussions of the fifth dimension and the existence of tesseracts all have their place in this story of three children battling against the forces of evil to save Mr. Murry, the space traveler.
L'Engle shows a perceptive understanding of children and teenagers. Meg struggles with her faults of anger and outspokenness until she discovers that, properly channeled, these can be strengths as well. Charles Wallace, a genius with a highly developed empathic sense, learns that his pride in his understanding can be his downfall. And Calvin, the lanky and lonely teenager, finds a true home with the Murry family.
The characters of Mrs. Who, Mrs. Whatsit, and Mrs. Which are fascinating. As angels, they guide the children in their search and rescue of Mr. Murry. They reminded me of a good version of the three witches in Macbeth, who keep behind the scenes but are always close at hand. The scene of the seraphim singing on the planet Uriel reminded me of the angels and saints surrounding the throne and praising God, singing without ceasing.
At the end of book, when Mr. Murry returns with Meg, Calvin, and Charles Wallace, L'Engle describes the presence of Mrs. Who, Mrs. Whatsit, and Mrs. Which as 'a flooding of joy and love that was even greater and deeper than the joy and love which were already there'. These three women have shown Meg and the others that the way to win over evil is to love. Evil stamps out originality and makes everyone and everything into a cookie-cutter sameness. Love is the most powerful force in the universe, and alone can triumph over the mesmerizing power of 'It'.
L'Engle is a universalist, and so I can't quite agree with her that love, in the sense that she is using it, is the answer to everything. But she makes an excellent point in this story that love is one of God's greatest gifts to us and is much more powerful force than evil.
I highly recommend the Crosswick Journals, which chronicle several consecutive summers in the life of L'Engle and her family. She interweaves stories of daily life with her own musings on fascinating ideas and spiritual concepts. A Circle of Quiet, the first journal, is the best.

The Yearling, by Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings

2007-09-17T20:15:00.000-07:00

The Baxter family lives and farms in an isolated backwater area of Florida, in the late 19th century. Jody Baxter, the boy, adores and respects his father, Penny Baxter, and his greatest joy is found in going on the hunt with his father and listening to his enthralling tales of previous hunting exploits. Yet Jody, the only boy his age for miles, is lonely and longs for a close friend and companion of his own. When he discovers an orphaned fawn, Jody persuades his parents to let him keep it as his own, and his hungry heart quickly finds joy and satiety in the young creature who accompanies him in his chores and in his frolicking and forest rambling.

The Yearling is a tale of rural life: planting and harvest, hunting, caring for livestock, weathering storms, trading in town, sharing yarns around the fire. My 21st-century mind is amazed at the work that was necessary just to survive! And at what simple things brought pleasure and excitement: storytelling, visiting neighbors, having that extra bit of money to buy that special thing in town.

The Yearling is also a tale of growing up, of the tug between clinging to boyhood freedom and innocence, and desiring to enter the realm of manhood (in particular, creating one’s own collection of exciting tales and exploits). Jody has two examples of grown manhood: his rough-riding, backwoods neighbors, the Forresters, whose tastes run to whisky and shooting at any creature that moves; and his father, Penny, a wise, gentle man with a great work ethic, great hunting skills, and great strength of character. While Flag, the fawn, is Jody’s source of joy, Penny is the pillar of strength and stability that upholds Jody through a year of ups and downs.

The writing in this novel is excellent: from its point of view (believable, consistent, and sympathetic), to its description of the characters and setting (visually lush and detailed), to the heavy dialect of the dialogue (at first difficult to read quickly), to the story arc (gentle and character-driven). All the characters are fully-fleshed, believable, and interesting; even the secondary characters, who have no journey of their own, are real and colorful. Penny Baxter is my favorite character, with his great tales inspiring and his gentle affirmation guiding his young son. There is a sweet irony in Penny, who is physically scrawny, but who has more wisdom, perseverance, iron tenacity, and strength of character than all the burly, dark-bearded Forresters combined.

This 1939 Pulitzer Prize-winning novel is masterful in its depiction of a way of life long gone, and in its simple celebration of hard work, family and friendship, and the innocence and ideals of youth.

Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, by Lewis Carroll

2007-09-05T12:59:00.000-07:00

Can we have POSSIBLY picked a better time to read this book? I think not. Having recently read The Looking Glass Wars and then just having finished up Seeing Redd, I was anxious to read the "original tale" of Alice. Or Alyss. Whichever you prefer. Quite frankly, I now prefer Alyss. Which is probably why purists wouldn't enjoy Beddor creeping in and taking over Carroll's original story.

I've read Alice's Adventures in Wonderland several times previously but this time I found it to be quite the annoying tale. Before, when reading, I saw it as nonsensical humor. I never understood why Carroll carried on the "conversations" in the book in the manner that he did. Exactly why did he choose to go about not making any sense?

However, this time I see sense in it, which is what I find so disturbing. He's describing people and he does it very well. Maybe it's just me and the world I'm currently living in but it seems like I can say one thing and people like to take it and twist it into something I would never have said at all. It's viewed in a somewhat humourous light to play the old slumber party game "telephone" all the time. In every conversation. And that's what Alice is like. You say one thing, I hear another and I see how funny I can make it sound all together. Which might be funny once or twice but by the end of the game, and in life in general, it gets old really, really fast. I frequently feel like Alice:

Alice said nothing; she had sat down again with her face in her hands, wondering if anything would ever happen in a natural way again. (p. 158)

Or here:

"But I don't want to go among mad people," Alice remarked. "Oh, you can't help that," said the cat: "We're all mad here." (p. 90)

Now I don't mind quirky but quirky can be overdone and when its unending, its unnerving. I saw myself in several characters this time. I've never identified anything in the book with human traits but they are everywhere. In almost every line you will find something. I was surprised by it all and would really rather not read it again as a result. (Although I think I'm still quite fond of the Disney cartoon version and with the story in general -- as long as I don't have to delve too deeply into it.)

Looking at it from the fiction point of view, and tying it in with the recent Looking Glass Wars craze, I would say Beddor did a really good job of explaining himself in the first book and played off of Carroll very well. Actually, if you think about it, Beddor did to Carroll what Carroll did to all of us. Think about that for a second.

He got what he deserved!

The Woman in White, William Wilkie Collins

2007-08-13T10:27:00.000-07:00

"All baronets are bad." ~ W.S. Gilbert, Ruddigore

I did not expect to like this book, from what I had heard of it. I figured I would care little for the central character, Laura. About that, I was right. She is the dullest accumulation of insipid Victorian feminine ideals I've ever met. Fortunately, although Laura and her clumsily sinister husband, Sir Percival, are the central characters, neither of them are the main characters. It is their respective allies--Laura's sister Marion and Sir Percival's suavely nefarious friend Count Fosco--who are the main characters. And what characters they are! (And yes, Hartright, too, but he's such a Standard Good Guy that I have nothing to say about him except that I can't figure out why he fell for Laura and not Marion.)

Marion has to be one of the best female characters I have ever encountered, especially in a book of this vintage. Usually female characters this strong are evil, but Marion could stare down Madame Defarge or Lady MacBeth. Or in a modern book they turn into thin feminist mock-ups trying to be One Of The Guys, but Marion remains fully a woman and even a woman of her time. She doesn't wear a corset, but it's because she doesn't need one.

Meanwhile the Count is--eww. Fascinating and charming despite his age, weight, and utter ruthlessness. An unforgettable villain.

I was first intrigued by the way of presenting the book as a series of testimonies, as if reading a series of depositions. This grabbed the lawyer in me right away, but it worked well as a literary device, too, allowing the reader to look through different people's viewpoints in a natural way and piece together the evidence one step at a time.

I see from the foreword that the author was a somewhat scandalous one in his day, and the book is meant to push at the edges of conventions. It is in following proprieties that Laura loses her fortune and endangers her life; it is through improper (though not immoral) means that justice is done. The author can critique society's conventions all he wants, but he cannot tell a rip-snorting good story without being moral, even moralizing. Good must prevail and evil be punished, and so it is.

The Mysteries of the Middle Ages

2007-07-24T18:36:00.000-07:00

I've been sitting on this post for a few days now, thinking about what I really want to say in reviewing this book. The easiest way is to start by saying that I liked it, and I'm glad I read it--but with heavy qualifications. Part of the challenge in discussing a book like this is reminding myself that Cahill is not a Christian writer, and despite his Christian (or rather Catholic) leanings, he still has a secular approach. It would be unfair to fault him in purpose, given that his is not that same as mine would be. I kept something of a running list of issues I had taken with him while I read, and I realized when I looked them over that most were problems of small detail. For instance, his claim that II Timothy wasn't written by St Paul. Really? Says who? I haven't heard any theologians make that comment, so I bristled at it. (I suppose it's altogether possible that it is true, but it will take more than his word for me to believe it, cultural arguments aside.) Also, I tend to get peeved when I see people claim that Richard Cœur de Lion was a homosexual. I've heard this for years, and yet I've also read perfectly solid historians point out why he wasn't but would be seen as such through modern lenses. Thus, I get irritated when people say, "Well, you know Richard was almost certainly a homosexual. After all, he and his wife never had children." Well, no, but absence is an amazing contraceptive. I'll bet he had loads of children floating around from France to Palestine, though.

These are really just trifles, however, and shouldn't interfere with whether or not I agree with Cahill's main point. Here is where things get a little tricky for me. From a distance, I can see what Cahill is doing, and I admire his goal. He's an extremely readable writer, and I always enjoy perusing one of his books. Up close, I'm not entirely sure it works. For one, the book begins about four times, which really confused me. We start in Alexandria, and then go to Rome--leaving me to wonder if the whole book is going to be about Italy in the Middle Ages (Cahill has been promising a book about the Romans). And then, we wander again. We touch on Hildegard and Eleanor of Aquitaine, and keep moving until we graze a few topics that course through the Middle Ages, never staying anywhere long enough to be sure we know how it applies. I'm particularly disappointed with his discussion of St Francis of Assisi. No offense intended, but I've never cared for St Francis. He's always come across as somewhat unstable and unreliable as a good example of sainthood, and yet Cahill makes the startling claim that Francis might be the most important historical figure since Christ. Ummm...no. If that were the case, one has to wonder why Cahill only gives him a few pages (and yet devotes so much more to both Hildegard and Eleanor of Aquitaine). The reality is simply that if he did, readers would be even more startled because they would discover that St Francis was a few raisins short of a fruitcake.

Ultimately, I think this book is interesting, but I don't think it works. Cahill is attempting to discuss some very broad topics in a book that was never designed to be broad. He's a great writer of detail. He should have written exclusively about feminism, art, poetry, or politics, and not tried to touch on it all. Poor Dante gets such a short shrift. I almost wish Cahill had left him out, because Dante is just too big to be touched on so briefly. My other problem with the book is that it references the other books in the series far too much. Cahill is very close to assuming that everyone has read them, when in reality this book should be able to stand on its own. Many of his comments made complete sense to me, but then I did read Sailing the Wine Dark Seas and Desire of the Everlasting Hills. Both are great, and both are greater than this one. I'd recommend them, probably more than I can recommend this one. Again, I liked it. I'm glad I read it. But I wouldn't read it again--which is something I certainly can't say about his other books.

On the side, I apologize for not using the book cover to lead this post. I went on Cahill's website and found the image above. And I liked it. It's from Chartres Cathedral...and it's just plain pretty.

Note to Bookfest members: I've cross-posted this review to my own blog.

Magazine for Booklovers!

2007-07-16T21:40:00.000-07:00

I just discovered Bookmarks magazine, and wanted to spread the word. This mag covers reading lists, winners of prestigious book awards, tips for book groups, and interviews with contemporary authors. You can also find it online at www.bookmarksmagazine.com Enjoy!

Psmith in the City, by P.G. Wodehouse

2007-07-04T16:46:00.000-07:00

I was glad that LT had suggested this book from the great P.G. Wodehouse collection because I thought it was one that I hadn't read. I started it and everything was sounding so familiar . . . a bank, "coffee breaks", cricket, etc. WHERE had I heard of this before? Anyway, I decided to go ahead and read it again and I enjoyed it - again.

This time Wodehouse takes us inside a bank and paints a picture of boring monotony such a life entails (or so it would seem). When young Mike Jackson's family suffers a financial blow, he must take a job in the city working at a bank and learn how to make his own way in the world. His friend and "Comrade", Psmith, offers to share a flat with him and pays some of his expenses on account of the fact that he would consider Mike his personal and confidential secretary. Mike agrees to the generosity of Psmith and as a result is led on many an adventure of Psmith's, mostly in the realm of socialistic circles. I was most entertained by the dinner scene in which Mike is cornered and forced to listen to Comrade Prebble babble on unintelligibly about the Rights of Property.

"Mike began to realize that, till now, he had never known what boredom meant. There had been moments in his life which had been less interesting that other moments, but nothing to touch this for agony." (p. 123)

P.G. Wodehouse himself worked in a bank and left it upon finding success with pen and paper. I find this particular book, Psmith in the City, entertaining in light of that fact. Wodehouse, per usual, has an agreeable and witty way of describing his characters and their personality traits. He never paints the entire picture of who any of his characters are. He gives you just enough to paint your own picture of each individual and it is enough to leave you with a smile and a sigh.

Anything by Wodehouse is, of course, to be highly recommended. This one included.

Your Mission (Should you choose to accept it!)

2007-06-19T07:14:00.000-07:00

Get to know another Bookfest member today. Blog surfing? Surf one of the other member's blogs. Find out who you are reading with.

I just found Alaina's book blog (linked to the right here) which I previously didn't know existed. (Sneaky, sneaky! Or not.) At any rate, it's fun to know the others. Try.

The Mysterious Affair At Styles, by Agatha Christie

2007-06-15T08:17:00.000-07:00

Got it yesterday, sat up late to finish reading it, loved it, loved it. But then, I am already a big fan of Agatha Christie's writing, so perhaps it would be more helpful to break this review up into two parts, to wit, A.C. in general, and this book in particular.

I love reading books by A.C. Despite the proliferation of her books (usually a good sign that the author has long run dry of creativity and is simply churning out books to keep the money flowing in), she maintains a strong showing, with good quality narrative, witty dialogue, and fairly fresh characters and plots. True, you do get to recognise a few familiar stock characters (the plucky young girl, the aimless young man who turns out to be really a decent chap, the gruff old soldier type), but you like them anyway because they really work. I think my favourite A.C. books are The Secret of Chimneys, and all the Tommy and Tuppence stories.

I am almost always completely blindsided by the final twist that leads to the unraveling of the whodunnit. Perhaps, with a bit of thoughtful deduction, I might put the clues together to better purpose and hit a bit closer to the truth on my own. But I am always so engrossed toward the end of the book that my one goal is to readreadREAD as fast as possible so as to uncover the mystery. Hence, surprise.

The books span quite an era, from pre-war Britain to the postmodern '60s. It's interesting to read about quiet little village life, bustling London life, and everything in between. Train schedules, servants, and local vicarages play a prominent role in most of these stories, which is quaint and charming.

As far as this book goes, while I thoroughly enjoyed reading it, I certainly wouldn't consider it one of her strongest. There were a couple of things that struck me as either sloppy, rushed, or careless in the plot. For one thing, the spy angle kind of dropped off the plot, once that sensation had played merry havoc with the characters. In fact, there was the alleged spy himself, giving evidence at the London trial months later, none the worse for wear, we presume. That seemed a bit anticlimactic. For another thing, the lag in plot time between the initial events and the London trial seemed rather forced. There we were, a few months later, with not even asterisks to show for all the time lapsed. For another thing, it seemed rather odd that the intrigue with Mrs. Raikes was such an inscrutable rabbit trail to the detectives the whole time. If the WHOLE VILLAGE knew what was really going on, you'd think that Poirot or Hastings might have happened to catch a bit of the village gossip on their own, instead of getting it all second-hand from the servants. In fact, the villagers really come into the story very little.

For the final thing, which is the only reason the Hercule Poirot stories are not my favourites, you simply don't have enough information to unravel the mystery because that annoying H.P. insists on keeping things to himself. Supposedly he does this to teach his rather slow friend Hastings his little grey method, but stolid Hastings himself is enough to drive me crazy. 'I could see he knew the answer, but my wonded pride forbade me from pressing him further.' Yeah, well, the silent treatment hurts most the one practising it. Hang the pride, just TELL me already!!

But the mystery was solidly done, and I was properly flabbergasted at the end, having gamely followed up all the rabbit trails and red herrings the author so temptingly dangled before me. No, wait, some of the things I saw through, but only because Hastings made such a big deal over it. As soon as Hastings gets an idea in his head, I can pretty much dismiss it out of hand.

Another thing I love about the A.C. books, which also came off well in this one, is the handling of relationships. There generally is a love affair or two, and with few exceptions these things generally come off well in the end, with generally well-behaved principals in the meantime. These are very clean, wholesome books.

Fun stuff!

The Book of the Dun Cow, by Walter Wangerin, Jr.

2007-06-04T11:57:00.000-07:00

This book is weird. I'm quite certain that I don't understand all the analogies/the allegory. I'm quite certain that Wangerin is likely more of a genius that I'm quite ready to deal with. He is certainly fascinating. I hesitate to say that this book is a "classic battle of good and evil" although it is that. But to say so makes it sound simple and it was a bit more complex than one sentence can give it credit for.

This book tells the story of Chauntecleer, a rooster, who is battling against Wyrm, an evil creature who is buried in the center of the earth. Wyrm desires to escape his confines and eradicate the "Keepers" of the earth. The "Keepers", I assume, are the animals under Chauntecleer's dominion. These Keepers have been placed upon the earth by a god who pretty much gave up on the planet and had half a hope that his Keepers would manage to protect the earth from Wyrm (since the god was too discouraged to do so).

In order to not spoil the ending, there is a Christ-figure in this book (who starts out as one of the most annoying characters in the entire book). Plenty of parallels and analogies can be found between these pages. I was curious about Wangerin and his religion/philosophy after having read this. Turns out, he is a Lutheran pastor and professor at Valparaiso University in Indiana. If you want to know more about him, (which I am going to assume you will), click here. You might be familiar with some of his other works. I'm not quite certain why the god in this book is mentioned as having left the earth pretty much alone. I'm using little "g" on purpose even though it's a big "G" in the book. I didn't agree with some of the attributes Wangerin seemed to want to give to the god.

This isn't as clear an allegory as, say, Narnia. I'm confused by the importance of particular aspects of the story. For example - exactly who/what does Pertelote represent? Is the a representative of the Holy Spirit? I'm not certain who Chauntecleer is supposed to be. At times I thought his role was that of Mundo Cani Dog. I'm very curious for everyone's thoughts on this book. It's very intriguing.

I started off hating this book. I found it crass at times and rude at others. I wasn't fond of Chauntecleer or anyone else for that matter. If I had a gun and opportunity, I would have taken Mundo Cani Dog out of the picture all together! However, by the end, when the story concluded to some degree, I found it mystifying and was ready to recommend this read to just about everyone I know if merely to help me better understand it. I found this book in the juvenile fiction section of our library and, quite frankly, I would not have put it there myself. I definitely think this lands in the 16 yrs. + pile. It can be a bit vulgar. However, if you pick up this book and read it to the end, I think you'll find reason enough to like it.

Lost Horizon, by James Hilton

2007-05-19T12:16:00.000-07:00

A coincidence, I presume, gave us two books this month whose central plotline begins in Afghanistan. In both books, Afghanistan is (or becomes) a place of turmoil, revolution, and man's inhumanity to man. In both cases, the central character escapes to a place so distinct it might as well be another world.

Unlike Amir in The Kite Runner, who must return to deal with his past, Conway in Lost Horizon seems to have left everything behind. Indeed he is required to leave everything behind. Shangri-La takes all prisoners.

The Kite Runner suggests that human action--whether a personal rescue or American bombs--can make some difference in the turmoil of the world. Lost Horizon suggests the only escape is in an inaction of sorts, concealment and preservation while the world outside lays itself waste. The conflict in Afghanistan is only a prelude to an imminent worldwide cataclysm (which did come, though it was not as catastrophic as the characters imagined).

Shangri-La reminded me a bit of Rivendell, with the long lives and the focus on preservation of what was good in the past. But Mallinson was right; there was something unwholesome about the place. I'd love to visit Rivendell for weeks on end, but I don't think I'd want to spend more than a four-hour tour in Shangri-La. People were not meant to live so long or do so little with so little conviction.

I do have a little sympathy with the mission of Shangri-La, though. Rather than hoping to live on and hold the memory of good things past myself, I hope to pass them on to my children. (A category Shangri-La apparently eschewed.)

As an adventure story, a what-if story, it was a fun read. I did feel like the plot fell apart at the end, though, with a rather contrived reason for escape just to justify the frame story that gets the tale back to the outside world.

The Kite Runner, by Khaled Hosseini

2007-05-14T07:26:00.000-07:00

There's a cliche about the train wreck -- it's so horrible yet so fascinating you can't look away.That's how I found The Kite Runner, which had many disturbing elements in it, episodes that were difficult to read because of the oppression and "violence of the wicked" -- very often violence against children -- and because of the sheer sadness of some of the passages. Yet the book drew me in with its poignant but matter-of-fact prose; its eye-opening look at life in war-torn nations; its touching moments of faithful friendship, and the heart-rending quest for a father's praise.

The story is set in Afghanistan, and the narrator is Amir, who relates how his carefree boyhood was destroyed, first by a personal sin, then by war violence which forces Amir and his father to escape their home to Pakistan, and ultimately come to America, where they try to make a new life in California. Though seeing the violence and oppression of Afghanistan's invaders was terrible, it is his own sin that hangs like a dark cloud over Amir. In his quest for gaining the love and pride of his adored father, Amir makes a choice that hurts (to say it mildly) his most loyal friend and servant, Hassan. Amir's guilt over this becomes a disease that ruins his friendship with Hassan and changes the course of both their lives. As an adult, Amir is given the opportunity to redeem himself of his boyhood failure. He must see if he can claim for his own the courage, faithfulness and integrity that he always admired in his father and in Hassan.

The Kite Runner is moving and often painful. Of course, there are some bright spots: happy memories of a carefree childhood that crop up throughout the book; a new and ardent love that springs up further on in the story; and evidence of Amir truly gaining the respect of his father. But the heaviness never really lets up, because not only are the violent scenes distressing (although it is rarely in-your-face violence, the language is simple and evocative and unmistakable), the presentation of all these lives in the grip of Islamic ideology is saddening as well. On the one hand are the Islamic jihadists; but on the other you have the sympathetic characters like Amir, who must live with guilt, because there is no blood redemption, no sacrifice of love on their behalf by Allah, no salvation by grace. Allah may eventually forgive his followers, but they, like Amir, must earn their own redemption.

I'm glad I read this book, because it is so well-written, and because it showed a way of life that is foreign to me, but that is normal for so many people around the world in Islamic and war-torn countries. However, I would recommend it only to mature and discerning readers.

How People Grow

2007-05-02T05:21:00.000-07:00

This was not a book I was very enthusiastic about reading, as I generally do not care for therapeutic-type books with their multi-step programs for change and their cozy little morality tales of people who have been helped.

Nonetheless, I was impressed with the content of the book, though the style is still not one I cared for. Taking people back to God Himself, and to a deeper understanding of how Truth works out in their life, is the only way to, well, help them grow. People need to understand that they cannot help themselves, need to understand that God is there to empower them, not just hold out a standard, and need to be deeply part of the Body.

This book confirmed many things I have been seeing in my life and in the lives of those close to me. I didn't necessarily agree with all of the applications, but I thought the core message of the book was a very true one, and spoke to the centrality of things too often sidelined in self-help books.

The Worst Hard Time, By Timothy Egan

2007-04-12T18:29:00.000-07:00

This was an absorbing read for me (although, I am a little partial to historical novels like these). Perhaps this might have been due to the fact that I am a Texan now, but, I was trying to picture those who settled the High Plains and finding it so hard to believe that they actually did. They faced the elements squarely in the eye, mustering un-human strength to tough out daily life. And all I can really say is "wow". Timothy Egan is also an inspiring writer, and painted a vivid picture of how these times actually were through actual survivor's stories.

The Dust Bowl struck the American High Plains in midst of the Great Depression (1931) , lingering till 1939. Before the land was shrouded by this dark curtain that blocked the sun and suffocated life, it was known as a land of opportunity and rich soil to plant one's dreams in. Many were duped into thinking it as such, as greedy connoisseurs tried to settle the land as fast as they could, charming eager ears with false promises.
Nonetheless, when the settlers arrived and reality had bit them hard, they set to work with determination, to make the land their own, despite the disappointments.

Through the heartbreak of the dust storms, the heat, the locust swarms, and loss of life, my heart grew in a great appreciation for those before us, living a life that we cannot even imagine. I could go on and on, but I would just encourage you to read it - and now, I am off to read our next book ;)

Cheers!

The Little Princess, by Frances Hodgson Burnett

2007-03-19T11:44:00.000-07:00

I just finished this book. It took me way too long to read. However, I guess I was distracted by a few life situations. At any rate, I am now done reading this book. I made a point to read this one before reading The Constant Gardner this month due to the fact that I always seem to miss reading Sky's picks when I delay them.

I've seen the movie versions of this book multiple times. (Can anyone say Shirley Temple?) The thing I was most surprised about the book ending was that Sara's father does die. I don't think any of the movie versions have him die. Or, at least, not the ones I've seen. So I was a little taken aback by that. I kept expecting him to pop back into the picture at some point.

Sara Crew was kind of an annoying little girl; she was rather too perfect for my liking. I thought the way the "magic" was woven into the story was kinda cute but mostly obnoxious. Sara's thankfulness was misplaced and I guess that's what bothered me the most.

I did appreciate how she felt when people interrupted her while reading:

"It makes me feel as if someone had hit me," Sara had told Ermengarde once in confidence. "And as if I want to hit them back. I have to remember things quickly to keep from saying something ill-tempered."

I could identify with that!

Otherwise, this was a cute little tale but not one that I can truly say that I love. (Sorry, Sky!)

The Constant Gardener, by John le Carre

2007-03-06T18:13:00.000-08:00

Given my history in choosing books for the book club, I'm well aware that I might receive a blogful of stink eyes for this one. But I have to admit that I really liked this book. No, I'll admit that I loved it. Obviously, it's not a perfect book. From the standpoint of traditional literary criticism, it leaves a number of things to be desired. The plot is a little messy and assumes too much of the reader. The shifting point of view, while clever and useful for putting readers right into the action, is also a bit disconcerting and makes the story difficult to follow in places. But ultimately, this is a lovely book because it is--however sad--a lovely story.

I have the benefit of having seen (and thoroughly enjoyed) the film that was released in 2005. So, I approached the book with a certain familiarity. I was pleasantly surprised to find, though, that the book is quite a bit different from the movie. At first, I had trouble reconciling the character of Tessa. She comes across as stronger and slightly more abrasive in the book. I loved the character in the film, but I had to warm up to Tessa in the book. Justin, however, was perfect from start to finish. I love that the first part of the story put us more in the minds of Sandy and Gloria and the other characters, leaving us to see Justin through their eyes and to formulate an impression based on that. When we finally get to see Justin up close, it is really fascinating. We realize how little the others knew him and Tessa. We learn that his quiet manner conceals a passionate love for his wife and the son they lost. I love the scene at the end of the book when Sandy comments that Justin has finally "grown up." They all thought he had reached his limit. It just goes to show how careful we must be about categorizing people.

Speaking of categories, I know that Tessa is going to be a tough character. She's so determined and reckless (walhalsig?) that it can almost be obnoxious. There were times that I wanted to say, "Just stop! Why are you pushing it?" But people like Tessa make a difference. As Justin points out, she has the kind of integrity that won't let her cross the street without asking if it is ethical. She demands complete ethical purity (and yes, I know I'm treading on thin ice by not classifying "ethics," but I'll go with the book's assumption about this term), and her discovery about the pharmaceutical cover-ups was exactly the kind of unethical activity that would infuriate her. It is assumed that she is a scandalous flirt and that she and Arnold were together. I love that she didn't let other people's opinions bother her, although I'm not sure it was such a great idea to let people think that her husband was a fool. At the same time, I think Tessa was willing to risk her own reputation to protect Arnold, and this is worth considering. Justin knew the truth. That's all that mattered to Tessa.

Despite all of the confusing references to drugs and pharmaceutical companies and East African politics (by the way, the quoted articles about drug tests in Britain were real), I think it's important to remember that at its base, this is a love story. It's truly beautiful to see the love between Tessa and Justin unfold in the story. She is so present at all times, even though she is dead. Justin relies on her, turns to her, and takes up her cause. Whether or not you agree with what Tessa is doing, it's hard not to admire Justin for his commitment to his wife. He blames himself for not sharing in her burdens, and he makes the ultimate sacrifice in order to do so. If you have a chance to see the film, I recommend it, because it has a beautiful scene at the end in which they are both at Lake Turkana. She is with him, as she always has been, when he dies.

Again, I know that this is a controversial book, largely for its occasional lewd description and frequent use of bad language. Honestly, this didn't bother me, but I know some people won't like it. On behalf of the book club, though, I'm going to recommend this one and say it's definitely worth the time.

Enchantment, Orson Scott Card

2007-02-13T11:58:00.000-08:00

There were a lot of things about this book that perhaps should have made me not like it: the deliberate Christian/Jewish/Pagan syncretism, the use of "good" witchcraft, the disocvery of one's true love after getting engaged to someone else, the verging into areas a little more personal than perhaps should be put into print.

Nonetheless I loved it for its whole self. Well, it was a fairy tale, and a fairy tale is by nature a mix of Christian ideals with stories far older. And although it dealt with some private matters, it never resorted to being vulgar or gratuitous.

A key difference between the ancient pagan stories and the medieval fairy tale is a shift in the hero. The ancient hero is always the son of a god or a mighty king. The fairy tale hero is more likely the miller's third son, the notorious dunce. In a fairy tale, the meek do inherit the earth. In Enchantment, it is the nerdy scholar who defeats the monster and wins the princess' hand, though he seems ill-suited to the task in his own world and in the tenth century. Asserting power merely plays into the enemy's hands; it is virtue and truth and life that must win out. So though it has pagan powers and a Jewish hero, it is ultimately a Christian tale. We are the unworthy ones who find ourselves chosen to inherit the kingdom.

Peter Pan in Scarlett, by Geraldine McCaughrean

2007-02-04T19:54:00.000-08:00

I just finished reading Peter Pan in Scarlet, the authorized sequel to J.M. Barrie's Peter Pan. I recently read Peter Pan for the first time and wasn't overly impressed with the story. It's much darker than the Disney tale of it, which they often seem to be. Therefore I have no real objections to the story --- I just didn't care for the original version. I feel no qualms about saying that I do not like the sequel.

First, I would like to say that I think McCaughrean did an EXCELLENT job of following Barrie's style of writing. It read and felt the same to me. That is no small feat to accomplish and hats off to McCaughrean for trying and, in my opinion, succeeding! She used the same short, choppy sentences. She played with words and phrases in the same manner. It was quite obvious that she made herself very familiar with Barrie's original work.

There are several themes which run throughout this book which I found annoying at best and distressing at worst. I probably didn't like it on the whole because I really don't care for the character of Peter to begin with. McCaughrean kept him just as self-centered and bratty as Barrie made him out to be in the first place. The worst offense one can give in this life, according to Peter, is to grow up, etc., etc..

This book tells the story of how the lost boys grew up and return with Wendy once again to Neverland where children were previously known never to have grown up. (Turns out you CAN grow up under certain circumstances.) I don't want to spoil the end for those of you who have not read it so I'm not going to focus too much on the plot. I'd rather discuss some of the side themes that I found disturbing.

For starters, Tootles becomes a girl in order to return to Neverland. Clothes, in this book, make the man (or, as the case may be, the little boy or girl). Since adults cannot return to Neverland, the Lost Boys had to borrow clothes from their children in order to be re-accepted into this fairy world. Tootles, having only daughters, wore girl clothes and reentered Neverland in female form. Peter apparently doesn't even notice that Tootles is now a girl. This just struck me as an "acceptance" argument for the changing of sexes. A tiny "reasonable" explanation is offered and it is supposed to be cute, understandable and funny as to why Tootles would go from being a man with an austere mustache, to "Princess Tootles" who desires to be a nurse and marry Peter. It's just a disturbing image to add to the story. It seems society would like to creep in wherever possible and gently, subtly, in the form of little children's stories, convince children that it is ok to dress as a member of the opposite sex. It simply is not. God created us to be either male or female. He makes the distinctions. We are made in His glory, in His image and for His honor. I cannot take it lightly when sexes attempt a blend or a change and call it "normal." It is anything BUT normal.

The other thing that bothered me was a minor argument in which McCaughren mentions that some circus animals were caged. She briefly touches on the "animals are people too" argument. I should clearly state that I am definitely in support of the ethical treatment of animals. And it does tug the heartstrings to see animals behind bars at times. But that does not mean that that is necessarily an evil and should never be portrayed as such all across the board. Bars save human lives, plain and simple. Anyway! Minor issue with the book.

The last bone I had to pick with the book was McCaughrean's explanation for the villain's existence. It was a bit graphic. But again, I thought she was very much in keeping with Barrie's original tale so I can't necessarily say her means of disclosure was necessarily uncalled for. To be any less explicit would be less Barrie. And, quite frankly, he was rather vivid. But if you didn't like the way he wrote the story, be prepared not to like McCaughrean. It's rather a Catch-22 of sorts.

On the whole I'd have to say I really did NOT like this story. Despised it, really. I didn't like the modern themes -- and that definitely factors in -- but I also did not like it because it was very much Barrie. And for that reason, I have to say "WELL DONE!"

McCaughrean did good.

In a way.

Innside Nantucket, by Frank Gilbreth Jr.

2007-01-25T06:39:00.000-08:00

I know this is a month late, but I simply couldn't let this little gem slip by without remark. (If someone already reviewed it and I just missed it, then my abject apologies. I don't recall reading any discussion on it yet.)

This is written by one of the co-authors of the charming classics Cheaper By the Dozen and Belles On Their Toes. While those two books focused on the adventures of the Gilbreth family, this one stars the youngest brother Bob, now grown up, and his young wife Barbara. In fact, the story is written from the first-person perspective of Barbara, which must have been fun for Frank to write.

Nantucket is, of course, where the Gilbreths spent all their summer vacations growing up, and it retains a special place in their memories. So Bob is thrilled to sell out of their fast-paced lifestyle in New York and make a go of it running an inn on Nantucket Island. Barbara, not having the same nostalgic connections to her childhood, is more aware of the drawbacks of the high price of living and the primitive conditions. This book is a very humorous chronicle of their first year or so.

Aside from being a fun read about the Gilbreths (who come into it somewhat marginally), this book is just another heart-warming young-couple-making-a-go-of-it-in-tough-conditions story, but I always like those kinds of stories if they're well done and take care not to stray into the sappily sentimental, the impossibly dreary, or the extremely unlikely. This book succeeds very well.

It's full of the witty dialogue and clever references that I love from Cheaper and Belles. It reeks of the charm from another era. The one thing I do find a little sad about the Gilbreth family is that all of the kids chose to have only one or two children of their own. I wonder why that happened, since they obviously had such a good experience growing up in a large family; perhaps it was the cultural expectations of the times?

Anyway, it was a wonderful little book and highly recommended reading for those who love the originals.

My Friend Flicka by Mary O'Hara

2007-01-08T09:21:00.000-08:00

I have been reading books since I was five, I always loved a book with horses in it. Often it was a challenge to find a book that wasn't sad, didn't have too much romance or was about horses at all! Which is why this trilogy is one of my favorites.
Mary O'Hara said that Ken walked into her head one day and she had to write down his story;

Ken is a dreamer, one of those boys who is so frustrating to hardworking fathers. Rob doesn't know what to do with their youngest son, he seemed to be so lost in his own world. But Nell, Ken and Howard's mother took a chance with a suggestion, give him his own horse.

The relationship of Ken and his little girl Flicka is full of emotion and turmoil. She had a loco mother so she hadn't learned any good sense, this resulted in her trying to run through a barb wire fence and being hurt so badly that it took all of Ken's little heart to make her better. During all the nursing and growing friendship Ken worried that she would be loco too, not in the goofy way but in the better off dead way.
This story of boy and horse is a beautiful example of what happens when two kindred spirits are united in the joy of life. Sometimes the beauty of ordinary days has to be shared on an unspoken level to be fully appreciated. Perhaps this is why God gave Man the companionship of aniamls, so we would be reminded of the sweet simplicity of life.

Rob is one of the rare male book characters that I can like and respect. He is a hard worker, but he had a dream and this dream made him leave the comfort of a methodical, financially stable military career to pursue his love of horses. A tough man, his is the kind that won the West. They do what needs done because the responsibility is Man's to shoulder.
Breaking horses is very different now, in face you can hardly call it by that. Cowboys have been taming horses by far more gentle ways for decades. The fast paced do or die way of cowboy life has changed to a more traditional, gentler way of living, and because of this they have more time to tame the horses they use.
I have seen a cowboy sobbing his heart out after having to shoot his horse for a broken leg.
Horses were a way of life for centuries, is it so strange that they can touch peoples hearts and lives?

Nell, a strong women, a wife that is capable and tough but feminine and beautiful. She knows her husband well and knows when to hold her tongue and when to speak up. If only all wives could be so uncomplaining!

Howard is a mere conversationl character, put in to be the annoyingly normal older brother. And yet aside from the jibing and taunting there are flashes of brotherhood in him .

This book is very true to the way of horse life. There is alot of heartache and death involved, times you have to do what is right to keep going even though it seems barbaric. Horse-poor is a term I have become familiar with, anyone who owns a horse knows what it means; there is never a time you make money, sometimes if you are lucky you make enough to break even and put up a new barn or corral but most of the time you are barely able to buy hay and pay off the veterinarian.
But even after all the dirt your heart has been dragged through it only takes one horse, one moment that time stops and your mind is shown the same world you live in but in a different way, it seems brighter, more beautiful. You are given wings.

Perhaps the hardship and love is what gives true horse people the look of peace.

By the way, Nell's desire does come true. Read the rest of the books!

To Say Nothing of the Dog, by Connie Willis

2007-01-05T11:22:00.000-08:00

What's not to love about a book that manages to combine time travel, Victorian house parties, British mystery authors, boating, and metaphysical ponderings on the intersection of free will, chance, and design? This book was pure fun to read, yet with enough Big Ideas to keep it from being fluffy.

The description of time lag, a disorder caused by too much time travel too close together, sounds remarkably similar to postpartum sleep deprivation (including the sentimentality--never watch Little Women at such a time), so I identified quite strongly and persevered even though the narrator was so confused at the beginning of the book that it was hard to tell what was going on. It does all clear up eventually, and most satisfactorily.

I appreciated the way the Victorian era and morals were treated, with respect but not slavish devotion (for those not timelagged, anyway), and the way religion was handled in a novel primarily set in a post-religious time.

Now I'm eager to try more books by this author, as well as the original Three Men in a Boat, To Say Nothing of the Dog. Many thanks to Erika for the recommendation; this is not a book which I would have stumbled across on my own.

The Thirteenth Tale, by Diane Setterfield

2007-01-02T18:43:00.000-08:00

I just finished this book so its quite fresh in my mind. This isn't one that I really want to review in normal fashion because there's an element of mystery and suspense to it that shouldn't be spoiled by accidentally reading the conclusion in a review.

So I'll say this:

This book is spooky, riveting, suspenseful, disgusting, vile, a great page turner and will linger in your mind for a good long while (I would imagine). It tells the story of a family who basically disintegrates. It's an excellent example of what can happen when Christ is removed from the picture. It's not a story of redemption. More like relief. I'm not even sure how its relieving, exactly. It just is.

The story grips you from the get-go, which is probably why it has received so many good reviews all over the internet. It's a story every book lover will identify with immediately. The narrator of the tale, Margaret, helps to keep up her father's bookstore. She describes reading a book in a way that only a dedicated reader can understand. You'll know what I mean when you read it. Her character is personable, albeit tragic. She is hired to write the biography of Vida Winter, a mysterious but well-loved writer in England. The story is how Vida Winter came to be. Its a search for truth and the revelation of it (as painful as it sometimes is).

I liked this book because it was gripping. I hated it for the same reason. It IS spooky. The depravity of man is vividly described -- yet -- upon recollection, Setterfield really isn't that descriptive. She says just enough and no more and yet you can see everything quite clearly in your mind's eye. Sometimes it is very disturbing. But its not something you'll necessarily put down - even though you may want to.

If the story weren't so dark at times, I'd say it was a cotton candy read. It certainly is captivating. It's hard for me to recommend it because of the subject matter involved here and there. At the same time, the story ties together so amazingly well that its hard to pass up! I'm definitely curious to hear what the rest of you think of it after reading it!

Pat Yourselves on the Back

2006-12-25T11:11:00.000-08:00

Here is the list of all the books we read during 2006.

Assuming, of course, that we read them all. At least we can say they've all been read if not, perhaps, by everyone. =) At any rate, I would love to thank everyone for their suggestions and contributions in 2006. I eagerly look forward to (a less demanding reading list for the next year) 2007!

1. The Iliad, by Homer;
2. Murder Must Advertise, by Dorothy Sayers;
3. Asterix the Gaul, by Goschinny & Uderzo;
4. The Collected Works of Flannery O'Conner;
5. What a Girl Wants, by Kristin Billerbeck;
6. East of Eden, by John Steinbeck;
7. The Things They Carried, by Tim O'Brien;
8. Deadline, by Randy Alcorn;
9. Mythology, by Edith Hamilton;
10. End of the Spear, by Steve Saint;
11. At the Back of the North Wind, by George Macdonald;
12. The Beekeeper's Apprentice by Laurie King;
13. The Quiet American, by Graham Greene;
14. A Chance to Die, by Elizabeth Elliott;
15. Eragon, by Christopher Paolini;
16. A Toast to Tomorrow, by Manning Coles;
17. Inkheart, by Cornelia Funke;
18. 'Till We Have Faces, by C.S. Lewis;
19. The Man Who Knew Too Much, by G.K. Chesterton;
20. The Unexpected Mrs. Pollifax, by Dorothy Gilman;
21. The DaVinci Code, by Dan Brown;
22. The Little Prince, by Antoine de Saint-Exupery;
23. A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, by Mark Twain;
24. Beau Geste, by P.C. Wren;
25. Housekeeping, by Marilynne Robinson;
26. The Grasshopper Trap, by Patrick McManus;
27. The Peterkin Papers, by Lucretia Hale;
28. Crime and Punishment, by Fyodor Dostoevsky;
29. Utah Blaine, by Louis Lamour;
30. Blue Like Jazz, by Donald Miller;
31. Revelations of a Single Woman, by Connelly Gilliam;
32. Beauty, by Robin McKinley;
33. A Tale of Two Cities, by Charles Dickens;
34. The Witch of Blackbird Pond, by Elizabeth George Speare;
35. The Count of Monte Cristo, by Alexander Dumas;
36. Piccadilly Jim, by P.G. Wodehouse;
37. The Princess Bride, by William Goldman;
38. At Home in Mitford, by Jan Karon;
39. To Kill a Mockingbird, Harper Lee;
40. Brideshead Revisited, by Evelyn Waugh
41. Foundation, by Isaac Asimov;
42. Absolution by Murder, by Peter Tremayne;
43. A Morbid Taste for Bones, by Ellis Peters;
44. Hank the Cowdog, by John R. Erickson;
45. The Family Nobody Wanted, by Helen Doss;
46. My Friend Flicka, by Mary O'Hara;
47. Innside Nantucket, by Frank Gilbreth; and
48. The Hunchback of Notre Dame, by Victor Hugo

The Family Nobody Wanted, by Helen Doss

2006-12-15T12:41:00.000-08:00

This book automatically caught my attention as J and I have plans of adopting some of our own children in the future. After researching options at home and abroad, we've settled on the idea of adopting from overseas. While there are still requirements that must be met, they aren't nearly as stringent and oppressive as the ones are here in our own country. (While I certainly understand the reasoning behind various laws related to domestic adoptions -- there is FAR too much red tape.) Since we are planning on having a "multicultural family" this book was intriguing.

This book is written by Helen Doss who, with her husband Carl, adopted 12 children of various races and nationalities. In it she tells how they came to adopt all 12. She relates various tales from their growing up years in order to show that, although these children came from different backgrounds, they enjoyed and loved one another. Carl Doss was a Methodist minister and their family lived on a minuscule budget. By 1950 standards, they really did not have enough to live off. Yet they longed to offer a home to these kids. They wanted to show them the love of Christ. They wanted other people to see that there is not one race that is "less human" than any other. Doss dwells on the topic of racism and they dealt with it as a family. Typically (and truthfully) I think things like race are an issue when you decide you are going to make them one. I know there are many different feelings/views/opinions on the issue of race. I was raised not to note the difference between people so for ME it's NOT an issue. I must admit though - race is still an issue for today's society. Sadly, this definitely effects which countries J and I are willing to adopt from. (It has nothing to do with how we feel, personally, but how much we are willing to take on with society at large.) There are some battles we do not feel equipped to fight. But the Doss family did and they fought these battles during a time when it was much MORE of an issue than it is even today. I think they handled things very well, assuring each child that they were made in the image of God and that God loved them and accepted them for who they were. They taught them how to relate to other people who might take issue with their nationality. They certainly were an inspiration to many people who, at the time, took issue with their choices.

There was one thing that REALLY bothered me about this book and the Dosses marriage. Basically they went down the road of adoption because they were unable to have children of their own. Helen really wanted children -- more so than Carl. Carl was in seminary and they barely had two pennies to rub together. Carl kept telling Helen that they could not afford a child....a second child...a third....a seventh....a ninth...and so on and so forth. She never once listened to him. He argued that they had a responsibility to the 9 that they already had when she was arguing back that they should be able to take in the last three (all at the same time)! Helen simply would not listen. She even quotes him as saying, "It's as if I'm talking for the mere exercise of it."

Now, back then, there being an enormous LACK of red tape in the adoption process, they were able to send off letters to agencies and (from the way she wrote it) have children dropped in their laps. Even when she knew Carl would not be willing to take in a child if she asked him outright, she would send off letters requesting children. When she received an affirmative response from anyone, then she would approach Carl with an agency's letter and haggle him into it.

I cannot FATHOM doing this to J. In fact, I finished the book yesterday and told J about it when he came home. Before I could complete the question, "Can you imagine if I did that to..." he cut me off with a resounding, "NO!" HA! To state it simply. Only once did Carl ask for a particular child to be added to the family. The other 11 times it was a game, of sorts, for Helen to see how many or WHO she could sneak in.

Now, I am NOT saying that I'm sorry they had all twelve. And in the end, btw, Carl was incredibly happy with his brood and referred to them as a "full quiver." They were a happy family. But the way that they put themselves together was more sneaky on Helen's part than anything else, I felt. I don't want to build a family based on Harassment of the Husband. Parenting is a team effort. I cannot imagine having a bunch of kids that just I wanted. That would be a horrible process -- even if J WAS happy with the result in the end.

There is a lack of respect towards the head of the house that I felt was displayed in this book. That's a rather sad fact, in my opinion. Mutual respect was lacking. I have a hard time enjoying a story when I see one partner or the other being disrespected in making family related decisions (or ANY decision, really). Marriage is about partnership: love and respect. But I suppose this wasn't a book on marriage as it was about adoption. Yet it was such a distracting issue that it made my continued enjoyment of the book next to impossible.

I AM glad books like this are out there. They are necessary (still) as to their ability to sway the public that these situations can work and can work well. The great thing about this book is that the Helen & Carl Doss were Christians and raised their family to be Christians also. That much is evident in her writings. And I truly believe that the only way to make such a situation work is to cover it in prayer and bathe it in the love of Christ. Without that - NOTHING works, really. Christ is the only one who can bind hearts together in this fashion. Because of Him, the Doss situation worked. Without Him, I'm not so sure. (Not discounting non-Christian families who adopt and make these situations work. I know there are some. I'm just saying its almost surely effective WITH Christ, rather than without - but that's another argument and the purpose of this book review isn't to argue THAT.)

All in all, I would heartily recommend this book with the notation that this is also a book about a wife who took herself outside of her husband's authority to do what it is that she wanted done. The end of the story is happy though and Helen Doss did a great job making certain points that need(ed) to be made. For that reason, as one who is interested in forming the same type of family (with fewer in number, btw), I would pass along this book.

Thanks, Rose, for recommending it to us!

Foundation, by Isaac Asimov

2006-12-12T08:55:00.000-08:00

I first read this probably about ten years ago (and I confess, I didn't get a chance to read it for November, so I'm working from memory of the last time I read through it), and that was my first introduction to the writings of Asimov. In my opinion, the Foundation Trilogy is about his best work, although many of his short stories and the robot series are quite good as well. I have not read nearly all his novels, though, so I can't give a comprehensive defense of that opinion!

Asimov was a great scientist and a staunch humanist, which shows up more in some of his writings than others. Foundation is an easy book to read because it has the scientific know-how in the background, but it doesn't necessarily sound as if it were written by a scientist - I was surprised at how witty and clever Asimov's writing was. The universe in Foundation isn't very religious, but at least Asimov doesn't overtly mock religion as he does in some of his writing. His attitude toward the sacred reminds me a bit of Mark Twain's, actually, in his humourous, cynical, somewhat irreverent references to Providence and the like.

The story doesn't really read like science fiction, aside from the fact that it happens in a galaxy in outer space, uses space travel, and contains all sorts of futuristic gadgets. Asimov really was the precursor to modern science fiction, and like many founders of a genre, touched off a long line of cheap spin-offs. I don't particularly care for science fiction as a genre, so I was able to enjoy the book as the good story it was.

The plot is fascinating and involved. I love the idea of psycho-numerics, the theory of predicting events through known crowd patterns. I love how each new step in the saga reveals a different piece of information about what Seldon's Plan really was about. A plot that unravels slowly enough to be surprising and yet not grow tedious in the telling is a very delicate thing to manage. The characters are funny and interesting, by degrees; some of them are a bit cardboard-ish but the dialogue is witty enough to keep things going.

Foundation is a great read, but the whole Foundation Trilogy really should be read at once to get the full impact of the story. There's so much more to the galaxy and so many more loose ends to wrap up.

The Hunchback of Notre Dame, by Victor Hugo

2006-12-11T15:32:00.000-08:00

When I suggested this book I received a violent outburst from Lisa suggesting that we NOT read this book. But as I had never read Les Mis or this one, and this book was cheaper by comparison, I picked this one. (Thus you are made aware of my reasoning.)

As to style of writing, I thoroughly enjoyed this book. Hugo had humor. Or, at least the type I appreciate. He has little quips and phrases that struck my funny bone. It was almost Frasier-esqe at times being subtle and refined. He threw a reference or two to the Iliad which I found hilarious. It was an unexpected surprise.

As to the story, I also enjoyed it (until the end, but I'll discuss that momentarily). I enjoyed the characters and instantly cared about what would happen to them. The hardest thing to get through was the description of the way people treated Quasimodo, our deformed hero. I suspected that that was the reason Lisa would have hated this book. It's hard to read about how cruel one person can be to another with little to no cause. Hugo was quite descriptive in his writing which made Quasimodo's situation painfully clear. He was hated because he was feared for being as ugly and deformed as he was.

Despite the title of the book, it isn't actually very much about Quasimodo, but more about Esmerelda, the gypsy girl. Her 16 year old beauty seems to be the center subject of the book by which all the other (male) characters revolve around in various forms and fashions. She acted 16 in several respects, reminding me once again why I am incredibly thankful to have a son and not a daughter. (With all due respect to mothers of daughters.) There just seems to be more to keep track of with girls, as this story can attest to. For the record, I did NOT appreciate how descriptive Hugo was with the interactions between Esmeralda and his other characters (i.e., the Priest and Phoebus). But if you skim over the sum total of about 3 paragraphs you can get around the vivid picture and get the gist of what's happening.

I will not spoil the end by telling anyone who hasn't read it what happens. Let's just say I came to realize why Lisa would hate the book so much. I'm not sure I share the dislike with the same fiery passion as Lisa displayed for us. However, I can't say I'm overly fond of the way Hugo chose to wrap things up. It's a Beauty-and-the-Beast-gone-bad sort of tale. I'm incredibly curious to see what Disney did with this story. I can bet their take was something more....lighthearted in nature. And although they may have Disneyfied it to make it more palitable for younger audiences, I'm quite certain that they missed Hugo's wit which I'm very thankful to have been exposed to. On to Les Mis (when the price becomes right)!

LIST OF BOOKS FOR 2007

2006-12-09T12:08:00.000-08:00

Here is the confirmed list for 2007:

Jan
The Thirteenth Tale, by Diane Setterfield (Karen)
To Say Nothing of the Dog, by Connie Willis (Erika)

Feb
Peter Pan in Scarlett, by Geraldine McCaughrean (Carrie)
Enchantment, by Orson Scott Card (Rose)

March
The Constant Gardener, by John le Carre (Bonnie)
The Little Princess (Sky)

Apr
How People Grow by Drs Henry Cloud and John Townsend (Janice)
The Worst Hard Time: The Untold Story of Those Who Survived teh Great American Dust Bowl (Amy)

May
Lost Horizon, by James Hilton (Rose)
The Kite Runner by Khaled Hosseini (Alaina)

June
The Book of the Dun Cow, by Walter M. Wangerin, Jr. (Karen)
The Mysterious Affair at Styles, by Agatha Christie (Anneke)

July
Mysteries of the Middle Ages: The Rise of Feminism, Science, and Art from the Cults of Catholic Europe, by Thomas Cahill (Bonnie)
Psmith in the City, by P.G. Wodehouse (Lisa)

Aug
The Woman in White, by Wilkie Collins (Carrie)
Wicked, by Gregory Maguire (Katie)

Sept
Alice in Wonderland, by Lewis Carrol (Sky)
The Yearling by Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings (Alaina)

Oct
A Wrinkle in Time, by Madeleine L-Engle (Erika)
Birds of a Feather, by Jacqueline Winspear (Anneke)

Nov
When I Don't Desire God by John Piper (Janice)
The Awakening, by Kate Chopin (Katie)

Dec
God's Smuggler, by Brother Andrew (Lisa)
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (Amy)

December

2006-11-30T21:13:00.000-08:00

Hey girls,

I'm waiting for a couple more picks for 2007 and then I will post the completed list of books for next year.

To top of this year we have:

1. Innside Nantucket, by Frank Gilbreth;
2. The Hunchback of Notre-Dame, by Victor Hugo;
3. My Friend Flicka, by Mary O'Hara; and
4. The Family Nobody Wanted, by Helen Doss.

As a reminder - Innside Nantucket & The Family Nobody Wanted are hard to come by. I think our library has both (or one of them...I can't remember) so I should be good. We'll see if I can get the copies. I think I should be able to read all four books in December. November was a wash-out for me. I HAVE read the Foundation trilogy by Asimov before and would recommend it. Esp. if you want to broaden your horizons for science fiction. Maybe Rose will post something about it to give more info? (hint, hint, wink, wink) And I'm almost finished with A Morbid Taste for Bones. After reading everyone's comments on that I'm anxious to get to the end. It's been fun.

Here's to finishing off the year nicely! This'll be interesting....

Hank the Cowdog

2006-11-15T12:46:00.000-08:00

I had a delightful time re-reading this book. It has been some years since I've followed the adventures of Hank the Cowdog. I received my copy of a first edition back in 1985 from the Great Grandmother who first discovered Hank and passed along the joys to me.

If you haven't read Hank yet, I hope that you'll give him a shot. He is, basically, a dog version of Barney Fife from the Andy Griffith Show. Hank is the narrator of the story and thinks he's pretty hot stuff. He is self entitled the Head of Ranch Security. No one else on the ranch seems to think as much of him and most find him to be a bit of an annoying goof. Hank never catches on. You can almost imagine Barney scurrying about trying to load his one bullet into his gun. If you like Don Knotts, I think you'll like Hank.

If you get a chance, John Erickson did all the voice work for the books on tape. I would HIGHLY recommend you listening to at least one book on tape to get a flavor for the voices/personalities that Erickson gives his characters. If you have a long car ride ahead of you, these tapes are excellent entertainment. My brother and I loved listening to them as I was growing up. Erickson does a fabulous job and adds songs which are hilarious -- kinda like Silly Songs With Larry (only better).

If nothing else, you'll at least get a whiff of my sense of humor by reading a Hank book (or two or twenty). Which could be scary. But hopefully enjoyable.

2006-11-10T07:30:00.000-08:00

A Morbid Taste for Bones

Edith Pargeter, writing under the nom-de-crime of Ellis Peters, has once again crafted a suspenseful mystery full of humor and insight into human nature. Her stories of Brother Cadfael and his fellow brothers of the cowl give one a rare view into the workings of the medieval mind and a curious and often turbulent time in the history of England. She writes with a zest for the curious, laughable, and often all-too-human quirks that even the holiest of monks can display, and an interesting view of the miracles and prayers to saints that were a central part of medieval worship.
I appreciate that she writes with both a respect and reverence for the historical church, while still offering glimpses of the common foibles of human men of God. She creates characters who often highlight the dangers of ecclesiastical pride, and targets the pitfalls of those who used the blind beliefs of the uneducated as a key to amassing their own personal influence and power.
Her treatment of the Welsh passions and culture, so foreign to Cadfael's fellow monks, showed a clear understanding of the wisdom of Welsh culture, and the reason the Welsh church avoided many of the faults of its English counterpart.
I loved the name Sioned, and wish I knew how to pronounce it. I do know that the Welsh 'd' is pronounced as a 'th' sound.
The plot of Cadfael to use Sioned and her Welsh beauty to spellbind a gullible priest was a fitting end to a great mystery. All in all, an enjoyable book.

To Review

2006-11-03T18:47:00.000-08:00

Hey ho there girls,

I'm a few days late on posting an updated list (no apologies to offer at this time) but here we go for the month of November. Wish me luck and I'll wish you guys luck! Two more months and we've completed our year! Hard to believe, eh?

November:

1. Foundation, by Isaac Asimov;
2. A Morbid Taste for Bones, Ellis Peters;
3. Absolution by Murder, by Peter Tremayne;
4. Hank the Cowdog, by John Erickson

Happy Reading!

Brideshead Revisted

2006-10-16T14:49:00.000-07:00

I only became serious about reading this book yesterday. Upon launching into the first few chapters, I became entirely focused on finishing the book as soon as possible. This was not for any feelings of love towards the book or the author. In fact, I was feeling quite the opposite. I needed to finish it so that I could move onto something I could find more enjoyable.

First, I spent the entire book thinking it had been written by a woman. On the contrary, it was written by a male who was named Evelyn. (Some parents can be so cruel. But that's England for you. Coincidentally, during one point in time, Evelyn Waugh was married to an Evelyn and the two went by "he-Evelyn" and "she-Evelyn". For more information on E. Waugh, I would highly recommend a quick Wikipedia read through here. It's worth taking the time for.)

Because I hated this book so much (ironically until the last 4 pages) I figured there had to be some underlying meaning to the work and some great philosophical argument that could be debated over after having read it. Alas, I am not wrong in my assumption. A quick online perusal of the book leads me to believe it is a "great work" focusing on God's grace bestowed upon sinful man. Naturally, it is classified under "the 100 best novels of all time" yadda, yadda, yadda. Waugh is praised as one of the best authors England has ever produced, etc., etc.. I differ in my opinion, but who am I to argue with the educated literary masses? It has been argued, written and decreed that Brideshead Revisted is a work of art. So let us discuss it.

It is a story told through the eyes and life of Charles Ryder who stumbles into a family's acquaintance via a school chum by the name of Sebastian Flyte. I'm not much impressed by Sebastian's character after his initial introduction to Charles, so I'll gloss over him to say he's a drunk and a lout. Nevertheless, Charles feels such great affection for his friend that he seldom tells him "no" and gives him money to pursue his drunken orgies. There are hints in the story that there was a romantic love between the two. Apparently it has been of some debate over whether or not a homosexual relationship actually existed between the two. I would say NOT although the hints are quite strong. In fact, Waugh himself apparently pursued a few such relationships in his own life and so I do not find it surprising that he would attribute such tendencies to the characters in his story.

In fact, after reading a tiny bit about Waugh, I would say that the character of Charles Ryder is based pretty heavily on Waugh's own life. Both of them seemed to have a small seed of faith at one time or another, yet both rejected it. Neither seemed particularly keen on Catholicism, which is the Religion of Interest throughout the book. Both Evelyn himself and Charles were artists. Both had unsuccessful marriages that ended in divorce due to their own infidelity. Both remarried. Waugh seems to be more successful at his second marriage than Charles was in love in this fictional work. If one is encouraged to write about what they know, then I think this book is eye-opening into the life of Waugh himself. It is not a life I'd envy.

The story weaves through the period of about 20 years of the Flyte family life. The only committed Catholic/christian in the bunch was the mother, who had been long since abandoned by the father (who chose to live out the remainder of his life with his mistress). When she died I felt relief (for her). I wouldn't have wanted to live to watch my children live the lives they choose either. In fact, at several points I hoped that some of the characters would die off to spare us all some grief. However, I suppose that would have defeated the point of the work if the point is actually to demonstrate God's grace extended.

Without providing a spoiler to the story, for those of you who haven't read it, I think a strong case CAN be made to say that this book is about God's grace bestowed. Truly, Waugh gives us the worst of all character qualities wrapped up into one family to extend the grace to. He certainly has a way of making you feel drug down into the depths of despair over his character's lives. Yet in the end, as I said, in the last 4 pages (give or take) wrongs are righted. Not in an entirely satisfying way, but enough so that you don't feel like you wasted a day of your life trying to work through the book. I think Waugh had enough of an interesting life to make his character's lives "real" to the masses. There is a sin which all of us can identify with, at least in some form or fashion (though I would hope not as severely as his characters). But if fiction can grant grace, this book would remind a Christian that God forgives the worst of sinners and offers salvation to the lowly. He gives grace to the humble. If this is the truth Waugh was trying to communicate, he does so very clearly and cleverly. He just makes sure you've waited a long time and that your hope is pretty deferred by the time you get there.

This is NOT a book I enjoyed reading. I would not say it's a pleasure book. It is definitely a book that took a lot of work and effort on my part to get through. Would I recommend it? Not for a good time, that's for sure. Although I'm sure there are some that would enjoy it for its "intellectual pursuits" I'd rather my fiction be more cheery. But that's me!

I am begging you, pleading with you....

2006-10-12T20:30:00.000-07:00

Please, please, PLEASE withacherryontop, DON”T see the new Flicka movie until you have read the original book “My Friend Flicka” by Mary O’Hara!

I was really excited when I first learned about it because it’s always been one of my favorite horse books and I like Tim McGraw but then I saw that they changed the main character from a boy named Ken to a girl named Katy!

It makes me angry that sexism has extended this far. Why does it have to be a girl? Why can’t a boy love horses as well? In fact, all of the horse stuff is girly now. I can’t find anything other then cowboy motif that is UN-pink and UN-ribbony!

I am a girl who loves horses, I want my sons to love horses too and it’s really hard to encourage that when toys, books and movies all seemingly point to horsemanship as a primarily feminine area.

Cowboys are amazing and most definitely masculine. (In case any of you are thinking of the Sodom and Gomorrah of “western” books, “Brokeback Mountain” it isn’t about cowboys anyway. The stupid piece of literature that it is…) But you can love horses without being a cowboy!

And even if you don’t love horses you should read the trilogy of Mary O’Hara.’s

My Friend Flicka
Thunderhead
Green Grass of Wyoming

At least the movie is remaining somewhat true to the West and isn’t morally sick and wrong.

But it is about cowboys and they didn't even leave the young men in this world THAT!

However, I am not asking you NOT to see the movie, I just would love to have you read the book first. I had it listed on our reading list but as the movie is coming out soon I wanted to tell you!

~ Sky
a very horsey person

At Home In Mitford

2006-10-11T11:01:00.000-07:00

I was glad to see this appear on our list, because I've tried reading it before and always flagged at about the time the dog made an appearance. But it's a book that's been so highly recommended by so many people and moreover people whose opinion I respect that I so wanted to enjoy it. And I did, really I did. I read the whole thing in an evening and I'm glad I did.

However, I must confess that this genre must just not be my cup of tea. I couldn't really classify it as other than 'Heartwarmer.' And I know I like other stories that have heartwarming elements to them, but this book seemed to be nothing but Heartwarming. There was no real plot. Nothing much happened. Oh, yes, there were missing food, and stolen jewels, and a mysterious love story, and a kidnapped dog, but none of this felt terribly adventurous and I felt as if I was just sort of drifting along through the story. By the time I got to the end and Father Tim had celebrated another birthday, I found myself thinking, 'Goodness me, has it really been a year already?'

For some reason, small towns - and the slow pace of life that goes therewith - just fail to interest me. I've never lived in one, never wanted to live in one, and never been enchanted by the notion of living someplace where everyone knows your business and you have no choice but to shop at the one (overpriced because of lack of competition) store in town. What did these people have against driving fifteen minutes to the nearest supermarket in the nearby college town, anyway? Do they hate Walmart, too? Good grief. I just don't identify with that mindset. (Unrelated diatribe: recently I inquired at the local Publix as to whether they'd be installing self check-out lanes anytime soon, and was told that no, they preferred to keep the personal touch. That's all well and good, but if I want personal interaction I'll get together with my friends, thank you very much. I don't rely on grocery store check-out clerks for my social interaction, and I don't do my shopping based on the friendly experience I intend to have: I do it based on the convenience, efficiency, and low cost, all of which are enhanced by the very practical self check-out lanes. And anyway, if you're that desperate for conversation, you can always go through the traditional lane after all! I just prefer to have a choice!)

I really appreciated the wholesome and edifying tone of the book, which was moral, sound, and uplifting without sounding preachy. Father Tim's spiritual dilemmas seemed real, and his Scripture quotations were on the mark. There was no theology that I flinched at or found questionable, but the book did not read like a moralistic tract for all that. Which I very much appreciated. It's a very difficult and fine line to walk, and this author did it masterfully.

What I didn't get was the relationship between Father Tim and Cynthia. I could see the casual acquaintance growing into attachment, but why all the muddling about, awkward 'going steady' talk, and midnight hugs and hair-kisses?? It struck me as rather inappropriate behaviour for a clergyman. If he was interested in her romantically, why didn't he pray about it and act on it, one way or the other??

Finally, the cake-eating scene annoyed me no end. Okay, I've been known to make up a pot of fudge or toffee and gradually consume the whole thing over the course of an afternoon or evening, but 1) I really, really like fudge. Father Tim was just eating the cake mechanically; 2) I'm not at risk for diabetes; 2) I haven't specifically been warned to follow a strict diet and health regimen lest I develop diabetes. Given all these factors, it seemed an incredibly foolish thing to do.

But then, maybe that was another point of the book. Father Tim isn't perfect either, which is what makes him all the more lovable and endearing of a character. Because, really, I found him so, even though there was little about his life, his habits, and his sleepy little town that seemed noteworthy.

I'm not sure I'll read any more of the Mitford books. It was enjoyable while I was at it, but not compelling enough to entice me to return. But I'm glad I read this one.

The Princess Bride by William Goldman Life isn't fair, but it's fairer then death!

2006-10-04T10:45:00.000-07:00

First of all, if you haven't seen the movie yet, DO!
Secondly, there never was an S. Morgenstern.

I love Goldman's style of writing, it's almost like sitting down with him and hearing the story straight out of his lips. All the little asides and parentheses make me smile and add so much more background.
Most of the movie lines are right out of the book. Since Goldman did the movie as well he remained true to the original spirit. There are two notable differences; shrieking eels replace the sharks and the whole Zoo of Death vanished.
I actually like the theatrical aspect of the eels in the water rather then sharks, everyone knows about the sharks, so to have huge eels coming out of the water and screaming is something a little different and fun. (I am not a water person so this doesn't inhibit me anymore then anything else. I simply do not swim.)
As to the missing Zoo of Death, I do wish that they had really gone into it but I can see why G. cut it out, can you imagine how much more money would have been spent and how much longer the movie would have been?
The Zoo of Death brings me to Prince Humperdinck. I like the book character better, he is more evil, more powerful and so is the more worthy opponent. In the movie he is more of a snobby, weakling.
One of my favorite scenes in the book is the Princess Noreena of Guilder losing her hat. "Madam, feel free to flee!" I can just see the large Banquet Hall and the wind making the candles sputter and go out, the Prince turning red with fury as the sheen of her bare head gleams in the dim light!
I have never really liked Princess Buttercup, her love of Horse is the only reason I can somewhat tolerate her silliness. A woman of action am I so it is with impatience that I endure her lack of will to do something in scary situations.

I know that the ending is very unorthodox, I like it that way. For me I know that they all lived somewhat happily ever after.
I think that Humperdinck actually marries Princess Noreena because his mother finds out about his plot to destroy Guilder and threatens him with publicity unless he makes amends and provides her with grandchildren.
Westley and Buttercup sail away and live happily in ignorance of the fact that she is beautiful but dumb and he is handsome and intelligent but a somewhat bloodthirsty pirate.
Inigo and Fezzik write poetry books for children under the name Dr. Suess.
The Albino becomes the Head Gamekeeper for the London Zoo (this was after London remember.)
Yes, this book is strange and somewhat silly but I love it. Probably because of it's eccentricities. The movie is one of my all time favorites, the cast is brilliant and truly bring Goldman's characters to life. "As you wish" is an age old situation but in this book it has a few comical and interesting twists as well as many colorful people and alot of different stories.
I hope you enjoyed it.

A Tale of Two Cities

2006-09-29T12:32:00.000-07:00

I'm having a hard time with this book. So far I'm finding it boring and dull to the max. My husband thinks I'm not giving it a chance as this was a book he really loved. I'm slothful in my approach to reading it.

However, *ahem*, given the fact that I've given 3 out of 4 of the book reviews this month, I think its someone else's turn to give a report. =) I'm hopeful that one of you have read this book and can offer some commentary and, perhaps, some motivation for me to keep plugging away.

Be my guest! =)

The Witch of Blackbird Pond

2006-09-29T09:36:00.000-07:00

This was a Rose pick and I was happy for the selection as it was a book I had never read. Touted as a great children's classic, I had always avoided the book, in truth, because of the title. Growing up I skipped many a book with the title of "witch" in it. Sometimes justifiably so and in some cases, such as this one, not. This book, of course, is given its title from the fictional Quaker character, Hannah, whom the Puritans in the early American colony suspect of being a witch.

I have vague memories of studying the early American witch trials and unfortunately cannot remember many of the details. I found it to be a fascinating topic in high school, mostly because the "religious" people of the day were so superstitious. It was hard for me to believe that Christians - of which I believe there were - would fall prey to the idea that a person could be proved to be a witch by attempted drowning. If they could swim, they were a witch. If not, they weren't. And then it was too late. Thank goodness for The Common Laws of England is all I have to say. We are quite blessed to live under our current judiciary system, even though it seems (and proves) frustrating at times. Considering the alternative, we have much to be grateful for!

My memory being what it is, I also have only the vaguest of recollections as to what the Puritans really believed. I do recall them being excessively pious by nature and generally expressed disinterest (to abhorance) over anything remotely festive. There was a constant threat of sin in their midst which they were overly careful to avoid, in my opinion. It brings to mind the Pharasees and Sadducees of the NT era who imposed ridiculous laws which were more harmful than helpful in curtailing the possibility of sin in any person's life. Too much law and not enough grace.

Spear's book re-sparked an interest for me in early American history. The topics she deals with in The Witch of Blackbird Pond are quite fascinating.

However, I rather disliked the character of Kit Tyler. While I appreciated her distaste for the strict Puritan lifestyle, I thought Spear used her to express only what was bad about it without acknowledging any of the good. The Puritans were also hard workers, people of integrity and commitment and strove to follow after God and His will for their lives. True, I think they were a bit off the mark and rather excessive, but I wouldn't dismiss them so quickly as Spear does with Kit. Instead of appreciating the balance and virtue of the Puritans, she mocks them through Kit and brings charm to Kit's free spirit of independence. At the same time I longed for Kit to be free of the rules and regulations of the colony (and in particular, her uncle) I also wish she had showed a little more emotional respect. There's a bit too much of an Island Girl mindset for me to enjoy the character of Kit to the max.

Nevertheless, I would heartily recommend this book to anyone. I fully intend to have my own kids read it in conjunction with their studies of early America. I think this book can be used as a valuable tool to spark imagination in school studies. Imagination, in my opinion, is a wonderful thing and I think Spear has a good dose of it. Highly enjoyable read on the whole. Thanks, Rose, for the recommendation.

Piccadilly Jim

2006-09-13T21:57:00.000-07:00

What ho! Another Wodehouse classic.

I get tired of the Jeeves & Wooster hype and like to "get away" into some of Wodehouse's other stories from time to time. Don't get me wrong, Jeeves is classic! But variety, as they say, is the spice of life. Piccadilly Jim is some mighty fine spice.

Per usual, Wodehouse has great word play. The way he says things leaves you giggling or laughing out loud. Too many passages to quote and not enough space. Wodehouse is, or should be, on everyone's reading list at least once or twice in their life. However, I'm happy to report that among my social circles he's almost commonplace. I didn't feel a strong urge to include a Wodehouse work in Bookfest 2006's reading list. Why? Because everyone has read at least one Wodehouse story. It verges on triteness to say, "if you've read one, you've read them all!" The names vary in silliness but ....well....Wodehouse is Wodehouse. His style is unchanging although the plots do, thank goodness. Otherwise I don't suppose he would have gotten away with writing over 100 books and stories. (Does anyone have an exact count? I couldn't find one online.) Then again, maybe he would have. It's hard to say "Enough already!" to a good snicker.

Wodehouse is candy reading at its finest. Clean, straightforward and rather honest if you think about it. He likes to make fun of the same things I like to make fun of in other people: behaviorisms. His characters have quirks that he preys upon and that holds definite appeal for this girl's funny bone.

My reason for liking Piccadilly Jim, in particular, is the character of Ann (this time without an 'e'). The feisty red-head who suffered the drama of a poetic youth yet blossomed into a wiley "press other people's buttons to get the response she wanted" young lady. I rather admired conniving persistent pursuit of her down to the closing scene in the library where he argues he is the man for her. He says:

"To a girl with your ardent nature someone with whom you can quarrel is an absolute necessity of life. You and I are affinities. Our will be an ideally happy marriage. You would be miserable if you had to go through life with a human doormat with Welcome written on him."

Etc., etc.

Reminds me of The Horse and His Boy where Lewis informs us that Aravis and Cor ". . . were so used to quarrelling and making it up again that they got married so as to go on doing it more conveniently." I shall not reveal whether or not Jimmy wins his appeal with Ann but if you know Wodehouse you can make an educated guess as to the the end of the story.

Ukridge still holds the lead as my favorite Non-Jeeves Story, however, Piccadilly Jim is quite amusing on its own. Just for different reasons (like all of Wodehouse's books). They are all meant to be enjoyed and, most often, thoroughly are! Thanks, Karen, for sticking a Wodehouse out there. I was wrong about not wanting to include one on the original list. It helps to make our list complete.

The Count of Monte Cristo

2006-09-07T16:51:00.000-07:00

I was very glad that Lisa picked this book to read this month. Jonathan had read it years ago and was telling me how I needed to read it. Let's just say, I've never been one very keen on the classics. Until recently. Perhaps I avoided them before because they were "school work" and that, of course, was to be avoided at all cost. I much preferred to read my own books, away from the curriculum suggestion list. However, I now have to admit that I missed out. The good news is -- there is time to catch up. My husband, being an avid classics fan, seems to have read just about everything I haven't. Now is the time to even the score.

Years ago I had tried reading The Three Musketeers by Dumas but was unable to finish it. I don't remember the exact reason I stopped reading, but the subject matter was beginning to bother me. I wasn't sure what to expect with The Count, but I happily sped through the pages.

I hardly know where to begin on a review of this book because the story line was so indepth and the characters all so complex. Yet, despite the events and occasional name/title changes, it was very easy to follow. Jonathan had told me that we weren't allowed to watch the movie version (2002) until I had finished reading the book precisely because the book was much more complex and he didn't want me to miss out on anything important. We watched the movie upon completion of the book and now I understand what he meant. Now, I suppose, the only way I know of to review the book is to compare it to the movie.

Where the book presents Edmond Dantes as a rather naive character until Abbe Faria, Dantes' fellow prisoner, sparked connections in Dantes' mind regarding how it is that he ended up in prison. The movie just makes Dantes out to be an idiot (who stupidly accepts a letter from Bonaparte himself!) and only realizes his stupidity after it is too late. And although Faria's part in the book lasts but a moment (when you consider the actual length of the tale) you can feel his presence throughout. Faria's character,encouraging Dante to learn and to grow in prison and not to seek vengeance for himself when out, can be felt through the entire book. The movie makes Faira out to be little more than a treasure map to the future Count's riches instead of a deeply loved and respected friend.

The book does not separate Dantes' faith in God from his actions for a moment. Although at times misguided, he keeps God in the forefront of his mind. In the movie, he curses God (and you'd almost wish he'd die). The book offers redemption and a future beyond the pain of Dantes' past. The movie leaves you with a longing towards the two hours you lost while watching it. (Except if you are just enjoying down time with your husband, of course.)

The "good guy" characters in the book are noble, to the point where you desperately wish Dantes' life hadn't taken the turn that it did early on. Yet it leaves you feeling satisfied that all that can be made right, has been made right. The movie is deplete of nobility (in the true sense of the word). But then that's Hollywood for you. I made the decision following the movie that someone, somewhere needs to change the rules for allowing a movie to be "based on the story by..." and instead relabeled, "based loosely on the story by..."

I thought the book was wonderful. I enjoyed the way that Dumas was able to tie together about five different tales and show how they were all intertwined beyond a brief glance at any individual character. The way he wove his character's pasts in and around each other was amazing. While on the surface his story appears complex, in reality its a simplistic "It's a Small World After All" piece of work. But you'd never know it while in the middle of reading. Each revelation leaves you racing forward in the book to see how everything will play out. The movie? Skip it. The book will entertain you far better.

FALL CLEANING

2006-09-06T14:40:00.000-07:00

Hey all,

Per e-mail discussions it has been written and decreed that we shall continue Bookfest into next year. However, to accommodate busy schedules related to work, family, children, too many books to read, etc., we will be limiting our reads to 1-2 books a month instead of the current 4. I'm presently working out a system by which we can select our titles and have something going that everyone has suggested. Should be very fun.

In the meantime, if you have a friend or know of someone who might like to join us for the coming year, please let me know. Thus far I have convinced a few people to try joining us and you may find their name/profile on the sidebar here very shortly. (Newbies are welcome to post and comment whenever they'd like!) The three new people to introduce are:

1. Katie (Bonnie's sister);
2. Karen (guest reader, suggestor and blogger extraordinaire);
3. Lisa (T. Who stalks and comments. Check out her comments on Blue Like Jazz. I'm particularly partial to the opening quote.)

I have a few others in mind that I'll be asking but let me know if you have someone in your back pocket that you've been waiting to whip out and unleash upon us all!

For she's a jolly good fellow, for she's a jolly good fellow....

2006-09-04T16:07:00.000-07:00

So.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY!

Here I am in a land far far away (feels like) celebrating the day you were born !

HIP-HIP HOORAY! HIP-HIP HOORAY!

May God smile upon you and give you peace!

Lots of Love!

Sky

Post script;
Please tell me you had chocolate cake for your birthday!?!?!?!?!?!?!??????

The Official List

2006-09-01T08:11:00.000-07:00

Behold! I bring you glad tidings of great joy! We have our book selection lists in for the remainder of the year. Hightail it to libraries and bookstores to make sure you get a copy by the time story time rolls around. =D Thanks for the recommendations. I think we'll finish off this year well.

OCTOBER:

1. The Princess Bride, by William Goldman (Sky);
2. Any book from the Mitford series, by Jan Karon (Carrie);
3. To Kill a Mockingbird, by Harper Lee (Anneke); and
4. Brideshead Revisited, by Evelyn Waugh (Bonnie).

NOVEMBER:

1. Foundation, by Isaac Asimov (Rose);
2. Absolution by Murder, by Peter Tremayne (Sky);
3. A Morbid Taste for Bones, by Ellis Peters (Bonnie); and
4. Hank the Cowdog, by John R. Erickson (Carrie)*.

*Note: I had a murder mystery picked for November as well but thought 3 might prove overkill. ;) ha!

DECEMBER:

1. Innside Nantucket, by Frank Gilbreath, Jr. (Anneke)*;
2. The Family Nobody Wanted, by Helen Doss (Rose)*;
3. My Friend Flicka, by Mary O'Hara (Sky); and
4. The Hunchback of Notre Dame, by Victor Hugo (Carrie)

*Innside Nantucket seems to be out of print. It was published in 1954. Same author as Cheaper by the Dozen. (I anticipate a good story!) This one may require some tracking down. The Family Nobody Wanted was first published in 1945 and may be difficult as well, although Amazon had a new 2001 edition at an outrageous price for a paperback.

Looks like fun! Thanks again!

Revelations of a Single Woman

2006-08-31T12:30:00.000-07:00

I cheated this month. I posted my review of it here on my own book review blog.

I apologize.

I will not do that again. =)

Blue Like Jazz

2006-08-11T16:07:00.000-07:00

My mom was the one who recommended this book to me, and I was pleasantly surprised to find that the local library carried it. It didn't take long to read, but it definitely had me thinking. I should start by saying that I really enjoyed it, although I can't say that I agreed with Donald Miller on every point he made. What I did like was his honesty about his own struggles as a Christian. I've grown tired of Christian cliches, such as the Purpose-Driven Life campaign. That's largely just bumper-sticker theology and doesn't do anything to help me in my own Christian walk. But Miller's honesty was refreshing, if occasionally frustrating.

My favorite aspect of this book was Miller's willingness to take part in and engage the culture at a place like Reed College. Many Christians would stay away from Reed, because of its liberal reputation. But I don't think Christianity is about running away, and we can't create a clean and perfect world of isolation. Even more than Miller's involvement in the local culture, I liked his honesty about how difficult it is. I am the person who would live thirty miles outside town and turn into the weird hermit writer. But his pastor was right: that's not what Christians should do. We don't live for ourselves anymore; we are daily making sacrifices to self, because that is our calling as disciples of Christ. I wish I would say I'm better at it, but I'm not. That's not much of an excuse, though, and this book reminded me that I need to keep my focus in the right place.

There were things I didn't like about the book, although some of them are a little nit-picky. I thought a few of his ideas and the conclusions he drew about Christianity were a little wonky at times. But I don't know if that's just because I'm pretty steeped in the routine of Christianity. I'll probably have to read it again to decide. I loved the idea of the confessional booth, although I'll admit something about it bugged me. Do we really need to apologize for the Crusades? (Like I said, I'm nit-picking.) Of course, that wasn't the point of the exercise, but it irked me nonetheless. My mom said she didn't like the part about his living in the woods with the hippies, because the hippies weren't (in her opinion) demonstrating true love; they were just demonstrating general tolerance for everything and everyone. I think she's half-way right, although I think the people he lived with in the woods were genuinely believing that they loved everyone.

All in all, I'm glad I read the book. In a way, it reminded me of a book I read a while back, Desire of the Everlasting Hills, by Thomas Cahill. I don't know if Cahill is a Christian, be he made some excellent points about what Christ commanded and how Christians have fallen short of that. Another good read, for anyone who is interested.

UTAH BLAINE

2006-08-09T08:22:00.000-07:00

Reading this book is like watching a John Wayne movie. It's as clean, moral wise, and as a bloody, shoot 'um up wise, as they come. L'amour is rather good with word pictures. I could see why Sky would like this book, esp. after Utah comes across the stallion, after which no other horse was quite good enough for him. Knowing how much Sky loved her horse, this book makes sense for a Sky pick.

This was my first western to read and probably not my last either. (I may wait awhile though.) Like I said, I could see the storyline being played out on the big screen as I read along.

Things I appreciate about L'amour's style:

1. He describes his character's action in vivid detail;
2. In his description, he leaves plenty of room for imagination;
3. He draws you into the scene, which is usually hot and dusty, making you very thirsty;
4. He clearly distinguishes between good guys and bad/honorable men and dishonorable. There is no second guessing. It's a pretty straight shot;
5. He completely respects his female characters.

I think the most impressive thing about this book is the value he places on femininity. Sure, the two women in this story are rough-and-tumble chicks, shall we say, but there's a softness about them that is not ignored by the half dozen men in the tale. It is clearly stated and known that if any of the men were to harm the women, swift and decisive punishment would be dealt out. Even though the bad guys didn't like how the women sided with Utah, they were hands-off in their approach to using force against the women. Only one bad dude decided he might try to take liberties with Angie, the main love interest, and was quickly shut down by his co-conspirators. No elaborate word pictures were painted, just a solid truth: women are valuable even as the weaker sex. It was a refreshing change from modern day tales that play up the women's roles in such a way that women are treated just like the men - in every respect. Torture, pain and punishment are dealt out to the modern day female in the same ways as the males. Kudos to L'amour for his courtesies.

Meanwhile, I can easily see myself allowing any teenage boy of mine to pick up a L'amour book and have at it. I'll read a few more just to be sure, but my guess is that it's a safe and rather honorable read!

Thanks, Sky, for the recommendation.

BEAUTY

2006-08-01T08:40:00.000-07:00

First, my declaration: "I LOVED it!!!"

Next, my critique. =D

Anyone who likes the story of Beauty and the Beast is likely going to like this book. Likely. Typically I don't like re-writes of stories. I'm appalled by "remakes" of any sort - in book or movie form. (*clearing throat* Anne of Green Gables: The Continuing Story *cough, cough, GAG*) However, I found this one to be an exception. McKinley definitely parallels the original story in the enchantment placed on the castle, the fact that Beauty's father was the first to encounter the Beast, the rose, etc.

I thought the book was interesting in its deviation of having Beauty be a rather ugly child growing up. I kept thinking to myself that this remake was a better reflection of the modern day female than any fairy princess story from the past. In this story, Beauty has two sisters that are apparently beyond gorgeous. Yet Beauty doesn't really envy them so much as she just resigns herself to the fact that they are attractive and she is not. In fact, she denies her beauty the entire book. What she missed out on was the transformation, brought about, I believe, by love. The Beast's love for her is primary in her transformation from an awkward teenager to a regular gem. Secondarily, I suppose it can be argued that the enchantment of the castle and the fact that she aged during the story is also a factor. However, I'm going to argue it was due to the Beast's love. How like so many of us that find ourselves unattractive. We seldom start to believe that we're remotely pleasant in mind or appearance until we meet the man that God intends us to spend our lives with. Through him, God begins to show us our true beauty (in whatever form that comes in). I found this aspect of the book fascinating and I think it helps to connect women to this new version of Beauty. Every girl wants a prince but believes themselves less than deserving. Beauty felt the same, but got her prince anyway. How could any story be more satisfying? I ask you now....

The other aspect of the book that I found to be an interesting concept was that the enchantment of the castle allowed the Beast and Beauty to "see" things such as books that had not yet been written. Beauty apparently picked up a copy of Sherlock Holmes but couldn't make sense of it so gave up on reading it. When touched by the future, Beauty ends up far more content with her present. I thought this was a nice contrast to Twain's Connecticut Yankee, in which all the characters seemed eager to jump on any modern day technology they could get their hands on. I liked the fact that the future didn't make sense to Beauty. She didn't "need to know."

The one thing I did NOT like about the book was the end. I thought it was too abrupt. Given the fact that Beauty & the Beast were able to see various events that were taking place in the outside world in actual time, it seemed disjointed to have the final transformation of Beast take place and immediately have the family start arriving for the wedding. It was a bit jarring and I felt that it didn't tie things up very well. As is usual when I am really into a book, I begin dreaming about it as well. The night I finished it I dreamed an entirely different ending to the book and woke up completely unsatisfied still. Mostly because my ending wasn't the printed one.

Nevertheless, I thoroughly enjoyed the story and the abilities that McKinney gave us to connect to Beauty in both her mental image of herself, as well as her desire to read. =) Very fun, quick and enjoyable story. I subsequently purchased a copy of in order that I can re-read it in the future.

SEPTEMBER READS

2006-07-31T08:23:00.000-07:00

Hey ladies,

September's picks were EASY to collect from you all. Thanks so much for fast responses to my e-mails! As previously discussed, we're letting Lisa and Karen (two bookfest stalkers and occasional readers) make two of our selections for next month. Per usual, I like to pick the next month's books in advance just incase I need to make an interlibrary loan request (which is frequently the case). However, I don't think we'll have much of a problem in September. Both of our guest selectors offered me a couple of choices and both seemed to think that Wodehouse was in order as apparently we shouldn't go without one of his books on our list. So without further ado, and barring objection, these are September's books:

1. A Tale of Two Cities, by Charles Dickens (Carrie);

2. The Witch of Blackbird Pond, by Elizabeth George Speare (Rose);

3. The Count of Monte Cristo, by Alexandre Dumas (Lisa); and

4. Piccadilly Jim, by P.G. Wodehouse (Karen).

October's picks go to Sky, Erika, Anneke & Bonnie so be thinking! If you already know what you will pick, please leave a comment here that way I can just come back to this post and see what your selections were when the time comes. It's nice to stay ahead of the game.

Thanks and happy reading!

2006-07-30T21:06:00.000-07:00

An Explanation of Housekeeping

I loved this book, especially Robinson's gift for capturing the very essence of an experience in a few words. She has a gift for limiting her story's details in a way that adds to its mystery. Basic facts are withheld, so that the story seems timeless, universal, and haunting.
I do believe that the title is the key to the meaning of this story. The three daughters lose their father to the lake, and are ever afterwards haunted by its presence in their lives. Robinson speaks of the loss of their father as ( if I remember correctly) a stone dropped in a pond, with gradually subsiding ripples that end in a return to a smooth unruffled surface. Obvious allusion to the ever-present lake. And so their lives go on after the death of their father, household chores, trips to the library, the small everyday details that make up a life. But something deep down has been lost. Buried, undiscoverable (just like the body of the father), but with serious ramifications. The foundation of their lives has gone. Outwardly, their lives are unchanged, but inwardly, they drift. One daughter escapes to the mission field, seeking a structure, perhaps, a real calling. Two daughters marry, and both marriages fail. Their world has no permanence, no real structure. And so the granddaughter, Ruth, grows up in a world that is like a play already in Act III. She has certain odd tendencies, and her coming of age is, in a way, the process of her discovering who she is and why she is this way. Her life is a life of constant change, transience. Eventually she gives up her house (ends her 'housekeeping'), and simply accepts who she is and acts on it. She crosses the lake, dying to her old self and, strangely, following in the way of her father.
I don' pretend to understand the whole story. I have no idea what she means by the Cain and Abel story. I do think she is named Ruth in order to tie her story into the story of Ruth leaving her family and following her mother-in-law to a new land and a new life.
When I finished this book I wanted to go back and keep Ruth from leaving, from becoming a transient. I wan't to rail against the ending and cry that it couldn't happen, it shouldn't happen. But it did. Why? Because I believe no one in this story ever really dealt with the death of the father. They wanted life to go on. The mother wanted a smooth, simple life. And so life went on, unchanged, but the realness died along the way. The family drew back, and drifted from others. The cover of this book spoke of 'the danger of transcience'. Ruth eventually chose a life of change, of superficial relationships, of no real roots. The failure of her mother to deal with the loss and move on to a new life was passed down to the next generation.
BTW, I do not necessarily agree with Robinson's theology. On a background note, she is a pastor in the Congregationalist denomination, and has written an excellent volume of essays entitled The Death of Adam. I highly recommend them.

Housekeeping by Marilynne Robinson

2006-07-28T11:30:00.000-07:00

The impression this book left me with is a mixture of confusion and disgust. Proclaimed as "brilliant and compelling" it is at the very most verbose in description of landscape and the author's odd thoughts on life.

The story is based around two sisters whose grandfather and mother both died tragic deaths in the lake near the small town they live in. All their lives they live in one house and the relatives take turns caring for them and dying.

Ruth is the youngest sister and the story is seen through her vision and feelings, her personality is hindered by the hints of odd behavior.

Lucille is the eldest she is not in the picture for very long because she moves into a spare bedroom of a teacher so as to escape the down falling of her family.

Sylvie is the last of their relatives, an aunt who has seen many roads and seems to be more at home sleeping on a park bench then in the house caring for the girls.

The town, represented by the sheriff, deems Sylvie unworthy of caring for Ruth and there is to be a court hearing, so Sylvie and Ruth decide to burn the house down and fake their own deaths by running away.

The storyline is strange and unclear, I had no idea where this was going but kept reading thinking that the "coming of age" plot was going to make a point.

And then I got to chapter 10. Here the story of Cain and Abel is used to point out that God might have created Man but He wasn't quite sure what He was doing and kept realizing along the way that some of the laws He came up with had more consequences then He thought. Cain is portrayed in such a way that we are supposed to blame God for becoming indignant over slight things and thus Cain killed his brother, giving the earth a voice. And because of this "second creation" of people God had to kill them with water to purge the earth making all water taste of human sorrow.
God is described as a very faulty creator and ruler, reminiscent of Greek mythology. I am repulsed by this weak way of asserting God as fallible, as in any argument against God it is stupid and inane, contradictions pop up in every turn of the page; she claims that God created the world but wasn't able to foresee that His creation wouldn't be perfect. That Jesus healed and performed miracles but died a young and tragic death. His resurrection is passed over as a figment of loved ones, His friends only "felt" his presence because their memories of Him were so poignant.

Now how this ties into the whole story I have no idea. Was she trying to tell us that the dead walk among us as long as we remember them? I don't think it's anything so deep. I think that the author has a lot of ideas and thoughts but lacks the creativity to put them into a book form in an understandable manner.

Sadly, I cannot say that it ended well, Sylvie and Ruth escape and spend the rest of their days wandering around in oblivion, there is an allusion to rape and an unwanted pregnancy but it does nothing to the story.

The aftertaste of this book is dreary and sad. There is no hope for a brighter day, no beauty of life, no laughter with the family you have, just dull and dreary life that gives nothing but heartache.

I am thankful for the reading of this book because it made me sit down and write out my thoughts but I wouldn’t recommend it and I would not own it.

PS I have absolutely no idea why it is titled "Housekeeping"

Crime and Punishment

2006-07-26T17:22:00.000-07:00

My own experience with Russian literature is somewhat limited, primarily to such dry and often dreary tomes as War and Peace, so I was expecting Crime and Punishment to be along the same lines. I can't say it wasn't dreary, but I was pleasantly surprised to find how interested I was in the story. I read the introduction before beginning the book, and I'm glad I did, because it really put everything into perspective. Of course, it also gave away the basic plot of the story, but that didn't keep me from wanting to read it. What fascinated me the most was that this book is basically a psychological thriller, and I didn't anticipate that when I pulled it off the library shelves. I actually found myself struggling with tension the entire time I was reading it, just knowing that Raskolnikov had committed a crime and that he wasn't going to get away with it--and most of all, that I couldn't stand him trying to get away with it. Even when things started looking up for him (as when that nutty fellow confessed), and Raskolnikov thought he was home free, I would still have that awful feeling at the pit of my stomach; he had something hanging over him, and he couldn't escape it.

There's been some debate among scholars about Dostoevsky's purpose in writing the book. Apparently, he lived during an era in which the "progressive" thinking was to rationalize all behavior in terms of its impact on society. In other words, Raskolnikov's killing the old woman could be justified because she was just a useless crone that nobody cared about anyway. Obviously, Raskolnikov (I'm getting sick of typing his name now) was carrying out an experiment, thinking that he might be a Napoleon who could do a small evil for a greater good. (There was a similar kind of idea that was ultimately rejected in that movie Kingdom of Heaven, if anyone saw it.) Some fool over at Amazon tried to claim that Dostoevsky believed in this rationalization and was trying to prove that Raskolnikov didn't necessarily do anything wrong in his action. But then again, why would it be Crime and Punishment...? Anyway, most scholars now agree that Dostoevsky's own life shows just the opposite, that he was instead strongly opposed to such thinking. He spent some time in prison for unwisely associating with the progressive set in his youth, and this book was born out of his moral reformation while serving his time.

Some scholars do find the ending a bit cheap, though, thinking that it tries to wrap everything up too nicely after Raskolnikov goes to Siberia. I'm not sure if I agree or disagree with this. It did happen a little quickly, but I think that was Dostoevsky's idea. For the entire length of the book, Raskolnikov fought his conscience. He knew he couldn't get away with his crime. He really only confessed because he knew the police were onto him. But he rejected any idea that the old woman was valuable--simply as a human being--until the end. I don't think the book would be quite as satisfactory without it.

I loved the character Sonia. I love that Dostoevsky chose a woman who would be at the very bottom of society, maligned by everyone for her lifestyle, and still found something beautiful and human about her. In a way, she's a contrast for the old woman. Raskolnikov found the old woman worthless, but everyone else would have seen Sonia the same way. I think Dostoevsky is trying to remind us that human value should remain in God's eyes alone. We can't be too quick to start dealing out death and judgment (did I just quote Gandalf?), because we see with biased eyes.

All that to say, I loved the book. I think it should be required reading for every high school student because of its strong position on the importance of human life. This could lead to a great discussion about abortion and the way that people justify it in the modern world. All in all, this one is a keeper for me.

Some Helpful Guidelines

2006-07-18T15:04:00.000-07:00

Ladies, I though it might be interesting for us to "polish" our book review skills! Here are some quick and interesting tips I found while browsing online:

Describe the book:
Is it interesting, memorable, entertaining, instructive? Why?

Respond to the author's opinions:
What do you agree with? And why?
What do you disagree with? And why?

Explore issues the book raises:
What possibilities does the book suggest? Explain.
What matters does the book leave out? Explain.

Relate your argument to other books or authors:
Support your argument for or against the author's opinions by bringing in other authors you agree with.

Relate the book to larger issues:
How did the book affect you?
How have your opinions about the topic changed?
How is the book related to your own course or personal agenda.

Go here for a more indepth guide!

AUGUST READS

2006-07-18T10:23:00.000-07:00

Ok, here's the list for August:

1. Utah Blaine, by Louis Lamour (Sky);

2. Blue Like Jazz, by Donald Miller (Bonnie);

3. Revelations of a Single Woman, by Connally Gilliam (Erika)

I've been trying to get a hold of Anneke to get her pick for August, but I haven't heard back from her. If we don't hear anything from her by next week, I would suggest we confirm the list with "Beauty: A Retelling of the Story of Beauty and the Beast" by Robin McKinley which another friend had suggested to me. It's an awesome book! (I just got started in it.) Lots of fun. Quick read. Barring objections and word from Ani, I'd say let's go for that and start making our interlibrary loan requests. ;) (Which I ALWAYS have to do!)

Also, here's some interesting book news:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4630636.stm

What do you think?

The Grasshopper Trap by Patrick McManus

2006-07-13T17:40:00.000-07:00

These books bring back fond memories of my childhood. We had a friend who had all of them and whenever we went to his house I would sit there and read as many as I could. I haven't read one for years!

I love PM's style of writing, he comes off like a good ol country boy but he has an intelligent and quirky way of telling his stories. I have never read this particular one so I was enthralled as soon as I started. My favorite chapter was The Human Fuel Pump, I don't know how many times in my past I was sitting on the back of a pickup truck hoping that the rivet attached to my jean lined butt was going to be enough to hold me on when we went over the next bump! And I can't even count how many people I know that got stuck on a mountain out in the middle of nowhere because they were trying out their "new" old truck! I laughed out loud every time I heard punkity, punkity, punkity in my head!

Metamorphosis and Other Outdoor Phenomena Wives Don't Understand is most defintely my Daddy! There were so many guns in our house! I was making my bed one day and I found a rifle in between my matresses!?!? Many times I was "bought" a gun that I never saw! Somewhere over there I have a shotgun, a .22 and a deer rifle! (My Glock is with me..)

I love that "hunting" and "gettin' a deer" are two totally different things. It is so true, men just love the idea of going outdoors and being that primitive creature that God created! Where I grew up though if you didn't get a deer your family didn't have any red meat for the whole winter. And winter in Idaho lasts nine months!

Carrie, I enjoyed it so much I laughed out loud! Not many things do that!

I could go on but this post is long enough.......

The Da Vinci Code

2006-07-13T11:30:00.000-07:00

I read this some weeks ago and have been waiting for all the ramblings and rumblings to settle into place and allow me to write a coherent review. Let us see if I can be as unbiased and unprejudiced in writing of it as I was before I read the book. For I insist, I approached it with a very open mind, having heard so much negativity about it that I determined to give it the benefit of the doubt. After all, we all know it's bad, false, untrue, inaccurate, and full of lies about Christianity, but I disdained to read any of the rebuttals because - come on! It's a novel! It's supposed to be made up! That is how I began to read the book.

The very first word that came to mind as I began to read was pretentious. It's an overblown account of the author's cleverness and knowledge, and he takes care to shovel as much of this information into every possible paragraph, as if he is acutely aware of just how much work this book was to research and write and wouldn't miss out on a single opportunity to impress the reader with the depth of his insight. For instance, one of the early chapters has the main character walking across the lawn, thinking deep thoughts about history and whatnot. He mentions a couple of these facts to the stolid French policeman, and then the narrative continues something like: 'He thought of mentioning [blah blah blah], or that [blah blah blah], but decided that the policeman probably wouldn't appreciate it.' But of course we the reader are expected to appreciate, enjoy, and even recognise this tidbit for the important part it is to play in the unfolding drama! After all, policemen are well-renowned for being stupid clods, while your average paperback novel reader is well-informed, up-to-date, and cultured, so it's good of the author to scatter these juicy bits of largess to the populace.

There's a lot of information packed into this book. But it's all crippled by our inability to distinguish between fact and fiction. There have been many books written discrediting some of the more vicious attacks on Christianity, so I won't get into all that, but we know that many of the claims he makes are simply flat-out false, many of which he parades around as 'facts.' (Some of his history of the early church councils, the description of how the 'genuine' and 'mystical' gospels were weeded out, his exegesis of certain words, etc.) This makes a lot of the incidentals really hard to swallow. For instance, he mention this glass pyramid on the lawn of the Louvre, commissioned by some pope-or-other, containing the ominous number of 666 panels of glass. Is there really such a pyramid on the lawn of the Louvre? Probably. Was it really commissioned by so-and-so? Does it really have 666 panels of glass? I have no idea.

Another annoying thing is how the author continually strokes the ego of the reader by tossing out pathetically easy clues for the reader to uncover, in an attempt to make the reader feel like a genius by outsmarting the main characters, who stupidly walk into the most obvious traps and ambushes that I could see coming a mile away. The two main characters are a world-renowned symbologist (if there is such a word) and a top-notch cryptanalyst. Yet they keep stumbling over and missing the most obvious clues.

For instance, early on we see the cryptic message 'O draconian Devil!' Now, I may have a bit of an edge because I am, after all, reading a book called The Da Vinci Code, but I spotted right away that that was an anagram of Leonardo da Vinci. But these two geniuses fumble around for pages before finally cracking that code. Later on, we come across a mysterious bit of obscure writing. Is it Sanskrit? Ancient Hebrew? No, these two bright-eyed ones are familiar with all the major languages, ancient and modern, and know right away it is none of these. But it takes them pages and pages to make the blinding discovery that - lo and behold! - it's backward writing! Just hold it up to a mirror and it becomes legible!

Also very annoying is the very patronising attitude he takes toward Christians. Aside from all the blatant historical falsehoods, he manages to work in quite a few sideswipes at the modern church, pausing to have the main character note with irony how few people who worship the symbol of the Cross probably really know the origin of the word, that it is synonymous with torture, and that it provides us with the word 'excruciating.' EXCUSE ME!!! Of COURSE the Cross is as symbol of torture, suffering, and shame! We all know that!! We even have a hymn about the old rugged Cross, 'the emblem of suffering and shame.' It was common knowledge even in the Bible that 'cursed is anyone who hangs on a tree.' The beauty of the crucifixion is that Jesus transformed that symbol of shame, hopelessness, and despair into victory over sin and death! Yes, it was an old Roman method of torture. (And put this in your pipe and smoke it, Dan Brown: It was invented by the Persians, not the Romans!) And it was so very painful that they coined a word for it. Lots of people know that, lots of people don't. Being or not being a brilliant linguist who knows all the origins of words has nothing to do with one's ability to revere a symbol that represents the cornerstone of our faith.

Also extremely annoying is his attempt to tie everything together by weaving a mystical tapestry of symbols, cabals, and significance through everything. I was insulted by his confident assertion that the Eiffel Tower was designed to resemble a sexual organ. He scatters sexual references everywhere (and there was one particularly disturbing scene).

So, all in all, it was a badly written and quite forgettable page-turner. The action moved so fast that it was pretty easy to keep engaged, if you even cared about the characters, which I didn't very much. It was pretty much nonstop action.

And that's all I have to say about that.

The Peterkin Papers

2006-07-10T16:28:00.000-07:00

It took me two weeks to read this. Not because I didn't have the time. Not because I don't like to read. Not because of anything other than my dislike of it. (Sorry, Rose.)

I thought the description of it being about "a family who takes everything literally" wasn't quite accurate. Perhaps I'm too attuned to the possibilities of someone making an off-hand remark and having it be taken quite literally as a result of my sibs-in-law. This book wasn't anything like them at all.

This book is about a stupid family that you'd like to strangle to end their misery. It's written in a similar style as The Five Little Peppers which I also just read recently. (It's a style I can't say I care for a great deal.) A little too innocent. A little too unbelievable.

I have to say its a relief to be done with this, not for the content struggle (although there is that) but for the boredom.

BEAU GESTE

2006-07-10T16:26:00.000-07:00

All I really have to say on this one is........

If you did not read it - do so.

It starts with a bang and finishes off nicely. I loved the adventure, the romance, the mystery. Because I'm not sure if/when anyone else read it (or is in process) I don't want to say too much about it.

I bought an additional copy to give to my brother-in-law for his birthday. He'll love it.

So will you.

2006-07-06T12:19:00.000-07:00

A Note on Atonement

I just arrived back from vacation and discovered the book list for July , with Atonement first. I talked to Carrie about this, but wanted to write a general note as well. I was recommended this book by Dr. Leithart, and read it a few months ago. I found it well-written, thought-provoking, and haunting. I also found several to-skip sex scenes. SO, this is just a note of warning: it's a good novel, but 'modern' in the sense that sometimes the author doesn't know when to draw the curtain. I hope nobody is too surprised or offended. And sorry about the mix-up. If anybody does read it, I 'd be interested in your response.
I do have another suggestion. Housekeeping, by Marilynne Robinson. It was published in the last two years, and I found it at the library without having to place a hold. Hope you like it!

August books;

2006-06-28T12:19:00.000-07:00

It was mentioned that a WESTERN was in order! YES! (fist clenched in the air!) My most favorite "western" author of all time is Louis L'amour, his life history and intelligence make his books come alive, he did so much research, even to the point of talking to cowboys, gunslingers, miners and indians that actually lived during the wild west days. WWW.louislamour.com

After much panic and due deliberation I have chosen "Utah Blaine" by Louis Lamour. If you finish that and want more, "Tall Stranger" is a slim novel. It was the first grown-up book I ever read. I think I was five years old!

If you feel like extra western reading, Log of a Cowboy by Andy Adams captures the excitement and the reality of the old West before it was romanticized and mythologized by the movies and popular fiction. (all 1960 "westerns" make me grit my teeth and change the channel)

Now that I have gone on about the books that hit closest to home for me I DO hope you all at least derive a little enjoyment from them.

THE FINAL LIST

2006-06-28T08:01:00.000-07:00

(Thanks, Bonnie! -- I think. ;)

So the official reading list for July is as follows, barring immediate objections (which I do not anticipate):

1. Atonement, by Ian McEwan (Anneke);

2. The Grasshopper Trap, by Patrick McManus (Carrie);

3. The Peterkin Papers, by Lucretia Hale (Rose); and

4. Crime and Punishment, by Fyodor Dostoyevsky (Bonnie).

I've never read any Russian lit so C&P should prove interesting. Something tells me that I'm going to be glad we have two light reads in the process. =D This will be fun! I'll change the sidebar directly.

The only thing I was unable to read this month was The Da Vinci Code. All 45 million copies at the library were checked out the entire month. Eventually I will get a hold of one of them and will post commentary after reading it. However, it would appear I'm going to have to wait (as I refuse to buy the book). Did anyone else get a chance to read it?

BTW, August's picks go to Bonnie, Erika, Sky & Anneke. If you four have a book you want to go ahead and suggest to us now, please go right ahead! Rose & I will be back in the loop for September. Can you believe we've come this far? I've enjoyed it. You all have really opened new reading horizons for me. Thank you. I hope you have enjoyed this as well.

Book recommendation for July

2006-06-27T15:43:00.000-07:00

I apologize for being so scatter-brained lately. For some reason, I'd forgotten how much time moving (especially moving off the mainland) can consume. Anyway, after great delay and with much embarrassment I'm posting my recommended book for July. I was able to get a library card the other day, and Crime and Punishment called to me from the bookshelves. I've already read the introduction, and it doesn't look as though it will be quite as ponderous as some of the other pieces of Russian literature I've encountered.

A CONNECTICUT YANKEE IN KING ARTHUR'S COURT

2006-06-21T07:57:00.000-07:00

Before reading this book, my only exposure to Mark Twain's classic tale was the Bing Crosby movie version produced in 1949. It has been quite awhile since I've seen the movie, but I was pretty sure while reading that the book and the movie had little, if nothing, to do with one another. I had a hard time imagining Bing Crosby crooning through the pages of Twain's original work. Having just finished the book, I did a quick look up on Amazon to get a review of the movie, which I will post as follows:

"A half-century later, Mark Twain's yarn still doesn't seem like an ideal vehicle for Bing Crosby, and Jimmy Van Heusen and Johnny Burke certainly wrote better songs than those offered up here. Still, this droll 1949 musical, like its star, has an easygoing charm and affability that'll win over young and old alike. Der Bingle plays Hank, who wakes up in A.D. 528, rousted by palooka-like Sir Sagramore (William Bendix).

At Camelot, not even Hank's impending doom--not to mention the temporal disconnect--can stop him from making eyes at Alisande (Rhonda Fleming). Codgerly, chronically allergic Arthur (Cedric Hardwicke) is impressed with Hank's hubris and dubs him Sir Boss. Problems arise when Hank woos Alisande to Sir Lancelot's ire, while Merlin (Murvyn Vye) has it in for virtually everyone.

A too-convenient deus ex machina and truncated finale mute the happy ending. The story and the performances are understated amid the pomp of the lavish production values (Ray Rennahan's vivid camerawork handily takes it all in), but in these days of virulently overheated storytelling (even in family films), the casual nature of the work here seems a distinct virtue."

Yet another reason to be annoyed with Hollywood -- even if they did involve good ol' Bing.

To be honest, I had a hard time getting into the book. I found the dialogue boring and the story kind of hard to follow. It wasn't until Hank took off on his "quest" with Sandy that I started to become interested. After that, I was hooked.

I thought the most interesting thing about this book was that most of the time in stories dealing with time traveling, the characters traveling back in time are concerned about what they expose the earlier culture too. There seems to be a consciousness involved of not "jumping the gun" shall we say? The main character, Hank, shared no such scruples. He was interested in making Arthurian England as modern as possible, with little thought to the consequences. I was wondering how Twain would conclude this, as he remained silent on the issue of pre-exposure the entire book. I thought he had an interesting way of dealing with the problem in the end. (In case you haven't read it and/or finished it - I won't give it away.)

Right now I can't believe I've based my ideas of the story on Bing, as Twain was rather dark and depressing at times. I don't remember becoming choked up over the movie. I was bothered when the 18 year old mother was executed for stealing a piece of linen in the book. In a way, this book was rather similar to The Prince and the Pauper after Arthur decided he must disguise himself and join Hank in mingling with the masses. The same tales of woe and torture seem to spring out of the pages, very reminiscent of Prince and the Pauper. However, despite the similarities, I still enjoyed the story.

With all due respect to Mr. Crosby, whose talents I have enjoyed, he didn't do justice to the book at all.

THE LITTLE PRINCE

2006-06-07T21:02:00.000-07:00

Hmmm interesting. My MIL had a copy of this book so I snagged her copy for the quick read that it was. I definitely agree with eLr in saying it's not a book simply for children. I thought it examined the interests and obsessions of humans very well. It portrayed our selfishness.

How often I, too, get wrapped up in "things of consequence" that are little more than time wasters. I miss the bigger picture, the grand adventure and charming pictures all around me when I become consumed with details that don't matter. I think that was what struck me most when reading the book. When we're kids - we're delighted with the world around us. As we grow up - our imaginations are shaken by realities and hardships. Yes, adults are to be pitied sometimes. Myself included. (Am I REALLY all grown up?)

But there's still magic and I think this book was a good reminder not to ignore it.

THE UNEXPECTED MRS. POLLIFAX

2006-06-05T16:10:00.000-07:00

Another Sky pick which translates: A happy, good time.

Light reading. This book won't take long to read, in part because its so fun you just don't want to put it down. The pages whirl by.

I liked the idea of a senior citizen finding a new career in life. I like the idea of finally setting out to do something that you've always wanted to do. Truthfully, she reminded me a bit of J's grandmother who passed away earlier this year. She looked for the good in situations and people and made light of what would send other people to their beds for months on end. That is, in essence, Mrs. Pollifax. With a twist of violence, and hint of mystery, of course.

Thanks for the entertainment!

Indo Dreaming

2006-06-02T07:00:00.000-07:00

By Neil Grant

"My dead friend is sending me postcards. It's like a voice from hell".
So says the cover of this surfing odyssey set in Australia and Indonesia.
The book has it all: action, romance, mystery and very believable characters who work their way through the story line.
I enjoyed reading about the surfing (a skill I do not possess)and the adventures of Goog were very believable. The end of the story is very unpredictable!

Sky says;
I saw this review when I typed the wrong blog address; www.bookfest.blogspot.com

It intrigued me. I need to read it.

And then I was reminded of one of my favorite openers, it's from Quest for a Maid by Frances May Hendry. "When I was nine years old I hid under a table and heard my sister kill a king."
It's a fiction for youth based on the history and legend of the little princess from Norroway who was to save the Kingdom by marriage to Prince Edward of England.

JULY, JULY!

2006-06-01T14:24:00.000-07:00

We're halfway through the year, do you realize? Waa haa haa! This has been great fun so far. I've enjoyed it anyway. You gals have stretched me and entertained me with your book selections. Thanks! So for July, after scrolling through archives, I would propose the following:

1. A book to be selected by Bonnie as the newest member. BLF, your reputation will be staked on your first selection. ;) Please remember this. No pressure.

2. A book to be selected by Rose. Since we're doing Beau Geste this month, perhaps we can go with something other than a swashbuckler?

3. Atonement, by Ian McEwan (Anneke);

4. The Grasshopper Trap, by Patrick McManus (Carrie).

Also, when you leave your comments/votes for July, can you leave some other suggestions of books you'd like us all to read together? Thanks!

Proposal

2006-06-01T09:46:00.000-07:00

Ladies, I think we've all read a large variety of "relationship" books, whether on being single, dating, or marriage.

I think it could be helpful to put together a list of the good, bad, and ugly (with our book reviews as supporting evidence, of course); this way we can collectively read the good ones, and not all waste our time on the bad ones.

I've read:
I Kissed Dating Goodbye, Josh Harris
Boy Meets Girl, Josh Harris
Courtship, Doug Wilson
Finding Your Million Dollar Mate
....many more that I can't remember right now

Any takers?

TILL WE HAVE FACES

2006-05-17T12:50:00.000-07:00

Woah. Not your Pevensie adventure! I was expecting "traditional Lewis" but who is that? This was not what I anticipated, but I found it captivating. I found customers an interruption in the telling of the story.

I think the thing I found most interesting in this book is that Lewis tells the story through an individual, Orual, who writes the story somewhat in "haste" and in anger. It is only after she finishes writing the story, told entirely in her own perspective, that she realizes her personal beliefs regarding any given scenario and/or person were wrong. How like myself! I go with my initial impression and take things in as I perceive them to be. Afterwards I discover that perhaps my view wasn't as accurate as I thought. Frequently, it is only at the end of things that I can look back with a complaint and see that things were exactly as God meant them to be. Reminds me of Job.

I'm not entirely sure though if Lewis meant this to be allegorical in nature so I'm very hesitant to draw too many lines of connection between the story and our spiritual walk. Comments from anyone else on that? Online reviews seem mixed and the "note" by Lewis at the back of my copy of the book suggests nothing other than a personal fascination with the story of Cupid and Psyche. ???

Either way, it was both horrible and spell-binding in nature. (To me anyway!)

Inkheart

2006-05-15T14:19:00.000-07:00

I actually read this book more than a month ago, when Anneke first suggested it, and before it became our pick of the month, because it sounded interesting and I wanted to read it regardless. It's a charming book in the fantasy/fairy tale line, written for children, I suppose.

The hardest part for me to handle was to picture the fantasy taking place in the everyday, real world: the notion of cars, telephones, guns, school, and police juxtaposed with people who acted so obviously medieval was a bit jarring and never quite meshed in my mind. The villain was quite dastardly, although the characters had an annoying habit of frequently doing very stupid and predictably unfortunate things, which I could have warned them against! I suppose because it was children's fiction, they ended up doing the simple, obvious things. The plot moved along quickly, though, and the premise involved a fascinating conceit about stories coming alive by reading them aloud.

I didn't quite know what to make of the hinted romance between Resa and Dustfinger. I did like the development of Elanor's character. I always like it when you end up liking someone who was not at all likable at the beginning of the book.

The ending rather left me hanging - it felt too patched-up and abrupt, and didn't properly resolve the drama of the preceding hundred-odd pages. No doubt the author was setting up for a sequel.

Certainly not a timeless classic, but a very readable and enjoyable story.

A TOAST TO TOMORROW

2006-05-15T13:21:00.000-07:00

First things first .......

THANK YOU, ROSE, FOR SUGGESTING THIS BOOK!

Ok, I have to admit I didn't try very hard to track this book down to read because I really wasn't sure about it. I'm so glad I put forth the final effort though. If anyone else is having a hard time finding this book - don't give up! Given the fact that it was written in 1940(1?) it may be a bit difficult to locate. I believe Amazon has it and I intend to purchase a copy for myself. According to this library check out card located in the back of the book-- this book fell from interest sometime in the '70's. Pity.

World War II is my favorite period in history so I was immediately captivated by the book within the first few pages. I loved getting a fictional glance of the German powers from an "inside source" who put his own life on the line many a time in order to do things "right."

I have no idea what to say about it, really, except if you like clean action/adventure and are fascinated by people and events surrounding WWII -- you'll love this book. It boasts twists and turns and characters worth admiring. I positively loved it. Quick, easy read and fun story line!

Thanks for the read, Rose! Awesome pick.

Completely Unrelated

2006-05-05T08:01:00.000-07:00

My other readings from April....

Impossible Things a collection of short stories by Connie Willis
I was talking with a friend the other day who made the comment that good short stories are hard to find, but oh-so-wonderful when they are found. Connie Willis is a very intelligent woman who mixes her knowledge of history and science to make super believable science fiction landscapes in which to couch clever tales that almost always have more meaning that one initially suspects. I particularly liked her tribute 40's era romance plots in "Spice Program", and her super intelligent cut at political correctness using, of all things, Shakespeare! in "Ado", and finally, the depressing but beautiful "Schwarzchild Radius" in which she makes life mimic science. Oh, so much fun!

Calvin's commentary on the Galatians
I've found this one easier to read that the other's I've perused so far (Mark, Romans, Revelation, Genesis). I read them slowly, bit-by-bit, along with whatever Bible study I'm in, and that way, some day, I will get through them all. I continue to appreciate his clear passion for the sacredness of the Word, and his deep love for God.

The Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell
SO interesting!! I highly recommend it. Really, everyone should read this! Quick, easy, but so fascinating I took my time with it.

Breaking the Da Vinci Code
eh, whatever. Ok, I suppose, but not too well written, not as scholarly as I would like, and not terribly compelling, although I agreed with his "facts". Certainly not an intelligent-feeling, page-turner like the book it is discussing.

I've been reading less recently, so that's all folks! :)

IT'S THAT TIME AGAIN

2006-04-27T21:41:00.000-07:00

Hey all,

This weekend or early next week I'll update the side bar with May's reads. They are, all confirmed, as follows:

1. Inkheart - by Cornelia Funke (Anneke)
2. 'Till We Have Faces - by C.S. Lewis (Rose)
3. The Man Who Knew Too Much - by G. K. Chesterton (Erika); and
4. The Unexpected Mrs. Pollifax - by Dorothy Gilman (Sky)

At this point, of course, I'd like to go forward in choosing books for June.

In scouring past entries, I've collected former suggestions and I would propose the following:

PRIMARILY IN HONOR OF ERIKA NOT HAVING ANY MORE BOOKS TO SUGGEST FROM HER OTHER BOOKCLUB AND IN CELEBRATION OF NOT BEING INFLICTED BY ANYMORE BOOKS ON VIETNAM *ahem* I would suggest we read two books that she really WANTED to read (and I do too!):

1. The DaVinci Code - by Dan Brown (Erika);
2. The Little Prince - by Antoine de Saint-Exupery (Erika);
3. A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court - by Mark Twain (Carrie); and

*drum roll, please*

4. Beau Geste! - by Percival Wren (Rose)

Rose suggested that some time back and Karen's
recent blog post on the book has me positively itching with curiosity. It must be satisfied.

What say ye?

As for my current reading status -- the library finally has a copy of Drink to Tomorrow in so I shall devour that sometime early next week and post my thoughts then. I just couldn't stand the thought of attempting another Vietnam based saga so I skipped The Quiet American. Mitford has been far too consuming. However, I can honestly say that there's not a book I'm avoiding during the month of May and I fully expect to get through them all in record time (as I also work my way through the Mitford series which currently has me positively captivated).

Anyway, this would be a good time to share one's thoughts on the suggested list for June. Otherwise I'll assume (as I usually do anyway) that everyone agrees with me completely and will post the list as Confirmed soon enough. ;)

Ani's Future Picks

2006-04-11T20:41:00.000-07:00

Two ideas for future reads:

1) I just finished Atonement, by Ian McEwan. Haunting. It was recommended by Dr. Leithart, and I'd like to know what the rest of you think of it.

2) This is for Carrie, after her outburst Re: Amy Carmichael. Pandita Ramabai is known as the first Indian ( east ) woman to speak out on behalf of the plight of Indian women. She believed firmly that her allegiance was to her home country first, instead of to England. She rose against the tide of many Western missionaries who sought to create English churches and culture in India. I'd like to know more about her. Anybody interested in reading a biography about her?

The Quiet American

2006-04-11T19:46:00.000-07:00

I started this book with a sense of duty, a novel to be read because it had been assigned to me. After a few chapters, I was drawn in to the Greene's secondary world of war, cynical journalists, and bright young things trying altruistically to solve the problems of the world. I kept reading, not because I enjoyed the descriptions or the scenery, but because I wanted to know what he would say through this novel. I was not dissapointed.
A key theme, as Sky pointed out, is the concept that innocence equals stupidity. Greene wants us to see firsthand why innocence, or naivete, leads to more death and destruction. There are characters, such as Captain Trouin, who have already lost their innocence through the horror of way. There are 'innocents', such as Pyle, who waltz in and try out their easy solutions of democracy. And finally, there are those, such as Fowler, who seek to remain aloof and cynical.
If the main conflict lies between Pyle and Fowler, the turning point occurs when Fowler finally involves himself in the war. As his friend Captain Trouin predicted, 'One day something will happen. You will take a side.' Fowler finds that he can no longer remain aloof. He has seen the destruction of the bomb left in the town square, and knows that Pyle is behind the event. The image of the man without both his legs haunts him. Greene shows the impossibility of remaining uninvolved through a speech of Mr. Heng: 'Sooner or later, one has to take sides. If one is to remain human. ' Yet in plotting the murder of Pyle, Fowler destroys himself. Through his is never arrested for his crime, he lives with the guilt of murder.
As much as I hated Fowler for his selfishness, Greene made me sympathize with him more than with Pyle. Pyle was a 'gentleman', who risked his life to tell Fowler that he loved Phuong. He made no secret that he planned to marry her in America, a 'proper' wedding. But he is naive. He lives with Phuong before the wedding, reasoning that the ends justify the means. He never seems to comprehend the reality of the war. The death of the civilians in the town square is simply a 'mistake', and the extra annoyance of getting one's shoes shined.
Fowler is a cynic but also a realist. He knows that life is not always cut and dried. Also, he alone grieves for the civilians wounded by the bomb. In the end, it is his viewpoint which is the most honest. Life is complicated. There is an ultimate right and wrong, but there is also the lesser of two evils. War is insanity, and one must do the best one can in each situation. There are no easy answers. While it was wrong to kill Pyle in order to regain Phuong, his death may have saved the lives of some civilians. Phuong and Hei both show the impossibility of remaining neutral. Neither seem to realize their connections, but we see that Hei works for the office which plants bombs such Operation Bicyclette. Phuong is involved with Pyle, who also works for the office. Neither realize that civilians have died because of this work. Both characters are 'innocent' in the sense that they are naive, but both have unknowingly taken sides.
I believe that Greene wanted us to see that war is madness in the sense that there are no simple, easy answers. You cannot avoid taking a side. In the end you must take a side and choose the lesser of two evils. The greatest evil is to remain 'innocent', uncomprehending, fighting according to an outdated theory of war and never really seeing or feeling the realities of war. Such people are dangerous because they are blind.

ERAGON

2006-04-10T15:30:00.000-07:00

Hmmm....mixed thoughts on this book. Mostly I found it more curious than riveting.

I was annoyed with it at first because every time I read the name Eragon I thought "Aragorn" and every time I read Carvahall I thought "Cair Paravel." I was beginning to have severe doubts towards Paolini's ability to tell an original story when Saphira hatched from her egg. It bore a striking resemblance to Rowling's description of a dragon's hatching in The Sorcerer's Stone. This is to say nothing of the similarities between Brom and Gandalf. Or the dwarves and elves. Esp. the pretty elf that he's attracted to. Sigh.

I imagine its getting harder and harder to be an original, esp. when movies are making certain fantasy stories so popular and well-known. Paolini, I suppose, made a valiant effort. I'm not sure if I'm curious enough to read the rest of the trilogy. He wins points by making Saphira such an integral part of the story. Without her, this book would be lost in the Lord of the Rings and Narnia storm. (Oh. Well, I do have my suspicions about Eragon's parents and I'd probably read the other two books to find out if I'm correct!)

Yup, my opinion it is Saphira who makes the entire book worth it. The other noteworthy thing to mention, of course, is that Paolini was home schooled and wrote this book after graduating from high school at age fifteen. I always like a good successful home schooler story. This seems to be one of them -- even if I don't find it top notch. I was entertained. And sometimes that's enough.

The Quiet American

2006-04-06T07:05:00.000-07:00

Evidently the title has an unspoken punch line; the only quiet American is a dead American.

What a portrayal of bitterness. I cannot help but wonder if Greene ever met a true American instead of the Hollywood version.

I felt very sorry for the stupid, Alden Pyle. Probably because he is American but partly because I was desperately trying to like someone and I detested Fowler. Pyle's stupid visions and irregular actions did result in his death and the death of his best friend, the only friend he had that was true to the end, Duke. But I feel that the writing of his character smears the men that were a part of the tragedy of Vietnam. Yes it is one of the biggest mistakes that America has ever taken part in but there were some honest, hardworking men who were trying their best to resolve a bad situation. I know, I have talked to them.

Innocence in this book is displayed as the epitome of stupidity.

And I can't help but wonder who in their right mind would send an idiot like Pyle into a situation that he obviously couldn't handle. I guess that comes back to Greene's views of Americans.

I read that some consider Fowler to be the normal British character of instinctive decency and wholesome common sense. I think he is a villain of the worst kind. The kind that stands by and doesn't do enough the kind that betrays by not caring.

"What's the good? He'll always be innocent and you can't blame the innocent, they are always guiltless. All you can do is control or eliminate them. Innocence is a kind of insanity." - Fowler in regards to Pyle.

I think I somewhat get what Fowler was meaning, he was fed up with the stupid Americans who didn't have a clue as to why they were there or what they were doing. In that, he was right.

As for the underdeveloped character of Phuong I can't help but wonder why Greene even wrote her in except to give a very small picture of how women of the East have learned to roll with the punches and do whatever it takes to remain alive. Her impassive countenance and swerving loyalty is evident that she cares not about who she is with but only that she is with one who cares for her needs.

The one I sympathized with was Vigot who seems to be doing the best he could in a time where there was no real Right and Wrong.

In the whole I hated that there were no strong characters, no hope and no real "happy ending".

Am I missing some hidden meaning? Is there more to the story and I didn't see it? I am not very good at defining hidden parallels.
I am looking forward to learning more about this book from y'all.

THE LIFE AND LEGACY....

2006-03-30T08:09:00.000-08:00

Ok, I know it's not April yet but I just finished A Chance to Die and it's covered in post-in notes. I have to write my review now.

I had read the children's version of her biography entitled With Daring Faith way back when with some girls in my Sunday School class. I was impressed with Amy Carmichael and loved her daring doings. Years later, when I discovered the book A Chance to Die I couldn't wait to get my hands on it. I've been wanting to read it for about three years now and finally stumbled across the book in a used book store a couple of months ago. Elation!

Now I'm glad I bought it used.

Where do I begin? I eagerly leapt into this book only to find myself screaming over several passages and, like I said, making extreme use of the post-it note. I did wish to chunk this book across the room on multiple occasions and if you've gotten your hands on a copy of it, you know it's a book that could cause some damage if tossed, let alone directly aimed.

For one, I knew that Amy and I were entirely opposite of each other when I discovered that, "She hated exclamation points on a printed page. When her publishers arbitrarily inserted them in Things as They Are she was incensed. 'So fussy. They give an idea of overemphasis.'"

When I think of who I could compare Amy to, the name Bill Gothard springs to mind. Over and over again. From her views on women's clothing (never let the ankle show!) to her views on the potential separation of families in ministry. I think the most telling sentence in the entire book, and the one that makes me think of Gothard the most is on page 266 where it states, "Those who could not bring themselves to subscribe to the standard Amy believed she had received from God were, in her view, turning away from Him."

I can take an individual owning a different opinion than myself. There is plenty of room in the body of Christ for diversity of personality and talent. What I do not take kindly to is the insinuation that one person has been given great wisdom and insight, and if the rest of us do not follow suit, we are misguided and, perhaps worse yet, nominal Christians (a phrase she seemed someone keen on). There is no grace is such an opinion and I find there is little to argue against it with. I find it highly unfortunate in situations such as the Donhnavur Fellowship (otherwise known as "DF" and hereinafter referred to as "The Compound."). There were multiple opportunities for Amy to welcome outside help/missionaries/friends to help with the work. Who is to say what great contributions and advancements could be made in not just the education of the children, but the general health and well-being of them? As the book stated time and time again, there was no disagreement found in the Compound. Amy's word was law. Those who disagreed were asked to leave or left on their own accord. Strangely enough, she never seemed to find this unusual. "There is no instance on record of Amy's accepting another's guidance after she believed she had been given clear guidance in a matter." (page 352)

It seems clear from the book that she found females to be the dominate sex in the species. "It was often said that the men's work was spiritually at a lower level than the women's." (page 300) I think this attitude towards men is very telling in the example of the Indian who had been in the Dohnavur camp for awhile and asked another of the men whether "the men found it difficult to work under female authority." "One hundred percent of them, " was [Taylor's] reply. "But the women? Never, in all my wanderings, have I seen thirty or forty women live together in such harmony as I saw in the DF." (page 284) My mind boggles at the complete disregard given to the strength and wisdom of men. I find this utterly distasteful and a slap in the face of the men who came to over their skills and talents (in the hospital and otherwise) and were constantly curtailed by what Amy felt was right.

Now, before I go on (and I could go on and on and on) I should say that I find it completely comprehensible that God could and would give an individual such wisdom and insight as to carry out so great a work as Amy Carmichael did. I do not wish to downplay the benefits and blessings she brought to Indians, particularly the young girls. Her work was admirable. What I am bothered by is her complete disregard for the form and function of the body of Christ. There seemed to be little to no room for another individual's opinion, skills or talents. There seemed to be lack of consideration towards the feelings and/or callings of others. The amount of times the title "nominal Christian" was used towards people who weren't willing to, say, travel third class every where they went, is, quite frankly, appalling.

BTW, I do not begrudge her the desire to "go the lowly route" and travel third class. I would not begrudge anyone that preference, if that was what they felt they were called to do. Nor would I find fault with anyone who chose not to read novels. But to label another person "nominal" who chose the comforts of first class or chose to read a great novel is below the belt and uncalled for. That is what I find disturbing and I'm unable to appreciate many of her works as a result.

I also stand staunchly opposed to her views on separating a husband and wife who were either once called together or separately to the ministry. The book gives two examples of such a thing. On page 299 we are told the story of an Indian couple who were separated, at first, due to adequate housing. This arrangement was initiated by Amy. The family remained separated for the rest of their lives. The running phrase was, "Nothing but the king's business." I would argue that if a person marries, part of that King's business is remaining faithfully devoted to the person God gave to you to be with. To forsake them for another person's idea of what is right or wrong for you is just plain hogwash. If married the husband is to love the wife an the wife to respect the husband. A couple can never learn to do this if they are permanently separated. There was another story told of a couple that ministered within the Compound when the wife decided to take their young child back to England for his education. Once in England, for whatever reason, she decided to stay and asked for her husband to join her. Amy thought such a request was ridiculous as she did not wish to lose the husband to the work at hand. She encouraged him to stay. The missionary board over him commanded his immediate return to his wife. Amy felt the man had been given no choice although she regretted him going. This is unimaginable to me. To think it right and proper to separate a husband and wife, a child and father?

I have many more post-it notes to go and a few more good rants, but I shall stop here without getting into education, the idea of exposing the children to outside influences so as to build up their maturity in Christ, and/or her views on personal prayer requests. Needless to say, I did not see eye-to-eye with her on any of these matters.

Am I grateful for her work in India? Yes. Do I think it was an admirable life's choice? Yes. In and of itself I have nothing to say against it. What rankles is the fact that if you did not choose to see things as she saw them or do things as she did them, you were not viewed as "on the level", shall we say? I find it hard to admire an individual who is so close-minded so as to leave no room for the opinions and idea of others or, as the book mentioned, to doubt their calling. I can only imagine the frustration felt by those who considered themselves "called" to the work (who can say for sure?) who did not find a twin in Amy and were disillusioned to the work. I find that, at best, pitiable.

In short (haha) I did not like this book.

!!!!!!

MAY PROPOSAL

2006-03-28T08:34:00.000-08:00

Ready to pick May's books?

Reading through the list of various books y'all have recommended we read, I would suggest the following:

1. Inkheart - by Cornelia Funke (Anneke);
2. 'Till We Have Faces - C.S. Lewis (Rose);
3. The Man Who Knew Too Much - by G.K. Chesterton (Erika); and

4. I don't know. I like Sky's pick so much last month I'm inclined to go with whatever she says. I'd throw out "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court" by Mark Twain or "The House on the Strand" by Daphne Du Maurier as suggestions but if Sky has something fun in mind, I'm all for that! =D What say ye all?

At The Back of the North Wind

2006-03-16T07:03:00.000-08:00

It took me awhile to sit down and read it, and then once I started I smiled and remembered how much I loved it!
I enjoy the writing style, it's so simple and sweet but it has so much hidden meaning. I love the story, it's sort of a Pilgrims Progress in a way, we all walk the same Path of Life but we all walk it differently.

I love that Diamond was named for his Daddy's favorite horse. If my horse didn't have such a weird name I might have done the same thing...

The end leaves you with so much hope because you know that Diamond's adventure has just begun and he can stay forever in the place that was so special to him.

It reminds me of the end in the last book of Narnia, they are sad because they don't want to leave again and Aslan tells them that they don't have to because they will stay forever and it isn't the end of anything but it's the beggining of everything!