Popular Posts

07 June 2011

Book Review The Seven Wonders of Sassafras Springs

The Seven Wonders of Sassafras SpringsThe Seven Wonders of Sassafras Springs by Betty G. Birney
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

A nice little collection of vignettes designed to encourage us to open our eyes to the world around us and be tourists in our own town.  And also to be better folks.   Magical realism for the elementary set.


View all my reviews

30 May 2011

Book Review Gregor the Overlander Series

Gregor the Overlander Box Set (Underland Chronicles, #1-5)Gregor the Overlander Box Set by Suzanne Collins

My rating: 4 of 5 stars


Collins, who is now more famous as the creator of the dystopian-future-riffic Hunger Games trilogy, started out on her authorial path with this five book series.  Inspired by her imagining what a big-city kid would find if he fell through a manhole like Alice fell through her rabbit hole into Wonderland, Collins has created an underland that has urban grit where Wonderland had bucolic oddity; a world of giant roaches, bats and rats, as well as regular sized humans with violet eyes and a violent nature.



The series is a well-constructed page turner with wonderful lessons on the futility of war, though one has to get through a lot of blood, gore and battle to learn the lessons.  Like most series of this nature, the tint gets darker as the plot progresses;  Gregor starts out as an innocent 11 year old boy but by the last book, though he is only 12, his world has been tainted by experiences and lessons that would scar any fallen adult.  There are many deaths, an Underland holocaust complete with allusions to gas chambers, and creatures who only know how to solve problems by killing other creatures. 



Yet, in the end, the reader is told that war is not the answer.  Even though it was for Gregor and the Underland.



A dichotomy.  Like life.



Pre-reading for my 7 year old;  I won't let him touch them until he's at least 10.



View all my reviews

25 May 2011

Book Review Cranford

CranfordCranford by Elizabeth Gaskell
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

I picked this up because I watched the BBC miniseries entitled "Cranford" recently and thought the production quite entertaining.


The book was lovely (though fans of the miniseries should know that the script writers took material from several other of Gaskell's books to round out the story of the miniseries;  the book, Cranford is much more limited in scope and plot).  I cannot decide whether I would have liked it without having seen the very well-acted and charming series, with Judi Dench, Imelda Staunton and other lights of the British screen.


But, then again, perhaps I would have liked it if I had come to it without the BBC.  The book itself is charming.  The world Gaskell describes is rather foreign but one finds foothold quite quickly.  These are ultimately human characters, even if their spinster world of elegant economy and living on a yearly stipend is rather an unknown quality these days.


There is insight, too.  Gaskell writes, "I never knew what sad work the reading of old letters was before that evening, though I could hardly tell why.  The letters were as happy as letters could be - there was in them a vivid and intense sense of the present time, which seemed so strong and full, as if it could never pass away, and as if the warm, living hearts that so expressed themselves could never die, and be as nothing to the sunny earth."


And humor.  Lots of humor.  Take Miss Pole, for example, the town busy-body and gossip.  A conjuror comes to town and Miss Pole, determined to prepare scientific explanations for what she is about to see, sits down with an Encylopedia.  " Ah!  I see;  I comprehend perfectly.  A represents the ball.  Put A between B and D - no!  between C and F, and turn the second joint of the third finger of your left hand over the wrist of your right H.  Very clear indeed!  My dear Mrs Forester, conjuring and witchcraft is a mere affair of the alphabet!"


All in all, a lovely read.  Highly recommended.


View all my reviews

Book Review Guys Read: Funny Business

Guys Read: Funny BusinessGuys Read: Funny Business by Jon Scieszka
My rating: 2 of 5 stars

Eh.  Perhaps I didn't find this funny because I'm not a guy.


I did like the Adam Rex story, "Will."  I simply adored "Your Questions for Author Here" by Kate DiCamillo and Jon Scieszka.  But other than that, I was rather unmoved and, often, rather offended, particularly by the first story, which was about manipulating people and using people.  Not funny.


But I might buy the book someday for my kid, if only to get my hands on the two stories mentioned above, which rate much higher than the two stars I'm giving the whole thing.


View all my reviews

03 May 2011

Symptomatic?

I'm a bit late to the party wherein we all celebrate the death of bin Laden.  Or decry the celebration of the death of bin Laden.  Or party-poop the death of bin Laden by saying his erradication will mean nothing in the long run.  Or warn of the martyrdom of bin Laden.  Or refuse to give Obama credit.  Or refuse to give Bush credit.  Or any of the other veritable myriad of ideas floating around the internet in the wake of bin Laden's death.  What I haven't seen reflected in the multitudinous blogs, Facebook posts and Twitter feeds, though, is the idea that bin Laden is merely a symptom.  Not a cause.

It's 1979.  The main enemy of the United States is the Soviet Union so the United States funds the Afghan Mujahideen as they fight against the Soviets.   But when it is obvious that the Afghan insurgents are destined to lose, the U.S. stops all funding, putting the the Afghan rebels in a much weaker position and, ultimately, causing its demise.

We can argue and pontificate whether bin Laden was a direct recipient of these funds or whether he received any specialized training from CIA operatives.  I have no idea.  And there are people who insist that the US never funded the Afghan rebels at all.   Again, I have no real way of proving or disproving any of these stories.

But let's, for a moment, presume that the story is true;  that the U.S. threw money at a group of unpredictable rebels in hopes that they would do the dirty work of ousting the Soviets from Afghanistan.  Then when those unpredictable rebels were found wanting, the U.S. gave up on them and vanished.

If this did happen, it is nothing short of reprehensible.  The philosophy behind funding insurgents to fight as soldiers-for-hire in some sort of undeclared war for world domination is inherently problematic, of course, but to fund them and then abandon them mid-fight is downright horrid.

Again, I'm not claiming this as truth.  But if it is true (and it likely is) that makes Bin Laden a symptom;  a symptom of the failed diplomacy and failed political maneuvering of the government of the United States.  A symptom of America's inability to sell its democracy to troubled areas without holding hands with people who run almost entirely counter to democratic ideals.  A symptom of the Machiavellian "the end justifies the means" philosophy.  A symptom of sacrificing pawns in a larger game of chess where the pawns, ultimately, don't matter.

And sometimes the pawns get pissed.  And sometimes the pawns gain power.  And then what?

If I were a more astute historian, I would  outline all of the regimes and dictators that the United States has supported solely for the purpose of jettisoning a marginally worse regime or dictator.  Then I would dissect the benefits derived from, as well as the problems created by, these associations and partnerships.

I am not, however, an astute historian.  Regardless, here's a list, off the top of my head;
Ngo Dinh Diem (Vietnam), Chiang Kai-Shek (China), Idi Amin (Uganda), Franco (Spain), Pinochet (Chile), Sadam Hussein (Iran), Muammar al-Qaddafi (Libya), Noriega (Phillipines), Mubarek (Egypt), the Contras (Nicaraugua).

Hmmm.  So you join forces with the playground bully because you want to win at dodge ball during recess.   But then, when you go inside and sit back down at your desk, the bully starts to make the kind of trouble that is not acceptable within the mores of the civilized classroom. What do you do?  Stand up for him because he helped you win dodge ball?  Or abandon him because you're playing a different game and he's not helping now?  And if you abandon him, will he find you after school and beat the crap out of you?

Tough one.  I guess it all depends on how much that one game of dodge ball means to you.

None of this to defend bin Laden.  Nor will I pretend that I know the intricate details of why the United States seem to continually get in bed with people who aren't good for it in the long run.  But America does seem to have a habit of throwing in its lot with spurious characters and then not knowing what to do with these spurious characters when they have served their short-term purpose.  And sometimes those spurious characters get angry and retaliate, leaving us with a Laurel and Hardy "this is a fine mess" moment.  Or we're left with something much, much worse.

So maybe we ought not get in bed with spurious characters in the first place?

Oversimplifying, certainly.  But still food for thought.

28 April 2011

Book Review: Attachments

AttachmentsAttachments by Rainbow Rowell
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

I don't read novels written for adult-type personages and never would have picked this up if not for the fact that Rainbow Rowell worked in a Nebraska newsroom eons ago with my husband;  I have been a fan of her writing, if not a regular consumer, for over 15 years.


And if that wasn't enough, the book is actually about that previously mentioned newsroom, with characters based on the people therein, including my husband.


And then add to that the fact that two of my closest friends and I have email relationships (and now chat relationships, because, you know the times ... they are a'changin') much like the two lead characters in this book.


So, on the surface, what's not to like?


(Now I've led you into what you think will ultimately be a bad review, right?   Well, except for those five glaring stars above, which kind of give it away)


I loved this book.   Maybe I loved it because Rainbow is a friend.  Maybe I loved it because the fictionalized version of my dear husband reminded me of what he was like when he had hair (though Rainbow does not mention his hair, so perhaps it is only me who recalls it fondly).  Maybe I loved it because it I knew that newsroom and I lived through the ridiculousness of the beginning of the internet age.


But mostly I think I loved it because I loved the characters Rainbow created.  I loved the conceit of only getting to see two characters through their correspondence with each other.  I loved the amount of good-natured funny in the dialog and description.


And there's a lot of good-natured funny; I usually dog-ear things that make me laugh or think while I'm reading a book.  I didn't dog-ear because, well, Rainbow signed it, and then defaced it, replacing the name of the printed character based on my husband with my husband's name, so I figure that our son will be able to take it to the Antiques Roadshow someday.  Also, and this is probably the more-so reason, I would have had to dog-ear almost every page.


I'm just going to open up the book at random and give a sampling;


"I'm starting to think you have a problem.  With school."

"I've never had a problem with school," he said, knowing how lame that sounded, knowing that refusing to take part in the conversation wasn't the same as avoiding it.

"You know what I mean," she said.  She wagged a dirty spoon at him.  "A problem.  Like those women who get addicted to plastic surgery.  They keep going back and going back, trying to look better until there is no more better.  Like they can't look better because they don't even look like themselves anymore.  And then it's just about looking different, I think.  I saw this woman in a magazine who looked like a cat.  Like a cat of prey, a big cat.  Have you ever seen her?  She has a lot of money.  I think she might be from Austria."

"No," he said.

"Well, she looks very unhappy."


I can pretty much guarantee that whatever page you turn to, you can find something worthy of quoting out of context for a laugh.


Of course, funny quotes out of context does not a book make. And, honestly, that was my concern when I started reading;  that this book would simply be a collection of clever-and-funny, with a story that was only constructed incidentally and slap-dashedly to shore up the clever-and-funny;  clever-and-funny for the sake of clever-and-funny.


Imagine my gratification when I found myself caring about the characters.  When I found myself rooting for them.  When my heart would beat faster because I knew their hearts were beating faster.   When, though I knew how it must end, I was still unable to put the book down until it did end.


So what's not to like?  Even if you don't know Rainbow or the newsroom in Nebraska, you will love this book, the world she created, the words her characters say and type and the relationships they build.  You'll wish it were you.  Then you'll email your best friend and tell her you love her.


View all my reviews

27 April 2011

Book Review: Thames

The Thames: Sacred RiverThe Thames: Sacred River by Peter Ackroyd
My rating: 1 of 5 stars

Ugh.  Less a history than a listing.  No footnotes.  No bibliography.  No depth.  If I knew the details of the history of England as it relates to the Thames, maybe I would have loved this book for putting it all in one place.  As it stands, I read it because I wanted to know more about the history and got merely a listing of interesting facts that that I found less than interesting because most of the time I did not have the requisite backstory to put these facts in the correct context.


View all my reviews