Broken April

Broken April is the story about the Code that exists on the high Albanian plains. The premise of the Code is this. If someone murders one of your family members, you must murder them. Then when you murder someone else's family member, they must murder you. You can see how this cycle would lead to a lot of bloodshed. Those in the murder game wear black armbands. On top of this, there are more complex social and moral rules associated with the murder. The Code is called "Bessa"

The novel takes two paths. The first path is a young couple honeymooning on the Albanian plains. The husband is a social scientist, and for some reason thought that a way to celebrate his marriage would be to visit the murderous back country. The second is the story about a young man, who is caught up in the murder cycle, and now has to wear the black armband. He is traveling across the country to pay the tax for the murder that he commits at the beginning of the novel. 

The two paths cross here and there, and although they never speak, there is a connection between the young bride and Albanian. The story is very deep and complex as both the young bride and Albanian struggle with the moral issues associated with the Code, one as an outsider, and another as part of the machine. 

Reading this book, it wasn't terribly engaging since it moved slowly, the Code was so bizarre, and none of the characters interacted with each other. But after having taken a break from it, I think that the true value of this book is that which is unwritten (sort of like the Bessa itself?). The author leaves a lot of what the characters are thinking up to the readers imagination and provides merely the context for trying to understand this twisted old society. 

In summary, this book is not going to be anywhere near "thrill a minute", but at the same time, it is thought provoking and well written, and I can see why it made the list. 

In related news, I listened to a really interesting story on NPR this afternoon about how Albanians (who according to the story are primarily Muslim) sheltered German Jews during WWII. Not to make a political statement or anything like that, but because Bessa dictates that when visitors show up to your doorstep, you treat them as if they were your own family. This is how many of the Jews that made their way to the Albanian countryside survived during WWII, by donning the clothes of their hosts, and taking on Albanian names. 

Kim

I will be the first to admit that I have horribly neglected this blog. There have been a lot of things going on outside of my reading activity, and to be honest, looking back, I'm not even sure where the last 8 months went. 

I can only think of 3 books I read during that time. 

One of them is Kim. I picked Kim because I like the name, and due to stress and other things, I was going for some long hanging fruit. And a book written in the 1950's for an audience of 15 year old boys was just the ticket. 

Kim is a little Indian orphan boy who does what most little Indian orphan boys do - beg for food, scamper around, and carry messages of war for horse traders. In his city, Kim meets up with a priest, who requires some help, because the priest does not have the street savvy that Kim does. So, Kim embarks on a long journey with the priest to find the River of Life, which takes him across the plains, up the mountains, and allows him to meet a whole colorful cast of characters. 

There is a little twist in the plot though, as Kim's dad was a white man and his mother was Indian. On their journey, Kim is found by an English regiment and placed into a boy's school for the children of white men. 

This book was nice, and uncomplicated. There was a lot of really great scenery and character development, and of course you have the inherent conflict between "Kim the Sahib" and "Kim the Scamp" as he struggles to find his identity in colonial India. The story is about how people from unlikely backgrounds interact with each other as well - the Bengali, Tibetan Monk, and Arab horse trader all serve as defacto guardians for Kim, ensuring that he has an adventure, but not enough adventure to get himself killed. 

I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings

In 1899 Paul Laurence Dunbar published a poem entitled "Sympathy". I don't think he imagined that a line from this poem would become inspiration for one of Maya Angelou's autobiographies. The story opens with Maya (called Marguerite by all but her brother Bailey) and Bailey are essentially left on the doorstep of their grandmother (Momma) in Stamps, Alabama. We then journey with Maya and Bailey through their lives until Maya turns 16.

Through the eyes of a young girl, we see how bad racism was (and, sadly, probably still is) in the south. We journey with Maya as she learns to face the racism head on, and while it clearly affects her, she is far from succumbing to it. Her experiences are unlike anything that I could possibly imagine and yet Angelou's poetic language pulls the reader in with a universal understanding of her plights. Although racism is not the only issue that face Marguerite as she journeys through life, it is definitely the major theme of the novel. The problems that Marguerite face are not just hers, they are of her race, and on a broader level, the troubles of all people. Discovering who you are, where you fit and, when you don't like where you fit, attacking the issue head on to better yourself.

The book is written in such a way that almost each chapter can be read individually. They appear to be short stories, though there are definite themes that tie each one together as they follow Maya's progression into adulthood. The racism that Maya faces as she grows into adulthood is the tie between Dunbar's poem and the story itself. In the poem, Dunbar laments that the song the caged bird sings is a "prayer from his heart's deep core". I think that this is what Angelou is trying to convey throughout this autobiography, and my guess is the four other autobiographies that follow. While the bird might be caged, it still has a voice. Even if that is all that the bird has, it still has a hope for the future, for a better life. That's what I really got out of this novel. No matter how bad things may seem, there is hope for better. We just can't let the cage we're in keep us there.

Moral of the Story: Don't give up. The cage can be broken and someday we'll fly free.

The Black Dahlia

In the 1940's a young girl named Betty Short was murdered, being cut in half, her organs removed and a smiley (which is a gash ear to ear) cut into her face. This is the extent to which the real story of the Black Dahlia and the novel by James Ellroy are similar.

Ellroy's novel follows the rise of Bucky Bleichert to Warrant's Officer in the Los Angeles police department. While teamed up with Lee Blanchard, they discover the mutliated body. Although trying to discover who murdered the Black Dahlia is a major issue during the novel, it is not the primary focus of the story. Bucky and Lee's relationship, as well as Bucky's relationship with Kay Lake (who lives with Lee). It is very much a character driven story that plays itself out through the Black Dahlia murder case.

While the case of the Black Dahlia does play an integral part of the story, the journey to discover the killer is not the entire story. In fact, I wouldn't even consider the main plot. In my opinion, Bucky's development as a character, his figuring out who he is in light of everything that is going on around him, his character development. That's what's really important.

Overall I enjoyed the story. It was a bit gruesome when it described the young girl's mutilated body, and while I would have preferred to not read that part of it, I guess that it is pretty pivotal to the story. What I think that I enjoyed the most about this entire book was the fact that everything ties together. There are small details that are mentioned that seemingly have no connection to the entire story other than develop a charater trait. But by the end, all of those small details are some how tied to everything.

Moral of the Story: Historical fictions get the reader to research the real event and then become obsessed with it...if only for a short period of time.

I, Robot

When Issac Asimov created robots he gave them three laws that they must follow:

1) No robot may hurt a human being
2) Obey the orders given you by a human unless it violates Law Number 1
3) Self preservation, providing it does not violate Laws number 1 or 2

Now I've seen about five and a half minutes of the movie starring the seemingly ubiquitous Will Smith, and let me tell you, that five and a half minutes was more exciting than the whole of the book.

Rather than being an exciting story about how robots have managed to manuever themselves around the three above stated laws, I, Robot follows robopsychologist (he seems to love making up branches of psychology) Dr. Susan Calvin and her experiences of using the three laws of robotics to figure out what is going on with various robots that seem to have broken the laws. It is actually nine short stories that have been strung together as Calvin's memories and reflections.

The book is, by no means, exciting. It deals with the characterization of these robots and how they have managed to explain to themselves their behavior. It is fascinating to have Dr. Calvin explain why the robots are behaving the way they are behaving. It is an exploration of human behavior on the most basic level. Unlike the complicated emotions that go into human decisions, robots "think" on a much more basic existence. In that respect, Asimov is able to consider what, to a human would be a complex human desicion, but to a robot is a matter of what was said to him and how it was said. Which is something that as humans, we deal with the same issue. Obviously we have many more emotions and thoughts occuring within our brains that are not felt or considered by robots. But removing those, we're able to examine how a human might consider basic conflicts of interest at the most basic point.

I'm not 100% sure that I would consider this a great science fiction novel. It seems to me to be an exploration of humanity with a science fiction spin on it. Had I not seen any commercials for the movie, and basing my decision solely on the book, I don't think I would have seen the movie. I just don't think it would have been an interesting movie...at all. So if you are expecting the movie to be anything like the book, don't. Given, I haven't actually seen the movie, but in the five and a half minutes I have seen, it's already superly different, which could be a good thing, I guess.

Moral of the Story: Be careful about what you say, and how you say it...you have no idea the conflict it will cause in a robot's mind...

The Brothers Karamazov

I was excited to read "The Brothers K" because I had once read a quote from Kurt Vonnegut somewhat along the lines of "All you need to know about life is within The Brothers K". The book is basically a story of patricide and how Fydor Karamazov's three legitimate sons and rumoured bastard child behave up to and after the murder. The plot pretty much touches on every topic it can, religion, sex, love, murder, family, and about a million more.

I really enjoyed this book. Each of the characters had their own flaws and shortcomings, but they attempted to love each other as best they could in their own way, despite jealousy, treachery, and having quite possibly the world's worst father. They did things to infuriate and screw each other over, but I like to think that underneath it all, if you get right down to it, they did really truly care for each other.

So, in some sense, Vonnegut was right. What you need to know is that people in this world are incredibly flawed, but it's the struggle between trying to overcome ones self and doing the right thing that makes life interesting and worth living.

Midnights Children

Midnight's Children is a loose allegory for events in India both before and, primarily, after the independence and partition of India, which took place at midnight on 15 August 1947. The protagonist and narrator of the story is Saleem Sinai, a telepath with a nasal defect, who is born at the exact moment that India becomes independent. Saleem Sinai's life then parallels the changing fortunes of the country after independence.

The story continues on how young Saleem uses his special midnight given telepathic power to bring the Midnights Children together. And as you can expect, children with varying degrees of special powers will try to overpower each other and there is conflict. In the meantime, outside of his head, Saleem's family moves to neighboring Pakistan and young Saleem goes through the struggles of youth with an inflated sense of self importance.

I think that my real issue with the novel is that you couldn't help but think that Rushde is a very self serving author. You get the impression that he is a hero in his own mind. He's not a particularly likeable protagonist, or very heroic, although his prose is written in such a way that it is constantly demanding that the reader sympathize with him and his big ugly nose with drippy nasal passages.

And then of course, outside the novel, you have all of the protests that this book caused when published because Arab's found it offensive. Granted it's no teddy bear named Muhammad, but I could see how it subtly paint's Pakistan in a less than favorable light.

It's really too bad that we don't have a label that is "eh" because that's how I sort of felt about this book. I didn't particularly like any of the characters or reading about boogers for pages on end, the plot wasn't thrilling, but at the same time, I wouldn't necessary say that this book was "bad". It was interesting to read, but nothing that you need to run right out and read this instant.

Oliver Twist

When I was in intermediate school, as that's what it was called at the time, I performed in a little musical that you might have heard of called Oliver. While in Oliver (I played the part of the Second Bobby something...it was a cop, which became a part I played frequently) I read a little kid's version of Oliver Twist. So going into this book, not only did I know the basics of the story, as I think many people know the basic story of Oliver Twist, but I thought that I had a pretty good handle of what was going to happen.

Well, let's just put it this way, the musical is wrong and the kid's book leaves some stuff out. Well, the musical also leaves stuff out. The basic story is that a child is born, his mother dies, he is named Oliver Twist, put in an orphanage that treats him (and all the children) badly, he takes a job at an undertaker's (and by takes read: is forced), he runs away to London, falls into a band of thieves, escapes, gets dragged back in, escapes again, all the while trying to discover who his family is, although we have already managed to figure out who he is related to.

Along the way he runs into many different characters, some good, some questionable. Now if you are familiar with the musical, he meets many of the same characters, though they are treated and introduced quite differently. For instance, Fagin is this happy character who we love in the musical. However, in the book he is this evil coneiving character that we hate. Likewise is the Artful Dodger, who is a not quite as questionable as Fagin, but not exactly the nicest character, though by no means evil. Nancy, a member of Fagin's gang, much to her distaste, is about the same, as is Bill Sykes, the bully and spiteful character of the book. There are also a couple of new characters that are introduced and many that are introduced considerably earlier. Unlike the musical, which has a deux ex machina at the end (if I remember properly), the book all leads up to a nice and clean ending in which the fate of all the characters of the story is explained so you are left with no questions as to what happens to who.

In the terms of a story, it's interesting, if a little repetitive to hear Oliver constantly complain, whine and cry his way through the novel. My biggest complaint is that it suffers the same problem that all serial novels from the 1800s suffers. There is too much that is really unimportant to the overall plot of Oliver. It's written in terms of a biographer and Dickens more than once references the reader as the biographer. Would I suggest that someone read it? Absolutely. Not only is it a classic and Dickens a master of the English language, but it's just one of those books that you should have under you belt.

Moral of the Story: Don't be an orphan, it sucks. And if you are an orphan, stop crying, and find your, undoubtedly, rich relatives.

Silas Marner

Silas Marner is the story of a bitter old miser (are there any other kinds of misers?). When he was younger he got screwed over by his best friend and accused of stealing money from the church. Silas left the town and started weaving in another town (this is actually where he became a miser). Silas spends his entire life collecting the money that he makes from weaving. He keeps it in a little box and counts it every night, it's all that gives him any pleasure whatsoever. I kinda picture Silas like Scrooge McDuck swimming through his money in that giant bank thing he had.

Well, as time goes by, and as all stories must have some major plot twist, someone breaks into Silas's house and steals all of his money...imagine that. Well, don't feel too bad...things turn out okay for Silas. Instead of money, a young child makes her way into Silas's house, don't ask, it's a long story. Silas raises little Eppie all by himself and becomes well respected in the town for his ability to raise her as if she was his own without a mother figure, which, apparently is the only acceptable way to raise a child.

We spend the rest of the book observing Silas's change with the introduction of Eppie. It was an enjoyable book, if a little predictable and perhaps, dare I say it, trite. The book is not particular plot driven, it is much more character driven. I don't know that I would reread the book ever, however, it was a good book to read once.

Moral of the Story: Don't be greedy, because you'll probably lose it all and have to find something new to amuse yourself and discover a new purpose.

Foundation

Foundation is supposedly one of the books that made Isaac Asimov one of the greatest science fiction writers ever. Part of a trilogy, that I think became a tetrology, later moving on to become just a series with some seven or eight books, Foundation begins with Hari Seldon, who is a psychohistorian. Using probability, Seldon discovers that the entire Galatic Empire (which has ruled for some 13,000 years or something like that) will collapse within 500 years leading to 30,000 years of barbarism and disintegration of the human race. To that end, he has created a group of scientists who are creating an Encyclopedia Galactica that will maintain all human knowledge. By doing this, his group of scientists will be able to keep the barbarism from 30,000 to a mere 1000 years. Through his probability research, he is able to determine actions to take that will ensure a certain future for the Empire. Under the guise of creating this encyclopedia, the scientists create The Foundation and manage to talk to Empire to grant them two planet on the (opposite) outskirts of the galaxy...or universe. I can't remember. This is the setup for the rest of the novel, and, I'm guessing, the series.

Fastforward 50 years: The Foundation is at risk of destruction by its neighboring planets. What do we do? Well, we argue you about it for many pages, carefully reviewing both sides of the coin. Finally the time capsule that was created 50 years earlier goes into motion (Hari Seldon created it, knowing this time would come). Hari Seldon explains, via hologram, that what the Foundation is the first of many crises (which would later become called Seldon Crises). Basically, Seldon explains, that there will be multiple crises that will help lead to The Foundation taking over the galaxy and becoming the Second Empire and THAT was why they created it, not to make an Encyclopedia Galactica. Each of these crises will have only one well defined path and that path must be taken in order to achieve, well, domination.

Throughout the rest of the book we are fastforwarding through the infancy of The Foundation as we see what the new crisis is, and how it needs to be resolved. Most of the stories center around new characters, who, in many ways, are the same character with different names. I say this because all of the main characters who learn and figure out how to resolve the crisis have the exact same character traits. They are all observant and quick to pick up what is going on. They are also able to see how their actions will keep the course for The Foundation.

The novel has created a great story arc, that again, I can only guess is continued throughout the entire series. However, each separate story is a little too short to get any real personal investment in the characters. Yes, we have a great interest in the success of The Foundation, but none in the individual characters, and while I think that Asimov created The Foundation as its own character, and the main character, for that matter, we still needt o have an interest in the secondary characters for the novel to be of any interest. The most fascinating of the characters was Salvor Hardin. This is for two reasons. 1) He was the first of The Foundation to discover Seldon's true purpose and how to resolve it. And 2) he has two "stories" about him, so we have enough time to fully get to know him and like him.

It's a good novel, and I have an interest to see that The Foundation was success in it's quest to take over the galaxy after the destruction of the Galatic Empire. The book explores human conditions and human behavior through the eyes of the future, where rather than nations, we fight and show nationalism through planets. It's an interesting look into how we, as humans, will probably not change a whole lot. Of course, it is all speculation, but based on what I know of humans, I can see these things happening...even in a the future.

Moral Of The Story: Human behavior is predictable...even in the future. Hari Seldon proves it...

The Cloud Atlas

So here's the thing about Cloud Atlas, it's written in an interesting framework. To summarize one story is impossible, because it is actually 6 different stories (which, for the sake of names, we'll call AB, CD, EF, GH, IJ and K) that have a (very) loose connection. The framework is as such: A - C - E - G - I - K - J - H - F - D - B. That is to say, half of the first story, half of the second, half of the third, half of the fourth, half of the fifth, the sixth, the second half of the fifth and so on back to the first.

Each story explores a different Point of View (henceforth called POV) and a different narrative form. The first tells the story of Adam Ewing through his diary as he journeys (circa 1850, if I remember properly) from Australia to Hawaii. The second is told through the letters of Robert Frobisher to his friend (the full extent of this relationship is rather questionable) Rufus Sixsmith. The third is a "book" about Luisa Ray. The fourth is a movie about Timothy Cavendish, the fifth a historical account of a clone, Sonmi~451 and the final (or sixth) is the verbal telling of Zach'ry. Now the extent of the connection between these six tales is, like I said before, loose. Robert Frobisher comes across the diary of Adam Ewing. Luisa Ray knows Rufus Sixsmith and gets a hold of the letters of Adam Ewing. Timothy Cavendish, a book publisher, is given the book about Luisa Ray to publish. Sonmi~451 comes across the movie of Timothy Cavendish. And Zach'ry gets a hold of a recording of Sonmi~451's historical telling. That's pretty much it.

Most of the main characters, with the exception of Zach'ry, have a comet shaped birthmark in their armpit area. In Zach'ry's tale, the person with the birthmark is Meronym, a woman who visits Zach'ry's tribe (reincarnation perhaps...which would throw this particular reading into a blender). There are occasional other connections between the characters. For instance, Rufus being friends with both Robert and Luisa. Luisa sees the ship that Adam sailed on. But other than that, there really aren't any strong connections between them. The plots are extremely different, ranging from mere survival, to work, to getting out of an invalid's asylum, to bring down a society. The main characters are relatively similar in their personality traits, all striving for a better world and doing it passively.

While I enjoyed the book and found the stories quite interesting (though some more than others), the lack of connections disturbed me. Each story was completely independent of the other and the framework, which doesn't really make sense until the second half of the second story, serves the purpose of being a) creative, b) symbolic, c) a strainer of emotions. The drama is saved for the end, though each one builds up and then we're cut off. Each story essentially ends the same way: each character learns a valuable lesson about life and fighting for the underdog.

Overall the book was enjoyable, and I would even venture to say a great book...of short stories. As a unified novel, aside from the framework, I would disagree. I just think that the lack of overlaying story arch removes it from being a full fledged novel. Would I recommend it? Absolutely! If for no other reason than to explore different POVs and story narrative styles. But I would definitely not be expecting one well constructed story arch...expect six short stories, you'll be good to go.

Moral of the Story: Just because you intermingle the narrative, does not make the story connect.

Rites of Passage

Rites of Passage was written by William Golding, who is best known for his book "Lord of the Flies". Rites shares many of the same themes as Lord of the Flies - its a story of what happens when a group of people are isolated from societal norms and how they struggle as a group.

The premise of the novel is that Edmund Talbot (interestingly enough, on my recent trip to England, I saw the Talbot estate - they're kind of a big deal) is sailing to Austrialia to begin a job, which has been secured for him by his godfather. His elderly godfather asks that he keeps a journal of the voyage and mail it back to him as it will be of great entertainment to him.

There were several reasons that I liked this book. The first of which is that Golding didn't just write a novel. He actually wrote a journal (Ph, what style of writing is this?). The chapters are misnumbered, Edmund soon realizes that the dates are of no relevance while aboard, and there is a chapter titled "Omega" about halfway through the book, when poor Edmund thinks that he is just about to wrap up his account of the voyage. It sort of reminds me of how my journal looks. The dates are approximate, sometimes when I write, I note the time and location, other times I do not. If I am trying a squeeze into a certain bridesmaid dress on November 9th, I jot down my weight to keep myself motivated. Othertimes things are just sort of random and illogical.

There are a lot of different things that happen in the book, and Edmund soons comes to realize that the social confines that he operates under on a daily basis in the real world, don't mean much while on the ship. He tries to maintain a sense of normalcy and still thinks himself a "true gentleman", however, in light of some incidents between the Captian of the ship and a Parson traveling, Edmund is put to the test. The book gets really interesting about halfway through, as Edmund realizes what really happened to the Parson and is prompted by the other characters to take action.

Like Lord of the Flies, the passengers are left to fend for themselves under social norms that they aren't used to. The characters struggle to maintain a sense of proper society, but at the same time, continously find themselves in challenging situations, all of which is documented by Edmund. The character development is very sneaky - at first I didn't think much of the characters or that they were highly developed, but then as the novel progressed, I realized that the key characters were highly complex individuals with extremely different motivations.

At the end of the novel, Edmund states as a grand conclusion, "With a lack of sleep and too much understanding, I grow a little crazy, I think, like all men at sea who live too close to each other and too close thereby to all that is monstrous under sun and moon"

Moral of the Story: "When going to Austrailia, consider taking a flight"

The Old Man And The Sea

While the premise of this story sounds exceedingly boring, I have to admit that I actually enjoyed it. A man, going out fishing for however many pages, b to the oring. Really. It was good. Really. It didn't have too much of Hemmingway's typical misogynistic perspective. Now, this may have been because there were no female characters to speak of, but that's fine. There was no need for female characters. It's about a man...an old man, some might say. And the sea. And of course the fish.

It is actually interesting to see what fishermen deal with. See how much work it takes to reel in a marlin. The amount of respect that fisherman has for the fish that he is hunting is incredible. It's actually a beautifully written tale. I can easily see why this is considered one of the 1001 books. It was good. You could see the marlin as it jumped into the air. You could see the flash of color on its side.

Ultimately this story is about not giving up. Plain and simple. The fish drags this man out like two days from shore, and the man has to drag the fish back two days to shore strapped to the side of his boat because of its immense size. It's an interesting story that balances between the man fighting against nature and the man fighting against himself.

And it is relatively short, so even if you don't like it, it's over pretty quick, though there are no chapters or anything like, so you might as well do it all in one sitting.

Moral of the Story: Don't give up, or you won't get the fish. Oh, and don't go out into the ocean for two days without enough water.

Nineteen Eighty-Four

As Luke so perfectly worded it "between [Brave New World] and 1984 they are the classic anti-totalitarian mantras". Nineteen Eighty-Four is a story set in, well 1984, in London. Unfortunately, it is a sick and twisted 1984 that, thankfully did not come to be. You know that phrase "Big Brother is watching you"? Well, here is where it comes from. Essentially the entire world is caught into thinking one thought. People are raised to report their neighbors, family, friends, any time they hear anything that might be against "Big Brother", an omniscent being that has strangely been alive and in office for like 60 years or something.

Now, this idea that everyone is thought to think the same thing is okay, as long as you are not one of the people that think against the majority. The other minor problem is that you're always bound to think something out of the ordinary or majority...which, could cause a problem. This is a world where only three countries, all totalitarian in nature, though they'll call themselves different, exist: Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia. These superstates are each in a war with one another indefinitely because they disagree with the other regime. Ingsoc, or English Socialism, is used in Oceania, Neo-Bolshevism in Eurasia and Obliteration of the Self in Eastasia. Essentially they are all the same and all ruled by a leader similar to Big Brother. So we're set in the world where no one does anything out of the ordinary...except our main character Winston Smith.

So here's the basics of the story. Take an entire world where no one can think differently, do anything out of the ordinary, can't even speak in sleep because a telescreen will report everything that happens back to Big Brother. And as Winston points out, thoughtcrime (just as it says, crime against what the state wants you to think) "does not entail death. Thoughtcrime IS death." It's a powerful and disturbing story that, sadly, seems more and more propethic than many people would be willing to recognize. Given, we've not reached the point where I can't type this without being taken in and tortured, but sadly it doesn't seem an impossible nightmare anymore.

The book chronicles Winston's journey from questioning to doubting to the outright disobeying of Big Brother. The story then goes into great detail of the "reprogramming" of Winston once he is captured. I found that the story left little to the imagination and even less to hope for the characters. It has, however, served as a wonderful cautionary tale. It was truly a fantastic novel and I found myself drawn in and fascinated through the entire novel.

Moral of the Story: Don't the government take everything over. Stand up, clear your throat, and exercise your voice and rights.

The Poisonwood Bible

An allusion to a type of tree that lives in the Congo where the Price family of missionaries travel in order to convert the natives to Nathan's brand of Christianity. The full allusion doesn't become clear until Adah, the second youngest daughter, mentions that she wants to start buying Bibles that have typos in it. Loins are changed to lion, murmur to murder, etc. In the Kikongo (please forgive any spelling errors I might make in my ignorance of the language, I don't have the book in front of me to correct them, it's not out of disrespect, just my own ignorance), the term for "precious" is the same as the name of the poisonwood tree with slight pronouncation differences. Throughout his brief term as preacher, Nathan ended his sermon by alluding to Jesus as being precious, but he used the wrong pronouncation and called Jesus the poisonwood. In one sweeping generalized sentence, I loved this book.

This one explanation of where the title came from is a perfect example of what the book focuses on. The misunderstandings, misuse, and ignorance of the American and European cultures and its damage to the African culture, the people, and ultimately the world. A story of seven different sections, six of which are named for books of the Bible, and open with verses from that book, followed by an introduction by Orleanna, the mother. Each section of the book unfolds through the eyes of one of the four daughters, Rachel, Leah, Adah, or Ruth May, and tells us of their strife and the damage that Nathan causes each of them as they grow. Used as a means of parallel, the way Nathan treats the women in his family is the same that America and Europe treated Africa. The book follows how the girls grow and, while they leave the missionary in Kilanga, the Congo never necessarily leaves them. In some ways haunted by what had occurred in their lives during those 20 or so month, the girls grow and establish themselves in whatever venue they choose to take. They are very distinct characters, even the twins, Adah and Leah, couldn't be more different, but at the same time so similar.

Each character's narrative draw us deeper and deeper into the story and the life that is both happening in and around them, but at the same time, crashing down around them. It's a beautiful and well written story, that provides, though fictional, incredible insight into what occurred in Africa in the 60s and onwards. While the story focuses on missionaries, I believe that it is less about God and Christianity, and more about the crimes that were committed by our country in the name of colonization and democracy. Much of what is written or said by the characters is poignant and powerful, spanning well beyond the limits of Africa.

My only concern was that at first I thought it was a bit long. There is a great deal of story following the exodus out of Kilanga. As these pages began to unfold, I realized more and more how necessary it was for the story. The story doesn't start or end with their mission project. It had started well before the Price family ever arrived and, I'd imagine, not only will continue after the death of the Price family, but all of their progeny. It is an ongoing story of our own greed, and self-interest.

I honestly don't think that I could recommend this story enough. It's beautiful and touching and emotional. Kingsolver's insight into humanity is incredible and it appears through the mouths of babes, as it were.

Moral of the Story: Those who never have, and don't know that they don't have, are probably 100% content. It isn't our job to force them otherwise.

Hard Times

I'm unsure as to my feelings on this book. It's one of those books that is kinda between good and bad. I wouldn't say that it is bad. Because it isn't. Predictable, yes. But bad, no. Perhaps that's ideal, though. In theory, shouldn't all books be some what predictable? Authors shouldn't randomly introduce something or throw in a deux ex machina to finish off the story. Chekhov once said that if you introduce a gun in the first line of a play, that gun should go off by the end (hence why it's been called Chekhov's gun). Nothing should be introduced for no reason which will play by the end.

Dickens is good at that. He throw things in that either have a greater purpose (i.e. metaphor) or will play a part later. Hard Times is no exception. Unfortunately, I think that the plot seems a little muddy at first. Maybe it's not muddy, maybe the river is just too wide and doesn't narrow until too far down the stream. We're introduced to the Gradginds and Bounderby. We can tell early on that Bounderby, probably in his forties at the start of the story, is in love with Louisa Gradgrind, roughly ten at the start of the story (which makes one cringe...ew). We also meet the rest of the Gradgrinds who are so intent on learning facts and ignore the emotions that one feels. Later we meet Sissy Jupe, who lives with a traveling circus (much looked down upon by Gradgrind) who is quite the opposite of the Gradgrinds who she moves in with after her father has run off. Ok, so the story is going to be Sissy teaching the Gradgrinds about how to show emotions and truly express their feelings.

Well, that story drops and we're introduced to Stephen Blackpool, who is a simple honest man, with a drunken wife that he's trying to escape from because she keeps dragging him down. We're also introduced to Rachel, who I couldn't figure out for a while who the hell she was, and Mrs. Pegler, who was easy to figure out her role in the story.

So, basically, within a short period of time, Dickens manages to throw 12 or so characters at us, all of which are connected within 6 degrees or so, but seemingly have no real connections. For each character, he has developed a path that they are to follow throughout the course of the book. Like a well written play, none of these characters are without a purpose. Yes, some are archtypes and extremities of characterization, but each one will play a part in either the further development of the main characters or the plot...which eventually becomes clear.

The plot is, as I understand it: Bounderby (who is so proud of his raising himself out of the gutters as his parent's abandoned him) marries Louisa (ew...but agreed to do it at her brother's (Tom Jr.) behest who was to work for Bounderby and wanted to give himself leverage). Tom Jr. is in desperate need of money and frequently takes from Louisa and is an ungrateful whelp, as we are told again and again (the downside of paying an author by the word). Meanwhile, Stephen, who asked Bounderby for help to escape his crazy-ass wife, has been kicked out of the plant because, well, I don't really understand that part, but I think it was because of his dispute with Bounderby, and as with all British novels, misunderstandings occur and hilarity ensues...only nothing was really funny. So Stephen leaves in order to find work elsewhere, at which point Tom Jr. tries to help him in some way. By trying to help him, Stephen becomes accused of a crime that, if you knew him, you'd know he wouldn't commit. As this is happening, Louisa leaves Bounderby because she is miserable and the death of her mother has brought her back to Stone House (where her family lives) and Sissy helps nurse her emotions and shows her compassion. Of course more happens and there are more characters, but to the overall story arc, they're truly unimportant.

In my opinion, there was nothing truly spectacular about this novel. It was enjoyable, though predictable, and had the type of ending all good Victorian stories should: the good get what they deserve and the bad get their just desserts. As I understand it, this was written for many purposes by Dickens. A novel on the working poor and their station in life. A parable to teach us all a valuable lesson on truth, morality and justice. And a little bit of a lesson in honesty to top it all off. Would I suggest reading this book if you're not on the quest to complete all 1001 novels? Probably not. Dickens has much better books worth reading, though the descriptions are typical of Dickens, richly defined and beautiful. So if you're looking for a quick read, I'd look elsewhere. But if you're looking for a book that many people have probably not read, but is decent enough, yea, take a crack at it. But don't blame me if you don't like it.

Moral of the Story: Emotions have a place in the world and shouldn't be neglected for the hard facts; the two should combine to make the person stronger. Oh, and don't lie, it's bad.

The Handmaids Tale

I was sort of excited to read the Handmaids Tale, because pretty much everyone who graduated from Williamsville North read it. Based on the fact that I was in the advanced English class and had certain teachers, I somehow managed to graduate high-school without having read this one.

Basically, set at some indeterminable point in the future, the Constitution is suspended the the US becomes the Republic of Gilead which is taken over by the religious right. And of course, because it's the religious right, sex is dirty and there are women appointed to do the dirty work of bearing children of the old impotent white men... the Handmaids. The novel is the personal narrative of one handmaid, Offred ("Of Fred" - get it?) as she reminisces about when she used to have a husband, kid, and normal life and navigates her way through attempting to become pregnant and all of the other craziness that is Gilead.

As a woman this novel really offended my sense of how things in this world are. From a very simplistic point of view, the main message that Atwood is trying to convey is that "white men are the source of evil". I looked up a few discussion boards and forums (just to see what other people thought were the main discussion points for this novel) and none of them really came out and said "white men are the source of evil", but sort of danced around it by talking about oppression of women, sexual freedom, etc.

To date, I can't recall any significant times that I've been told "no" due to the fact that I am a female. In this day an age, a girl can get an education, go to graduate school, and work in a large professional services firm and never have the feeling that she is being held back or somehow disenfranchised due to the fact that she is a female. She also is free to enjoy all of the pleasures of this world.... including the company of men. Since I'm in the working phase of my life right now, I look around and see that my company has lots of programs and women's networking circles. I've been matched up with some very strong female mentors, and in some ways, I feel as if though the women in the office and are connected to each other better than the men are. During my education, I never really felt as if though the fact that I was a female was holding me back - I won scholarships, I was elected to student government, I majored in a challenging major that traditionally has been mostly male, etc.

But anyway, back to Atwood and my highschool. I don't think that this book is appropriate to be teaching to suburban primarily white high school students for several reasons. The first is that the educators refuse to explicitly address the main point of the novel, which is "white men are the source evil" (can you imagine the parent phone calls that this one would get?) which is insulting their students intelligence and ability to reason. It's also not appropriate to make children think that their fathers, the ones who bring home half of the family income are somehow going to cause a social plague.

The second is that the main point of the novel (white men are the source of evil) is somewhat irrelevant in this day and age. Now, before all of you out there reading this get your underwear all in a knot, realize that I am saying this as someone who is "pro-female". I believe that women should be treated as equals to men, meaning exactly that, equality. And I think that equality comes with a level playing field. I also have found it to be true that If you are smart and work hard, you can get ahead - no matter if you pee standing up or sitting down. Yes, historically women and other minorities have not been afforded the same opportunities as the white male and women have a whole mess of issues that they have to worry about such as balancing a family and a career, etc based upon historical gender roles that most people seem to fall into. But, in this day and age, a lot of that has changed as employers have put in programs for working mothers, schools have offered scholarships, you read newsweek articles about how "stay at home dads" are increasing in numbers, etc. To preach to American high school student that this archaic nonsense is way that the world still is or is at risk of becoming in the United States, where the novel is set, when they haven't even had a chance to see how things are for themselves, is indoctrinating them with a preconceived notion that is false.

I'm going to mark this as a "good book", not because I particularly enjoyed it, or think that the point of it is relevant, but because it enraged me so much. And at the end of the day, if a book makes you feel anything, it's good.

Moral of the story: "You go Girl. And you go Boy too".

Aesops Fables

Just as a program note, I am a wee bit behind on book blogging. I'm hoping that I will catch up and my "to read" list will be a legitimate list rather than a "books that must be blogged about".

When it comes to 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die, Phillll and I have had several strategy related conversations. Does it make sense to do them in order? Should we plow through the longest ones first, and save the short ones for when we are on our death beds? What about reverse order? I've sort of decided that I'm going to read whatever strikes my fancy at the moment, which means that the summers will be full of dense Russian novels, and the winters will be books from the 20th century.

After one of these strategy conversations, I decided that I might as well tackle the very first book on the list, Aesops Fables. I ended up buying this one on itunes and burning it onto four 80 minute cd's which I listened to on the way to work. The way that the fables are structured is that they are a series of short parables, which end with a statement that pretty much sums up the moral of the story.

Initially, I was a bit leery of this book, thinking that anything penned around 625 BC wasn't probably going to have much relevance to modern day life. But it turns out that ole Aesop did have a few gems of wisdom despite the fact that his text is ancient. The fables are about basic things that we sometimes forget in todays hectic world. Saying Please and Thank You. Not Keeping Company with Asses. Putting all of Your Eggs in One Basket. Never Trust Your Enemy. An Ounce of Prevention is Worth a Pound of Cure. Slow and Steady Wins the Race.

A lot of the morals at the end of the fables have endured to the point where they've become common expressions. It was really interesting to listen to the fables as a whole, because it provided the orgin of many modern phrases, some of which are listed above.

After listening to them for a while to, you got to know the characters pretty well. For the most part, if a fable started out with a wolf, you knew something bad was going to go down. Same for jackals. Asses were pretty much just there, and it wasn't really a surprise that the tortoise won the race by going slow and steady.

It made me start to think about how the world would be a much nicer place to be if everyone were to listen to the fables and actually pay attention to the lessons that they are trying to teach us. Perhaps we would treat each other with a bit more respect. Perhaps we would be more cautious about making friends with those who are in reality our enemies. I can't help but think that the decline of the US's image abroad couldn't be helped with some good ole fashioned Aesop inspired common sense. But then again, it is possible that I'm wrong all together - it's too late for all of humanity. Afterall Aesop did say:

A singing bird was confined in a cage which hung outside a window,
and had a way of singing at night when all other birds were asleep.
One night a Bat came and clung to the bars of the cage, and asked
the Bird why she was silent by day and sang only at night. "I have a
very good reason for doing so," said the Bird. "It was once when I was
singing in the daytime that a fowler was attracted by my voice, and
set his nets for me and caught me. Since then I have never sung except
by night." But the Bat replied, "It is no use your doing that now when
you are a prisoner: if only you had done so before you were caught,
you might still have been free."


"Precautions are useless after the crisis."

A Brave New World

I meant to post this a couple of weeks ago when I completed the book. However for one reason or another it escaped me. But here we go. A Brave New World is set in the future where individuals are no longer, well, individuals. It's a time where a person is put into a group at birth and basically raised to like it. There is no fear of death, because no one ever looks old and death is something that is bred into them as a benefit to society. There are also no emotions. Sex is, more or less, required. Drugs are the norm. To keep people from getting pregnant everyone takes like five contraceptives. Oh, and people are bred in little jars with all sorts of medicinal miracles are pumped into their bodies as fetuses so no one ever gets sick.

On the one side, it paints the picture that everyone is happy. And most of the people seem happy with what they are. The lower class have been raised to not want to be any thing other than lower class. Yes, the downside is that no one is different. But hey, everyone is happy, right? And that's what's important.

Although things seem good for everyone, what about that person who doesn't fit in, even when they have spent their lives being conditionalized to fit in? What happens when a savage (someone who still procreates the "old fashion" way) comes into the new world? Well, thats when the story starts getting good.

Part of the problem with the novel was that Huxley spent so much time showing how the world was, the plot seemed lost amid the descriptions of the world and the way people lived. When the "Savage" finally comes to the new world to see how different and horrible things actually are, it seems almost a lost cause. There is a clash between the old way and the new way, each proposing that their way is the best way.

The book was good. It is always interesting to see how one person views the potential future. Huxley basically took everything that was taboo in his culture and made it compulsary in his new world. A world where everyone seems free, but no one really is.

In the end your left wanting more, left just a touch unsatisfied with what has unfolded through the pages. It's a sad new world, and I think that ultimately that is the point. Huxley wasn't creating a world where we have something to look forward to. He was painting a picture of what might come to be if the government, those in power, have too much power and too much say in our lives. It reminded me, in many ways, of V For Vendetta. A sad future where we've let ourselves become complacent in what is handed us.

A brave new world, indeed. A brave new world indeed.

Moral of the Story: Well, I'm not 100% sure, but I'm sure that it has to do with not letting the government do whatever it wants.

The Fan Man

Did you ever wonder what was going through the heads of really sick people? The people that you see screaming on the streets, on 20/20 living in their 300 bathrobes afraid to leave the house, the man dragging the hot dog stand umbrella for New York City blocks on end, obssesed with buying as many fans as he can in chinatown?

Meet Horse. Horse Badorties. The Fan Man.

William Kotzwinkle creates the character of Horse and then spend "The Fan Man" taking the reader through his inner monologue as Horse wanders the streets of New York City, paranoid, delusional, and in search of 15 year old girls to corrupt. The only problem is that Horse is so distracted and disorganized and high that he his own shortcomings render him harmless to the young ladies which he recruits to be in his Love Chorus, which he conducts at a church in preparation for the grand performance which will be televised.

This book isn't one that is going to have a mass appeal , but I can definately appreciate the character development, because as sick and high as Horse is, you can't but help feel some compassion for him, especially when he spends an entire day/chapter saying the word "Dorky". Although if you were to meet him on the street, you would probably wrinkle your nose and pretend to see right through him, in he novel Horse actually speaks to you. And as scary as it is, you find yourself wanting Horse to succeed in the face of everyday obstacles such as landlords that demand rent, junkyard owners, and a whole host of others.

Moral of the Story: Sometimes it's okay to be demented