Image via Wikipedia

Anansi Boys

By Neil Gaiman, 2005, borrowed from Dan

You should know

I'd read American Gods a while back -- not long after Anansi Boys came out, in fact. I enjoyed it.

Dan reads a lot -- he's easily as bad as I am, just not in all the same genres -- and if I mention a book I'd like to read that he already owns, he'll just throw up the trunk of his car and let me have at it. I'm sure it looks quite suspicious to passers-by.

So?

It's actually pretty impressive how Gaiman manages to write two books with such different characters, who have such different adventures, with such a different tone to the stories, and yet there's absolutely no doubt that these two novels take place in the same "universe."

My feelings about Anansi Boys are mixed, though. I found myself caring much more about Fat Charlie than I ever did about Shadow, maybe because Fat Charlie has exposition. At the same time, I didn't find the action as compelling. Anansi Boys was a bit more goofy than American Gods. I feel like it had a bit of Pratchett's influence, while the earlier book seemed to be more creepy, comic-book--Gaiman.

The plot is pretty basic. Fat Charlie Nancy's father dies, and at the funeral Fat Charlie learns that a) he has a brother, and b) their father is actually Anansi, a trickster-god and the ruler of all stories. Spider, the brother, is powerful and irresponsible, a sharp contrast to Fat Charlie's overly-conscientious, easily-embarrassed personality. Before too long, we find out why, and the reunion of the two brothers leads to a better life for both of them. As these things tend to do. In the meantime, there's witchcraft, animal gods, a murder case, and a subterranean conversation among the deceased.

Rating

Read it if...
...You enjoyed American Gods, you like Gaiman's work, or you're intrigued by the idea of pagan gods singing karaoke in Florida. I know I am.

The rest of the Internet

The Wikipedia page.
The LibraryThing page.
A review from the Onion AV Club.
Bonnie at BlogCritics reviews the book.
Jennifer Reese at Entertainment Weekly was less impressed.

1776

By David McCullough, 2005, hardback

You should know

I don't have cable television. Shocking, I know, but the reason I mention it is because I have not seen John Adams, the critically praised miniseries; I also haven't read the Pulitzer-winning book on which the miniseries is based. I do want to see the miniseries, though, and now that I've read 1776 I want to read John Adams as well.

So?

1776 tells the story of that particular year in the Revolutionary War. It begins with King George and the British Parliament declaring that the American rebellion was, in fact, insurrection and resolving to put a stop to it; it ends shortly after Washington's troops crossed the Delaware River.

The book moves easily between character studies (George Washington dealt with the stress of war by micromanaging the work being done on Mount Vernon) and war stories (Philadelphia did not need to evacuate as it did, since the British never intended to fight during winter). I'm not usually a huge fan of battle and strategy, but McCullough is a skilled storyteller.

The focus is definitely on the war. The Declaration of Independence is mentioned almost incidentally, and the members of the Continental Congress were referenced mostly in terms of what they would or would not let General Washington do. This was a very minor downside, and one that would not stop me from recommending the book. A slightly larger concern was the cast of characters. Thousands of people were involved in the war, and even the few mentioned in the book tend to blend together. There were moments when I had to stop and think about whether the action was focusing on the British or the Americans ("General Howe was knighted? But... Oh. Right. British.").

It's a long book, but don't let that intimidate you. After all, the only military training Henry Knox and Nathanael Greene had was from books.

Rating

Read it if...
...you like histories, biographies, war stories, the really interesting bits of US history that textbooks tend to leave out, or just solid non-fiction. But avoid it if all you want is a light, cheerful read.

The rest of the Internet

Tony Horwitz at the New York Times reviewed the book.
An NPR interview in which McCullough describes the lessons Washington had to learn.
This one actually has nothing to do with the book, but Robot Chicken on what would happen if the Revolutionary War was dramatized a la 300.
Tori at A Blog of One's Own enjoyed the book and, like me, looks forward to reading more McCullough.
Stephanie at Steph in the Suburbs enjoyed the book, but would have preferred something that covered the war as a whole instead.

Awesome link of the week

Count Your Sheep is a pleasant webcomic about a single mother and her young daughter... and their imaginary sheep. Adrian Ramos (aka Adis) started the strip in 2003 as a series of one-shot comics about a little girl, Katie, counting a sheep, Ship, to fall asleep. Over the past five years, the charm and the tendency toward one-shots have remained, but the reader has gotten glimpses of mother Laurie's past, and her tragic courtship with Katie's never-seen father, Marty, who died shortly before Katie was born. I recommend starting from the beginning, but most of the time you can just pick up from the current day's strip (fair warning, though: next week is a guest artist week).

Related articles by Zemanta

• Taking a stand. (fluentself.com)

A Thread of Grace

By Mary Doria Russell, 2005

You should know

One of the welcoming activities I participated in when I first arrived at my undergrad was an optional seminar on the book The Sparrow. This book, about a team of Jesuits who set off on a mission to another planet, soon became one of my favorite novels, and I even got my copy signed by the author. It was then promptly chewed up by my dog. Figures.

I soon bought the sequel, Children of God. While not quite as enjoyable as the first book, it ties up a lot of loose ends and gives the reader a sense of what happened to the people touched by the Jesuit team.

When I found out Russell had published another novel, I looked forward to its paperback release, and snapped it last spring.

So?

The story tells of a group of Jewish refugees in occupied Italy during World War II. Not light reading, obviously.

It’s a little hard to tell the different parties apart – followers of Mussolini and Hitler, Italian Nationalists, and invading soldiers and refugees from a variety of nations take turns being sympathetic and villainous. It sometimes takes a moment – or a glance at the cast of characters – to recall who is on which side, and maybe it’s my shaky historical knowledge, but passing references to “the partisans” leave me wondering just which party we’re talking about now.

Also, this is a war novel, so while I won’t drop spoilers, I will say to never expect any character to survive. Some do, many don’t. The more intelligent characters know their lives are at stake. You should remember that.

The pacing is fast, and I picked up more on the second read than on the first. Compelling characters live frantic lives, and you might find yourself feeling for someone you might normally find disgusting, or shaking your head at a character who is, on the surface, a hero. Either way, there are so many fully-fleshed characters that you’re sure to find one to stand behind.

So?

Check it out – unless…
...You hate war stories, or despised Russell’s other work. Otherwise, I highly recommend this book. In fact, if anyone has a book club, this one would make for good discussion; it even has a study guide in the back.

The rest of the Internet

A review at BookReporter.
Praise for the historical aspects at Salon.
A very in-depth review at Eve's Alexandria.
An interview with the author at BookPage.
An enthusiastic review at January Magazine.
Allison at Sparsile gives her impressions of the book three-quarters of the way through.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Queen Elizabeth, Political Ontology, and Wait For It (christophercocca.wordpress.com)

Why Men Never Remember and Women Never Forget
By Marianne J. Legato, MD, and Laura Tucker, 2005
Hardback, from the library

You should know
I was a Gender Studies minor in undergrad, so books about how men and women are different tend to spark my interest. Especially if they’re good.

So?
I wanted to like this book. I really did. The author was apparently a pioneer in gender-specific medicine, so I was looking forward to some good, authoritive theorizing. And sure, there was some of that. For instance, it seems that after an argument, men’s brain chemistry returns to normal, while women’s brain chemistry stays in “upset” mood. So when he says, “But we finished this!” he’s right. And when she replies “No, we didn’t,” she’s right too. Sort of.

Also, while men have the typical “fight or flight” response to stress, women have more of a “tend and befriend” response, because evolutionarily… oh, blah blah blah babies blah blah hunters on the plains blah. It sounds like a good point at face value, but when I try to relay it, it just sounds stupid. That seems telling to me.

Especially since one of Legato’s points is that since men’s and women’s social roles are becoming more and more similar, so are their brains, so these differences may not be as severe as they once were.

Legato does make the interesting point that the reason many women reject the idea that men's and women's brains work differently is because of our idea that when two things are different, one of them (often the male one) are considered "better." So if we're going to be equal, we must be the same. Which, of course, we aren't.

Now, I’m not one to inject race and class into every bit of gender-studies literature I read, but it seems to me that the author’s points, especially the anecdotal ones, are largely based on American culture, and especially her particular slice of American culture. Yes, she cites studies done in other parts of the world, but I bet there are studies out there that disagree with her, too.

As for the studies, though they are mentioned frequently, they are rarely, if ever, properly cited. I checked the bibliography for the source of one reference she made; the first cited reference for that chapter was a one-act play she mentioned in passing.

Further, I don’t much like how she makes certain points. There is a sidebar in a later chapter about the pros and cons of hormone-replacement therapy. It starts out by saying that many women (but not how many) are worried about the potentially serious consequences of hormone therapy (but not what those consequences are are), but that the risk is actually low (but not how low). I want numbers before I trust your suggestion to screw around with my body chemistry, doc.

Finally, and this isn’t a criticism so much as a warning, but the book is clearly geared for female readers. That’s not to say that men won’t find it interesting or get something out of it (I plan to recommend it to Chris, in fact), but it’s something for those men to keep in mind.

Rating
Take it with a grain of salt
I’m sure it sounds like I hated this book. That’s not true. I didn’t like it as much as I expected to, and it let me down in the ways I outlined above. Still, it got me thinking, which is always good, and it raised some really intriguing ideas. So while it may not be for everyone, and I certainly wouldn’t blame you for giving up after a chapter or two, I do recommend it. Just… I’m glad I didn’t pay for it.

The rest of the Internet
An interview with Legato at WebMD.
A review as MindConnection.
Legato writes about gender-specific medicine for The New York Times.

The Commitment: Love, Sex, Marriage, and My Family

by Dan Savage, 2005, hardback

You should know

Don't forget, Savage is a sex columnist, so not all the links in this review will be safe for work.

I’ve already reviewed Savage’s book Skipping Towards Gomorrah. As I mentioned there, I am a longtime reader of Savage’s column. Also, since then, I have read portions of Slouching Towards Bethlehem.

So?

In this book, Savage tells the story of his family – both his roots, and his current household. Savage comes from a long line of large Irish-Catholic families, but his extended family is made up of a sampling of various types of families, from his parents’ later-in-life remarriages to his siblings’ marriages (or refusals thereof) to his own relationship with his boyfriend, Terry, and their son. In fact, Savage points out, his family is the most “traditional” one in the current Savage clan, despite the fact that it’s also the only one that’s not headed by heterosexuals.

In fact, this is the reason that Dan’s Irish-Catholic mother wants him and his boyfriend to get married – never mind that it’s illegal in Seattle, where the couple lives. Dan’s Republican father approves of the idea. Terry’s brother, a born-again Christian, is never quoted as objecting. Dan and Terry themselves have their doubts (Terry doesn’t want to “act straight”; Dan doesn’t want to jinx a good relationship), but the strongest objection comes from Dan and Terry’s son, DJ. DJ, at the age of 6, is just getting used to the whole concept of gender roles, and to him, boys can’t, shouldn’t, and shouldn’t want to get married – so if his dads decide to do it, he won’t go.

Savage outlines the history and culture of marriage, weddings, and divorce, and how the LGBT community in general, and how his family in particular, fits into all that. They make up their minds, and change their minds, more than once.

Rating

Read it
Now, remember that Savage’s politics skew to the liberal and Libertarian. The book talks about politics, society, family, and morals and ethics, so if you find that point of view offensive and don’t feel like getting pissed off, you might want to avoid it. But I would highly recommend it otherwise, especially if you have any reason to ponder all the traditions and rituals surrounding weddings and marriages.

The rest of the Internet

Beware: There may be spoilers ahead.
A podcast interview with Savage about the book.
Another interview, this one on Morning Edition.
A review of the book at In Which Our Hero.
Matt Zakosek at the Chicago Maroon tells the story of an interview with Savage.
An essay on the book in the Seattle Times.
Savage brags about the great time he had at his interview on The Colbert Report (Part 1, Part 2)

Why Do I Love These People? by Po Bronson
2005, from the library

You should know
It’s the holidays, which means a) free time and b) gift-giving. Conclusion? I’m going to do as many of these of the holidays and post them between now and the first of the year. I’ll still post on Wednesdays, but we’ll see how many extra I can fit in, as well.

I’ve read Bronson’s What Should I Do With My Life?, and really enjoyed it. When I heard about this book, I decided I had to read it… and eventually, I got around to doing just that.

So?
I enjoy Bronson’s style of writing. He writes what are basically essays that are tied together under a theme – but he also manages a very tenuous narrative arc. You could read any of the stories from either book on its own, or you could read either book straight through; it would work either way.

Bronson’s style of reporting is interesting, not least because it actually works. When he has a new idea for a book, he beings asking people he knows about their takes on his questions. Then, they mention it to people he knows, who call him; they, in turn, do the same, until he is traveling the country and spending the week with total strangers, gathering as many stories as possible so that he can cull the 20 or so best from a pool almost forty times that size.

The overall mood of the book is a bit fluffy, but that’s fair: when you read a book about family, you want it to tell you that your family will be ok. “I’m better off than some of these people,” you might tell yourself, “And they ended up all right.”

Rating
Give it a chance
I’m not saying you’ll love it, or that it’s fine literature by any stretch, but as inspirational books go, it could be far more saccharine. There are some interesting, even compelling stories included, and the moral, though obvious, is solid.

The rest of the Internet
The companion Factbook.
Po Bronson discusses his book on the The Early Show.
Chris at Adventures in Capitalism gave the book a great review.

100 People Who Are Screwing Up America (And Al Franken Is #37)

By Bernard Goldberg
2005, from the library

You should know

I was a member of my university’s Political Action Club with Chris, Brian, and Paul. There was very little actual action, but we had some fun debates, and Chris and Brian were both Political Science majors (Paul majored in International Relations, so there was some overlap). So while politics is not my area of expertise, I’ve picked up a few things – whether I wanted to or not.

I’ve also read Goldberg’s Bias for a class. It was ranty.

And by the way, I enjoy The Vagina Monologues and try to support a production every year. This is relevant. Also, I should add that I was a Gender Studies minor.

So?

Ok, I know better than to expect a book like this to be unbiased. I mean, come on. And Goldberg even says so from the very beginning: this is his list, not yours. You’re welcome to make your own list. I’m sure there are people who would put him on their lists. Fine.

And for the most part, he explains why someone is on the list. Even if I didn’t agree with him, I could generally see where he was coming from. So, that’s fine, too.

The problem is, he rarely stops there. For example, take his tirade against Eve Ensler (#96). He thinks she ruined Valentine’s Day. He finds some of the Vagina Monologues hypocritical. He doesn’t think she deserves the many awards she’s received. And I see where he’s coming from, I really do.

But well before that, he goes on a lengthy rant about what “feminism” means… and it’s nothing good. Feminism is “about the never-ending saga of women as ‘victims’ and men as ‘oppressors.’” He cites some pretty radical women, but never backs up to wonder if those women are truly representative. We find out what feminism means to Goldberg, but not much about what feminism actually means.

And that’s just one subject. He does this for many groups: takes an individual he despises, gives us pretty sensible reasons for it (even if you don’t agree with them), but then exaggerates the qualities and applies them to the entire group this individual supposedly represents.

Even that would be tolerable if it wasn’t the very crime he slings against those groups. He goes out of his way to not be a hypocrite in this respect, but it just doesn’t work. And it’s a shame.

Rating

Read it – if you want to get good and mad
You’re probably going to get angry if you read this book. If you agree with him, you’ll be angry on behalf of your nation, and what all these horrible people are doing to it. If you disagree, you’ll be angry at Goldberg himself. And if you want to get good and confused, see what happens when you sometimes agree, and sometimes disagree.

Oh, and I don’t know what you think of cheap shots, but see also: Courtney Love (#95).

The rest of the Internet

It looks like Goldberg added 10 people to his list.
Goldberg's website.
His Wikipedia entry.
Goldberg talks about the book on The Daily Show.

Christ the Lord, by Anne Rice
2005, hardback, from the library

You should know
I’ve read a few of Rice’s vampire novels, and was not impressed. But, then, I have a strange fascination for alternate tellings of Jesus’ life.

So?
It was not well-written. I’m going to have to be that blunt: it just wasn’t.

Now, it was an interesting take on the story; you can’t say Rice doesn’t come up with good premises. But there were continuity breaks, and as I recall (it’s been a while, and sadly it wasn’t that memorable a book) there were actually inappropriate changes in verb tense.

Also, considering this book was supposed to be largely on the Bible, it got details wrong. Most notably was the fact that Jesus got lost at the Temple at about the age of 8 – not 12, as it specifically says in the Bible.

And worst of all, in order for certain parts of the plot to work, certain characters actually have to be in two places at once. From Jesus, I can accept that. From his mortal relatives? Not so much.

Any one of these details could be forgiven, or at worst laughed off, but the sum of them just ruined the book for me.

Rating
Avoid the hype
There was a lot of publicity about this book when it first came out – the potentially controversial content, Rice’s history of writing raunchy stories, the fact that any huge name tied to religious work grabs publicity. But none of the public’s concerns really hold water, except this one: it’s bad. It’s just bad. Don’t bother.

The rest of the internet
Anne Rice’s website.
CBS News has an article about an interview with her on the Early Show.
NPR pans it.
It got somewhat better reviews at The Augustine Project.
Apparently, there’s going to be a movie. They promised to be faithful to Anne’s vision. I think Jesus wants us to forgive them if they fail.

Freakonomics, by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, 2005
Hardback, from the library.

You should know
I know nothing about economics. Chris was an economics major, but hasn’t read the book, so his expertise didn’t help much.

So?
You may have heard about this book or its authors. They’ve written (both here and in the articles that inspired the book) some pretty controversial things. For instance, they suggest that the reason the crime rate has dropped in the last few decades is because abortion has been legalized.

One of the things that has made Levitt, the economist of the pair, famous is his tendency to ask how things are connected, even if they don’t appear to be. Schoolteachers and sumo wrestlers, for example, both work under the possibility of incentives – and as a result are both tempted to cheat. Real estate agents and hate groups both thrive on the control of information.

Rating
It’s all right.
The reason this review took so long is because I just had nothing to say about this book. I didn’t hate it, but it didn’t make much of an impression. Sure, the chapter on baby names provided some fun trivia that I can use next time I’m at a party, but I completely forgot about the chapter on drug dealers. I also wouldn’t recommend it if you have a hard time separating numbers and morality; the writes say multiple times that citing the numbers is not the same as endorsing the behavior, but if you’re offended by statistics that might that conflict with your beliefs, you might want to stay away from this one.

The rest of the Internet
The official Freakonomics website.
The Wikipedia entry.
Malcolm Gladwell at Gladwell.com weighs in on the book.