Assassination Vacation by Sarah Vowell
Occasionally, there are 5Ks as part of the Cannonball Read I'm participating in. This involves a theme or particular challenge for a two week period: for example, the first one was to read five books that were over four hundred pages long in that time. The most recent 5K was titled "Locally Grown" and the idea was to read five books set in places you have lived/visited or want to live/visit (the visit part was an expansion on the original parameters when a few people made comments that they hadn't lived anywhere interesting enough to have books set there). I've lived in Illinois, Kentucky, Washington State, Virginia (okay, extended visit of three months, and another of five months coming up), Iraq and Germany. I've visited quite a few more places, but really not that many when it comes down to it, and want to live in a few different places as well (New York, Great Britain, maybe Korea, maybe Italy - those last two are more along the lines of "I wouldn't complain about being stationed there"). Anyway, I read The Children of Men and The Children of Henry VIII due to the England setting (I loved London), Eat, Pray, Love for Italy (Rome!), Dreams from My Father for Illinois, and Assassination Vacation because I figured it would take place at least partially in Illinois. However, Washington D.C. which I've visited also played a large role. Naturally. It's a book about presidential assassinations after all.
I think I'd actually heard about this through reviews of other Cannonball Read participants. One review in particular seemed to like the author but didn't think this book was one of her best. Still, I figured the premise was interesting. Vowell jams a lot of information about presidents in this book - of course, everyone knows about Lincoln, but she also shed light on some of the less knowns, Garfield and McKinley. From her stories and descriptions, I actually really liked Garfield - he sounded very humble, and loved to read.
Vowell had some very funny and sarcastic parts in this book. However, it had its issues. The chapters occasionally seemed a little too disjointed and disconnected. Some of her tangents were funny but sometimes the way she'd jump around between topics could get distracting. I'm also not sure I ever really understood how she'd gotten the idea to write this book - she mentions becoming more interested in the topic as a result of Iraq and the Bush administration. I enjoyed her love of history, and her descriptions of her nephew, who might end up with some serious issues, are incredibly cute.
It is interesting to wonder what type of legacy these presidents (she writes about Lincoln, Garfield and McKinley) would have left if they hadn't been killed. Garfield of course was killed before he could accomplish much though he seemed to have very good intentions; Lincol had already done quite a lot but as a result of his assassination he was immediately turned into a martyr - how much more balanced would our views of him be if he hadn't been killed and taken on immediate god-like status? I'm sure he would be seen as a great president no matter what, but we might be more critical of some of his decisions. Maybe we would be more willing to condemn McKinley as the imperialist he was if he hadn't been shot down.
The book was good enough for me to want to read another of Vowell's before making my final decision - after all, the topic was rather original and she had her moments of quirky humor. Possibly with such a large topic, it was hard to break things down so a slightly different and less broad topic would probably work very well for her style.
Showing posts with label 5K. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 5K. Show all posts
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Book 78: Dreams from My Father
Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance by Barack Obama
I feel like I'm incredibly late in reading this book. Being from Illinois, of course, I'd heard of the senator comparatively early. Naturally, I also wanted him to win the presidential election; however, I really didn't do that much research into who he was - I read all my favorite blogs for information about the candidates, but actually go out and read a autobiography? Yeah, not so much.
Obviously, I have no idea what his political aspirations were when he wrote this book, so he was very honest about himself, to an extent. Of course, it's been almost twenty years since people asked Clinton if he'd ever smoked pot, and since then we've had a president that had alcohol and cocaine issues, but still, to honestly make a passing reference to weed and other drugs is kind of surprising.
In some parts, Obama started getting a little bit too philosophical on me - not necessarily bad, but while reading this I was more interested in the human story. Given that originally he had intended to write a book about race and law, however, it made sense that he would occassionally veer off in that direction. In fact, since one of the reasons Obama even had a chance to write this book was because of his election as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review, I wouldn't have minded hearing more about his graduate school experiences. However, Obama focuses mainly on his struggle to find himself, and by the time he reaches law school, it seems that he has become settled in who he is and resolved most of the inner conflicts he has had concerning his background and family history.
While I knew the very basic background, it was good to actually finally learn some of the finer details of Obama's background. I didn't always necessary agree with him in this book but it seemed like a good indication of the type of person he was, especially since, as I said, I don't think he would have been planning his presidential campaign that far back and therefore wouldn't have been too worried about the picture he presented. Of course, I'm sure he embellished parts or made himself appear better in points (who doesn't do that after all?), but there are also enough parts where he doesn't to make it feel honest.
I feel like I'm incredibly late in reading this book. Being from Illinois, of course, I'd heard of the senator comparatively early. Naturally, I also wanted him to win the presidential election; however, I really didn't do that much research into who he was - I read all my favorite blogs for information about the candidates, but actually go out and read a autobiography? Yeah, not so much.
Obviously, I have no idea what his political aspirations were when he wrote this book, so he was very honest about himself, to an extent. Of course, it's been almost twenty years since people asked Clinton if he'd ever smoked pot, and since then we've had a president that had alcohol and cocaine issues, but still, to honestly make a passing reference to weed and other drugs is kind of surprising.
In some parts, Obama started getting a little bit too philosophical on me - not necessarily bad, but while reading this I was more interested in the human story. Given that originally he had intended to write a book about race and law, however, it made sense that he would occassionally veer off in that direction. In fact, since one of the reasons Obama even had a chance to write this book was because of his election as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review, I wouldn't have minded hearing more about his graduate school experiences. However, Obama focuses mainly on his struggle to find himself, and by the time he reaches law school, it seems that he has become settled in who he is and resolved most of the inner conflicts he has had concerning his background and family history.
While I knew the very basic background, it was good to actually finally learn some of the finer details of Obama's background. I didn't always necessary agree with him in this book but it seemed like a good indication of the type of person he was, especially since, as I said, I don't think he would have been planning his presidential campaign that far back and therefore wouldn't have been too worried about the picture he presented. Of course, I'm sure he embellished parts or made himself appear better in points (who doesn't do that after all?), but there are also enough parts where he doesn't to make it feel honest.
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Book 77: Eat, Pray, Love
Eat, Pray, Love by Elizabeth Gilbert
When it comes Oprah's Book Club, there tend to be two types of reactions: people flock out to buy her recommendations, or other people then avoid them at all cost. I used to be one of the later, until she started picking a bunch of books I'd already read and liked, and realized that maybe her taste in books wasn't all bad. However, that did not mean I started following her every command, either. Instead, I'm somewhat wary of the books she chooses but it won't prevent me from reading them. I think the main problem most people have with Oprah is more the phenonmenon around her than anything else.
I don't know if this book would have become as popular as it was without Oprah, and if it hadn't been so well-known, the title alone probably would have been enough to prevent me from reading it - specifically, the word pray. I'm so not religious.
However, it was an entertaining read. It's not a journey everyone could recreate - after all, she has a much better financial background than some, and also had been able to sell the idea of the book before she even embarked on her journey. As a result, it's not really something that the average person could do. Not that I'd want to spend four months in an Ashram in India learning to meditate. Or even necessarily hang out on the beach in Bali for four months, though she made it sound amazing. Italy, on the other hand - I'd love to live in Italy. I loved Rome, and I really, really want to take a week of leave to travel through Venice, Florence and Milan. In fact, while I feel like I'm done with Germany and ready to move on, I would definitely be willing to stay in the Army and come back to Europe if I could be guaranteed Vicenza, Italy (or somehow be an Army officer stationed at the air force base in England, now that would be awesome).
Gilbert herself is a likeable character, and very saracastic despite her whole hippie inner zen thing, which she even makes fun of on occasion. She's a very outgoing person so she manages to meet and make new friends everywhere she goes and keeps in touch with old ones who make appearances throughout the book. I actually really liked this quote from her book:
Maybe it's because I kind of see myself a little bit in that description of her sister. I tend to be rather quiet, and reserved on occasion. I like company sometimes but I also love traveling alone. However, traveling alone for me means walking through the city, seeing everything I want to see and sitting at cafes and parks reading. Traveling alone for other people tends to be seen as an opportunity to meet new people. I have no clue how or where to meet people and usually no real desire to, either. I have no desire to have children, and am perfectly happy with my life right now, and my books, but I definitely wouldn't be adverse to having that one person/partner to do things with. I think that actually tends to be my problem in relationships, too: it's not necessarily that I'm in a hurry to settle down or feel like I have to be married by a certain time in my life; however, I don't really like dating that much - I like the relationship part much more so it's easy for me to be settled in a relationship once I'm in one because I don't miss the "thrill" of dating and meeting new people.
When it comes Oprah's Book Club, there tend to be two types of reactions: people flock out to buy her recommendations, or other people then avoid them at all cost. I used to be one of the later, until she started picking a bunch of books I'd already read and liked, and realized that maybe her taste in books wasn't all bad. However, that did not mean I started following her every command, either. Instead, I'm somewhat wary of the books she chooses but it won't prevent me from reading them. I think the main problem most people have with Oprah is more the phenonmenon around her than anything else.
I don't know if this book would have become as popular as it was without Oprah, and if it hadn't been so well-known, the title alone probably would have been enough to prevent me from reading it - specifically, the word pray. I'm so not religious.
However, it was an entertaining read. It's not a journey everyone could recreate - after all, she has a much better financial background than some, and also had been able to sell the idea of the book before she even embarked on her journey. As a result, it's not really something that the average person could do. Not that I'd want to spend four months in an Ashram in India learning to meditate. Or even necessarily hang out on the beach in Bali for four months, though she made it sound amazing. Italy, on the other hand - I'd love to live in Italy. I loved Rome, and I really, really want to take a week of leave to travel through Venice, Florence and Milan. In fact, while I feel like I'm done with Germany and ready to move on, I would definitely be willing to stay in the Army and come back to Europe if I could be guaranteed Vicenza, Italy (or somehow be an Army officer stationed at the air force base in England, now that would be awesome).
Gilbert herself is a likeable character, and very saracastic despite her whole hippie inner zen thing, which she even makes fun of on occasion. She's a very outgoing person so she manages to meet and make new friends everywhere she goes and keeps in touch with old ones who make appearances throughout the book. I actually really liked this quote from her book:
I'm so surprised sometimes to notice that my sister is a wife and a mother, and I am not. Somehow I always thought it would be the opposite. I thought it would be me who would end up with a houseful of muddy boots and hollering kids, while Catherine would be living by herself, a solo act, reading alone at night in bed. We grew up into different adults than anyone might have foretold when we were children. It's better this way, though, I think. Against all predictions, we've each created lives that tally with us. Her solitary nature means she needs a family to keep her from loneliness; my gregarious nature means I will never have to worry about being alone, even when I'm single. (92)
Maybe it's because I kind of see myself a little bit in that description of her sister. I tend to be rather quiet, and reserved on occasion. I like company sometimes but I also love traveling alone. However, traveling alone for me means walking through the city, seeing everything I want to see and sitting at cafes and parks reading. Traveling alone for other people tends to be seen as an opportunity to meet new people. I have no clue how or where to meet people and usually no real desire to, either. I have no desire to have children, and am perfectly happy with my life right now, and my books, but I definitely wouldn't be adverse to having that one person/partner to do things with. I think that actually tends to be my problem in relationships, too: it's not necessarily that I'm in a hurry to settle down or feel like I have to be married by a certain time in my life; however, I don't really like dating that much - I like the relationship part much more so it's easy for me to be settled in a relationship once I'm in one because I don't miss the "thrill" of dating and meeting new people.
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
Book 76: The Children of Henry VIII
The Children of Henry VIII by Alison Weir
I've read Weir's previous book, The Six Wives of Henry VIII, and enjoyed her style. Tudor England is probably one of the more popular periods of history as evidenced by the popularity of Phillipa Gregory, Showtime's The Tudors, and a variety of movies about Elizabeth to name just a few, and I too fall into the trend. One thing that was kind of cool is that I was reading this book while in Scotland, and there were mentions of Mary, Queen of Scots, and John Knox. But anyway, on to the actual book.
The book wasn't actually a straight biography of the "children" of Henry VIII. The book might be more properly titled the heirs of Henry VIII since Weir also deals quite a bit with Jane Grey, Henry's great niece through his sister Mary and good friend, Brandon Suffolk. Weir focuses on the time between Henry VIII's death and the end of his reign and the beginning of Elizabeth's. I of course knew all the basics: Edward becomes king, very Protestant, followed by Jane Grey for nine days who was really just the victim of her family's ambition, followed by "Bloody" Mary, the Catholic one, until finally Elizabeth takes over at her death. Alright, I knew quite a few more details than that, but I didn't know just how many intrigues and how much plotting was going during everyone's reigns. I also didn't realize that the man originally entrusted with guardianship of King Edward was sentenced to death. Weir deals a lot with what was going on at the courts, the relationships between the siblings and how one sibling's reign affected the others. Of course, it's hard to discuss much of a relationship since they all lived in different houses, were rather far removed in age, and had certain constraints imposed on them due to rank. Mary basically hated Elizabeth: she was popular (Mary was at one point until the burnings started), she was Protestant, and oh yeah, there was that thing with their mothers . . .
One of the things I enjoy about Weir is that for the most part she is sympathetic to all her subjects but also tries to give a balanced view of them. Do I necessarily like Edward? Not really. Actually, my issue with Edward, Jane and Mary was the same in all cases - they were all so fanatical about their religious beliefs. Obviously, the times were different back then, but I definitely don't get their complete and utter focus and devotion to religion - their subjects would have been a lot happier if their rulers had cared a little bit less about their spiritual well being and more about their physical. However, at least, Edward and Jane had an excuse: they were young; in ways, people can be less tolerant in their youth. Mary, on the other hand, was just kind of naive.
Another thing that would have driven me crazy at that time are the names. John Dudley, also known as Earl of Warwick who was then promoted to Duke of Northumberland. He was referred to by all three names at different times in the book. It's easy to lose track of who's who in history as they gain and lose titles and are then referred to by them. Especially when a title suddenly has a new family as its owner. I was also surprised to learn that Norfolk (the same one that was related to Anne Boleyn and Katherine Howard - you figure after that many beheaded relatives, your life would be in danger) was still alive when Mary took the throne. And in fact rode out to battle at 80.
Overall, I'd say this book is definitely a good place to begin for anyone interested in a comprehensive history of the years between Henry and Elizabeth.
I've read Weir's previous book, The Six Wives of Henry VIII, and enjoyed her style. Tudor England is probably one of the more popular periods of history as evidenced by the popularity of Phillipa Gregory, Showtime's The Tudors, and a variety of movies about Elizabeth to name just a few, and I too fall into the trend. One thing that was kind of cool is that I was reading this book while in Scotland, and there were mentions of Mary, Queen of Scots, and John Knox. But anyway, on to the actual book.
The book wasn't actually a straight biography of the "children" of Henry VIII. The book might be more properly titled the heirs of Henry VIII since Weir also deals quite a bit with Jane Grey, Henry's great niece through his sister Mary and good friend, Brandon Suffolk. Weir focuses on the time between Henry VIII's death and the end of his reign and the beginning of Elizabeth's. I of course knew all the basics: Edward becomes king, very Protestant, followed by Jane Grey for nine days who was really just the victim of her family's ambition, followed by "Bloody" Mary, the Catholic one, until finally Elizabeth takes over at her death. Alright, I knew quite a few more details than that, but I didn't know just how many intrigues and how much plotting was going during everyone's reigns. I also didn't realize that the man originally entrusted with guardianship of King Edward was sentenced to death. Weir deals a lot with what was going on at the courts, the relationships between the siblings and how one sibling's reign affected the others. Of course, it's hard to discuss much of a relationship since they all lived in different houses, were rather far removed in age, and had certain constraints imposed on them due to rank. Mary basically hated Elizabeth: she was popular (Mary was at one point until the burnings started), she was Protestant, and oh yeah, there was that thing with their mothers . . .
One of the things I enjoy about Weir is that for the most part she is sympathetic to all her subjects but also tries to give a balanced view of them. Do I necessarily like Edward? Not really. Actually, my issue with Edward, Jane and Mary was the same in all cases - they were all so fanatical about their religious beliefs. Obviously, the times were different back then, but I definitely don't get their complete and utter focus and devotion to religion - their subjects would have been a lot happier if their rulers had cared a little bit less about their spiritual well being and more about their physical. However, at least, Edward and Jane had an excuse: they were young; in ways, people can be less tolerant in their youth. Mary, on the other hand, was just kind of naive.
Another thing that would have driven me crazy at that time are the names. John Dudley, also known as Earl of Warwick who was then promoted to Duke of Northumberland. He was referred to by all three names at different times in the book. It's easy to lose track of who's who in history as they gain and lose titles and are then referred to by them. Especially when a title suddenly has a new family as its owner. I was also surprised to learn that Norfolk (the same one that was related to Anne Boleyn and Katherine Howard - you figure after that many beheaded relatives, your life would be in danger) was still alive when Mary took the throne. And in fact rode out to battle at 80.
Overall, I'd say this book is definitely a good place to begin for anyone interested in a comprehensive history of the years between Henry and Elizabeth.
Book 75: The Children of Men
The Children of Men by P. D. James
I was on a bit of science fiction kick last time I made an order on Amazon. I had of course seen the movie Children of Men when it first came out in theaters but haven't seen it since. I enjoyed it, and keep meaning to buy it but every time I'm about to, I wonder if I need to add another dark and slightly depressing drama to my collection.
As a result, I didn't remember the specific details of the film, so I wasn't sure how loyal it had been to the novel. As the novel went on, however, it was much easier to see the large differences. For example, Julian and Theo's wife are two separate characters in the novel; Jasper is much more likable in the film, but then again, when you've got Michael Cain in the role, naturally, he's going to be a likable and important character. In the book, not quite as much. Many of the events from the book did occur in the film, but especially the action sequences were pushed up in the film's timeline and had many more added to them. Both works are very good in their own right, but their focus tended to be slightly different.
In the novel, Theodore's cousin is the Warden of England, or the dictator in charge of keeping a semblance of society even if it comes at a price for others. His policy is to increase the pleasure of the British and this means bringing in refugees as laborers. As a result, there is a much larger focus on power and people's relationships to it. The film also touched on this, but it also showed the racial disparity in the future that the society was based on. In fact, they made a point about the fact that the pregnant woman in the film is a refugee and not part of the great British race. Power is of course also a theme, but not in the same way as the novel. The novel can also discuss many aspects of the world without showing them. In film, it is often necessary to show something to really make it have an impact since simply discussing it or mentioning it in exposition won't have the same affect. As a result, the film had many locales that were addressed but not visited in the novel.
In both cases, the story is very much about Theodore's evolution and the impact that the events have on his life and outlook. The novel also focuses specifically on his relationship with his cousin, and allows him more time to reminisce about his past. However, the ending and the future as portrayed for Theodore are drastically different in the two medias.
I was on a bit of science fiction kick last time I made an order on Amazon. I had of course seen the movie Children of Men when it first came out in theaters but haven't seen it since. I enjoyed it, and keep meaning to buy it but every time I'm about to, I wonder if I need to add another dark and slightly depressing drama to my collection.
As a result, I didn't remember the specific details of the film, so I wasn't sure how loyal it had been to the novel. As the novel went on, however, it was much easier to see the large differences. For example, Julian and Theo's wife are two separate characters in the novel; Jasper is much more likable in the film, but then again, when you've got Michael Cain in the role, naturally, he's going to be a likable and important character. In the book, not quite as much. Many of the events from the book did occur in the film, but especially the action sequences were pushed up in the film's timeline and had many more added to them. Both works are very good in their own right, but their focus tended to be slightly different.
In the novel, Theodore's cousin is the Warden of England, or the dictator in charge of keeping a semblance of society even if it comes at a price for others. His policy is to increase the pleasure of the British and this means bringing in refugees as laborers. As a result, there is a much larger focus on power and people's relationships to it. The film also touched on this, but it also showed the racial disparity in the future that the society was based on. In fact, they made a point about the fact that the pregnant woman in the film is a refugee and not part of the great British race. Power is of course also a theme, but not in the same way as the novel. The novel can also discuss many aspects of the world without showing them. In film, it is often necessary to show something to really make it have an impact since simply discussing it or mentioning it in exposition won't have the same affect. As a result, the film had many locales that were addressed but not visited in the novel.
In both cases, the story is very much about Theodore's evolution and the impact that the events have on his life and outlook. The novel also focuses specifically on his relationship with his cousin, and allows him more time to reminisce about his past. However, the ending and the future as portrayed for Theodore are drastically different in the two medias.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)