Thus Concludes 2012: A Very British Reading Year

Well, 2012 ends today.  It's hard to believe; each year seems to pass more and more quickly.  It must be my age.  Anyway, I read more in 2012 than the past five years combined-  72 works in all.  Being honest, though, a few works were hardly lengthy- some could even be read in under an hour, the most notable examples being the Magna Carta, a selection of Shakespearean sonnets, and Rime of the Ancient Mariner.  There was a healthy dose of graphic novels and ghost stories, too- always quick reads.  So, don't think that I reeled off 72 War and Peace-like tomes.  Still, I am pleased with my achievement.  In fact, so pleased I need to take a tangent here.

------------------
TANGENT
------------------ 
72 books in one year.  Sounds like a lot, doesn't it?  But, it's really not.  Let's look at the math.
366 days in 2012/72 books equals about 1 book every 5 days.  I don't know the average pages per book- but let's say it's 350.  350 pages/book * (1 book/5 days) = 70 pages/day. I think I read about 1 page per minute, so that means 70 minutes a day reading.  Sound like a lot?  Well, how much time do you spend on the Internet or watching television each day?  Not to mention I can read on the bus to work (10-20 pages, generally, on the bus each direction).  So, while it may sound impressive, it's quite achievable. 
------------------
END TANGENT
------------------

As you'd expect, the vast majority of my reads- 63- were from my British reading list.  Here were my
Top 10 British books of the year:
Excalibur by Bernard Cornwell.  (the third book of the Warlord trilogy)
The Man Who Was Thursday: A Nightmare by G.K. Chesterton
A Study in Scarlet by Arthur Conan Doyle
Watchmen by Alan Moore
The ABC Murders by Agatha Christie
Murder in Retrospect by Agatha Christie
The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde by Robert Louis Stevenson
Your Mind Matters by John Stott
Animal Farm by George Orwell
The Crusades by Thomas Asbridge

Not every selection was peachy, though.  Here are 3 of my biggest disappointments (note that they're all from centuries ago):
Historia Brittonum by Nennius
The Ecclesiastical History of the English People by Bede
The History of the Kings of Britain by Geoffrey of Monmouth

I love doing this British reading list "thing"- I highly recommend it, especially to those who find themselves living in the British Isles.  It's heightened my understanding and enjoyment of the overseas experience.  I have struggled, though, with keeping to the original intent.  At first, my British list was intended to give me a wide sampling of the famous British tomes from every genre.  I find myself, however, turning it into a list of every book by a Brit I ever want to read.  Thus, the number of books on the list swells easily- and then I have to do some pruning to keep it tenable.  I read one book, and discover five more in the same genre that I want to explore.  It's fun, but bad for keeping goals realizable.  I need to learn to stay on target.

It wasn't all about the Brits this year.  On the non-British side, I thoroughly enjoyed:
The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown
Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter by Seth Grahame-Smith

While I enjoyed the journey, 2013 will see me reading fewer works.  72 is unsustainable- my goal is no more than 36 works in 2013.  Yes, it's odd to have a "maximum" goal in this area, but I've found I can turn the most worthy pursuit into an unhealthy obsession, so things must be done.

Happy reading in 2013!

Every Living Thing (James Herriot)

After a few clunkers, I wanted to end 2012 on a high note, so I turned to a reliable source: James Herriot.  Every Living Thing is the fifth and final story collection the vet/author produced about his life working with animals (and their eccentric owners) in the Yorkshire Dales.  This time, we're in the 1950s- television has just become a common household item, Herriot's kids are growing, and there are plenty of medical advances in the field- but it's the same old Yorkshire.  

Like the other collections, this one is full of heartwarming and amusing tales.  Herriot's contentment and enjoyment of his life is contagious- he's one of those authors that just makes you feel blessed to live on this good earth, even when (as was frequently the case with him) you have your arm in a cow's rectum.  I'd recommend any of his works, especially to animal lovers or those fortunate enough to live in Yorkshire.

If you've read any of Herriot's works and do live in northern England, I'd recommend checking out Skeldale House, the home where Herriot worked and lived for a time.  Located in Thirsk (Herriot's "Darrowby"- he always changed the names of the towns in his works), it helps you visualize a variety of scenes put forth in James' literature. Oh, and regarding changing the names of towns- his oft-mentioned "Brawton" is none other than Harrogate, so keep that in mind when you read.

My only disappointment here was that it ended.  I thought, as his final collection, that it would conclude with an overall look back on his life, but it appears to end right in the '50s or '60s, which means memorable deeds of the last few decades of his practice was never committed to paper (or, at least, published).  Or, perhaps, some of the tales do cover the later period, and he just never makes mention of it.  It was written in 1992; Herriot died just three years later.  He lived 78 years, and appeared thankful for each moment.  I wish we all lived like that.

Rating: A

Brave New World (Aldous Huxley)

I was blessed with many books for Christmas, and in keeping with my "minimization" goals, that means I have to clean out my shelves and make room for the new.  One casualty is Brave New World by Huxley.  A great work, it pains me to get rid of it, but such is life.  I read it a few years ago, so my memory isn't 100%, but I wanted to give a quick review before I got rid of it.

In Brave New World, we see a future where, essentially, everyone's drugged to be happy.  Technology is god- and the people praise "Ford" for his breakthroughs in this arena.  Any form of attachment is discouraged, as attachment can cause pain down the road, and so frivolous, uncommitted living is highly encouraged.  Techniques have been developed to minimize the effect of aging (though people are still mortal), and anyone thinking sad thoughts is given (what I call) happy pills.  Oh, but here's the thing- without sorrow, there's no joy, either.  Life's just a series of events designed to keep people in an almost catatonic state of happiness.  Don't question, don't think, just be happy.  Are they really free?  I think not.

Several characters in the story exist outside of this bubble, and age normally, as well as experience all of life's ups and downs like we do today.  One of them issues this classic line: "I don't want comfort.  I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness.  I want sin."  The basic point of the book is that true freedom, and true life, entails both the good and bad, and if you take one, you take the other.

I loved this book- and the scary thing is, though it was penned 80 years ago, it's almost coming true in our society today.  A variety of drugs exist to help people through sadness and, while that's not always bad, it is (in my opinion) over-used.  Will the future hold something similar for us?  I hope not.

Rating: A+

Dabbling in the Mediocre

My readings of the last few days have been frustrating.  I've hit on several consecutive mediocre works, and decided to read selections from each- 25-33% of each work- rather than feel pressured to read them all cover to cover.  As such, I won't give in-depth review on each, but just a one-liner on the work and what I think of it:

West Highland Tales (Fitzroy Maclean)
A collection of tales from the Highlands of Scotland, the tales are told without much flourish, and are marginally interesting at best.

Rating: C-

Ghostly Tales and Sinister Stories of Old Edinburgh (Alan J. Wilson, Des Brogan, and Frank McGrail)
A few interesting tales mixed with boring or downright stupid ones.

Rating: C-

Idylls of the King (Alfred, Lord Tennyson, with art by Gustave Dore)

Ack!  I really wanted to like this, but call me uneducated- I just can't stand unrhymed verse.  A retelling of the King Arthur legends, Tennyson has skill, but it's just not for me.  The art by Dore, on the other hand, is outstanding; he's one of my favorites.  Note that this particular work is abridged; only selections from Idylls were taken.  Still, I couldn't take much more than 25% of it.

Rating (verse): C-
Rating (art): A+

Politically Correct Old Testament Stories (Robert Martin Walker)

The title sums this one up nicely- this is a collection of Old Testament stories modified to be politically correct for the modern age.  The intent, of course, is to be humorous.  Does it succeed?  Kinda.  This book is, at times, amusing, but gets repetitive (and annoying) quickly.  Words like "womyn," "_____-enhanced", and "_____-gifted" are used so frequently it makes it hard to slog through this slim, 86-page volume.  Perhaps that's the point- that if you go "fully PC" you get really annoying, really quickly- but I think it could have been done a bit better.

Rating: C-

Batman, Noel (Lee Bermejo)

The story of Dickens' Christmas Carol, but featuring characters in the Batman universe?  Yes, please!  Batman, Noel is just that- a twist on the classic tale, with ol' Batty himself as . . . the scrooge!  He gets visits from 'spirits' of the past (Catwoman), present (Superman), and future (the Joker), which each play their part in showing him how far astray he's gone from his original days.  He is, indeed, the Dark Knight- but perhaps his decades-long fight against the underworld has made him just a little too dark, and it takes some frightful experiences to snap him back to reality. 

It's hard to cross classic stories like this into such an 'alien' universe, but overall, it's well done.  There are obvious liberties and interpretations taken to make the match fit, but it's forgivable.  Bermejo's art is top-notch; I think he's my favorite comic artist.  Each page is amazing- the details are everywhere, and the characters beautifully done.  The final produce is quite good, and well worth a read.  Like most graphic novels, it's a quick read, too- easily done in about an hour.

Merry Christmas, Gotham!

Rating: A

The Hobbit (An Unexpected Journey)

Can it be 11 years since Middle-Earth first ventured on the big screen?  In 2001, Peter Jackson released The Fellowship of the Ring, the first in the Lord of the Rings saga- a movie trilogy that went on to be wildly successful and extremely respected.  Fast forward to 2012, and at long last, we get the first Tolkien story in the saga- The Hobbit.  Why did it take so long?  The director changed a few times, and different studios owned the rights to make and distribute the movie, respectively, so it took a while to work out those squabbles.  But, finally, Jackson returned to helm the saga- and decided to break The Hobbit into three movies, the first of which was released a few weeks ago.  How did the first installment turn out?  Read on, my friend- read on!

I won't get into detailed plot review here; I'll just say that The Hobbit is a story of how Bilbo Baggins joined a small band of dwarves (and Gandalf the wizard) on their quest to reclaim their homeland (the Lonely Mountain- an ancient kingdom called Erebor) from the dragon Smaug.  On that journey, Bilbo encounters Gollum, and obtains (quite by accident) the one ring that gets his nephew Frodo into no small degree of excitement many years later in the Lord of the Rings.  This time around, since three movies are covering just one novel, Jackson throws in a lot of back-story, too, which is (I'm told) true to Tolkien's universe, but not necessarily discussed in the novel.  He's been criticized for that, but I think it's justified (more on that later).

As I watched the movie, I couldn't help but appreciate Jackson's plight.  He had a massive following from the first three movies, which raised expectations to wild heights.  Now, he had to go back and tell the "origin story" to an audience brimming with anticipation.  I think he did a good job- here are a few thoughts (in bullet form, for some reason):
- the movie has many similarities to The Fellowship of the Ring.  It features a grand, epic journey, starting from Bag End (the Baggins home), passing through woods, mountains, underground mines, and encountering many people (like dwarves, elves, orcs, goblins, giant eagles).  
- the movie is extremely epic.  Some say "melodramatic"- and that may be the more appropriate word- but I'll use the word epic.  Everything is epic- extremely grandiose.  At times, I confess, I thought it overdone, but as I look back on the original trilogy, it mirrors what was done there.  So, anybody complaining about that forgets that it's simply a continuation of style from the first three movies.
- some have complained about telling The Hobbit in three parts.  I can see two parts, easily- three might be a stretch, but time will tell.  It gives Jackson a chance to delve more into this amazing world, and visually present back story only mentioned (or implied) in the books.  The Lord of the Rings movies, by necessity, had to omit a large amount of material, so here Jackson gets a chance to include more of the story.  I, for one, enjoyed that, and I think fans of Middle-Earth will, too.
- critics have panned this movie, calling it sprawling, overdone, etc.  Are they justified?  In a sense, I understand, but I think The Hobbit suffers primarily from one thing: overblown expectations.  I saw it in the Star Wars prequels, in the final Batman movie (The Dark Knight Rises), and I see it here. When a director produces a movie (or several movies) that blow people away, people expect more, and more, and more.  If that same director then creates a movie of the same quality as the others, people are (for some reason) disappointed.
- here, Jackson has a problem- The Hobbit story clearly has less at stake than The Lord of the Rings.  In the latter, the fate of Middle-Earth is in the balance; in the former, a small band is trying to reclaim their home.  In a sense, I can see people being disappointed for this reason, but again, that's the story, so don't blame the director for that.

Conclusion: if you loved The Lord of the Rings movies, you'll like this one, too.  If you found the first three offerings overly dramatic, drawn-out, or boring, you'll feel the same about The Hobbit.

One final comment: a good review (which discusses much of the above in a better manner) can be found here.

Rating: A

The Town Below the Ground (Jan Andrew Henderson)

One of my many issues: when I travel, I frequently pick up books of local interest.  During a recent trip to Edinburgh, I was enchanted by the tour of the real Mary King's Close (highly recommended if you visit that city), and picked up a few books on the topic.  The Town Below the Ground tells the story of the lower levels of Edinburgh- now sealed off and underground, though initially at street level.  It's amazing how much "old city" is underneath the street of the modern town.  Endless chambers and narrow passageways still exist underground, and this book tells a bit of their story.

The book is a bit of a hodgepodge.  The first half is history, but a very quick overview.  It covers (among other things) the unique geography of the city, and how the steeply sloping hills (and lack of space due to overcrowding) led city designers to start burrowing into the hills on which Edinburgh is built, creating lots of "underground" homes.  It also discusses the bridges built between hills, to create a relatively level city, and the resulting decision to create chambers and dwellings underneath those bridges, creating a unique environment.

The second half is a collection of legends and reported hauntings related to the underground town.  Rather unrelated to the first section, it was interesting, but seemed a bit out of place.

This work had great potential, but failed to deliver on some fronts.  First, the history section isn't very in-depth; it's about the same amount as you receive on an hour tour of Mary King's Close.  Not bad, but disappointing- I was hoping for something more detailed and informative.  Second, the author is relatively free with the use of the term "underground."  Several places, she (I think it's a she) acknowledges that the chambers, initially, weren't underground, but either under bridges or built into the side of steep hills.  Over time, in some places these areas became underground, but they weren't always.  It's being a bit confusing and sensationalist implying that they always were- and that bothered me.  The real history is fascinating enough without hyperbole, and more clarity on the matter would have been appreciated.  Third, just a map or two of Edinburgh in the book would have been tremendously helpful.  The author throws around area names and street names assuming the reader is familiar- a simple map would have been nice.

While there were some shortcomings, this was an extremely fast and interesting read.  Any visitors to Edinburgh would probably enjoy their visit more if they read this book first.

Rating: B-

The Lord God Made Them All (James Herriot)

It's more of the same- and that's a good thing- from James Herriot.  The fourth collection of Herriot's adventures, The Lord God Made Them All, takes place (mostly) in the post-WWII period of Britain.  And, like the previous offerings, it's a wonderful recollection of Herriot's experiences as a vet in the Yorkshire Dales- the triumphs, the heartbreaks, and the laugh-out-loud situations he encountered regularly.

In this volume, Herriot recounts two trips he took- one over sea, tending sheep on their way to Russia, and one by air, taking cattle to Turkey- and both turn out to be high adventures.  Most of the rest of the stories are the "same old" Dales stories, but again, that's a good thing.  My personal favorite in this volume is the goat who ate 293 tomatoes in one afternoon and was none the worse for it.

All of Herriot's offerings are remarkably similar, both in style and quality- if you like one, you'll like them all.

Rating: A

The Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner (James Hogg)

Set in Scotland in the early 1700s, The Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner features a man who has taken Calvinist doctrine to the extreme, with horrific consequences.  Calvinist teachings hold that a man is justified based not on man's works, but entirely on God's grace.  In the story, the main character takes that one step too far, and draws an erroneous conclusion: since our justification in Christ is complete, nothing we do can be thought of as wrong.  The man is then visited by a mysterious stranger (rather obviously Satan), who builds on this idea and puts him on the path of becoming a murderer "in the name of God."  He kills several people, to include his own brother.  His (unknowingly) Satanic dealings eventually destroy his life, and he ends up passing away shortly after some of his worst crimes.  He keeps a journal about his experiences, which is found on his corpse about a century later.

The author of Confessions learns this story and reconstructs it based on the journal.  He tells it in a novel way- first, he presents a reconstruction of the events; then, he presents the journal in its original form; finally, he tells the reader how he came by the journal in the first place.  As the introduction says, "The whole book is, in a sense, written backwards."

How was it?  Overall, I thought it was great.  I see elements in here similar to Crime and Punishment- this idea that maybe you can commit crimes for good reasons (though that never seems to work out for good, in either story).  I also saw a general gothic fiction undertone to the novel- the psychological terror of Satan's manipulations (and how the man twisted it to fit it into God's purposes, or what he thought were God's purposes) is top-notch.  Good stuff overall- an appropriate cautionary tale.

Though it was good, at times, it was a hard read for several reasons:
1) A knowledge of the history of the time period is certainly necessary for full understanding; the version I read includes many footnotes to aid comprehension.
2) Knowledge of Calvinist doctrine is also required; again, footnotes assist, but first-hand knowledge is better.
3) It's very hard to read when the author reproduces a conversation in "proper Scottish"- it may as well be another language (and, indeed, some of the footnotes 'translate' into something we understand).

Overall, I recommend this.  I'll end with a quote from the novel, that I feel perfectly captures the point:
"Religion is a sublime and glorious thing, the bonds of society on earth, and the connector of humanity with the Divine nature; but there is nothing so dangerous to man as the wresting of any of its principles, or forcing them beyond their due bounds: this is of all others the readiest way to destruction.  Neither is there anything so easily done.  There is not an error into which a man can fall which he may not press Scripture into his service as proof of the probity of . . ."

Rating: A-

Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter

Having enjoyed the book immensely, I eagerly anticipated the movie Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter.  Did it meet expectations?  Sadly, no.

Let me back up and say, as a rule, that I don't need book adaptations to match the book exactly.  I understand the need to alter the story to fit the big screen.  That said, I was surprised by just how different the movie was from the book.  Many changes seemed absolutely needless.  Some changes to "ramp up the action" were understandable, but many others were not.  The action was good, and the casting was good, but overall I felt the movie was a shell of the book, which is sad, because the book was wonderful.  The typical experience holds true yet again- the book is better than the movie.  Would I have enjoyed this more had I watched the movie first?  I can't say- I suppose so- but if I were you, I'd devour the book and ignore the movie.

Rating: C

A Briefer History of Time (Stephen Hawking)

My British reading list contains three science selections, and I decided to finally tackle one.  Science interests me, but I find most texts in this area rather boring, so I wasn't looking forward to it.  I was pleasantly surprised.

A Briefer History of Time is a condensed and significantly revised version of Hawking's A Brief History of Time (published ~30 years ago).  The newer version is only slightly shorter, but updated to both appeal to a broader audience, and include major advances made in understanding in the past three decades.  It covers a range of topics, to include relativity, quantum physics, wormholes, time travel, and string theory.  It discusses each at an extremely high, non-technical level.  I'd be lying if I said I understood everything- but I did learn a bit from this.  It's a surprisingly fast read at ~150 pages, and an interesting "foundation" book if you're interested in these topics.  One surprising (to me) conclusion is that we have so many "holes" in our current theories- there are so many observations made that don't quite agree with our models.  There are lots of inexplicable things going on.  Will we ever understand them?  Will it matter if we do?  I don't know- but it's fun to think about.

One final comment here: the universe is a mighty weird place, yet amazingly beautiful.  The fact that life exists at all, or even inanimate things like the stars and planets, seems a miracle.  It's good to think about this as we learn more about some of the "guts" of our universe. 

Rating: B

A little bit of eloquence

Long have I bemoaned the degenerecy into which conversational English has fallen.  Where is the eloquence; where is the variety?  I yearn for the days of vibrant diatribe.  The English language has thousands of words at our disposal, yet we use so few.*  A poignant illustration of the problem: last year I overheard a colleague say "OMG."  Now, this colleague has a MBA, so it's reasonable to assume there's a level of education there, yet (apparently) this person thought it totally acceptable to "text" out loud.  Is that how far we've fallen?  Are we no longer capable of flowery discourse; of adroit elocution?  I could take the standard position and blame TV, video games, or Tennessee public schools, but I'm going to take the high road and blame Bruce.**

Literature, sadly, is no different.  Today's works don't hold a candle to the creative musings of the past.  Consider several examples taken from recent readings:

Boring: "Stop this nonsense."
Interesting: "Have done with this rhapsody of impertinence." - The Castle of Otranto (1764)

Boring: "He started snoring loudly."
Interesting: "He began, in truth, to sound a nasal bugle of no ordinary calibre." - The Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner (1824)

Boring: "His surname was Cruncher; his Christian name, Jerry."
Interesting: "His surname was Cruncher, and on the youthful occasion of his renouncing by proxy the works of darkness, in the easterly parish church of Houndsditch, he had received the added appellation of Jerry."- A Tale of Two Cities (1859)

See what I mean?  See?  We're so utterly lost in today's world.  What do we fear?  Why is it acceptable to say "sup" but somehow wrong to say "a very fine salutations to you, ho ho!"  It's as though pervasive use of multi-syllabic, interesting, and/or little-used words are counted as an unspoken detriment to our reputation.  Sheesh.  And they say we're getting better.  In 100 years we'll be grunting and pointing- if you don't believe me, listen in on two engineers talking some time.  The explosion of technology and communication methods has occurred, ironically, in conjunction with noticeable decrease in communication ability.  We now have more ways to talk, but fewer things to say- or, at least, fewer words to use during a typical verbal exchange.  Already I tire of my rant.  Peace out, fools.  Word up.

*probably- I'm too tired to research it.
**this one guy I work with.

Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter (Seth Grahame-Smith)

The danger of doing anything excessively is that it can dull the senses.  For example, living in Europe, I've become somewhat immune to the beauty of cathedrals, due to the number I've visited.  Their elegance doesn't diminish with each new trip- just my appreciation of it.  Variety is the spice of life, so even the most stunning object can become mundane when frequently visited.  Reading is no different- I've read a lot of books this year, and many good ones, but I've rarely been blown away, perhaps due to the frequency of my readings.  My latest selection, however, knocked my socks off, and I never saw it coming.

Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter is a highly unusual work.  Too fantastic to be historical fiction, yet too factual to be pure fiction, some have termed it "mashup" fiction.  It's basically a biography of Abraham Lincoln- his birth in Kentucky, formative years in Indiana and Illinois, presidency in later life- but with a serious twist: he hunts vampires.  Why?  Because his mother, sister, and others dear to him were killed by them.  Abe learns of vampires' existence by overhearing a conversation between his father and a vampire; he later learns that vampires exist in vast numbers all over the world, and that in America, there are essentially "good" and "bad" bloodsuckers.  One of the former befriends Abe, and teaches him the tricks of the vampire hunting trade, and informs him periodically of the location of the more notorious bad vamps.  Fueled by both passion over lost loved ones, and a desire for justice, Abe sets out to rid America of all of the monsters.  His avenging quests are inter-weaved with his true life story, so you end up learning a lot about him as you enjoy the obviously fantastic tale.

This work is of surprising quality- the 330 pages flew by.  It was vastly entertaining, and highly recommended.  A movie by the same name has been released; I have yet to view it, but it's now high on my list.     

Rating: A+

Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance

One of my admittedly guilty pleasures is enjoying bad movies solely because they feature flaming skeletons.  Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance is one such movie.  Was there a good plot?  No!  Decent character development?  Absolutely not!  Horrible theology and cheesy dialogue?  Heck yes!  So, what was redeeming about this?  It has a flaming skeleton riding a motorcycle.

I enjoyed the first Ghost Rider movie more (though it suffered from much the same problems); it had a bit of back-story and development, at least.  This one was notably worse, though there were some nice colors and scenery.  Random trivia: this is "kind of" a reboot of the franchise, though it featured the same actor (Nicolas Cage) as the first movie.  Everyone else was different, to include filming style- this time around, it was a bit choppy.  This film was also darker and grittier. 

It'd fail over all, but the flaming skeleton gives this a:

Rating: C-

Ivanhoe (Sir Walter Scott)

Ivanhoe, by Sir Walter Scott, is a tale much loved.  It concerns Wilfred, a Saxon Knight returning from the Third Crusade, and his quest to claim his lands (taken by the Normans) and his love, the Lady Rowena, who is under the care of his father Cedric.  Prince John, with designs on the throne while Richard I is away on Crusade, factors heavily in the tale, as does the Lion Heart himself.  Robin Hood plays a large part, as does the evil Templar Knight Brian Bois-de-Guilbert, along with Isaac & Rebecca of York, Jews much disdained in Christian England.

I've read that Scott invented, or at least reinvented, the historical fiction genre, so his depictions are supposed to be reasonably accurate.  They have shortcomings, but aren't too bad.  It's interesting (in a sad way) to see how poorly Jews were treated by Christians in this era, and how Saxons viewed the conquering Normans in Medieval England.

I have very mixed feelings about this work.  The prose is excellent- more eloquent than modern times, without being as difficult as Dickens.  Scott begins each chapter with a poem pulled from different sources, which I loved, but sometimes gave away what would happen.  The plot is good.  The characters, too, were wonderful.  My favorites were Cedric's jester, Wamba, who displayed an unusual amount of wit for a 'fool,' and Friar Tuck, Robin Hood's friar.  A lot of good stuff was to be found here.  Still, that said, something was off here, and I had a hard time figuring out what.  I think, in the end, the plot was delivered in a way that failed to build suspense.  The identity of Robin Hood & King Richard are not immediately revealed to the reader, but it's pretty obvious, so it wasn't a shocker when you found out the truth.  Some fights were described in a very anti-climactic way, and Scott would "pull out" of the story, and say things like "let the reader understand, that what I'm about to elaborate is in every way conceivable as having happened in this period."  I felt as though I had trouble immersing myself in this world, being often "pulled out" and reminded that I'm reading a recollection.  So, this is a work I wanted to give an A, or even A+, but in light of these things, I'll have to settle for something a little lower.

In the end, Scott is a good author, and I hope to read more in the future.   And, as a final thought, here is my favorite poem that fronted one chapter:

The hottest horse will oft be cool,
The dullest will show fire;
The friar will often play the fool,
The fool will play the friar

So true!

Rating: A-

The Turn of the Screw (Henry James)

The Turn of the Screw is considered to be among the best ghost stories ever written.  It concerns a governess, charged with the care of two orphaned children in an old manor home, as their guardian (an Uncle) lives elsewhere.  The governess sees two ghosts on the premises, at various times, who she subsequently discovers are previous employees of said Uncle, both now deceased, who (it's implied) committed great acts of evil while in the house, perhaps even with the children the governess is hired to educate.  I'll say no more, for fear of spoiling the ending.

This work certainly succeeds in keeping the reader in suspense- I made the mistake of reading it late at night, and my wife's unexpected entrance into the room almost sent me through the roof.  It was haunting, disturbing, and, in the end, a bit mystifying- the conclusion left the reader in suspense.  Perhaps that was the point, though I would have preferred more closure.  The prose was, at times, difficult to read; save for that, the work is highly worthwhile- for those interested in the macabre.

Rating: A

Soccer & Football

Recently, I was fortunate enough to attend a football game.  Well, a soccer game, to be correct, but one of the many foibles of the English is that they have funny names for things, needlessly confusing an otherwise clear language. We'll call it soccer from here on out.

English (and European) soccer leagues are quite different from their US counterparts.  And I don't mean the US soccer league- MLS*- I mean the real sports leagues, like the NFL, NBA, MLB, and LWV**.  Here's a quick guide to how it all works.

Leagues
In the English system, you have not one but several leagues, arranged in a tier system.  Here are the tiers, from best to worst, with number of teams in each following in parentheses:

Premiereship (20)
Football League:
   Championship (24)
   League 1 (24)
   League 2 (24)
National League System:
   7 tiers, with varying numbers of teams in each
Houses of Parliament:
   House of Lords
   House of Commons

The teams in each league change every year- the bottom few teams in a given league drop down to the next lower league, and the top few move up to the next higher, if possible. In theory, with this system, a team starting in tier 7 of the national league system could, after just over a decade, ascend to the Premiership.  Contrast this to the US leagues, where you have one tier, with a set number of teams- generally 30ish- and the teams, no matter how abysmal, stay in the league from year to year.  When I say "stay in the league," I mean literally, of course- based on performance, one could credibly claim that the Cleveland Browns left the league years ago, but nobody's told them***.  The bottom line is that, in the States, there's no tier system.  Everyone stays. In English soccer, you have to get used to a slightly different alignment each year.

Other Leagues
Thus far, I've discussed only English leagues.  But, let's shake things up a bit.  Like England, most other European nations have a host of problems and odd-looking people, as well as a tiered soccer system- this is true in Germany, Spain, and even France.  The best teams from the top league of each country form another league- called the Champions League- which takes the best 1-4 teams (depending on country) from each country's top league (the Premiereship in our case), and pits those teams against each other.  This league doesn't meet (almost) every weekend, like the national team leagues- Champions League play occurs every few weeks, on a weekday, and has a "group stage" before the knockout stages (like the World Cup). 

The Europa League is yet another league, and takes the next best teams from each country's top league and pits them against each other.  So, for example, if the English Premier League has Teams 1-4 in the Champions League, teams 5-7/8 get to play in the Europa League, which is structured the same way as the Champions League (group stage/etc).  Like me, you've probably stopped caring by this point.

Trophies and Championships
In American sports, there's a regular season, followed by playoffs, and the winner of the playoffs is champion of the whole league- or, in most cases, deemed "champion of the world."   There are no playoffs in English soccer.  Instead, there are trophies.  The trophies for which clubs can compete depends, in part, on which league(s) they're in.  Each season, at least 3 trophies are up for grabs:
1) The League Trophy
The team with the best record in each league at the end of the year is awarded a trophy for that league.  So, number 1 in the Premiership gets that trophy, number 1 in the Championship gets that trophy, etc.  Teams generally play league games on weekends.
2) The FA Cup Trophy
The FA cup is a single elimination tournament where teams in the top 10 leagues- Premiership through Tier 6 of the national league system- compete for the FA Cup trophy. Teams generally play FA Cup games on weekdays.
3) The League Cup Trophy
   The League cup is a single elimination tournament where teams in the top 4 leagues- Premiership through League 2- compete for the League Cup Trophy.  Teams generally play League Cup games on weekdays.

If you're in the Champions or Europa League, you could get a trophy for winning them, too.

The interesting aspect of this system is, one team could play against the same opponent over the span of a few weeks, but for completely different competitions.  Arsenal, for example, could play Chelsea on a Saturday in a Premiereship league match-up, then play Chelsea again on the following Wednesday in a FA Cup match-up, the play Chelsea a few weeks later on a Tuesday in a League Cup match-up.  Confusing, isn't it?

Team Names
American sports teams have a pretty standard name format: <city> <team name>.  The team name portion is generally something like an animal, weather effect, or political affiliation, and you call the team by that name.  Examples:
Philadelphia Eagles
Tampa Bay Lightning
Los Angeles Communists

In England, the team names may or may not include the city, may have more than one team per city, and they have a nickname that isn't in their "title."
Manchester United (plays in Manchester) <nickname: The Red Devils>
Arsenal (plays in London) <nickname: Gunners>
Chelsea (plays in London) <nickname: Blues>
Newcastle United (plays in Newcastle) <nickname: Magpies>

They also have a logo, which is often related neither to their title nor their nickname.  Newcastle United's logo, for example, has what appear to be seahorses.  Watford has a logo with a red moose- and the team nickname is "the Hornets."  This is due, I believe, to centuries of in-breeding.  As an aside, one of my favorite team names is Sheffield Wednesday. Putting a day of the week, or time of the day, in team names should be mandatory.  "Who do you favor?"  "Oh, I'm going for Doncaster 5pm every other Monday except on government holidays."

Fans
The most important thing to understand about English soccer fans is that they're mentally unstable and allowed to freely operate outside what we could call "the law."  Arson, assault, and public urination are not only permitted, but mandated at many soccer events.  There's even one case- seriously- where the fans set fire to their own stadium after they won.  And that's when they're happy.

Fans sing team songs throughout the match, which are normally highly amusing and likely to get you fired or shot if you ever sang them in other public settings.  I won't elaborate, save to say things like "ethics" and "kind words" are generally not themes of the tunes.

Attending Games
For those unfamiliar- and many Americans are- soccer is a game that requires excellent physical conditioning and a decent acting ability.  Here's what you'll see players doing at a match:
- kick ball
- run
- fall over, whether or not anybody's in the area, grasping knee, with a grimace of incomprehensible anguish
- hope for foul
   - if no foul, get up and play like nothing happened
   - if foul, get up and play like nothing happened
- go to start

When attending a game, if you value your existence, do not cheer for the away team unless you're sitting in the designated away team section, guarded by most of the English army and a healthy contingent of automated missile launchers.

Here's what you'll see after the match:
- riots
- looting
- unmitigated random acts of violence
And that's from the police.  I won't even get into the fans' activities.

Conclusion
I don't remember why I did this, but it's gone on long enough.  English soccer is fun- when enjoyed responsibly.


*nobody watches the MLS- some of the league's own players even expressed surprise when informed of its existence.
**League of Women Voters
***and nobody cares- it's Cleveland.

A Grief Observed (CS Lewis)

You will die.  So will your kids.  If you're lucky, you'll go first.  I'm probably in the minority here, but I often reflect on this.  I pass someone many years my senior in town, hobbling as best they can down the street, and think to myself, "that will be me before long."  I wander through a graveyard, reading the stones with their words of anguish and hope, and reflect on the fact that I, like all the dead, will be soon forgotten.  How many generations mourn the passing of distant ancestors?  Do we ever weep as we recall our great-great-great-grandparents?  Of course we don't, because we don't know who they were.  And, many years from now, our descendants won't know who we are, either.  Even with the proliferation of digital pictures- how many thousands of shots of each of us exist?- we will be soon forgotten.

Where do we go when we die?  Do our souls exist, or cease entirely?  These are questions often ignored.  We live our lives, focused on the moment, and when a death of someone near to us occurs, we mourn for a time, but seldom reflect on death's reality and consequence, returning soon to our "normal" lives, perhaps affected by the passing, but soon choosing to forget and march on.  We have to, to survive- dwelling at length on some of these questions awakes only feelings of intense uneasiness in us.  We fear the answer, so we forget and move on.  At death, we either cease to be, or we don't- and either option has terrifying implications.

CS Lewis wrote A Grief Observed immediately after his wife of just 4 years passed away- it appears to be a collection of journal entries within a few weeks of her passing.  Lewis, a lifelong bachelor, had married in his mid-fifties a woman much younger (early forties), but who suffered with cancer.  They enjoyed a happy, though brief, marriage, and her passing brought out (as you'd expect) a rash of emotions in Lewis, which he captured here.  This is a tremendously small volume, and not tremendously structured- but, could you expect it to be?  It is a journal, after all, and that, topped with the wave of emotions one can experience in such circumstances, it's not surprising that it's "all over the place."

I really liked this, though I couldn't always track with what Lewis was saying (I have this problem with some of his other works, too).  You see a man in anguish, without all the fluff- real stuff here.  You see a man try to make sense of death, and whether or not there is a God in the midst of it all.  While, as I said, it's not tremendously structured, and doesn't even appear to have an overall conclusion, it's a good study into the process of mourning, and forces the reader to think about some tough questions regarding this life, and the next.

Rating: A

Man Up

John Mark,

Happy (belated) Thanksgiving- the day of the year when you stop, briefly, to reflect on the fact that you are very blessed, and have much for which to give thanks, before reverting back to your standard posture of constant ingratitude and whining about the supposedly grievous injustices that consistently befall you.  I understand- I mean, think about how hard your life is- sometimes, it rains, and you get wet.  Every now and then you get stuck in a traffic jam.  Occasionally the store is out of that one product you're seeking.  And, horror of horrors- sometimes a package takes a few weeks to reach you.  Poor baby- I don't know how you survive.  How do you find the fortitude to persevere through such daunting hardships?

Here's my message to you: man up.  Everyone has problems in their lives; so what.  Most people can point to difficult situations- family struggles, financial woes, problems at work- and declare woe on themselves.  I don't mean to minimize problems- some are real and hurtful- but the bottom line is, and will always be, thus: you, John Mark, are blessed.  Most of the things you consider unacceptable throughout your days are horribly small and inconsequential issues.  You are easily frustrated by trifling matters- why?  You must have some ill-founded expectation that things are supposed to go perfectly and easily for you.  Where does that expectation come from?  From a deep-seated belief that you're somehow owed a living.  You're not- you're not owed a thing.  So, the fact that you have anything is amazing, let alone the number of blessings that have been heaped upon you.  Consider- healthy family, two beautiful (if ill-tempered) children, a stable job, good friends, a comfortable life.  You certainly have grounds to whine . . . not.  Man up.  Man up.

In particular, let me address some areas that frequently frustrate you:
1) The kids are misbehaving and have issues.
Gee, I wonder where they learned that from.  Were you a gem of a child?  Hardly.  Right now, your mother is justifiably laughing- secretly filled with nigh-indescribable mirth over your situation.  At last, you understand what she went through.  Here's the thing: your kids have problems because we all have problems- adults just hide them better (some of the time).  You have them, they have them, everyone has them.  Man up and stop expecting them to be something you're not. Spend time striving to be an example they can follow rather than focusing on their shortcomings.

2) Work can be frustrating.
Stop being a crybaby.  You're overpaid and under-worked.  Your job is stable, fun, and you're able to provide for your family.  What more could you ask for?  Stop this constant "airing of grievances" at work.  Get the job done, and man up.

3) You don't have as much freedom (or free time) as you'd like.
I'm not even going to comment on this one.  Wait- yes I will.  Again, man up.  Children show us how selfish we are, because they demand what we want for ourselves- time and energy.  Your mother devoted herself entirely to raising four kids . . . and you're whining about the sacrifices involved in raising two.  Poor, poor John Mark . . . it's so hard.  Sheesh.  You want difficulty- read up on the challenges experienced by those in WWII, or in any war for that matter.  Their problems reveal yours to be what they are- inconsequential.

In conclusion, my two messages to you this Thanksgiving are:
1) live in a spirit of thankfulness always
2) man up

Oh good- it's Black Friday.  Now you can display how thankful you are, like millions of Americans, by spending money you shouldn't on things you don't need.  You need serious help.

- Herman

The Castle of Otranto (Horace Walpole)

Finding myself a fan of gothic fiction, I finally read The Castle of Otranto, a work that many consider the origin of the genre.  Written in 1764 by Horace Walpole, the story revolves around Manfred, current ruler of the area, who lives in said castle.  Manfred's son, Conrad, is to be wed to the princess Isabella, who is the closest blood descendant of Alfonso, the last of the prior line of rulers (Manfred's grandfather or great-grandfather assumed control after Alfonso's death).  Conrad is killed on his wedding day by a giant helmet falling from the sky.  Manfred fears this means his house is at risk, and what follows is his increasingly bizarre and evil attempts to avoid the end of his bloodline.  There are a number of important characters in the story, like Father Jerome, Theodore, and Manfred's wife Hippolita and daughter Matilda, whose stories I will not elaborate here, for fear of spoiling the novel; neither will I expound upon the ending.  It's a short work, at around 120 pages; an easy afternoon read.

I enjoyed parts of this, but not as much as I hoped.  I was expecting something more along the lines of Dracula, Frankenstein, or Jekyll & Hyde- what I got was partly true to these, but partly Shakespeare, which for some reason I found annoying (there were a few rants that went on a bit too long- it felt like I was reading a play at times.  Man up and stop whining, people- or, if you must, keep your airing of grievances succinct).  The story was okay, and the eloquence at times was great.  Overall, not bad, but there are better in the genre.

Rating: B-

The History of the Kings of Britain (Geoffrey of Monmouth)

I believe I posted this before, but books are considered classics for at least one of the following reasons:
1) they're well written and interesting
2) they're valuable historical or social commentaries
3) they had a profound and lasting impact on culture
4) they're really old

The History of the Kings of Britain, written in 1136, falls predominantly into the third and fourth categories.  It chronicles the kings from Britain's founding to around the 800s.  Geoffrey, the author, labels it as history, but even his contemporaries disputed much of the content of this work.  And, reading it, you see why.  There are a number of places where the text contradicts itself, and a number of things that don't seem possible, like talking eagles and giants.  There are historical figures mentioned, and Geoffrey drew from earlier accounts from notable historians like Gildas, Nennius, and Bede, but it's still more fiction than fact.  So, what's the value here?  One word: Arthur.

Geoffrey's account is not the first time King Arthur appears- Nennius' work, Historia Brittonum, was written about 300 years earlier and mentions him- but History is the first time we get any details.  Nennius mentions Arthur almost in passing, stating only that he won many battles; Geoffrey really expounds.  Here, at a high level, are some of the things Geoffrey writes about that still hold true in the more modern tales:
- Uther Pendragon is Arthur's father
- Merlin is a magician who serves in Uther's time
- Arthur marries Guinevere
- Guinevere is unfaithful
- Arthur has a sword called "Caliburn," clearly related to the modern "Excalibur"
- Arthur has relatives Gawain and Mordred
- Mordred tries to take the kingdom from Arthur
- Kay serves Arthur
- Arthur receives a mortal wound at the battle of Camlann and is carried off to Avalon, prophesied to return and once more be king at a time in the future when Britain is restored to the Britons

There are some concepts presented aren't generally held in the modern legends.  Merlin does not know/advise Arthur, and Guinevere cheats on Arthur with Mordred (vice Lancelot).  Arthur spends a good deal of time on continental Europe, fighting various factions, to include Romans- indeed, he's marching to Rome when he hears of Mordred's treachery, and turns back to reclaim his isle from the usurper.  In this account, there's no mention of the knights of the round table, Sir Lancelot, or any of the other now-famous knights.  In short, there are many similarities, but many differences, too.

The Arthur portion was interesting; aside from that, I took little from this work.  The account is told with little "flair," and I wasn't really interested in most of it.  It was too fictitious to be history, so one couldn't glean much from it in that regard, yet it was not fantastic enough to be interesting.  If you're going to put talking eagles into this thing, run with it and spice it up a little.  On the whole, I found this more readable than Bede's account, due to content, but it wasn't as fun as I hoped it would be.  If you're heavily into the Arthurian legend, read the Arthur portions of this book (about 1/3 of it).  Else, move on to other pastures.

Rating: C+

Elektra

Of the 30+ superhero movies that have been released since 2000, Elektra is ranked as one of the worst, with good reason.  The film explores the story of the title character, who was introduced in the movie Daredevil.  In that film, she dies, but thankfully there are karate masters who can bring people back to life, so she's resurrected, and lives the life of an assassin.  One of her targets, unbeknownst to her, is a girl of great power- called "the treasure" by the Hand, an evil organization of karate people.  Apparently, the treasure is the difference-maker in the never-ending battle between good and evil, so the Hand is looking for her.  Elektra is sent to kill her, but decides to have mercy, and ends up throwing in her lot with the treasure and her father.  Elektra's old organization- I don't know what they're called, so let's call them the good karate people- helps out in protecting the child, which is good, because the evil karate people have special abilities like:
- having tattoos that come to life and chase the good guys through the forests
- being impervious to bullets and weapons (but can be killed by falling tree trunks, apparently)
- being able to slowly drain your life by touching you
Both the good and people people can see the future, which is pretty cool, and they use it as a plot device to make anything they want happen.

It's a weird, erratic film, with a few good elements thrown into a sea of confusion.  Not recommended.

Rating D--

Rime of the Ancient Mariner (Samuel Coleridge)

Realizing that I had little poetry on my British reading list, I decided to add Rime of the Ancient Mariner to my ever-expanding "to read" pile.  It's short- easily readable in a sitting- and good.  It ably fulfills what, to me, is the most important rule of poetry- it rhymes- and it's also a good story.

Rime concerns a sailor who sets out to explore the seas.  After a run of good fortune and bad, said sailor shoots a trailing albatross.  His crew doesn't know whether to thank him or hate him- they don't know if the albatross was a source of their good luck, or their bad.  Apparently, though, it's the latter, because the entire crew, save the main sailor, is later killed when they come upon a ghost ship or something, where Death, some woman, and Al Gore are playing cards, gambling for the fate of the explorers.  Death wins, obviously, though the sailor is force to remain alive as punishment for his crime.  He's adrift at sea for some time, prompting him to make the famous "water water everywhere, and not a drop to drink" statement.  Thankfully, the crew is reanimated as zombies for some reason, and the sailor is able to return home.  A hermit on shore sees the returning ship, rows out to meet it, the ship sinks, the sailor's adrift, the hermit picks him up, and the sailor spends the rest of his days telling all he encounters his tale.

I was admittedly lost at times- but I enjoyed it nonetheless.

Rating: A-

Live Simple

John Mark,

Greetings again from your sane half.  You don't see me much- your irrational moments are frequent and overpowering- but every now and then, your sane side bubbles to the top and puts thoughts in your head that, if you bothered to implement them, would make your life easier.  I doubt you will, but here's hoping.


Today's topic is living simply.  You're a materialist, and a rather shameless one at that.  It's one of your many problems, and it's a big one.  Materialism: the collection, even hoarding, of material things in all forms, and of placing said things in a station higher than they're due in life.  Yes, this is a big issue with you- you buy and have a lot more than you need.  You buy because it makes you happy- for a moment, at least.  It must not make you happy for long, because you're back to buying more soon thereafter.  You think you would have learned by now- guess not.  And people think you're intelligent*.  Materialism is quite common in the western world, so that makes it okay.  No it doesn't.  Let's look at the true ramifications of materialism, starting with what it takes to introduce something into your home.

There are three main stages to getting something new:
1) Before the purchase, you have to:
    -spend time finding it
    -spend resources finding it (like gas, driving around town)
2) During the purchase, you must:
    -expend resources (likely money) to obtain it
3) After the purchase, you may have to:
    -transport it to your home
    -find a place to put it in your home
    -buy storage units to accommodate it in your home
    -organize it into an existing collection (think CDs or books)
    -buy something else to supplement or protect it (like accessories, or insurance for valuables)
    -maintain it (dust it, etc)
    -protect it (keep it nice, away from the kids, etc)
    -move it (whenever you move houses, which has become quite a habit for you)


Here's the overall point: buying something is much more than just spending money.  Count the cost.  Realize that storage, accessories, organization, and maintenance are all part of introducing something into your home.  I thus conclude that the materialist is not just poorly managing his monetary resources; he's poorly managing his life, allowing an inordinate amount of time to be dedicated to "stuff."  And, ironically, the more you have, the less you can enjoy it.  Let's move on and look at some specific areas of issue with you.


Books
You read a lot.  Good job- who cares.  You own about 300 books. You've read half of them.  Upon hearing this, some of your friends (unexpectedly) have sung your praises.  "Over 50%?  That's pretty good!" they've said.  They're wrong.  Don't believe them.  It's not good to have twice as much as you use. Since this is your current problem, here are some tips for keeping books:

1) Set a physical space limit.  Here's yours: the 3 bookshelves currently in the house, shared by all, but dominated by you.  If you allow these shelves to overflow, you'll incur some unsaid, yet undoubtedly terrifying, penalty.  So, once they're full, you have to get rid of a book if you want another.

2) Don't buy/keep a book unless you plan to do one or both of the following:
        a. read it more than once
        b. reference it at least once every few years
There's this thing called a library- use it once in a while.  Sometimes, you buy a book because you like the idea of it, but don't read it soon- in fact, a few books you've had for over 10 years, and you keep saying "I'll read it next year."  Hoarder- if you've had it a decade, maybe your interest isn't as great as you think.  Remember my note from last time- there are many good things you'll never experience, and that's okay.  Getting rid of books you're not reading doesn't mean you don't appreciate the content- it's just being responsible.  Sometimes, you buy/keep books so you can loan them if people want- at least, that's what you tell yourself.  You're not the town library, so stop the nonsense- you're throwing up a facade of generosity to justify purchasing things.  This is called a flimsy rationalization- you don't need to own it all.  Stick to the works you love and jettison the rest- you'll enjoy things more and have a simpler life, not to mention a bit more in your bank account.

Movies
Similar to the books section, so I'll just refer you there.  Bottom line: you have many more movies than you can watch at reasonable intervals.  Maybe you should give some away- like those Dora videos your daughter has.  Those things are horrible.  "Swiper no swiping- Swiper no swiping!"  Great, now I have that in my head.

Clothes
You think you're okay here, but there's always improvements to be made.  You enjoy collecting athletic jerseys- even though you don't wear them that often.  You even have been tempted to buy jerseys just because you like the design, and not because you care about the team.  That's stupid- man up.  If you like the design, google it and admire it every now and then.  You don't need to own it.  Also, get rid of a few shirts.  You wear only about 50% of your wardrobe consistently; why bother owning more stuff?  So it can sit there and look pretty?

Digital "Items"
I'm not done yet.  You think you get be less materialistic if you "go digital."  Burn your CDs to MP3 and get rid of them.  Buy eBooks instead of paper versions.  Scan your old photos and throw out the hard copies.  Yes, there are advantages to going digital.  Storage is cheap, data takes up less room, files are easily backed up, etc.  But, ask yourself, what's the point of amassing data?  Is digital hoarding any better?  For example, you have over 54,000 photos on your PC.  54,000.  How often do you look at them?  How often will you?  Wouldn't it be better to reduce that by 90%, and keep the ones you really cherish?  The more things you have, the less time you can spend enjoying them.

Food
Perishable items are not excluded from this little rant.  You buy food you don't need, often on a whim.  Your excuse seems reasonable- "I'm living overseas, I should enjoy the local offerings frequently"- but it's not.  You're fat.  You should lose 15lbs minimum.  You can enjoy things without indulging too frequently.  Heck, maybe you'd enjoy it more if you had it less often.  You didn't think of that, did you?

Final Thoughts
One point I didn't cover above- when you own lots of stuff, you can develop an obsession over keeping it nice.  Admit it- some things you own you value so much you're afraid to use them.  Wow- you really are an idiot.  What's the point of something that just sits on a shelf?  A few years ago, you were staying in a hotel and had nothing but a camera and old laptop with you.  The laptop was so old that you didn't care about it- you left it out, unprotected, in the hotel room as you explored that town.  What a sense of freedom you had!  No worrying over its safety, and it turned out to be fine, anyway.  Life gets better when you don't get wrapped around the axle worrying about stuff- and the less you have, the less you're likely to worry about it.

Within 70 years (likely sooner, the way your kids have been acting recently), you'll be dead.  You won't care what you have.  You won't care what you leave.  The more you have, the less you can enjoy what you have.  So, ironically, the satisfaction you seek by constant purchases actually diminishes your enjoyment- it drives you further from your goal.  The materialist thinks, irrationally, that there's a given threshold to be reached, and on reaching it, happiness is obtained.  Wrong- the more you grasp, the less you'll have, in the important sense of the word.

- Herman

*no they don't

Lord of the Flies (William Golding)

Most people seem to have read Lord of the Flies in high school, but I didn't, for whatever reason.  I was looking forward to this one- I like dark tales- and I wasn't disappointed.

A spoiler-laden novel overview: in the next world war, a plane carrying a group of boys (presumably being evacuated from a war zone) crashes on an uncharted, deserted island.  No adults survive; just the children.  Ralph, one of the bigger kids, becomes their leader, and the group proceeds to make fire (to be seen and rescued) and learn to hunt.  At first, things are fun and free- the boys, without supervision, can do as they like.  Things, however, quickly go downhill.  One of the hunters, Jack, eventually seizes control from Ralph, and leads a group of increasingly savage boys away from reason and civility, embracing the darkness inherent in the human heart.  Two boys are killed by Jack and his new tribe; they come after Ralph next, and set the island on fire to smoke him out.  Ralph is fleeing them when he comes upon a ship that has seen the smoke; the boys that remain are saved.  The novel ends with him, and all, weeping.  For Ralph, he "wept for the end of innocence, the darkness of man's heart, and the fall through the air of the true, wise friend called Piggy [a boy that had been killed by Jack's gang]."

On the whole, I had mixed feeling about this book.  The plot is superb- no question about that.  The execution was a bit different, at least to me.  A lot of things went unsaid or were given minimal explanation in the book, which is good in the sense that it drew the reader in and made the reader engage to think things through; occasionally, it had me a little confused.  Additionally, the dialogue between the boys was a bit choppy and seemed to meander illogically- while that annoyed me, I think it was probably an accurate representation of the wandering minds (and words) of children.  Those things aside, though, it was good.  Be warned- it's also dark- but we humans are more than capable of such.

Rating: A-

The Thin Ghost and Other Stories (MR James)

There's something about the British Isles that inspires feelings of the supernatural.  Is it the desolate moors and barren landscape of certain areas?  Or the ancient homes and ruins of great castles, which have undoubtedly witnessed great crimes in their day?  Or, perhaps, the abysmal weather, with frequent overcast skies and pervasive mists?  Whatever it is, this land screams "ghost story", so I realized, to my dismay, that on my British reading list I missed entirely this category of interest.  The problem was soon rectified- I quickly added three selections to my list.  The first up was A Thin Ghost and Other Stories by M.R. James, a well-respected master of the genre.  I chose A Thin Ghost because it was free on the Kindle.

I don't have much to say about it- an immensely quick read at 76 pages, A Thin Ghost features 5 (or 6) short stories revolving around tales of the supernatural or psychological.  I enjoyed the book- a few stories had me on the edge of my seat.  Some referenced what were probably popular works in James' day, so I didn't understand bits here and there, but overall, it was pretty good.  They say James invented the modern ghost story, and I see elements common to subsequent writings in the genre herein.  I look forward to more.

Rating: B

The Princes in the Tower (Alison Weir)

Anyone who's visited the Tower of London will be familiar with the story of the Princes in the Tower.  Edward IV, of the house of York, had claimed the throne during the Wars of the Roses.  He had two sons, Edward (V) and Richard, who were both pre-teens when their father passed in 1483.  Their uncle, also Richard, took the throne as guardian, awaiting the day when Edward V would reach adulthood (at age 14, in those days) and claim the throne for himself.  This Richard ended up imprisoning the boys in the Tower of London, where the boys eventually disappeared, and proclaimed himself king- Richard III.  He reigned for two years before dying at the battle of Bosworth in 1485; Henry VII, of the house Tudor, proceeded him, and thus ended centuries of Plantagenet rule.  The boys were never seen again.

Weir's book The Princes in the Tower looks at the times in detail- specifically focusing on events that revolve around the princes.  Where did the princes go?  Were they killed, or did they escape and survive in obscurity?  She concludes what many have- that Richard III was responsible for having the boys murdered, and their remains hidden.  Bones were found buried under a staircase in 1674- almost 200 years later- that seem to indicate that the princes were indeed killed and buried on Tower grounds.  These bones today reside in Westminster.

The book was okay.  I agree with her conclusion- though not always her methods.  She starts the book by claiming to take an unbiased look at things, which always gets my guard up- is such a thing possible?  She also makes several comments throughout the work like "so-and-so's account is detailed, so it must be true," and "contemporary sources don't mention _____, so it must be false."  Hmmmm.  Probability is in her favor, but not such that would hold up in court.  Overall, it's a good read about a dark time and the intrigues involved in a royal court.  But, there may be better out there.

Rating: B-

The return of Star Wars

By now, you've probably heard the news.  Yesterday, George Lucas sold his companies, including the rights to Star Wars, to Disney.  That story is here.  With rights in hand, Disney immediately announced plans for at least three more Star Wars films (episodes 7-9), with the first due out in 2015.  Other sources have indicated that Disney plans to release a new Star Wars film every 2-3 years ad infinitum.  It looks like Star Wars will be releasing movies regularly for a very long time, perhaps similar to the Bond franchise.

Several friends have asked for my reaction to the news.  I can't tell you how excited I am.  I consider myself a tier 2 Star Wars fan, with the tier system (of my own devising) briefly shown here:

Tier 1: you've seen the movies and enjoyed them, perhaps read a book or two, and play the video game(s)
Tier 2: in addition to loving the movies, you've read a good amount (but not all) of the literature (books and graphic novels), and play thematic games
Tier 3: you're an absolute maniac; you know everything about the movies, you've read everything ever released, played every game, and regularly get into heated debates about universe minutiae

I'm definitely tier 2, and I think most fans that fall into these first two tiers will be excited.  Who knows how the tier 3 fans feel; generally, they're angry about something, because their obsession has progressed to the point where they think it's all real, and if it's their reality, it must be perfect to them.  But, I digress.

Why the excitement?  Several reasons:
1) I doubt any future Star Wars movie will ever be as bad as Episode I
2) So much story has already been produced (see here for an example just on books), and they may choose to use some of the existing material.  That would be fun to see.
3) I'd enjoy different perspectives on the universe.  Let's be honest- I think the original three movies were great, but the modern three are good stories executed poorly.  I think a different writer/director could have taken these latest three and made them great, even keeping the same basic plot.  To date, we've seen only how George Lucas does things; I'd like to see how someone else interprets it.  I enjoy the universe framework in general for storytelling- let's see how other storytellers play in it.

The only two things that give me pause are:
1) if they choose to completely disregard the myriad of literature out there and "reboot" the series.
2) the actors they choose.  They've already stated that the first films will focus on the original characters- but obviously the original cast is no longer in a position to reprise those roles.  Like Bond, they'll have to change actors, but instead of replacing one character, now you're replacing many.  It must be done well.

In the end, I'm actually more excited for my kids.  I was -3,0, and 3, respectively, when the original three were released.  Needless to say, I didn't catch them in the theaters.  By the time the other ones rolled around, I was 19, 22, and 25, so while exciting, I had moved beyond that "childhood magic."  My kids will be right in that 5-10 year-old place of wonder, and I look forward (if they're fans) to seeing their anticipation for the releases.

In the end, like the Bond films, I think there will be good and bad Star Wars flicks in the future.  And, like Bond, we'll enjoy the good ones, and ignore the bad.  Overall, happy times :-).

The Ecclesiastical History of the English People (Bede)

I sort of cheated on this one, in the sense that I didn't read it all.  I read more than 2/3, though, so I'm counting this.  I read the first half, then started skipping to the chapters that looked interesting.  There were too many references to random people for me to remember this stuff.

The Venerable Bede wrote his Ecclesiastical History in the 730s, making it an extremely valuable account of Anglo-Saxon England.  As the title implies, it covers history from the Church's perspective, and by that I mean it focuses on things like "who was bishop where, at what time."  It sounds like fascinating reading, doesn't it?  That's why I didn't read it all.

While I found little personal value in the bishop succession portion, I recognize that there is a good amount of historical value there, so I don't want to judge too harshly.  Also, there is more to this, and that made the reading a bit more palatable.  Some of the other themes include:
- a description of miracles attributed to various people and phenomena; often these miracles involve people being healed of illness, preservation of corpses of, or buildings touched by, saints, and more
- some letters from popes to Church officials; I was surprised how true to Scripture they are
- the synod of Whitby in 660s, during which the English settled a dispute with the Irish on when Easter was to be celebrated
- the life of Cuthbert, one of the more famous monks
- visions people had of hell and demons
- the mention of so many place names with which I'm familiar, living in northern England, to include Ripon, Whitby, and Lindisfarne

Here are some of my theological takeaways from reading this:
- Bede was really devoted to the date of Easter, and harsh of Irish (and other) Churches who disagreed
- virgins were viewed as especially pure
- many monks looked tremendously forward to death
- many isolated themselves to focus on God
- many punished themselves for their sins through painful physical acts
- there is a big emphasis on working to repent of your sins.  Important, certainly, but at times it seemed to cross the line into working for salvation.  We do good works because we're saved, not so that we can be saved.  People often forget that.

In the end, there were some interesting things, certainly, but overall, avoid this unless you're heavy into Church history, down to the nitty gritty details.

Rating: C