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

You Can't Do It All

Self,

You have two parts to you.  There's your selfish, self-centered part- he shows up more often than he should.  We'll call him John Mark.  You also have your wiser, better part- that's me.  You can call me . . . Herman.  In my role, it's my duty to be that "little voice" to you, reminding you that you're not nearly what you should be.  You have many problems, worthy of penalty- thankfully, another man covered that for you.  You can now examine yourself without fear of judgment, be honest to yourself about what your problems are, and think on what you can do about them.  To cover them all would be a difficult task, so we'll just take one at a time.

Today's Note to Self: there are many good things in this world you will never get to experience, and that's okay.

Let me explain.  You are blessed to have many interests.  Books of all flavors, games without end, music and movies galore, sports, traveling, photography, triggering flash mobs; there's no end to what you enjoy.  You're never bored, and that's not bad.  What is bad, though, is that you have a fear of missing out on something.  That fear leads you to:
- materialism (the constant purchases),
- discontentment (you frequently look to "what next" and seldom enjoy what you have)
- unhealthy fixations (you make goals and obsess over/put too much importance on them)
There's more to it than that (and each of these things deserve their own posts, which I'm sure will come in the future), but that's the gist.  Now, the root of these things is your human nature, but we can't fix that with this note.  So, let's focus on one element that may help with your overall issue- your fear of missing out.  Fear it all you want, but you will miss out- because you can't do it all.

A recent study indicates that about 129 million books have been published.  You're read about 3 million so far.  Right . . . seriously, you've read around 350.  Assuming you read an aggressive 50 books a year for the next 50 years, you'll end up reading about 2850, or .002% of what has been written.  This is an estimate- it's likely to be much lower.  You may not make .001%.  So, you will miss out, guaranteed, on at least 99.998% of what's been written in this world.  And guess what- that's okay.

Another big issue is travel.  You've been blessed to see over 20 countries in the last few years- more than most see in a lifetime.  And yet, you're not overly thankful- instead, you're focused on what to see next.  Seeing every country is hard, but doable- there are just over 190 of them- but when you break that down in to seeing every city or worthwhile location in a given country, you yet again have an impossible task.  Even picking sites in just one country, you'll never see it all.  And guess what- that's okay.

Next topic: photography.  You're not a great photographer, but want to be.  You obsess over pictures when traveling, and you worry that you'll miss that perfect shot.  You probably will, at times.  And guess what- that's okay.

On to sports: you love them.  You want to participate in many, but there's just not enough time.  There are so many cool sports out there- and you'll not get to experience them all.  And guess what- that's okay.

We could continue for ages, but just one more topic for today.  You love games- you own dozens.  You'd play them all frequently, if you had the time and money.  But you don't.  Just think of the cool games out there- what if you don't get to play them?  What if you miss out?  You definitely will.  And guess what- that's okay.

It's okay to "miss out" because we weren't created to do it all.  This world has many things of beauty worth enjoying, but we're not intended to focus our lives on those things at the expense of all else.  Enjoy what you have- which is more than you deserve, and enough for several lifetimes- and keep your priorities straight. Many things matter more than getting to do it all.

- Herman

The Perks of the Jedi Lifestyle

The other day, we celebrated Halloween in our community.  The more astute of you will realize that it is not yet, in fact, Halloween.  This year they chose to celebrate in our area on the Friday nearest 31 October, to both confuse the local populace and encourage excessive indulgence by placing it before the weekend ("sugar it up kids, we don't care- tomorrow's Saturday").  It is what it is.

My favorite part of the holiday is dressing up.  I'm normally the Joker, but this year I wanted something different.  What could be better than Star Wars?  And, even better, now I have two kids I could dress to my whim.  Sensing an opportunity, I chose to be Obi-Wan Kenobi; my son was Yoda, and my daughter was Princess Leia.  Her best friend was  Han Solo, so we had a nice little ensemble going.

Here's one of my many thoughts on life: you're either in or you're out.  Don't do things halfway.  So, for increased authenticity, I seized this opportunity to grow out my beard.  My wife, predictably, was against the idea, but I explained it was necessary for the children to see the real deal.  I sometimes weep when I think of how selfless I can be.  Anyway, two months ago, I began my preparations.  I started growing the stubble and obtained a good costume online, minus lightsaber and boots.  Last week, I completed the outfit by borrowing a lightsaber from my coworker's children, and buying wellies*.  I was ready to go.

Festivities didn't start until the afternoon, but where's the fun in waiting?  So, I wore my costume to work and, surprisingly, I learned a good deal by my day as a Jedi.  The most important takeaways:

1) The Outfit
Jedi robes have no pockets.  None.  I felt a little foolish sporting a man-purse all day, but I can't survive without my wallet, keys, and lip gloss.  The robes are also baggy, and get caught easily on furniture and stair railings.  That would have been cool to see incorporated into the movies, though it would have done little to contribute to the epic quality of the films.  Finally, it's hard to sit down in the robes- my mobility was noticeably limited once seated.  I'm not even going to get into using the bathroom.  Overall, the outfit isn't as practical as the movies led me to believe.  A small part of my world has been shattered.
 
2) The Reactions 
People's reactions are generally predictable, and easy to categorize, as I do below.  It's a fascinating psychological study, in my opinion.
- bewilderment: I got many mystified looks by the passersby.  This was perhaps due to the celebration not being on Halloween proper, and thus causing confusion.  It may also be due to disbelief that an adult would parade around in such attire.  I suspect/hope the former was more often the reason.
- avoidance: Some people saw me out of the corner of their eye, then noticeably turned their face away until we passed.  Interesting.  Were they afraid that I'd bite?
- abject fear: This was my personal favorite, because it came more from adults than children.  I realize I am physically imposing, but I'm generally good-natured, so don't fret, good people of England- I'm on your side.
- amusement: This was the desired, and most common, reaction. 
- fixation: This could have caused an accident.  Some saw me as they drove by, and locked their eyes on me, mouths gaping, as we passed.  Was it my good looks that caught their attention, or the lightsaber?

3) The Point
Why did I dress up?  I think on this each year, because it's good to examine your motives.  There are good and bad reasons for donning an outfit:
- attention: this is the obvious one, and yes, if I'm honest with myself, part of it has to do with desiring attention.  But, I believe there are other reasons, too- better ones.
- morale: I've found that, in today's work environment, there are so many people who take things (and themselves) way too seriously.  We've become a culture that, in some ways, is losing the ability to "lighten up."  If I make someone smile by what I wear, if I brighten a part of their day, or if I make them loosen up a bit and enjoy the holiday more, I've accomplished what I intended.
- personal growth: this may seem odd to some, but yes, I've found personal growth in wearing an outfit.  Why?  Because it's practice being the center of attention in a public setting, which helps when I give talks at work by increasing my comfort level in that situation.  In college, I once wore a dress at a creative night** to loosen up the acts that followed.  It not only put them more at ease, I found it put me more at ease later in the year, when giving speeches in classes.  I'd gotten in front of people in a dress; giving a speech dressed normally was suddenly a lot easier.  It's a strange way to increase your comfort level, but it is effective.

Well, I'm not sure what else to say.  I enjoyed the event, and others did, too.  I think I'll dress up again, on Halloween proper, though I may have to substitute cargo pants for my official Jedi pants, so I can drop the purse.  May the Force be with you and yours on this upcoming Halloween.


* As many pointed out, wellies are not a part of the standard Jedi ensemble, but it's Yorkshire, people, and Jedi gotta adapt.  Also, wellies are cheaper.
** No, I will not go into detail, except to say that a video does exist.  Contact me if interested- bring money.

Robin Hood- The Unknown Templar (John Paul Davis)

Everyone's familiar with the Robin Hood story.  But, who was Robin Hood really?  Did he exist, or was he fictional from the beginning?  Did Kevin Costner do him justice in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves?  Did Kevin Costner ever do any role justice?  The book attempts to answer the first two questions; regrettably, the latter two are left to the reader to decide.

In Robin Hood- The Unknown Templar, John Paul Davis lays out the case that Robin did exist, but that he differed markedly from our modern understanding of the story.  To make his point, Davis draws on material from the earliest Robin Hood ballads (like A Gest of Robyn Hode, written somewhere in the 1450-1520 range) and from figures in history whose lives featured some remarkable coincidences to the more modern Hood tales (like David, Earl of Huntington, or Fulk FitzWarin).  Davis claims that the historical figures may have inspired later alterations to the Robin Hood legend, but that the original ballads paint a very different picture.  Some points of difference between the original stories and current take on the tale:

- original ballads: Robin was a yeoman, and existed during the early 1300s (during Edward II) in Barnsdale, who may have helped the poor but didn't make it his calling
- more modern take: Robin was a noble, and existed in the 1190s (during Richard the Lionheart and the Third Crusade) in Sherwood, who made the poor his mission

One of Davis' main points is that, if the original tales accurately put Robin during the early 1300s, there was another notable event during that exact time- the violent, sudden break-up of the Knights Templar.  Drawing parallels between those in the Templar order and characteristics of Robin's band of merry men, Davis makes a case for the Hood and his band being, in fact, Templars forced to flee from the wrath of King and Church.  This would explain why Robin is viewed as pious, yet having little love for corrupt clergy who happened through the forest.  As a final Templar comment, note that even the later ballads, set over a century earlier, still feature the Crusades prominently, which may give credence to the Robin Hood-Templar connection.

While Davis' account is interesting, it's highly repetitive and remarkably unpersuasive- it brings up some good points, but doesn't back it up with evidence other than common traits shared between Templars and Robin Hood.  It compares the earliest Robin Hood works with those that came in the following centuries to show the evolution, which is okay, but it compares them over and over and over and over and over and over, albeit from slightly different angles.  I think the book could have been easily condensed into a several-page essay- it was definitely not worth 217 pages.  While I'm not a fan overall, there were a few redeeming elements worth mentioning- first, even mentioning the Templars and connecting them to Robin Hood is an interesting twist worth analyzing, even if there's little convincing evidence.  Second, the locations mentioned are all pretty close to where I live, which heightened my enjoyment.  Third, it is interesting to see how a legend evolves over time.  Those benefits aside, in the end, unless you're gung-ho into Robin Hood, avoid this one. 

Rating: D

Whisk(e)y Tasting

I attended my first whisk(e)y tasting this past weekend.  As background, you should know that I grew up in a tea-totaling house.  I did start drinking once I had children, for obvious reasons, but I've never been drunk, and confess that I think most alcohol tastes like household cleaner.  This would be my first time trying whisk(e)y.

Background
To start, it's important to discuss how to spell whisk(e)y.  Some spell it "whiskey," but others "whisky."  I conducted a detailed scientific inquiry into this issue, and determined that it doesn't matter.  Like many things, people can be passionate about one way or another, but those people are stupid, and should get meaningful jobs to fill their clearly copious amounts of free time.  From here on out, I'll spell it "whisky," because 1) it's fewer letters for me to type, and 2) "e" is the most commonly used letter in the alphabet, so it deserves a break once in a while.

How is whisky made?  It was obviously first made by accident, because there's no scientific or logical way it could have been created.  You harvest barley, then let it rot, until it grows a fungus.  Then, you mash it up and throw it in copper pots.  It sits there and "distills" for a few days, and then you put it in barrels, where it sits for the better part of two decades.  I may have missed a point or two, but that's the gist. 

As with many types of alcohol, people say whisky is an acquired taste, which is another way of saying it tastes really bad at first, so you have to drink it repeatedly to convince yourself that you're having a good time, and later, when you wake up naked in the trunk of an unfamiliar car, you're apparently expected to come to the conclusion that the overall experience was profitable and worthy of another go.  I sometimes fear for our future.  But, on to the tasting.

Tasting
At the tasting, they choose five different whiskys, and give us a "dram" of each.  What's a dram?  From wikipedia, a dram is an ancient Greek coin.  I don't think that's relevant.  It's also, apparently, 3.696697109375 ml in US customary units (seriously- check it here). Needless to say, so what.

We drank one dram at a time, but spaced it out over several hours, because (as I discovered), you don't just taste it, say "yea" or "nay," and move on- no.  You are expected to embrace it, experience it, live it, ask it to dinner, develop an disturbingly intimate relationship with it, and then, discuss it.

When people started describing how a given dram tasted, I quickly realized I was in over my head.  My initial thoughts were "tastes like fire," and "there goes my stomach lining," followed quickly by "at least my sinuses have cleared up."  I soon learned, however, that this was unacceptable- I had no idea the depths to which people take this.

Before going on- there are 3 stage to the whisky tasting- the nose, taste, aftertaste.
The nose: you smell the whisky, long and deep, until your nasal passages start pulsating.
The taste: you sip the whisky, trying not to gasp and visibly question your actions in so doing.
The aftertaste: you analyze how your tongue and throat feel after the whisky has gone down, doing your best to suppress a cough.

Each stage is intended to evoke a different feeling.  For each, you'll seem knowledgeable if you pick, at random, a fruit, an element of the forest (like soil or tree bark), and an experience, and state that the chosen stage tastes as such.  No matter what you say, if you follow my guidance, people will nod vigorously in agreement with whatever you claim.  Here's an example:

The nose: "a mild peach, with oak bark; I feel as though I'm enjoying a sunset with Henry Kissinger"
The taste: "a whale carcass, with hints of strawberry; think weekend in the mountains during a hurricane"
The aftertaste: "pomegranates in syrup, peat moss, and buying facebook stock during IPO"

Trust me, you'll be venerated.

After a few drams, a side benefit of such events is that people's tongues tend to loosen up. Normally, I find such things amusing; this time, however, it seemed that lowered inhibitions resulted primarily in increased mockery of yours truly.  The event in focus was the time I accidentally wore two shoes to work- one white sneaker, and one brown work shoe.  It was dark, people- cut me a break.  And yes, I did proceed through my day as normal, to include going to the gym, because that was the only logical option.  No, I won't take an hour off work to go home and change.  It was a mistake; I dealt with it- you should, too.  Shockingly, people I had met at this event for the first time knew all about this, leading me to re-evaluate several friendships afterwards.  But I digress.

Conclusion
After our drams were consumed, we had to find our way(s) home.  I had a few choices- I could ride with the person who brought me, but he was driving on the wrong side of the road on the way to the event, before any alcohol was consumed, leading me to look elsewhere for the return journey.  They stress safe driving at these events, so a few people who had . . . "enjoyed" . . . the evening more than the others ended up falling asleep in the backyard, where I presume they remained until awoken by the pungent smell of their own vomit some hours later.  I found a ride with someone responsible, and made it home without issue.
I enjoyed the event, and the camaraderie, for the most part.  I don't know if I'll ever do it again, but I learned a great deal.  Perhaps most of all, I learned that, no matter what the topic, humans can (and will) discuss it at length, in more detail than previously thought possible.  And people say I obsess over Star Wars.

A Brief History of the Knights Templar (Helen Nicholson)

Having recently studied the Crusades, I wanted to learn more about its most famous participants: the Knights Templar.  I had tried Barber's The New Knighthood, but found it too academic for my tastes; A Brief History of the Knights Templar, by Helen Nicholson, seemed more suitable to my needs. It more or less fit the bill.

Nicholson's work covers several aspects of the Templars- not just their role in the Holy Land.  She looks at their roles in two other fronts- Iberia (Spain/Portugal) and Eastern Europe- where they also fought for God against other religions.  She considers relevant religious and economic aspects of the order, covers their infamous trial well, and concludes with a short discussion of the myths concerning the order that have arisen over the centuries.  Her work does give the reader a good overview. 

I felt the book, initially, didn't flow very well.  She started with topics more familiar to me- about the Templars in the Middle East during the Crusades- but I found her style choppy and difficult to follow.  Her examples seemed random, and her points were (at times) hard to pull out of the narrative.  The last few chapters seemed better, though whether that was due to better quality or my growing ease with her style, I cannot be sure.  Still, the last portion raises my overall rating for the work, and I may have subconsciously (and unfairly) deducted points for her shattering my Hollywood-inspired romantic notions about the order- true to form, Hollywood has strayed far from history.  There may be better introductions to the Templars, but this one is decent enough to warrant consideration for those interested in the topic.

Rating: B-

Batman: A Death in the Family

Batman: A Death in the Family, written in the 1980s, adds an integral part of Batman lore to the overall canon: the death of Robin.  There have been several Robins over the years- check out the backstory here, if you care- but this is the only one to have died.  His name is Jason Todd, and he was the second person (after Dick Grayson) to become Batman's partner.  Batman suffers the effects of Todd's death for years afterward, in several story arcs, so this story is an essential read for those interested in the Batman mythos.

The basic plot is simple: Jason finds out his biological mother isn't the mother who raised him, and sets out to find her.  He tracks her down in Ethiopia, where she's being blackmailed into helping the Joker.  The Joker springs upon Robin and beats him nearly to death, then locks him and his mother in a wired warehouse.  It explodes; Jason dies.  The Joker seeks refuge in Iran and becomes the Iranian ambassador to the US (yes, you read that correctly), returning with diplomatic immunity.  He attempts to wreak havoc on the UN.  He is thwarted by Batman and Superman, though he escapes in the end, leaving things (as Batman admits in the final panel) unresolved, as always.

I say an essential read- note that I didn't say a good one.  I was largely disappointed by this effort, for several reasons:
1) The plot had a number of elements I found hard to believe, even for a comic world that's full of the unbelievable.  I think the best example is Joker ending up as the Iranian ambassador the the US.  Really?  I mean, really?
2) The ending was poor- Joker gets away, and Batman admits it's unresolved.  I do grow tired of that.
3) The key story element- Robin dying- happened due to a vote from DC Comics readers.  It's not inherently bad to give fans what they want, but I think the "choose your own adventure" approach is best left to the book series of the same name.  A truly good story, in my opinion, should not be based on votes from the masses, but feature a solid plot and characters developed by one (or several) writers.  To me, this is true of all media- especially television.  When you let the consumers choose, you lose control of the story, and it becomes a cash cow, milking it as long as people will partake.  Meh.

Rating: C

All Things Wise and Wonderful (James Herriot)

All Things Wise and Wonderful continues the story of life in the Yorkshire Dales started by Herriot in All Creatures Great and Small and All Things Bright and Beautiful.  This volume is set during WWII, with Herriot doing a stint in the RAF, training to be a pilot, while his wife Helen weans their first child back in Darrowby.

Like the first two, All Things Wise and Wonderful is a delightful recollection of the good, the bad, and the amusing situations and people that Herriot encountered- as a vet and, in this case, in the RAF as well.  I was a bit surprised to see 90% of the book be focused on vet stories- I had expected this work to focus more on RAF experiences- but it's great nonetheless.  Most chapters start out with Herriot beginning to speak about some aspect of military life, but mostly in the sense that a given RAF incident reminded him of a past situation treating an animal, on which he focuses for the remainder of the chapter.  You can tell that, though he enjoyed his RAF experience, his heart never left the Dales.  His enjoyment of his life's work in contagious, as he embraces both its hardships and joys with an air of contentment and thankfulness.  Another winner.

Rating: A

The New Knighthood (Barber)

Some friends think that, because I read voraciously, I'm an academic.  It's a notion I don't mind nurturing, though in truth, I'm pretty much an idiot.  I enjoy a variety of subjects, so I'm never bored, but I don't like getting down in the weeds on any topic other than the Bible.  Therefore, I'm not an academic- I just enjoy learning a little bit about a good number of things, and have found reading to be a more valuable, enjoyable, and profitable past time than other pursuits commonly enjoyed by my peers.

Now, on to the subject at hand.  Having just completed a great book on the Crusades, I wanted to learn a bit more about one element featured therein- the Knights Templar.  Some quick research indicated that Malcolm Barber's The New Knighthood was the classic work on the subject.  I had started The New Knighthood before knowing anything about the Crusades, and found myself lost.  So, 10% of the way through it, I put it down to pick up Asbridge's The Crusades.  That went well, and so armed with a new-found knowledge on the time period, I dove (again) in to Barber's book.  Or, rather, I tried to.  Even with my increased understanding, Barber's work is just too academic for me.  It's extremely well-researched and referenced, which is desirable for the doctoral student, but not very readable.  He draws heavily from many sources, and discusses a range of them when discussing a given point, to the extent that it can take him several pages to illustrate basic concepts.  For example, when trying to determine when exactly the Knights Templar were founded, he took up several pages debating between 1119 and 1120, citing examples making the case for each in turn.  "_____ says this, which indicates 1119, but ____ says 1120, and he's closer to the time period, and further _____ says that the order had been around for 9 years in 1129, but he used the French calendar, and blah blah blah . . .<continue for several pages>"  I would have been happy with "The Knights Templar were founded in 1119 or 1120."

In the end, I just couldn't slog through this.  It's not bad- just not meant for the layman.  I've selected another work, by Helen Nicholson, which appears more in line with what I seek.  It would be unfair for me to rate this at all, having read only 10%; I'll just leave you with this: read The New Knighthood if your life's ambition is to become a true expert on the Knights Templar.

The Crusades (Thomas Asbridge)

 Phew!  It took me a month to plow through this one, but there's nothing but goodness here.  In The Crusades, Thomas Asbridge covers the period of about 200 years (1095-1291) when European Christians occupied portions of the Middle East.  I was continuously impressed with the way Asbridge manages to  balance being comprehensive and concise.  He has a knack for giving just enough back-story to an event or person of note so that the reader can comprehend not just what happened but why, without immersing the reader in details.  He provides both Christian and Muslim viewpoints in a way that makes the story flow.  Thus, 200 years of history are covered in just under 700 pages, but it's all meat, with few unnecessary details or digressions.  I came away feeling as though I really understood the crusades after just one book (my previous knowledge on the topic was limited to Sean Connery in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, which is to say I knew nothing).

A common criticism I heard regarding this work is, to me, its strength.  One reviewer commented that Asbridge's approach of showing different perspectives to a given event or person prevented the reader from drawing conclusions, because presenting different views tends to make things complex and messy.  This is true- but it's life.  Asbridge, I feel accurately, portrays the Crusades not as a cut-and-dry, Christian vs. Muslim affair, but a series of events played out over centuries where the participants all had good and bad, but in the end self-serving, motives for participating.  I don't know his religious affiliation- I suspect neither one nor the other- but he manages to cover events without appearing bias towards any one party.  At times, you'd have Muslims fighting Muslims, Christians fighting Christians, both groups at peace for mutual financial benefit, etc.  Asbridge gives us a glimpse in these wars of the complexity that exists in each of us- various motives we have for doing things, both good and self-serving, that can lead to ever-changing alliances and struggles in our daily lives.  Because he approaches events from that angle- that humanity does most things because of our inherent selfishness and desire for gain- the account is easy to follow and understand. 

For those interested, a basic chronology of the Crusades is available here.

If you're interested in the history of the Crusades, read this book.  The BBC produced at least 3 episodes on the Crusades based on this book, which I have yet to see, but if they're half as good as this work, check it out, too.

Rating: A+

Animal Farm (George Orwell)

No British reading list worth its salt would be complete without at least one Orwell work.  I had read, and enjoyed, 1984 many years ago.  This time, I opted for Animal Farm.  Several friends expressed surprise that I hadn't read it in high school.  I may have, but I'm blessed (?) with the ability to completely forget nearly everything I read during that time, so this time around felt like the first time, whether or not it was.

The story is well known to most; on a typical farm, the animals rise up in revolt, throw out the farmer, and set to running the farm themselves.  Expecting new-found prosperity and freedom, they set in place rules to govern themselves, the first being that all animals are equal.  In time, the initial rules seem perverted, and things really don't appear that different from before- in fact, perhaps they're worse- but the animals are fed a steady diet of propaganda, encouraging them to believe they really are better off.  The leaders, the pigs (specifically, one pig named Napoleon), seem to live comfortable lifestyles rather similar to the former 'regime,' but quell any dissent with the pack of dogs the pigs have trained to be enforcers.  The pigs gradually adopt more and more of the old farmer's tendencies, habits, and customs, to the point where they're indistinguishable from the farmer himself.

The book is an obvious take on Orwell's exposure to the communist regime, and the atrocities for which it was responsible.  It was written just after WWII in a time when (surprisingly, to me) the truth about the communists was not yet known, so some people were shocked, and Orwell had a hard time getting it published.  It shows how laws can be bent over time, and propaganda can be created trumpeting imagined prosperity, to suit the needs of leadership.  It also shows the tendency in leadership to become corrupt and self-serving, standing on the backs of a lower class, while hypocritically proclaiming equality for all.  It's well-written and a good cautionary tale.  A very short read, I highly recommend it.  "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

Rating: A