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-