I love Christmas tales. Whether it be schmaltzy Christmas movies on the Hallmark Channel, the yearly Anne Perry Christmas mystery offering, or Richard Paul Evans's yuletide tear-jerker, or a perennial favorite - I love them. I don't necessarily wait for this time of year to read them, either. The themes of these tales are of love and forgiveness, redemption and reconciliation.
There is no shortage of children's picture books on the Nativity, some retelling the story in simplified language, and others taking the text directly from the Gospels of Luke and Matthew and some from Isaiah. Those are my favorites, because the prose tells the story beautifully and I don't feel it's too difficult for even small children to understand, so it doesn't need to be re-written. Two of these I love because of the artwork as well as the text. Both sadly are currently out of print, but happily are available inexpensively at used bookstores online.
First is "The Nativity", illustrated by Juan Wijngaard. His beautiful watercolors drawn in a Renaissance style and framed to appear as church windows, with calligraphic text, make for a very enjoyable read.
Second, and probably my favorite, is Jan Pienkowski's "The First Christmas". Pienkowski's illustrations leave a lasting impression. They have at once both fairy tale and somber qualities to them. Vividly colored backgrounds and black silhouettes fit together beautifully. The author plays a bit with place and time - the manger is in a forest and the flight into Egypt is set against the background of a Gothic castle - and fashion - Mary's hair is in pigtails as she hangs laundry taken from a modern looking laundry basket. It sounds like it shouldn't work. Perhaps the anachronisms is what does make it work; the illustrations give the tale a timeless quality, and for this reader at least eloquently shows the love of God for all people through all ages. Search for it under the author's name and the two titles it was published under during its 25 year publication history: "The First Christmas", and simply, "Christmas".
------------
Three of my favorite Christmas titles are texts in the Public Domain: Henry Van Dyke's "Keeping Christmas", William Sydney Porter's (more commonly known as O. Henry) "Gift of the Magi", and Charles Dickens's "A Christmas Carol". All of these are available for as little as a dollar or even for free in various electronic formats on such sites as Project Gutenberg.
"Keeping Christmas" is a sermon Henry Van Dyke delivered in 1924, based upon Romans 14:6. In less than 500 words, he asks simple questions and gives much food for thought, starting with contrasting observing Christmas Day and keeping Christmas Day, and then reminding us to step outside ourselves to meet the needs of others, to do our part to make the world a better place: "to trim your lamp so that it will give more light and less smoke, and to carry it in front so that your shadow will fall behind you." This is a piece well worth reading every month of the year.
O. Henry's 1906 short story "Gift of the Magi" begins with: "One dollar and eighty-seven cents. That was all. And sixty cents of it was in pennies." How many opening sentences grab you like that? Many of you already know the story: young financially struggling married couple sell their most cherished possessions to buy a Christmas present for the other. It's been adapted but once for the big screen and but a few times for television, with a contemporary retelling coming to the Hallmark Channel this month. I mention this because here is a story primed for the likes of Hallmark: heavy on the sweet and sentimental. Don't get me wrong: I like sweet and sentimental, especially in Christmas stories; I've been watching syrupy Christmas tales and sappy Christmas romances for two weeks on the Hallmark Channel. But O. Henry's tale is more than just a tear-jerking tale. It is the simple story of two people who love each other so much that they are willing to give up what they most value to acquire something for who they most value. And what could be more Christmasy than that?
I don't generally count among my own personal favorites what others have deemed "classics". Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" is an exception. After watching many movie adaptations and listening to a few radio plays (my favorite being Jonathan Winters' reading for NPR), last year I discovered the full text hiding many years upon my bookshelf. Everybody knows the tale: old miserly curmudgeon visited by apparitions who force him to examine his life, past, present and future, and reintroduce him to the human race. It's a powerful morality tale of second chances, of redemption from our own worst enemies - ourselves. And although there are many great radio plays and movies adapted from the book, I think the book offers a great deal more.
------------
Last but not least is Richard Paul Evans' picture book "The Christmas Candle" from 1999. Evans's selfish protagonist Thomas is anxious to get home to his family of a cold Christmas Eve, and he stops in at a chandler's shop for a candle for his lantern. He scorns the beautifully designed candles in favor of a plain and simple and cheap one. But after he leaves the chandler's shop, with a cryptic warning ringing in his ears, he discovers the plain candle illuminates in strange - and at first unwelcome - ways. Oil illustrations by Jacob Collins show poor beggars and waifs which under the light of the candle appear in turn to be Thomas's mother, brother and sister. It is not until Thomas has given away everything he possesses to care for those he supposes to be his family members that the lantern's light show him the truth. And it is not until he arrives home, cold and broke, that the light of understanding enters his mind and heart. I've gotten a little choked up when I have read this tale aloud to family and friends. It is a great tale of giving of oneself, seeing things in a pure light - the light of Christmas.
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Sunday, October 10, 2010
"The Best Burger in [George]town"
Yesterday a friend and I hung out in Georgetown, walking around and checking out all the little shops there. And wondering about why the people of Georgetown and neighboring Silver Plume have such an affinity for the color purple. I didn't make a tally of all colors of all buildings, so perhaps since it is such a unique building color there seemed to be a disproportionate number of purple buildings. I've nothing against purple; I'm just not used to seeing it. Perhaps, as my friend suggested, at one time there was a sale on purple paint. One building was closer to mauve; we speculated that was the last of the purple paint, mixed with white in order to stretch it.
All that walking around in brisk mountain air considerably cooler than what we've been used to in Denver stimulated our appetites. At the visitor's center we looked at a list of local restaurants and the woman who worked there told us Ed's 1859 Cafe had "the best burgers in town." Well, a statement like that, you just have to check out! Not having sampled the hamburgers in other area restaurants, I cannot say if they truly have the "best in town" - we plan to return to Georgetown for further investigation - but their cheeseburgers were good! I got mine with all the fixins, save mayonnaise, and all the lettuce, tomatoes, onions, catsup, mustard and pickles fell out the edges of the burger. Now, I know that many people think a "real" burger is nice and neat, staying inside a bun and having minimal condiments and vegetables. Nope, sorry. A real cheeseburger has all the fixings, requires two hands to eat and requires at least two napkins. Their Angus burgers come with your choice of cheeses and in quarter or half pound sizes. We didn't try the sweet potato fries, but they did look yummy, as did the soups I saw many of the customers ordering.
It's a popular spot, apparently: it was so busy we had to arm wrestle an elderly couple for the last table. Okay, I made that up. A table did open up by the time we got to the counter to place our orders. But clearly there was both a regular clientele there and other tourists like ourselves, and although there was outside seating available, they weren't hurting for customers.
The back of their menu had a picture of "Ed", also known as "Edwina", a dog who lived for 16 years before going to doggy heaven. Next time I go I'll have to ask for the story behind the naming of the cafe.
All that walking around in brisk mountain air considerably cooler than what we've been used to in Denver stimulated our appetites. At the visitor's center we looked at a list of local restaurants and the woman who worked there told us Ed's 1859 Cafe had "the best burgers in town." Well, a statement like that, you just have to check out! Not having sampled the hamburgers in other area restaurants, I cannot say if they truly have the "best in town" - we plan to return to Georgetown for further investigation - but their cheeseburgers were good! I got mine with all the fixins, save mayonnaise, and all the lettuce, tomatoes, onions, catsup, mustard and pickles fell out the edges of the burger. Now, I know that many people think a "real" burger is nice and neat, staying inside a bun and having minimal condiments and vegetables. Nope, sorry. A real cheeseburger has all the fixings, requires two hands to eat and requires at least two napkins. Their Angus burgers come with your choice of cheeses and in quarter or half pound sizes. We didn't try the sweet potato fries, but they did look yummy, as did the soups I saw many of the customers ordering.
It's a popular spot, apparently: it was so busy we had to arm wrestle an elderly couple for the last table. Okay, I made that up. A table did open up by the time we got to the counter to place our orders. But clearly there was both a regular clientele there and other tourists like ourselves, and although there was outside seating available, they weren't hurting for customers.
The back of their menu had a picture of "Ed", also known as "Edwina", a dog who lived for 16 years before going to doggy heaven. Next time I go I'll have to ask for the story behind the naming of the cafe.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Words that simply aren't used often enough
Okay, I admit it. I am a word geek. There, I have said it. There are some words which simply say things better than their more common counterparts. Here's a challenge for my readers: use these words in conversation during the next week.
>>> akimbo
with hands on hips, elbows bent outward.
Peter Pan stood akimbo whilst mocking Captain Hook. In comic books, the villains stand akimbo while laughing maniacally over their nefarious plans, while costumed superheroes stand akimbo, their country's flag flapping majestically behind them, after defeating nefarious malefactors. Don't just stand there, people! Be you good or evil, if you truly want people to take notice of you, stand akimbo!
>>> gelid
very cold, icy, frosty. Latin, 1600–10; gelidus icy cold.
Choosing to take public transportation rather than driving to work, I find myself being exposed to extremes in temperatures which challenge the wisdom of that choice. Most days, I don't mind; I relish the relative coolness of early morning in late summer or the "brisk" walk to the bus stop in the winter before the sun has risen. But there are days where the descriptions of "hot" and "cold" fall short. I discovered a splendid word last year. A coworker asked me how cold my walk in had been. I replied it was positively gelid. At his request I defined the word and he suggested I might be but one of a handful of people on the planet who would ever use it. Nonetheless, I insisted, for the day in question, no other word would do. A week or so later he pointed me to a story in the local paper where a sportswriter describe a recent game night using that very term. I felt justified; my coworker remained unconvinced. A couple months ago, I came across the word in Christopher Fowler's mystery The Victoria Vanishes. So I see the word isn't entirely extinct. However it might need help of people like you to give it the recognition it deserves.
>>> kerfuffle
a great commotion.
This is a great word I used once to quell an escalating argument among the children of some friends. "Hey!" I demanded, "What's all the kerfuffle about?" Each child immediately began to defend his own stance, and then the commotion petered out as the new word sunk in. I believe the meaning was readily discerned - after all, they knew they were squabbling, and that an adult would intervene for no other reason. But new knowledge rendered their arguments moot, and peace was restored, at least temporarily.
>>> malefactor
a criminal; a person doing harm or evil toward another.
>>> nefarious
wicked, vile, from Latin nefarious, equiv. nefās offense against divine or moral law.
The sorts of deeds malefactors commit. Some criminals are merely bad; others are nefarious!
>>> rascal
a dishonest or unscrupulous person; a mischievous person or animal.
Whichever meaning you chose, unscrupulous person or mischievous person, this word has sadly fallen out of common use. How could this happen? I was reminded of this wonderful word by being referred to as such (second meaning, thankfully) a couple weeks ago. Not as common as they once were, but are still recognized by most people, are hooligan, whippersnapper and scoundrel. Meriting honorable mentions are rapscallion, varlet and miscreant.
So there you have it: a dozen words which not only convey specific meanings, but are fun to say and will make you the life of any party. Well, maybe not the life of the party. But using these words will certainly leave an impression upon others.
>>> akimbo
with hands on hips, elbows bent outward.
Peter Pan stood akimbo whilst mocking Captain Hook. In comic books, the villains stand akimbo while laughing maniacally over their nefarious plans, while costumed superheroes stand akimbo, their country's flag flapping majestically behind them, after defeating nefarious malefactors. Don't just stand there, people! Be you good or evil, if you truly want people to take notice of you, stand akimbo!
>>> gelid
very cold, icy, frosty. Latin, 1600–10; gelidus icy cold.
Choosing to take public transportation rather than driving to work, I find myself being exposed to extremes in temperatures which challenge the wisdom of that choice. Most days, I don't mind; I relish the relative coolness of early morning in late summer or the "brisk" walk to the bus stop in the winter before the sun has risen. But there are days where the descriptions of "hot" and "cold" fall short. I discovered a splendid word last year. A coworker asked me how cold my walk in had been. I replied it was positively gelid. At his request I defined the word and he suggested I might be but one of a handful of people on the planet who would ever use it. Nonetheless, I insisted, for the day in question, no other word would do. A week or so later he pointed me to a story in the local paper where a sportswriter describe a recent game night using that very term. I felt justified; my coworker remained unconvinced. A couple months ago, I came across the word in Christopher Fowler's mystery The Victoria Vanishes. So I see the word isn't entirely extinct. However it might need help of people like you to give it the recognition it deserves.
>>> kerfuffle
a great commotion.
This is a great word I used once to quell an escalating argument among the children of some friends. "Hey!" I demanded, "What's all the kerfuffle about?" Each child immediately began to defend his own stance, and then the commotion petered out as the new word sunk in. I believe the meaning was readily discerned - after all, they knew they were squabbling, and that an adult would intervene for no other reason. But new knowledge rendered their arguments moot, and peace was restored, at least temporarily.
>>> malefactor
a criminal; a person doing harm or evil toward another.
As most translations of the Bible render Luke 23: 33, Jesus was crucified between two "criminals". At least one translation refers to the other men as "evil-doers", which comes closer to the Latin root malefactor: to act wickedly, do an evil. Both the King James version and the Darby translation give us a little extra flavor: "And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left." Now doesn't that just sound more intriguing than "criminals"?
>>> nefarious
wicked, vile, from Latin nefarious, equiv. nefās offense against divine or moral law.
The sorts of deeds malefactors commit. Some criminals are merely bad; others are nefarious!
>>> rascal
a dishonest or unscrupulous person; a mischievous person or animal.
Whichever meaning you chose, unscrupulous person or mischievous person, this word has sadly fallen out of common use. How could this happen? I was reminded of this wonderful word by being referred to as such (second meaning, thankfully) a couple weeks ago. Not as common as they once were, but are still recognized by most people, are hooligan, whippersnapper and scoundrel. Meriting honorable mentions are rapscallion, varlet and miscreant.
So there you have it: a dozen words which not only convey specific meanings, but are fun to say and will make you the life of any party. Well, maybe not the life of the party. But using these words will certainly leave an impression upon others.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Re-read: "To Kill a Mockingbird"
This past July marked the 50 year anniversary of the publication of "To Kill a Mockingbird". It has long been one of my favorite books, one I read every five years or so. I had planned to re-read it this year before knowledge of the anniversary came to me, so the many news stories I heard on NPR made for a happy coincidence.
This time I had decided to listen to the audio version. I don't know how many times I have read the book nor do I remember how old I was when I first read it (I think I was around twenty.) Each time I read it my own life experiences give me the opportunity to experience the story with new eyes, and this time was no exception. Part of that might be listening to it rather than reading it. Having someone read to you is a delicious experience, especially if the narrator can speak in the character's voice. I don't mean voice imitations; I don't mean a woman narrator speaking like a man or vice versa, although that does add richness to the experience (anyone who has ever heard the myriad of voices Jim Dale evokes while narrating the Harry Potter books knows what I mean there.) Rather, I mean a narrator who draws the listener into the story so completely as to make it sound like you are hearing the story firsthand. Roses Pritchard narrated the version I listened to, and she is such a narrator.
The story is one of the handful of books Hollywood ever got "right". But as powerful as the movie was, and as wonderful as Gregory Peck portrayed Atticus Finch, the movie pales in comparison to the power of the book. It is of course a tale of racial prejudice and injustice and a small town's awakening consciousness. Some have criticized the novel for what they consider its one dimensional portrayal of African Americans, and for perpetuating a more subtle form of racism by an equally one dimensional portrayal of whites as saviors. If the story were set today, or even at the time the book was written, fifty years ago at the height of the Civil Rights movement, I might agree with that assessment. But the story was set in a different time, in post Great Depression America.
I am certainly not saying that the times made those prejudices and injustices right. They were wrong then just as they are wrong now. They did, however, exist, much more strongly and blatantly then than they do now. What rights were conferred by law and what actually took place were unfortunately different things. It took men and women of both races to stand up against their friends and courage to challenge society's beliefs - and their own - to make those laws a vibrant reality for all regardless of race. That is the second reason I challenge that one-dimensional assessment: the book is full of characters who did the right things despite being afraid or confused, despised, ostracized and even persecuted for it.
Atticus Finch defends the falsely accused Tom Robinson not only because he is court appointed to do so but puts his full efforts into it because it is the right thing to do, and he actively teaches his children Jem and Scout a better way to live than what the community is teaching, preparing them for greater challenges he knows are coming, and the way in which he handles bitter disappointments and failure. Despite their own flaws, Calpurnia, Reverend Sykes, Miss Maudie, Aunt Alexandra and Uncle Jack each teach the children something. Even "minor" characters Dolphus Raymond, Link Deas and Walter Cunningham Sr. prove themselves more valiant than they first appear.
The movie focused on the two main intertwining stories of Tom Robinson's trial and the mysterious neighbor Boo Radley, but left much out. The novel also explores the themes of drug addiction, social and economic class, fascism, and being a Christian not only in word but also in deed. Pretty heady stuff for a child to witness and try to make sense of - and the story is told entirely through the eyes of young Jean Louise "Scout" Finch. Wise beyond her years she may be, she is still growing up in a confusing, rapidly changing world. Still, make sense of it she does, through keen observation, loving relationships with her father and other adults, growing first apart from her brother and then drawing again closer to him, and finally, the passage of time and the greater understanding that brings. Perhaps that passage of time is why I myself see the story with fresh eyes every time I read it.
This time I had decided to listen to the audio version. I don't know how many times I have read the book nor do I remember how old I was when I first read it (I think I was around twenty.) Each time I read it my own life experiences give me the opportunity to experience the story with new eyes, and this time was no exception. Part of that might be listening to it rather than reading it. Having someone read to you is a delicious experience, especially if the narrator can speak in the character's voice. I don't mean voice imitations; I don't mean a woman narrator speaking like a man or vice versa, although that does add richness to the experience (anyone who has ever heard the myriad of voices Jim Dale evokes while narrating the Harry Potter books knows what I mean there.) Rather, I mean a narrator who draws the listener into the story so completely as to make it sound like you are hearing the story firsthand. Roses Pritchard narrated the version I listened to, and she is such a narrator.
The story is one of the handful of books Hollywood ever got "right". But as powerful as the movie was, and as wonderful as Gregory Peck portrayed Atticus Finch, the movie pales in comparison to the power of the book. It is of course a tale of racial prejudice and injustice and a small town's awakening consciousness. Some have criticized the novel for what they consider its one dimensional portrayal of African Americans, and for perpetuating a more subtle form of racism by an equally one dimensional portrayal of whites as saviors. If the story were set today, or even at the time the book was written, fifty years ago at the height of the Civil Rights movement, I might agree with that assessment. But the story was set in a different time, in post Great Depression America.
I am certainly not saying that the times made those prejudices and injustices right. They were wrong then just as they are wrong now. They did, however, exist, much more strongly and blatantly then than they do now. What rights were conferred by law and what actually took place were unfortunately different things. It took men and women of both races to stand up against their friends and courage to challenge society's beliefs - and their own - to make those laws a vibrant reality for all regardless of race. That is the second reason I challenge that one-dimensional assessment: the book is full of characters who did the right things despite being afraid or confused, despised, ostracized and even persecuted for it.
Atticus Finch defends the falsely accused Tom Robinson not only because he is court appointed to do so but puts his full efforts into it because it is the right thing to do, and he actively teaches his children Jem and Scout a better way to live than what the community is teaching, preparing them for greater challenges he knows are coming, and the way in which he handles bitter disappointments and failure. Despite their own flaws, Calpurnia, Reverend Sykes, Miss Maudie, Aunt Alexandra and Uncle Jack each teach the children something. Even "minor" characters Dolphus Raymond, Link Deas and Walter Cunningham Sr. prove themselves more valiant than they first appear.
The movie focused on the two main intertwining stories of Tom Robinson's trial and the mysterious neighbor Boo Radley, but left much out. The novel also explores the themes of drug addiction, social and economic class, fascism, and being a Christian not only in word but also in deed. Pretty heady stuff for a child to witness and try to make sense of - and the story is told entirely through the eyes of young Jean Louise "Scout" Finch. Wise beyond her years she may be, she is still growing up in a confusing, rapidly changing world. Still, make sense of it she does, through keen observation, loving relationships with her father and other adults, growing first apart from her brother and then drawing again closer to him, and finally, the passage of time and the greater understanding that brings. Perhaps that passage of time is why I myself see the story with fresh eyes every time I read it.
Monday, September 6, 2010
The Food Police vs. Common Sense
One of my pet peeves is those individuals who many refer to as "The Food Police". These are the people who don't simply tell you to eat healthy, but have grandiose guidelines which border on the insane. These are the people who appear to believe that the Common People are too stupid to realize that a small fast food restaurant cheeseburger has fewer calories and less fat that the quadruple patty with 3 ounces of cheese, battered and deep fried "Super Deluxe Special" burger does. These are the people who tell you that a large movie theater popcorn with butter has thousands of calories and a week's supply of saturated fat and you're "better off not going for that free refill!" Has anyone other than the Incredible Hulk ever eaten two large buckets of movie theater popcorn all by themselves?
I figure if someone thinks I'm stupid, they should tell me straight out, rather than hint at it.
I used to read these "Eat This, Not That" lists until I realized I got angry every time I read one. I didn't get angry because my favorites were in the "Not That" column (in fact, sometimes they were in the "Eat This" column.) Nope, my ire was raised by the comparisons themselves. Did you know that four ounces of all natural, no sugar added fruit juice is a healthier alternative than 32 ounces of a sugary carbonated soft drink? Gwarsh, Mickey! Okay, that's a slight exaggeration. How about this one: four ounces of all natural fruit juice is better for you than four ounces of fruit juice cocktail? Do the people who put together these list truly think nobody reads nutrition or ingredient labels, or don't know that "cocktail" means "a little bit of juice flavoring with a bunch of sugar added to reduce the company's costs"? Other lists compare eating a candy bar to the healthier rice cake with an eighth of a teaspoon of artificially sweetened jam. Hey, you've convinced me! Goodbye, chocolate bliss, hello strawberry flavored Styrofoam!
Equally annoying are the lists that compare only calories or only fat, and state that Choice B is better than Choice A because it has 30 fewer calories and 1 fewer grams of saturated fat. The reason the people making these lists think no one reads nutrition labels is because they don't read labels themselves. The (slightly) higher calorie and (marginally) higher fat choice has significant amounts of protein, vitamins and minerals that the "healthier" choice does not. It's all important, folks. Watching those fats and calories might give you that slim figure you're after, but it won't make you healthy. Yes, it's true that carrying around extra weight and clogging your arteries with trans-fats will shorten your lifespan. So will malnutrition. If you don't get sufficient nutrients your internal organs will get diseased and wither, and you will die. Your body, however, will look fantastic in your casket.
Recently a friend sent me a recipe for chicken prepared in a way supposedly comparable to a popular Chili's entrée. The recipe compared fat, calories, protein and other nutrients between the two dishes. Chili's is one of my favorite restaurants, so I looked closely at the comparisons. I checked out the nutrition information of that particular dish from Chili's website and added up the numbers from the individual ingredients from the "make it yourself at home and save money as well as fat and calories" recipe. The numbers-per-serving of the home recipe were pretty accurate. The numbers from the Chili's entrée -- well, a little bit of tweaking took place there. I can overlook the discrepancy in the initial counts, as the recipe was a few years older than the currently posted Chili's nutrition information; I reasoned that Chili's had adjusted their recipe over those few years which would account for the slightly lower amounts. But the real subterfuge in the Food Police's comparison came with what actually ended up on the plate.
The numbers cited for the Chili's entrée were "as served" - which means "served with two side dishes." As anyone who has eaten at Chili's knows, most of their side dishes are sautéed. Even those which are not are going to add at least calories if not additional fat. The numbers for the home recipe, however, were for an individual serving of chicken, no side dish included. In addition, the home recipe served four people and the Chili's recipe served one - with the same amount of chicken! Yes, folks, four servings do indeed contain more fat and calories than one!
These restaurant comparisons always assume that just because your server puts the plate in front of you, you have to clean your plate. Mom made you do that when you were growing up, but I've yet to eat at a restaurant which required it. With the exception of all-you-can-eat buffets, every restaurant will give you a bag, box, or carton to take home what you cannot (and probably should not) finish in the one sitting. Chili's is one of my favorite eating establishments but I seldom leave without taking home half the meat and sometimes a portion of the veggies as well. When I go out to eat with friends, those who don't ask for take-home containers leave the remainder on their plates for the server to take away. Places like Chili's give you a lot of food for your money. I'm sure many people do clean their plates. In my experience, most people do not - because we're not used to eating two or three meals all at once.
If those who made food comparisons made honest comparisons, I wouldn't be annoyed. I'd still eat whichever choice made my mouth and tummy happiest; sometimes that is the "healthier" choice and sometimes it is not, and I'm smart enough to realize a smaller portion will satisfy the craving just as effectively as a larger portion will. But you cannot honestly or accurately compare a serving of meat (regardless of whether it is skinless and broiled or still-skinned and fried) to a complete meal, or an apple to a box of jujubes, or a glass of water with lemon twist to a tall glass of lemonade.
Anyone - Food Police or those who buy into the subterfuge - who thinks such comparisons contain any truly useful information has been eating "healthy" for far too long, and the lack of proper nutrients has rotted their brains.
I figure if someone thinks I'm stupid, they should tell me straight out, rather than hint at it.
I used to read these "Eat This, Not That" lists until I realized I got angry every time I read one. I didn't get angry because my favorites were in the "Not That" column (in fact, sometimes they were in the "Eat This" column.) Nope, my ire was raised by the comparisons themselves. Did you know that four ounces of all natural, no sugar added fruit juice is a healthier alternative than 32 ounces of a sugary carbonated soft drink? Gwarsh, Mickey! Okay, that's a slight exaggeration. How about this one: four ounces of all natural fruit juice is better for you than four ounces of fruit juice cocktail? Do the people who put together these list truly think nobody reads nutrition or ingredient labels, or don't know that "cocktail" means "a little bit of juice flavoring with a bunch of sugar added to reduce the company's costs"? Other lists compare eating a candy bar to the healthier rice cake with an eighth of a teaspoon of artificially sweetened jam. Hey, you've convinced me! Goodbye, chocolate bliss, hello strawberry flavored Styrofoam!
Equally annoying are the lists that compare only calories or only fat, and state that Choice B is better than Choice A because it has 30 fewer calories and 1 fewer grams of saturated fat. The reason the people making these lists think no one reads nutrition labels is because they don't read labels themselves. The (slightly) higher calorie and (marginally) higher fat choice has significant amounts of protein, vitamins and minerals that the "healthier" choice does not. It's all important, folks. Watching those fats and calories might give you that slim figure you're after, but it won't make you healthy. Yes, it's true that carrying around extra weight and clogging your arteries with trans-fats will shorten your lifespan. So will malnutrition. If you don't get sufficient nutrients your internal organs will get diseased and wither, and you will die. Your body, however, will look fantastic in your casket.
Recently a friend sent me a recipe for chicken prepared in a way supposedly comparable to a popular Chili's entrée. The recipe compared fat, calories, protein and other nutrients between the two dishes. Chili's is one of my favorite restaurants, so I looked closely at the comparisons. I checked out the nutrition information of that particular dish from Chili's website and added up the numbers from the individual ingredients from the "make it yourself at home and save money as well as fat and calories" recipe. The numbers-per-serving of the home recipe were pretty accurate. The numbers from the Chili's entrée -- well, a little bit of tweaking took place there. I can overlook the discrepancy in the initial counts, as the recipe was a few years older than the currently posted Chili's nutrition information; I reasoned that Chili's had adjusted their recipe over those few years which would account for the slightly lower amounts. But the real subterfuge in the Food Police's comparison came with what actually ended up on the plate.
The numbers cited for the Chili's entrée were "as served" - which means "served with two side dishes." As anyone who has eaten at Chili's knows, most of their side dishes are sautéed. Even those which are not are going to add at least calories if not additional fat. The numbers for the home recipe, however, were for an individual serving of chicken, no side dish included. In addition, the home recipe served four people and the Chili's recipe served one - with the same amount of chicken! Yes, folks, four servings do indeed contain more fat and calories than one!
These restaurant comparisons always assume that just because your server puts the plate in front of you, you have to clean your plate. Mom made you do that when you were growing up, but I've yet to eat at a restaurant which required it. With the exception of all-you-can-eat buffets, every restaurant will give you a bag, box, or carton to take home what you cannot (and probably should not) finish in the one sitting. Chili's is one of my favorite eating establishments but I seldom leave without taking home half the meat and sometimes a portion of the veggies as well. When I go out to eat with friends, those who don't ask for take-home containers leave the remainder on their plates for the server to take away. Places like Chili's give you a lot of food for your money. I'm sure many people do clean their plates. In my experience, most people do not - because we're not used to eating two or three meals all at once.
If those who made food comparisons made honest comparisons, I wouldn't be annoyed. I'd still eat whichever choice made my mouth and tummy happiest; sometimes that is the "healthier" choice and sometimes it is not, and I'm smart enough to realize a smaller portion will satisfy the craving just as effectively as a larger portion will. But you cannot honestly or accurately compare a serving of meat (regardless of whether it is skinless and broiled or still-skinned and fried) to a complete meal, or an apple to a box of jujubes, or a glass of water with lemon twist to a tall glass of lemonade.
Anyone - Food Police or those who buy into the subterfuge - who thinks such comparisons contain any truly useful information has been eating "healthy" for far too long, and the lack of proper nutrients has rotted their brains.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Dementors, Misery Eels, and Echthroi
I'm sure there is a word to describe these, but I do not know what it is. These are a particular brand of bad guys. They are scary creatures. You hope they are not real, but secretly fear they might be. My three favorite scary creatures from literature:
3. Dementors, from the Harry Potter series by J.K. Rowling.
Fans of Harry Potter, either the books or the movies, know about Dementors. These are wraith like creatures which feed off human joy, sucking out happiness and hope until only misery and depression and bad memories are left. They are used to guard Azkaban, the prison for the baddest of the bad, in the world of Harry Potter. I always thought that was an unwise decision, as it didn't exactly encourage repentance or positive change.
2. Misery Eels, from Sarah Prineas's The Magic Thief series.
Misery eels are slithery shadowy creatures which thrive off of and intensify fear, loneliness and misery. They can be repelled by light. I'm reasonably certain I ran into a few of these in my childhood, years before these books were written, as the night creatures of my childhood were also slithery-shadowy and were chased away by light.
1. Echthroi, from Madeleine L'Engle's A Wind in the Door and A Swiftly Tilting Planet.
Okay, these guys have to take my number one spot. First, the word is even fun to say: echthroi! It sounds like something caught in your throat you desperately want to get out of your system. And the Echthroi in these two books are not things you want inside you, either. The sole purpose of the Echthroi (from a Greek word meaning "enemy") is to destroy, extinguish, annihilate, all joy, all happiness, all life and beauty, every single thing that is good in the universe. They have no bodies of their own but can be recognized by their foul decaying stench and a cold clammy feeling. They cannot be fought with anger or hatred, as those feelings only give them strength. They can be fought only with love, pure, unconditional love for all, even the unlovable, and by "naming" or affirming the essential nature of every being great or small. That's it in a nutshell, although my summation falls somewhat short.
If you like your evil vague and not completely defined, stay away from these books. If you like your evil to be obvious from the moment they walk into the room, from the moment you hear or read their names, Dementors, Misery Eels, and Echthroi are for you. Don't say I didn't warn you. Remember the power of Love, and make sure your flashlight is working.
3. Dementors, from the Harry Potter series by J.K. Rowling.
Fans of Harry Potter, either the books or the movies, know about Dementors. These are wraith like creatures which feed off human joy, sucking out happiness and hope until only misery and depression and bad memories are left. They are used to guard Azkaban, the prison for the baddest of the bad, in the world of Harry Potter. I always thought that was an unwise decision, as it didn't exactly encourage repentance or positive change.
2. Misery Eels, from Sarah Prineas's The Magic Thief series.
Misery eels are slithery shadowy creatures which thrive off of and intensify fear, loneliness and misery. They can be repelled by light. I'm reasonably certain I ran into a few of these in my childhood, years before these books were written, as the night creatures of my childhood were also slithery-shadowy and were chased away by light.
1. Echthroi, from Madeleine L'Engle's A Wind in the Door and A Swiftly Tilting Planet.
Okay, these guys have to take my number one spot. First, the word is even fun to say: echthroi! It sounds like something caught in your throat you desperately want to get out of your system. And the Echthroi in these two books are not things you want inside you, either. The sole purpose of the Echthroi (from a Greek word meaning "enemy") is to destroy, extinguish, annihilate, all joy, all happiness, all life and beauty, every single thing that is good in the universe. They have no bodies of their own but can be recognized by their foul decaying stench and a cold clammy feeling. They cannot be fought with anger or hatred, as those feelings only give them strength. They can be fought only with love, pure, unconditional love for all, even the unlovable, and by "naming" or affirming the essential nature of every being great or small. That's it in a nutshell, although my summation falls somewhat short.
If you like your evil vague and not completely defined, stay away from these books. If you like your evil to be obvious from the moment they walk into the room, from the moment you hear or read their names, Dementors, Misery Eels, and Echthroi are for you. Don't say I didn't warn you. Remember the power of Love, and make sure your flashlight is working.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Book Clutter
I have this week been de-cluttering my bookcases.
Wait - did I just equate clutter with books? *sigh* Yes, even books can become clutter, if they are books I have never read and never will, books I've read but didn't like or liked but not well enough to read again, and books which I hang on to for reasons not entirely clear to me. And, since clutter can sap strength, energy, enthusiasm, and joy as efficiently as Dementors or Misery Eels, I've decided to treat it as I do any other clutter.
Close my eyes tightly and hope that it will disappear on its own.
Earlier this week I read a treatise on clutter in which the author broke clutter down into different types. I could recognize each of those throughout my apartment and my many possessions, but five of these I can see in my bookcases:
Two days ago I had planned to write when I got home, but once home I realized what I really wanted to do was de-clutter. Finding no giant seed pods anywhere in my apartment, I decided it was actually me thinking this extraordinary thought and not a pod person, and I ought to take advantage of this uncommon desire since there was no telling how long the phenomena would last or when it might occur again. I specifically wanted to go through my books, which is even less common, as I'd normally give up most anything else before my books. Previous attempts to weed out my book collection have resulted in mere handfuls much more often than the rare box full.
Wait - did I just equate clutter with books? *sigh* Yes, even books can become clutter, if they are books I have never read and never will, books I've read but didn't like or liked but not well enough to read again, and books which I hang on to for reasons not entirely clear to me. And, since clutter can sap strength, energy, enthusiasm, and joy as efficiently as Dementors or Misery Eels, I've decided to treat it as I do any other clutter.
Close my eyes tightly and hope that it will disappear on its own.
Earlier this week I read a treatise on clutter in which the author broke clutter down into different types. I could recognize each of those throughout my apartment and my many possessions, but five of these I can see in my bookcases:
Bargain Clutter - Hey, it was a great price - and I might read it. Someday. Maybe. Besides, it's out of print. If I change my mind, I'll never be able to replace it for such a great price.
Freebie Clutter - Well, it's not one I would buy for myself (unless if maybe it was on sale) but it was a gift. You can't give away a gift! What if they come over and see I don't have it? What if they come to the yard sale and see their gift in the 50 cent box? What if they see it in the thrift store I donated it to? (Perhaps this could also be called neurotic clutter.)
Nostalgic / Outgrown Clutter - This book meant a lot to me 25 years ago. I can't get rid of it. It helped define who I am. Okay, so I no longer agree with the ideas. But I did, once.
Aspirational Clutter - I really want to learn about this person/event/topic/philosophy/time/etc. It might help me to become a better person, or give me fascinating new insights. I know it''s possible because it says so on the jacket cover. Okay, the sales receipt stuck in the front tells me it's been sitting on the shelf for the past two decades, but really, I want to learn about it. No, really I do. Kinda. Sorta. Really.
Buyer's Remorse Clutter - Why the heck did I buy this? What was I thinking? To get rid of something here would be to admit I made a poor decision. Far better to hang on to it until I can find a use for it.
Two days ago I had planned to write when I got home, but once home I realized what I really wanted to do was de-clutter. Finding no giant seed pods anywhere in my apartment, I decided it was actually me thinking this extraordinary thought and not a pod person, and I ought to take advantage of this uncommon desire since there was no telling how long the phenomena would last or when it might occur again. I specifically wanted to go through my books, which is even less common, as I'd normally give up most anything else before my books. Previous attempts to weed out my book collection have resulted in mere handfuls much more often than the rare box full.
That night I started on the religion & philosophy bookcase. It is this section which has always seemed almost taboo, almost sacrilegious to clean out, as if by rejecting one interpretation of a topic I am rejecting the entire concept, or even rejecting God. Oh, I realize that is not rational thinking. I think clutter somehow kills brain cells.
For the most part, this round of de-cluttering was easier than most. I was able to make decisions quickly and without remorse or regret. Some books went into the thrift store box, some into the box for PaperBackSwap.com, and some into the eBay box. Some I felt impressed right off were things which would be appreciated by or prove helpful to this friend or that. There were a few I had mixed feelings about keeping or not. I put those aside, although not back on the shelf, because I knew from past experience that fretting about that indecision can stall a project altogether.
When finished, I had a full shelf and a half of empty space - after I had replaced the ones I want to keep. The next night I went on to the next group - psychology, self help, relationships and creativity. This section for the past year has been stored in the spare room, mostly on the floor because I had so many and not a case to put them in where they could all reside together. Here is where I found much fitting into "buyer's remorse", but also much I have simply outgrown - things which I enjoyed at the time but have no interest in now, or topics I was interested in then but see as uninteresting now. Curiously, two of the books in this category held an interesting twist. These were books I had attempted to share with others but which were met with ridicule. The opinions of these individuals were more important to me than my own ideas, and so I quietly put the offending tomes away. Now I look at them and see the same worth I saw those many years ago. One of these I had outgrown; it no longer "fit" my belief or value system. The other I decided still - or perhaps again - had worth to me.
Interestingly, this larger selection was easier to weed out, and those which "made the cut" fit nicely into the cleared space from the night before. From both nights, the books I've chosen to keep are ones I've read but feel I’d like to refer to again and share with others, and ones I haven’t yet read but which I feel will help me to accomplish some changes I’m trying to make in my life right now.
Like previous clutter purges, this has proven to be a bit of a catharsis for me. Getting rid of physical clutter seems to have a direct effect on emotional clutter. I still have much to do. I still have science and history and dictionaries to go through in my non-fiction. And I have twice as much fiction, which might prove more daunting, as I've always loved fiction more than nonfiction. I want to keep my momentum, but I don't want to stress about it, so I hope to approach the remainder of the task with the same relaxed attitude: This is me. This is not. I feel good about what I've already done. I might be the only one who can really see the difference at this point (especially as the boxes are still here!) but that's okay. The main difference is in how it feels. It feels as if as the clutter is pushed out, it is taking a lot of tension with it, and allowing room for more peace and creativity. And I like that.
Interestingly, this larger selection was easier to weed out, and those which "made the cut" fit nicely into the cleared space from the night before. From both nights, the books I've chosen to keep are ones I've read but feel I’d like to refer to again and share with others, and ones I haven’t yet read but which I feel will help me to accomplish some changes I’m trying to make in my life right now.
Like previous clutter purges, this has proven to be a bit of a catharsis for me. Getting rid of physical clutter seems to have a direct effect on emotional clutter. I still have much to do. I still have science and history and dictionaries to go through in my non-fiction. And I have twice as much fiction, which might prove more daunting, as I've always loved fiction more than nonfiction. I want to keep my momentum, but I don't want to stress about it, so I hope to approach the remainder of the task with the same relaxed attitude: This is me. This is not. I feel good about what I've already done. I might be the only one who can really see the difference at this point (especially as the boxes are still here!) but that's okay. The main difference is in how it feels. It feels as if as the clutter is pushed out, it is taking a lot of tension with it, and allowing room for more peace and creativity. And I like that.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Ereader update
There was one possibility I considered in comparing reading books electronically and reading paper+ink books, but not thinking I would really encounter the problem, I had not previously included it in my lists of comparison. But now I have, so I can state, from personal experience, that the old fashioned, paper-ink-glue style of books does have a distinct advantage over the metal-plastic-circuitry style of books.
Both will make a "Crack!" sound if you accidentally step upon them. With the more conventional medium of reading, a bit of glue and mailing tape will fix the problem in a matter of hours, and depending upon your inherent talents for book binding, won't leave a scar.
On the other hand, the crack! you hear while using the new and improved electronic format will require a phone call to a sympathetic customer service rep, who will promise to send out a return/replacement kit, which you will wait for two days past the promised arrival date before calling back, whereupon you will call and speak to polite but seemingly not-as-interested-in-your-problem-as-the-other rep, who will tell you that the "order is pending but should be going out shortly" and you will wait two weeks before trying email which will bring the prompt response of "Your order is still pending and is currently under investigation why it is still pending."
In the meantime, I have enjoyed my other reader from another manufacturer. Yes, I have two readers, the second of which was ordered before the first one (the one involved in the accidental steppage) arrived, the reason why it was ordered when I had another coming involves a brain burp and that is all that is necessary to be said on the matter.
Well, I enjoyed it until last night, when it froze on a document -- and none of the buttons - Back, Home, Page Up, Page Down, Magnify, Enter, POWER or even RESET -- work. And the computer no longer recognizes the device when it is plugged in.
Today as I was leaving for work I brought along a REAL book.
Both will make a "Crack!" sound if you accidentally step upon them. With the more conventional medium of reading, a bit of glue and mailing tape will fix the problem in a matter of hours, and depending upon your inherent talents for book binding, won't leave a scar.
On the other hand, the crack! you hear while using the new and improved electronic format will require a phone call to a sympathetic customer service rep, who will promise to send out a return/replacement kit, which you will wait for two days past the promised arrival date before calling back, whereupon you will call and speak to polite but seemingly not-as-interested-in-your-problem-as-the-other rep, who will tell you that the "order is pending but should be going out shortly" and you will wait two weeks before trying email which will bring the prompt response of "Your order is still pending and is currently under investigation why it is still pending."
In the meantime, I have enjoyed my other reader from another manufacturer. Yes, I have two readers, the second of which was ordered before the first one (the one involved in the accidental steppage) arrived, the reason why it was ordered when I had another coming involves a brain burp and that is all that is necessary to be said on the matter.
Well, I enjoyed it until last night, when it froze on a document -- and none of the buttons - Back, Home, Page Up, Page Down, Magnify, Enter, POWER or even RESET -- work. And the computer no longer recognizes the device when it is plugged in.
Today as I was leaving for work I brought along a REAL book.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Theodosia Throckmorton
I love the books being written for children today. The characters are good, honest, clever, witty, resourceful and resilient, and they have a well developed sense of right and wrong. But they also have all the real insecurities and frustrations of real youth, so even in stories told in fantasy settings the characters are real and easy to identify with. This is good news not just for kids, but also for grownups who like a good read. You can write down to most adults and get away with it, but you cannot write down to kids. Kids are far too smart for that. I like series which balance escapist adventure with real-life emotions and imperfections, which give me a protagonist I can cheer for. Author R.L. LaFevers has created such a character.
It's 1906, and eleven year old Theodosia Throckmorton (I love that name!) has her hands full. Her father is head curator of London's Museum of legends and Antiquities, and her mother is returning from an archaeological dig in Egypt. Theo has a unique talent: she can see the black magic and ancient curses surrounding the museum's artifacts. Her parents love her, but often get so wrapped up in their work that they forget it is time to go home, or even time to eat, so Theo fends for herself, and sometimes her little brother when he's not away at boarding school. She reads ancient texts and learns how to remove those curses, and does a pretty good job of it - until her mother returns with The Heart of Egypt, which carries a curse more vile than anything Theo has encountered, a curse which threatens to crumble the British Empire and start an unimaginably terrible war. Our intrepid heroine won't let that happen. She is both aided and thwarted by secret societies both good and evil, her cat Isis, her younger brother Henry, street urchins Sticky Will and his brothers Snuffles and Ratsy, her stoic Grandmother Throckmorton who believes Theo needs a firmer hand if she is ever to learn how to behave like a proper young lady, and other museum employees whose loyalties are sometimes in question.
Does that sound like too many characters to keep track of? It is not. The author has created a lovable and courageous heroine in her trilogy and her supporting cast is as uniquely voiced as she is. But it is Theodosia who shines: part Nancy Drew, part Indiana Jones, part Elizabeth Peters' Amelia Peabody, with maybe a bit of Percy Jackson thrown in to the mix. Three times Theodosia saves the British Empire: in Theodosia and the Serpents of Chaos, Theodosia and the Staff of Osiris, and just released this year, Theodosia and the Eyes of Horus. She does this while feeling that no one is truly listening to her or believing in her, and uncertain of her parents' love for her, but finding within herself a way to use her talents to do the right thing. As I've stated in previous posts about other characters, because it is the right thing to do, even if no one else believes it to be so. I hope the latest in the trilogy won't be the last we see of Theodosia. It would be a good place to say goodbye, as she becomes a little more self assured and the adults in her life come to appreciate and accept her for who she is (something us adults are reluctant to admit even we hope for) - but I do hope that Theodosia isn't quite done saving the Empire, nor stimulating imaginations of children and adults alike.
Book 1:
Book 2:
Book 3:
It's 1906, and eleven year old Theodosia Throckmorton (I love that name!) has her hands full. Her father is head curator of London's Museum of legends and Antiquities, and her mother is returning from an archaeological dig in Egypt. Theo has a unique talent: she can see the black magic and ancient curses surrounding the museum's artifacts. Her parents love her, but often get so wrapped up in their work that they forget it is time to go home, or even time to eat, so Theo fends for herself, and sometimes her little brother when he's not away at boarding school. She reads ancient texts and learns how to remove those curses, and does a pretty good job of it - until her mother returns with The Heart of Egypt, which carries a curse more vile than anything Theo has encountered, a curse which threatens to crumble the British Empire and start an unimaginably terrible war. Our intrepid heroine won't let that happen. She is both aided and thwarted by secret societies both good and evil, her cat Isis, her younger brother Henry, street urchins Sticky Will and his brothers Snuffles and Ratsy, her stoic Grandmother Throckmorton who believes Theo needs a firmer hand if she is ever to learn how to behave like a proper young lady, and other museum employees whose loyalties are sometimes in question.
Does that sound like too many characters to keep track of? It is not. The author has created a lovable and courageous heroine in her trilogy and her supporting cast is as uniquely voiced as she is. But it is Theodosia who shines: part Nancy Drew, part Indiana Jones, part Elizabeth Peters' Amelia Peabody, with maybe a bit of Percy Jackson thrown in to the mix. Three times Theodosia saves the British Empire: in Theodosia and the Serpents of Chaos, Theodosia and the Staff of Osiris, and just released this year, Theodosia and the Eyes of Horus. She does this while feeling that no one is truly listening to her or believing in her, and uncertain of her parents' love for her, but finding within herself a way to use her talents to do the right thing. As I've stated in previous posts about other characters, because it is the right thing to do, even if no one else believes it to be so. I hope the latest in the trilogy won't be the last we see of Theodosia. It would be a good place to say goodbye, as she becomes a little more self assured and the adults in her life come to appreciate and accept her for who she is (something us adults are reluctant to admit even we hope for) - but I do hope that Theodosia isn't quite done saving the Empire, nor stimulating imaginations of children and adults alike.
Book 1:
Book 2:
Book 3:
Monday, June 7, 2010
Well, I did it. I bought an ereader.
After months of making comparisons, from manufacturer's patting-themselves-on-the-back claims, to computer magazine reports to use comments on various store websites, to actually holding a couple of them (Amazon's Kindle and Barnes & Noble's Nook), price, overall design, prettiness, and finally deciding which of those wonderful features I would actually use, I placed an order.
And who won? Newcomer to the ereader world, Borders Bookstore's "Kobo".
The simplest of the readers, and tying with Ectaco's Jetbook Lite in price, it appeared to do what I want it to do: store books in an electronic form and allow me to take my favorites hither and yon. The Jetbook offered more formats, in fact, more formats than any other reader I investigated, but in reality, many of those formats are somewhat obscure, and I could find no books offered exclusively in those lesser known formats. The more-formats-than-anyone-else would be a great option for those who have ebooks bought ten years ago.
Kobo, on the other hand, offers readability to only three formats: PDF, ePUB, and Adobe DRM. Lest anyone think that is a drawback, consider that nearly all ebooks, both public domain and current sellers, are offered in at least one of those top formats. The Kobo doesn't have the wireless capabilities of both Kindles, the Nook, or Sony's top two readers. But neither does Sony's Pocket Reader, their cheapest model, which had been my first choice before the Kobo was announced. When I was considering whether or not this was a selling point, I realized I would be doing the greater part of my browsing and buying on my home computer, anyway, so wireless technology was a $50 option I didn't need.
I cannot "lend" my books to others, as the Nook offers - but none of my friends own a Nook, anyway, and my favorite books I generally buy extra copies of, anyway, to actually give to those I figure will love them as I do. I cannot, at least at the present time, use the Kobo to borrow books from the public library, which was the one point that gave me pause to consider Sony and Nook instead. But looking at what the library is currently offering for lending, that is a service I might not have been using, anyway, no matter how cool it is. And given that the Kobo uses quite similar technologies and interfaces, perhaps the library will offer that option in the near future (as well as offering a wider selection of books I, one of their most loyal patrons, desires!)
Now for the only real drawback: The Kobo, being so newly announced, isn't yet in stores. I pre-ordered mine on the 2nd on June, "for delivery July 2nd". I have nearly a month to wait. Theoretically, I can wait that long; after all, I've been contemplating this purchase for eight or nine months. However, now that my decision has been made... well, I am like a small child eagerly awaiting a birthday. "How much longer? Oh, man!" Pray for me, friends - I need your strength!
And who won? Newcomer to the ereader world, Borders Bookstore's "Kobo".
The simplest of the readers, and tying with Ectaco's Jetbook Lite in price, it appeared to do what I want it to do: store books in an electronic form and allow me to take my favorites hither and yon. The Jetbook offered more formats, in fact, more formats than any other reader I investigated, but in reality, many of those formats are somewhat obscure, and I could find no books offered exclusively in those lesser known formats. The more-formats-than-anyone-else would be a great option for those who have ebooks bought ten years ago.
Kobo, on the other hand, offers readability to only three formats: PDF, ePUB, and Adobe DRM. Lest anyone think that is a drawback, consider that nearly all ebooks, both public domain and current sellers, are offered in at least one of those top formats. The Kobo doesn't have the wireless capabilities of both Kindles, the Nook, or Sony's top two readers. But neither does Sony's Pocket Reader, their cheapest model, which had been my first choice before the Kobo was announced. When I was considering whether or not this was a selling point, I realized I would be doing the greater part of my browsing and buying on my home computer, anyway, so wireless technology was a $50 option I didn't need.
I cannot "lend" my books to others, as the Nook offers - but none of my friends own a Nook, anyway, and my favorite books I generally buy extra copies of, anyway, to actually give to those I figure will love them as I do. I cannot, at least at the present time, use the Kobo to borrow books from the public library, which was the one point that gave me pause to consider Sony and Nook instead. But looking at what the library is currently offering for lending, that is a service I might not have been using, anyway, no matter how cool it is. And given that the Kobo uses quite similar technologies and interfaces, perhaps the library will offer that option in the near future (as well as offering a wider selection of books I, one of their most loyal patrons, desires!)
Now for the only real drawback: The Kobo, being so newly announced, isn't yet in stores. I pre-ordered mine on the 2nd on June, "for delivery July 2nd". I have nearly a month to wait. Theoretically, I can wait that long; after all, I've been contemplating this purchase for eight or nine months. However, now that my decision has been made... well, I am like a small child eagerly awaiting a birthday. "How much longer? Oh, man!" Pray for me, friends - I need your strength!
Sunday, June 6, 2010
A thief is a lot like a wizard...
Sarah Prineas has created a wonderful fantasy world in her Magic Thief series. Begun in 2008, and concluding (?) with this year's third installment, the series tells the story of Connwaer, a young pickpocket who gets more than he bargained for when he picks the pocket of an old man and pulls out a stone. He quickly realizes the man whose pocket he just picked is a wizard, and the stone is a locus magicalicus - the stone a wizard uses to focus his magic. The wizard Nevery quickly discovers the theft and is intrigued by the fact that the boy was not instantly killed when he laid his hand upon the magic stone, as he ought to have been. So the magician, returning to the city of Wellmet after a long exile, reluctantly takes in the gutterboy as his apprentice. Conn turns out to be more than an ordinary thief, and while Nevery soon learns that the boy might have a certain aptitude for magic, he's not ordinary in that regard, either.
Conn is one of the most heroic characters in juvenile literature, perhaps in all literature, I have ever read. One of the reasons I generally prefer juvenile literature over grown-up literature is the motivations of the characters. In so-called adult literature, the protagonists often do the right thing to impress someone, or to advance a career, for money or power, or simply because page one defines them as the hero, and no other reason. In juvenile literature, for the most part, the hero (or heroine) does the right thing because, well, it is the right thing! Sure, they have the same desires to be accepted, admired, followed - but when everything and everyone turns against them, they do the right thing because it is their nature to do so. And Conn is the epitome of this personality.
The Duchess of Wellmet and the city's other wizards, the magisters (who were responsible for banishing Nevery twenty years prior) aren't too happy with Nevery's return, and less happy and less trusting of his new apprentice, especially when Conn tried to take a jewel set in the Duchess's crown. Conn cannot help that - the jewel turns out to be his own locus magicalicus, and a magician cannot resist when his own stone "calls" to him. Even though the other wizards know this is so, they don't believe Conn is anything more than a common thief. Nevertheless, they do know that there is something wrong with the city's magic; it is declining at an alarming rate and they cannot figure out why.
Conn doesn't know, either, but he has some ideas. He believes that the magic is a living entity, and even without a locus to focus his energies with, he can to a certain degree communicate with that magic. Not even Nevery believes him on this point, but here is what makes Conn such an endearing hero: Conn knows what he knows, and he never gives up, not even when his own life is in danger, and his mortality is in peril a number of times in each of the three books. Conn is also honest, almost to a fault, and he is fiercely loyal and self-sacrificing. It is these traits that gradually earn him respect, albeit begrudging respect from some. Rounding out the main cast is Kerrn, captain of the guard; Rowan, the Duchess's daughter who is handy with a sword; and Benet, Nevery's rough looking, gruff sounding bodyguard who enjoys knitting and baking biscuits in his spare time. By the end of book three Conn has completely won over these people and a score of others, including much of the city's criminal element.
Conn will win you over, too.
Book 1:
Book 2:
Book 3:
Conn is one of the most heroic characters in juvenile literature, perhaps in all literature, I have ever read. One of the reasons I generally prefer juvenile literature over grown-up literature is the motivations of the characters. In so-called adult literature, the protagonists often do the right thing to impress someone, or to advance a career, for money or power, or simply because page one defines them as the hero, and no other reason. In juvenile literature, for the most part, the hero (or heroine) does the right thing because, well, it is the right thing! Sure, they have the same desires to be accepted, admired, followed - but when everything and everyone turns against them, they do the right thing because it is their nature to do so. And Conn is the epitome of this personality.
The Duchess of Wellmet and the city's other wizards, the magisters (who were responsible for banishing Nevery twenty years prior) aren't too happy with Nevery's return, and less happy and less trusting of his new apprentice, especially when Conn tried to take a jewel set in the Duchess's crown. Conn cannot help that - the jewel turns out to be his own locus magicalicus, and a magician cannot resist when his own stone "calls" to him. Even though the other wizards know this is so, they don't believe Conn is anything more than a common thief. Nevertheless, they do know that there is something wrong with the city's magic; it is declining at an alarming rate and they cannot figure out why.
Conn doesn't know, either, but he has some ideas. He believes that the magic is a living entity, and even without a locus to focus his energies with, he can to a certain degree communicate with that magic. Not even Nevery believes him on this point, but here is what makes Conn such an endearing hero: Conn knows what he knows, and he never gives up, not even when his own life is in danger, and his mortality is in peril a number of times in each of the three books. Conn is also honest, almost to a fault, and he is fiercely loyal and self-sacrificing. It is these traits that gradually earn him respect, albeit begrudging respect from some. Rounding out the main cast is Kerrn, captain of the guard; Rowan, the Duchess's daughter who is handy with a sword; and Benet, Nevery's rough looking, gruff sounding bodyguard who enjoys knitting and baking biscuits in his spare time. By the end of book three Conn has completely won over these people and a score of others, including much of the city's criminal element.
Conn will win you over, too.
Book 1:
Book 2:
Book 3:
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Written for....
I love book dedications. It's always interesting to read the list of people who helped an author bring a story to life, but better still, is seeing who that one special person was who merited an especial thank you, the dedication. Parents and spouses are most common, it seems, followed closely by sons and daughters. Some people are mentioned by name only, and we the readers are left to wonder who Alice, Frank, Hector or Jane is. Someone special enough to warrant a whole dedication, for reasons known only to the writer and presumably the person so named. These are good dedications, and meaningful to both the dedicated to and the dedicated from. But some dedications suggest a story behind the story, and these are my favorites.
In some dedications, not only is thanks given, but the reason why is, and that, to me, makes the dedication more personal. Brandon Mull's Fablehaven was written "For Mary, who made writing possible." Anne Fadiman's collection of essays on reading, Ex Libris: Confessions of a Common Reader, was penned "For Clifton Fadiman and Annalee Jacoby Fadiman, who built my ancestral castles." Dragon Flight by Jessica Day George was written for the author's small child, "my own curious little monkey, who already loves books and whose naps made it possible for this one to be written." Holly Black's The Spiderwick Chronicles apparently was written in spite of itself: "For my grandmother Melvina, who said I should write a book just like this one and to whom I replied that I never would." I'd really like to know the story behind Diane Duane's dedication in the second of her Young Wizards series, Deep Wizardry: "For J.A.C. re: redemption, and fried zucchini".
Others say "thank you" in a uniquely personal way. Jessica Day George took a Norwegian folk tale "East of the Sun, West of the Moon" and wrote Sun and Moon, Ice and Snow, telling her parents: "You gave me life, you gave me love, you gave me a ticket to Norway. Thank you." Derek Landy, in writing Skulduggery Pleasant, wanted to express a similar sentiment to his parents, but perhaps he struggled a bit in finding the proper words: "I owe you absolutely everything, and y'know, I suppose it's entirely possible that I feel some, like, degree of affection toward the two of you..." Dean Lorey, author of Nightmare Academy, found that a simple statement works well: "For my wife, Elizabeth, and our sons, Chris and Alex. I love you guys."
R.L. LaFevers wrote her first two books in her Theodosia Throckmorton series to named individuals but also to general groups, who might seem familiar to her readers. Theodosia and the Serpents of Chaos was written in part "To clever girls everywhere who get tired of feeling like no one's listening"; Theodosia and the Staff of Osiris was written "For odd ducks everywhere. Remember, 'odd duck' is just another name for a swan."
Okay, true confession time. I'm a hopeless romantic. Or is that helpless romantic? Whatever. My two favorite book dedications come from books I read in the past year. Sarah Beth Durst, in taking the same Norwegian folk tale that Jessica Day George had, and giving it a contemporary setting in Ice, wrote "For my husband Adam, with love. I would go east of the sun and west of the moon for you." And Sarah Prineas dedicated her third Magic Thief book Found "To John, pretty much the best husband in the world."
Dedications like that are almost of themselves worth the price of the book.
In some dedications, not only is thanks given, but the reason why is, and that, to me, makes the dedication more personal. Brandon Mull's Fablehaven was written "For Mary, who made writing possible." Anne Fadiman's collection of essays on reading, Ex Libris: Confessions of a Common Reader, was penned "For Clifton Fadiman and Annalee Jacoby Fadiman, who built my ancestral castles." Dragon Flight by Jessica Day George was written for the author's small child, "my own curious little monkey, who already loves books and whose naps made it possible for this one to be written." Holly Black's The Spiderwick Chronicles apparently was written in spite of itself: "For my grandmother Melvina, who said I should write a book just like this one and to whom I replied that I never would." I'd really like to know the story behind Diane Duane's dedication in the second of her Young Wizards series, Deep Wizardry: "For J.A.C. re: redemption, and fried zucchini".
Others say "thank you" in a uniquely personal way. Jessica Day George took a Norwegian folk tale "East of the Sun, West of the Moon" and wrote Sun and Moon, Ice and Snow, telling her parents: "You gave me life, you gave me love, you gave me a ticket to Norway. Thank you." Derek Landy, in writing Skulduggery Pleasant, wanted to express a similar sentiment to his parents, but perhaps he struggled a bit in finding the proper words: "I owe you absolutely everything, and y'know, I suppose it's entirely possible that I feel some, like, degree of affection toward the two of you..." Dean Lorey, author of Nightmare Academy, found that a simple statement works well: "For my wife, Elizabeth, and our sons, Chris and Alex. I love you guys."
R.L. LaFevers wrote her first two books in her Theodosia Throckmorton series to named individuals but also to general groups, who might seem familiar to her readers. Theodosia and the Serpents of Chaos was written in part "To clever girls everywhere who get tired of feeling like no one's listening"; Theodosia and the Staff of Osiris was written "For odd ducks everywhere. Remember, 'odd duck' is just another name for a swan."
Okay, true confession time. I'm a hopeless romantic. Or is that helpless romantic? Whatever. My two favorite book dedications come from books I read in the past year. Sarah Beth Durst, in taking the same Norwegian folk tale that Jessica Day George had, and giving it a contemporary setting in Ice, wrote "For my husband Adam, with love. I would go east of the sun and west of the moon for you." And Sarah Prineas dedicated her third Magic Thief book Found "To John, pretty much the best husband in the world."
Dedications like that are almost of themselves worth the price of the book.
Monday, May 17, 2010
A Sense of Place
There are three things which draw me to particular books and authors, hold me there, and keep me returning. This author may be particularly adept at writing engaging dialog. That author may create likable, although not always smart and moral (I hate it when the murderer turns out to be someone I like) characters. And then there are books which evoke a strong sense of place, which somehow manage to inspire in me the desire to go places and try things which I might not otherwise in my more grounded and sensible moments consider trying, such as staring down an angry bull elephant or flying solo across the Atlantic.
Beryl Markham's 1942 memoir "West With the Night" is one of these books. It was an excerpt from an audio edition of the book which led me to putting this book on hold at the public library. There are some books which I breeze through well before the three week lending period, and others which I don't quite make it through in time, because I find myself savoring passages, thinking, rethinking, reading them to others and asking for their opinion on. I know the book touched something deep within others as well, for on two separate occasions strangers on public transportation recognized the book and counted it among their favorites.
Descriptions of the animals, of the land, and the people were vivid enough to pull me into the narrative. Descriptions of the safaris made me want to go on a safari myself, although in interest of my pocketbook, I simply bought a safari jacket and called it good. An uncomfortable talk with a man dying of malaria and reminiscences with a childhood friend were real enough to cause me to feel a part of those conversations and feel like I knew those people. Ms. Markham turns a phrase so well that her descriptions of the loneliness of an airplane cockpit and the silence of an African Serengeti night have forever altered the way I think of silence and loneliness.
Such books aren't quick, single-afternoon reads. This is a book to savor over many days, to take time digesting. This is a book to take you to another place and time. And the trip is very enjoyable.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Little Man
A couple of weeks ago, while searching for something else entirely, I stumbled across a reference to Little Man Ice Cream in the lower Highlands area of Denver. Being a fan of health food (there is a lot of calcium for strong bones in ice cream, dontchaknow) I suggested to a friend, who owed me a birthday treat, that we go and check it out. I'll have to confess that the first draw wasn't the fact that Little Man makes their own ice cream from locally sourced ingredients wherever possible. No, it was the shape of the building. I had to go check out a place shaped like a giant milk can. Once we got there I realized I had driven past it on one occasion, not realizing what it was.
We checked it out this past Saturday. It must have been Prom night, unless teenagers these days dress up en masse just for kicks. It also seemed to be a favorite hangout for young couples with cute babies. Chalk up one more point in Little Man's favor: I like places where I can "people watch."
Ice cream, sorbets, and gelatis in cones or cups; malts and shakes, sundaes and floats - and enough intriguing flavors to know, even before we got to the window, we'd have to return. I would not normally think of putting blueberry and cinnamon together, but discovered the flavors complement one another very well. The concord grape sorbet was also delicious, as were the chocolate-orange gelati and the fig sorbet. Apparently they change their flavors often in a devious plot to get you to return frequently. Yeah, good luck with that - I can stay away, you know, I've plenty of will power!
Behind the milk can is a patio additional to the one in front. This one is on a lower level from where the building sits. There are two ways to get to there: by stairs or by slide. There are times when you must allow your inner child permission to come out and play. This was one of those times where my inner child didn't bother to ask for permission, he went straight to the slide without a moment's hesitation. My friend showed remarkable restraint and took the stairs.
Reasonable prices: $2.50 for a single (large) scoop, curiosity piquing flavor combinations, a cool building, people to watch, and a slide. Could it get any better than that? As always, as long as you must eat, it's best to have a friend tag along.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Chocolatey Goodness, part two
Today's mail brought a belated birthday present from a Canadian friend. It was late by the time I got the chance to open the package. I shouldn't be eating candy this late. But what kind of friend would I be if I didn't honor my friend's kind gift by immediately enjoying it?
First to sample: "Rockets", which are like American "Smarties", those teeny sugary wafers in a roll. More tart, less sweet than the Smarties. Next to sample was a Kinder "Bueno" wafer, a chocolate covered cookie wafer with creamy hazelnut filling. My golly, I'm not sure these should be legal. I didn't think I was a fan of hazelnut. I thought wrong.
A box of "Smarties" went into my bag to take to work tomorrow. These are like M&Ms, and I have it on good authority they are tastier. A box of Lindt truffles which I'll enjoy sometime soon. And two Kinder Eggs - It's been a few years since I enjoyed a Kinder Egg. For the uninitiated, these are plastic eggs covered in chocolate, with whimsical toys inside. I don't know why they're sold all over the planet save the U.S.; something to do with concern over choking hazards (as the toys are very small). Apparently children in other parts of the world are smart enough to differentiate between candy and plastic and know what to eat and what not to, but they are not so smart here. Or maybe it's just American lawmakers and bureaucrats who think our children aren't smart enough. Anyway, you can't get them here unless you want to pay big shipping charges or have friends who love you the wide world over.
So, Yay for friends! Yay for Canada! and Yay for chocolate ~ which, in my opinion, is proof that there is a loving God.
First to sample: "Rockets", which are like American "Smarties", those teeny sugary wafers in a roll. More tart, less sweet than the Smarties. Next to sample was a Kinder "Bueno" wafer, a chocolate covered cookie wafer with creamy hazelnut filling. My golly, I'm not sure these should be legal. I didn't think I was a fan of hazelnut. I thought wrong.
A box of "Smarties" went into my bag to take to work tomorrow. These are like M&Ms, and I have it on good authority they are tastier. A box of Lindt truffles which I'll enjoy sometime soon. And two Kinder Eggs - It's been a few years since I enjoyed a Kinder Egg. For the uninitiated, these are plastic eggs covered in chocolate, with whimsical toys inside. I don't know why they're sold all over the planet save the U.S.; something to do with concern over choking hazards (as the toys are very small). Apparently children in other parts of the world are smart enough to differentiate between candy and plastic and know what to eat and what not to, but they are not so smart here. Or maybe it's just American lawmakers and bureaucrats who think our children aren't smart enough. Anyway, you can't get them here unless you want to pay big shipping charges or have friends who love you the wide world over.
So, Yay for friends! Yay for Canada! and Yay for chocolate ~ which, in my opinion, is proof that there is a loving God.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Chocolatey Goodness
Two blocks away from my favorite branch (Arvada - two stories of books, with a reading room sporting huge picture windows) of the Jefferson County public library, is one of my favorite food places, Rheinlander German Bakery. They have chocolate there. But not your ordinary, run-of-the-mill chocolate. Delectable chocolate goodies that will make you believe in Magic. Chocolate raspberry tortes. Bavarian cream puffs. Chocolate covered coconut macaroons. And so much more. Can't handle sugar or gluten like you used to? Watching your calories and carbs? No worries. Out of curiosity, I have tried their sugar free and gluten free treats. I don't know how they do it - I think it's Magic - but those treats are every bit as - Dare I say it? Yummy! as those with real sugar. I kid you not. Go ahead, go there and try to prove me wrong. It's a great comfort to me to know that should I ever have to give up sugar or wheat or gluten, the chocolate wizards at Rheinlander Bakery have me covered. Life is beautiful.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Books which I should not read while taking public transportation
Anything by Richard Paul Evans. Whatever paper or ink they use for his books, I seem to have allergies to, and they make my eyes water and nose run...
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Original sources
"OUTRAGEOUS!!!!" "CAN YOU BELIEVE IT????" "UNBELIEVABLE!!!"
Fake virus warnings, missing children found ten years ago, precocious children dying of dreaded diseases who curse you to hell for not forwarding the email, threats real or imagined to our national security and freedoms of religion and speech... since I seldom see anything new in these, I have to wonder how carefully these are read before the emails are dutifully forwarded (as instructed at the end of every missive) to everyone in one's address book. Most of these can be easily debunked by a careful reading of the email itself. The rest can be debunked by spending a little effort and a little time by going to the original sources helpfully cited in the email themselves. Or of, course, by forwarding them to me, but as my friends and family have discovered, I tend to get a bit snarky in my responses, so it might be easier on your tender feelings to do your own research.
Of all these offending emails, the ones I find most irksome are those with a political nature. I might very well disagree with the political figure or group a particular email vituperates against. What bothers me is that the emails are so full of misinformation, quotes taken out of context and in many cases, outright lies. And I cannot help but to wonder how much the originator truly misunderstood the situation and how much they carefully cherry-picked their information in order to deliberately discredit a person or group, and incite hatred, knowing that from there people would react emotionally instead of intellectually, and unknowingly spread those lies.
The current round of myths coming into my inbox concern our current administration and its policies. First let me say that I don't agree 100% with the current administration, just like I didn't with the previous one, or the one before, or the one before. I have my own reasons for disagreeing, based upon what I actually have heard and read. So if an email tells me some horrible thing is in this section and that line of the health reform bill, I look it up - and I don't find that particular phrase, neither where the email told me to look for it nor in a word/phrase search of the entire document. Those things are not in there. There's plenty that is unacceptable to me, but no one ever puts those things in an email to forward on, possibly because they are not nearly as scary as the made up stuff. Likewise with the emails I got about the previous administration's Patriot Act bill - the scary stuff that came in to my inbox was not contained in that bill. The same goes from quotes that a president or senator or congresswoman supposedly said in some news conference; in looking up the original source, one finds that they did say something silly or boneheaded, but it wasn't what the email said it was, nor as incendiary.
Since this blog is supposed to be about books, I'll get to my point by mentioning two bestselling books: Barack Obama's "Dreams From My Father" and "The Audacity of Hope". One recent email I received started out insisting that every true and concerned American should read these two books, and offered up "direct" quotes from the two books which showed racism, religious bigotry, and power madness.
Well, I did. Read the books, that is, or at least I listened to the audio versions. Not because the email told me to, but because I wanted to know where the man was coming from, for my own understanding, even before I got the email. Anyone want to guess where I'm going with this? Every single one of those quotes was taken out of context. Every single one. One was truncated, another merged with another quote with all the parts in-between left out. All had doomsaying conclusions drawn from them, which conclusions themselves took great liberty with the actual words quoted.
People read book reviews because they haven't time to read every single book out there. So they put their trust in a reviewer who may or may not interpret the book the same way they would. The reviewer may or may not have the same values as the reader, or the writer for that matter, would could in itself color their judgment when reviewing.
My point is this. Regardless of what you feel about a person or their ideals, don't let someone else make that decision for you. Do not assume that a quote is as "direct' as it purports to be. Look it up. You don't have to spend the money on your own copy, even; there are these wonderful institutions known as Public Libraries which will allow you to peruse to your heart's content for free. The information is out there, but it isn't necessarily going to come to you when you're plugged in. I cannot say that reading either book has improved or sullied my opinion as it was before; I still agree where I agreed before and disagree where I disagreed before. I never thought our President was the Messiah; I never thought he was the anti-Christ. But I do understand why he believes as he does. And I got there from reading from the original sources.
Fake virus warnings, missing children found ten years ago, precocious children dying of dreaded diseases who curse you to hell for not forwarding the email, threats real or imagined to our national security and freedoms of religion and speech... since I seldom see anything new in these, I have to wonder how carefully these are read before the emails are dutifully forwarded (as instructed at the end of every missive) to everyone in one's address book. Most of these can be easily debunked by a careful reading of the email itself. The rest can be debunked by spending a little effort and a little time by going to the original sources helpfully cited in the email themselves. Or of, course, by forwarding them to me, but as my friends and family have discovered, I tend to get a bit snarky in my responses, so it might be easier on your tender feelings to do your own research.
Of all these offending emails, the ones I find most irksome are those with a political nature. I might very well disagree with the political figure or group a particular email vituperates against. What bothers me is that the emails are so full of misinformation, quotes taken out of context and in many cases, outright lies. And I cannot help but to wonder how much the originator truly misunderstood the situation and how much they carefully cherry-picked their information in order to deliberately discredit a person or group, and incite hatred, knowing that from there people would react emotionally instead of intellectually, and unknowingly spread those lies.
The current round of myths coming into my inbox concern our current administration and its policies. First let me say that I don't agree 100% with the current administration, just like I didn't with the previous one, or the one before, or the one before. I have my own reasons for disagreeing, based upon what I actually have heard and read. So if an email tells me some horrible thing is in this section and that line of the health reform bill, I look it up - and I don't find that particular phrase, neither where the email told me to look for it nor in a word/phrase search of the entire document. Those things are not in there. There's plenty that is unacceptable to me, but no one ever puts those things in an email to forward on, possibly because they are not nearly as scary as the made up stuff. Likewise with the emails I got about the previous administration's Patriot Act bill - the scary stuff that came in to my inbox was not contained in that bill. The same goes from quotes that a president or senator or congresswoman supposedly said in some news conference; in looking up the original source, one finds that they did say something silly or boneheaded, but it wasn't what the email said it was, nor as incendiary.
Since this blog is supposed to be about books, I'll get to my point by mentioning two bestselling books: Barack Obama's "Dreams From My Father" and "The Audacity of Hope". One recent email I received started out insisting that every true and concerned American should read these two books, and offered up "direct" quotes from the two books which showed racism, religious bigotry, and power madness.
Well, I did. Read the books, that is, or at least I listened to the audio versions. Not because the email told me to, but because I wanted to know where the man was coming from, for my own understanding, even before I got the email. Anyone want to guess where I'm going with this? Every single one of those quotes was taken out of context. Every single one. One was truncated, another merged with another quote with all the parts in-between left out. All had doomsaying conclusions drawn from them, which conclusions themselves took great liberty with the actual words quoted.
People read book reviews because they haven't time to read every single book out there. So they put their trust in a reviewer who may or may not interpret the book the same way they would. The reviewer may or may not have the same values as the reader, or the writer for that matter, would could in itself color their judgment when reviewing.
My point is this. Regardless of what you feel about a person or their ideals, don't let someone else make that decision for you. Do not assume that a quote is as "direct' as it purports to be. Look it up. You don't have to spend the money on your own copy, even; there are these wonderful institutions known as Public Libraries which will allow you to peruse to your heart's content for free. The information is out there, but it isn't necessarily going to come to you when you're plugged in. I cannot say that reading either book has improved or sullied my opinion as it was before; I still agree where I agreed before and disagree where I disagreed before. I never thought our President was the Messiah; I never thought he was the anti-Christ. But I do understand why he believes as he does. And I got there from reading from the original sources.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Books to the ceiling
This mural is painted on the wall in the children's section at the library branch where I send all my holds. I have to look at it every time I go to pick up books. I don't think I have anything to add to it...
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Food coupons
This year I have put myself on the email lists of many of my favorite restaurants. Not that I am not already inundated with email; I just like food. Well, I ended up with 8 birthday coupons for ice cream, burgers & other treats - most of which were set to expire within a week. What to do with all those coupons? Some of the coupons required an initial purchase - what was this going to do to my pocketbook? Not to mention my waistline? (Those who know me and my not-as-fast-as-it-used-to-be-but-still-not-slow metabolism, stop laughing.)
In a flash of brilliance, I came up with the solution: Have my friends pay for it! I give them the coupon, and they "treat" me! I save money, they save money by treating me with coupons, and we get to enjoy one another's company - everybody's happy!
The first of these outings was last night - I met a friend at Red Robin and I brought my coupon along. Holy cow (pun intended)! I'd forgotten how big their burgers are. I opted for the salmon burger over the beef - not because I'm terribly concerned about total grams of fat and cholesterol (although I'm borderline there, so I should be more concerned) but because - I love salmon. And while I was expecting a salmon patty, I was pleasantly pleased to have the sandwich arrive in the form of delicious salmon fillets piled high on a whole wheat bun with a Dijon sauce and plenty of onion (too many places think one paper-thin strip of onion suffices - it doesn't!) And plenty of steak fries; who is going to argue with that? Potatoes are chock full of vitamin C and potassium!
I could have done without the waitstaff singing and clapping me birthday wishes (although their harmony was excellent) but the free sundae (no coupon required) made that tolerable. There were at lease two others in the restaurant who were there celebrating their birthdays. Somehow listening to the waitstaff sing to complete strangers was more entertaining than when they sang to me.
As good as the food was, the best part of the evening was spending time with my friend. I too often eat alone, by equal parts circumstance and design. Food somehow tastes better with loved ones. Somehow the belly seems a bit more contented. I think I need more coupons, and not just around my birthday.
In a flash of brilliance, I came up with the solution: Have my friends pay for it! I give them the coupon, and they "treat" me! I save money, they save money by treating me with coupons, and we get to enjoy one another's company - everybody's happy!
The first of these outings was last night - I met a friend at Red Robin and I brought my coupon along. Holy cow (pun intended)! I'd forgotten how big their burgers are. I opted for the salmon burger over the beef - not because I'm terribly concerned about total grams of fat and cholesterol (although I'm borderline there, so I should be more concerned) but because - I love salmon. And while I was expecting a salmon patty, I was pleasantly pleased to have the sandwich arrive in the form of delicious salmon fillets piled high on a whole wheat bun with a Dijon sauce and plenty of onion (too many places think one paper-thin strip of onion suffices - it doesn't!) And plenty of steak fries; who is going to argue with that? Potatoes are chock full of vitamin C and potassium!
I could have done without the waitstaff singing and clapping me birthday wishes (although their harmony was excellent) but the free sundae (no coupon required) made that tolerable. There were at lease two others in the restaurant who were there celebrating their birthdays. Somehow listening to the waitstaff sing to complete strangers was more entertaining than when they sang to me.
As good as the food was, the best part of the evening was spending time with my friend. I too often eat alone, by equal parts circumstance and design. Food somehow tastes better with loved ones. Somehow the belly seems a bit more contented. I think I need more coupons, and not just around my birthday.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
"I did it!"
Last week in a telephone chat with my mom, I heard in the background one of my grandnieces reading aloud "Green Eggs and Ham". Now I personally believe that book is one of the finest pieces of literature on this planet, and possibly upon other planets as well. So it was fun listening in.
Mom told me she and Dad had been having my niece read aloud for the past week, and I was surprised to hear that she looked forward to it, as this is the same child who had told me just a few weeks prior that reading is "boring". I didn't know what caused the change in attitude, but I was glad to hear it.
Moments later I heard her exclaim, "I did it! I did it! I did it!" My heart did a little happy dance to hear the joy in her voice. It wasn't just pride in her accomplishment - there was excitement and genuine happiness there.
And that set me to thinking. When other children - or even adults, for that matter - claim that reading is "boring", what prompts that feeling? Is it really a lack of interest, or something else?
Mom told me she and Dad had been having my niece read aloud for the past week, and I was surprised to hear that she looked forward to it, as this is the same child who had told me just a few weeks prior that reading is "boring". I didn't know what caused the change in attitude, but I was glad to hear it.
Moments later I heard her exclaim, "I did it! I did it! I did it!" My heart did a little happy dance to hear the joy in her voice. It wasn't just pride in her accomplishment - there was excitement and genuine happiness there.
And that set me to thinking. When other children - or even adults, for that matter - claim that reading is "boring", what prompts that feeling? Is it really a lack of interest, or something else?
Saturday, January 30, 2010
eReaders vs Real Books
I had a friend show me her Kindle eBook reader today. Prior to this I'd just read about them, compared them by consumer reports and reviews on various websites, compared all the toots and whistles, and decided I like different aspects of each of the readers, including the recently announced yet still somewhat mysterious iPad.
All have in common certain shortcomings. Batteries die and need recharging and I wonder if these readers are courteous enough to wait until you're at a good stopping point. With a traditional book you can lend a favorite to a friend - try that with an electronic reader and you've lost access to your entire library until your friend gets around to returning it. People won't look so brainy sitting in their personal studies with empty mahogany bookshelves lining the walls. And then, there's the inescapable fact that these electronic readers don't smell.
That's right, they don't smell. Real books smell. Nothing smells like a brand new book, that mixture of freshly cut paper and glue bound in cloth or leather. Okay, no one actually knows what paper glue does to brain cells. Maybe people who seem to be deeply engrossed in a story are actually slightly intoxicated. But the fact remains that new books smell good. Old books smell good too - and those smells tell the history of previous owners. The smells tell of books stored in musty basements and dusty attics, of a previous owner's favorite brand of tobacco or what kind of pet they owned, and quite possibly, pathogens our ancestors had immunity to but which we do not.
I would miss those smells. That's not to say I won't someday embrace the technology and buy a reader. I do own an MP3 player. But just as I still own most of my old LP's and cassettes, I'll keep most my books.
On the other hand, this new, lightweight technology might make the next moving day easier on my back.
All have in common certain shortcomings. Batteries die and need recharging and I wonder if these readers are courteous enough to wait until you're at a good stopping point. With a traditional book you can lend a favorite to a friend - try that with an electronic reader and you've lost access to your entire library until your friend gets around to returning it. People won't look so brainy sitting in their personal studies with empty mahogany bookshelves lining the walls. And then, there's the inescapable fact that these electronic readers don't smell.
That's right, they don't smell. Real books smell. Nothing smells like a brand new book, that mixture of freshly cut paper and glue bound in cloth or leather. Okay, no one actually knows what paper glue does to brain cells. Maybe people who seem to be deeply engrossed in a story are actually slightly intoxicated. But the fact remains that new books smell good. Old books smell good too - and those smells tell the history of previous owners. The smells tell of books stored in musty basements and dusty attics, of a previous owner's favorite brand of tobacco or what kind of pet they owned, and quite possibly, pathogens our ancestors had immunity to but which we do not.
I would miss those smells. That's not to say I won't someday embrace the technology and buy a reader. I do own an MP3 player. But just as I still own most of my old LP's and cassettes, I'll keep most my books.
On the other hand, this new, lightweight technology might make the next moving day easier on my back.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)