Take a photo of a barcode or cover
calarco's Reviews (760)
Poetry seems to be one of the most polarizing media out there these days. I feel like people either revere Rupi Kaur, lining their insta-stories with her quotes, or really just can’t stand her even in the slightest. I somehow seem to fall in between these two polarizing camps; I really liked [b:Milk and Honey|23513349|Milk and Honey|Rupi Kaur|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1491595510l/23513349._SY75_.jpg|43116473] and did not really care for [b:The Sun and Her Flowers|35606560|The Sun and Her Flowers|Rupi Kaur|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1499791446l/35606560._SY75_.jpg|57044162]. I would rank [b:Home Body|49656780|Home Body|Rupi Kaur|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1600123950l/49656780._SY75_.jpg|73542458] as falling squarely between her past two works, both in terms of quality and impact.
“don’t sleep on
the doormat of your potential
waiting for things to happen
when you could be”
This passage for example, is a rather basic sentiment that has been echoed many times before by many other voices, but the way Kaur frames it within her struggle of wanting to be productive, while fearing the failure of not meeting her first success, still made me feel like I could look at the words anew. Her denunciation of how capitalism has made people slaves of what they are able to accomplish, versus the inherent human worth of who people are was also further elevated the work.
Overall, I enjoyed this collection, and given how short a read it is I would recommend reading it for yourself before coming out strongly about it one way or the other.
Rating: 3.5 stars
“don’t sleep on
the doormat of your potential
waiting for things to happen
when you could be”
This passage for example, is a rather basic sentiment that has been echoed many times before by many other voices, but the way Kaur frames it within her struggle of wanting to be productive, while fearing the failure of not meeting her first success, still made me feel like I could look at the words anew. Her denunciation of how capitalism has made people slaves of what they are able to accomplish, versus the inherent human worth of who people are was also further elevated the work.
Overall, I enjoyed this collection, and given how short a read it is I would recommend reading it for yourself before coming out strongly about it one way or the other.
Rating: 3.5 stars
I often struggle with the ethics of reading works published posthumously, especially in cases where the author suffered from mental illness. Where is the line between exploitative commercialization and just wanting to engage with the limited resources left behind by a brilliant mind? I feel like this is worth mentioning before summarizing that Sylvia Plath’s [b:Johnny Panic and the Bible of Dreams: Short Stories, Prose and Diary Excerpts|11628|Johnny Panic and the Bible of Dreams Short Stories, Prose and Diary Excerpts|Sylvia Plath|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1166483127l/11628._SY75_.jpg|2015211] is a solid collection of short stories.
While not as polished as [b:The Bell Jar|6514|The Bell Jar|Sylvia Plath|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1554582218l/6514._SY75_.jpg|1385044] and variable in quality across the collection, this work is quintessential Plath. Her internal strife is palpable and laid bare on the page. Characters can be cruel and their actions can be confounding. This whole collection kept reminding me of Jim Morrison’s lyrics, “People are strange when you’re a stranger, Faces look ugly when you’re alone.” (Incidentally, The Doors made for great background music while reading this, but I digress.) When someone is suffering, and they receive little to no support for their condition, it’s hard not to have an edgy outlook. Worse yet though, is when the treatment is inherently malign.
In the titular Johnny Panic and the Bible of Dreams, the reality of Plath’s deteriorating mental interior is revealed in dreamlike fashion, as the story delves into the realities of electroshock “therapy.” Only the surreal can accurately detail pain too cruel to otherwise convey, and I feel does offer an authentic window into an unhappy picture. These stories in general were likely all impacted by different “treatments” Plath received, if not by the deteriorating condition itself. This would explain the lack of polish, but also the poignancy of the collection’s punch.
Overall, I still have to recommend The Bell Jar if you are new to Plath, but if you feel a pressing need to read more from her mind, then this is a solid option to choose after the fact.
Rating: 3.5 stars
While not as polished as [b:The Bell Jar|6514|The Bell Jar|Sylvia Plath|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1554582218l/6514._SY75_.jpg|1385044] and variable in quality across the collection, this work is quintessential Plath. Her internal strife is palpable and laid bare on the page. Characters can be cruel and their actions can be confounding. This whole collection kept reminding me of Jim Morrison’s lyrics, “People are strange when you’re a stranger, Faces look ugly when you’re alone.” (Incidentally, The Doors made for great background music while reading this, but I digress.) When someone is suffering, and they receive little to no support for their condition, it’s hard not to have an edgy outlook. Worse yet though, is when the treatment is inherently malign.
In the titular Johnny Panic and the Bible of Dreams, the reality of Plath’s deteriorating mental interior is revealed in dreamlike fashion, as the story delves into the realities of electroshock “therapy.” Only the surreal can accurately detail pain too cruel to otherwise convey, and I feel does offer an authentic window into an unhappy picture. These stories in general were likely all impacted by different “treatments” Plath received, if not by the deteriorating condition itself. This would explain the lack of polish, but also the poignancy of the collection’s punch.
Overall, I still have to recommend The Bell Jar if you are new to Plath, but if you feel a pressing need to read more from her mind, then this is a solid option to choose after the fact.
Rating: 3.5 stars
If you are looking for a modern-day answer to JFK’s [b:A Nation of Immigrants|1433010|A Nation of Immigrants|John F. Kennedy|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1308722312l/1433010._SY75_.jpg|1423547] and MLK Jr.’s [b:Why We Can't Wait|160939|Why We Can't Wait|Martin Luther King Jr.|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1348700217l/160939._SY75_.jpg|709627], then look no further than Stacey Abrams’s [b:Our Time Is Now: Power, Purpose, and the Fight for a Fair America|50353732|Our Time Is Now Power, Purpose, and the Fight for a Fair America|Stacey Abrams|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1604940616l/50353732._SY75_.jpg|75299432].
A comprehensive history of not just voting history in the United States, this book is also very much Stacey Abrams’ reflections on how she was impeded from winning after her 2018 gubernatorial run in Georgia. She covers point by point all the ways that her voting base was disenfranchised or denied the opportunity to vote. Voter suppression is alive and thriving, but in addition to these injustices, Abrams also explains what she then actually did to combat voter suppression tactics. At many points this felt like an elections-playbook, and writing this review in 2020, this is a playbook that works.
“Full citizenship rights are the bare minimum one should expect from the government. Yet, for two-thirds of our history, full citizenship was denied to those who built this country from theory to life. African slaves and Chinese workers and Native American environmentalists and Latino gauchos and Irish farmers—and half the population: women. Over the course of our history, these men and women, these patriots and defenders of liberty, have been denied the most profound currency of citizenship: power. Because, let’s be honest, that is the core of this fight. The right to be seen, the right to be heard, the right to direct the course of history are markers of power. In the United States, democracy makes politics one of the key levers to exercising power. So, it should shock none of us that the struggle for dominion over our nation’s future and who will participate is simply a battle for American power.”
Rather than focusing on the undecided voter, Stacey Abrams worked to expand voter outreach to include, and even focus on, the infrequent voter. People often written off as non-voters were key to Stacey Abrams’ base, and she did not shy away from how identity politics came into play. She argues that as it is identity that has been used to deny and suppress the vote, identity should be included in how politicians appeal to a wide coalition of voters. In fact, by looking to include new voters of color, she did not loose white voters, if anything the numbers increased.
What matters is that politicians speak truth to power, and that their policies actually help people. Period. This was at the core of her message; in a world where winning is paramount, do what you must do to win. Her pragmatic tactics may seem new, but they are rooted in a history dating back to the 60s. If it could work in the past then it can work, and does work, today.
I remember when Georgia was declared blue this November, and memes were flooding in with lines like, “ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for Stacey Abrams,” and if you want to know how she became the hero of 2020, then I absolutely recommend this book. Abrams’ is a force of nature, and her message should not be dismissed.
A comprehensive history of not just voting history in the United States, this book is also very much Stacey Abrams’ reflections on how she was impeded from winning after her 2018 gubernatorial run in Georgia. She covers point by point all the ways that her voting base was disenfranchised or denied the opportunity to vote. Voter suppression is alive and thriving, but in addition to these injustices, Abrams also explains what she then actually did to combat voter suppression tactics. At many points this felt like an elections-playbook, and writing this review in 2020, this is a playbook that works.
“Full citizenship rights are the bare minimum one should expect from the government. Yet, for two-thirds of our history, full citizenship was denied to those who built this country from theory to life. African slaves and Chinese workers and Native American environmentalists and Latino gauchos and Irish farmers—and half the population: women. Over the course of our history, these men and women, these patriots and defenders of liberty, have been denied the most profound currency of citizenship: power. Because, let’s be honest, that is the core of this fight. The right to be seen, the right to be heard, the right to direct the course of history are markers of power. In the United States, democracy makes politics one of the key levers to exercising power. So, it should shock none of us that the struggle for dominion over our nation’s future and who will participate is simply a battle for American power.”
Rather than focusing on the undecided voter, Stacey Abrams worked to expand voter outreach to include, and even focus on, the infrequent voter. People often written off as non-voters were key to Stacey Abrams’ base, and she did not shy away from how identity politics came into play. She argues that as it is identity that has been used to deny and suppress the vote, identity should be included in how politicians appeal to a wide coalition of voters. In fact, by looking to include new voters of color, she did not loose white voters, if anything the numbers increased.
What matters is that politicians speak truth to power, and that their policies actually help people. Period. This was at the core of her message; in a world where winning is paramount, do what you must do to win. Her pragmatic tactics may seem new, but they are rooted in a history dating back to the 60s. If it could work in the past then it can work, and does work, today.
I remember when Georgia was declared blue this November, and memes were flooding in with lines like, “ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for Stacey Abrams,” and if you want to know how she became the hero of 2020, then I absolutely recommend this book. Abrams’ is a force of nature, and her message should not be dismissed.
Well, who knew an allegory for World War II Nazi occupation would be the most relevant read of 2020? Humans being humans, matters of pestilence and absurdism may never go out of fashion, especially at the rate our species is going. Well played Camus, well played.
“When a war breaks out, people say: ‘It’s too stupid; it can’t last long.’ But though a war may well be ‘too stupid,’ that doesn’t prevent its lasting. Stupidity has a knack of getting its way; as we should see if we were not always so much wrapped up in ourselves. In this respect our townsfolk were like everybody else, wrapped up in themselves…they disbelieved in pestilences. A pestilence isn’t a thing made to man’s measure; therefore we tell ourselves that pestilence is a mere boggy of the mind, a bad dream that will pass away. But it doesn’t always pass away and, from one bad dream to another, it is men who pass away… Our townsfolk were not more to blame than others; they forgot to be modest, that was all, and that that everything was still possible for them; which presupposed that pestilences were impossible.” (37)
The phrase ignorance is bliss comes to a crashing halt when you suddenly find yourself with bubo growths or needing a ventilator to breath. The past is ever present, and Camus’ understanding of the human condition in all its complexity is what makes this work so inherently timeless, though here’s hoping the future proves me wrong!
[b:The Plague|11989|The Plague|Albert Camus|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1503362434l/11989._SY75_.jpg|2058116] follows Dr. Rieux as he witnesses a town become overcome with the bubonic plague. We see how the town reacts to quarantine measures, and how the mood shifts as petulance spreads. His struggle to treat illness, turns into one to diagnose a condition that will in all likelihood kill its host. Rieux is drained and experiences the struggle Camus would later breakdown with [b:The Myth of Sisyphus and Other Essays|11987|The Myth of Sisyphus and Other Essays|Albert Camus|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1533718219l/11987._SY75_.jpg|855563]. To be a doctor during a plague is about as futile as pushing a boulder up a never-ending hill in hell. And the town does descend into hell.
“His sensibility was getting out of hand. Kept under all the time, it had grown hard and brittle and seemed to snap completely now and then, leaving him the prey of his emotions. No resource was left him but to tighten the stranglehold of his feelings and harden his heart protectively. For he knew this was the only way of carrying on. In any case, he had few illusions left, and fatigue was robbing him of even these remaining few. He knew that, over a period whose end he could not glimpse, his task was no longer to cure but to diagnose. To detect, to see, to describe, to register, and then condemn—that was his present function.” (192)
In addition to the physical trauma of his patient’s bodies, Rieux and his assistants experience psychological horrors anew with each case they encounter as the infection continues to spread. The deaths are cruel and meaningless, discriminating not in who it slays. Though that was not to say that petulance is any true equalizer.
“…the authorities had another cause for anxiety in the difficulty of maintaining the food-supply. Profiteers were taking a hand and purveying at enormous prices essential foodstuffs not available in the shops. The result was that poor families were in great straits, while the rich went short of practically nothing. Thus, whereas plague by its impartial ministrations should have promoted equality among our townsfolk, it now had the opposite effect and, thanks to the habitual comment of cupidities, exacerbated the sense of inequality in men’s hearts.” (236-7)
We can see this very phenomenon today with COVID-19, with it proving to be more deadly to lower income individuals, and especially to communities of color. Socioeconomics is always at play. From life to death, it is what determines peoples’ very livelihoods in so many ways. And as Camus shows, this is nothing new.
All said, this book is amazing. Existential dread is not everyone’s cup of tea, but you’ll be pressed to find anyone who writes it better than Camus. If you want to understand the world, I have to recommend reading The Plague.
“When a war breaks out, people say: ‘It’s too stupid; it can’t last long.’ But though a war may well be ‘too stupid,’ that doesn’t prevent its lasting. Stupidity has a knack of getting its way; as we should see if we were not always so much wrapped up in ourselves. In this respect our townsfolk were like everybody else, wrapped up in themselves…they disbelieved in pestilences. A pestilence isn’t a thing made to man’s measure; therefore we tell ourselves that pestilence is a mere boggy of the mind, a bad dream that will pass away. But it doesn’t always pass away and, from one bad dream to another, it is men who pass away… Our townsfolk were not more to blame than others; they forgot to be modest, that was all, and that that everything was still possible for them; which presupposed that pestilences were impossible.” (37)
The phrase ignorance is bliss comes to a crashing halt when you suddenly find yourself with bubo growths or needing a ventilator to breath. The past is ever present, and Camus’ understanding of the human condition in all its complexity is what makes this work so inherently timeless, though here’s hoping the future proves me wrong!
[b:The Plague|11989|The Plague|Albert Camus|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1503362434l/11989._SY75_.jpg|2058116] follows Dr. Rieux as he witnesses a town become overcome with the bubonic plague. We see how the town reacts to quarantine measures, and how the mood shifts as petulance spreads. His struggle to treat illness, turns into one to diagnose a condition that will in all likelihood kill its host. Rieux is drained and experiences the struggle Camus would later breakdown with [b:The Myth of Sisyphus and Other Essays|11987|The Myth of Sisyphus and Other Essays|Albert Camus|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1533718219l/11987._SY75_.jpg|855563]. To be a doctor during a plague is about as futile as pushing a boulder up a never-ending hill in hell. And the town does descend into hell.
“His sensibility was getting out of hand. Kept under all the time, it had grown hard and brittle and seemed to snap completely now and then, leaving him the prey of his emotions. No resource was left him but to tighten the stranglehold of his feelings and harden his heart protectively. For he knew this was the only way of carrying on. In any case, he had few illusions left, and fatigue was robbing him of even these remaining few. He knew that, over a period whose end he could not glimpse, his task was no longer to cure but to diagnose. To detect, to see, to describe, to register, and then condemn—that was his present function.” (192)
In addition to the physical trauma of his patient’s bodies, Rieux and his assistants experience psychological horrors anew with each case they encounter as the infection continues to spread. The deaths are cruel and meaningless, discriminating not in who it slays. Though that was not to say that petulance is any true equalizer.
“…the authorities had another cause for anxiety in the difficulty of maintaining the food-supply. Profiteers were taking a hand and purveying at enormous prices essential foodstuffs not available in the shops. The result was that poor families were in great straits, while the rich went short of practically nothing. Thus, whereas plague by its impartial ministrations should have promoted equality among our townsfolk, it now had the opposite effect and, thanks to the habitual comment of cupidities, exacerbated the sense of inequality in men’s hearts.” (236-7)
We can see this very phenomenon today with COVID-19, with it proving to be more deadly to lower income individuals, and especially to communities of color. Socioeconomics is always at play. From life to death, it is what determines peoples’ very livelihoods in so many ways. And as Camus shows, this is nothing new.
All said, this book is amazing. Existential dread is not everyone’s cup of tea, but you’ll be pressed to find anyone who writes it better than Camus. If you want to understand the world, I have to recommend reading The Plague.
With the prospect of a “dark winter” looming on the horizon (I am writing this review at the end of 2020), I found myself in desperate need for some wholesome, old-fashioned escapism. And then I remembered that I had six books left in The Chronicles of Narnia and off I returned to the land beyond the wardrobe!
Honestly, I dare say, I liked [b:Prince Caspian|121749|Prince Caspian (Chronicles of Narnia, #2)|C.S. Lewis|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1308814880l/121749._SY75_.jpg|3348636] more than [b:The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe|100915|The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (Chronicles of Narnia, #1)|C.S. Lewis|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1353029077l/100915._SY75_.jpg|4790821]. Whereas the first entry to this series doubled as both a fun fantasy novel, and a means through which children could work through their trauma during WWII, Prince Caspian touches on what it could mean to return home after strife.
Peter, Susan, Edmund, and Lucy return to Narnia and find that 300 years have passed, the animals are no longer speaking, and there is new leadership in place. They must find the young Prince Caspian and aid him in his battle against a corrupt coup d'etat. This novel is also cool in that we get Caspian’s story in the first half of the novel, the Pevensie’s story of return in the second half of the novel, and seeing how these interweave is just good fun.
Overall, if you need a break from the cynicism of the world, give a trip to Narnia a try. The quintessential British humor is certainly an added bonus.
Honestly, I dare say, I liked [b:Prince Caspian|121749|Prince Caspian (Chronicles of Narnia, #2)|C.S. Lewis|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1308814880l/121749._SY75_.jpg|3348636] more than [b:The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe|100915|The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (Chronicles of Narnia, #1)|C.S. Lewis|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1353029077l/100915._SY75_.jpg|4790821]. Whereas the first entry to this series doubled as both a fun fantasy novel, and a means through which children could work through their trauma during WWII, Prince Caspian touches on what it could mean to return home after strife.
Peter, Susan, Edmund, and Lucy return to Narnia and find that 300 years have passed, the animals are no longer speaking, and there is new leadership in place. They must find the young Prince Caspian and aid him in his battle against a corrupt coup d'etat. This novel is also cool in that we get Caspian’s story in the first half of the novel, the Pevensie’s story of return in the second half of the novel, and seeing how these interweave is just good fun.
Overall, if you need a break from the cynicism of the world, give a trip to Narnia a try. The quintessential British humor is certainly an added bonus.
.jpg)
Lucy and Edmund, who are frankly my two favorite Pevensies, make their return to Narnia with their young cousin Eustance Scrubb (what a name!) in [b:The Voyage of the Dawn Trader|31307109|The Voyage of the Dawn Trader|C.S. Lewis|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1470026325l/31307109._SY75_.jpg|3349054]. This is an episodic sea adventure that sees our cast meet up with Caspian as he sets off on a voyage to find his father’s friends who were cast off by his uncle.
The crew travels between the islands encountering different magical creatures and adventures. Scrubb even gets some character development by way of a dragon incident, which is good fun. So, while this is not as strong as the previous two entries of The Chronicles of Narnia, or Ursula K. Le Guin’s own episodic sea fantasy The Earthsea Cycle, it is a pretty solid read that I do recommend if you want to continue your own travels through Narnia.
Rating: 3.5 stars
The crew travels between the islands encountering different magical creatures and adventures. Scrubb even gets some character development by way of a dragon incident, which is good fun. So, while this is not as strong as the previous two entries of The Chronicles of Narnia, or Ursula K. Le Guin’s own episodic sea fantasy The Earthsea Cycle, it is a pretty solid read that I do recommend if you want to continue your own travels through Narnia.
Rating: 3.5 stars
If George Orwell’s [b:1984|40961427|1984|George Orwell|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1532714506l/40961427._SX50_.jpg|153313] and Franz Kafka’s [b:The Metamorphosis|485894|The Metamorphosis|Franz Kafka|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1359061917l/485894._SY75_.jpg|2373750] had an uncomfortable baby, then that is about the closest I could come to quickly summarizing Yōko Ogawa’s [b:The Memory Police|37004370|The Memory Police|Yōko Ogawa|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1544335119l/37004370._SY75_.jpg|7310932]. As far as sci-fi thrillers go, this one is pretty amazing.
The story centers on a young female novelist living on an island where things disappear. One day something mundane disappears like hats; everyone must go burn their hats in the community center. But more insidious, the very memory of what a “hat” is fades from public and personal memory. This process continues as more and more begins to disappear, including items ranging from roses to photographs. When the Memory Police erase something from the island, it stays erased.
As this new normal sets in, there a few individuals who seem to be immune to loosing their memories. These are the ones hunted down by the Memory Police, for so long as they live, their work is not finished. The main character’s editor happens to be one of these people. She hides him in a hidden passage within her home, and everyone struggles to live and stay sane another day.
The pacing of this plot starts slow, but once the tension begins to build, the pace races forward at exponentially increasing speeds. I simply could not put the book down once I reached the halfway point. Especially as the story is intercut with the main character’s own novel about a typist. This story within the story informs and is informed by the “real life” events in surprising ways that really builds the novel’s tension. This interplay actually reminded me of Haruki Murakami’s duel storyline in [b:Hard-Boiled Wonderland and the End of the World|10374|Hard-Boiled Wonderland and the End of the World|Haruki Murakami|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1399844477l/10374._SY75_.jpg|2531870], which from me is the highest of praise.
There are so many questions that this novel invokes, notably surrounding the power of memory. When authoritarian regimes roll in, they have a tendency to impose their reality in the most exacting of ways, typically re-writing history in the process. The regime doesn’t want you to trust what you see; only what they tell you is allowed to be “real.” So what if they had the power to forcibly remove ideas from peoples’ minds? What would be left? How far could they push it?
These questions and more are explored by the novel’s end. I’m still struck by that final tone, but damnit if this isn’t a great novel. I definitely recommend it, especially if you are looking for something a little more cerebral.
Rating: 4.5 stars
The story centers on a young female novelist living on an island where things disappear. One day something mundane disappears like hats; everyone must go burn their hats in the community center. But more insidious, the very memory of what a “hat” is fades from public and personal memory. This process continues as more and more begins to disappear, including items ranging from roses to photographs. When the Memory Police erase something from the island, it stays erased.
As this new normal sets in, there a few individuals who seem to be immune to loosing their memories. These are the ones hunted down by the Memory Police, for so long as they live, their work is not finished. The main character’s editor happens to be one of these people. She hides him in a hidden passage within her home, and everyone struggles to live and stay sane another day.
The pacing of this plot starts slow, but once the tension begins to build, the pace races forward at exponentially increasing speeds. I simply could not put the book down once I reached the halfway point. Especially as the story is intercut with the main character’s own novel about a typist. This story within the story informs and is informed by the “real life” events in surprising ways that really builds the novel’s tension. This interplay actually reminded me of Haruki Murakami’s duel storyline in [b:Hard-Boiled Wonderland and the End of the World|10374|Hard-Boiled Wonderland and the End of the World|Haruki Murakami|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1399844477l/10374._SY75_.jpg|2531870], which from me is the highest of praise.
There are so many questions that this novel invokes, notably surrounding the power of memory. When authoritarian regimes roll in, they have a tendency to impose their reality in the most exacting of ways, typically re-writing history in the process. The regime doesn’t want you to trust what you see; only what they tell you is allowed to be “real.” So what if they had the power to forcibly remove ideas from peoples’ minds? What would be left? How far could they push it?
These questions and more are explored by the novel’s end. I’m still struck by that final tone, but damnit if this isn’t a great novel. I definitely recommend it, especially if you are looking for something a little more cerebral.
Rating: 4.5 stars
Continuing with the adventures of Narnia, [b:The Silver Chair|65641|The Silver Chair (Chronicles of Narnia, #4)|C.S. Lewis|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1336139237l/65641._SX50_.jpg|1419727] is a pretty solid entry. It is worth mentioning that as much as I am amused by young Eustace Scrubb, I did miss the Pevensies. That said I think this novel is strong in that it does further expand on the world-building of Narnia, which continues to make these adventures pretty fun.
So, this is an odd book to review, to put it lightly. It’s also worth noting that if you paid attention in school or follow United States news, this read is more-or-less a quick refresher of basic principles. The copy I got from my library only contained Articles I – VII, though I did also find a copy of the Bill of Rights and subsequent seventeen Amendments—for completionism sake.
To quickly summarize, Article I details the role and body of the legislative branch (the House of Representatives and the Senate), Article II covers the executive branch and federal government, and Article III establishes the judicial branch (or the Supreme Court and lower courts). Article IV details the relationship between the different states and federal government, Article V oversees how Amendments may be added to the Constitution (a 2/3 vote passed in House and Senate, followed by ratification of 2/3 of the states), Article VI covers laws and treaties, and Article VII establishes how the Constitution was to be ratified.
The subsequent 27 Amendments cover a wide range of federal level laws. Of the Bill of Rights, I believe the 1st Amendment is perhaps the most discussed, as it impedes Congress from infringing on the freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the freedom to assemble. The next time a self-proclaimed constitutionalist tells me that my disagreeing with them is “infringing their 1st Amendment rights,” I think I will just start leaving copies of the actual Constitution as a response. Folks on twitter seem to forget that everyone has 1st Amendment rights, and it does not shield them from criticism, but that’s enough of why I find twitter tedious…
Overall, I must confess that I am inclined to treat [b:The Constitution of the United States of America|89959|The Constitution of the United States of America|Founding Fathers|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1328756752l/89959._SY75_.jpg|86823] as a living document and am reviewing it as such. More so, I think the fact that there are written measures that allow for Amendments to be added is great, but given how crucial some of these Amendments are for basic rights just shows that at no point in history has this ever been a truly perfect document.
All crucially important: the 13th Amendment was passed in 1865 to abolish slavery, the 15th Amendment in 1870 made it illegal to deny the right to vote based on race, and the 19th Amendment to give women the right to vote in 1919. YET, the reality is that people of color, including women, did not actually have access to the right to vote until Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965. That century-long wait makes it hard to feel too impressed by the power of the Constitution in and of itself.
Furthermore, there are currently (as of 2020) six Amendments that have been passed by Congress, but have yet to be ratified by the required 2/3 number of states. This includes the Equal Rights Amendment which would guarantee the equality of Americans regardless of sex. For all of these points, while I consider the Constitution to be an essential and important document, there is simply no perfect form of government that will ever get it 100% right. Humans are forever changing beings, and the very nature of “justice” will change as the people change.
I doubt this explanation will please any originalists, but until I hear a better argument that addresses these points, this is more or less where I stand. Perhaps an unconventional read so near the holidays, this was actually surprisingly fun (in the nerdiest of senses), so I actually recommend it. Maybe a law professor somewhere will even get their wings.
For more unconventional and unnecessary book reviews, feel free to read my review of The Bible.
To quickly summarize, Article I details the role and body of the legislative branch (the House of Representatives and the Senate), Article II covers the executive branch and federal government, and Article III establishes the judicial branch (or the Supreme Court and lower courts). Article IV details the relationship between the different states and federal government, Article V oversees how Amendments may be added to the Constitution (a 2/3 vote passed in House and Senate, followed by ratification of 2/3 of the states), Article VI covers laws and treaties, and Article VII establishes how the Constitution was to be ratified.
The subsequent 27 Amendments cover a wide range of federal level laws. Of the Bill of Rights, I believe the 1st Amendment is perhaps the most discussed, as it impedes Congress from infringing on the freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the freedom to assemble. The next time a self-proclaimed constitutionalist tells me that my disagreeing with them is “infringing their 1st Amendment rights,” I think I will just start leaving copies of the actual Constitution as a response. Folks on twitter seem to forget that everyone has 1st Amendment rights, and it does not shield them from criticism, but that’s enough of why I find twitter tedious…
Overall, I must confess that I am inclined to treat [b:The Constitution of the United States of America|89959|The Constitution of the United States of America|Founding Fathers|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1328756752l/89959._SY75_.jpg|86823] as a living document and am reviewing it as such. More so, I think the fact that there are written measures that allow for Amendments to be added is great, but given how crucial some of these Amendments are for basic rights just shows that at no point in history has this ever been a truly perfect document.
All crucially important: the 13th Amendment was passed in 1865 to abolish slavery, the 15th Amendment in 1870 made it illegal to deny the right to vote based on race, and the 19th Amendment to give women the right to vote in 1919. YET, the reality is that people of color, including women, did not actually have access to the right to vote until Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965. That century-long wait makes it hard to feel too impressed by the power of the Constitution in and of itself.
Furthermore, there are currently (as of 2020) six Amendments that have been passed by Congress, but have yet to be ratified by the required 2/3 number of states. This includes the Equal Rights Amendment which would guarantee the equality of Americans regardless of sex. For all of these points, while I consider the Constitution to be an essential and important document, there is simply no perfect form of government that will ever get it 100% right. Humans are forever changing beings, and the very nature of “justice” will change as the people change.
I doubt this explanation will please any originalists, but until I hear a better argument that addresses these points, this is more or less where I stand. Perhaps an unconventional read so near the holidays, this was actually surprisingly fun (in the nerdiest of senses), so I actually recommend it. Maybe a law professor somewhere will even get their wings.
For more unconventional and unnecessary book reviews, feel free to read my review of The Bible.
Honestly, this book will help prompt all of the conversations that the title promises; [b:So You Want to Talk About Race|35099718|So You Want to Talk About Race|Ijeoma Oluo|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1499224833l/35099718._SX50_.jpg|56405219] reads as a great how-to tool to help facilitate difficult conversations surrounding race. Ijeoma Oluo has a vivid narrative voice as an author, and in a series of essays she conveys a number of key points so brilliantly.
One of the most relatable parts (at least if you are biracial) was when Oluo recounted an uncomfortable conversation with her well-intentioned white mother. By my teens I was predominantly raised by my white father, and while there was a lot he didn’t know, every awkward conversation on race was always rooted in empathetic listening on his part, and we are now both better people for those exchanges.
Now, Oluo’s account is way funnier, and she definitely has a point about the necessity to engage in these conversations, even if the prospect of talking about the uncomfortable will make you want to cringe into the ninth dimension. More often than not, if people care more about you than about being “right,” then the conversation can only be productive, if still awkward.
Another topic Oluo summarizes well, is how to engage in a conversation on one of the most contentious topics today—privilege. She makes it clear that this label is not some throw-away insult, rather, it is an objective observation. If you have not been discriminated against on the basis of race, you have racial privilege, just as if you do not have to live with a disability you have able-bodied privilege. It just means that you have fewer specific obstacles to deal with; it by no means belittles other struggles.
“Disadvantaged white people are not erased by discussions of disadvantages facing people of color, just as brain cancer is not erased by talking about breast cancer. They are two different issues with two different treatments, and they require two different conversations.”
This passage definitely calls to mind how some people can somehow comfortably respond to “Black Lives Matter” with the indignant “All Lives Matter.” I mean everyone’s life matters, but the problem at hand is that black people are being murdered by police at alarming rates; that’s just reality. Lifting one group up in solidarity does not belittle anyone else, if anything I feel quite the opposite. Like, you wouldn’t go to a breast cancer awareness event and start screaming that “all cancer matters!”
On the topic of police brutality, because Oluo roots her discussions in her own personal experiences, like being pulled over by a cop when she was a teenager, I think she adds a great deal of emotional depth to the conversation. As she summarizes: "I know that it's hard to believe that the people you look to for safety and security are the same people who are causing us so much harm. But I'm not lying and I'm not delusional. I am scared and I am hurting and we are dying. And I really, really need you to believe me."
Police brutality is inevitably a charged issue because it deals with peoples’ emotions surrounding their own safety—just because you can rely on something to keep you safe, does not mean everyone can. I imagine this uncertainty is simply too painful for some to grasp, thought that certainly does not excuse ignoring facts and data. I suppose that’s where my understanding ends; how can someone deny empirical evidence? Or more important; how can someone deny someone else’s humanity?
Overall, this is a really great book for anyone interested in facilitating challenging dialogues, or anyone who simply wants to know more about race studies. I highly recommend it.
One of the most relatable parts (at least if you are biracial) was when Oluo recounted an uncomfortable conversation with her well-intentioned white mother. By my teens I was predominantly raised by my white father, and while there was a lot he didn’t know, every awkward conversation on race was always rooted in empathetic listening on his part, and we are now both better people for those exchanges.
Now, Oluo’s account is way funnier, and she definitely has a point about the necessity to engage in these conversations, even if the prospect of talking about the uncomfortable will make you want to cringe into the ninth dimension. More often than not, if people care more about you than about being “right,” then the conversation can only be productive, if still awkward.
Another topic Oluo summarizes well, is how to engage in a conversation on one of the most contentious topics today—privilege. She makes it clear that this label is not some throw-away insult, rather, it is an objective observation. If you have not been discriminated against on the basis of race, you have racial privilege, just as if you do not have to live with a disability you have able-bodied privilege. It just means that you have fewer specific obstacles to deal with; it by no means belittles other struggles.
“Disadvantaged white people are not erased by discussions of disadvantages facing people of color, just as brain cancer is not erased by talking about breast cancer. They are two different issues with two different treatments, and they require two different conversations.”
This passage definitely calls to mind how some people can somehow comfortably respond to “Black Lives Matter” with the indignant “All Lives Matter.” I mean everyone’s life matters, but the problem at hand is that black people are being murdered by police at alarming rates; that’s just reality. Lifting one group up in solidarity does not belittle anyone else, if anything I feel quite the opposite. Like, you wouldn’t go to a breast cancer awareness event and start screaming that “all cancer matters!”
On the topic of police brutality, because Oluo roots her discussions in her own personal experiences, like being pulled over by a cop when she was a teenager, I think she adds a great deal of emotional depth to the conversation. As she summarizes: "I know that it's hard to believe that the people you look to for safety and security are the same people who are causing us so much harm. But I'm not lying and I'm not delusional. I am scared and I am hurting and we are dying. And I really, really need you to believe me."
Police brutality is inevitably a charged issue because it deals with peoples’ emotions surrounding their own safety—just because you can rely on something to keep you safe, does not mean everyone can. I imagine this uncertainty is simply too painful for some to grasp, thought that certainly does not excuse ignoring facts and data. I suppose that’s where my understanding ends; how can someone deny empirical evidence? Or more important; how can someone deny someone else’s humanity?
Overall, this is a really great book for anyone interested in facilitating challenging dialogues, or anyone who simply wants to know more about race studies. I highly recommend it.