You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
shelfreflectionofficial's Reviews (844)
“Senior year, you spend half your time staying alive, half your time on your lessons, and half your time working out a graduation strategy to get you through the hall. If you can’t make that equation add up properly, you die.”
Disclaimer: If you haven’t read the first book in this series, this review will be very confusing to you.
The first book ends with El getting a warning from her mom to stay away from hero-boy Orion. This book does not explain the reason for that at all which is somewhat misleading. Usually a cliffhanger of a book is relevant to the next book.
But El has basically decided to ignore her mom’s heeding because at this point it doesn’t make sense and how exactly is she supposed to do that anyway.
I’m assuming that will come into play in book 3.
After A Deadly Education, the school’s monster-killing machine has been fixed and El is now a senior who must prepare for her turn to ‘graduate’— which theoretically entails surviving a hall full of mals.
Luckily for her, she now has friends who are committed to helping her. She even gets access to a mana-sharer which is invaluable in terms of protecting herself from all the mals.
But these friendships haven’t completely changed El’s Captain Marvel/April Ludgate personality. She is still self-sabotaging and “takes refuge in rudeness.” Always wants to punch someone. And she is still as dangerous as ever:
“If I ever took the risk of casting a spell without knowing for sure what it was meant to do, it would definitely turn out to be meant to do a lot of murder.”
The school apparently knows this about her and her senior year starts off with the school seemingly against her.
“It was one thing for the school to be out to get me, which I think all of us secretly feel is the case from the moment we arrive, and another for the school to be out to get ONLY me, to the exclusion of literally everyone else, including even Orion, even though the school’s hunger was really his fault in the first place.”
Why is the school only after her? Is she trending toward becoming a maleficier and the school is trying to thwart her? Is it somehow trying to help her? Is there something else at work?
The second half of the school year is spent on an elaborate plan to not only survive graduation but save every other wizard kid from having to experience the horror of the Scholomance.
Despite her isolation in previous years and poor treatment from others, El still has an altruistic spirit at heart (thanks to her mother) and decides that she thinks she can save everyone. Maybe with a little help.
“I didn’t know what I was going to do. I only knew what I wasn’t going to do. I wasn’t going through. I wasn’t going through until everyone was out.”
And then, of course, if they DO get out… what then?
What I liked and Didn’t Like
This book didn’t seem as exciting as the first one— maybe because the magic and ‘world' weren’t new anymore. Some of the mystery was gone. It seemed a little more repetitive or routine of a story. And a lot of enclave politics.
I also didn’t like how the cliffhanger ending of the first book was irrelevant to this book’s story. You can’t put in a cliffhanger and then say… guess you’ll have to wait for a whole other book to get any more information regarding that.
I didn’t like how everyone said everything “through their teeth.” Were they just grimacing allll the time??
I do like where I think the third book is heading. I don’t want to give away too much, but I’m looking forward to seeing how El interacts with the outside world and if their plan actually works. I think I’ll like the next book better than this one.
I also liked the suspense of the end of this book. It was well-written and intense. And we get a cliffhanger again, but I know it will come to fruition right away in the next book so it’s okay.
I view this book as more of a transitional book. It gets us from the shock of book one to the wonder of book three. There’s not significant plot movement. It seems more of a character development book and a preparation for whatever big reveal the final book has to offer.
The Last Graduate isn’t going to be your favorite book of the series, but it’s not a bore to read either. You still get to experience some of the magic and get to speculate what El is truly capable of, but I wouldn’t call it AMAZING!
I’m liking the series in general and am glad to be reading them. But I have a lot of expectations for book three so I hope it lives up to it. And I’m also glad it already released so I don’t have to wait forever to continue the story.
[Content Advisory: a handful of f- and s-words; one brief, not super detailed sex scene towards the end]
Shelf Reflection Book Blog
Book Review Blog | Facebook | Pinterest
Disclaimer: If you haven’t read the first book in this series, this review will be very confusing to you.
The first book ends with El getting a warning from her mom to stay away from hero-boy Orion. This book does not explain the reason for that at all which is somewhat misleading. Usually a cliffhanger of a book is relevant to the next book.
But El has basically decided to ignore her mom’s heeding because at this point it doesn’t make sense and how exactly is she supposed to do that anyway.
I’m assuming that will come into play in book 3.
After A Deadly Education, the school’s monster-killing machine has been fixed and El is now a senior who must prepare for her turn to ‘graduate’— which theoretically entails surviving a hall full of mals.
Luckily for her, she now has friends who are committed to helping her. She even gets access to a mana-sharer which is invaluable in terms of protecting herself from all the mals.
But these friendships haven’t completely changed El’s Captain Marvel/April Ludgate personality. She is still self-sabotaging and “takes refuge in rudeness.” Always wants to punch someone. And she is still as dangerous as ever:
“If I ever took the risk of casting a spell without knowing for sure what it was meant to do, it would definitely turn out to be meant to do a lot of murder.”
The school apparently knows this about her and her senior year starts off with the school seemingly against her.
“It was one thing for the school to be out to get me, which I think all of us secretly feel is the case from the moment we arrive, and another for the school to be out to get ONLY me, to the exclusion of literally everyone else, including even Orion, even though the school’s hunger was really his fault in the first place.”
Why is the school only after her? Is she trending toward becoming a maleficier and the school is trying to thwart her? Is it somehow trying to help her? Is there something else at work?
The second half of the school year is spent on an elaborate plan to not only survive graduation but save every other wizard kid from having to experience the horror of the Scholomance.
Despite her isolation in previous years and poor treatment from others, El still has an altruistic spirit at heart (thanks to her mother) and decides that she thinks she can save everyone. Maybe with a little help.
“I didn’t know what I was going to do. I only knew what I wasn’t going to do. I wasn’t going through. I wasn’t going through until everyone was out.”
And then, of course, if they DO get out… what then?
What I liked and Didn’t Like
This book didn’t seem as exciting as the first one— maybe because the magic and ‘world' weren’t new anymore. Some of the mystery was gone. It seemed a little more repetitive or routine of a story. And a lot of enclave politics.
I also didn’t like how the cliffhanger ending of the first book was irrelevant to this book’s story. You can’t put in a cliffhanger and then say… guess you’ll have to wait for a whole other book to get any more information regarding that.
I didn’t like how everyone said everything “through their teeth.” Were they just grimacing allll the time??
I do like where I think the third book is heading. I don’t want to give away too much, but I’m looking forward to seeing how El interacts with the outside world and if their plan actually works. I think I’ll like the next book better than this one.
I also liked the suspense of the end of this book. It was well-written and intense. And we get a cliffhanger again, but I know it will come to fruition right away in the next book so it’s okay.
I view this book as more of a transitional book. It gets us from the shock of book one to the wonder of book three. There’s not significant plot movement. It seems more of a character development book and a preparation for whatever big reveal the final book has to offer.
The Last Graduate isn’t going to be your favorite book of the series, but it’s not a bore to read either. You still get to experience some of the magic and get to speculate what El is truly capable of, but I wouldn’t call it AMAZING!
I’m liking the series in general and am glad to be reading them. But I have a lot of expectations for book three so I hope it lives up to it. And I’m also glad it already released so I don’t have to wait forever to continue the story.
[Content Advisory: a handful of f- and s-words; one brief, not super detailed sex scene towards the end]
Shelf Reflection Book Blog
Book Review Blog | Facebook | Pinterest
[3.5 rounded down]
“They want something that couldn’t be found in his phone calls, his emails, his text messages… They want his memory.”
I have the habit of requesting books on NetGalley that turn out to be part of a series. And then I have to go and read the first book/s before I can read my new one!
This is no exception. Book 2 called Judas 62 just released at the end of September and I have it on my to-read list. So of course I had to read the first one!
This is a European spy novel.
Box 88 is the name of a secret intelligence organization that works with both the US and MI:6 in some capacity, but is mostly off-the-grid.
“‘Box 88 does the things [governments] don’t want us to do, that they don’t ask us to do, which they don’t realize need to be done.’”
But you know they’re good at their jobs because they can identify a wool tie in seconds and I find that very impressive, though mostly useless.
Fun spy fact: Ian Fleming named his James Bond character after an ornithologist (bird-watcher) named James Bond.
This book begins in 2020 with the capture of Lachlan Kite, a Box 88 operative, in order to get information about an incident that happened in 1989 (hello Walkmans and Gameboys!) during Kite’s very first intelligence gathering mission.
It goes back and forth between the two timelines as Kite ‘tells the story’ of what happened and we find out if Box 88 can rescue him before he is tortured and killed.
Also his wife, Isobel, is captured to use as leverage against Kite. But this was kinda weird because so much of his past revolved around his love for Martha Raine and as a reader I kept expecting them to reveal that Isobel wasn’t his wife but was another agent posing as his wife because you just didn’t really feel the love between them. You get the sense that maybe he still loves Martha years later.
Within the first four pages of the book there is a girl with the same name as my daughter who dies so I was like- the rest of this better be worth it.
I will say, it took awhile to get into this one. Maybe if I were more seasoned in espionage books I’d have gotten my bearings quicker but it took a bit. Even throughout the book, it’s not one you pick up and just read 5 or 10 pages here and there. You’ll want good chunks of time to read so really understand what’s going on.
It also doesn’t help that there are no indicators at the beginning of chapters when timelines switch. You can use context clues but it would have been nice to have that addressed each time it shifted.
Most of the book takes place in the 1989 timeline where Lachlan is about to graduate from his boarding school. Lachlan is taking a vacation with his best friend’s family. Box 88 is interested in investigating a family friend from Iran who is also staying with them. Lachlan is recruited to be their inside man.
As it becomes more clear that his friend’s father is also under investigation he struggles between helping Box 88 stop a potential terrorist attack and not wanting to betray his best friend.
I was confused a lot. I don’t really know much about Middle East politics or spy organizations so I wasn’t always following. Sometimes I would read something and think- ‘I’m pretty sure they’re dropping knowledge right now, but I’m not sure what my reaction is supposed to be!’
For example. I didn’t know there was MI:5 and MI:6. And I couldn’t tell you the difference between them. Which is somewhat relevant to the story. MI:5 is trying to figure out Box 88 while all the other stuff is going down.
But you’re in luck because I just googled it and the difference is MI:5 is the British security service while MI:6 is their foreign intelligence service. Which means MI:5 is domestic- tracking down spies in land while MI:6 is outward focused on gathering intelligence and spying. So. Now we know.
The potential attack on a New York subway was also a bit of a hazy aspect of the story. I feel like they didn’t flesh out that part of the plot very well.
There were also a lot of references to European or English (I don’t even know) TV shows or songs or other things and I had no idea what they were referring to. Most of the time those didn’t matter so I just carried on.
BUT I did get the reference to Anthony Blunt because I’ve been watching the Crown so that was a win.
Basically I was reading this book to find out which person was the bad guy and if they got caught.
I wouldn’t say it was my favorite book but it was alright. I’m still going to read the next book and see how that goes. If I’m still feeling lost, I may not continue the series.
But generally speaking I do enjoy spy thrillers and I hadn’t read one of those in awhile so it was good for something different.
Plus we still have things to find out about Kite’s past which I believe they’ll continue revealing in the next book.
If you like spy novels, I would definitely give it a try.
If you’re not really into espionage thrillers, I’m not sure this one will do much for you.
Terms I Learned:
- “With precisely sweet Fanny Adams”- this generally means ‘something useless' or ‘nothing at all’ but the history of this term is rather gruesome. If you dare, read it HERE.
- TK Maxx- Surprise! TJ Maxx has crossed the pond and switched out a letter as to avoid confusion with a British company called T. J. Hughes
- skip- a large trash bin
- aubergine- eggplant
- bursary- a grant used to pay for clothing, books or other needs for school
- crammer- a person who helps kids cram for their finals. Quite the job title.
- anorak- hooded, waterproof coat
- chancer- a scheming opportunist
- carriageway- a one or two laned road; an undivided highway
- bedsit- one room apartment, kind of like a studio
- Pop trousers- they explained this in the book but I couldn’t find it where it was and I couldn’t find a good explanation on the google but it was something along the lines of pants that looked like what a celebrity wore maybe? I think it could catch on…
- "Kieran turned the air blue”- a whole lotta swearing
- bonhomie- cheerful friendliness
- chemist- pharmacist
- espadrilles- summer footwear (possibly of a certain brand.. idk)
- jug of orange squash- an orange-flavored drink made from fruit juice, sugar, and water… not orange juice apparently…
[Content Advisory- more than mild swearing (including f-words), some sexual content]
Shelf Reflection Book Review Blog
Book Review Blog | Facebook | Pinterest
“They want something that couldn’t be found in his phone calls, his emails, his text messages… They want his memory.”
I have the habit of requesting books on NetGalley that turn out to be part of a series. And then I have to go and read the first book/s before I can read my new one!
This is no exception. Book 2 called Judas 62 just released at the end of September and I have it on my to-read list. So of course I had to read the first one!
This is a European spy novel.
Box 88 is the name of a secret intelligence organization that works with both the US and MI:6 in some capacity, but is mostly off-the-grid.
“‘Box 88 does the things [governments] don’t want us to do, that they don’t ask us to do, which they don’t realize need to be done.’”
But you know they’re good at their jobs because they can identify a wool tie in seconds and I find that very impressive, though mostly useless.
Fun spy fact: Ian Fleming named his James Bond character after an ornithologist (bird-watcher) named James Bond.
This book begins in 2020 with the capture of Lachlan Kite, a Box 88 operative, in order to get information about an incident that happened in 1989 (hello Walkmans and Gameboys!) during Kite’s very first intelligence gathering mission.
It goes back and forth between the two timelines as Kite ‘tells the story’ of what happened and we find out if Box 88 can rescue him before he is tortured and killed.
Also his wife, Isobel, is captured to use as leverage against Kite. But this was kinda weird because so much of his past revolved around his love for Martha Raine and as a reader I kept expecting them to reveal that Isobel wasn’t his wife but was another agent posing as his wife because you just didn’t really feel the love between them. You get the sense that maybe he still loves Martha years later.
Within the first four pages of the book there is a girl with the same name as my daughter who dies so I was like- the rest of this better be worth it.
I will say, it took awhile to get into this one. Maybe if I were more seasoned in espionage books I’d have gotten my bearings quicker but it took a bit. Even throughout the book, it’s not one you pick up and just read 5 or 10 pages here and there. You’ll want good chunks of time to read so really understand what’s going on.
It also doesn’t help that there are no indicators at the beginning of chapters when timelines switch. You can use context clues but it would have been nice to have that addressed each time it shifted.
Most of the book takes place in the 1989 timeline where Lachlan is about to graduate from his boarding school. Lachlan is taking a vacation with his best friend’s family. Box 88 is interested in investigating a family friend from Iran who is also staying with them. Lachlan is recruited to be their inside man.
As it becomes more clear that his friend’s father is also under investigation he struggles between helping Box 88 stop a potential terrorist attack and not wanting to betray his best friend.
I was confused a lot. I don’t really know much about Middle East politics or spy organizations so I wasn’t always following. Sometimes I would read something and think- ‘I’m pretty sure they’re dropping knowledge right now, but I’m not sure what my reaction is supposed to be!’
For example. I didn’t know there was MI:5 and MI:6. And I couldn’t tell you the difference between them. Which is somewhat relevant to the story. MI:5 is trying to figure out Box 88 while all the other stuff is going down.
But you’re in luck because I just googled it and the difference is MI:5 is the British security service while MI:6 is their foreign intelligence service. Which means MI:5 is domestic- tracking down spies in land while MI:6 is outward focused on gathering intelligence and spying. So. Now we know.
The potential attack on a New York subway was also a bit of a hazy aspect of the story. I feel like they didn’t flesh out that part of the plot very well.
There were also a lot of references to European or English (I don’t even know) TV shows or songs or other things and I had no idea what they were referring to. Most of the time those didn’t matter so I just carried on.
BUT I did get the reference to Anthony Blunt because I’ve been watching the Crown so that was a win.
Basically I was reading this book to find out which person was the bad guy and if they got caught.
I wouldn’t say it was my favorite book but it was alright. I’m still going to read the next book and see how that goes. If I’m still feeling lost, I may not continue the series.
But generally speaking I do enjoy spy thrillers and I hadn’t read one of those in awhile so it was good for something different.
Plus we still have things to find out about Kite’s past which I believe they’ll continue revealing in the next book.
If you like spy novels, I would definitely give it a try.
If you’re not really into espionage thrillers, I’m not sure this one will do much for you.
Terms I Learned:
- “With precisely sweet Fanny Adams”- this generally means ‘something useless' or ‘nothing at all’ but the history of this term is rather gruesome. If you dare, read it HERE.
- TK Maxx- Surprise! TJ Maxx has crossed the pond and switched out a letter as to avoid confusion with a British company called T. J. Hughes
- skip- a large trash bin
- aubergine- eggplant
- bursary- a grant used to pay for clothing, books or other needs for school
- crammer- a person who helps kids cram for their finals. Quite the job title.
- anorak- hooded, waterproof coat
- chancer- a scheming opportunist
- carriageway- a one or two laned road; an undivided highway
- bedsit- one room apartment, kind of like a studio
- Pop trousers- they explained this in the book but I couldn’t find it where it was and I couldn’t find a good explanation on the google but it was something along the lines of pants that looked like what a celebrity wore maybe? I think it could catch on…
- "Kieran turned the air blue”- a whole lotta swearing
- bonhomie- cheerful friendliness
- chemist- pharmacist
- espadrilles- summer footwear (possibly of a certain brand.. idk)
- jug of orange squash- an orange-flavored drink made from fruit juice, sugar, and water… not orange juice apparently…
[Content Advisory- more than mild swearing (including f-words), some sexual content]
Shelf Reflection Book Review Blog
Book Review Blog | Facebook | Pinterest
“I suppose if one could count having a father for an investigator and reading mystery novels as the groundwork for real-life detection experience, I was as prepared as anyone.”
I would probably classify this book as a ‘cozy mystery.’ (Even though there is a bloody knife and skulls and crossbones on the front…)
There is a double murder to solve and a killer at large, but it’s within the context of a light-hearted friendship between Tabitha (our protagonist) and Julia Child (the not-yet-famous chef). Hence the play on words with the title.
Tellingly, the first line of the book is: “Julia Child had a mayonnaise problem.”
This is a work of fiction even though Julia Child is a character. The author takes artistic liberties with Child. Basing this book in Paris while Child, an American, is studying culinary arts at Le Cordon Bleu, befriends a neighbor— Tabitha— who is also an American, and a terrible cook.
In between Tabitha’s Nancy Drew escapades, she is learning how to cook from Julia so she can prepare meals for her grandfather and uncle (who is not actually her uncle) at their house where she is living for awhile post-WWII.
And, of course, Julia is working on making mayonnaise.
Not to spoil it but…. “we celebrate the solving of two mysteries this week: The Murder With the Chef’s Knife and The Problem of the Bad Mayonnaise!”
It’s a book that doesn’t take itself too seriously. Tabitha even makes remarks as she sets out to investigate on her own that if things ‘were like a Nancy Drew story’ then coincidences would actually be clues, etc.
And Julia says, “‘Just like an Agatha Christie novel— all the questions answered at the end, and the villain is caught, and everyone else is happy—’”
So, in case you were wondering, they DO solve the mystery. I had my suspicions and the killer wasn’t out of left field but it was still a nice mystery and I second guessed myself a few times.
Having just watched The Pink Panther with my kids, I couldn’t help but read the French detective in Steve Martin’s French accent, haha.
I am not a pet-person so all the comments about their pets and cats got a little old, but apparently:
“Cats seemed to be just as much an integral part of Paris as her food and lights.”
And I just googled it to confirm: There are 13.5 million cats in France— the second (to Germany) highest number in all of Europe.
I guess Cambridge did her research!
Another thing that annoyed me was all the times we were told they laughed at something funny. Sometimes I prefer to decide for myself if the characters laughed. I can usually tell when something funny is written. But this is a nit-picky thing.
I thought it was interesting that the author indicates that she wanted to write about a female who had had ‘a man’s job’ during the war (a.k.a Rosie the Riveter) but then were at a loss when all the men came home and worked their jobs again.
Tabitha is one such woman.
“I’d always been a bit of a tomboy, to the dismay of my very ladylike French mother and grandmother.”
No longer needed to rivet on planes, she has taken a leave in Paris. Using her ‘detective skills’ gives her a bit of purpose… and a reason to wear trousers, which is illegal in Paris unless riding a bike.
I also learned about coca-colonization which began during the time period this book is set in. The French did not like the expansion of Coke in their country as they associated it with the Communist party and feared it was a distribution system for spies.
Which reminds me… have any of you tried Faygo pop? (It makes a cameo in the book. Shout out to Detroit… or should I say De-twa…)
In conclusion, this is not a hard-hitting intense thriller. But it’s a cozy, clean mystery with a twinge of historical fiction and has it’s own suspense at the climax of the book.
I would recommend this book to readers looking something lighter but still with a decent plot.
And to readers who would like to learn how to cook a chicken and make mayonnaise.
[Content Advisory- clean book- no swearing or sexual content]
**Received an ARC via NetGalley**
Shelf Reflection Book Review Blog
Book Review Blog | Facebook | Pinterest
I would probably classify this book as a ‘cozy mystery.’ (Even though there is a bloody knife and skulls and crossbones on the front…)
There is a double murder to solve and a killer at large, but it’s within the context of a light-hearted friendship between Tabitha (our protagonist) and Julia Child (the not-yet-famous chef). Hence the play on words with the title.
Tellingly, the first line of the book is: “Julia Child had a mayonnaise problem.”
This is a work of fiction even though Julia Child is a character. The author takes artistic liberties with Child. Basing this book in Paris while Child, an American, is studying culinary arts at Le Cordon Bleu, befriends a neighbor— Tabitha— who is also an American, and a terrible cook.
In between Tabitha’s Nancy Drew escapades, she is learning how to cook from Julia so she can prepare meals for her grandfather and uncle (who is not actually her uncle) at their house where she is living for awhile post-WWII.
And, of course, Julia is working on making mayonnaise.
Not to spoil it but…. “we celebrate the solving of two mysteries this week: The Murder With the Chef’s Knife and The Problem of the Bad Mayonnaise!”
It’s a book that doesn’t take itself too seriously. Tabitha even makes remarks as she sets out to investigate on her own that if things ‘were like a Nancy Drew story’ then coincidences would actually be clues, etc.
And Julia says, “‘Just like an Agatha Christie novel— all the questions answered at the end, and the villain is caught, and everyone else is happy—’”
So, in case you were wondering, they DO solve the mystery. I had my suspicions and the killer wasn’t out of left field but it was still a nice mystery and I second guessed myself a few times.
Having just watched The Pink Panther with my kids, I couldn’t help but read the French detective in Steve Martin’s French accent, haha.
I am not a pet-person so all the comments about their pets and cats got a little old, but apparently:
“Cats seemed to be just as much an integral part of Paris as her food and lights.”
And I just googled it to confirm: There are 13.5 million cats in France— the second (to Germany) highest number in all of Europe.
I guess Cambridge did her research!
Another thing that annoyed me was all the times we were told they laughed at something funny. Sometimes I prefer to decide for myself if the characters laughed. I can usually tell when something funny is written. But this is a nit-picky thing.
I thought it was interesting that the author indicates that she wanted to write about a female who had had ‘a man’s job’ during the war (a.k.a Rosie the Riveter) but then were at a loss when all the men came home and worked their jobs again.
Tabitha is one such woman.
“I’d always been a bit of a tomboy, to the dismay of my very ladylike French mother and grandmother.”
No longer needed to rivet on planes, she has taken a leave in Paris. Using her ‘detective skills’ gives her a bit of purpose… and a reason to wear trousers, which is illegal in Paris unless riding a bike.
I also learned about coca-colonization which began during the time period this book is set in. The French did not like the expansion of Coke in their country as they associated it with the Communist party and feared it was a distribution system for spies.
Which reminds me… have any of you tried Faygo pop? (It makes a cameo in the book. Shout out to Detroit… or should I say De-twa…)
In conclusion, this is not a hard-hitting intense thriller. But it’s a cozy, clean mystery with a twinge of historical fiction and has it’s own suspense at the climax of the book.
I would recommend this book to readers looking something lighter but still with a decent plot.
And to readers who would like to learn how to cook a chicken and make mayonnaise.
[Content Advisory- clean book- no swearing or sexual content]
**Received an ARC via NetGalley**
Shelf Reflection Book Review Blog
Book Review Blog | Facebook | Pinterest
“Are you willing to do what it takes to uncover the wonder that already surrounds your life? Will you do the courageous work to identify what is distracting you from the better things? And finally, are you willing to do the difficult and selfless work of releasing the beauty you discover into the lives of others rather than keeping it for yourself?”
This book was a bit of a love bomb. Ironically, a distracted love bomb.
I read Goff’s book Everybody, Always, and contrary to popular opinion of it, I wasn’t really impressed.
I decided to give Goff another chance by reading his newest book before I heard any hype about it. A clean first impression.
And I felt about the same as when I read his other book.
In short, it just felt like a shallow, self-helpy book with dramatic anecdotes Goff wrangled into inspirational one-liners that sound great but feel a bit fluffy. Everything was all over the place and I’m not really sure it’s actually going to help anyone.
I can’t really think of a reason to read this book.
If you are feeling like you need a better philosophy on how you spend your time or use your phone, I would recommend one of these books instead:
- To Hell with the Hustle
- A Spacious Life
- 12 Ways Your Phone is Changing You (on my TBR)
If you’re feeling like you want to be a ‘better version of yourself’ or figure out what to do with your life then there are plenty of other books that would be better than this one. Here are just a few off the top of my head:
- When Strivings Cease
- On the Road with Saint Augustine
- Sis, Take a Breath
- Just Do Something
In my review of Everybody, Always I said that maybe people should still read it. If it will help people love others better, then who am I to stand in the way, but now that I’ve seen the pattern of his books, I’m not so sure I can keep giving that counsel. I think there are better books for these things.
While reading this book I couldn’t stop thinking about this YouTube channel where these guys create videos making fun of Christian influencers. HERE is one of their videos. I think they could get some good material from Bob. He spends 3-4 pages telling this story that’s either elaborate or name-droppy and then turns it into an analogy that’s cringe or just a general stretch. Alllll of that lead-up just to say… that?
‘The other day… I was trying to eat noodles with a fork and they kept sliding between the tines and falling off… And so I have this question for you… What are the things falling between the tines of your life? If you live an undistracted life, you’ll start eating your noodles with a spoon and you won’t let important things fall away.’ (This is me trying to write like Bob Goff…)
For real though. Here are some examples from the book:
- The time he built something in shop class— which by the way his shop teacher only has 3 fingers— tells us that even if we fail (and lose fingers) we can still do our purpose.
- His VIP pass to the ‘mosh pit’ at Carrie Underwood’s concert because he’s besties with Carrie’s guitarist tells us we need to “live out our faith in the mosh pit.” We have an all-access pass to the world.
- The time he was hanging out with Jim Caveziel but didn’t know it until afterwards tells us that sometimes we “fail to recognize Jesus is in the room with us.”
- The time Keith Green wrote him a letter when he was younger tells us that we need to make someone else feel important because it’s a big deal.
- The time he took his kids in their dinghy and parked between two pirate ships having a mock battle in the bay with cannons (which is super safe and recommended) reminds us that we need to stop firing shots with our words.
- The time he pinned medals on all the soldiers in the trenches of the Middle East that were about to try to liberate Mosul from ISIS rule— also where Bob was asked to check out their secret battle plans— tells us that we need to liberate ourselves from negative things.
- The time in 2018 when the guy hit the wrong button in Hawaii and alerted the whole country to a missile attack that wasn’t happening and they hid his identity but Bob found out who he was and called him to offer him a job tells us that we need to care about people who fail.
- The time Pavlov’s dogs got eaten in the siege of Leningrad tells us that sometimes bad things happen.
- The time someone just gave him a horse that was a descendant of Secretariat tells us that sometimes heaven surprises us.
- The time Bob hung out with the son of the man who started Holiday Inn hotels tells us that we can be distracted when we think we’re too important.
He did this in Everybody, Always too. The few good points are hidden in all of this EXTRA. Are those really the best ways to get the point across? Also, what IS the point?
Here’s the thing about Bob Goff.
I’ve never met him but I would venture to guess he’s a genuine guy who truly does love people and aims to help them however he can. I don’t doubt his sincerity. I don’t believe he writes books to make money. He writes because he really wants to inspire people in positive ways. With all the schools and wells and such that he’s built, he obviously practices what he preaches in terms of serving others.
And yes, he’s a good story teller and he’s funny (when he’s not trying too hard to be funny).
However, there is something ‘off’ here that I can’t quite put my finger on. I had the same feelings in Everybody, Always.
As I looked through my notes of this book I categorized them into groups: Good, Bad, Jesus, and True?.
There were a few good things we can take away. There were some questionable statements that felt like Moralistic Therapeutic Deism or prosperity gospel. There were times where he talks about Jesus and how he died for us and is doing a great work in our lives. And there were some statements that made me go- Is that really true? (I won’t take the space to delve into that last one much)
He mentions Jesus so everything must be good right?
“I’m not saying go light on sound doctrine. I am saying if we go big on Jesus, we’ll be living out some great theology.”
We can get on the Bob Goff train because he believes in Jesus!
Well. Let’s not make rash decisions just because he hangs out at Disney Land and carries balloons everywhere.
I was surprised when he came right out and said:
“Someone asked me if I was watering down the gospel in the books I write. “Actually,” I said, “I hope so.” Here’s why. I want to write books for thirsty people. There’s a lot of people who are full of opinions but parched in their own lives because they simply aren’t thirsty anymore.”
I don’t know what he means here but it’s a bit concerning. Maybe he’s just writing a ‘seeker-friendly’ type of book that just introduces the idea of Jesus?
I’ve heard the analogy of advising not to pour an entire pitcher of water if someone is only holding a dixie cup— meaning don’t overload someone; simplify, and work your way up to a bigger cup. But that’s not changing the substance that’s going in. It’s not changing the quality, it’s changing the quantity.
But he also says this:
“If you need a starting nudge, maybe the best first step is to find what you trust the most and put wheels on it. If you are a Jesus person, what you trust might be what you find in the books and letters compiled into the Bible—words that will give you more than a lifetime of ideas for how to live a more joyful and purposeful life. If faith isn’t your thing, then find something else you can put your trust in. Who knows? Perhaps the answer will come later.”
I can respect that he doesn’t want to shove the Bible down people’s throats, but as with other self-help books I’ve read (like Brene Brown) where they just encourage people to find out ‘whatever works for them’—even though they personally trust Jesus— just rubs me the wrong way.
If Jesus is the way then why would you approve of any other way? If that’s the path of truth, of true peace, true purpose, true belonging, then tell people that! And if you don’t tell people that, then do you not believe it is?
There are a lot of self-proclaimed Christians that just want you to be nice to everyone, follow your dreams, and be better versions of yourselves. Just find your purpose, put your head down and be you. Be your authentic self. It seems confusing to be opposed to this philosophy but these ideals are found in Moralistic Therapeutic Deism and it’s void of the gospel.
Here are things Bob says in his book that fits this philosophy:
- “Give yourself a pep talk about how it’s okay to be exactly who you are.”
- “You will only be as free as you actually believe you are.”
- “People who accomplish a great deal in their lives are filled with joy and lasting ambitions; they choose a direction then take the steps and actions needed to stay the course. Be one of these people, and you will find your joy once again.”
- “You are only one generous act of availability away from being a better version of yourself.”
- “Go love people in extravagant, wildly inefficient ways by speaking words of beauty into their lives. Your words have that kind of power.”
- “We need to return to the most real versions of our faith and the most authentic versions of ourselves.”
- “You get to set the course for who you want to be.”
He runs a retreat center called The Oaks and when I searched for information about these retreats, these two statements are listed:
‘Explore what is holding you back and overcome barriers that are keeping you stuck.
Gain the confidence to turn your wishes, dreams and plans into reality.’
I’m sure he helps people, but this kind of rhetoric doesn’t resonate with me. It feels disingenuous and shallow. Just the term ‘self-help’ seems contrary to the gospel. You can’t find your purpose or joy apart from Christ, you just can’t. We were created to find purpose, joy, and meaning in worshiping him. It’s in our very design. Any other ‘solution’ is a mirage.
I also want to point out that I felt there were lots of contradictions in this book of what he was suggesting you do and what he was advising against.
One prominent example in his own life is that he wants to be unreasonably available to people. He puts his cell phone number in the back of all of his books and says he answers every call. He claims he has answered calls in the court room and speaking on stage to people.
But then later he says, “Think of phone use as cheating on your family.”
I like that he wants to be available to others but I find it hard to believe he’s honoring his family and those around him when he is taking every call. I would challenge that unreasonable availability is more of a distraction than a true purpose. And quite disrespectful to the people he’s with. He calls it cheating but he uses his phone excessively. Which is right?
What’s good?
To be fair… he does have some good thoughts. Unfortunately, he obscures them with his own illustrations, but I would be remiss if all I did was tell you the bad stuff. Here are some of the good snippets:
“Most of pride’s prisoners think they are the guards.”
“Every time a cynic hands you a dark invitation to join them on their journey, just hand it right back to them. They’re offering you a ride in a car with no tires that has been riding on the rims for years. That’s why they make so much noise and are surrounded by sparks. Take the bus. Walk if you must. Just don’t hitch a ride with cynics anymore. It’s a one-way trip to a life filled with distractions.”
“We can eliminate the distractions that have been obscuring our view of what God is doing in the world.”
“Don’t be too quick to self-identify as the victim when you are the student. Resist compiling a list of grievances and see how God has used these moments of desperation in your life to clear a path for some much needed grace.” [I was surprised to find such a counter-cultural statement, but I’m here for it. Victimhood as your identity and your excuse for not trying is not a right perspective.]
“When I tell God I want to have it all explained to me before I will obey, it makes faith sound like a negotiation—and it’s not.”
“The inevitability of a mistake doesn’t mean it is any less painful. It’s time we stopped acting like our failures somehow disqualify us from God’s love, when in reality these setbacks might lead to a keener awareness of it.”
“To live fully you need the whole truth about who you are because only truth will make you clear-eyed about where you’re going.”
“When an unreasonable amount of attention is given to a distraction, it can become an obsession.”
“What we do matters less than what we are working toward, who we’re working for, and why we are doing it.”
“It’s easy to spend so much time providing for your family that you’re no longer providing for your family. Do you get me? Don’t wait until later to connect with your families. It won’t happen. Choose your family over and over…”
In summation:
No, I would not recommend this book. I recommend the premise of the book and believe that we are living very distracted lives and some re-orientation is in order, but I don’t think Bob’s the guy to help you out.
He would make a good friend and would probably be a great choice for a dinner party guest but I don’t think this book will be effective in helping you identify problems or solutions that really matter.
It’s lacking in clarity and organization, and has some problematic philosophies he seems to promote, despite his clear belief in Jesus.
It’s easy to like a guy like Bob, but I think a lot of people have been taken in by his charms and stopped thinking critically about what he’s saying.
Really in general, my advice is to be wary of any self-help type of book. Some can be practically helpful, but real power to change your life is found in the work of the Holy Spirit. Find a gospel-oriented book. I’ve reviewed lots of them on my site.
After all that, I will leave you on a positive note. I can get behind this quote from this book:
“It doesn’t matter what the work is; it is who we become in the process of doing our work that does, and the goal is to look and act more like Jesus while we do it.”
**Received an ARC via NetGalley**
Book Review Blog | Facebook | Pinterest
This book was a bit of a love bomb. Ironically, a distracted love bomb.
I read Goff’s book Everybody, Always, and contrary to popular opinion of it, I wasn’t really impressed.
I decided to give Goff another chance by reading his newest book before I heard any hype about it. A clean first impression.
And I felt about the same as when I read his other book.
In short, it just felt like a shallow, self-helpy book with dramatic anecdotes Goff wrangled into inspirational one-liners that sound great but feel a bit fluffy. Everything was all over the place and I’m not really sure it’s actually going to help anyone.
I can’t really think of a reason to read this book.
If you are feeling like you need a better philosophy on how you spend your time or use your phone, I would recommend one of these books instead:
- To Hell with the Hustle
- A Spacious Life
- 12 Ways Your Phone is Changing You (on my TBR)
If you’re feeling like you want to be a ‘better version of yourself’ or figure out what to do with your life then there are plenty of other books that would be better than this one. Here are just a few off the top of my head:
- When Strivings Cease
- On the Road with Saint Augustine
- Sis, Take a Breath
- Just Do Something
In my review of Everybody, Always I said that maybe people should still read it. If it will help people love others better, then who am I to stand in the way, but now that I’ve seen the pattern of his books, I’m not so sure I can keep giving that counsel. I think there are better books for these things.
While reading this book I couldn’t stop thinking about this YouTube channel where these guys create videos making fun of Christian influencers. HERE is one of their videos. I think they could get some good material from Bob. He spends 3-4 pages telling this story that’s either elaborate or name-droppy and then turns it into an analogy that’s cringe or just a general stretch. Alllll of that lead-up just to say… that?
‘The other day… I was trying to eat noodles with a fork and they kept sliding between the tines and falling off… And so I have this question for you… What are the things falling between the tines of your life? If you live an undistracted life, you’ll start eating your noodles with a spoon and you won’t let important things fall away.’ (This is me trying to write like Bob Goff…)
For real though. Here are some examples from the book:
- The time he built something in shop class— which by the way his shop teacher only has 3 fingers— tells us that even if we fail (and lose fingers) we can still do our purpose.
- His VIP pass to the ‘mosh pit’ at Carrie Underwood’s concert because he’s besties with Carrie’s guitarist tells us we need to “live out our faith in the mosh pit.” We have an all-access pass to the world.
- The time he was hanging out with Jim Caveziel but didn’t know it until afterwards tells us that sometimes we “fail to recognize Jesus is in the room with us.”
- The time Keith Green wrote him a letter when he was younger tells us that we need to make someone else feel important because it’s a big deal.
- The time he took his kids in their dinghy and parked between two pirate ships having a mock battle in the bay with cannons (which is super safe and recommended) reminds us that we need to stop firing shots with our words.
- The time he pinned medals on all the soldiers in the trenches of the Middle East that were about to try to liberate Mosul from ISIS rule— also where Bob was asked to check out their secret battle plans— tells us that we need to liberate ourselves from negative things.
- The time in 2018 when the guy hit the wrong button in Hawaii and alerted the whole country to a missile attack that wasn’t happening and they hid his identity but Bob found out who he was and called him to offer him a job tells us that we need to care about people who fail.
- The time Pavlov’s dogs got eaten in the siege of Leningrad tells us that sometimes bad things happen.
- The time someone just gave him a horse that was a descendant of Secretariat tells us that sometimes heaven surprises us.
- The time Bob hung out with the son of the man who started Holiday Inn hotels tells us that we can be distracted when we think we’re too important.
He did this in Everybody, Always too. The few good points are hidden in all of this EXTRA. Are those really the best ways to get the point across? Also, what IS the point?
Here’s the thing about Bob Goff.
I’ve never met him but I would venture to guess he’s a genuine guy who truly does love people and aims to help them however he can. I don’t doubt his sincerity. I don’t believe he writes books to make money. He writes because he really wants to inspire people in positive ways. With all the schools and wells and such that he’s built, he obviously practices what he preaches in terms of serving others.
And yes, he’s a good story teller and he’s funny (when he’s not trying too hard to be funny).
However, there is something ‘off’ here that I can’t quite put my finger on. I had the same feelings in Everybody, Always.
As I looked through my notes of this book I categorized them into groups: Good, Bad, Jesus, and True?.
There were a few good things we can take away. There were some questionable statements that felt like Moralistic Therapeutic Deism or prosperity gospel. There were times where he talks about Jesus and how he died for us and is doing a great work in our lives. And there were some statements that made me go- Is that really true? (I won’t take the space to delve into that last one much)
He mentions Jesus so everything must be good right?
“I’m not saying go light on sound doctrine. I am saying if we go big on Jesus, we’ll be living out some great theology.”
We can get on the Bob Goff train because he believes in Jesus!
Well. Let’s not make rash decisions just because he hangs out at Disney Land and carries balloons everywhere.
I was surprised when he came right out and said:
“Someone asked me if I was watering down the gospel in the books I write. “Actually,” I said, “I hope so.” Here’s why. I want to write books for thirsty people. There’s a lot of people who are full of opinions but parched in their own lives because they simply aren’t thirsty anymore.”
I don’t know what he means here but it’s a bit concerning. Maybe he’s just writing a ‘seeker-friendly’ type of book that just introduces the idea of Jesus?
I’ve heard the analogy of advising not to pour an entire pitcher of water if someone is only holding a dixie cup— meaning don’t overload someone; simplify, and work your way up to a bigger cup. But that’s not changing the substance that’s going in. It’s not changing the quality, it’s changing the quantity.
But he also says this:
“If you need a starting nudge, maybe the best first step is to find what you trust the most and put wheels on it. If you are a Jesus person, what you trust might be what you find in the books and letters compiled into the Bible—words that will give you more than a lifetime of ideas for how to live a more joyful and purposeful life. If faith isn’t your thing, then find something else you can put your trust in. Who knows? Perhaps the answer will come later.”
I can respect that he doesn’t want to shove the Bible down people’s throats, but as with other self-help books I’ve read (like Brene Brown) where they just encourage people to find out ‘whatever works for them’—even though they personally trust Jesus— just rubs me the wrong way.
If Jesus is the way then why would you approve of any other way? If that’s the path of truth, of true peace, true purpose, true belonging, then tell people that! And if you don’t tell people that, then do you not believe it is?
There are a lot of self-proclaimed Christians that just want you to be nice to everyone, follow your dreams, and be better versions of yourselves. Just find your purpose, put your head down and be you. Be your authentic self. It seems confusing to be opposed to this philosophy but these ideals are found in Moralistic Therapeutic Deism and it’s void of the gospel.
Here are things Bob says in his book that fits this philosophy:
- “Give yourself a pep talk about how it’s okay to be exactly who you are.”
- “You will only be as free as you actually believe you are.”
- “People who accomplish a great deal in their lives are filled with joy and lasting ambitions; they choose a direction then take the steps and actions needed to stay the course. Be one of these people, and you will find your joy once again.”
- “You are only one generous act of availability away from being a better version of yourself.”
- “Go love people in extravagant, wildly inefficient ways by speaking words of beauty into their lives. Your words have that kind of power.”
- “We need to return to the most real versions of our faith and the most authentic versions of ourselves.”
- “You get to set the course for who you want to be.”
He runs a retreat center called The Oaks and when I searched for information about these retreats, these two statements are listed:
‘Explore what is holding you back and overcome barriers that are keeping you stuck.
Gain the confidence to turn your wishes, dreams and plans into reality.’
I’m sure he helps people, but this kind of rhetoric doesn’t resonate with me. It feels disingenuous and shallow. Just the term ‘self-help’ seems contrary to the gospel. You can’t find your purpose or joy apart from Christ, you just can’t. We were created to find purpose, joy, and meaning in worshiping him. It’s in our very design. Any other ‘solution’ is a mirage.
I also want to point out that I felt there were lots of contradictions in this book of what he was suggesting you do and what he was advising against.
One prominent example in his own life is that he wants to be unreasonably available to people. He puts his cell phone number in the back of all of his books and says he answers every call. He claims he has answered calls in the court room and speaking on stage to people.
But then later he says, “Think of phone use as cheating on your family.”
I like that he wants to be available to others but I find it hard to believe he’s honoring his family and those around him when he is taking every call. I would challenge that unreasonable availability is more of a distraction than a true purpose. And quite disrespectful to the people he’s with. He calls it cheating but he uses his phone excessively. Which is right?
What’s good?
To be fair… he does have some good thoughts. Unfortunately, he obscures them with his own illustrations, but I would be remiss if all I did was tell you the bad stuff. Here are some of the good snippets:
“Most of pride’s prisoners think they are the guards.”
“Every time a cynic hands you a dark invitation to join them on their journey, just hand it right back to them. They’re offering you a ride in a car with no tires that has been riding on the rims for years. That’s why they make so much noise and are surrounded by sparks. Take the bus. Walk if you must. Just don’t hitch a ride with cynics anymore. It’s a one-way trip to a life filled with distractions.”
“We can eliminate the distractions that have been obscuring our view of what God is doing in the world.”
“Don’t be too quick to self-identify as the victim when you are the student. Resist compiling a list of grievances and see how God has used these moments of desperation in your life to clear a path for some much needed grace.” [I was surprised to find such a counter-cultural statement, but I’m here for it. Victimhood as your identity and your excuse for not trying is not a right perspective.]
“When I tell God I want to have it all explained to me before I will obey, it makes faith sound like a negotiation—and it’s not.”
“The inevitability of a mistake doesn’t mean it is any less painful. It’s time we stopped acting like our failures somehow disqualify us from God’s love, when in reality these setbacks might lead to a keener awareness of it.”
“To live fully you need the whole truth about who you are because only truth will make you clear-eyed about where you’re going.”
“When an unreasonable amount of attention is given to a distraction, it can become an obsession.”
“What we do matters less than what we are working toward, who we’re working for, and why we are doing it.”
“It’s easy to spend so much time providing for your family that you’re no longer providing for your family. Do you get me? Don’t wait until later to connect with your families. It won’t happen. Choose your family over and over…”
In summation:
No, I would not recommend this book. I recommend the premise of the book and believe that we are living very distracted lives and some re-orientation is in order, but I don’t think Bob’s the guy to help you out.
He would make a good friend and would probably be a great choice for a dinner party guest but I don’t think this book will be effective in helping you identify problems or solutions that really matter.
It’s lacking in clarity and organization, and has some problematic philosophies he seems to promote, despite his clear belief in Jesus.
It’s easy to like a guy like Bob, but I think a lot of people have been taken in by his charms and stopped thinking critically about what he’s saying.
Really in general, my advice is to be wary of any self-help type of book. Some can be practically helpful, but real power to change your life is found in the work of the Holy Spirit. Find a gospel-oriented book. I’ve reviewed lots of them on my site.
After all that, I will leave you on a positive note. I can get behind this quote from this book:
“It doesn’t matter what the work is; it is who we become in the process of doing our work that does, and the goal is to look and act more like Jesus while we do it.”
**Received an ARC via NetGalley**
Book Review Blog | Facebook | Pinterest
“The problem is not that we love stories but that we can love stories too much, and, especially, we can love the wrong stories.”
This is a good book reminding us of the ways we may mask or justify our gossip and exposes the evils of gossip.
It would be a good book to do in a small group and also a great resource for pastors. Mitchell is an EFCA pastor with credentials from Moody, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and Westminster Theological Seminary and serves as the book review coordinator for EFCA Today.
Pastors will especially appreciate the bonus chapter called: “Cultivating a Gossip-Resistant Church” which details ways pastors can lead their congregation in how they relate to each other.
Resisting Gossip is just shy of 200 pages. I didn’t find it earth-shattering or even profound, but it is surely practical and probably more necessary than we’d like to admit.
Mitchell gives us five categories of gossipers:
1. The Spy (finding dirt on someone to use to your own advantage)
2. The Grumbler (complaining and criticizing… often masked as ‘venting’)
3. The Backstabber (motivated by revenge)
4. The Chameleon (trying to fit into a group; motivated by fear of being excluded)
5. The Busybody (escaping boredom; seeking entertainment; living vicariously through others’ stories)
You may not fall into all of these categories, but chances are, if you’re like me, you’ve done at least one or two, even if you didn’t realize it.
Dividing his book into four parts, Mitchell seeks to help us Recognize gossip (are we doing it?), Resist gossip (can we avoid it?), Respond to gossip (are we experiencing it?), and Regret gossip (are we sorry for it?)— the last one referring to God’s forgiveness for people repenting of gossip.
I liked how he uses Ephesians 4:25-29. Sometimes we focus on ‘stopping’ a certain behavior and forget about what we are actively pursuing.
He says this:
“Overcoming gossip is not just about what not to do but what to do…
Put off lying. Put on truth-speaking. (4:25)
Put off sinful anger. Put on peacemaking (4:26-27)
Put off stealing. Put on generosity (4:28)
Put off gossip. Put on up-building speech (4:29)”
Supported by Scripture throughout (a lot of Proverbs) with an emphasis on the gospel message of sin, forgiveness, and the help of the Holy Spirit, this book is biblical, practical, and encouraging.
Gossip is one of those things that is often hard to pin down. We have a lot of ways to rationalize what we listen to or what we say to others. We may disguise it as seeking advice, asking for prayer, or any other myriad of excuses, but when it comes down to it, this is the definition of gossip:
“the sin of gossip is bearing bad news behind someone’s back out of a bad heart.”
It is also “sharing someone else’s secret.”
It’s strange to say, but he tells us that not all gossip is sinful. We have to look at our hearts.
“Our sinful motivations for speaking about or listening to any form of bad news are what makes gossip sinful. Therefore, in recognizing gossip the most important question for us to answer is, ‘Why am I saying, listening to, or attracted to this?’”
Mitchell advises that most, if not all, gossip includes the sin of judging others.
“The spy tries to get people to feel judgmental enough to wrangle a secret out of them. The grumbler has decided in his heart that the person he is talking about is clearly wrong and exits a complaint, at least, and probably a much stronger denunciation. The backstabber is certain of her judgment and knows that her target deserves the retaliation that is on the way. The chameleon listens in on the judgments of others and does not speak up for fear of reprisal. The busybody escapes from boredom by issuing entertaining but condemning judgments about other people to his or her friends. Busybodies snicker at those they judge to be ‘the stupid people.’”
Much of this book requires honest reflection and willingness to consider changing the ways we talk to or about people. Is it really right or necessary for us to say the things we do? What is our true motivation?
Some ‘secrets’ are hard to keep, but when we see the ways relationships can be hurt and sometimes lives completely ruined by gossip, hopefully we can find strength from the Holy Spirit to hold our tongues.
As I mentioned, it is meant to be used as a tool for groups, churches, or church leaders to help navigate the complicated waters of gossip. There are discussion questions at the end of each chapter.
It is a pretty short book so I don’t know if it would make much sense to only take a chapter at a time. I would recommend either reading the entire book before coming together to discuss, or reading it in its four parts (as listed above).
It’s a quick read and worth it even if it’s something you think you know already. We all know gossip is bad, but don’t we all think we’re above gossiping because we know it’s wrong? We wouldn’t call ourselves gossipers. But do our words and actions line up?
“We have seen throughout this book how the gospel defeats gossip. As individuals, the gospel empowers us to resist gossip’s lure and gives us the ability to love instead. The gospel also covers us with grace when we have failed.”
Shelf Reflection Book Review Blog
Book Review Blog | Facebook | Pinterest
This is a good book reminding us of the ways we may mask or justify our gossip and exposes the evils of gossip.
It would be a good book to do in a small group and also a great resource for pastors. Mitchell is an EFCA pastor with credentials from Moody, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and Westminster Theological Seminary and serves as the book review coordinator for EFCA Today.
Pastors will especially appreciate the bonus chapter called: “Cultivating a Gossip-Resistant Church” which details ways pastors can lead their congregation in how they relate to each other.
Resisting Gossip is just shy of 200 pages. I didn’t find it earth-shattering or even profound, but it is surely practical and probably more necessary than we’d like to admit.
Mitchell gives us five categories of gossipers:
1. The Spy (finding dirt on someone to use to your own advantage)
2. The Grumbler (complaining and criticizing… often masked as ‘venting’)
3. The Backstabber (motivated by revenge)
4. The Chameleon (trying to fit into a group; motivated by fear of being excluded)
5. The Busybody (escaping boredom; seeking entertainment; living vicariously through others’ stories)
You may not fall into all of these categories, but chances are, if you’re like me, you’ve done at least one or two, even if you didn’t realize it.
Dividing his book into four parts, Mitchell seeks to help us Recognize gossip (are we doing it?), Resist gossip (can we avoid it?), Respond to gossip (are we experiencing it?), and Regret gossip (are we sorry for it?)— the last one referring to God’s forgiveness for people repenting of gossip.
I liked how he uses Ephesians 4:25-29. Sometimes we focus on ‘stopping’ a certain behavior and forget about what we are actively pursuing.
He says this:
“Overcoming gossip is not just about what not to do but what to do…
Put off lying. Put on truth-speaking. (4:25)
Put off sinful anger. Put on peacemaking (4:26-27)
Put off stealing. Put on generosity (4:28)
Put off gossip. Put on up-building speech (4:29)”
Supported by Scripture throughout (a lot of Proverbs) with an emphasis on the gospel message of sin, forgiveness, and the help of the Holy Spirit, this book is biblical, practical, and encouraging.
Gossip is one of those things that is often hard to pin down. We have a lot of ways to rationalize what we listen to or what we say to others. We may disguise it as seeking advice, asking for prayer, or any other myriad of excuses, but when it comes down to it, this is the definition of gossip:
“the sin of gossip is bearing bad news behind someone’s back out of a bad heart.”
It is also “sharing someone else’s secret.”
It’s strange to say, but he tells us that not all gossip is sinful. We have to look at our hearts.
“Our sinful motivations for speaking about or listening to any form of bad news are what makes gossip sinful. Therefore, in recognizing gossip the most important question for us to answer is, ‘Why am I saying, listening to, or attracted to this?’”
Mitchell advises that most, if not all, gossip includes the sin of judging others.
“The spy tries to get people to feel judgmental enough to wrangle a secret out of them. The grumbler has decided in his heart that the person he is talking about is clearly wrong and exits a complaint, at least, and probably a much stronger denunciation. The backstabber is certain of her judgment and knows that her target deserves the retaliation that is on the way. The chameleon listens in on the judgments of others and does not speak up for fear of reprisal. The busybody escapes from boredom by issuing entertaining but condemning judgments about other people to his or her friends. Busybodies snicker at those they judge to be ‘the stupid people.’”
Much of this book requires honest reflection and willingness to consider changing the ways we talk to or about people. Is it really right or necessary for us to say the things we do? What is our true motivation?
Some ‘secrets’ are hard to keep, but when we see the ways relationships can be hurt and sometimes lives completely ruined by gossip, hopefully we can find strength from the Holy Spirit to hold our tongues.
As I mentioned, it is meant to be used as a tool for groups, churches, or church leaders to help navigate the complicated waters of gossip. There are discussion questions at the end of each chapter.
It is a pretty short book so I don’t know if it would make much sense to only take a chapter at a time. I would recommend either reading the entire book before coming together to discuss, or reading it in its four parts (as listed above).
It’s a quick read and worth it even if it’s something you think you know already. We all know gossip is bad, but don’t we all think we’re above gossiping because we know it’s wrong? We wouldn’t call ourselves gossipers. But do our words and actions line up?
“We have seen throughout this book how the gospel defeats gossip. As individuals, the gospel empowers us to resist gossip’s lure and gives us the ability to love instead. The gospel also covers us with grace when we have failed.”
Shelf Reflection Book Review Blog
Book Review Blog | Facebook | Pinterest
“They had two dead strangers in town. One killer. One victim.”
The newest Jonathan Stride novel, The Zero Night, just released Nov 1 so I had some catching up to do before I read that one.
I started this series on book 8 (Marathon) and really enjoyed it. But when I went back to the Las Vegas part of Stride’s story it was bad.
Las Vegas Stride= Don’t Read
Duluth Stride= Read
Other than the aforementioned book, I’ve loved every Brian Freeman book I’ve read. You can always expect a good thriller from him. And most of them are pretty clean.
In Alter Ego, a Hollywood movie is being shot in Duluth about a case from years back that involved Stride (who’s a detective). He had rescued a girl from a serial killer. (As far as I can tell, that case was not a previous book in the series).
The A-list actor playing Stride (his alter ego) in the movie is Dean Casperson. Casperson is the golden-boy of Hollywood and can do no wrong.
But when a hired killer is found dead and the body of a young woman found buried in the woods, the evidence starts pointing at Casperson, maybe he’s not so good after all.
Going after such a beloved public figure can have major consequences. Stride and his team have to navigate the case and deal with the collateral.
Annnddd… there’s snow everywhere, all the time. Living in Iowa, I’ve gathered it’s par for the course in Minnesota. Which is why I won’t live there.
A fun part of this book is the crossover with Cab Bolton, a different Freeman series.
Basically Freeman’s series are like CSI: Las Vegas, Miami, New York etc. Frost Easton is in San Francisco. Stride was Las Vegas and now Duluth. Cab is in Florida (Miami I think?).
The case in Alter Ego has overlapped with a murder in Florida that Cab is very familiar with. He joins Stride in Duluth to help out.
Plus he and Maggie Bei hit it off. Freeman teases Maggie moving to Florida and teaming up with Cab which I think would be cool to shift characters around in different series. But only time will tell if that will come to fruition.
I haven’t read any of the Cab Bolton books but it kind of made me want to start that series too!
I would definitely recommend this book and am looking forward to the next two in the series!
[Content Advisory: I don’t think there are any f-words, language is mild, not much sexual content; trigger warning for rape—talked about but not described]
Shelf Reflection Book Review Blog
Book Review Blog | Facebook | Pinterest
The newest Jonathan Stride novel, The Zero Night, just released Nov 1 so I had some catching up to do before I read that one.
I started this series on book 8 (Marathon) and really enjoyed it. But when I went back to the Las Vegas part of Stride’s story it was bad.
Las Vegas Stride= Don’t Read
Duluth Stride= Read
Other than the aforementioned book, I’ve loved every Brian Freeman book I’ve read. You can always expect a good thriller from him. And most of them are pretty clean.
In Alter Ego, a Hollywood movie is being shot in Duluth about a case from years back that involved Stride (who’s a detective). He had rescued a girl from a serial killer. (As far as I can tell, that case was not a previous book in the series).
The A-list actor playing Stride (his alter ego) in the movie is Dean Casperson. Casperson is the golden-boy of Hollywood and can do no wrong.
But when a hired killer is found dead and the body of a young woman found buried in the woods, the evidence starts pointing at Casperson, maybe he’s not so good after all.
Going after such a beloved public figure can have major consequences. Stride and his team have to navigate the case and deal with the collateral.
Annnddd… there’s snow everywhere, all the time. Living in Iowa, I’ve gathered it’s par for the course in Minnesota. Which is why I won’t live there.
A fun part of this book is the crossover with Cab Bolton, a different Freeman series.
Basically Freeman’s series are like CSI: Las Vegas, Miami, New York etc. Frost Easton is in San Francisco. Stride was Las Vegas and now Duluth. Cab is in Florida (Miami I think?).
The case in Alter Ego has overlapped with a murder in Florida that Cab is very familiar with. He joins Stride in Duluth to help out.
Plus he and Maggie Bei hit it off. Freeman teases Maggie moving to Florida and teaming up with Cab which I think would be cool to shift characters around in different series. But only time will tell if that will come to fruition.
I haven’t read any of the Cab Bolton books but it kind of made me want to start that series too!
I would definitely recommend this book and am looking forward to the next two in the series!
[Content Advisory: I don’t think there are any f-words, language is mild, not much sexual content; trigger warning for rape—talked about but not described]
Shelf Reflection Book Review Blog
Book Review Blog | Facebook | Pinterest
“Ironic, then, that the moments of actual peace, of real respite, in this awful blood-soaked war would come at sundown, both sides tired of raining bombs and bullets on each other all day, grateful for that still beautiful moment when the blood stopped flowing and the only red we saw spread itself across the horizon as a signal that we’d managed to live a little longer.”
This one is a new take on a WWII novel.
It’s less about the war and more about solving a mystery. And I thoroughly enjoyed it!
Inspector Henry Lefort has survived WWI and finds himself as a police detective in Nazi occupied Paris during WWII. As the Germans are packing up art from the Louvre, one of them is found shot. Lefort is forced to solve the crime in a matter of days or face the wrath of the Nazis.
To his dismay he is not allowed access to the crime scene and is only given a short list of suspects. But if he wants to live to next week he will have to get creative in getting to the bottom of a crime he almost wished he had done himself.
“My irritation was growing and something else was, too, a darker fear that I was being drawn into a game too dangerous for any parlor. No, not a game. A trap.”
Another thread throughout this book is his relationship with Princess Marie Bonaparte— psychoanalyst who studied under Freud and great-grand niece of the famous Napoleon (she is a real person). Lefort’s (undiagnosed) misophonia is intriguing to her and they make a deal where he agrees to talk with her in exchange for good wine and food with rationing on the horizon.
This reminded me a little of the Ian Rutledge series as he is a detective with an atypical PTSD challenge from his time in WWI.
He tells her of a mission gone wrong in WWI where he was the only survivor of his group. The story unfolds interspersed in the book. It’s important because a local journalist begins harassing Lefort about secrets he is hiding and threatens to expose.
While there was more language than I would have liked, there were a lot of good components to this story. I think this will be a fun series to continue.
Lefort is a good character. He has his cynicism and war-hardened side, but he is also kind and witty and has good intuitions. Plus his background is a bit mysterious and has potential to come back in future books.
Considering how much Lefort despises the Germans (who he refers to as cabbage crunchers, goose-steppers, and SS psychos), it will be interesting to see what other trouble Lefort gets himself into as the series continues. He has a responsibility as a police officer to do their bidding but he’ll find his own way to resist.
I thought it was interesting that Pryor decided to include Pablo Picasso in this story and thought it was clever the way he tied him in.
One of Picasso’s most famous paintings is Guernica which has become a symbol of anti-war as it depicts human suffering, especially by the innocent, during war times.
This is fitting within the context of the story.
While the story is fiction, Picasso did stay in France during WWII even though he was not allowed to show his work. He helped the French resistance in whatever ways he could. I read one article that said he was often questioned by the Gestapo and one particular time the Gestapo saw a picture of Guernica in his apartment and asked ‘Did you do that?’ To which Picasso replied, ‘No, you did.’
As an art major, I enjoy books that thread discussion of art in their books. Although, I wish I had paid more attention in my art history classes. There were several references to other artists and works that I had vague memory of but no context.
Pryor incorporated this real quote from Picasso:
“You believe art is decoration. Adornment. It is not. It is power. A weapon. Painting is an instrument of war for attack or defense.”
This is contrary to what I said in my college art show as I prefer realism and paintings that people like to look at and hang in their house. I don’t make art to express my feelings or make political statements. But at the same time, especially during a time where art was censored, I can see how art can be used as a weapon under the right circumstances. And imagery can be very powerful when words are absent.
But I tend to prefer words when making a point and making ‘meaningful’ art in the sense of ‘powerful’ sounds too exhausting to me right now.
I liked how we get to see Lefort wrestle with his hatred for the Germans and yet seeing their humanity.
“Like every Parisian, I found it easy to despise the German war machine that had steamrollered through our country and taken possession of its beautiful capital city. But a machine is made up of many parts and not all of them are destructive.”
It’s an uncomfortable thing to think about because it’s easier and feels better to just hate all the Germans/Nazis and what they represented. But so many of them were just trying to survive too. It’s likely that not all of the Nazis were killing machines. This doesn’t excuse the actions taken against the innocent, but I like that Pryor challenges us to see their humanity.
There are probably a lot of you who are tired of WWII fiction, but I would still give this one a chance! I enjoyed it and would recommend.
[Content Advisory: 23 f-words, 25 s-words, no sexual content]
**Received an ARC via NetGalley**
Shelf Reflection Book Review Blog
Book Review Blog | Facebook | Pinterest
This one is a new take on a WWII novel.
It’s less about the war and more about solving a mystery. And I thoroughly enjoyed it!
Inspector Henry Lefort has survived WWI and finds himself as a police detective in Nazi occupied Paris during WWII. As the Germans are packing up art from the Louvre, one of them is found shot. Lefort is forced to solve the crime in a matter of days or face the wrath of the Nazis.
To his dismay he is not allowed access to the crime scene and is only given a short list of suspects. But if he wants to live to next week he will have to get creative in getting to the bottom of a crime he almost wished he had done himself.
“My irritation was growing and something else was, too, a darker fear that I was being drawn into a game too dangerous for any parlor. No, not a game. A trap.”
Another thread throughout this book is his relationship with Princess Marie Bonaparte— psychoanalyst who studied under Freud and great-grand niece of the famous Napoleon (she is a real person). Lefort’s (undiagnosed) misophonia is intriguing to her and they make a deal where he agrees to talk with her in exchange for good wine and food with rationing on the horizon.
This reminded me a little of the Ian Rutledge series as he is a detective with an atypical PTSD challenge from his time in WWI.
He tells her of a mission gone wrong in WWI where he was the only survivor of his group. The story unfolds interspersed in the book. It’s important because a local journalist begins harassing Lefort about secrets he is hiding and threatens to expose.
While there was more language than I would have liked, there were a lot of good components to this story. I think this will be a fun series to continue.
Lefort is a good character. He has his cynicism and war-hardened side, but he is also kind and witty and has good intuitions. Plus his background is a bit mysterious and has potential to come back in future books.
Considering how much Lefort despises the Germans (who he refers to as cabbage crunchers, goose-steppers, and SS psychos), it will be interesting to see what other trouble Lefort gets himself into as the series continues. He has a responsibility as a police officer to do their bidding but he’ll find his own way to resist.
I thought it was interesting that Pryor decided to include Pablo Picasso in this story and thought it was clever the way he tied him in.
One of Picasso’s most famous paintings is Guernica which has become a symbol of anti-war as it depicts human suffering, especially by the innocent, during war times.
This is fitting within the context of the story.
While the story is fiction, Picasso did stay in France during WWII even though he was not allowed to show his work. He helped the French resistance in whatever ways he could. I read one article that said he was often questioned by the Gestapo and one particular time the Gestapo saw a picture of Guernica in his apartment and asked ‘Did you do that?’ To which Picasso replied, ‘No, you did.’
As an art major, I enjoy books that thread discussion of art in their books. Although, I wish I had paid more attention in my art history classes. There were several references to other artists and works that I had vague memory of but no context.
Pryor incorporated this real quote from Picasso:
“You believe art is decoration. Adornment. It is not. It is power. A weapon. Painting is an instrument of war for attack or defense.”
This is contrary to what I said in my college art show as I prefer realism and paintings that people like to look at and hang in their house. I don’t make art to express my feelings or make political statements. But at the same time, especially during a time where art was censored, I can see how art can be used as a weapon under the right circumstances. And imagery can be very powerful when words are absent.
But I tend to prefer words when making a point and making ‘meaningful’ art in the sense of ‘powerful’ sounds too exhausting to me right now.
I liked how we get to see Lefort wrestle with his hatred for the Germans and yet seeing their humanity.
“Like every Parisian, I found it easy to despise the German war machine that had steamrollered through our country and taken possession of its beautiful capital city. But a machine is made up of many parts and not all of them are destructive.”
It’s an uncomfortable thing to think about because it’s easier and feels better to just hate all the Germans/Nazis and what they represented. But so many of them were just trying to survive too. It’s likely that not all of the Nazis were killing machines. This doesn’t excuse the actions taken against the innocent, but I like that Pryor challenges us to see their humanity.
There are probably a lot of you who are tired of WWII fiction, but I would still give this one a chance! I enjoyed it and would recommend.
[Content Advisory: 23 f-words, 25 s-words, no sexual content]
**Received an ARC via NetGalley**
Shelf Reflection Book Review Blog
Book Review Blog | Facebook | Pinterest
[5 stars, not because it's my favorite book ever, because this isn't my typical genre, but because I felt like it did exactly what it set out to do and I didn't feel like it was missing anything]
“You’re a hopeless romantic and an incurable optimist. Uh, usually.”
The Rom-Com Agenda is pretty much exactly what you’d expect it to be— light, funny, no twists or turns, happy ending.
It’s the classic: Girl witnesses Guy getting dumped. Guy becomes depressed and goes on a makeover mission to get his lover back. Girl becomes involved in the makeover process. There’s a cat, a fireplace, and a long wait for Guy to realize Girl is the love of his life. A moment of uncertainty to prove himself. And Boom. Guy and Girl are in love.
I was having a hard time picturing the characters a bit. I think I’d like to see this one as a movie.
As best as my brain could do, I picture Guy (Eli) as a mix between Seth Rogen and Paul Rudd. Since Girl (Leah) has a pixie cut and I’m currently watching Once Upon a Time, I can’t help but picture her as Ginnifer Goodwin— the Snow White version.
Eli is surrounded by a group of friends that welcomes the family-less Leah into the fold while coaching Eli on his way back to his ex-lover, Victoria… yeah just saying that name and you know she’s not right for him.
Jenna (and her husband Ben who’s kinda just around)- his overbearing and controlling sister who is also a Vice Principal and I’m not sure I can wrap my mind around that one. I kind of picture her like Judy Greer.
Gray- his bisexual friend who is obsessed with working out and owns a gym. “I never joke about getting ripped and you know it.”
Gillian and Delia- “his tough-love and nurturing fairy godmothers, respectively”
Patrick- just the worst.
Fabrizio- Victoria’s new lover in Europe and is not really a prominent or side character at all, but his NAME! My friends had a plastic owl they kept by their pool and we called it Fabriziowl. So I felt compelled to share this.
This would make a good winter read because it takes place in the North Country of New York and there is snow everywhere all the time.
I think my favorite part of this book was that Leah had a million jobs and kept popping up around what Eli or his friends were doing. I immediately thought of Kirk from Gilmore Girls and was affirmed when Eli called Leah that himself. Big bonus points for me!
The main plot thread is that Eli’s friends are trying to change him so that Victoria will take him back.
“He needs to be the whole package by the time Victoria gets back. Looks. Style. Personality. Culture. Knowledge. That’s it… Eli, we’re turning you into husband material.”
How does one do that? Well besides a haircut and new clothes… by watching all the classic chick flicks, of course. He will learn from the best.
So if you like nostalgic references to all your favorite love stories, you’ll definitely enjoy this book. To be honest, I haven’t seen a lot of the movies referenced… is that bad?
“Would someone mind telling me what I’m supposed to be learning from this dude in tight pants on a dance floor?”
I enjoyed this book. It’s a fast read. It’s got pretty good dialogue and banter. It was just what I was expecting and fits the bill of rom-com.
When you read a rom-com, you’re not looking for everything to be realistic or deep and profound. You just want to be entertained and to relive the excitement of new love.
My three critiques are:
- There were two overused words/phrases that annoyed me— ‘Honey’ (every character says this multiple times; there are 30 uses; maybe I’m just not a fan of terms of endearment?) and ‘did, in fact…’ it’s a good phrase if used sparingly, but sticks out like a sore thumb when used too much.
- It got a little dumb how Eli was supposedly still in love with Victoria but would do or say things to Leah that ‘just friends’ definitely don’t do. It made it harder to believe that he was oblivious to his connection to Leah at first or to believe that he cared about Victoria at all. It was like he was trying hard NOT to like Leah, which doesn’t make much sense.
- Patrick is the literal worst. And I can’t fathom why Leah would ever feel like she needed to help fix Cathy’s house. Why would Cathy care what happens to her house, she’s dead. Cleaning and repairing are terrible jobs and if Patrick is a tool, just let him repair everything. I was annoyed by Leah’s compulsion to help. Maybe because I have a very different personality than her but I would never have felt like I owed that. And her friends should have convinced her of that instead of offering to help out stupid Patrick.
In summation, I would recommend this book if you enjoy rom-coms. If you think rom-coms are stupid, you probably won’t like this book.
[Content Advisory: 1 f-word, 18 s-words, one sex scene and sex implied toward the end once the characters get together but it’s not graphic]
**Received an ARC via NetGalley**
Shelf Reflection Book Review Blog
Book Review Blog | Facebook | Pinterest
“You’re a hopeless romantic and an incurable optimist. Uh, usually.”
The Rom-Com Agenda is pretty much exactly what you’d expect it to be— light, funny, no twists or turns, happy ending.
It’s the classic: Girl witnesses Guy getting dumped. Guy becomes depressed and goes on a makeover mission to get his lover back. Girl becomes involved in the makeover process. There’s a cat, a fireplace, and a long wait for Guy to realize Girl is the love of his life. A moment of uncertainty to prove himself. And Boom. Guy and Girl are in love.
I was having a hard time picturing the characters a bit. I think I’d like to see this one as a movie.
As best as my brain could do, I picture Guy (Eli) as a mix between Seth Rogen and Paul Rudd. Since Girl (Leah) has a pixie cut and I’m currently watching Once Upon a Time, I can’t help but picture her as Ginnifer Goodwin— the Snow White version.
Eli is surrounded by a group of friends that welcomes the family-less Leah into the fold while coaching Eli on his way back to his ex-lover, Victoria… yeah just saying that name and you know she’s not right for him.
Jenna (and her husband Ben who’s kinda just around)- his overbearing and controlling sister who is also a Vice Principal and I’m not sure I can wrap my mind around that one. I kind of picture her like Judy Greer.
Gray- his bisexual friend who is obsessed with working out and owns a gym. “I never joke about getting ripped and you know it.”
Gillian and Delia- “his tough-love and nurturing fairy godmothers, respectively”
Patrick- just the worst.
Fabrizio- Victoria’s new lover in Europe and is not really a prominent or side character at all, but his NAME! My friends had a plastic owl they kept by their pool and we called it Fabriziowl. So I felt compelled to share this.
This would make a good winter read because it takes place in the North Country of New York and there is snow everywhere all the time.
I think my favorite part of this book was that Leah had a million jobs and kept popping up around what Eli or his friends were doing. I immediately thought of Kirk from Gilmore Girls and was affirmed when Eli called Leah that himself. Big bonus points for me!
The main plot thread is that Eli’s friends are trying to change him so that Victoria will take him back.
“He needs to be the whole package by the time Victoria gets back. Looks. Style. Personality. Culture. Knowledge. That’s it… Eli, we’re turning you into husband material.”
How does one do that? Well besides a haircut and new clothes… by watching all the classic chick flicks, of course. He will learn from the best.
So if you like nostalgic references to all your favorite love stories, you’ll definitely enjoy this book. To be honest, I haven’t seen a lot of the movies referenced… is that bad?
“Would someone mind telling me what I’m supposed to be learning from this dude in tight pants on a dance floor?”
I enjoyed this book. It’s a fast read. It’s got pretty good dialogue and banter. It was just what I was expecting and fits the bill of rom-com.
When you read a rom-com, you’re not looking for everything to be realistic or deep and profound. You just want to be entertained and to relive the excitement of new love.
My three critiques are:
- There were two overused words/phrases that annoyed me— ‘Honey’ (every character says this multiple times; there are 30 uses; maybe I’m just not a fan of terms of endearment?) and ‘did, in fact…’ it’s a good phrase if used sparingly, but sticks out like a sore thumb when used too much.
- It got a little dumb how Eli was supposedly still in love with Victoria but would do or say things to Leah that ‘just friends’ definitely don’t do. It made it harder to believe that he was oblivious to his connection to Leah at first or to believe that he cared about Victoria at all. It was like he was trying hard NOT to like Leah, which doesn’t make much sense.
- Patrick is the literal worst. And I can’t fathom why Leah would ever feel like she needed to help fix Cathy’s house. Why would Cathy care what happens to her house, she’s dead. Cleaning and repairing are terrible jobs and if Patrick is a tool, just let him repair everything. I was annoyed by Leah’s compulsion to help. Maybe because I have a very different personality than her but I would never have felt like I owed that. And her friends should have convinced her of that instead of offering to help out stupid Patrick.
In summation, I would recommend this book if you enjoy rom-coms. If you think rom-coms are stupid, you probably won’t like this book.
[Content Advisory: 1 f-word, 18 s-words, one sex scene and sex implied toward the end once the characters get together but it’s not graphic]
**Received an ARC via NetGalley**
Shelf Reflection Book Review Blog
Book Review Blog | Facebook | Pinterest
“If you know what is good for you, you will stop. You will leave this place. And never look back.”
I recently read Foley’s book The Guest List which was my first of her books.
It wasn’t my favorite and I debated about reading another one of hers, but I decided to give it one more shot since I’d seen so many people recommending The Paris Apartment.
I can’t say it was much better than The Guest List.
It had the same abundance of swearing, crassness, alcohol (wine though because Paris), smoking (because also Paris?), and sex.
It had the same problem of unlikable characters.
It had somewhat the same script: A (potential) crime was committed and an outsider is figuring out what happened and there are several characters with secrets, motives, and opportunities to do said crime.
Here is The Paris Apartment’s cast of characters:
- Ben (Third Floor)- the investigative journalist who goes missing from his apartment (in Paris if you didn’t catch on to that yet)
- Jess (Ben’s visiting/reckless half-sister who is trying to find Ben)- “Jess is like a homing beacon for trouble: it seems to follow her around.”
- Sophie (Penthouse)- “There are things I’ve had to do to get to where I am. Sacrifices I have had to make. People I have had to climb over.”
- Mimi (Fourth Floor)- “Everything that has happened here happened because of him.”
- Nick (Ben’s friend who got him the apartment/Second Floor)- “I haven’t actually lied to her. Not outright. I just haven’t told her the whole truth.”
- Antoine (First Floor)- He doesn’t get his own chapters because he’s pretty much just drunk all the time.
- The Concierge (aka the Gatekeeper to the building)- “There are things here that I have to protect. Things that mean I can never leave this job.”
“She thinks that she’s staying in a normal apartment building. A place that follows ordinary rules. She has no idea what she has got herself into here.”
What made this book slightly better than The Guest List was that it had more action. There was movement. There was more than one day and one location.
And we could solve the mystery ourselves. The Guest List starts with a murder but you don’t know who, so how can you really solve it? But in this book we know that Ben is the one missing. So we can look at characters through their relationships to him to figure out what happened to him and for what reasons.
I actually liked the plot concept and found it suspenseful. I didn’t have it all completely figured out and a couple reveals I wasn’t expecting.
But all the other content just overshadows it too much for me. And I didn’t like Ben so it’s always a bummer when the ‘victim’ is not someone you care about finding.
I tried, Lucy Foley, but I won’t read any more of your books until they creep down into the PG-13 tier of books. The rest is just not necessary.
I would like to share my favorite part of the book.
It’s when Jess finds out that Ben’s friend Nick’s last name is Miller. Nick Miller. And her name is Jess. And they’re sharing an apartment building. And I knew right then and there that this was all just a classic Winston prank gone too far.
In conclusion, this book was not for me. I know it’s super popular but, again, as with The Guest List, I think other people’s threshold for swearing and sex is a great deal higher than mine. If that describes you, then you may like this book, but otherwise I would find a different author.
Bonus new British term: voicenote (voicemail)
Bonus new English term: Apparently there is ‘discreet’ and ‘discrete’. I thought it was a misspelling at first because I had only known of the first word (meaning careful/guarded). The latter term means distinct/separate.
[Content Advisory: many many f-words, s-words, c-words, etc; sexual content; multiple LGBTQ characters]
Shelf Reflection Book Review Blog
Book Review Blog | Facebook | Pinterest
I recently read Foley’s book The Guest List which was my first of her books.
It wasn’t my favorite and I debated about reading another one of hers, but I decided to give it one more shot since I’d seen so many people recommending The Paris Apartment.
I can’t say it was much better than The Guest List.
It had the same abundance of swearing, crassness, alcohol (wine though because Paris), smoking (because also Paris?), and sex.
It had the same problem of unlikable characters.
It had somewhat the same script: A (potential) crime was committed and an outsider is figuring out what happened and there are several characters with secrets, motives, and opportunities to do said crime.
Here is The Paris Apartment’s cast of characters:
- Ben (Third Floor)- the investigative journalist who goes missing from his apartment (in Paris if you didn’t catch on to that yet)
- Jess (Ben’s visiting/reckless half-sister who is trying to find Ben)- “Jess is like a homing beacon for trouble: it seems to follow her around.”
- Sophie (Penthouse)- “There are things I’ve had to do to get to where I am. Sacrifices I have had to make. People I have had to climb over.”
- Mimi (Fourth Floor)- “Everything that has happened here happened because of him.”
- Nick (Ben’s friend who got him the apartment/Second Floor)- “I haven’t actually lied to her. Not outright. I just haven’t told her the whole truth.”
- Antoine (First Floor)- He doesn’t get his own chapters because he’s pretty much just drunk all the time.
- The Concierge (aka the Gatekeeper to the building)- “There are things here that I have to protect. Things that mean I can never leave this job.”
“She thinks that she’s staying in a normal apartment building. A place that follows ordinary rules. She has no idea what she has got herself into here.”
What made this book slightly better than The Guest List was that it had more action. There was movement. There was more than one day and one location.
And we could solve the mystery ourselves. The Guest List starts with a murder but you don’t know who, so how can you really solve it? But in this book we know that Ben is the one missing. So we can look at characters through their relationships to him to figure out what happened to him and for what reasons.
I actually liked the plot concept and found it suspenseful. I didn’t have it all completely figured out and a couple reveals I wasn’t expecting.
But all the other content just overshadows it too much for me. And I didn’t like Ben so it’s always a bummer when the ‘victim’ is not someone you care about finding.
I tried, Lucy Foley, but I won’t read any more of your books until they creep down into the PG-13 tier of books. The rest is just not necessary.
I would like to share my favorite part of the book.
It’s when Jess finds out that Ben’s friend Nick’s last name is Miller. Nick Miller. And her name is Jess. And they’re sharing an apartment building. And I knew right then and there that this was all just a classic Winston prank gone too far.
In conclusion, this book was not for me. I know it’s super popular but, again, as with The Guest List, I think other people’s threshold for swearing and sex is a great deal higher than mine. If that describes you, then you may like this book, but otherwise I would find a different author.
Bonus new British term: voicenote (voicemail)
Bonus new English term: Apparently there is ‘discreet’ and ‘discrete’. I thought it was a misspelling at first because I had only known of the first word (meaning careful/guarded). The latter term means distinct/separate.
[Content Advisory: many many f-words, s-words, c-words, etc; sexual content; multiple LGBTQ characters]
Shelf Reflection Book Review Blog
Book Review Blog | Facebook | Pinterest
I don’t think I did enough research before I put this book on my list of most anticipated books. I just saw the title and the cover and thought- yes. this is for me.
Turns out it wasn’t.
I always wanted one of those phones and this book was nominated for Best Humor so I thought it was going to be a nostalgic joy to read. Nope. He didn’t even talk about the phone so that’s a pretty big first strike!!!
I call myself a 90s kid but being born in 1990 puts you in a different category— I’m not Generation X. I was largely unaware of most of what happened in the 90s.
And Klosterman highlights every bit of those happenings in this book with what felt like a pretentious, hard to grasp, disjointed writing voice. It had an overall vibe of over-analysis, pondering random things and dissecting them into oblivion.
It just wasn’t a pleasant read. I did learn some interesting things I’ll share with you, but it’s not a book I would recommend to the majority of people.
Plus I can’t think of a worse ending to a book. The very last sentence of the book (which is about 9/11) reads: “The flights were hijacked, the planes crashed into buildings, 2,977 people died, and the nineties collapsed with the skyscrapers." Boom. It’s over. What a way to leave your audience. But at the same time, it kinda does sum up the vibe of the entire book so there’s that.
The Writing
I have never read nor heard of Klosterman before this book. Perhaps if I had any inclination of his prior writings I would have avoided this from the beginning. But my nostalgia made me a bit trigger happy.
Those familiar with his writing are probably used to his vocabulary and the way he writes.
I suppose what people ‘in the know’ thought was funny was over my head or came across to me like cynicism and an ‘I’m above it all’ attitude. I didn’t know what I was supposed to be getting out of it with each chapter.
I’m not sure what his main point of this book was really. It was a mash-up of 90s references, ponderings, and theories on things from politics, to sports, to music, TV, and movies, to technology and science.
He hits on: Nirvana, Reality Bites, 2 Live Crew, the UNABomber, Zima, Pulp Fiction and Resevoir Dogs (which I’m now glad I never saw), Napster, the CD-ROM (which I used to play Zoombinis and my American Girl program), Michael Jordan, commercialism vs capitalism, Friends and Seinfeld, the Titanic and Leonardo DiCaprio’s popularity, McVeigh and the OKC bombings, the Columbine shooting, the OJ trial, Bill Clinton, Mike Tyson’s ear rampage, Y2K, and some more stuff.
It felt monotonous and it’s not a book you can skim. If you try to skim it you might as well not read it at all because you won’t grasp a single idea.
Here’s a few sentences from the book that somewhat captures his writing style:
“There was an athletic incomprehensibility to his sentences— a hyperintellectual unorthodoxy that was both undeniable and distancing.”
“There was a misguided notion that the populist esoterica of the seventies that had come to signify kitschy subversion had always been seen and experienced in the same way they were now being recalled in retrospect.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but this isn’t a book for the masses.
I mean I think I know what all the words mean individually, but to grasp the sentence takes way more brainpower than it should for a humorous book about the 90s.
I critiqued Nick Offerman’s book, Where the Deer and the Antelope Play, for being pretentious and using big words just for the sake of big words, but at least with his book I generally knew what he was saying. Klosterman is on another level.
Am I just dumb? Is this book just for Ivy Leaguers who like to over-analyze everything to the point where nothing is fun anymore?
Of the show Friends he says, “the ‘Friends’ feel that other shows desperately tried to copy was the ability to immerse itself in emerging generational dilemmas, performed by characters who did not readily identify as members of that generation.”
Huh? Is that what they were doing? This is what I get annoyed about when it comes to art in these forms (and I’m an art major…) what is the point of this? I hate how much overanalysis there is to everything that’s supposed to be entertainment. Is it effective if no one but Klosterman and his posse understand what you’re doing? People just like the show!
It’s why I tend to avoid the movies that win Oscars because they’re usually way too existential and I feel like people just try to convince themselves that they loved it so that they seem cultured and smart but really they just want to watch Dumb and Dumber again.
I mean, sure, sometimes it’s fun to ponder the ‘why’ behind certain things, but I think Klosterman pushes the envelope in a few too many places in this book.
It almost felt like the subtitle for this book should have been: “Everything that’s wrong with the nineties.” And if I’m way off that’s Klosterman’s fault.
I wanted to read happy and funny nostalgic stories and facts and memories that would make me smile and say- Oh yeah! With some interesting trivia and facts I can tell all my friends. Not rants and dissertations that make me squint and say- What??
What Resonated
Although much of the references did nothing for me, there were a few things that made me smile.
For example, he begins a chapter with a very detailed description of the sound dial-up internet made. And I could hear every tone. I didn’t have to be an adult in the 90s to grasp that concept!
But also he commented on how ‘You’ve Got Mail’ is grammatically incorrect and I had to sit on that for awhile.
He described the general vibe of the 90s being obsessed with the concept of ‘selling out.’
“The degree to which that notion altered the meaning and perception of almost everything— is the single most nineties aspect of the nineties.”
I don’t know about that… but I did watch Brink! and learned all about the dangers of selling out versus soul skating. So in one sense, I know exactly what he’s talking about.
He talked about how everyone always answered the phone because you never knew who it would be and it would keep ringing until you did. There was not a lot of privacy in those days. And maybe that’s actually better. But then there was *69 and we kids had a fun new game to play when we weren’t playing Super Nintendo or riding our bikes to the pool by ourselves.
It was also interesting how he highlighted the control phones had on people in a different way than today. Then, if you were going to get a call, you had to literally wait by the phone. You couldn’t change plans easily after you’ve left your house. And you didn’t get a new model every other year because your phone didn’t really matter that much.
Today we’re controlled by our phones because they matter significantly. When thinking back then about the potential effects of Y2K they weren’t that drastic, but if the same thing were to happen today, it would feel like a lot bigger deal because of how dependent we are on our technology.
What I Learned
There was a lady who recorded over 40,000 VHS taps of news broadcasts between 1979-2012. This blows my mind. He talks about how “It was a decade of seeing absolutely everything before never seeing it again.”
We couldn’t fast-forward commercials. We had to catch our shows on the time it aired— “Hurry, it’s about to start!”… and racing to the bathroom on commercial breaks. And Friday nights were always for the Disney Channel Original Movies (which he failed to analyze… missed opportunity Chuckster!)
Everything was not saved on the internet.
There was no easy way to verify information, unless you could look it up in the Britannica Encyclopedia collection— which I definitely had and can still remember the smell of.
Because there was no frequent fact-checking, there was a lot of misremembered information that lived years with people. The Mandela Effect. I had never heard of this before. It’s called this because people were convinced Nelson Mandela had died before he actually had.
Speaking of VHS tapes. Apparently those bad boys typically cost $70-90 when they were new, first copies of popular movies! When Top Gun came out, it was “the lowest introductory price for major releases at $26.95.”
There’s a guy named Allan Lichtman who has a 13 point system that he has used to correctly predict every election since 1984. I’m not sure what to think about that. But it’s pretty interesting.
I learned about the ‘93 Superstorm! I was only 3 and living in the Midwest so I don’t think it affected my life much but that thing was craaaazy!
Garth Brooks’ real name is Troyal.
Star Wars fans really hate The Phantom Menace.
Ice-T wrote a song called ‘Cop Killer’ but then plays cops as an actor so that’s confusing.
The Matrix was originally written as an “elaborate transgender allegory.”
Fantasy Football existed before the internet. And I can’t really wrap my brain around who in their right mind would want to keep track of all of those stats and all of the points manually for an entire league. I think I need to hear some personal stories about this one.
Both Craigslist and Amazon were online by 1995. At this point “Only 14% of American adults had ever been online.” Can you remember the very first time you entered the internet?! I kind of wish I could experience that feeling because as a kid I never understood the gravity of what was happening.
Google was originally called Backrub. That weirds me out. It was renamed after the word ‘googol’ was misspelled. And I think that’s for the better. But personally I kinda wish Ask Jeeves had become a bigger search engine. It felt like I was really getting the best results when I was asking a real live person.
In 1987 the philosopher Allan Bloom published a book called ‘The Closing of the American Mind’ “claiming that the modern university system had prioritized relativism over critical thinking, inadvertently leading to nihilism.”
I find this particularly intriguing because a couple years ago I read the (fantastic) book ‘The Coddling of the American Mind’ which has a very similar thesis! I’m guessing it must have been a play on words and an extension of Bloom’s thoughts.
A Few Interesting Quotes
“Whenever a new demographic comes into prominence, there’s a temptation to insist its inhabitants care less about money and material wealth. But this is mostly because any new demographic will always be composed of young people, and young people always care less about acquiring money.”
“Within any generation, there are always two distinct classes: a handful who accept and embody the assigned caricature, and many more others who are caricatures against their will, simply because they happened to be born in a particular year. It was no different for Generation X. The only dissimilarity is that it bothered them less.”
“While it was easy to be crazy in the early nineties, it was difficult for like-minded crazy people to organize… Before social media, there was no way to gauge the size of the conspiracy population.”
“When staring into the shallow mirror of time, there’s an intellectual inclination to de-emphasize the significance of everything super-popular and prioritize off-kilter artifacts that emerged from the counterculture.”
“The process of revisionism is constant. It happens so regularly that it often seems like the only reason to appraise any present tense cultural artifact is to help future critics explain why the original appraisers were wrong.”
Conclusion
I am struggling to think of a reason why you would want to read this book. I think your time would be better spent watching old Disney Channel originals, Seinfeld, Friends, or Home Improvement.
I don’t doubt that Chuck Klosterman is an intelligent fellow, he just doesn’t write like I would want to be his friend or discuss nostalgic things with him.
His research process for this book had to have been insane, and I appreciate the time and effort he put into creating this, but he probably should have written more simply and clearly if he wanted to be understood and ‘amen’d’ by the average person.
Come to think of it. What should have happened was a collaboration between Klosterman and Andy Samberg. I’d read that book.
Shelf Reflection Book Review Blog
Book Review Blog | Facebook | Pinterest
Turns out it wasn’t.
I always wanted one of those phones and this book was nominated for Best Humor so I thought it was going to be a nostalgic joy to read. Nope. He didn’t even talk about the phone so that’s a pretty big first strike!!!
I call myself a 90s kid but being born in 1990 puts you in a different category— I’m not Generation X. I was largely unaware of most of what happened in the 90s.
And Klosterman highlights every bit of those happenings in this book with what felt like a pretentious, hard to grasp, disjointed writing voice. It had an overall vibe of over-analysis, pondering random things and dissecting them into oblivion.
It just wasn’t a pleasant read. I did learn some interesting things I’ll share with you, but it’s not a book I would recommend to the majority of people.
Plus I can’t think of a worse ending to a book. The very last sentence of the book (which is about 9/11) reads: “The flights were hijacked, the planes crashed into buildings, 2,977 people died, and the nineties collapsed with the skyscrapers." Boom. It’s over. What a way to leave your audience. But at the same time, it kinda does sum up the vibe of the entire book so there’s that.
The Writing
I have never read nor heard of Klosterman before this book. Perhaps if I had any inclination of his prior writings I would have avoided this from the beginning. But my nostalgia made me a bit trigger happy.
Those familiar with his writing are probably used to his vocabulary and the way he writes.
I suppose what people ‘in the know’ thought was funny was over my head or came across to me like cynicism and an ‘I’m above it all’ attitude. I didn’t know what I was supposed to be getting out of it with each chapter.
I’m not sure what his main point of this book was really. It was a mash-up of 90s references, ponderings, and theories on things from politics, to sports, to music, TV, and movies, to technology and science.
He hits on: Nirvana, Reality Bites, 2 Live Crew, the UNABomber, Zima, Pulp Fiction and Resevoir Dogs (which I’m now glad I never saw), Napster, the CD-ROM (which I used to play Zoombinis and my American Girl program), Michael Jordan, commercialism vs capitalism, Friends and Seinfeld, the Titanic and Leonardo DiCaprio’s popularity, McVeigh and the OKC bombings, the Columbine shooting, the OJ trial, Bill Clinton, Mike Tyson’s ear rampage, Y2K, and some more stuff.
It felt monotonous and it’s not a book you can skim. If you try to skim it you might as well not read it at all because you won’t grasp a single idea.
Here’s a few sentences from the book that somewhat captures his writing style:
“There was an athletic incomprehensibility to his sentences— a hyperintellectual unorthodoxy that was both undeniable and distancing.”
“There was a misguided notion that the populist esoterica of the seventies that had come to signify kitschy subversion had always been seen and experienced in the same way they were now being recalled in retrospect.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but this isn’t a book for the masses.
I mean I think I know what all the words mean individually, but to grasp the sentence takes way more brainpower than it should for a humorous book about the 90s.
I critiqued Nick Offerman’s book, Where the Deer and the Antelope Play, for being pretentious and using big words just for the sake of big words, but at least with his book I generally knew what he was saying. Klosterman is on another level.
Am I just dumb? Is this book just for Ivy Leaguers who like to over-analyze everything to the point where nothing is fun anymore?
Of the show Friends he says, “the ‘Friends’ feel that other shows desperately tried to copy was the ability to immerse itself in emerging generational dilemmas, performed by characters who did not readily identify as members of that generation.”
Huh? Is that what they were doing? This is what I get annoyed about when it comes to art in these forms (and I’m an art major…) what is the point of this? I hate how much overanalysis there is to everything that’s supposed to be entertainment. Is it effective if no one but Klosterman and his posse understand what you’re doing? People just like the show!
It’s why I tend to avoid the movies that win Oscars because they’re usually way too existential and I feel like people just try to convince themselves that they loved it so that they seem cultured and smart but really they just want to watch Dumb and Dumber again.
I mean, sure, sometimes it’s fun to ponder the ‘why’ behind certain things, but I think Klosterman pushes the envelope in a few too many places in this book.
It almost felt like the subtitle for this book should have been: “Everything that’s wrong with the nineties.” And if I’m way off that’s Klosterman’s fault.
I wanted to read happy and funny nostalgic stories and facts and memories that would make me smile and say- Oh yeah! With some interesting trivia and facts I can tell all my friends. Not rants and dissertations that make me squint and say- What??
What Resonated
Although much of the references did nothing for me, there were a few things that made me smile.
For example, he begins a chapter with a very detailed description of the sound dial-up internet made. And I could hear every tone. I didn’t have to be an adult in the 90s to grasp that concept!
But also he commented on how ‘You’ve Got Mail’ is grammatically incorrect and I had to sit on that for awhile.
He described the general vibe of the 90s being obsessed with the concept of ‘selling out.’
“The degree to which that notion altered the meaning and perception of almost everything— is the single most nineties aspect of the nineties.”
I don’t know about that… but I did watch Brink! and learned all about the dangers of selling out versus soul skating. So in one sense, I know exactly what he’s talking about.
He talked about how everyone always answered the phone because you never knew who it would be and it would keep ringing until you did. There was not a lot of privacy in those days. And maybe that’s actually better. But then there was *69 and we kids had a fun new game to play when we weren’t playing Super Nintendo or riding our bikes to the pool by ourselves.
It was also interesting how he highlighted the control phones had on people in a different way than today. Then, if you were going to get a call, you had to literally wait by the phone. You couldn’t change plans easily after you’ve left your house. And you didn’t get a new model every other year because your phone didn’t really matter that much.
Today we’re controlled by our phones because they matter significantly. When thinking back then about the potential effects of Y2K they weren’t that drastic, but if the same thing were to happen today, it would feel like a lot bigger deal because of how dependent we are on our technology.
What I Learned
There was a lady who recorded over 40,000 VHS taps of news broadcasts between 1979-2012. This blows my mind. He talks about how “It was a decade of seeing absolutely everything before never seeing it again.”
We couldn’t fast-forward commercials. We had to catch our shows on the time it aired— “Hurry, it’s about to start!”… and racing to the bathroom on commercial breaks. And Friday nights were always for the Disney Channel Original Movies (which he failed to analyze… missed opportunity Chuckster!)
Everything was not saved on the internet.
There was no easy way to verify information, unless you could look it up in the Britannica Encyclopedia collection— which I definitely had and can still remember the smell of.
Because there was no frequent fact-checking, there was a lot of misremembered information that lived years with people. The Mandela Effect. I had never heard of this before. It’s called this because people were convinced Nelson Mandela had died before he actually had.
Speaking of VHS tapes. Apparently those bad boys typically cost $70-90 when they were new, first copies of popular movies! When Top Gun came out, it was “the lowest introductory price for major releases at $26.95.”
There’s a guy named Allan Lichtman who has a 13 point system that he has used to correctly predict every election since 1984. I’m not sure what to think about that. But it’s pretty interesting.
I learned about the ‘93 Superstorm! I was only 3 and living in the Midwest so I don’t think it affected my life much but that thing was craaaazy!
Garth Brooks’ real name is Troyal.
Star Wars fans really hate The Phantom Menace.
Ice-T wrote a song called ‘Cop Killer’ but then plays cops as an actor so that’s confusing.
The Matrix was originally written as an “elaborate transgender allegory.”
Fantasy Football existed before the internet. And I can’t really wrap my brain around who in their right mind would want to keep track of all of those stats and all of the points manually for an entire league. I think I need to hear some personal stories about this one.
Both Craigslist and Amazon were online by 1995. At this point “Only 14% of American adults had ever been online.” Can you remember the very first time you entered the internet?! I kind of wish I could experience that feeling because as a kid I never understood the gravity of what was happening.
Google was originally called Backrub. That weirds me out. It was renamed after the word ‘googol’ was misspelled. And I think that’s for the better. But personally I kinda wish Ask Jeeves had become a bigger search engine. It felt like I was really getting the best results when I was asking a real live person.
In 1987 the philosopher Allan Bloom published a book called ‘The Closing of the American Mind’ “claiming that the modern university system had prioritized relativism over critical thinking, inadvertently leading to nihilism.”
I find this particularly intriguing because a couple years ago I read the (fantastic) book ‘The Coddling of the American Mind’ which has a very similar thesis! I’m guessing it must have been a play on words and an extension of Bloom’s thoughts.
A Few Interesting Quotes
“Whenever a new demographic comes into prominence, there’s a temptation to insist its inhabitants care less about money and material wealth. But this is mostly because any new demographic will always be composed of young people, and young people always care less about acquiring money.”
“Within any generation, there are always two distinct classes: a handful who accept and embody the assigned caricature, and many more others who are caricatures against their will, simply because they happened to be born in a particular year. It was no different for Generation X. The only dissimilarity is that it bothered them less.”
“While it was easy to be crazy in the early nineties, it was difficult for like-minded crazy people to organize… Before social media, there was no way to gauge the size of the conspiracy population.”
“When staring into the shallow mirror of time, there’s an intellectual inclination to de-emphasize the significance of everything super-popular and prioritize off-kilter artifacts that emerged from the counterculture.”
“The process of revisionism is constant. It happens so regularly that it often seems like the only reason to appraise any present tense cultural artifact is to help future critics explain why the original appraisers were wrong.”
Conclusion
I am struggling to think of a reason why you would want to read this book. I think your time would be better spent watching old Disney Channel originals, Seinfeld, Friends, or Home Improvement.
I don’t doubt that Chuck Klosterman is an intelligent fellow, he just doesn’t write like I would want to be his friend or discuss nostalgic things with him.
His research process for this book had to have been insane, and I appreciate the time and effort he put into creating this, but he probably should have written more simply and clearly if he wanted to be understood and ‘amen’d’ by the average person.
Come to think of it. What should have happened was a collaboration between Klosterman and Andy Samberg. I’d read that book.
Shelf Reflection Book Review Blog
Book Review Blog | Facebook | Pinterest