Either this book is not really written very well, or I'm overwhelmed with the Medical Neuroscience class that I'm taking online and not really readingEither this book is not really written very well, or I'm overwhelmed with the Medical Neuroscience class that I'm taking online and not really reading well. I do think it is the writer, though. He manages to use "howevers," "althoughs" and "in spite offs," etc. and then change the idea half-way through so you don't get a however, you get left hanging wondering how the rest of the sentence relates to the "however." There is interesting information in here - Stevens HATED secret societies like the Masons and actually formed a politica party called the Anti-Mason Party. It was actually a viable party in his home state of Pennsylvania for a while. The author several times theorizes that this was because Stevens had a club foot (which I didn't know)and the Mason don't allow "different" people like that into their organization. He also beats to death the idea that Stevens was the representative of the common people, the downtrodden, the poor, etc. Enough already! I get the idea!!
So if you don't mind slopping through a bad writer, this book does have interesting information about Stevens.
Merged review:
Either this book is not really written very well, or I'm overwhelmed with the Medical Neuroscience class that I'm taking online and not really reading well. I do think it is the writer, though. He manages to use "howevers," "althoughs" and "in spite offs," etc. and then change the idea half-way through so you don't get a however, you get left hanging wondering how the rest of the sentence relates to the "however." There is interesting information in here - Stevens HATED secret societies like the Masons and actually formed a politica party called the Anti-Mason Party. It was actually a viable party in his home state of Pennsylvania for a while. The author several times theorizes that this was because Stevens had a club foot (which I didn't know)and the Mason don't allow "different" people like that into their organization. He also beats to death the idea that Stevens was the representative of the common people, the downtrodden, the poor, etc. Enough already! I get the idea!!
So if you don't mind slopping through a bad writer, this book does have interesting information about Stevens....more
In spite of the author's assurance that this book is for the common reader, it's not. You really should know a little biology, a little physiology, a In spite of the author's assurance that this book is for the common reader, it's not. You really should know a little biology, a little physiology, a little neuroscience to follow along. However, the book is not without its charms.
Lane has broken life down into "inventions" - I forget why he calls them that - which are basically organizational steps life has gone through that made a vital difference. Things like eyes, movement, photosynthesis and on. He devotes a chapter to each of these "inventions."
The problem is, I had trouble finding one specific thing that tied the invention to its place in evolution. I mean, rather than saying, "the eye made it possible for animals to see prey and predators" or something like that, he goes into how the eye developed. This approach is fine, however, I wanted it tied a little more closely to its role in evolution. And yes, there is actually a sea creature which has basically a retina and nothing else that it uses as an eye.
That type of "side track" was the interesting part for me. I couldn't always follow the arguments or see that Lane brought them back to his original idea. But little bits and pieces stuck with me. For instance, I shall always carry with me the knowledge that the sea squirt starts as a larva with eyes and a brain. When it attaches itself to its life-time rock, however, it loses both of these and bascially becomes an eating machine. Lane didn't go into why this was a good adaptation, but it sure is a neat trivia item.
I don't know if I would say it was worth reading for most people. While it's not bad, the writing and the logic are a bit convoluted to me. I had trouble following the arguments. So try it if you like, if only to find your own "sea squirt" story....more
While the reason for writing this book, according to the author, was that there is no good biography of Heydrich, I found that less of a reason than tWhile the reason for writing this book, according to the author, was that there is no good biography of Heydrich, I found that less of a reason than the argument for a fantastic overview of inside action on the political side of the Third Reich.
Probably everyone knows that Heydrich rose through the ranks quickly and became the leader of the Gestapo. He was a protoge of Himmler with whom he was friends as well as colleagues. He is also known for his ruthless attack on the Czech underground and his assassination.
What is probably lesser known (unless you've made a study of Heydrich) is that he was not a Nazi when he was employed by the Nazi party as an assistant (one of many) to Heinrich Himmler. In fact, Heydrich was a-political before he met and fell in love with Lina von Osten. Her family was hard core Nazi supporters and through Lina's mother, Heydrich got the contact to Himmler's staff.
Interestingly enough, Heydrich was raised in a musical family. His mother taught and played piano; his father was an opera singer, a composer, a pianist and the owner of an extremely successful music school. Heydrich himself played violin for his entire life, often having other Nazi officials who played strings to his house for informal concerts. He was also no student. His life in school centered more around sports, as it continued to do when he got a few moments from his Party duties.
Heyrich rose to the top of Nazi power due to his ideology and his talent for organizing. When he was brought on-staff with Himmler, the Party was trying to create a spy organization, both internal and external. Heydrich, in spite of having no experience whatsoever, was put in charge and the rest is history. (He based his ideas of what this organization should be on his readings of spy novels in his youth - yes, really) While he was working with this project, he began to see others that he felt he should do; in fact he felt that all the political aspects of controlling populations belonged to him. That meant he felt his SA should follow the Army wherever it went and perform "liquidations" immediately behind them. Army brass didn't agree and this was a point of contention for the rest of Heydrich's career. He made up lists of those who were to be rounded up and shot as soon as the Nazi Army had taken over an area. He was wild about shooting. Anyone who was vaguely connected to someone on the list was shot. Jews were shot. Gypsies were shot.
Rather than go into detail on the rest of Heydrich's life, I urge you to read this book. It's not the smoothest prose, but it's not academic either. The most fascinating parts to me were the intrigues going on inside the Party dividing up responsibilities. It was like a bunch of children trying to organize themselves.
I also enjoyed watching the development of the "Final Solution" if you can call it enjoyment. Jews, Gypsies, political protesters and other "non-Germans" were shipped off to the furthest third of Poland to be held until the Soviet Union was conquered and they could be moved to empty land there. The overall reason was not just that they were Jews, Gypsies, or whatever. It was more important that they were NOT-Germans. We see the squabbles going on in the Party about how to identify locals who could be "Germanized" because of their looks, political leanings, etc. An entire group of doctors was trained to travel the occupied countries looking for those who could be "Germanized." So it was important to get those who could not be out of the way - i.e., off to the East. Of course Jews were being given "special treatment." But the original idea was not to exterminate all the Jews. It was obvious they couldn't be Germanized, but the ultimate solution was not obvious right away.
The book is important not only for watching Heydrich's development from a non-political man into one of the main ideologues of the Nazi Party. It's also important for observing the "little" things: petty squabbles, back stabbing, overt races to win favor and power. I think I found all of that more fascinating than Heydrich himself....more
Although the idea of psychopathy is no longer new, the Case of Mary Bell is still interesting.
Mary, 11, and her next-door neighbor Norma, 13, were accAlthough the idea of psychopathy is no longer new, the Case of Mary Bell is still interesting.
Mary, 11, and her next-door neighbor Norma, 13, were accused of killing two young boys, 4 and 3, in their neighborhood. Eventually Mary was found guilty of manslaughter in both cases and Norma found not guilty.
The fact that an 11-year-old could commit murder was shocking to Britain at the time, but in spite of the sensationalism of the British press, the case wasn't covered. Sereny does some speculation of why that was.
Part of it was Mary's behavior. She had no affect, a vocabulary and some understanding way beyond her years and an extremely manipulative personality. She showed no physical affection for her family and would not put up with any. She blatantly went to the first victim's house and asked to see him "in his coffin." She brought up lengthy asides to try to throw the prosecutor off the track of the penetrating questions she didn't want to answer. All psychiatric authorities agreed that she was psychopathic.
In spite of this, she was thought quite well of by some of her teachers and some of the staff at the facility she went to after conviction. In actuality it appears she "conned" them into thinking of her as special and she received the attention she wanted from them.
It's hard to put into words what is appealing about this book because much of it is no longer new and unknown. However, it is worth reading if only for Sereny's insights and prose.
One item that appears to have escaped Sereny is that psychopathology MAY have a genetic component - she appears to reject that idea - and that Mary's mother may well have been psychopathological as well. Mary's mother Betty was the favorite of her father and after his death was unconsolable. She would occasionally just disappear for a while and finally turn up again. This increased after she got married and had children. She appeared to have no affection for husband, children or even the rest of her family. The fact that her family constantly stood up for her, tried to explain her behavior and took her in no matter what seems to me to indicate that she had successfully manipulated them. When she disappeared, for no matter how long it was, she always came home well dressed. Her husband did not make enough, nor her family, to keep her in style, so my guess is that she was manipulating others during her absences. She never appeared to have an affair. And she never remarried after her divorce. She was also given to lying and stretching the truth. During the trial she would often cry out in response to something said and when allowed to see Mary would overwhelm her with hugs and kisses, guaranteed to bring the attention to her and not her daughter. Afterwards, when she visited Mary (NEVER during the same time periods that her husband was - she wouldn't get sole attention), she would again put on a show of her "motherly" love.
This is no proof that she was psychopathic. During her early years the idea was not widely known, nor did she do anything that might have brought her to the attention of authorities of any kind. Although she had some strange behavior during childhood, her family simply thought of it as something she would grow out of.
So if you're interested in psychology, I would recommend reading The Case of Mary Bell....more
I wanted to like this book. I really did. I was hoping to find something better than the Girl on the Train (which I didn't like that much). But, alas,I wanted to like this book. I really did. I was hoping to find something better than the Girl on the Train (which I didn't like that much). But, alas, my hopes were dashed.
Laura "Lo" Blacklock is to take a cruise on a new cruise ship, smaller than normal, set up basically for private parties, weddings etc. She is replacing her pregnant boss, the editor of the travel magazine Velocity. She's hoping to eventually rise to the editorship herself.
A couple of nights before the sailing, Lo comes face-to-face with a burglar in her apartment. She had gotten drunk the night before and wasn't sure what she heard when she woke up in the middle of the night. As she opened her bedroom door (which luckily opened outward instead of the usual inward), she saw standing there a man in a balaclava with clear plastic gloves on his hands. He slammed the door and cut her cheek. She does report it to the police. However, she's, naturally, quite shaken up about the whole episode.
On the cruise she discovers while dressing for the first night's dinner that she has forgotten her mascara and goes to the next cabin, Cabin 10, to see if there is someone there she can borrow from. A young woman opens the door and Lo can see past her to her luggage and things that are placed around the room. She gets the mascara.
That night, drunk again, she hears a scream from that cabin and then a splash. When she goes onto her veranda to see, nothing is there. She tries to look around the privacy wall dividing the two verandas and sees a large smear of blood. Immediately she contacts the ship's security only to be told there is no one occupying Cabin 10. Security even takes her next door and lets her visit the empty room.
Since she has been drunk the couple of times unusual things happen, I got to thinking that this was another version of The Girl on the Train. But it's not. Lo sobers up and insists that she saw someone in there, she talked to her, she saw the luggage, she has the mascara. All the ship's crew seem to think that she's imagining things. After all, she DOES take medication for depression...
Lo refuses to give up and starts digging. And onward the story.
I didn't find Lo to be a very well-drawn character. I looked and looked but I couldn't find a great deal of sympathy for her during her trials and tribulations. She seemed to have a negative attitude about everything. The dreadful scare that she had from the burglar seems to vanish except for one moment when she sees plastic gloves on the hands of the cook. After that, nothing.
There were a few other things that didn't set well with me. Lo ends up falling into a fjord near Trondheim, Norway, and managing to swim to shore. The cruise occurs at the end of September and I just can't imagine the water being warm enough to swim very well, let alone the distance it appears Lo did. Then when she gets to a small hotel, they give her a blanket to put around her. No warm shower, change of clothes, hot coffee, no apparent concern, whatever. When she overhears the manager calling the police, she takes off running, in bare feet, along the road and into the forest.
There's also some bonding that just seemed to occur too quickly to be real. I can't say anything more about it without giving away the story.
So I was horribly disappointed. If you've read this author's work In a Dark, Dark Wood, you might like this. Otherwise, I wouldn't recommend it....more
As soon as the first act of this play was over, I got on my phone and ordered the script. It was so meaty on stage that I just knew there was more to As soon as the first act of this play was over, I got on my phone and ordered the script. It was so meaty on stage that I just knew there was more to it than I was getting. And I was right.
Queen Elizabeth II has died and her son Charles, after a life-time of waiting, is ready to ascend the throne. Or is he? He himself has doubts. Is he better as a family member who spends nearly all his time visiting people and dedicating things and so on? Or was he really meant to rule?
Almost immediately Charles begins to discover that he probably is not a Monarch. The first bill to pass the Commons and come to him is a law restricting the press. Charles does not agree with it and demands that Parliament revise it and consult him on the revisions. He won’t sign it otherwise. The Prime Minister is livid: that's NOT the way things are done. The King is a virtual rubber stamp. And besides, his mother never made a fuss, just signed everything that came to her regardless of her feelings. (We hear the plaintive cry, "Why can't you be more like your mother?" in his words.)
But Charles refuses. He interprets the Monarchy as an active role, someone who suggests, advises, gives opinions which Parliament takes into view when writing and passing laws.
Parliament and Charles come to an impasse: neither will budge and any further discussions only serve to make each one dig in deeper. Charles goes so far as to dissolve Parliament and call for new elections. He even triples the ceremonial guards at the palace and places a tank on the grounds. The Prime Minister goes on TV and tries to convince the people that Charles doesn't understand Monarchy. And the people split: about half in support of the King and the other half in support of Parliament.
It's dangerous times and a revolution appears possible. For many years, the British people have been questioning the role of the Royal Family. What do they do that is so important that the people have to pay to support them? Is it time to give them the old “heave ho�?
Extremely good questions which are answered at the end of the play.
To me the most exciting part is that it's written in iambic pentameter - Shakespeare's language. First of all, it seems perfectly natural. You fall into the rhythm and almost don't realize because it’s modern English in an old form. It elevates the story to the level of a Shakepearean tragedy, which it nearly is. Comic or less serious parts are written in regular speech to set them off, just as Shakespeare would.
And although this is called “A Future History Play,� it’s not. It’s generally the same sad story of the first Charles. Charles I ascended the throne, like Charles III, thinking that he had an active part to play as King. Parliament soon disabused him of this idea. Charles I thought that he could rule by his own conscience � in much the same way that Charles III here wants to use his advice to influence bills, especially this one which he thoroughly disapproves of. Charles I’s actions resulted in a revolution and the loss of his own head, but we’re saved from that when a solution is found to the impasse with Charles III. However, it does seem more than likely that there could have been a revolution. People all over Britain were protesting and with the extra armed guards protecting the palace and a tank pointed at the crowds, all it would have taken would have been an accident, an injury or a death and the entire British Monarchy might have fallen.
Although it deals with many of the “regular� problems of the Monarchy � Why does it exist? Do we need it anymore? Can family members (like Prince Harry) “leave� the family and expect to live as commoners? What is the limit on the power of the King/Queen? In fact, what powers does the King/Queen actually have? � light is shed on them from different angles. Family dynamics figure in strongly too.
It’s a great play for study. It would be good for serious book clubs. It’s also great for anyone who loves history, has grown up with the Royal Family and will be heart-broken when Elizabeth II dies.
P. S. A small disclaimer. Prince Charles visited the University of Chicago while I was there and I was one of the people against the rope as he passed. I got to shake his hand.
Trevor Noah faced an almost impossible task - take over the host position on the Daily Show from Jon Stewart. He's actually done an incredible job, ifTrevor Noah faced an almost impossible task - take over the host position on the Daily Show from Jon Stewart. He's actually done an incredible job, if you ask me. He has a dry humor but a knowledge of American culture and politics that, while not as extensive as Stewart, is deep indeed.
This is Noah's story about his life in South Africa. Some parts are extremely funny while many are just plain sad. It's amazing that he made it out of there as is a normal human being - albeit funny as all get out.
For that he owes his mother. She was an independent black who bucked the system just enough to succeed. She decided she wanted a child by the Swiss man she had been seeing but wouldn't marry. He eventually agreed and was part of Noah's life until his mother's marriage to a jealous man kept them from visiting his father. But his father never really lost touch. When Noah looks him up as a grownup, he discovers his father has kept a scrapbook of any public mention of Noah.
Because his mother wanted him to be a success and have a chance to get out of the stilted system in South Africa, she made Noah learn English as his first language. He also picked up hers, his step-father's and several other of the more common South African languages, including Afrikaans, the language of the Dutch exploiters who created the apartheid system.
Noah grew up partly under apartheid. He knew the strict color code and was an outcast according to it. There were categories for white, black, colored and Indian, but none for mixed. (Colored meant that somewhere along the line blacks and whites had mixed but the offspring had married other mixed so the lineage was not strictly white-and-black.) Because of that he learned to blend in wherever he could. He was light enough to almost pass as white, and in situations where identifying with the whites was the best choice, he chose them. He wasn't entirely white, so when the situation was right, he identified with the blacks. Identifying with the coloreds was hard because they were very violent and Noah was not, so keeping up the pretense of being colored was hard.
He was also a nerdy kid, very smart and a bit chunky with extreme acne as a teenager, so he again didn't really fit in anywhere. At one of his schools he became a "runner" - he was so quick that he was always the first in line at the small shop that sold the students their lunches. So he took orders from five people each day, for a cut of course. He also developed a sense of humor to deflect any difficulties he ran into.
In fact, he was so fast that he could beat any other runner in his schools. Again, his mother was responsible for this. When he did something wrong, if he could, Noah would take off running and Mom would come chasing after. Not like most Moms, where they give up after a little while. SHE was very fast too. In fact, Noah and his mother won all the running contests at school functions.
Perhaps the most stunning example of the split between the whites and everyone else came in an episode where Noah and his friends were asked to perform their song and dance at an all-cultures event at a Jewish school. Noah had built up an incredible collection of music from illegal downloads which he then burned onto CDs and sold. Because that collection was on his computer, he could serve as a hip-hop DJ without having to have vinyl.
The group had one dancer that was the favorite everywhere they played. They had become accustomed to yelling out his name and saying "Go, go" and encouraging him while he danced solo. Unfortunately his name was......wait for it........Hitler. Really. Truly.
In South Africa at the time, blacks and colored were turning away from traditional names and looking for English names. Because they were never taught history in school - if they went to school - they had to get their world news from what went around. During WWII, they only knew that Hitler and Mussolini were men who fought against the English, who, of course, were part of the oppressors of the natives. They had no idea of these men's politics or beliefs.
So here is Noah and his group shouting, "Go, Hitler! Yay, Hitler!" in a Jewish school. Neither side understood why the other was upset.
This is more a memoir book than an autobiography. It doesn't give Noah's life in start to finish order. It's more a collection of events and people who made him who he is now. Noah is a great comic and it turns out, he's a great writer too.
Very disappointing after last year's Lawyer for the Dog. In this one, the cat plays a very marginal role while the dog was nearly the center of attentVery disappointing after last year's Lawyer for the Dog. In this one, the cat plays a very marginal role while the dog was nearly the center of attention. Sherman (the dog) had a personality and won you over without ever saying a word. On the other hand, Beatrice purrs a little, likes a few people really well and that's about it.
Sally Baynard is again asked to serve as a lawyer for an animal. People are starting to identify her as a "pet attorney," which she doesn't appreciate. But she is asked to interview three people who have been identified as potential guardians for Beatrice until she dies. The person chosen must live in the mansion where Beatrice and her deceased owner lived, will get a stipend while Beatrice is alive, and then will move out.
The owner's son Randall feels that the property is his by rights, and NOT after some stupid cat dies. He is not a well drawn character. He's more of the one-dimensional hate-my-mother type. He tries to get Sally to compromise but since it is in the will that the cat must have a guardian and live in the mansion until she dies, Sally refuses to cooperate.
In the end, the "correct" guardian is chosen. Several short side stories arise - Sally's best friend's teenager is pregnant and intends to keep the child, the vet Sally met in the first book wants her to move in, a man with whom her mother had an affair years earlier moves into the same building. These are mostly distracting....more
This book was supposed to be really stunning. But I found it very disappointing.
Three German soldiers, friends, manage to get over their commander's This book was supposed to be really stunning. But I found it very disappointing.
Three German soldiers, friends, manage to get over their commander's head and are allowed to leave camp early one day to look for Jews in the surrounding area. They are stationed at an extermination camp in Poland, before gas has become popular and are becoming traumatized by the shootings they have to routinely perform. And since their commander has just told them there is a new shipment coming in to the camp tomorrow, they want out.
Amazingly, they actually find a Jew on this day. As they are bringing him back, they stop at an abandoned Polish house to eat and warm up. While they are there, a Polish hunter appears and "asks" - they do not speak the same language - to share the warmth and the food. After he offers to pour as much of his potato vodka as they want into their cooking soup (and let them drink the remainder of the bottle), they agree.
The Pole seems distinguished, but when he opens his mouth "it is easier to count the teeth he has than those he is missing." When he discovers they have a Jew in the storage room next to the room they are in, he becomes animated, angry, extremely hostile, spitting out angry words at the Jew. The soldiers manage to get him settled, telling him, through gestures, they'll throw him out without any food if he doesn't shut up.
Because of his extreme reaction, when the soup is done, they split it 5 ways and have the Jew come out and eat with them. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend......."
As they prepare to leave the house and return to the camp, one of the soldiers suggests they let the Jew go. He thinks it would help him continue in his awful task at the camp if he knew he once let one live.....
It's not all this simple, of course. The story is told by one of the soldiers and shows the relationship among the men. The one fascinating aspect for me was that the author actually made the soldiers appear average - not by the way they acted alone, not through description, but actually through the writing of the story teller. His words clunk, he's not a good story teller, he does not have a "way with words." The writing is not bad; it's just the sort of thing you (I) might expect to see in a writers' workshop. It's incredible to me that such a good author can make the book seem written by such an untalented person.
But the psychology, the philosophy, the internal musings, don't come through to me as they obviously have to the many people who have highly praised the book. I wouldn't put this on my list of "must read" WWII literature....more
Loading...
