Review: We Need to Talk About Kevin by Lionel Shriver ★★★★★

I started this review 6 times, and each time, I deleted it because it didn't quite convey the right thing. I think the problem is that I'm not sure just what that thing is. But one thing I do know is that I love books that make me feel like this... that "I don't know what I need to say but I need to say something, to talk about this with someone because this book won't keep quiet in my mind" feeling.

I guess it's lucky that this was chosen for our latest group read then, because I filibustered there with every jumbled, messy, half-formed thought that my tired-because-I-stayed-up-until-nearly-2am-with-this-book-then-worked-a-full-8-hours mind could think of... Because this book won't keep quiet in my mind. I finished it last night around 1:30am, tears streaming down my face, hurting for everyone and furiously heartbroken over something so unnecessary and so seemingly unavoidable as what was depicted. Then I slept, and I dreamed about this book, with hazy, distant figures without names or faces, but bigger than life aspects.

It's rare that I dream about books. It doesn't matter if I read it up until the minute I drop off; I only dream about a book I'm reading, or have read if it pulled me into its world first. I dream about the books that touch my soul. *cue dramatic music*

This book was just... wow. If I were to nitpick anything, it would be that Eva's pen wandered a tiny bit too much into the outside world. I wanted to see her world, the world of her family, or her lack thereof. It took a little bit to get there, and for a while, there were hints but the narrative meandered along in its own time. But oh my, once it got going, it really got going. I don't think it was just my last minute mad dash to read this the day before my bookclub meeting that helped me to read 75% of this book in one night after work... it was unputdownable. Once I glimpsed this family's world, I couldn't look away.

There is... so much to talk about in this book. And I don't think that I could even attempt to do the topics or themes any justice (as I didn't in my bookclub, not for lack of trying). This is a book that begs to be turned around to the beginning again and immediately re-read. It's like one of those optical illusions. At first, the picture is simple, but then once you see the hidden picture within it, you gain a new appreciation for the whole.

This book was beautifully written, insightful, questioning and heartbreaking. It was nothing at all like I expected, and even guessing the things that I guessed (which turned out to be true), it didn't make the impact any less. This book was so incredible at making me sympathize and empathize with each person's perspective, though we only see these through Eva's brutally honest memory, that it was impossible for me to lay blame anywhere, even though the potential for assigning blame was huge.

This was expertly executed (pun intended), and it is not one that I will forget any time soon.

Review: People of the Book by Geraldine Brooks ★★★★

I've had this book on my to-read list for a long time, 3 years or so, but it was one of those books that I didn't really think that I would ever really get to. A 'lifer'. I'd read Brooks' Year of Wonders back in 2008, and I liked it, but about 4 years has passed now, and the more I read in those intervening years, the more I came to feel like it wasn't really all that impressive, after all. I especially feel that way after finishing People of the Book. The writing in YOW just doesn't even hold a candle to the writing in POTB. It's a beautifully written, moving book, and I'm sorry that I put off reading it for so long.

I will say that there were parts of POTB that felt too modern for the historical sections, and even too "British" (mainly because the 'could/should/would have done' phrase sticks out like a sore thumb to me), and I thought that the romantic interest was awkward and didn't really ever sit right with me, but aside from those two things, I couldn't really find anything to criticize in this book.

I read for pleasure, and this book drew me in. I thought it was a fantastic melding of history, bibliophilia, socio-political issues, and life. I thought the characters were interesting, and even though most of them were only bit-players, I never actually felt like that's what they were while reading. They had history, and depth, and personality, and I very much enjoyed reading their stories, even when they were disturbing or heartbreaking.

But mostly, I loved this book for the story of the haggadah itself. I loved the way that the history of the book unfolded, with each clue to its journey through the years being shown as a story in itself, moving backwards in time until the origin of the book is shown. The historical sections were wonderful - they all felt completely real, although they were all horrifying as well, especially the 1492 Inquisition section.

I remember studying the Inquisition in school, and somehow it never really conveyed just how fucked up that shit was. That's probably why we never learn anything. We sanitize history to the point where it's completely lost all meaning, so we just keep doing the same shit over and over. We're still killing each other over differences in opinion regarding which religion is "right", or because a man dares to love another man and want to share his life with him, or because someone's skin is the wrong color, or because... we're just fucking bored and hate-filled. For fuck's sake. When will we grow up?

"You've got a society where people tolerate difference[...] and everything's humming along: creative, prosperous. Then somehow this fear, this hate, this need to demonize 'the other' --it just sort of rears up and smashes the whole society."

/soapbox

Fantastic book. I highly recommend it.

Bookclub Review: Flowers for Algernon by Daniel Keyes ★★★★

I have three confessions to make:
1) I never read this book in school.
2) For some reason, this book is associated with the A-bomb in my mind. No idea why.
3) There was beer at my bookclub meeting, and I drank a goodish amount of it, so this review may ramble.

Needless to say, Flowers for Algernon was very, very different than I had always thought. I honestly cannot tell you why I thought that... just that I did. It's just one of those weird association things that people have. Or maybe it's just me. Unsure which.

So, after I read the book description and realized that I was way, way, off, I was actually really looking forward to reading it. I love overcoming adversity type books, I love books that make me feel something, and I love books that make me think. This is definitely one of those, but still I feel like there was something off about it. I liked it, a lot, but I wanted more perspective, I guess.

Quick run-down: Mentally handicapped Charlie is undergoes an experimental operation to increase his capacity for learning and intelligence. The book examines his journey, and what it means, intellectually, socially, emotionally, and morally. Very interesting stuff.

I liked Charlie, more so the less intelligent he was. It was easier for me to sympathize and identify with him then, rather than at the height of his intelligence, when everything and everyone seemed beneath him. I can identify with aspirations and dreams, but I find it hard to understand intelligence so massive that it's alienating. I did like that the more that Charlie learned, the more was able to understand about the world around him, but it was often heartbreaking to see his revelations. Heartbreaking to me, anyway. One of the things that I felt was off about the book was that Charlie seemed distant from his own experiences and memories. He often saw his "handicapped" self in memories as a different person, and his discoveries of memory and experience were like watching something happening to someone else, rather than to himself.

I also wanted more of the history, and more perspective on the story. We see everything through Charlie's eyes, and while this works for most of the story, because we're in his head and we can almost experience his changes directly, some parts just lacked perspective, to me. Particularly the parts dealing with Charlie's incubator mother.There were a lot of parts where Charlie remembered her behavior and her actions and reactions and attitudes, but he couldn't identify with them, or understand them at all. And the reader, seeing through Charlie's eyes, sees the cruelty and the intolerance and impatience, but there isn't anything to give perspective to these memories. We don't see how hard it would be to deal with a young mentally handicapped boy, while caring for a newborn, and constantly worrying that one lapse in vigilance could result in disaster. We don't see how hard day to day life would be with a mentally handicapped 17 year old... we see only the extremes.

Am I condoning her horrific behavior? Absolutely not. Never. But I can put myself in her shoes and imagine just how hard it would be. And knowing myself, and how patience is NOT one of my best qualities, I can understand her frustration and fear and anger. I hope that I would never, ever, ever act on them like she did, that I would have the insight and compassion to accept the hand I'm dealt, should I be put in that position, but I can sympathize... to a point. Past that point and I don't think there's a punishment severe enough to make up for the way she treated her son. Not in a hundred lifetimes. Charlie had every chance to be happy, despite his handicap, and she ruined him.

Forgiveness isn't one of my virtues, either.

I did like the themes in the book, of second chances, at taking a risk, at wanting to better oneself and understand who we are and who we are in the world and what it means to be who we are. I liked the theme of one person being able to make such a difference, such an impact on the world, and it gives me hope that there is a point to it all. I liked the theme of learning to accept the life we have, and that sometimes ignorance is bliss.

Overall, I enjoyed the book, and it definitely was a hit with the bookclub. Very glad that I read this one. :)

Review: Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry by Mildred D. Taylor ★★★

3.5 stars

Having just finished The Help for the 2nd time, I was already in a place to appreciate this book, and for the most part, I did appreciate it.

The Help takes place in the early 60's in Jackson, Mississippi, during the early stages of the Civil Rights movement. It's a very personal story about 3 women struggling with who they are, both in general and in the environment in which they live. Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry takes place in the 30's just outside of Jackson, MS, and deals with a lot of the same issues...

Roll of Thunder focuses on the Logan family and their land. Paul Edward Logan bought their land in two parts during hard times after the Civil War, and ever since, the man who used to own it has been trying to get it back in an effort to remake the South how it used to be. Things are not pleasant in 1930s Mississippi. There's a definite imbalance of power with white people having almost all of it, and black people having almost none. This story is about the Logans trying to make a change to that imbalance, even though it is a small one. It's also about finding ones identity, and taking pride in it regardless of what others think or say about you.

Mostly, I really enjoyed this book. It was a quick read for me, and it was brutal and thought provoking. But in a way, it fell short of my expectations. It never really moved me in the way I had hoped to be moved, and even the brutality and the shame and the hurt felt by the characters didn't really affect me in the way that I had hoped it would. I love nothing more than to be heartbroken by these kinds of books, to be left kind of empty and hurting... but I didn't feel that with this one.

Perhaps that is due to the fact that this was told in first person by Cassie Logan, who is 9. On the one hand, this worked in the book's favor because it allowed for a sort of innocence and naivete. Cassie doesn't understand the dichotomy of equality in the South. She thinks that the mistreatment and rudeness are due to forgetfulness and a "grownups vs kids" thing, or just a greediness, in the case of some. She blithely underestimates the fact of skin color in the equation. To her, the hate and the meanness aren't due to the fact that she is black and they are white, it's due to the fact that they just want what her family has (the land) and will do anything to get it back. Which is true, partially, but the fact that they are black gives them less legal ground to stand on, and makes the fight that much more dangerous.

But where I felt that the 1st person lacked was in the rest of the story. It worked well for the innocence and the idealism, but I didn't feel that the family or their neighbors or the story was all that well fleshed out. There were times when I read sections and didn't know how we got there. One minute Cassie is thinking that she needs to do something about the girl who was mean to her, and the next we're in the middle of a protracted plan of action, with no bridge getting us from there to here. This is Cassie's story, so I would expect to at least have a hint of her plans, but instead it felt like it lapsed into a different story for a bit there.

I also felt that some of the things that Cassie saw were unrealistic, and there was a kind of inconsistency regarding when the parents tried to shield her and the other kids and when they didn't or forgot that little ears might be listening. And to add to that, at times I felt that Cassie was kind of annoying in her demands and talkbackitude to be able to tell the story, and that kind of grated on my nerves. At 9, she was both intuitive enough to know when she'd get in trouble for something, but stubborn and oblivious enough to ignore the real potential danger of running off at the mouth... So Cassie heard, and thus told us, a lot more than I think she should have been able to realistically.

Finally, I thought that the ending was a bit of a letdown as well. There was no resolution about the land, or about the secondary plots. There's an ending, a realistic one, likely - but it's unsatisfying. Things come to a head, and then it just ends. This is part of a series, and that probably has a large part to play in the way the ending ended, but I just feel that there was a big something missing, and I'm not sure that I was invested enough in the story to continue on with the series.

I will give kudos to Taylor for telling as honest and brutal a story as she did, and for not softening the blows or the cruelty or the hatred for her readers. At least I didn't feel that she did. There was a palpable feeling of fear and anger throughout the story, as well as menace and a cruel calculation and manipulation on behalf of the men who have the power. A surety that they will win because the law is on their side. I thought that this aspect was very well done.

I am not sure if I will continue on with the series. But I am glad that I read this. It was good, and I feel like if I had read it in school or when I was younger, it would have had a huge impact on me. Reading it today, I can appreciate it for what it is, but I feel like it's missing the impact I wanted it to have.

Review: Push by Sapphire ★★★

2.5 Stars

*****This review may contain some vague spoilers******

I love to read gut-wrenching books. Almost everything that I'd heard about this one practically guaranteed that this would be gut-wrenching, so when I saw it, I picked it up.

And I thought the first third of this book was great. Seeing life through Precious's eyes was horrifying. Her turmoil and her pain and frustration and anger were very real to me and I felt like I could identify with the experiences she's had, even though her life is very different from my own. I thought that Sapphire did a great job with the first 1/3 of the book. She did a great job portraying an uneducated girl, sexually abused, hating herself, her mother, her father, not able to trust anyone, desperate for a better life for herself and her kids.

Unfortunately, the middle and last third were not nearly as good. I thought it lost focus a bit in the middle and I wasn't sure where it was going, but mainly I had two major issues... No resolution, and inconsistency of the writing.

This is the kind of book that doesn't really require an ending all tied up in a bow, because we're supposed to infer that Precious will keep fighting and keep trying until she accomplishes her goals. That's fine with me. It's an unresolved, but hopeful, ending. But what I felt was lacking was the resolution of Precious's mental and emotional states.

This is a girl who has been abused in every possible way all of her life, at the hands of both of her parents. The very people who are supposed to protect her are the ones hurting her, and fucking with her head as well, as if it is her fault that the abuse is occurring. Naturally, she has a plethora of issues to work through, but she doesn't trust the therapist assigned to her in the halfway house, so she never works through them. She never even opens up about them in session. She starts to once or twice at outside support groups, but never fully lets anything out. She's described as going into a sort of frozen state - unable to move or speak or do anything... She's just trapped in her own body and mind. I really wanted to see some sort of resolution regarding this aspect, even if it was just that she found a new therapist that she trusts.

It is true that her journal is an outlet, but it's not enough. She needs someone to help her understand what happened to her, to help her understand that it was not her fault, and how to deal with her feelings of abandonment and betrayal and self-loathing, and how to move forward in her life. It is not enough for me to assume that Precious eventually gets her GED and an apartment and a job that doesn't entail changing some elderly person's diapers and that everything is golden from then on... I need for her emotional and mental progress to match her progress with learning to read and write. And it did not. Which is disappointing to me.

And this brings me to the second point that I found disappointing - the inconsistency of the writing. Sapphire wrote this in 1st person, so it is understandable to me that the writing style would mirror the speaking style of someone who is illiterate or just learning to read and write. I expect to see words spelled phonetically, slang, slews of misspellings and errors and incorrect grammar, etc. All of that is expected, and I think that initially, it added a reality to the story it would have lacked had it been written in more formal prose.

But the issue I had is that the writing didn't progress evenly with Precious's education. For instance, most of the book the word "mother" is misspelled as "muver", but early in the book, it's spelled correctly, and then again towards the end, and sprinkled throughout the book is "mutherfucker". Same sound, same word... three different spellings.

Words directly quoted are spelled and written perfectly, but the same words coming out of Precious's mouth are misspelled or slang, etc. I can see this being used to show the disconnect between Precious's situation and the situation of the person she's quoting (educated vs uneducated, etc), but it felt off to me, because this is Precious writing all of this in her book. I don't believe that SHE would have made that choice, or that she'd have even known she could, to write herself one way and other people another way. It seems to me that she would write what other people say the same way she writes what SHE says.

Another example is when she would write back and forth to her teacher, she would write, and her teacher would write the correct version underneath. Some words would be correctly spelled or used, and then almost immediately misspelled again. It was very inconsistent to me, and was distracting.

This book could be very powerful to some people. I can definitely agree with that. It was compelling and I could understand Precious's inner struggle and her will. I loved that. But I found the story to be a bit lacking in a very important aspect, and the writing style to not completely work.

I did really enjoy the final section, the school book section, with the girls' stories. That's some heartbreaking stuff there.

View all my reviews

Review: Looking For Alaska by John Green ★★★★

I've been seeing this book around for quite a while, but I never really thought about reading it. I figured that it was one of those "Let's see just how drunk, high and stupid we can get!" books, the ones that glorify the idiocy that is being a teenager. I went through that, I lived through it, even had fun with it at the time, but I outgrew that phase of my life (earlier than most) and I don't care to read about it now. So I was rather "Meh." about reading this book.

And then my friend, influential by persistence, introduced me to John & Hank Green via VlogBrothers on YouTube. Now, if you've never watched any of their videos, I highly recommend them. They are smart, funny, relevant and always make me think. So, via VlogBrothers, I came to understand John Green a bit, and realize that I had underestimated him. So, the next time I came across "Looking for Alaska", I picked it up. And this book did not forget to be awesome.

Right away, I was glad that I "met" John via VlogBrothers before reading the book. I could really feel his personality in it, and his intelligence and sense of humor. But I also felt like it was a story that he took seriously. Not only because of the serious subject matter, but because he captured the permanent impermanence of being a teen without making it feel like a joke. Everything now is forever until what was is yesterday and everything NOW is forever. Looking back on my teenage years, the furthest out I could imagine was 21, and that was only for the legal ability to drink. My friends were still my friends in this imagining, my life was still my life, as if the only thing that would change was my age. We just can't picture where things will take us. By the time I hit 21, I was so far from the predicted life I had thought I'd have that if someone had bet me a million dollars that I would have been there, I'd be out of a million dollars.

My point is that I liked the way that John portrayed these characters as having everything in front of them, to look forward to, but still they live in the moment as if that future never gets any closer. I loved that they were booksmart brilliant, but still make the same stupid mistakes and errors in judgment as anyone else. I love that they latch on to an idea and hold onto it despite realizing that it is slipping away anyway, because everything does and we change despite ourselves.

I loved Miles, or Pudge as he's called. I feel like I understood him. He's bookish, nerdy, a bit of a loner by necessity rather than choice, at least until he's around people who are ready to accept someone like him. Those people primarily being Alaska and Chip, aka The Colonel, who are both outrageous, brilliant and wild, and bring Pudge out of his shell a bit. Pudge forms an instant and close friendship with both of them, one that changes his life.

As much as I loved Pudge, I loved The Colonel more. He is one of those characters that, for me, just hop off the page and into being. I would have been friends with him. I liked that he came from humble beginnings, and that he and his mother weren't afraid to aspire to be better, that they weren't afraid to show how hard they work for something, that they weren't ashamed of who they are but rather proud of it. I loved that while he was as willing to play hard and get into trouble as anyone, he still took his priorities, which were his studies, seriously. I loved his loyalty and his determination to follow everything he started through to the end. He was definitely my favorite character here.

My least favorite character was actually Alaska. I don't know if this is because she's a female teenager written by a man, or if she just represented all (or at least a large chunk) of the things in teen girls that annoy me, but I just couldn't really like her. I can certainly see why Pudge would, why lots of teen boys would, but I just didn't. She was too much. Too wishy-washy, too moody, too impulsive, too flirty, too wild, too mysterious, too smart for her own good, too damaged-and-knew-it, too aware of her effect on others. But not all of these things are bad. And not all of them bother me individually, but all together, it was just too much and I couldn't care about her like The Colonel or Takumi or Lara or even Pudge did. And I find this last the worst, because Pudge is telling this story, so I should understand his feelings for her, but they just seemed shallow to non-teenage me. Attraction and flirtation do not equal love - unless you're 16 and a hopeful idealist.

But the one thing that I think affected me the most about Alaska is her sense of responsibility for others. She seems to take on the well-being and happiness of others as her own obligation, and the burden of guilt when she doesn't succeed. And it struck me that the guilt of failing someone is like a physical thing that can be passed on or spread. Alaska failed someone she loved, and then Pudge failed Alaska, and the guilt spreads.

Shortly after the shift from "Before" to "After" (which was a storytelling method I loved!), I realized why Alaska left the school that night, and I waited for the guys to figure it out as well. Normally, I would be disappointed that I figured it out before the main character, but this is not the type of "mystery" that gets solved like that. It's a human mystery, one where the only person able to solve it is the one you seek and cannot find.

I loved the depth of this book, particularly the philosophical aspects of their World Religions class. I wish I could have taken a class, and had a teacher like that. This book, and the class it depicted, makes you look at life, the world, and meaning itself differently. I am glad that I read it, because it was so much more than I thought it would be. And I officially declare myself to have been wrong. John Green, can you ever forgive me?

View all my reviews

Friday Flashback Review (8): Harry Potter & The Bible ★

Friday Flashback is hosted by Jen @ The Introverted Reader.

So I thought that it would be kind of appropriate to post this review now, since Banned Book Week was not very long ago, and since the 7th Harry Potter movie is coming out soon. I received this book from my friend Kandice, whose son was given the book by some mysterious person at his school. If there's anything I dislike, its creepy people spreading ignorance in schools. Rather than encouraging intelligent thought and analysis, Abanes encourages people to hide behind fear and ignorance in order to avoid anything they don't understand.

So without further ado, my review, which was written way back in February:

Ahh, right. Where to start... I have so much to say! I wish that you could all see my notebook. Aside from my atrocious handwriting, it is 12 full-size pages filled with my scribbled, jotted, many underlined thoughts, reactions and questions, as well as quotes, semi-quotes, references to quotes and page numbers for still more quotes.
It's not pretty. Really. But it WAS necessary. So many of the things that I jotted down had me rolling my eyes, thinking "Is this guy SERIOUS?". I just read this entire book, and I still don't understand most of his claims, arguments, assumptions and conclusions. I like Harry Potter, so I am obviously one of the "undiscerning" readers mentioned in Douglas Groothuis's foreword, in which he proclaims that I am about to read a "rare voice of sanity, reason and biblical discernment" regarding the Harry Potter books. Hmm. Well. Good thing he hasn't started off by annoying me or alienating me as a reader... Oh. Oops.

Anyway, offended by being called incapable of reason and insane before the book even starts, I still tried to read it objectively. From what I could see, Abanes's case comes down to several extremely repetitive points:

1) The setting of the "real world" makes it difficult for kids to differentiate between fact and fiction.
Apparently, because this is a fiction book that takes place in the United Kingdom where people actually live or can visit, it makes it nearly impossible for the reader to understand that it's not real. He makes reference to comments on message boards and letters (etc) which have kids saying things like "Wow! I wish I could do magic..." or "I wish I could go to Hogwarts..." and the like, and claims that these kids are dangerously close to becoming official occult followers. Which is utterly ridiculous and a huge logic leap. Kids whimsically wishing for something doesn't imply that they can't understand it's not real. I used to WISH I had a real My Little Pony to ride, but I didn't actually believe they WERE REAL. Kids know how mundane and normal and boring their life is. School. Homework. Bed. Repeat. They have no control over anything at this point - parents decide their lives. They just wish for some fun.

And, kids are much, much smarter than they are given credit for, in my opinion, although apparently not in the author's. Abanes seems to think that kids who read and like something will then rush off to try it with no thought. And while that may be true of some people, it is untrue of most. He gives an example in his book (after talking about how wormwood is used in HP and is an actual ingredient in absinthe) of someone looking up a recipe for absinthe online, making it and getting sick. He writes it in such a way as to insinuate that the person who did this was somehow influenced by the wormwood mention in HP. Another big leap. He also seems to forget parents, even while writing a book geared toward them. It is a parent's responsibility to teach their children, not JK Rowling's.

He goes on later in the book to say how Christian writers CS Lewis and JRR Tolkien both wrote fantasy stories involving magic, but these are OK because their magic is not HUMAN magic, and it is clearly in a fantasy world.

2) The magic described and portrayed in HP is actually representative of the Occult, which is denounced repeatedly and harshly in the bible.
Abanes's argument here seems to be that because JK Rowling researched and used real modern and historical practices, ideas, references, and substances (like wormwood above), as well as mythology and legend etc, that she is "thinly veiling" her belief in the occult, and not only introducing children to it, but grooming them towards it.
His "biblical" definition of occultism is extraordinarily all-encompassing, and ranges from astrology to conversing with spirits as a medium. Anything, essentially, that tries to understand or influence the world or ourselves that is NOT Christian in nature or done for the glory of God, is defined as being of the occult, and therefore dangerous and evil. He references many passages in the bible which denounce occultism, but never answers the ever present "WHY?" question. But hey, rules are rules, and the rule-maker need not explain, right?

Moving on, Abanes makes another huge leap in talking about the pets in HP, stating that they are familiars to their owners. Witches' familiars are defined here as a "low-level demon" in the assumed shape of an animal. He says, "Mrs. Norris, owned by the school's caretaker, exhibits some of the characteristics of a familiar. In Book III, Hermione gets her own familiar -- a cat named Crookshanks." He then quotes a renown Wicca practitioner, Starhawk, on the tradition of familiars, and then quotes a passage from "Witchcraft In England" which rehashes again what familiars are and confirms (again) the belief that witches used them in "the later centuries of [the:] witchcraft-belief". Abanes then says, "Obviously Harry and his friends are indeed making contact with the spiritual world." What? How is that obvious?

Abanes did include a very small section each to explain Paganism, Wicca and Satanism. I think he kind of shot himself in the foot if he was trying to turn people away from these, though. He failed miserably at making them unattractive, and to be honest, actually succeeded in piquing my interest in learning even more about them. Pagan and Wicca followers have a "reverence for the Earth and all it's creatures, generally see all life as interconnected, and strive to attune one's self to the manifestation of this belief as seen in the cycles of nature." Ooooh! DANGER! DANGER! (Sorry, I couldn't resist.)
I'm not going to go into the major points and details, but it is interesting, and I would recommend reading about them yourself. I did see a lot of my own "worldviews" represented in Paganism and Wicca, such as my relativism (a view that ethical truths depend on the individual or groups holding them -www.Merriam-Webster.com), which essentially means that what is good for me is not good for everyone else, and what is good for others may not be what is good for me. I'm OK with that. Abanes is not, and apparently has a problem with personal and private beliefs not in accordance with his own. He seems to feel that his way is the only way.

He did portray Satanism as being "bad", although he made clear that modern Satanism is not technically worship of Satan, but worship of the individual. Satanism "emerged when various aspects of all these (pagan, et al) traditions were blended together by persons seeking to fight Christianity's growing theological and moral influence [between 400s -1600s A.D.:]." (I got a real chuckle out of that. Apparently the Crusades and mass murders in the name of Christianity represent the "moral influence" of the faith. Best. Euphemism. EVER.)

He mentioned Sean Sellers, who was physically and sexually abused, neglected, and abandoned as a child and teen, who found himself getting involved with Dungeons & Dragons as an outlet, and later Satanism. There he found acceptance and understanding, until things started getting too deep and cult-like, which is very different from the religion started by Anton LeVey. Sellers, fearing for his sanity, reached out repeatedly for help... his parents, their Christian ministers, church run support groups, etc, and they turned their backs on him each and every time. In the end, he immersed himself in Satanism completely, and ended up murdering three people, being arrested, sentenced to death, and becoming a born again Christian in prison. Abanes blames the D&D as the "gateway" to Satanism for his downfall, but fails completely to mention the many, many people who let Sellers down when he needed help the most. (This is just one of many examples of how Abanes cherry-picks his arguments.)

3) Vulgarity, profanity and general lack of biblical morality in the Harry Potter books. (Characters lying, stealing, cheating, cursing, drinking, etc. And the amount of "gore" in the books, including Nearly Headless Nick and the Headless Hunt.)
His point is that he doesn't feel like there is enough delineation between "good" and "evil". The good guys should be all good, or if they falter, they should pay for it immediately. Bad guys should be all bad, and should absolutely pay and fail.
But MY argument is that the world, and life, is rarely delineated in such stark, black and white terms. Good people do bad things, bad people can do good things, it's the way of the world. And the real world doesn't always mete out appropriate punishment for misdeeds based on a religious belief. The world is impartial... Religion is not.
Abanes's first example of the immorality of the children is that they disobey rules. I think this is the main stick in his craw, because so much of organized religion centers on obeying without question. He also really has a problem with the word "git", which is a derogatory word that means idiot. He claims that this is profanity, which I guess is subjective, but to me, it's slang, not profanity.
Children are children, and they ACT like children. They disobey, mouth off, curse, treat each other unkindly, hold grudges, make enemies, make up, cheat, etc. But even as they do so, they are learning. Holding them to adult standards of behavior is unrealistic and unfair, especially a religious standard that was never intended to be in the equation at all.

He also repeatedly laments the increase of "New Age Spiritualism" in modern times, causing what he calls a "Post-Christian" world, which is helped along by books, movies and media, namely "occult" books like HP, etc. He repeatedly inserts statistical data, which in itself is suspect to me, as 7 out of 8 people know that 60% of all statistics are made up on the spot (as this was... :P), so... I'm a little wary of just accepting his claims. He acts like popularity itself is cause for alarm. More than once, Abanes seems to indicate that because Rowling was poor before she wrote Harry Potter that her popularity was helped along by, if not evil, definitely occult forces. He also seems to take issue with the fact that JK Rowling has not publicly made known her personal religious beliefs. As if it matters. Her beliefs are personal, and her books are fiction. They have nothing to do with each other in my mind and opinion, but Abanes thinks that because she's not proclaimed her Christianity, that she's probably an Occultist. Again with the black and white, 'with us or against us' theme.

I think that's what bothered me most about this book. I tried to read it objectively and fairly, even though I myself am agnostic, but so many of his arguments are just statements without any basis in fact. Comparisons which are... ridiculous. It's like he was writing this for people who think exactly as he does, but just didn't know it yet, and who wouldn't question his claims. At the end of the book, he gives practical advice for Christians (who should now have many, many concerns about the book) to go forth with gentleness and kindness when discussing the book(s) with others that they feel the need to educate. Good advice, yes, because I do not want someone calling me a "heathen" for enjoying these books, BUT this book only succeeded in making claims, not proving them.

Not only that, but as I mentioned before, he clearly, blatantly and shamelessly picked around the things that he didn't want to address, and beat into the ground the few points he did.

For instance, he mentions CS Lewis's Narnia series, and *spoiler* Aslan sacrificing himself for Edmund */spoiler*, but Lily's own sacrifice for Harry goes without mention. And he's not unaware, just to be clear, as he quotes Voldemort telling Harry that his mother died to save him, and that she will have died in vain, as well as Dumbledore's explanation of Lily's love sacrifice. He just ignores the sacrifice of the one, and lauds the sacrifice of the other, because it suits his theme.

He claims that the HP books are vulgar and full of violence etc, and that they are inappropriate reading material for children, yet ignores the fact that there is ridiculous amounts of violence and death in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. And the bible, for that matter.

He also derides the use of runes in HP, but makes no mention of the fact that Gandalf used them in Lord of the Rings. Apparently that's OK because, while runes are definitely "Real Occult", LOTR was not set in the real world.

I could go on and on, (12 pages of notes, remember?), but I think this is enough to get my point across. In the end, it seems like Abanes is saying, "Christianity is right, and anything that doesn't shout that from the rooftops is wrong. Period. End of story." That's an opinion, but it doesn't make it the right one. I think people are entitled to believe what they choose, just as readers (of all ages) are entitled to read and enjoy what they choose. Parents have a responsibility to talk to and teach their kids right from wrong, and morals and ethics, etc. That is not the job of the Harry Potter books, or ANY books. Religious texts are wonderful and useful to many people, but that does not mean that fiction and entertainment should seek only to rewrite/retell them.

Read and make up your OWN mind about books. :)

Character Connection (3): Samhain Corvus LaCroix - Scroggins Style

Character Connection is a weekly meme hosted by Jen at The Introverted Reader every Thursday.

It's Banned Book Week, as I'm sure you all know, and in honor of this, I've decided to do another post in the style of censorship's most recently vocal spokesperson: Wesley Scroggins, Morality Judge of the WORLD. Enjoy!

(Note: There will be non-specific story spoilers!)

Scroggins Would Say: "I cannot even express how dangerous "Hold Me Closer, Necromancer" is to impressionable teens. Not only does it seek to corrupt them into practicing occult rituals, but it is underhanded and tricky in doing so. Just look at the main character's name! "Sam" - an innocent and biblical name, or so you think! His name is actually Samhain, which is PAGAN - one step away from SATANIC! And furthermore, "Sam" (I can't bring myself to type that pagan word again), isn't an ordinary teen working at a fast food restaurant like a responsible member of society, as he first appears, but is in fact a NECROMANCER. That's right. He is able, through unholy black magic and pagan ceremonies, to bring back and control the dead.

"Sam" and his friends are vulgar and irresponsible (lying to police and covering up several crimes!) and cruel to the only normal boy in the story. Don't believe for one moment that they are the "good guys"! There are NO "good guys" in a book for young adults that promotes this type of behavior as well as witchcraft and the occult and necromancy and SEX. Oh yes, "Sam" has sex... with a non-human... and enjoys it. Luckily, I do not believe there was mention of prophylactics involved!

This book should be avoided at all costs. It contains subject matter that is unsafe for any moral reader to handle. Do not be fooled by the "humor" or the themes of camaraderie or understanding or acceptance - these are not honestly come by - they are requirements of the cult of which "Sam" is a recruiting member!"

My Thoughts:
Of course the above represents the most ridiculous arguments against the book that I could come up with...  This is a fantasy book, and so, like Harry Potter, the reader understands that the magical and supernatural parts of the story are not real. It seems only those who seek to censor these types of books fail to see the difference.

I personally loved the book, and Sam is a great character. He is brave and loyal and tries to do the right thing even when everything around him is going wrong. Sam struggles with learning who he really is, which is something that ALL teenagers cope with, necromancers or not. Sam is brilliant, funny, honest, and accepting of peoples' differences. These are the things that matter, not those things we cannot control.

For my full and glowing review, click here.

Censorship... That way lies madness.