book reviews (first half of 2007)

I feel a bit self-conscious posting up my little book reviews, given the amount of debates that have been going on about the value of literary blogs vs. formal publications. But you can never beat a recommendation by a friend. This is by no means an authoritative judgment of the quality of books, but just my little subjective perspective on the world of words. These reviews are also being posted up on Good Reads where I encourage you to befriend me. The premise of the site is great—letting you see what books your friends have read, but the navigation and layout is awful. In any case, I have high hopes that they will improve. I am also using their star rating system:

* didn’t like it
** it was ok
*** liked it
**** really liked it
***** it was amazing

On a side note, I’m also beginning to use the library again. College put me in a mode where I had to buy all my books, but that’s just not financially or physically feasible (I already own way too many books), especially when there’s no need for me to highlight every single word in a book. I love library cards. And library book sales! I purchased DeLillo’s hardcover edition of Underworld for $1!

Fiction

***** The Remains of the Day (Kazuo Ishiguro) ~ This book is the first I’ve read of Kazuo Ishiguro. It’s also the first book that really rejuvenated my delight of reading after months of fumbling through books that just didn’t quite grab my attention. What can I say? This book is really good! A very subtle biography and psychological study. A butler nearing the end of his life reflects upon his life in service and the choices that he has made, and questions whether or not any of it had meaning….

** Blindness (Jose Saramago) ~ I was attracted to this book because of its premise. A blindness plague strikes a nameless city and people become blind one by one and are quarantined. Although Saramago is an excellent writer, the book did not live up to my expectations. Though it was fairly enjoyable to read and certain scenes are narrated incredibly well, the book didn’t leave me feeling satisfied or amazed. Its central message was rather cliché and drilled into the reader rather awkwardly —a humanistic exposition of our capacity for both evil and good, and a reflection on the fragility of life.

**** Name of the Rose (Umberto Eco) ~ Two monks investigate a series of murders that take place in a monastery—a body is found at the foot of a cliff, another body is stuck in gigantic jar of pig’s blood and so forth. The resolution to the mystery is just as much a philosophical pondering as it is an answer to the question “whodunit”. This book was very enjoyable and quite a page turner… once you can get back the first 100 pages and manage to skip over the long sections of medieval history. It also offers quite a bit of food for thought in terms of thinking through modernism, rationalism and sign theory.

* Robinson Crusoe (Daniel Defoe) ~ I think some very important dead white guy said something about this book being one of the greatest ever. I can’t quite say, as an Asian female that is quite alive, that I found the same appeal. If anything, the book is long and boring and took me forever to read, more along the styles of a documentary than a narrative. There are huge sections dedicated to the daily adventures of Robinson Crusoe as he figures out how to survive alone on a desert island and build his little habitation. What perhaps is of greater value are the sections that talk about how he thinks about himself as the master of the island and his remarks about civilizing the barbarian cannibals and his famous servant Friday, which demonstrate the “racist” imperial outlook of that time. (I put racist in quotation marks because back then, it was so engrained in culture that calling someone racist ceases to really have meaning). In any case, I read this book because it has been analyzed, critiqued and parodied by so many colonial and post-colonial writers and academics. I guess aside from adding one more checkbox to the list of books I’ve read from the Western canon, I can’t say I derived that much more enjoyment from this book.

*** Never Let Me Go (Kazuo Ishiguro) ~ As one would expect from Ishiguro, this book is very subtle and understated. It tells the story of a sheltered and idyllic childhood at a boarding school. The only twist is that the kids are clones, raised to have their vital organs harvested in a series of “donations”. Not quite as good as “The Remains of the Day”, this book does present a chilling image of the atrocities we are capable of inflicting upon others for the sake of our comfort and security. And how that system or practices of injustice are so engrained (and not questioned) in society that it’s very hard to imagine anything otherwise. (Sweatshops and the garment industry comes to mind).

**** Bonfire of the Vanities (Tom Wolfe) ~ Sherman McCoy, a hot-shot bond tradesman, living the upper-echelon life of New York City, gets entangled in a messy hit-and-run accident. Wolfe writes cynically about New York society in the eighties, from the rich Upper East Siders (“hemorrhaging” away money) to the Bronx County attorney to the Harlem preacher. This book reveals an excellent snapshot of all the different politics at play in that era. Wolfe has quite the gift of vividly depicting memorable (and despicable) characters. The book also happens to be a pageturner and incredibly funny.

*** Galapagos (Kurt Vonnegut) ~ Oftentimes, we forget that we ourselves have a “culture”, in that the practices we engage in, the underlying assumptions in our value systems, are not universal but rather can appear very strange to someone from a different culture. Vonnegut takes this idea about a million years into the future and writes a novel commenting on human evolution over one million years going forward. In effect, he comically reflects on the strangeness of the complicated way we live our lives today. This book is very funny and enjoyable, and though it offers no groundbreaking insight, it certainly forces you to question and rethink the benefits of being a homo sapien.

*** Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (J.K. Rowling) ~ ***SPOILERS*** Though if by now, you’ve either read the book, or have not read the book but do not care enough if the ending is spoiled for you. In any case, I guess I found the book a little too predictable. Everything that you would expect to happen happened so it lacked the surprising plot twists that made the other volumes of Harry Potter so delightful. And the epilogue was cheesy. I also felt I should have read back a few volumes so I could remember all the characters and past events and objects. That being said, the book was still fun and I always enjoy finding out about new magical objects such as the Deathly Hallows.

Non-fiction

*** Fit to be Tied (Bill & Lynne Hybels) ~ Despite a cheesy cover and a cheesy title, this book on marriages contains some really important and valuable insight. Bill and Lynne, the writers of the book, have had a twenty year marriage that started off with 10 very rocky years. They pass along the lessons they have learned throughout marriage – from understanding personality differences, to communication, to conflict resolution, to forgiveness—there’s a huge focus on the importance of having a spirit of reconciliation. Their advice for deciding who to marry is a little lacking-- it focuses primarily on waiting and waiting and making sure, and fails to delve into the more intangible and difficult to explain matters of calling.

*** Anime from Akira to Howl’s Moving Castle: Experiencing Contemporary Japanese Animation (Susan Napier) ~ This book offers critical analysis of various mainstream anime films and books, such as Spirited Away, Ramna ½, Akira, Ghost in the Shell. It focuses mainly on the mode of different animes (carnival, elegiac, and apocalyptic) and analyzes them in light of identity theory and contemporary Japanese society. It’s enjoyable to skim through and to reflect upon, but like much criticism out there, this book is full of “interesting insight”, but leaves the big questions unanswered. There is no response to the question “so what’s the point of all this?” beyond cocktail and coffee shop conversation.

** Blue like Jazz (Donald Miller) ~ I have to admit, this book didn’t quite live up to the hype, but it may also be do to the fact that I read this several years after it came out. What was very novel and refreshing to read in Christian literature a few years ago is fairly common now, or atleast in the circles I run in, so many of Donald Miller’s ideas now seem cliché. In general though, I feel like Miller was trying too hard to be “cool” and “clever” and “postmodern”. All that being said, he does have a very approachable and easy-going style, and offers a refreshing perspective on Christianity for those who are accustomed to thinking of it as conservative Republicans opposed to dancing and drinking. Miller has an excellent way of illustrating his ideas through anecdotes and offers little well-written nuggets of insight, that though heavy-handed, are usually concise, memorable and true.

**** A History of US: All the People (Joy Hakim) ~ This is one of the last books in a series called “A History of US”, books on American history written for children middle school age or younger. I’m not usually a history fan since I usually can never remember anything and it all ends up being facts and figures. However, this book related the past in terms of how it leads us to where we are today, offering a historical and narrative context to our situation today. In some ways, I felt like I was reading about America today, rather than the past. Hakim also does a great job of appealing to young readers (and old ones like me!) by making different events and historical figures seem really interesting and inviting the reader into imagining themselves into those times. It also poses a lot of critical questions towards our current day assumptions. And it has pictures! My only criticism would be that it tends to jump around episodically quite a bit and does not connect the events together as well.

what little money can buy

I was asking a friend who works at a recent start-up nonprofit in Philadelphia how her organization is funded. I was surprised to discover that… it basically had no funding. Basically, the nonprofit is operating off one small grant that goes towards my friend's salary. However, at this point, she only has about a month and a half of salary left to go, and is facing the prospect of a potential leave of absence. The building where they operate is owned by a board member who does not charge rent. The nonprofit has less than $400 in their bank account and is currently applying for grants and appealing for contributions, though none have been confirmed so far.

Yet, the lack of resources has opened doors for more community involvement. The nonprofit has been blessed with volunteers who are excited to be there and offer their time and commitment. Others have given generously, including donating beautiful plants for a backyard garden. It seems that people in the neighborhood have begun to invest in and take ownership in what the non-profit is doing in the area.

While many nonprofits may have stronger financial footing, they fail to connect with their neighbourhood. With greater resources, they often get perceived as some outsider trying to "save the poor black kids in lower-income neighbourhood". So despite financial difficulties, my friend's organization seems to be doing well in connecting with the neighborhood, by allowing the neighbourhood to help it, instead of always the other way around.

Sometimes, it's better to enter in humility with little to offer, because it allows the community to give (That was Jesus's model). Sometimes, it's better to enter with little money, because there's a lot that it cannot do. In fact, money often brings out the worst in people, while not having it frequently brings out the best. *

*That being said, unless an organization is willing to depend on God's provision daily (which some do do), a financially precarious situation is not desirable for long-term sustainability. So I hope that my friend's nonprofit is able to secure more reliable funding in the future. But while it isn't there, I hope that not having money will be just as valuable as having it.

**The main ideas in this post is built on John McKnight's book "The Careless Society", which I highly recommend.

what dreams are made of

Do you remember the crazy things you dreamed you would become when you were little? The dreams that you leave behind you as you come to grasp the limitations of your circumstances and your abilities. The dreams that get discarded as you realize how foolish and delusional it is to continue trying to reach those castles in the sky.

When I was young, I wanted to be an Olympic figure skater. Then, when I realized that if I couldn't do any double jumps at the age of 12 and my mother was unwilling to spend thousands of dollars a years for training, it just wasn't going to happen. Then I went through all the other usual aspirations: I entertained myself as a famous movie star, a song-writer, a movie director. And now I find myself embarrassed to admit that I wanted to be all these silly things.

And now as I enter adulthood, and find myself flirting with the prospect of settling with a pleasant life—a husband, potentially 2.5 kids, a good job. I feel myself slowly letting go of aspirations to become a writer, a professor, a cultural critic...

And as I let go of these little bundles of dreams, or atleast, hold them a little less tightly, I wonder… to what degree have I come to an acceptance of my limitations? To what degree have I begun to realize the superficiality and banality of the things I aspire to be and the selfishness that motivates me in achieving them? To what degree, has letting go of these dreams allowed me to appreciate and understand the true joys of life in marriage, friendship and children? And to what degree have I given up on striving for something truly meaningful (something that God has intended for me to do) and resigned myself for something safe and comfortable?

everyone else is doing it

I’ve been reading a children’s book on American history and was struck by how recent the civil rights movement in the United States was. For some reason, the days of MLK and Rosa Parks seem far and distant to me, but they happened only a generation away.

When segregation ended in school, black students were taunted, mocked, and physically abused as they entered into formerly white schools. During the bus boycotts in Montgomery, houses were burned, churches were bombed and blacks were arrested en masse and put into jail. It wasn’t just a few stray individuals, but large portions of the society, many of whom were culturally Christian, that inflicted such violence. Attitudes and action that are so clearly “wrong” for us were completely acceptable then. They were the pattern of their world.

“Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.”

I think that verse of scripture is often used nowadays to refer to excessive drinking and drugs and promiscuous sex. But I think “the pattern of the world” runs much deeper than a set of external behaviors. What accepted actions of our society today will be judged harshly in the future? What assumptions and attitudes do we hold today that will be deemed completely wrong tomorrow?

If we as Christians are to be salt and light to the earth, we are to live with critical minds, minds that test and question what we see and hear, from both society at large and the church. We must refuse to say that anything is acceptable simply because everyone else is doing it. If we are to bring God’s kingdom of justice and love down onto earth, then we must be wary of this world.

what money can't buy

Raising kids well is hard work. In fact, it’s probably one of the hardest things that we can ever do. We want them to become attractive, well-adjusted, intelligent and successful adults.

In recent years, parents have flocked to buy various electronic toys for their children in hopes of boosting their intelligence and ultimately improving their chances of success. However, evidence begins to suggest that all these gadgets and toys are more likely to be damaging to a child’s development.

“But two recent studies suggest that the oft-touted educational benefits of such toys are illusory, and child development experts caution that kiddie electronics, even those bought purely for entertainment, can have negative side effects such as inhibiting creativity and promoting short attention spans… Electronic toys remove social interaction and in many respects may inhibit creativity. The toy provides the fantasy and removes the opportunity for a child to mentally produce something hypothetical or imagined.”*

In the end of the day, what kids need, is not the newest and latest educational toy featuring Curious George and Thomas the Tank Engine. They need a childhood where they can be free, with grass, bugs and dirt, maybe a few simple toys, and the wonders of their imagination. Less is more. Because when we’re not consumed by objects and waiting to be entertained, we’re given the opportunity to make our own fun.**

* From "Sucker-Me-Elmo" by Christine Rosen on The New Atlantis

**On a side note, I was browsing a book called Buy, Buy Baby: How Consumer Culture Manipulates Parents and Harms Young Minds, which mentions a whole “princess cult” surrounding Disney movies (Ariel, Jasmine, Belle etc…), where little girls aspire and want to be princesses. Cinderella is by far the most popular. Ironically, little girls forget all about Cinderella’s qualities that made her worthy to be a princess (her humility and her hard work), and instead end up cranky and spoiled, whining after the latest Disney merchandise, a character disposition more akin to the stepsisters.

***My family was fairly poor when I was little. I was more than happy with my library books, my backyard, my old and used toys. It was only when I saw more commercials and kids with toys cooler than mine that discontent began to stir.