Search
Search results
Night Reader Reviews (683 KP) rated Voice of the Elders in Books
Jan 9, 2020
Honest Review for Free Copy of Book
Contains spoilers, click to show
The Voice of the Elders by Greg Ripley is a very well written book that anyone who has a strong connection with earth and nature would be drawn to right away. This is well received as the book puts a lot of focus on the harder topics of what we face with global warming and as a race if we do not start thinking about sustainability as a complete way of life. It also brings to light the idea that even if sustainability is the best for the planet as whole companies such as big oil and nuclear power may not be all that interested because it takes profit away from them, showing just how harmful human greed can be.
The book also mentions many aspects from different religions and cultures, along with their moral views. Christian theology is even mentioned in the same paragraph as the threefold version of the Golden Rule which many would attribute to the Pagans or more specifically the religion of Wicca. However, a lot of talk in the book revolves around Chinese Daoism and somewhat in-depth at that. This lost me at a few different places but not for long as the ideas were also explained fairly well. I believe the average reader should be able to at least the get gist of what is being said during the conversations.
The basic idea of the book is that the Earth is in major trouble. As humans, our greed and lack of concern for our environment is killing our planet as it is already too late to reverse these effects unless we do something big really quick. A meeting is being held at the United Nations to address these concerns and that is where the reader first meets the main character Rohini. It is also where the Elders are first introduced into the story. Without giving too much away to the interested reader I feel like I can safely say that the Elders tell the World Leaders about what can be done to save the Earth and propose a plan where the Earth will send ambassadors to the world of the Elders.
Rohini is chosen to be one of these ambassadors and is brought before the world on TV when all of those selected to be ambassadors are introduced. This is when trouble starts, those against the Elders and the sustainability programs launch their first direct attack and kill most of the ambassadors and the President forcing Rohini, her trainer Jane, and Jane’s friend Guangming into hiding as suspects while waiting for their names to be cleared.
Overall the book is very well written and I failed to find any major editorial flaws in it. Still, I rate this book to be 2 out of 4 stars. This is because while I loved seeing Rohini grow spiritually and increase her personal connection with the Earth I found the book lacking. The last five-chapter or so felt rushed like Greg Ripley got bored or wasn’t sure how to pull everything together. I guess more of what I am trying to say is with how amazingly detailed the rest of the book was the end felt haphazardly thrown together. Now if this were the first in a series I would change my rating to a 3 providing that a few things got explained better such as who exactly the “Others” are (not going to say anything more about them without risking a spoiler) and what happens with the Earth and the Elders.
The book also mentions many aspects from different religions and cultures, along with their moral views. Christian theology is even mentioned in the same paragraph as the threefold version of the Golden Rule which many would attribute to the Pagans or more specifically the religion of Wicca. However, a lot of talk in the book revolves around Chinese Daoism and somewhat in-depth at that. This lost me at a few different places but not for long as the ideas were also explained fairly well. I believe the average reader should be able to at least the get gist of what is being said during the conversations.
The basic idea of the book is that the Earth is in major trouble. As humans, our greed and lack of concern for our environment is killing our planet as it is already too late to reverse these effects unless we do something big really quick. A meeting is being held at the United Nations to address these concerns and that is where the reader first meets the main character Rohini. It is also where the Elders are first introduced into the story. Without giving too much away to the interested reader I feel like I can safely say that the Elders tell the World Leaders about what can be done to save the Earth and propose a plan where the Earth will send ambassadors to the world of the Elders.
Rohini is chosen to be one of these ambassadors and is brought before the world on TV when all of those selected to be ambassadors are introduced. This is when trouble starts, those against the Elders and the sustainability programs launch their first direct attack and kill most of the ambassadors and the President forcing Rohini, her trainer Jane, and Jane’s friend Guangming into hiding as suspects while waiting for their names to be cleared.
Overall the book is very well written and I failed to find any major editorial flaws in it. Still, I rate this book to be 2 out of 4 stars. This is because while I loved seeing Rohini grow spiritually and increase her personal connection with the Earth I found the book lacking. The last five-chapter or so felt rushed like Greg Ripley got bored or wasn’t sure how to pull everything together. I guess more of what I am trying to say is with how amazingly detailed the rest of the book was the end felt haphazardly thrown together. Now if this were the first in a series I would change my rating to a 3 providing that a few things got explained better such as who exactly the “Others” are (not going to say anything more about them without risking a spoiler) and what happens with the Earth and the Elders.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Rock of Ages (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Rock of Ages is a film adaptation of the 2006 Chris D’Arienzo comedy rock/jukebox Broadway musical.
It is lightly satirical, a parody at times, that seems to mock our beloved 80’s rock era, while honoring its eccentricities, its tight leopard print pants, big hair, shoulder pads and over the top MTV music videos.
I like to judge a movie not only by how it makes me feel but also by how the audience reacts. This wasn’t an in-your-face-slapstick comedy, yet the whole theater roared with laughter throughout the film. To sum up the experience of Rock of Ages, it’s like watching a string of 80’s music videos mashed into a weak plot, with well-timed laughing points. Some of us laughed because we remember being the ones with those crazy hair-dos and out-of-control fashion sense and some were just laughing because this movie was so well done. It walked the fine line between super over-the-top corny and truly honoring our rock heritage. This movie does play to a specific demographic of ages 30 to 50, those who, with great nostalgia, remember how the 80’s rock and fashion revolution shaped their lives.
As the song goes, just a small town girl, Sherrie Christian played by Julianne Hough, travels to the big city in search of her dreams of becoming a singer, where she meets her city boy, Drew Boley played by Diego Boneta. Together they embark on a musical romance while working at a rock club named The Bourbon Room. Alec Baldwin plays an old rocker named Dennis Dupree struggling to keep his legend of a night club/concert hall open. Russell Brand, as always, steps in as the comic relief while playing the club owner;s assistant named Lonny. Together they work to keep The Bourbon Room afloat while dealing with a vengeful Patricia Whitmore, played by Catherine Zeta-Jones, who wishes nothing more then to see The Bourbon Room burned to the ground.
There are points in this movie when the acting, the singing and yes, even the plot, grabs you and holds your attention, much like watching the train wreck we call 80’s fashion. Its painful but you can’t look away! There were other times in this movie when the singing felt like it would go on forever. I noticed that the low points would be immediately succeeded by a very entertaining turn of events, so my attention was not lost for long. There came a point, at about the third Glee style 80’s rock mash-up, where I felt like slapping the director, Adam Shankman. Even too much of a good thing can get boring and I felt Shankman reached that point several times in the film. Luckily, he redeemed himself by bringing in Tom Cruise to play the Satan worshiping, alcoholic, megalomaniacal rock god Stacee Jaxx who went above and beyond in perfecting his role.
This movie’s soundtrack features songs and power ballads from Guns N’ Roses, Def Leppard, Bon Jovi, Journey, Twisted Sister, Pat Benetar, Scorpions, Whitesnake, Poison, REO Speedwagon, Foreigner among other epic bands giving Rock of Ages it’s 80’s jukebox musical foundation.
Mary J. Blige, Cruise, Ale Baldwin, Boneta, Hough and the whole cast of mega stars went above and beyond in selling their characters and performing stunning and accurate vocals that really pulled this movie together. The corny 80’s fashion and authentic dance numbers were the real icing on the cake. If you can sit through two hours of 80’s rock and pop nostalgia and know you will enjoy it, then definitely check this movie out.
It is lightly satirical, a parody at times, that seems to mock our beloved 80’s rock era, while honoring its eccentricities, its tight leopard print pants, big hair, shoulder pads and over the top MTV music videos.
I like to judge a movie not only by how it makes me feel but also by how the audience reacts. This wasn’t an in-your-face-slapstick comedy, yet the whole theater roared with laughter throughout the film. To sum up the experience of Rock of Ages, it’s like watching a string of 80’s music videos mashed into a weak plot, with well-timed laughing points. Some of us laughed because we remember being the ones with those crazy hair-dos and out-of-control fashion sense and some were just laughing because this movie was so well done. It walked the fine line between super over-the-top corny and truly honoring our rock heritage. This movie does play to a specific demographic of ages 30 to 50, those who, with great nostalgia, remember how the 80’s rock and fashion revolution shaped their lives.
As the song goes, just a small town girl, Sherrie Christian played by Julianne Hough, travels to the big city in search of her dreams of becoming a singer, where she meets her city boy, Drew Boley played by Diego Boneta. Together they embark on a musical romance while working at a rock club named The Bourbon Room. Alec Baldwin plays an old rocker named Dennis Dupree struggling to keep his legend of a night club/concert hall open. Russell Brand, as always, steps in as the comic relief while playing the club owner;s assistant named Lonny. Together they work to keep The Bourbon Room afloat while dealing with a vengeful Patricia Whitmore, played by Catherine Zeta-Jones, who wishes nothing more then to see The Bourbon Room burned to the ground.
There are points in this movie when the acting, the singing and yes, even the plot, grabs you and holds your attention, much like watching the train wreck we call 80’s fashion. Its painful but you can’t look away! There were other times in this movie when the singing felt like it would go on forever. I noticed that the low points would be immediately succeeded by a very entertaining turn of events, so my attention was not lost for long. There came a point, at about the third Glee style 80’s rock mash-up, where I felt like slapping the director, Adam Shankman. Even too much of a good thing can get boring and I felt Shankman reached that point several times in the film. Luckily, he redeemed himself by bringing in Tom Cruise to play the Satan worshiping, alcoholic, megalomaniacal rock god Stacee Jaxx who went above and beyond in perfecting his role.
This movie’s soundtrack features songs and power ballads from Guns N’ Roses, Def Leppard, Bon Jovi, Journey, Twisted Sister, Pat Benetar, Scorpions, Whitesnake, Poison, REO Speedwagon, Foreigner among other epic bands giving Rock of Ages it’s 80’s jukebox musical foundation.
Mary J. Blige, Cruise, Ale Baldwin, Boneta, Hough and the whole cast of mega stars went above and beyond in selling their characters and performing stunning and accurate vocals that really pulled this movie together. The corny 80’s fashion and authentic dance numbers were the real icing on the cake. If you can sit through two hours of 80’s rock and pop nostalgia and know you will enjoy it, then definitely check this movie out.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Nobody (2021) in Movies
Jun 9, 2021
Bob Odenkirk (1 more)
A fun, adrenaline-fuelled script
What Kevin McAllister did once all grown up
The "Nobody" in question is Hutch Mansell (Bob Odenkirk) who lives a humdrum suburban life: a 9-to-5 managerial job at his in-laws manufacturing plant; distant wife (Connie Nielsen); two kids, Blake (Gage Munroe) and Abby (Paisley Cadorath); an elderly father (Christopher Lloyd) in a local care home. Basically, the Mansell's are all living the American dream, but all subject to the monotonous grind of that daily life for week after week. That all changes in the middle of the night after Hutch confronts two bungling burglars and - in the full gaze of his son - 'wimps out' on taking action. All the silent rage and embarrassment has to go somewhere, and it does - on a late night bus ride; an event that sets off a sequence of increasingly bloody encounters!
Positives:
- Bob Odenkirk is charismatically dull! His character could be compared with that of Christian Wolff in 2016's "The Accountant". But in that movie, Ben Affleck was just dull dull! Here Odenkirk brings his character to life in a truly wonderful and sparkly way.
- The movie is a hyper-violent but adrenaline-fuelled joy ride. There's a slight lull after the initial burglary, but then it's a downhill bobsleigh ride with no brakes from there to the end. It comes as no surprise that the writer, Derek Kolstad, is the guy behind the John Wick franchise. The script has moments of black comedy that made me laugh out loud a good few times.
- The editing here (by Evan Schiff and William Yeh) is very slick indeed, most noticeably so in the many fight scenes. The one on the bus could be pulled apart as a template for a film school lesson.
Negatives:
- I've very little to add here. Yes, it's a rather shallow story, but I found it a hugely entertaining rush of a movie. However the intensity of the violence will not be for everyone. The lady a few seats along from me had her hands over her eyes for at least 75% of the movie I reckon.
- I wasn't clear where the character played by RZA fitted into the mix. Having (post film) seen the cast list, I'm even more confused!
Additional notes:
- There is a post credit scene in this one, shortly into the end credits, so don't dive for the doors too quickly if you want to see it. That being said, it doesn't really make much sense (why are they doing this?) and it isn't particularly funny either. So if you did miss it, then don't sweat about it!
- This is a movie that I knew virtually nothing about on going into it. Which is the best way to see it. As such, it's worth NOT watching the trailer, and going in on that basis if you can.
Summary Thoughts on "Nobody": It's a pretty shallow plot.... but it's also bloody good fun! I expected this to follow the well worn road of classic "revenge" movies - like "Death Wish" or "Taken" - but was pleasantly surprised that it didn't. A better comparison might be Michael Douglas's "Falling Down", but with the central character having more heart.
There are lots of nods to sequences from other movies in here: "Home Alone" (for obvious reasons!); "Patriot Games" and "The Equalizer" came to my mind. And the finale reminded me strongly of the anarchic chaos of 2016's "Free Fire".
Intellectual it ain't. But provided you can stomach the Tom and Jerry style violence, and suspend your belief at the punishment Hutch can take without hospital treatment, then "Nobody" ticks all the boxes for a fun night out at the flicks.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/09/nobody-what-kevin-mcallister-did-once-all-grown-up/. There's also a new Tiktok channel at onemannsmovies. Thanks).
Positives:
- Bob Odenkirk is charismatically dull! His character could be compared with that of Christian Wolff in 2016's "The Accountant". But in that movie, Ben Affleck was just dull dull! Here Odenkirk brings his character to life in a truly wonderful and sparkly way.
- The movie is a hyper-violent but adrenaline-fuelled joy ride. There's a slight lull after the initial burglary, but then it's a downhill bobsleigh ride with no brakes from there to the end. It comes as no surprise that the writer, Derek Kolstad, is the guy behind the John Wick franchise. The script has moments of black comedy that made me laugh out loud a good few times.
- The editing here (by Evan Schiff and William Yeh) is very slick indeed, most noticeably so in the many fight scenes. The one on the bus could be pulled apart as a template for a film school lesson.
Negatives:
- I've very little to add here. Yes, it's a rather shallow story, but I found it a hugely entertaining rush of a movie. However the intensity of the violence will not be for everyone. The lady a few seats along from me had her hands over her eyes for at least 75% of the movie I reckon.
- I wasn't clear where the character played by RZA fitted into the mix. Having (post film) seen the cast list, I'm even more confused!
Additional notes:
- There is a post credit scene in this one, shortly into the end credits, so don't dive for the doors too quickly if you want to see it. That being said, it doesn't really make much sense (why are they doing this?) and it isn't particularly funny either. So if you did miss it, then don't sweat about it!
- This is a movie that I knew virtually nothing about on going into it. Which is the best way to see it. As such, it's worth NOT watching the trailer, and going in on that basis if you can.
Summary Thoughts on "Nobody": It's a pretty shallow plot.... but it's also bloody good fun! I expected this to follow the well worn road of classic "revenge" movies - like "Death Wish" or "Taken" - but was pleasantly surprised that it didn't. A better comparison might be Michael Douglas's "Falling Down", but with the central character having more heart.
There are lots of nods to sequences from other movies in here: "Home Alone" (for obvious reasons!); "Patriot Games" and "The Equalizer" came to my mind. And the finale reminded me strongly of the anarchic chaos of 2016's "Free Fire".
Intellectual it ain't. But provided you can stomach the Tom and Jerry style violence, and suspend your belief at the punishment Hutch can take without hospital treatment, then "Nobody" ticks all the boxes for a fun night out at the flicks.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/09/nobody-what-kevin-mcallister-did-once-all-grown-up/. There's also a new Tiktok channel at onemannsmovies. Thanks).
Hazel (1853 KP) rated God: A Human History in Books
Nov 5, 2017
An Ambiguous History
I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.
Where did religion come from? This is the question Reza Aslan, a scholar of religions, attempts to answer in his latest publication, God: A Human History. To date, Aslan has tackled subjects such as the life of Jesus of Nazareth, and the origins, evolution and future of Islam. In this book, the author journeys back to the earliest evidence of human existence and, using a mix of resources, theories and investigations, tries to determine how our ancestors conceived the idea of gods and souls. Maintaining the idea that the majority of humans think of God as a divine version of ourselves, Aslan also looks at the way our perception of life after death has altered due to the changes in our governments and cultures.
Reza Aslan claims that he, a Muslim-devout-Christian-convert-turned-Sufi, is neither trying to prove or disprove the existence of God or gods. Instead, he is providing readers with a thorough history of religion with a strong suggestion that we, as believers, have fashioned God in our image, and not the other way around.
Insisting that belief systems are inherited from each previous generation, Aslan takes a look at ancient cave drawings where he, and many other theorists, surmise that a form of religion was already well underway. Lack of written word results in a lot of speculation and hypothesis as to what these, usually animal-like, drawings represent, however, many have come to the conclusion that early humans had some form of animistic belief system.
Although not a dig at religion, after all, the author is religious himself, the following chapters bring in to question the authenticity of past and present beliefs. With reference to various psychologists, Aslan poses the theory that ancient humans may have misinterpreted dreams as evidence of a spirit realm. With no one qualified to clarify the things they did not understand, anything without a clear explanation may have been attributed to a god or gods.
As the author describes how religious ideas may have developed from these primitive beliefs to the fully detailed faiths of today, he labels the human race as anthropocentric creatures that have based their religions on human traits and emotions. By reporting in this way, it comes across that the past ideas of the soul, spiritual realms, gods and so forth could not possibly be true, yet, as the final chapters suggest, Aslan is still adamant about the existence of God.
Aslan’s narrative speeds up, finally reaching the recognizable religions of today. Beginning with the Israelites, enslaved by the Egyptians, the author explains, using biblical references, how the first successful monotheistic religion came about. However, researchers have studied the early Bible texts and are inconclusive as to whether the God worshipped by the Jews was the only divine being or whether there were others of a similar standing.
Next, Aslan explores Christianity, posing more questions than he solves, for example, is God one or is God three (i.e. the Holy Trinity)? He defines and compares the definitions of monotheism and pantheism, eventually bringing in Islam and the development of Sufism, which he is not afraid of admitting he agrees with.
God: A Human History is disappointingly short, ending with the feeble conclusion that humans are born with the ability to be convinced of the existence of a divine being and the soul, but it is our own choice to decide whether or not to believe in them. The remaining third of the book is an abundance of notes on the texts, bibliographical references, and Reza Aslan’s personal opinions about the ideas and theories mentioned in his history of religion.
Although an extensive history on the origins of religion, God: A Human History leaves readers none the wiser as to whether their belief is founded in truth or whether it is something that has evolved over time due to lack of understanding about the world. Granted, it was not the aim of the book to prove or disprove the existence of God, however, it may unintentionally sow seeds of doubt or, potentially, anger devout believers. However, there is no attempt at persuading readers to believe one thing or another, thus making it suitable for people of all religion and none.
Where did religion come from? This is the question Reza Aslan, a scholar of religions, attempts to answer in his latest publication, God: A Human History. To date, Aslan has tackled subjects such as the life of Jesus of Nazareth, and the origins, evolution and future of Islam. In this book, the author journeys back to the earliest evidence of human existence and, using a mix of resources, theories and investigations, tries to determine how our ancestors conceived the idea of gods and souls. Maintaining the idea that the majority of humans think of God as a divine version of ourselves, Aslan also looks at the way our perception of life after death has altered due to the changes in our governments and cultures.
Reza Aslan claims that he, a Muslim-devout-Christian-convert-turned-Sufi, is neither trying to prove or disprove the existence of God or gods. Instead, he is providing readers with a thorough history of religion with a strong suggestion that we, as believers, have fashioned God in our image, and not the other way around.
Insisting that belief systems are inherited from each previous generation, Aslan takes a look at ancient cave drawings where he, and many other theorists, surmise that a form of religion was already well underway. Lack of written word results in a lot of speculation and hypothesis as to what these, usually animal-like, drawings represent, however, many have come to the conclusion that early humans had some form of animistic belief system.
Although not a dig at religion, after all, the author is religious himself, the following chapters bring in to question the authenticity of past and present beliefs. With reference to various psychologists, Aslan poses the theory that ancient humans may have misinterpreted dreams as evidence of a spirit realm. With no one qualified to clarify the things they did not understand, anything without a clear explanation may have been attributed to a god or gods.
As the author describes how religious ideas may have developed from these primitive beliefs to the fully detailed faiths of today, he labels the human race as anthropocentric creatures that have based their religions on human traits and emotions. By reporting in this way, it comes across that the past ideas of the soul, spiritual realms, gods and so forth could not possibly be true, yet, as the final chapters suggest, Aslan is still adamant about the existence of God.
Aslan’s narrative speeds up, finally reaching the recognizable religions of today. Beginning with the Israelites, enslaved by the Egyptians, the author explains, using biblical references, how the first successful monotheistic religion came about. However, researchers have studied the early Bible texts and are inconclusive as to whether the God worshipped by the Jews was the only divine being or whether there were others of a similar standing.
Next, Aslan explores Christianity, posing more questions than he solves, for example, is God one or is God three (i.e. the Holy Trinity)? He defines and compares the definitions of monotheism and pantheism, eventually bringing in Islam and the development of Sufism, which he is not afraid of admitting he agrees with.
God: A Human History is disappointingly short, ending with the feeble conclusion that humans are born with the ability to be convinced of the existence of a divine being and the soul, but it is our own choice to decide whether or not to believe in them. The remaining third of the book is an abundance of notes on the texts, bibliographical references, and Reza Aslan’s personal opinions about the ideas and theories mentioned in his history of religion.
Although an extensive history on the origins of religion, God: A Human History leaves readers none the wiser as to whether their belief is founded in truth or whether it is something that has evolved over time due to lack of understanding about the world. Granted, it was not the aim of the book to prove or disprove the existence of God, however, it may unintentionally sow seeds of doubt or, potentially, anger devout believers. However, there is no attempt at persuading readers to believe one thing or another, thus making it suitable for people of all religion and none.
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated My One and Only in Books
Apr 27, 2018
I loved Kristin Higgins' last release, All I Ever Wanted. I loved that it was a good romance with good characters and no explicit sex scenes. I loved the dogs. I loved the quirks. I loved the family, I loved everything about it. I was psyched to get her new release.
Sadly, it was a huge disappointment.
There were a few things that stacked against her in the beginning and I figured they would be made up for later, but it didn't improve. First, the characters.
I didn't like the main character, Harper. She was pessimistic, nosey, had no filter from her brain to her mouth, and her view of marriage was slightly offensive to me (only because I'm a Christian and a romantic. Don't mess with me.). I figured by halfway through the story maybe she'd see things the way they were, or that at least someone would hit her over the head and tell her to get a grip, but nobody did. I didn't like her interior monologue either. She didn't swear, but she had a few expletives that were... raunchy. I don't mind the "d" word too much. But supplementing the word "Crotch" or other phrases of similar nature just doesn't sit well with me.
And her boyfriend had the mentality of a sixth grader. Not joking. We'll leave it at that. Moving on!
Then there was her Ex. He was hot stuff, and I could see how the two of them could make it work (their personalities played off each other) but I just didn't like him. He was totally ignorant of the mistakes he'd made, at the halfway through point where we finally learn the back-story of her and him I seriously wanted to beat him over the head with a baseball bat--or a Bible--and give him a lecture about what marriage meant because the guy didn't get it. I didn't want the two to get back together, because it would be a recipe for disaster all over again. By the looks of it, neither of them had learned from their mistakes!
Second, I knew what was going to happen. She broke up with her boyfriend, she was going to fall for Nick again, and they were going to get married. Again. And because I didn't give a rat's poo about the characters, I didn't really care what happened to them.
Third, there were editorial mistakes. Now I know it's rude to point those out because when you read something dozens of times, you miss stuff like that. I understand that. I'm a writer. But I'm also a Professional Writing major and an editor, and I proofread stuff and I write promotional material and I edit things. It's what I do. It's my job. When I read a published book and I find things like "/= in the middle of the paragraph, or a grammatical error that is definitely not dialect or part of the character's personality, it makes me angry.
Fourth: I don't remember Kristin Higgins being a poor writer, but this book was poorly written and full of fragments. Sentences go like this: Subject, Verb, Direct Object. Or, Actor, Action, Description. Rearranging this causes passive voice, which is never fun to read, even though it does raise the word count. Ellipses should be used sparingly. Two or three per book: not per page or per paragraph.
And, no offense, but the dog was retarded. I know I shouldn't complain about the dog because now I'm just being whiney. But really? Maybe I'm biased about dogs, but I can't stand anything that bounces when it barks, even when it is in a book.
So those are five reasons why I stopped halfway through the book. This one is going to PBS. Don't get me wrong, I will continue to read Kristin's books. I've got a few more of hers that I hope will be as great as All I Ever Wanted, but this book was not her best work.
Recommended: Ages 18+ (Please note I don't know what sort of content was in the second half of the book.)
Sadly, it was a huge disappointment.
There were a few things that stacked against her in the beginning and I figured they would be made up for later, but it didn't improve. First, the characters.
I didn't like the main character, Harper. She was pessimistic, nosey, had no filter from her brain to her mouth, and her view of marriage was slightly offensive to me (only because I'm a Christian and a romantic. Don't mess with me.). I figured by halfway through the story maybe she'd see things the way they were, or that at least someone would hit her over the head and tell her to get a grip, but nobody did. I didn't like her interior monologue either. She didn't swear, but she had a few expletives that were... raunchy. I don't mind the "d" word too much. But supplementing the word "Crotch" or other phrases of similar nature just doesn't sit well with me.
And her boyfriend had the mentality of a sixth grader. Not joking. We'll leave it at that. Moving on!
Then there was her Ex. He was hot stuff, and I could see how the two of them could make it work (their personalities played off each other) but I just didn't like him. He was totally ignorant of the mistakes he'd made, at the halfway through point where we finally learn the back-story of her and him I seriously wanted to beat him over the head with a baseball bat--or a Bible--and give him a lecture about what marriage meant because the guy didn't get it. I didn't want the two to get back together, because it would be a recipe for disaster all over again. By the looks of it, neither of them had learned from their mistakes!
Second, I knew what was going to happen. She broke up with her boyfriend, she was going to fall for Nick again, and they were going to get married. Again. And because I didn't give a rat's poo about the characters, I didn't really care what happened to them.
Third, there were editorial mistakes. Now I know it's rude to point those out because when you read something dozens of times, you miss stuff like that. I understand that. I'm a writer. But I'm also a Professional Writing major and an editor, and I proofread stuff and I write promotional material and I edit things. It's what I do. It's my job. When I read a published book and I find things like "/= in the middle of the paragraph, or a grammatical error that is definitely not dialect or part of the character's personality, it makes me angry.
Fourth: I don't remember Kristin Higgins being a poor writer, but this book was poorly written and full of fragments. Sentences go like this: Subject, Verb, Direct Object. Or, Actor, Action, Description. Rearranging this causes passive voice, which is never fun to read, even though it does raise the word count. Ellipses should be used sparingly. Two or three per book: not per page or per paragraph.
And, no offense, but the dog was retarded. I know I shouldn't complain about the dog because now I'm just being whiney. But really? Maybe I'm biased about dogs, but I can't stand anything that bounces when it barks, even when it is in a book.
So those are five reasons why I stopped halfway through the book. This one is going to PBS. Don't get me wrong, I will continue to read Kristin's books. I've got a few more of hers that I hope will be as great as All I Ever Wanted, but this book was not her best work.
Recommended: Ages 18+ (Please note I don't know what sort of content was in the second half of the book.)
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated They Almost Always Come Home in Books
Apr 27, 2018
They Almost Always Come Home by Cynthia Ruchti
Genre: Christian Fiction
ISBN: 9781426702389
Rating: DNF, 3
Greg goes on a trip into the Canadian wilderness—and never comes home. But Libby was thinking about leaving him anyway… so should she care that he's missing? Should she find him? Libby sets off with her best friend and her step-dad on a journey to find Greg. But for Libby, the journey is more than to find her husband. It's a journey of faith.
They Almost Always Come Home had potential to be amazing. Maybe the ending was amazing… but I didn't get that far. The plot was great—there were a lot of different things woven together to make it complex. It was more than "husband is gone, wife isn't sure if she wants him back but she goes to find him anyway." There is a lot of complexity to the situation, and a lot of background to see how Libby got to where she is now. It was good, and I liked it. It didn't move fast enough for me, but it was still good and I liked it.
However, other aspects of the book took away from the story line, and the main one was the writing. I feel like I have more to say about the writing than anything when it comes to They Almost Always Come Home.
This book reads rather depressing. As I read it, I can hear the voice of the character in my head, feeling tired and broken and uncaring and bitter, and it's very emotionally demanding to read. Since the character is going through so much, I can understand why that is: that's how she feels, that's how you are supposed to feel. It certainly isn't a sit-by-the-beach-with-sweet-tea kind of book.
Also, occasionally (as in the case with every Meg Cabot book I've ever read) an individual has a great original idea for a novel. What they should have done, would be to find someone who could write well and let them write the story, and co-author it. But no, they insist on writing it themselves, even though they can't write. Sadly, this is the case with They Almost Always Come Home. In some cases the mediocrity of the writing doesn't take away from the enjoyment of the book, but in this case, it got to the point where it wore me out and aggravated me, and I had to put it down. After this happened several times, I never ended up picking it back up. The writing was made up of poor sentence structure, and the sentences that were actually sentences weren't organized very well. The interior monologue of Libby's thought-life was even less organized. Yes, I understand that our thoughts are not perfectly organized like Dostoevsky's dialogue, but Libby's mind was just hard to follow.
The other thing that took away from the book was the main character, Libby. I didn't like her. Maybe if I'd gotten to the end and seen her change (because I just know she's got to change—why else would Ruchti write a story like this?) then I 'd like her. But as it were, I was rooting for Greg. Poor Greg who was stuck with her for twenty-five years, and who got out easy (at least that's the way it looked from where I stopped). I know that isn't the way I'm supposed to feel, but I kept thinking "Libby… honestly…(mutters to herself)…" how can you read a book about a character that you don't like?
Again, this book had a lot of potential. Sadly I didn't enjoy it enough to finish it. I give it three-stars for the good pacing at the beginning, and the tangible emotions of the character (who I didn't like…?).
Check out amazon (as of today, 17 five-star reviews) and goodreads for reviews of They Almost Always Come Home. You will see that I am in the minority.
Genre: Christian Fiction
ISBN: 9781426702389
Rating: DNF, 3
Greg goes on a trip into the Canadian wilderness—and never comes home. But Libby was thinking about leaving him anyway… so should she care that he's missing? Should she find him? Libby sets off with her best friend and her step-dad on a journey to find Greg. But for Libby, the journey is more than to find her husband. It's a journey of faith.
They Almost Always Come Home had potential to be amazing. Maybe the ending was amazing… but I didn't get that far. The plot was great—there were a lot of different things woven together to make it complex. It was more than "husband is gone, wife isn't sure if she wants him back but she goes to find him anyway." There is a lot of complexity to the situation, and a lot of background to see how Libby got to where she is now. It was good, and I liked it. It didn't move fast enough for me, but it was still good and I liked it.
However, other aspects of the book took away from the story line, and the main one was the writing. I feel like I have more to say about the writing than anything when it comes to They Almost Always Come Home.
This book reads rather depressing. As I read it, I can hear the voice of the character in my head, feeling tired and broken and uncaring and bitter, and it's very emotionally demanding to read. Since the character is going through so much, I can understand why that is: that's how she feels, that's how you are supposed to feel. It certainly isn't a sit-by-the-beach-with-sweet-tea kind of book.
Also, occasionally (as in the case with every Meg Cabot book I've ever read) an individual has a great original idea for a novel. What they should have done, would be to find someone who could write well and let them write the story, and co-author it. But no, they insist on writing it themselves, even though they can't write. Sadly, this is the case with They Almost Always Come Home. In some cases the mediocrity of the writing doesn't take away from the enjoyment of the book, but in this case, it got to the point where it wore me out and aggravated me, and I had to put it down. After this happened several times, I never ended up picking it back up. The writing was made up of poor sentence structure, and the sentences that were actually sentences weren't organized very well. The interior monologue of Libby's thought-life was even less organized. Yes, I understand that our thoughts are not perfectly organized like Dostoevsky's dialogue, but Libby's mind was just hard to follow.
The other thing that took away from the book was the main character, Libby. I didn't like her. Maybe if I'd gotten to the end and seen her change (because I just know she's got to change—why else would Ruchti write a story like this?) then I 'd like her. But as it were, I was rooting for Greg. Poor Greg who was stuck with her for twenty-five years, and who got out easy (at least that's the way it looked from where I stopped). I know that isn't the way I'm supposed to feel, but I kept thinking "Libby… honestly…(mutters to herself)…" how can you read a book about a character that you don't like?
Again, this book had a lot of potential. Sadly I didn't enjoy it enough to finish it. I give it three-stars for the good pacing at the beginning, and the tangible emotions of the character (who I didn't like…?).
Check out amazon (as of today, 17 five-star reviews) and goodreads for reviews of They Almost Always Come Home. You will see that I am in the minority.
Adventure and Redemption
I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.
Is the Bible really gospel truth? This is the question the honourable, academic Robert Babcock aims to find out on his quest to find the earliest copies of the gospels in order to prove the reliability of the story of Jesus as recounted in the King James Bible. However, this is not the key focus of Stephen Taylor’s fictional novel, Gospels. The main character is the perfidious John Campbell-John, a rogue, imposter and swindler who flees 19th-century England in an attempt to escape from his debts.
John meets the magnanimous Robert in Venice and, despite being polar opposites, become firm friends. After being honest for the first time in his life, admitting to owing thousands of pounds in gambling debts, Robert offers John the opportunity to accompany him on his quest through the deserts of Egypt. John accepts and the pair finds themselves on an adventure of discovery and personal redemption.
John and Robert make an unlikely but excellent team. Robert’s knowledge of the Bible and ancient history is vital, however, John’s propensity for falsehoods and cunningness gets them out of a few scrapes and tricky situations. Nonetheless, it is difficult for John to give up his old ways and his insular behaviour threatens to get them in more trouble.
Fortunately, Robert’s humility begins to influence the young scoundrel, as does his penchant for historical artefacts. As the story progresses, John begins to leave his past behind and becomes interested in Robert’s work, learning new things about Egyptian culture and the origins of the Bible. However, when a new gospel comes to light that threatens the whole of Christianity, Robert does not know what to do; and only John can give him counsel.
John Campbell-John is a character that the author introduced in a previous book. However, the timelines are not sequential, therefore Gospels is a stand-alone novel. The time frame for this book needed to be set in 1835 to correspond with historical truths. Although Robert’s discovery of a Gospel of Thaddeus Jude is an invention of the author, the quest itself is based on the journeys of three 19th-century Bible hunters. Stephen Taylor has conducted an enormous amount of research, including the biographies of Robert Curzon, Constantin von Tischendorf and Émile Amélineau who, on separate occasions, sought the same knowledge as the fictional Robert Babcock.
Despite being titled Gospels, the novel, for the most part, focuses on John Campbell-John and his wicked ways. Through a first-person narrative, John explains his past, his betrayal of a friend, and his addiction to gambling. Initially, he has no qualms about his behaviour and acts only for himself and his selfish greed. Whilst Robert goes in search of knowledge, John goes on a journey of redemption, coming to terms with his previous wrongdoings. However, acknowledging these faults is not enough, he needs to turn away from these roguish ways.
It is disappointing that the narrative does not focus more on the gospels, both real and imagined. There was enormous scope for an in-depth look at the life of Jesus and the inconsistencies in the Bible. The fictitious Gospel of Thaddeus Jude evokes a similar reaction in Robert as the Non-Canonical Gospel of Thomas found in the 19th-century had on many devout Christians. There was so much potential with this direction of thought, however, the author passes over it in preference to the life of John Campbell-John.
Slow to begin but increasingly interesting as it progresses, Gospels is a book of many themes. History, both 19th-century and ancient; religion, although not a Christian story; and achievement and absolution combine together to produce a unique tale that takes the reader from the back alleys of London to the River Nile and the deserts of Sinai. A subtle clue in the prologue keeps readers alert as they await the conclusion of the adventure – an ending that ambiguously reveals whether John moves on from the follies of his past.
Is the Bible really gospel truth? This is the question the honourable, academic Robert Babcock aims to find out on his quest to find the earliest copies of the gospels in order to prove the reliability of the story of Jesus as recounted in the King James Bible. However, this is not the key focus of Stephen Taylor’s fictional novel, Gospels. The main character is the perfidious John Campbell-John, a rogue, imposter and swindler who flees 19th-century England in an attempt to escape from his debts.
John meets the magnanimous Robert in Venice and, despite being polar opposites, become firm friends. After being honest for the first time in his life, admitting to owing thousands of pounds in gambling debts, Robert offers John the opportunity to accompany him on his quest through the deserts of Egypt. John accepts and the pair finds themselves on an adventure of discovery and personal redemption.
John and Robert make an unlikely but excellent team. Robert’s knowledge of the Bible and ancient history is vital, however, John’s propensity for falsehoods and cunningness gets them out of a few scrapes and tricky situations. Nonetheless, it is difficult for John to give up his old ways and his insular behaviour threatens to get them in more trouble.
Fortunately, Robert’s humility begins to influence the young scoundrel, as does his penchant for historical artefacts. As the story progresses, John begins to leave his past behind and becomes interested in Robert’s work, learning new things about Egyptian culture and the origins of the Bible. However, when a new gospel comes to light that threatens the whole of Christianity, Robert does not know what to do; and only John can give him counsel.
John Campbell-John is a character that the author introduced in a previous book. However, the timelines are not sequential, therefore Gospels is a stand-alone novel. The time frame for this book needed to be set in 1835 to correspond with historical truths. Although Robert’s discovery of a Gospel of Thaddeus Jude is an invention of the author, the quest itself is based on the journeys of three 19th-century Bible hunters. Stephen Taylor has conducted an enormous amount of research, including the biographies of Robert Curzon, Constantin von Tischendorf and Émile Amélineau who, on separate occasions, sought the same knowledge as the fictional Robert Babcock.
Despite being titled Gospels, the novel, for the most part, focuses on John Campbell-John and his wicked ways. Through a first-person narrative, John explains his past, his betrayal of a friend, and his addiction to gambling. Initially, he has no qualms about his behaviour and acts only for himself and his selfish greed. Whilst Robert goes in search of knowledge, John goes on a journey of redemption, coming to terms with his previous wrongdoings. However, acknowledging these faults is not enough, he needs to turn away from these roguish ways.
It is disappointing that the narrative does not focus more on the gospels, both real and imagined. There was enormous scope for an in-depth look at the life of Jesus and the inconsistencies in the Bible. The fictitious Gospel of Thaddeus Jude evokes a similar reaction in Robert as the Non-Canonical Gospel of Thomas found in the 19th-century had on many devout Christians. There was so much potential with this direction of thought, however, the author passes over it in preference to the life of John Campbell-John.
Slow to begin but increasingly interesting as it progresses, Gospels is a book of many themes. History, both 19th-century and ancient; religion, although not a Christian story; and achievement and absolution combine together to produce a unique tale that takes the reader from the back alleys of London to the River Nile and the deserts of Sinai. A subtle clue in the prologue keeps readers alert as they await the conclusion of the adventure – an ending that ambiguously reveals whether John moves on from the follies of his past.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Dark Knight Rises (2012) in Movies
Jun 27, 2018
A "good enough" ending to the trilogy
Going into the filming of THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, Director Christopher Nolan had a problem on his hands. The previous film in this trilogy - 2008's THE DARK KNIGHT - had turned into a cultural phenomenon based, in part, on the late Heath Ledger's bravura performance as The Joker. So how does he top it?
The quick answer is - you don't, so don't even try.
THE DARK KNIGHT RISES is a satisfactory conclusion to the Dark Knight trilogy that started with 2005's BATMAN BEGINS and, again stars Christian Bale as Bruce Wayne/Batman, the "Dark Knight".
What Director Nolan wisely does is continue his dark tone with this film, but does not even mention The Joker (or Ledger) in this film. Let the memories of the past films be just that - memories - and let this film stand on it's own.
And it does, for the most part.
Taking place 8 years after the events of THE DARK KNIGHT, this film has Batman coming out of self-imposed "retirement" to, yet again, save Gotham City from the clutches of a bad guy - this time, the masked Bane. In the course of this film Batman is torn down, to be risen and reborn again as the shining light of good over evil, shedding the "Dark Knight" moniker once and for all.
Nolan - and his brother, and frequent collaborator, Jonathan - wrote the screenplay and it is...serviceable. Nothing really remarkable about the story and plot. It gives each one of our returning characters - Lucious Fox (Morgan Freeman), Alfred Pennyworth (Michael Caine) and - especially - Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) room to shine along with other, new characters like Selina Kyle/Catwoman (a really good Anne Hathaway), Officer Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) Miranda Tate (Marion Cotillard) and, of course, Bane (Tom Hardy).
As you might be able to see, ALL of these actors are members of Nolan's "troupe" of actors - they either have been in other Nolan films (or, in the case of Hathaway, WILL be in another Nolan film) and each of them appear on the screen with gusto and a quiet confidence in their characters and a trust in a filmmaker that comes from frequent collaborations.
In the lead, Bale, of course, gives his usual, strong performance, though I did detect a hint of weariness in the performance. Now...some will say that is because the character is becoming weary, but I think it is more to the case that Bale was growing weary of playing this character.
But that is a quibble for all of the characters/actors do a terrific/professional job pushing the plot forward, which (let's admit) is just an excuse to go from one gigantic battle/chase scene to another and...Nolan certainly knows how to do these.
From the opening to close, every one of these gigantic "set pieces" held my attention and I found myself - even though I have seen this film before - sitting on the edge of my seat as the good guys - led by Batman - raced time to thwart the machinations of the bad guys in the end.
I'm glad these action sequences held my attention, for there are, inexplicably, looooong sections of this film where there is no action, but "character development" and "growth from strong internal retrospection." This sort of thing might have looked good on the page, but it is rather dull and boring when put on the screen. This film is almost 3 hours long, and - if Mr. Nolan would like to contact me - I can suggest a few spots where we can trim about 20-30 minutes out of this film, starting with the long stretch where Bruce Wayne is imprisoned.
But...these stretches are tolerable when you know it will lead you to some really fine action sequences featuring character/actors that you care about and are actually rooting for them to succeed. As I stated before, this is an "agreeable" conclusion to the trilogy. One who's journey I was glad to be one, but - to be honest - one that I was glad was over as well.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
The quick answer is - you don't, so don't even try.
THE DARK KNIGHT RISES is a satisfactory conclusion to the Dark Knight trilogy that started with 2005's BATMAN BEGINS and, again stars Christian Bale as Bruce Wayne/Batman, the "Dark Knight".
What Director Nolan wisely does is continue his dark tone with this film, but does not even mention The Joker (or Ledger) in this film. Let the memories of the past films be just that - memories - and let this film stand on it's own.
And it does, for the most part.
Taking place 8 years after the events of THE DARK KNIGHT, this film has Batman coming out of self-imposed "retirement" to, yet again, save Gotham City from the clutches of a bad guy - this time, the masked Bane. In the course of this film Batman is torn down, to be risen and reborn again as the shining light of good over evil, shedding the "Dark Knight" moniker once and for all.
Nolan - and his brother, and frequent collaborator, Jonathan - wrote the screenplay and it is...serviceable. Nothing really remarkable about the story and plot. It gives each one of our returning characters - Lucious Fox (Morgan Freeman), Alfred Pennyworth (Michael Caine) and - especially - Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) room to shine along with other, new characters like Selina Kyle/Catwoman (a really good Anne Hathaway), Officer Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) Miranda Tate (Marion Cotillard) and, of course, Bane (Tom Hardy).
As you might be able to see, ALL of these actors are members of Nolan's "troupe" of actors - they either have been in other Nolan films (or, in the case of Hathaway, WILL be in another Nolan film) and each of them appear on the screen with gusto and a quiet confidence in their characters and a trust in a filmmaker that comes from frequent collaborations.
In the lead, Bale, of course, gives his usual, strong performance, though I did detect a hint of weariness in the performance. Now...some will say that is because the character is becoming weary, but I think it is more to the case that Bale was growing weary of playing this character.
But that is a quibble for all of the characters/actors do a terrific/professional job pushing the plot forward, which (let's admit) is just an excuse to go from one gigantic battle/chase scene to another and...Nolan certainly knows how to do these.
From the opening to close, every one of these gigantic "set pieces" held my attention and I found myself - even though I have seen this film before - sitting on the edge of my seat as the good guys - led by Batman - raced time to thwart the machinations of the bad guys in the end.
I'm glad these action sequences held my attention, for there are, inexplicably, looooong sections of this film where there is no action, but "character development" and "growth from strong internal retrospection." This sort of thing might have looked good on the page, but it is rather dull and boring when put on the screen. This film is almost 3 hours long, and - if Mr. Nolan would like to contact me - I can suggest a few spots where we can trim about 20-30 minutes out of this film, starting with the long stretch where Bruce Wayne is imprisoned.
But...these stretches are tolerable when you know it will lead you to some really fine action sequences featuring character/actors that you care about and are actually rooting for them to succeed. As I stated before, this is an "agreeable" conclusion to the trilogy. One who's journey I was glad to be one, but - to be honest - one that I was glad was over as well.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Hazel (1853 KP) rated God: A Human History in Books
Dec 7, 2018
<i>I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.
</i>
Where did religion come from? This is the question Reza Aslan, a scholar of religions, attempts to answer in his latest publication, <i>God: A Human History.</i> To date, Aslan has tackled subjects such as the life of Jesus of Nazareth, and the origins, evolution and future of Islam. In this book, the author journeys back to the earliest evidence of human existence and, using a mix of resources, theories and investigations, tries to determine how our ancestors conceived the idea of gods and souls. Maintaining the idea that the majority of humans think of God as a divine version of ourselves, Aslan also looks at the way our perception of life after death has altered due to the changes in our governments and cultures.
Reza Aslan claims that he, a Muslim-devout-Christian-convert-turned-Sufi, is neither trying to prove or disprove the existence of God or gods. Instead, he is providing readers with a thorough history of religion with a strong suggestion that we, as believers, have fashioned God in our image, and not the other way around.
Insisting that belief systems are inherited from each previous generation, Aslan takes a look at ancient cave drawings where he, and many other theorists, surmise that a form of religion was already well underway. Lack of written word results in a lot of speculation and hypothesis as to what these, usually animal-like, drawings represent, however, many have come to the conclusion that early humans had some form of animistic belief system.
Although not a dig at religion, after all, the author is religious himself, the following chapters bring in to question the authenticity of past and present beliefs. With reference to various psychologists, Aslan poses the theory that ancient humans may have misinterpreted dreams as evidence of a spirit realm. With no one qualified to clarify the things they did not understand, anything without a clear explanation may have been attributed to a god or gods.
As the author describes how religious ideas may have developed from these primitive beliefs to the fully detailed faiths of today, he labels the human race as anthropocentric creatures that have based their religions on human traits and emotions. By reporting in this way, it comes across that the past ideas of the soul, spiritual realms, gods and so forth could not possibly be true, yet, as the final chapters suggest, Aslan is still adamant about the existence of God.
Aslan’s narrative speeds up, finally reaching the recognizable religions of today. Beginning with the Israelites, enslaved by the Egyptians, the author explains, using biblical references, how the first successful monotheistic religion came about. However, researchers have studied the early Bible texts and are inconclusive as to whether the God worshipped by the Jews was the only divine being or whether there were others of a similar standing.
Next, Aslan explores Christianity, posing more questions than he solves, for example, is God one or is God three (i.e. the Holy Trinity)? He defines and compares the definitions of monotheism and pantheism, eventually bringing in Islam and the development of Sufism, which he is not afraid of admitting he agrees with.
<i>God: A Human History </i>is disappointingly short, ending with the feeble conclusion that humans are born with the ability to be convinced of the existence of a divine being and the soul, but it is our own choice to decide whether or not to believe in them. The remaining third of the book is an abundance of notes on the texts, bibliographical references, and Reza Aslan’s personal opinions about the ideas and theories mentioned in his history of religion.
Although an extensive history on the origins of religion, <i>God: A Human History </i>leaves readers none the wiser as to whether their belief is founded in truth or whether it is something that has evolved over time due to lack of understanding about the world. Granted, it was not the aim of the book to prove or disprove the existence of God, however, it may unintentionally sow seeds of doubt or, potentially, anger devout believers. However, there is no attempt at persuading readers to believe one thing or another, thus making it suitable for people of all religion and none.
</i>
Where did religion come from? This is the question Reza Aslan, a scholar of religions, attempts to answer in his latest publication, <i>God: A Human History.</i> To date, Aslan has tackled subjects such as the life of Jesus of Nazareth, and the origins, evolution and future of Islam. In this book, the author journeys back to the earliest evidence of human existence and, using a mix of resources, theories and investigations, tries to determine how our ancestors conceived the idea of gods and souls. Maintaining the idea that the majority of humans think of God as a divine version of ourselves, Aslan also looks at the way our perception of life after death has altered due to the changes in our governments and cultures.
Reza Aslan claims that he, a Muslim-devout-Christian-convert-turned-Sufi, is neither trying to prove or disprove the existence of God or gods. Instead, he is providing readers with a thorough history of religion with a strong suggestion that we, as believers, have fashioned God in our image, and not the other way around.
Insisting that belief systems are inherited from each previous generation, Aslan takes a look at ancient cave drawings where he, and many other theorists, surmise that a form of religion was already well underway. Lack of written word results in a lot of speculation and hypothesis as to what these, usually animal-like, drawings represent, however, many have come to the conclusion that early humans had some form of animistic belief system.
Although not a dig at religion, after all, the author is religious himself, the following chapters bring in to question the authenticity of past and present beliefs. With reference to various psychologists, Aslan poses the theory that ancient humans may have misinterpreted dreams as evidence of a spirit realm. With no one qualified to clarify the things they did not understand, anything without a clear explanation may have been attributed to a god or gods.
As the author describes how religious ideas may have developed from these primitive beliefs to the fully detailed faiths of today, he labels the human race as anthropocentric creatures that have based their religions on human traits and emotions. By reporting in this way, it comes across that the past ideas of the soul, spiritual realms, gods and so forth could not possibly be true, yet, as the final chapters suggest, Aslan is still adamant about the existence of God.
Aslan’s narrative speeds up, finally reaching the recognizable religions of today. Beginning with the Israelites, enslaved by the Egyptians, the author explains, using biblical references, how the first successful monotheistic religion came about. However, researchers have studied the early Bible texts and are inconclusive as to whether the God worshipped by the Jews was the only divine being or whether there were others of a similar standing.
Next, Aslan explores Christianity, posing more questions than he solves, for example, is God one or is God three (i.e. the Holy Trinity)? He defines and compares the definitions of monotheism and pantheism, eventually bringing in Islam and the development of Sufism, which he is not afraid of admitting he agrees with.
<i>God: A Human History </i>is disappointingly short, ending with the feeble conclusion that humans are born with the ability to be convinced of the existence of a divine being and the soul, but it is our own choice to decide whether or not to believe in them. The remaining third of the book is an abundance of notes on the texts, bibliographical references, and Reza Aslan’s personal opinions about the ideas and theories mentioned in his history of religion.
Although an extensive history on the origins of religion, <i>God: A Human History </i>leaves readers none the wiser as to whether their belief is founded in truth or whether it is something that has evolved over time due to lack of understanding about the world. Granted, it was not the aim of the book to prove or disprove the existence of God, however, it may unintentionally sow seeds of doubt or, potentially, anger devout believers. However, there is no attempt at persuading readers to believe one thing or another, thus making it suitable for people of all religion and none.
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Vice (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
A patronising mess of a film
If you want to learn how to completely and utterly fail at satire, look no further than Adam McKay’s Vice. It honestly does pain me to say this was one of the worst experiences I’ve ever had in the cinema. As a matter of fact, I was seconds away from walking out at one point. But, like any good critic, I stayed in my seat. I hoped and prayed it would get better… but it didn’t. If anything, it snowballed.
Vice is a ‘comedy’ (I’ve put this in quotation marks because there’s nothing funny about it) biopic about former American Vice President, Dick Cheney. The film attempts to give us further insight into his life, and how he got away with all the horrible things he did whilst in office. On paper, it actually sounds pretty appealing, especially for someone like me who knows very little about the man. On screen, it is an entirely different experience. 24 hours later, I’m still shocked by how appalling it was.
So, what has Vice done to receive such a scathing review from me? First and foremost, the dialogue is horrendously condescending and talks to the audience like they’re complete idiots. I have never seen such a patronising and immature biopic in my entire life. I’m not sure what’s more obnoxious: Cheney himself or the tone of the film. Maybe they’re on par with each other. I was barely half an hour into this when I was already starting to feel angry about the way they addressed things. You can give your audience context without talking down to them. The film did everything it could to seem edgy and like it was giving the audience the finger, but I just sat there cringing the whole time. It failed.
Secondly, the narrative is all over the place. I’m perfectly fine with non-linear stories, provided they actually make sense. Vice doesn’t know whether it’s coming or going, and changes between the past and future constantly. The pacing is an absolute shambles and makes the film feel longer than it actually is. It runs at just over 2 hours, but feels so much longer than that. I have never wanted a film to end so badly. In fact, I was ready to get up and leave when they decided to throw in a fake ending in an attempt to be funny. Yes, that actually happens. No, I didn’t laugh.
Don’t even get me started on the way it sloppily splices random pictures and video clips throughout the film, making me wonder who on earth nominated this for Best Editing. Are they okay? Without spoiling this too much, Vice’s editing is incredibly jarring and decides to patronise the audience even further by giving visual aids to the idioms that are described by the narrator. At one point it even tries to condescendingly explain Guantanamo Bay, which just caused me to facepalm. What were you thinking guys?
Having said all of this, does the film have some redeeming features? Sure. The quality of the acting is good, I enjoyed Christian Bale as Cheney and Amy Adams as his equally awful wife, Lynne. I also enjoyed Steve Carell as Donald Rumsfeld and Sam Rockwell as George W Bush. It is a shame to waste such great talent on a script as weak as this one. If someone had written this better, maybe I would’ve enjoyed it a lot more. Sadly, I’m stuck with this one. I’m baffled by how anyone can consider this to be a well written script. If anyone wants to enlighten me, by all means, try.
If I never have to watch Vice again, I’ll be fine with that. I feel completely let down by McKay, and this hurts more considering I like some of his other films such as Anchorman and Step Brothers. He’s better than this, and I hope he can redeem himself with whatever he creates next.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/02/03/a-patronising-mess-of-a-film-my-review-of-vice/
Vice is a ‘comedy’ (I’ve put this in quotation marks because there’s nothing funny about it) biopic about former American Vice President, Dick Cheney. The film attempts to give us further insight into his life, and how he got away with all the horrible things he did whilst in office. On paper, it actually sounds pretty appealing, especially for someone like me who knows very little about the man. On screen, it is an entirely different experience. 24 hours later, I’m still shocked by how appalling it was.
So, what has Vice done to receive such a scathing review from me? First and foremost, the dialogue is horrendously condescending and talks to the audience like they’re complete idiots. I have never seen such a patronising and immature biopic in my entire life. I’m not sure what’s more obnoxious: Cheney himself or the tone of the film. Maybe they’re on par with each other. I was barely half an hour into this when I was already starting to feel angry about the way they addressed things. You can give your audience context without talking down to them. The film did everything it could to seem edgy and like it was giving the audience the finger, but I just sat there cringing the whole time. It failed.
Secondly, the narrative is all over the place. I’m perfectly fine with non-linear stories, provided they actually make sense. Vice doesn’t know whether it’s coming or going, and changes between the past and future constantly. The pacing is an absolute shambles and makes the film feel longer than it actually is. It runs at just over 2 hours, but feels so much longer than that. I have never wanted a film to end so badly. In fact, I was ready to get up and leave when they decided to throw in a fake ending in an attempt to be funny. Yes, that actually happens. No, I didn’t laugh.
Don’t even get me started on the way it sloppily splices random pictures and video clips throughout the film, making me wonder who on earth nominated this for Best Editing. Are they okay? Without spoiling this too much, Vice’s editing is incredibly jarring and decides to patronise the audience even further by giving visual aids to the idioms that are described by the narrator. At one point it even tries to condescendingly explain Guantanamo Bay, which just caused me to facepalm. What were you thinking guys?
Having said all of this, does the film have some redeeming features? Sure. The quality of the acting is good, I enjoyed Christian Bale as Cheney and Amy Adams as his equally awful wife, Lynne. I also enjoyed Steve Carell as Donald Rumsfeld and Sam Rockwell as George W Bush. It is a shame to waste such great talent on a script as weak as this one. If someone had written this better, maybe I would’ve enjoyed it a lot more. Sadly, I’m stuck with this one. I’m baffled by how anyone can consider this to be a well written script. If anyone wants to enlighten me, by all means, try.
If I never have to watch Vice again, I’ll be fine with that. I feel completely let down by McKay, and this hurts more considering I like some of his other films such as Anchorman and Step Brothers. He’s better than this, and I hope he can redeem himself with whatever he creates next.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/02/03/a-patronising-mess-of-a-film-my-review-of-vice/