Search
Search results
Rachel King (13 KP) rated Redemption in Books
Feb 11, 2019
I did not read the first book in the series, Protector, but that did not seem to matter all that much in reading this book. I caught up relatively easily to what the author felt I needed to know about Jane Perry's story so that I could dive into the action-packed, suspense-filled plot of this book.
One of the first things I noticed about the main character of Jane Perry is both her seemingly-abrasive personality, complete with a foul mouth, and her battle with alcoholism. Throughout the book, her strong personality is both her greatest strength and her biggest weakness. Her daily battle to remain sober - pushing six months - is also a prominent theme, complete with AA meetings, sobriety chips, and the 12-step program. I found these details interesting from the educational standpoint, since I have known a few alcoholics, both recovering and not, but nothing about the process of recovery from this horrible addiction.
The woman that hires Jane Perry, Katherine Clark (better known as Kit), is in many ways the very opposite of Jane. A woman in her 60's, she describes her personality as that of an "earth mother". Dealing with stage 4 cancer, she is a strict adherent of New Age philosophies and herbal medicine to treat both her cancer and her particular brand of spirituality. In addition, several of the plot's "bad guys" were followers of a particular sect of Fundamentalist Christianity that Kit spends an overt amount of time condemning, despite her many lectures of tolerance, love, and forgiveness. This in turn incites Jane to regularly mock Fundamentalist Christianity by proxy.
While I realize that radicals of any religion are easy fodder for mainstream literature, the personal beliefs of the author completely overpower the actual plot of the book. It is patently obvious that Dewey is a major supporter of all things New Age, with a penchant for Buddhism, and is completely against a literal translation of the Bible. As I have said in previous reviews, a good author is invisible to the reader, but in this book, the author often felt more present in the plot than the actual characters the book was intended to be about - some sort of amalgamation of Jane and Kit. Despite the good intentions that I am sure Dewey harbors in writing in this fashion, I became rather depressed by the end of the book by the over-saturation of Dewey's agenda of New Ageism versus Christianity, as the book became less and less about the heroics of Jane Perry and more about the beliefs of Laurel Dewey.
While I acknowledge that I do not agree with everything within the particular doctrines of the character of Dr. John Bartosh, I do consider myself a Fundamentalist Christian, a person who believes in both the literal and figurative translation of the Bible. For the author to expect me, the reader, to not even be slightly offended by the condemnation and open mockery of what I consider to be the foundation of my morality and how I live my life on a daily basis is both presumptuous and insensitive.
Despite this, the book was well-written from a literary approach, with unique characters, an unpredictable plot, and no loose ends.
One of the first things I noticed about the main character of Jane Perry is both her seemingly-abrasive personality, complete with a foul mouth, and her battle with alcoholism. Throughout the book, her strong personality is both her greatest strength and her biggest weakness. Her daily battle to remain sober - pushing six months - is also a prominent theme, complete with AA meetings, sobriety chips, and the 12-step program. I found these details interesting from the educational standpoint, since I have known a few alcoholics, both recovering and not, but nothing about the process of recovery from this horrible addiction.
The woman that hires Jane Perry, Katherine Clark (better known as Kit), is in many ways the very opposite of Jane. A woman in her 60's, she describes her personality as that of an "earth mother". Dealing with stage 4 cancer, she is a strict adherent of New Age philosophies and herbal medicine to treat both her cancer and her particular brand of spirituality. In addition, several of the plot's "bad guys" were followers of a particular sect of Fundamentalist Christianity that Kit spends an overt amount of time condemning, despite her many lectures of tolerance, love, and forgiveness. This in turn incites Jane to regularly mock Fundamentalist Christianity by proxy.
While I realize that radicals of any religion are easy fodder for mainstream literature, the personal beliefs of the author completely overpower the actual plot of the book. It is patently obvious that Dewey is a major supporter of all things New Age, with a penchant for Buddhism, and is completely against a literal translation of the Bible. As I have said in previous reviews, a good author is invisible to the reader, but in this book, the author often felt more present in the plot than the actual characters the book was intended to be about - some sort of amalgamation of Jane and Kit. Despite the good intentions that I am sure Dewey harbors in writing in this fashion, I became rather depressed by the end of the book by the over-saturation of Dewey's agenda of New Ageism versus Christianity, as the book became less and less about the heroics of Jane Perry and more about the beliefs of Laurel Dewey.
While I acknowledge that I do not agree with everything within the particular doctrines of the character of Dr. John Bartosh, I do consider myself a Fundamentalist Christian, a person who believes in both the literal and figurative translation of the Bible. For the author to expect me, the reader, to not even be slightly offended by the condemnation and open mockery of what I consider to be the foundation of my morality and how I live my life on a daily basis is both presumptuous and insensitive.
Despite this, the book was well-written from a literary approach, with unique characters, an unpredictable plot, and no loose ends.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Love And Friendship (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Beckinsale excels in a comic tale of Girl Power in the 1790’s.
Set in 1790, Kate Beckinsale plays Lady Susan Vernon, an 18th century cuckoo-like ‘MILF’ (actually, more ‘LILF’, but using the ‘Lady’ term loosely) who with her glamourous demeanor is lusted after by both younger beaus as well as married aristocracy: an example being Lord Manwaring (Lochlann O’Mearáin).
Playing many different ends against the middle, Lady Susan – with the collusion of her American friend Alicia (Chloë Sevigny) – attempts to both find a suitably rich suitor for her daughter Frederica (Morfydd Clark) as well as finding a rich husband for herself to allow her to stay in the manor (sic) to which she has become accustomed. A tale of deception, pregnancy and a marriage of convenience follows: does Lady Susan have to choose between her sexual desires and the rich, stupid and dull Sir James Martin (Tom Bennett, “David Brent: Life on the Road”). Or can she have her cake and eat it?
Based on a Jane Austen short story, “Lady Susan”, this is a delight from beginning to end. However, it does require the attention of the viewer: characters get introduced to you in rapid fire succession, and keeping track of who’s who and how they interrelate is quite a challenge.
But this is a tour de force for Kate “Underworld” Beckinsale who delivers a depth of acting ability that I’ve not seen from her in the past. Her comic timing is just sublime, and while comedies are often overlooked in Awards season, this is a role for which she richly deserves both BAFTA and Oscar recognition.
Stephen Fry joins what is a superb ensemble cast. But outstanding among them is Tom Bennett who is simply hilarious as the nice but dim Sir James. The comic routine about his misunderstanding of “Churchill” (Church – Hill) – a running gag – is sublime and a challenger (with “Was that it t’were so simple”) for the comedy routine of the year.
Directed by Whit Stilman (“The Last Days of Disco”) from his own screenplay, this is one for the more sophisticated viewer: requiring of your full attention, but a treat for the eyes, ears and brain.
Playing many different ends against the middle, Lady Susan – with the collusion of her American friend Alicia (Chloë Sevigny) – attempts to both find a suitably rich suitor for her daughter Frederica (Morfydd Clark) as well as finding a rich husband for herself to allow her to stay in the manor (sic) to which she has become accustomed. A tale of deception, pregnancy and a marriage of convenience follows: does Lady Susan have to choose between her sexual desires and the rich, stupid and dull Sir James Martin (Tom Bennett, “David Brent: Life on the Road”). Or can she have her cake and eat it?
Based on a Jane Austen short story, “Lady Susan”, this is a delight from beginning to end. However, it does require the attention of the viewer: characters get introduced to you in rapid fire succession, and keeping track of who’s who and how they interrelate is quite a challenge.
But this is a tour de force for Kate “Underworld” Beckinsale who delivers a depth of acting ability that I’ve not seen from her in the past. Her comic timing is just sublime, and while comedies are often overlooked in Awards season, this is a role for which she richly deserves both BAFTA and Oscar recognition.
Stephen Fry joins what is a superb ensemble cast. But outstanding among them is Tom Bennett who is simply hilarious as the nice but dim Sir James. The comic routine about his misunderstanding of “Churchill” (Church – Hill) – a running gag – is sublime and a challenger (with “Was that it t’were so simple”) for the comedy routine of the year.
Directed by Whit Stilman (“The Last Days of Disco”) from his own screenplay, this is one for the more sophisticated viewer: requiring of your full attention, but a treat for the eyes, ears and brain.