Search
Search results
Grocery list. Easy shopping list
Shopping and Productivity
App
"Happiness is not in money but in Shopping" said Marilyn Monroe. Comfortable and functional app ...
ClareR (5874 KP) rated Shrines of Gaiety in Books
Dec 5, 2022
What can I write to do this book justice, other than say “just read it?” I have to admit to not having read much Kate Atkinson before - only the first Jackson Brodie novel, which I loved - but I really feel I should read more of her books!
Shrines of Gaiety is set in the 1920’s, post First World War, and encompasses post war life with all of its excesses, poverty, grief and debauchery.
Nellie Coker is a self made woman who owns a series of nightclubs in London. She’s a single mother, and five of her six children help her to run her empire (the sixth is too young). How she came to own these clubs is a mystery. But the chances are that it wasn’t legal money!
Then there are the 14 year old runaways, Freda and Florence, who want to take to the stage to find fame and fortune.
Detective Chief Inspector Frobisher is determined to bring Nellie Coker and her corrupt empire down, as well as the corrupt police officers that support her. He also becomes involved in the search for the two runaways, thanks to Gwendoline Kelling, a librarian who has inherited a considerable amount of money. She’s a friend of one of the runaways sister, and vows to find her.
I won’t just regurgitate the story, that’s no fun, and you need to read this book for yourself! Needless to say, I loved these characters - the whole novel in fact! It’s a gripping, entertaining story, and it was a joy to read.
Very highly recommended.
Oh, and for the book cover fans, it’s a gorgeous one!
Shrines of Gaiety is set in the 1920’s, post First World War, and encompasses post war life with all of its excesses, poverty, grief and debauchery.
Nellie Coker is a self made woman who owns a series of nightclubs in London. She’s a single mother, and five of her six children help her to run her empire (the sixth is too young). How she came to own these clubs is a mystery. But the chances are that it wasn’t legal money!
Then there are the 14 year old runaways, Freda and Florence, who want to take to the stage to find fame and fortune.
Detective Chief Inspector Frobisher is determined to bring Nellie Coker and her corrupt empire down, as well as the corrupt police officers that support her. He also becomes involved in the search for the two runaways, thanks to Gwendoline Kelling, a librarian who has inherited a considerable amount of money. She’s a friend of one of the runaways sister, and vows to find her.
I won’t just regurgitate the story, that’s no fun, and you need to read this book for yourself! Needless to say, I loved these characters - the whole novel in fact! It’s a gripping, entertaining story, and it was a joy to read.
Very highly recommended.
Oh, and for the book cover fans, it’s a gorgeous one!
The Storyteller of Auschwitz
9.0
Rate It
Book
Auschwitz, 1942. ‘When this is all over, you will be able to tell the world what they did to...
Cody Cook (8 KP) rated A Black Theology of Liberation in Books
Jun 29, 2018
James Cone is considered to be the founder of Black Liberation Theology, a variant of the Liberation Theology movement most widely connected with South American theologian Gustavo Gutierrez. Liberation Theology emphasizes those biblical concerns that white European flavored Christianity has often looked over– concerns like justice and liberation for the oppressed and downtrodden (Luke 4:16-21, Matthew 25:31-45, etc.). Though these emphases are quite important, in Liberation movements, they can often drown out other, extremely vital, elements of the Christian faith, as they clearly do in Cone’s Black Liberation Theology.
One major issue for Cone is one of authority. The experience of one group of people (the oppressed) becomes equivalent with universal truth, and not simply an important concern in Christian theology. In other words, Cone makes his own experience the judge of who God is and what God is for. While “white” (a term used by Cone not so much to reflect skin color but an oppressor mentality) Christianity commits this grave error without realizing it, Cone does so with full knowledge. So, for instance, while a conservative “white” theologian would say that his own views and actions *should* be directed by the scripture (whether or not he does in fact direct them by this standard), Cone makes the judgement of the oppressed black community the ultimate truth for them– and if mass violence against whites is decided by the group as the best means to effect their liberation, so be it. Cone explicitly distances himself from the approach of King, identifying more with the violence-prone philosophy of the Nation of Islam as propounded by Malcolm X. If someone criticizes his approach, he seems to assume that they’re doing so as a “white” oppressor and should be ignored– an oppressor has no moral right to question the rightness or wrongness of the actions of the people he is oppressing. This of course ignores the criticisms of violence, even from the oppressed, of black Christians like Martin Luther King Jr., Desmond Tutu, etc. Cone is also unfortunately either unfamiliar with or unconvinced by pacifist Christian claims to be committed to peaceful action, since he equates non-violence with inaction and acquiescence. While he is absolutely correct in seeing liberation as an important theme in the Christian faith, he, like “white” religionists, allows his own experience and emotions to determine what is right and wrong to the point of supporting evil in the interest of what he feels is best for his community. However, what can’t be said of Cone’s position on violence is that it is radical, because it is emphatically not. The political heroes of most white Americans are men who used violence to gain political autonomy. Thus, it is not radical for black men and women to look up to figures like Malcolm X and James Cone who advocate doing the same thing if it seems necessary for freedom and self-determination; it is merely status quo. The problem is that Jesus calls all men and women, regardless of color, to rise above the status quo and the myth of redemptive violence.
Seizing on that point, one major problem with Cone’s view of violent revolution is that when oppressed people rise up through violence, they become the oppressor– co-opting the tools of oppression and dehumanization. “Blacks” become “white” through the use of violence. Cone seems unaware of (doubtful) or unaffected by the history of the Bolshevik, Cuban, or French revolutions, wherein the oppressed quickly became the oppressors and became twofold more a child of hell than their oppressors. His view also reshapes Nat Turner, the slave who claimed to have been directed by God to murder white women and children, into an unqualified hero. Cone’s system re-establishes and re-affirms oppression– it does not end it.
For Cone, God is black and the devil is white, because God supports the oppressed and the devil supports the oppressor. But in so closely identifying God with blackness, the actions of those in the black community are now above being questioned, just like the actions of white enslavers were, according to them, above being questioned because they aligned themselves with God and those whom they oppressed with the devil.
What Cone is really trying to get at is that since Jesus supports the cause of the oppressed, the oppressor must so distance himself from his oppressor identity that he becomes indistinguishable from the oppressed– willing to suffer along with them– if he is to be Christ-like. In other words, the “white” must become “black.” Cone says that God can’t be colorless where people suffer for their color. So, where blacks suffer God is black. Taking this logic, which is indeed rooted in Scripture, where the poor suffer, God is poor. Where babies are killed in the womb, God is an aborted baby. Where gay people are bullied, God is gay. It is our obligation to identify with the downtrodden, because that’s what Jesus did. Paul, quoting a hymn of the church about Jesus, puts it this way:
“In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
‘Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!'”
–Philippians 2:5-8
Jesus not only gives up his power to express love to the powerless by identifying with them, He also takes on their sin and suffers with and for them. This is the essence of the gospel, and it often gets lost when we translate it into our daily lives. For Cone, this important truth gets lost in the banner of black militantism and the cycle of violence. For so many American Christians, it gets lost when they reduce the political nature of Christianity to scolding those whose private expression of morality doesn’t line up with theirs. We refuse to identify with sinners (which is a category we all fit into) in love.
One major issue for Cone is one of authority. The experience of one group of people (the oppressed) becomes equivalent with universal truth, and not simply an important concern in Christian theology. In other words, Cone makes his own experience the judge of who God is and what God is for. While “white” (a term used by Cone not so much to reflect skin color but an oppressor mentality) Christianity commits this grave error without realizing it, Cone does so with full knowledge. So, for instance, while a conservative “white” theologian would say that his own views and actions *should* be directed by the scripture (whether or not he does in fact direct them by this standard), Cone makes the judgement of the oppressed black community the ultimate truth for them– and if mass violence against whites is decided by the group as the best means to effect their liberation, so be it. Cone explicitly distances himself from the approach of King, identifying more with the violence-prone philosophy of the Nation of Islam as propounded by Malcolm X. If someone criticizes his approach, he seems to assume that they’re doing so as a “white” oppressor and should be ignored– an oppressor has no moral right to question the rightness or wrongness of the actions of the people he is oppressing. This of course ignores the criticisms of violence, even from the oppressed, of black Christians like Martin Luther King Jr., Desmond Tutu, etc. Cone is also unfortunately either unfamiliar with or unconvinced by pacifist Christian claims to be committed to peaceful action, since he equates non-violence with inaction and acquiescence. While he is absolutely correct in seeing liberation as an important theme in the Christian faith, he, like “white” religionists, allows his own experience and emotions to determine what is right and wrong to the point of supporting evil in the interest of what he feels is best for his community. However, what can’t be said of Cone’s position on violence is that it is radical, because it is emphatically not. The political heroes of most white Americans are men who used violence to gain political autonomy. Thus, it is not radical for black men and women to look up to figures like Malcolm X and James Cone who advocate doing the same thing if it seems necessary for freedom and self-determination; it is merely status quo. The problem is that Jesus calls all men and women, regardless of color, to rise above the status quo and the myth of redemptive violence.
Seizing on that point, one major problem with Cone’s view of violent revolution is that when oppressed people rise up through violence, they become the oppressor– co-opting the tools of oppression and dehumanization. “Blacks” become “white” through the use of violence. Cone seems unaware of (doubtful) or unaffected by the history of the Bolshevik, Cuban, or French revolutions, wherein the oppressed quickly became the oppressors and became twofold more a child of hell than their oppressors. His view also reshapes Nat Turner, the slave who claimed to have been directed by God to murder white women and children, into an unqualified hero. Cone’s system re-establishes and re-affirms oppression– it does not end it.
For Cone, God is black and the devil is white, because God supports the oppressed and the devil supports the oppressor. But in so closely identifying God with blackness, the actions of those in the black community are now above being questioned, just like the actions of white enslavers were, according to them, above being questioned because they aligned themselves with God and those whom they oppressed with the devil.
What Cone is really trying to get at is that since Jesus supports the cause of the oppressed, the oppressor must so distance himself from his oppressor identity that he becomes indistinguishable from the oppressed– willing to suffer along with them– if he is to be Christ-like. In other words, the “white” must become “black.” Cone says that God can’t be colorless where people suffer for their color. So, where blacks suffer God is black. Taking this logic, which is indeed rooted in Scripture, where the poor suffer, God is poor. Where babies are killed in the womb, God is an aborted baby. Where gay people are bullied, God is gay. It is our obligation to identify with the downtrodden, because that’s what Jesus did. Paul, quoting a hymn of the church about Jesus, puts it this way:
“In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
‘Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!'”
–Philippians 2:5-8
Jesus not only gives up his power to express love to the powerless by identifying with them, He also takes on their sin and suffers with and for them. This is the essence of the gospel, and it often gets lost when we translate it into our daily lives. For Cone, this important truth gets lost in the banner of black militantism and the cycle of violence. For so many American Christians, it gets lost when they reduce the political nature of Christianity to scolding those whose private expression of morality doesn’t line up with theirs. We refuse to identify with sinners (which is a category we all fit into) in love.
Dianne Robbins (1738 KP) rated Still Alice (2015) in Movies
Mar 21, 2019
Kristin Stewart's character (3 more)
Alec Baldwin's character
Not true to the book
Watered-down Chen I read the book, I was immersed
Very disappointing
Contains spoilers, click to show
When I read the book, I was immersed with what it was like to have early onset Alzheimer's disease. It was horrifying and painful and I could understand the painful decisions Alice made and the complexity and beauty of the betrayal of her husband. None of this was portrayed in the movie. One of the most terrifying scenes in the book is when Alice mistakes a brown throw rug as a hole in the floor and is too frightened to get near it to answer her door or walk to her bathroom. She could not understand the texture of the rug and that she could simply walk across it. Instead, she curled up in fear and urinating on herself while waiting hours or days for someone to rescue her. Early onset Alzheimer's and the physical and psychological symptoms were not described as well as they were in the book so the film lacked real drama. Also, the relationships between Alice and her husband, Alice and her children, especially Kristin Stewart's character were extremely vague, so they didn't really make sense in the movie.
The only good thing in the film was Julienne Moore's performance. Even though the script was extremely watered down, Moore did the best she could with the material. If they had included more of what was in the book, Moore would have shined. She's an amazing actress and this role was meant for her. It's a shame the script didn't allow her to perform her heart out, which she would have done given the chance.
I'm disgusted by either the screenwriter or director who chose to leave out the most poignant aspects of the book and in their, and all filmmakers, choice to dumb down movies to appeal to the American public by always finishing with a happy ending. There is beauty in pain. There is beauty in death. There is beauty is release. Filmmakers should know that.
The only good thing in the film was Julienne Moore's performance. Even though the script was extremely watered down, Moore did the best she could with the material. If they had included more of what was in the book, Moore would have shined. She's an amazing actress and this role was meant for her. It's a shame the script didn't allow her to perform her heart out, which she would have done given the chance.
I'm disgusted by either the screenwriter or director who chose to leave out the most poignant aspects of the book and in their, and all filmmakers, choice to dumb down movies to appeal to the American public by always finishing with a happy ending. There is beauty in pain. There is beauty in death. There is beauty is release. Filmmakers should know that.
The Wild Truth: The Secrets That Drove Chris McCandless into the Wild
Book
The key missing piece of Jon Krakauer's multi million, multi territory bestseller and widely...
Eleanor Luhar (47 KP) rated The Sisters of the Winter Wood in Books
Jun 24, 2019
I'm going to avoid discussing the plot too much so I don't spoil any potential readers (and I do recommend you read this!).
This book is set in Dubossary, narrated alternately by Liba and Laya. Liba is the older of the two, the only children in their family. They are Jews, and while this book was hugely about their faith and discrimination against them, it is not only about that. This book was like a new fairytale. It had magic in every page, and was genuinely exciting to read. There were tragic elements, tons of romance, and even a sense of suspense.
The girls are left in their home alone when their parents rush off to Kupel in a family emergency. But just as they plan to leave, the girls' Mami decides it's time to tell her daughters who they really are: a bear and a swan.
As I said, I will not delve into the story too much. But I really loved the story involving Laya and the Hovlin brothers, as well as Liba's own internal struggles. Laya's romance at the end of the book was, in my opinion, a little rushed and unexpected, but that's the only real downside I have.
The writing was lovely - it included Yiddish and Hebrew dialect, which was translated in the Author's Note at the end. (A quick side note; I actually read the entire Note, which is really quite rare for me.) And Laya's account, in particular, felt so poetic. She was definitely my favourite character, as much as I love Liba, too. And the relationship between the girls is so, so lovely. No matter how much they try to push each other away, they are always there for each other in the end.
As I enjoyed this book so much, I tried to talk about it with my boyfriend. However, I soon discovered that describing this story is really quite a feat. It was full of little details and twists that just made the story.
I really liked this book. As I only received an ARC and not a final edition, I didn't have the official layout, which I can imagine may add to it also. Even so, I'm easily giving this 4.5 to 5 stars.
This book is set in Dubossary, narrated alternately by Liba and Laya. Liba is the older of the two, the only children in their family. They are Jews, and while this book was hugely about their faith and discrimination against them, it is not only about that. This book was like a new fairytale. It had magic in every page, and was genuinely exciting to read. There were tragic elements, tons of romance, and even a sense of suspense.
The girls are left in their home alone when their parents rush off to Kupel in a family emergency. But just as they plan to leave, the girls' Mami decides it's time to tell her daughters who they really are: a bear and a swan.
As I said, I will not delve into the story too much. But I really loved the story involving Laya and the Hovlin brothers, as well as Liba's own internal struggles. Laya's romance at the end of the book was, in my opinion, a little rushed and unexpected, but that's the only real downside I have.
The writing was lovely - it included Yiddish and Hebrew dialect, which was translated in the Author's Note at the end. (A quick side note; I actually read the entire Note, which is really quite rare for me.) And Laya's account, in particular, felt so poetic. She was definitely my favourite character, as much as I love Liba, too. And the relationship between the girls is so, so lovely. No matter how much they try to push each other away, they are always there for each other in the end.
As I enjoyed this book so much, I tried to talk about it with my boyfriend. However, I soon discovered that describing this story is really quite a feat. It was full of little details and twists that just made the story.
I really liked this book. As I only received an ARC and not a final edition, I didn't have the official layout, which I can imagine may add to it also. Even so, I'm easily giving this 4.5 to 5 stars.
Originals: How Non-Conformists Move the World
Book
The #1 New York Times bestseller that examines how people can champion new ideas—and how leaders...
Business psychology
The Heartbeat of Wounded Knee: Native America from 1890 to the Present
Book
An informed, moving and kaleidoscopic portrait... Treuer's powerful book suggests the need for...
Madagascar Preschool Surf n Slide Free
Games and Education
App
***** #1 Ranked Educational Game in 55 Countries ***** “…it is worth purchasing. It’s one of...