Search
Search results
Rachel King (13 KP) rated Water for Elephants in Books
Feb 11, 2019
This is one of those books that I read because I loved the movie first. So, I was quite surprised when I read how the book begins - with the murder of one of the main characters. When I further realized that August does not own the Benzini Brothers, I began to see the movie as its own story separate from the book.
Jacob is by far the most interesting character of the book, especially since he tells the story as an old man in a nursing home - and has the wisdom and experience to go with his age. His emotions are infectious and I longed to sit down with him and listen to all of his stories in person way before I finished the book.
August is the kind of villain that is confusing in his evil deeds - he has schizophrenia - which makes it somewhat unfair to dislike him so much. His irrational behavior has been exploited for the almighty dollar by Uncle Al - but the real villain tends to fade into the background.
Marlena is beautiful to the point of angelic, very little of what she does can be considered wrong in any way, as she is a victim struggling for freedom for most of the book. She approaches August's mood swings with the same caution due a wild animal, and remains faithful to him despite her personal feelings, and does not leave until he first betrays her. Considering how women today will leave their husbands for any reason, I admire her strong morals.
The background is set during the Great Depression, which made for many intense situations as the circus struggled to profit, as well as the survival of the cast of characters. Though I studied this period in American history, the direct experience gave me a clearer idea of the desperation of people alive during this time - how easily morals could be put on hold for the sake of another mouthful of food or another coin in the pocket. So many men of the circus would work without pay for the promise of another meal and unending hope that life could still improve.
Rosie, the elephant, is also one of the most fascinating characters in the book. She proved to be only one example of how animals were exploited to the point of cruelty for profit. I could not help wondering where the animal activists were.
Needless to say, this book sparked many conversations and inspired many moments of personal contemplation for me. I loved this book, and I highly recommend it.
Jacob is by far the most interesting character of the book, especially since he tells the story as an old man in a nursing home - and has the wisdom and experience to go with his age. His emotions are infectious and I longed to sit down with him and listen to all of his stories in person way before I finished the book.
August is the kind of villain that is confusing in his evil deeds - he has schizophrenia - which makes it somewhat unfair to dislike him so much. His irrational behavior has been exploited for the almighty dollar by Uncle Al - but the real villain tends to fade into the background.
Marlena is beautiful to the point of angelic, very little of what she does can be considered wrong in any way, as she is a victim struggling for freedom for most of the book. She approaches August's mood swings with the same caution due a wild animal, and remains faithful to him despite her personal feelings, and does not leave until he first betrays her. Considering how women today will leave their husbands for any reason, I admire her strong morals.
The background is set during the Great Depression, which made for many intense situations as the circus struggled to profit, as well as the survival of the cast of characters. Though I studied this period in American history, the direct experience gave me a clearer idea of the desperation of people alive during this time - how easily morals could be put on hold for the sake of another mouthful of food or another coin in the pocket. So many men of the circus would work without pay for the promise of another meal and unending hope that life could still improve.
Rosie, the elephant, is also one of the most fascinating characters in the book. She proved to be only one example of how animals were exploited to the point of cruelty for profit. I could not help wondering where the animal activists were.
Needless to say, this book sparked many conversations and inspired many moments of personal contemplation for me. I loved this book, and I highly recommend it.
JT (287 KP) rated Argo (2012) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Does making a film based on a true story make it any more endearing to the Oscar big wigs? Possibly, but one thing is for sure, Ben Affleck’s third film Argo is an outstanding piece of film making with exceptional attention to detail and sense of realism.
In 1979 Iran was overrun by Iranian revolutionaries, these revolutionaries stormed the American embassy taking several Americans hostage. Six of those managed to escape to the official residence of the Canadian Ambassador where the CIA was eventually ordered to get them out of the country by whatever means necessary.
Led by Tony Mendez (Affleck) a CIA expert in exfiltration he puts together an elaborate plan to go in as a film producer and rescue the six who’ll pose as a film crew on a location hunt for new sci-fi flick, Argo. Even if this was fiction it would be a pretty daring plan in an environment that was so hostile for its time they’re hanging people by cranes in the street, and women carry machine guns!
In order to make the film seem as real as possible Mendez enlists the help of John Chambers (John Goodman) a Hollywood make-up artist whose helped the CIA out before and film producer Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin). Between them they put the film into fake production, concoct false identities for the six and set about taking them out directly though the Iranian airport in a daring escape.
Affleck gets the cinematography spot on, creating a grainy perspective for that era and using some real footage as well. It all helps convey the narrative and plot that this was one of the most dangerous missions of its time and one what would live long in CIA and American history.
Goodman and Arkin add a humorous element to the proceedings “if it’s going to be a fake film I want it to be a fake hit” Lester claims when he’s approached about the project. The other side feels like a 70s version of 24 with the political suits in boardrooms arguing about the best way to execute the plan.
The tension is built slowly with everything climaxing to a pulsating last act which will have your heart pounding and seat gripped. Personally I didn’t endear to any of the six escapees, their stories are not built up enough other than they’re all unsure if they can trust Mendez to get them back on home soil safely.
Argo got the best picture Oscar over a lot of other seemingly worthy nominees, but you couldn’t deny Affleck his moment in the spotlight and cementing him as one of the best actor to director transitions. While the film might not be entirely accurate, Affleck just wants to get to the heart of this espionage thriller and does so while finding a perfect balance between comedy and drama.
In 1979 Iran was overrun by Iranian revolutionaries, these revolutionaries stormed the American embassy taking several Americans hostage. Six of those managed to escape to the official residence of the Canadian Ambassador where the CIA was eventually ordered to get them out of the country by whatever means necessary.
Led by Tony Mendez (Affleck) a CIA expert in exfiltration he puts together an elaborate plan to go in as a film producer and rescue the six who’ll pose as a film crew on a location hunt for new sci-fi flick, Argo. Even if this was fiction it would be a pretty daring plan in an environment that was so hostile for its time they’re hanging people by cranes in the street, and women carry machine guns!
In order to make the film seem as real as possible Mendez enlists the help of John Chambers (John Goodman) a Hollywood make-up artist whose helped the CIA out before and film producer Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin). Between them they put the film into fake production, concoct false identities for the six and set about taking them out directly though the Iranian airport in a daring escape.
Affleck gets the cinematography spot on, creating a grainy perspective for that era and using some real footage as well. It all helps convey the narrative and plot that this was one of the most dangerous missions of its time and one what would live long in CIA and American history.
Goodman and Arkin add a humorous element to the proceedings “if it’s going to be a fake film I want it to be a fake hit” Lester claims when he’s approached about the project. The other side feels like a 70s version of 24 with the political suits in boardrooms arguing about the best way to execute the plan.
The tension is built slowly with everything climaxing to a pulsating last act which will have your heart pounding and seat gripped. Personally I didn’t endear to any of the six escapees, their stories are not built up enough other than they’re all unsure if they can trust Mendez to get them back on home soil safely.
Argo got the best picture Oscar over a lot of other seemingly worthy nominees, but you couldn’t deny Affleck his moment in the spotlight and cementing him as one of the best actor to director transitions. While the film might not be entirely accurate, Affleck just wants to get to the heart of this espionage thriller and does so while finding a perfect balance between comedy and drama.
The first half of The Serpent and the Moon mainly deals with Francois I's reign as king and has little to do with the love triangle. Frankly, the whole book itself hasn't much to do with the love triangle or "one of the great love stories of all time," but more to do with the political intrigue of Henri I and his father's reigns. Oh, and lest I forget, Henri, Diane, and both of their symbols, monograms, etc. I honestly don't know what the whole fascination of that was all about, but it showed up everywhere.
On page 187 the princess tells us that it is a man's way of thinking that Diane wouldn't have become Henri's mistress if he hadn't become dauphin. I disagree, it is a realist's view, and frankly, I think it's fully possible that was how it started. Yes, maybe she was flattered by his attention too, but to consider having him as a lover in light of how much she was in his life growing up, it's a bit creepy. Oedipus comes to mind. I believe he was infatuated with her from a young age and it most likely progressed into love, for both of them. I envision her grabbing the chance at being the mistress of a king and being older, she knew how to mould and persuade him. Whether or not it was a true love story, I really don't know; I'm not sure anyone does and I don't care all that much.
As many other reviewers have stated, there is an obvious bias. The readers are warned in the introduction, but even if you know that, there's still the possibility that the work as a whole might be neutral. Unfortunately, that's not the case. Maybe if it had only been a slight bias, I wouldn't have cared so much, but when an author heaps praise on one person and how they accomplish everything, and then turn around and bash someone else for the exact same thing. Well, that's just hypocrisy.
From the book, the author would have you believe that Diane de Poitiers got to where she was merely by being a good, honest, gracious, and pious woman and Catherine de' Medici did it by being a cold, heartless, evil, spiteful person. I'm sorry but you cannot have climbed to the heights Diane did, especially in those times, without being conniving in one way or the other. I'm sure she did the same things Catherine did, so quit holding Diane up on a pedestal; she's really not a goddess, just a woman. Diane is a white light, Catherine is black as death and there isn't any grey between them for most of the book. By the end of the book I really took the "history" lightly, mainly that of these two women, more than anything else; it was just an unfair assessment. And with the author's snarky and catty remarks directed towards Catherine, saying she has a "fat little heart," well, that was just uncalled for. Then at the end, her words were so disgusting about Catherine's behavior towards Diane, saying how petty she was and she did things purely due to "feminine spite". Catherine could have done much worse to her but she didn't! Of course, Ms. Perfect D. was always so respectful and exemplary of Catherine. Give me a break. Maybe some of the things said in the book were true about both women, but then again, maybe not. Most is lost to history.
If Princess Michael of Kent's plan was for me to sympathize and idolize Diane de Poitiers, as she does, it backfired. Now I don't ever care to ever hear about her again, and I love history of all kinds. On the other hand, I have already ordered two books about Catherine de' Medici from the library. Most likely the opposite of what she wanted. I honestly don't blame Catherine if she was bitter, who wouldn't be in that situation? Even if it was a different time, circumstance, and an arranged marriage? I refuse to believe Diane was this perfect being, a goddess, virtuous as can be, a victim - nobody is all these things and I don't know why the author cannot see any imperfections and insists on romanticizing her.
Even though I hated how biased this book was, I still appreciate the amount of research this must have taken, it was fairly well-written in form, and there was loads of information. I'd only recommend this to Catherine haters, loathers, or serious dislikers. With the princess's flair for the dramatic and speculation on feelings and actions, she might want to focus on writing works of fiction instead. I have no desire to read anything by this author again.
On page 187 the princess tells us that it is a man's way of thinking that Diane wouldn't have become Henri's mistress if he hadn't become dauphin. I disagree, it is a realist's view, and frankly, I think it's fully possible that was how it started. Yes, maybe she was flattered by his attention too, but to consider having him as a lover in light of how much she was in his life growing up, it's a bit creepy. Oedipus comes to mind. I believe he was infatuated with her from a young age and it most likely progressed into love, for both of them. I envision her grabbing the chance at being the mistress of a king and being older, she knew how to mould and persuade him. Whether or not it was a true love story, I really don't know; I'm not sure anyone does and I don't care all that much.
As many other reviewers have stated, there is an obvious bias. The readers are warned in the introduction, but even if you know that, there's still the possibility that the work as a whole might be neutral. Unfortunately, that's not the case. Maybe if it had only been a slight bias, I wouldn't have cared so much, but when an author heaps praise on one person and how they accomplish everything, and then turn around and bash someone else for the exact same thing. Well, that's just hypocrisy.
From the book, the author would have you believe that Diane de Poitiers got to where she was merely by being a good, honest, gracious, and pious woman and Catherine de' Medici did it by being a cold, heartless, evil, spiteful person. I'm sorry but you cannot have climbed to the heights Diane did, especially in those times, without being conniving in one way or the other. I'm sure she did the same things Catherine did, so quit holding Diane up on a pedestal; she's really not a goddess, just a woman. Diane is a white light, Catherine is black as death and there isn't any grey between them for most of the book. By the end of the book I really took the "history" lightly, mainly that of these two women, more than anything else; it was just an unfair assessment. And with the author's snarky and catty remarks directed towards Catherine, saying she has a "fat little heart," well, that was just uncalled for. Then at the end, her words were so disgusting about Catherine's behavior towards Diane, saying how petty she was and she did things purely due to "feminine spite". Catherine could have done much worse to her but she didn't! Of course, Ms. Perfect D. was always so respectful and exemplary of Catherine. Give me a break. Maybe some of the things said in the book were true about both women, but then again, maybe not. Most is lost to history.
If Princess Michael of Kent's plan was for me to sympathize and idolize Diane de Poitiers, as she does, it backfired. Now I don't ever care to ever hear about her again, and I love history of all kinds. On the other hand, I have already ordered two books about Catherine de' Medici from the library. Most likely the opposite of what she wanted. I honestly don't blame Catherine if she was bitter, who wouldn't be in that situation? Even if it was a different time, circumstance, and an arranged marriage? I refuse to believe Diane was this perfect being, a goddess, virtuous as can be, a victim - nobody is all these things and I don't know why the author cannot see any imperfections and insists on romanticizing her.
Even though I hated how biased this book was, I still appreciate the amount of research this must have taken, it was fairly well-written in form, and there was loads of information. I'd only recommend this to Catherine haters, loathers, or serious dislikers. With the princess's flair for the dramatic and speculation on feelings and actions, she might want to focus on writing works of fiction instead. I have no desire to read anything by this author again.
postapocalypticplayground (27 KP) rated Heart of Thorns (Heart of Thorns #1) in Books
Aug 13, 2018
Firstly, I did enjoy Heart of Thorns, I found it an easy going read with lots going on and some twists I genuinely didn't see coming. Whilst Mia is the MC, I have to say that Quin does actually steal the show. As far as character development goes his transformation from formal and unemotional prince to what he becomes is a real joy to read with so many facets of his personality. I liked the way that the history of the world we find ourselves in is laid out conversationally rather than in one big chunk. The journey Mia and Quin find themselves on is long and for the most part without peril so it's the perfect way to fill the time. Given Quin's sheltered upbringing at the castle it's not so far fetched that given his fathers fears, he would know very little of the surrounding lands. Mia does struggle to get out her one dimension though, which I don't know if is by design to explain things later on or whether she simply needed a bit more breathing room and perhaps a different focus from time to time. Things really felt like she was too transfixed on righting the wrongs of the past to focus upon the present dangers.
The book also raises a lot about feminism, I have to say that it take a while to get to this point and to start I felt it was yet again another misrepresentation that Fighter = Feminist but thankfully all that changed. It makes much of the differences in society between men and women and how women need to fight to be anything but a pair of legs that needed to open. The origins of the magic within the story are really quite heartbreaking and born out of a necessity for self preservation which naturally becomes misrepresented and skewed over time to make magic a true evil which is feared by men. There is an element of the macabre in the King's fascination with the slaughter of those with magic and his trophy room will have your stomach clenching.
This book does misdirection well and it's all the more easier to achieve with a large supporting cast. I genuinely was left with a number of WTF moments as the story went on, I had to re-read a few pages just to confirm that the twist was as awesome as it was and this book has them in spades towards the end.
However, all this needs to be offset by some things that made it fall just short for me. It's clear that Mia has studied medicine, but her overly complex use of medical descriptions of bodily parts is unnecessary and makes for jarring reading "She dug her fingertips into the bridge of her nose. 'The sphenoid bone. It's like my whole cerebrum is on fire." Why not just say she had a headache? It's also mega tropey - I don't as a rule mind tropes in books, they exist for a reason but this book turned out so many including the ever present MC as a huntress with the sister who dreamed of marrying a nice prince, that I found my eyes rolling. There is also a lot of tick boxing going on in respect of LGBT diversity, there was a neon sign for one character as if the author was labouring the point - the disappointing thing is that this element did fit organically into the story in a really beautiful yet heartbreaking way at a later time which made me feel that the earlier depiction was somewhat unnecessary.
Whilst there are some failings, this is an enjoyable read with plenty of magic, mystery, and misdirection and if you are in the mood for an adventure you will hopefully enjoy Heart of Thorns
3*
The book also raises a lot about feminism, I have to say that it take a while to get to this point and to start I felt it was yet again another misrepresentation that Fighter = Feminist but thankfully all that changed. It makes much of the differences in society between men and women and how women need to fight to be anything but a pair of legs that needed to open. The origins of the magic within the story are really quite heartbreaking and born out of a necessity for self preservation which naturally becomes misrepresented and skewed over time to make magic a true evil which is feared by men. There is an element of the macabre in the King's fascination with the slaughter of those with magic and his trophy room will have your stomach clenching.
This book does misdirection well and it's all the more easier to achieve with a large supporting cast. I genuinely was left with a number of WTF moments as the story went on, I had to re-read a few pages just to confirm that the twist was as awesome as it was and this book has them in spades towards the end.
However, all this needs to be offset by some things that made it fall just short for me. It's clear that Mia has studied medicine, but her overly complex use of medical descriptions of bodily parts is unnecessary and makes for jarring reading "She dug her fingertips into the bridge of her nose. 'The sphenoid bone. It's like my whole cerebrum is on fire." Why not just say she had a headache? It's also mega tropey - I don't as a rule mind tropes in books, they exist for a reason but this book turned out so many including the ever present MC as a huntress with the sister who dreamed of marrying a nice prince, that I found my eyes rolling. There is also a lot of tick boxing going on in respect of LGBT diversity, there was a neon sign for one character as if the author was labouring the point - the disappointing thing is that this element did fit organically into the story in a really beautiful yet heartbreaking way at a later time which made me feel that the earlier depiction was somewhat unnecessary.
Whilst there are some failings, this is an enjoyable read with plenty of magic, mystery, and misdirection and if you are in the mood for an adventure you will hopefully enjoy Heart of Thorns
3*
BookblogbyCari (345 KP) rated The Dark Net in Books
Jan 26, 2019
Eye-opening!
For those who don’t know, the dark net is hidden seedier internet just below the regular surface internet. In this work of non-fiction, Bartlett explores the dark net’s various elusive and somewhat criminal goings-on; often going out of his way in the name of research.
The book kicks off with a dramatic introduction, talking about the Assassination Market. The assassination market is basically an online list of names and dates. Participants bet on what date an individual on the list will die. If a bet is correctly “guessed”, the winner walks away with all the winnings. Unfortunately, this was the shortest chapter and had the least amount of research made evident.
The drama continues in the following chapter which is about trolling, however this chapter read like a history book, and didn’t live up to the precedent set in the introduction. Shortly afterward though, Bartlett goes on to talk about one-man political parties, who set up several accounts on several sites to get their propaganda trending.
Later on Bartlett journeys into the strange real world community of Calafou. Here he meets cypherpunks and explains the crypto-currency Bitcoin to the reader. This unfortunately was another rather drab chapter.
The shortest chapter following the introduction was entitled “Three clicks”, which was named so when the author tried to find out how long it would take him to find child porn using free software known as “The Onion Router” and the “Hidden Wiki”. (Of course the author reported it to the police.)
There’s also a chapter on pro-anorexia and pro-self-harm sites.
And when I said the author often went out of his way in the name of research, I wasn’t kidding! The author went on the online “Silk Road” to purchase a very small amount of marijuana! And later still Bartlett is in the actual bedroom of a webcam star as she performs a rude show with 3 other women!
Reading a book on the dark net is the closest I’m ever going to get to actually using the dark net, so I wanted a lot from this book. I learned that the dark net would be pretty easy to navigate if I really wanted to use it. That said there was nothing in the book that would entice me to do anything that might involve covering my tracks.
So although there were a couple of chapters that were unnecessarily long, the other chapters definitely made up for it! Aside from the lack of detail on the Assassination Market, the remainder of the book appears well researched, with a lot of face to face and online meetings between the author and the people in the know.
The book kicks off with a dramatic introduction, talking about the Assassination Market. The assassination market is basically an online list of names and dates. Participants bet on what date an individual on the list will die. If a bet is correctly “guessed”, the winner walks away with all the winnings. Unfortunately, this was the shortest chapter and had the least amount of research made evident.
The drama continues in the following chapter which is about trolling, however this chapter read like a history book, and didn’t live up to the precedent set in the introduction. Shortly afterward though, Bartlett goes on to talk about one-man political parties, who set up several accounts on several sites to get their propaganda trending.
Later on Bartlett journeys into the strange real world community of Calafou. Here he meets cypherpunks and explains the crypto-currency Bitcoin to the reader. This unfortunately was another rather drab chapter.
The shortest chapter following the introduction was entitled “Three clicks”, which was named so when the author tried to find out how long it would take him to find child porn using free software known as “The Onion Router” and the “Hidden Wiki”. (Of course the author reported it to the police.)
There’s also a chapter on pro-anorexia and pro-self-harm sites.
And when I said the author often went out of his way in the name of research, I wasn’t kidding! The author went on the online “Silk Road” to purchase a very small amount of marijuana! And later still Bartlett is in the actual bedroom of a webcam star as she performs a rude show with 3 other women!
Reading a book on the dark net is the closest I’m ever going to get to actually using the dark net, so I wanted a lot from this book. I learned that the dark net would be pretty easy to navigate if I really wanted to use it. That said there was nothing in the book that would entice me to do anything that might involve covering my tracks.
So although there were a couple of chapters that were unnecessarily long, the other chapters definitely made up for it! Aside from the lack of detail on the Assassination Market, the remainder of the book appears well researched, with a lot of face to face and online meetings between the author and the people in the know.
Eleanor Luhar (47 KP) rated I'll Give You the Sun in Books
Jun 24, 2019
Read the original review: https://bookmarkedreading.wordpress.com/2015/10/08/book-review-ill-give-you-the-sun/
(Self-portrait: Book Remakes Girl)
Oh my Clark Gable. I'll Give You the Sun is simply amazing. It's a piece or artwork in itself, a definite new favourite of mine.
Alternating between twins Noah and Jude, I'll Give You the Sun is two alternating stories that twist together in ways so unexpected and so perfect that you'll undoubtedly want to read to the end without putting the book down. The Invisible Museum of Noah, aged 13 to 14, and The History of Luck, 16-year-old's Jude's story, are amazing on their own, but then they start to fit together so tremendously, and every little thing makes so much sense... I can't describe how amazing I found this book.
Jude and Noah were close; Noah was always painting, inside his head and out, and Jude was out being a badass daredevil, and building her flying women in the sand. But a horrific accident involving their mother sends them both tumbling, and the relationship between them is ruined.
But although all hope seems lost, the now-boycotting Jude finds the answer in such an unexpected way and suddenly everything falls back into place.
And Noah, after having his heart ripped out by his own actions, has to decide between telling the truth about his mother or keeping her secrets hidden beneath lies.
I love the style and layout of this book. The cover alone is wonderful, but the pages themselves are all so unique and interesting, I loved it at soon as I turned to the first page. It's not too busy or intricate, just simple little doodles and such giving each page a bit of character. And every cover I've seen is nice and minimalistic too. (If you want to look the book up and see the over editions and covers you can look at it on Goodreads.)
A story of family struggles, individual troubles, love and heartbreak, I'll Give You the Sun is simply beautiful. I'm dying to read it again, even after finishing it just ten minutes ago! A full 5 stars for this gorgeous book.
(Self-portrait: Book Remakes Girl)
Oh my Clark Gable. I'll Give You the Sun is simply amazing. It's a piece or artwork in itself, a definite new favourite of mine.
Alternating between twins Noah and Jude, I'll Give You the Sun is two alternating stories that twist together in ways so unexpected and so perfect that you'll undoubtedly want to read to the end without putting the book down. The Invisible Museum of Noah, aged 13 to 14, and The History of Luck, 16-year-old's Jude's story, are amazing on their own, but then they start to fit together so tremendously, and every little thing makes so much sense... I can't describe how amazing I found this book.
Jude and Noah were close; Noah was always painting, inside his head and out, and Jude was out being a badass daredevil, and building her flying women in the sand. But a horrific accident involving their mother sends them both tumbling, and the relationship between them is ruined.
But although all hope seems lost, the now-boycotting Jude finds the answer in such an unexpected way and suddenly everything falls back into place.
And Noah, after having his heart ripped out by his own actions, has to decide between telling the truth about his mother or keeping her secrets hidden beneath lies.
I love the style and layout of this book. The cover alone is wonderful, but the pages themselves are all so unique and interesting, I loved it at soon as I turned to the first page. It's not too busy or intricate, just simple little doodles and such giving each page a bit of character. And every cover I've seen is nice and minimalistic too. (If you want to look the book up and see the over editions and covers you can look at it on Goodreads.)
A story of family struggles, individual troubles, love and heartbreak, I'll Give You the Sun is simply beautiful. I'm dying to read it again, even after finishing it just ten minutes ago! A full 5 stars for this gorgeous book.
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.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Stranger Behind You in Books
Jul 15, 2021
An atmospheric and twisty thriller
Reporter Joan Lurie becomes famous when her story in Manhatta exposes Globe owner Caspar Osgood as a sexual harasser. But as she returns home the night of the publication, she's attacked in her apartment. Terrified and feeling ill from a severe blow to the head, she moves to a super secure building in Manhattan, called the Refuge, to write a book that further details what she's discovered about Casper. At the Refuge, she meets her elderly neighbor, Lillian, who has lived there since it was the Magdalen Laundry and Refuge for Fallen Women in the 1940s. She becomes sucked into Lillian's stories, which often remind Joan of her own life. Meanwhile, Caspar's wife Melissa must deal with the aftermath of learning her husband is sexual predator. Soon, these women's lives will intertwine: in potentially dangerous ways.
"I'm here because four weeks ago someone tried to kill me."
This was an often confusing but incredibly intriguing book that combines the #MeToo movement with a story about wayward girls. You're never quite sure what's going on, as Joan can be an unreliable narrator (head injury + fear, anyone?), leaving one feeling very off balance for the entire book. There's a story within a story here, as Joan goes after Caspar and his transgressions, combined with Lillian's story and her past.
"What kind of person is more concerned about their hard drive than their body?"
I loved the 1940s piece, learning about Lily, the Magdalen laundry, and the Refuge when it was a home for girls. It's fascinating even while being quite sad. Joan could be a very frustrating character (just go to the doctor for your head injury and stop drinking already), but you cannot fault her reporting skills. Caspar's wife Melissa adds a certain depth to the tale, as she wrestles with what her husband has done. Telling the story from Joan and Melissa's point of view really expands what we learn. This is also an atmospheric read, with the Refuge becoming its own character, especially as we learn about its history from the 1940s on. Goodman is always excellent at setting the scene.
While I sometimes found this book frustrating, it was also a page-turner, with compelling characters and an interesting story with some great twists. 4 stars.
"I'm here because four weeks ago someone tried to kill me."
This was an often confusing but incredibly intriguing book that combines the #MeToo movement with a story about wayward girls. You're never quite sure what's going on, as Joan can be an unreliable narrator (head injury + fear, anyone?), leaving one feeling very off balance for the entire book. There's a story within a story here, as Joan goes after Caspar and his transgressions, combined with Lillian's story and her past.
"What kind of person is more concerned about their hard drive than their body?"
I loved the 1940s piece, learning about Lily, the Magdalen laundry, and the Refuge when it was a home for girls. It's fascinating even while being quite sad. Joan could be a very frustrating character (just go to the doctor for your head injury and stop drinking already), but you cannot fault her reporting skills. Caspar's wife Melissa adds a certain depth to the tale, as she wrestles with what her husband has done. Telling the story from Joan and Melissa's point of view really expands what we learn. This is also an atmospheric read, with the Refuge becoming its own character, especially as we learn about its history from the 1940s on. Goodman is always excellent at setting the scene.
While I sometimes found this book frustrating, it was also a page-turner, with compelling characters and an interesting story with some great twists. 4 stars.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Post (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
You can’t get on the internet these days without a political controversy smacking you right in the face. You also can’t help but notice the timing of this historical thriller directed by Steven Spielberg. Using the past’s political agenda to reaffirm the resistance we are facing today. The Post takes place in the deep thrones of the Vietnam War, the “Pentagon Papers” are leaked: a classified study of revealing a government cover up relating to the war. Kay Graham (Meryl Steep) is the owner and largest shareholder of the Washington Post newspaper. Taking on a position she never foresaw herself ever doing after the untimely death of her husband. And, finally having to make one of the toughest decision of her entire life, both personally and professionally. To not only bringing down the government, but some very close personal friends in the process. It takes her Editor-In-Chief, Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks) to convince her the importance of the news and the role journalists must play to deliver the news and protect the governed and not the government.
When you hear the high caliber names such as Hanks, Streep, Speilberg, you can almost guarantee a top notch film with unbelievable emphasis on character development. They definitely did not disappoint! The Post works as a history lesson. Not only does it portray the events that took place with such thorough details, it exemplifies the relationship between not only a journalist and their source, but also the personal struggle between the editor, the owner of the newspaper, their friends who hold major positions within the government, and the moral obligation to at least get the truth out to the public.
The set design, the costume design, the characters’ mannerisms are flawless. Even the way social interaction was demonstrated between men and women. Women’s role is in the home, cooking, cleaning, and entertaining. Something so simple as the use of a rotary phone played such a nostalgic role. I can’t say enough about the wonderful acting skills of both Streep and Hanks. I suspect one or both with be receiving some serious accolades during awards season. Streep and Hanks both shine throughout the entire film. They both did a great job at relaying the emotions and the turmoil these characters faced.
Many lines throughout the movie–“if we don’t hold them accountable, than who will?”–ring true to a lot of the issues affecting us today.
When you hear the high caliber names such as Hanks, Streep, Speilberg, you can almost guarantee a top notch film with unbelievable emphasis on character development. They definitely did not disappoint! The Post works as a history lesson. Not only does it portray the events that took place with such thorough details, it exemplifies the relationship between not only a journalist and their source, but also the personal struggle between the editor, the owner of the newspaper, their friends who hold major positions within the government, and the moral obligation to at least get the truth out to the public.
The set design, the costume design, the characters’ mannerisms are flawless. Even the way social interaction was demonstrated between men and women. Women’s role is in the home, cooking, cleaning, and entertaining. Something so simple as the use of a rotary phone played such a nostalgic role. I can’t say enough about the wonderful acting skills of both Streep and Hanks. I suspect one or both with be receiving some serious accolades during awards season. Streep and Hanks both shine throughout the entire film. They both did a great job at relaying the emotions and the turmoil these characters faced.
Many lines throughout the movie–“if we don’t hold them accountable, than who will?”–ring true to a lot of the issues affecting us today.
I usually don't judge a book by its cover, but I'm not going to lie. When I saw the gorgeous cover for Nancy Churnin's children's book For Spacious Skies, I fell in love with the cover and knew I had to read the book. I'm really glad I did because everything about it was fantastic, and I even learned a few things I had never known about the song America the Beautiful and its creator, Katharine Lee Bates.
For Spacious Skies tells the condensed biography of Katharine Lee Bates, the creator of the song America the Beautiful although when it was written, it was originally a poem. Katharine Lee Bates comes across as a fantastic person. She lived in a time when men were seen as being far superior than women, but she didn't let that stop her from getting an education and being a voice for those that felt they had no voice.
I admit that I didn't know the history behind America the Beautiful, so this book was the perfect starting point. I think my favorite fact in the book was that Katharine Lee Bates never wanted or accepted any payment for penning America the Beautiful. She just wanted to give something back to the country she loved so much.
This is a biography picture book for older children, and I believe that it's written in a way that speaks to children and will draw in their attention quite easily. The length is perfect, and the wording is fantastic. Everything flows perfectly. I also liked the fact that Nancy Churnin includes an author's note as well as a timeline of Katharine's life and accomplishments at the end. The author's note goes into a little more detail about Katharine's life which is great for adults, children who want to learn a bit more, or for a discussion. The timeline makes it easy to picture events as they happened.
The illustrations in For Spacious Skies are absolutely breathtaking! Olga Baumert is the illustrator, and her talent shines through in every page. Each illustration is full of detail and really helps to drive the story. Although my 5 year old was a little young for this book, he did love the illustrations in it and even asked if we could just look at the pictures as they are quite colorful and really draw you in. Seriously, I could go on and on about amazing the illustrations are, but it's better if you just pick up a copy of the book yourself to see what I'm talking about.
Overall, I feel that For Spacious Skies is the ultimate girl power book. Katharine Lee Bates was obviously a force to be reckoned with according to this book. If you're looking for a book with a strong female and beautiful illustrations, pick up a copy of For Spacious Skies. I would definitely recommend For Spacious Skies by Nancy Churnin to adults and children aged 8 and older. I feel as if this book needs to be required reading in all elementary schools and should be in every school library. That's how good and informative it is. Grab a copy, and see for yourself!
--
(A special thank you to Edelweiss for an eBook copy of For Spacious Skies and to Nancy Churnin and Lone Star Literary Life for a hardback copy in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
For Spacious Skies tells the condensed biography of Katharine Lee Bates, the creator of the song America the Beautiful although when it was written, it was originally a poem. Katharine Lee Bates comes across as a fantastic person. She lived in a time when men were seen as being far superior than women, but she didn't let that stop her from getting an education and being a voice for those that felt they had no voice.
I admit that I didn't know the history behind America the Beautiful, so this book was the perfect starting point. I think my favorite fact in the book was that Katharine Lee Bates never wanted or accepted any payment for penning America the Beautiful. She just wanted to give something back to the country she loved so much.
This is a biography picture book for older children, and I believe that it's written in a way that speaks to children and will draw in their attention quite easily. The length is perfect, and the wording is fantastic. Everything flows perfectly. I also liked the fact that Nancy Churnin includes an author's note as well as a timeline of Katharine's life and accomplishments at the end. The author's note goes into a little more detail about Katharine's life which is great for adults, children who want to learn a bit more, or for a discussion. The timeline makes it easy to picture events as they happened.
The illustrations in For Spacious Skies are absolutely breathtaking! Olga Baumert is the illustrator, and her talent shines through in every page. Each illustration is full of detail and really helps to drive the story. Although my 5 year old was a little young for this book, he did love the illustrations in it and even asked if we could just look at the pictures as they are quite colorful and really draw you in. Seriously, I could go on and on about amazing the illustrations are, but it's better if you just pick up a copy of the book yourself to see what I'm talking about.
Overall, I feel that For Spacious Skies is the ultimate girl power book. Katharine Lee Bates was obviously a force to be reckoned with according to this book. If you're looking for a book with a strong female and beautiful illustrations, pick up a copy of For Spacious Skies. I would definitely recommend For Spacious Skies by Nancy Churnin to adults and children aged 8 and older. I feel as if this book needs to be required reading in all elementary schools and should be in every school library. That's how good and informative it is. Grab a copy, and see for yourself!
--
(A special thank you to Edelweiss for an eBook copy of For Spacious Skies and to Nancy Churnin and Lone Star Literary Life for a hardback copy in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)