Inside the Criminal Mind, by Stanton Samenow, seeks to take the reader inside the mind of a criminal, explaining how they do (and do not) think. In it, he overturns many stereotypes that our society holds about criminals.
The book argues that poverty does not cause good, rational people to turn into criminals. There are those who are wealthy that are criminals and there are those who are impoverished that are criminals. Statistics show that, in times of financial distress for the country, crime rates actually tend to go down. As a result, it cannot be argued that criminals are a result of poverty.
The author makes the claim that parents do not turn their children into criminals. Instead, children are born with a type of personality and, while they can be taught to make better choices of how to handle that personality, sometimes they resist all attempts at management by others. It is often thought that criminals result from households that are too strict, abusive, or too lenient. However, the author relates that, in his experience, how children respond to certain situations depends on their choices. Most of the abused do not turn into abusers. While abuse an neglect can harm one's development, if a person is abused and turns into an abuser, it is because that person chose to abuse others. For every criminal who was abused, there is at least one law-abiding citizen that was abused, as well. He cites several examples of parents who reached out to him for help, after they tried everything to rein in their children, to no avail. Often, children with criminal personality will lie to manipulate their families, flat out refuse to accept punishments, and make everyone around them miserable. When questioned about their choices, they will blame everyone but themselves.
In dealing with the stereotype that crime is a result of peer pressure, Sameow points out that those who are honest, law-abiding people tend to avoid hanging out with delinquents and, should they fall in with the wrong crowd, sooner or later extricate themselves from the situation. He points out that many criminals, when questioned, are critical of the habits of law-abiding citizens, and would rather have friends who are criminals than hang out with the right crowd.
Schools and trouble getting a job are not at fault because criminals often reject these things. Students with criminal minds are often disruptive in class, drop out, and/or simply don't apply themselves. Criminals with jobs often don't show up for work, demonstrate hostility towards coworkers, steal from their employers, and behave in other ways that jeopardize their employment.
Samenow then goes into detail about how criminals do think. He claims that criminals blame everyone and everything but themselves for their crimes. They view others as either useful to them or getting in their way. They commit crimes for their own benefit and without empathy for or thought of anyone else.
The author tackles the issue of rehabilitation by claiming that, in order to rehabilitate a criminal, one needs to teach them empathy, guilt, selflessness, and dedication, skills that they did not have in the first place. He cites high recidivism rates and points out that, just because a criminal is not rearrested, does not necessarily mean that he/she has reformed, as it is possible that he/she just got better at getting away with their crimes. He does believe habilitation is possible, but that it requires a complete change in the way a criminal thinks and that current rehabilitation practices do not ensure that this takes place. Instead, he argues that habilitation can be done by criminals becoming responsible in every aspect of their lives, challenging decisions and thinking patterns that they used to have, and having a zero-tolerance policy for slipping up.
This book is well-written, provides several examples, and is written by a man who has studied and worked with criminals. It provides credible assertions and backs them up. However, I feel as if it talks more about a specific type of criminal than all criminals. Certainly his conclusions can be applied to most criminals in developed countries, where the majority of the population is not in constant danger of starvation and homelessness. However, I do believe that there are cases where people are pushed to crime by poverty and circumstance beyond their control. Yes, they do have to make a choice and yes, many face similar situations and choose to follow the law. However, I think that there are millions of people in the world that go hungry and do not have adequate shelter (some even in developed nations). Samenow does state that the average person can be put in situations where they may commit crimes but that they will extricate themselves from the situation as soon as possible. I cannot help but think, though, that this statement makes the assumption that situations always end. What about the people who face hunger and homelessness day in and day out with no foreseeable end? Who live their whole lives without the option to extricate themselves from the situation? I remember reading a case where reporters spent a day interviewing a boy in one third world nation and, upon realizing that they had kept him from his job (rummaging in a trash heap for items that his family could use or sell), they offered to take him shopping. He asked them what shopping was. I don't know many criminals and certainly not many people who live in abject poverty. However, knowing that the drive to survive is the strongest drive humans have, I cannot help but feel that there are many people in these situations who might not want to steal, but who may resort to crime in order to survive. I'd imagine that these people are very different from the criminal described by Samenow and that, while they do make choices, it is not out of a lack of empathy or out of lack of morals, but out of a need to survive. Perhaps if I traveled the world and studied different types of criminals, I'd change my mind. However, as it is, I cannot help but partially disagree with Samenow. As a result, I give this book a four out of five.
Disclosure: I received a copy of this book from the publisher through the Blogging For Books program in exchange for an honest review.
Saturday, December 13, 2014
Wednesday, December 3, 2014
Would You Baptize an Extraterrestrial?... and Other Strange Questions From The Inbox At The Vatican Observatory, by Guy Consolmagno, SJ and Paul Mueller, SJ
Would You Baptize an Extraterrestrial?... and Other Strange Questions From The Inbox At The Vatican Observatory, by Guy Consolmagno, SJ, and Paul Mueller, SJ, is a transcript of debates that were held between these two men, both Jesuits and scientists, who work for the Vatican Observatory. This book was difficult to review for several reasons. The first is that there are things that I did not like about the way they did the style of the book and yet I can also see how it might have been a decision they made in order to make the conversation seem more authentic. Another is that I did not agree with some of their conclusions. I also am Protestant so I am not sure how much that might account for me not understanding or agreeing with the authors' conjectures. Then there's the fact that, while I understand some science, it's mostly based off the writing of other people; I haven't done too many actual experiments into many of these areas. Because of some of these issues, I wasn't sure whether I should review something one way if I could also understand how the authors came to their decisions. I also wasn't sure whether or not I should review things when some of it might be my opinion against their's. Eventually, however, I just decided that, despite these issues, I was entitled to an opinion (even if I came to it using faulty reasoning) and I'd just write the review.
Right off the bat, Consolmagno and Meuller state that their purpose is to provide possible answers to some of the questions that they are often asked and to demonstrate that science and faith do not have to be at war.I liked them stating their purpose at the beginning of the book. It makes it clear to the reader why they are publishing the book, instead of forcing the reader to wait until the end of the book in order to divine what was going through the authors' minds when they decided to write their book.
After this introduction, the two tackle the question of whether the Big Bang Theory or the Genesis account of creation is true. This part I didn't like that much. They dismiss the idea of a literal "7-Days" creation theory a bit too quickly for my liking. For instance, Consolmagno and Meuller state that there are several creation stories in the Bible and they contradict each other. I am unaware of any Biblical creation story other than Genesis. Sure, there are verses that refer to it. However, I am unaware of any that are actual stories, as opposed to references, let alone ones that contradict it. Now, it's possible I'm forgetting some part of the Bible, but that confusion could have been solved by including the verses and/or stories in the book for reference. The authors also state that the Bible claims that the Earth is flat, when it actually refers to the Earth as circular (Isaiah 40: 21-22; Proverbs 8:27). The fact that the authors fail to take these verses into account makes me questions how much they considered all the possibilities. They go through a discussion of how different people throughout history interpreted the Genesis story, focusing a lot on how it is only recently that the Catholic Church has rejected a less than literal interpretation of Genesis. At the end of this discussion, they seem to arrive at the conclusion that it is probably neither current science nor our interpretation of scripture is correct because, as demonstrated by their talk of science, what science believes about how the world was formed will undoubtedly change with time, and we may not be interpreting scripture correctly. While I do believe this is a valid point, I disagree with the way it was argued. I feel that the discussion of histories of scientific views was done in a way that was too lengthy. It took up most of the section and yet wasn't related back to the question at hand until the very end of the section. I don't know if it would count as an actual digression,as it was relatable to the question, but I kept wondering when they were going to tie it all together and make a statement that answered the question. The authors did discuss the Big Bang Theory, but I don't think they went into enough depth. They seem to assume that modern science points towards it and, while many people do believe in the Big Bang, there are those who argue against it and I have to say that a lot of their arguments are very convincing. For instance, why is it that everything in nature goes from order to chaos, whereas the Big Bang Theory proposes that there was chaos and then order? How come science overlooks the vast improbability of life reacting in just the right way to create the building blocks of life, then on top of that, those building blocks, set in a environment with lots of obstacles, managed to arrange themselves, without guidance, into a life-form, then that life-form mutated to form more complex life-forms, then...well, you get the picture. Like I said, I am going off other scientists' findings, not my own. I don't have a major in science and I do not even know how to begin conducting the experiments necessary to find the answers to these questions. However, seeing as the authors are debating whether the Big Bang Theory is credible, I think that they should at least consider some of these questions and explain why they are or are not valid.
The next section focuses on what happened to Pluto (or why it isn't considered a planet anymore). They explain that the way things are categorized change over time and that, given the current way that the term "planet" is defined, does not match Pluto. Because of this, for data and cataloging purposes, it is more accurate to categorize Pluto with smaller bodies. I still feel like they discussed thing at a longer length than they needed to. The example they used to explain Pluto's reclassification was the similar reclassification of meteorites. In my opinion, they spent longer on meteorites than necessary. However, unlike the first section, every point was linked back to the main issue (the reclassification of Pluto) much quicker than it had been before. They do spend about 6-7 pages discussing how our understanding of meteorites has changed before referring back to Pluto, but that is nothing compared to the lengthy list of historical understandings of creation that came before the eventual link back to whether the Big Bang or Genesis is correct. However, Mueller and Consolmagno do provide what I feel is an adequate answer to the question. That nothing happened to Pluto; our definition of the word "planet" changed and, for the purpose of accuracy and communication, we needed to change how Pluto was classified.
The following question focuses on what happened to Galileo. A prevalent view is that Galileo was convicted of suspicion heresy for claiming that the Earth moved around the sun, put under house-arrest, and denied visitors. Mueller and Consalmagno acknowledge that he was convicted of heresy and put under house-arrest, but that he was allowed visitors. They also argue that, while his scientific views did play an important role in his sentencing, it had more to do with politics at the time and Galileo's penchant for rubbing his superiority of other people in their face. I haven't studied Galileo's life in-depth but, from what I can tell, the authors give a factual representation of his life. I know many would disagree with their interpretation of what led to his conviction and punishment. However, their reasoning is sound, being based off of known events, writings, and knowledge of the people involved. Because of this and because none of us were there or knew the people involved, their opinion seems as good as anyone's. In addition, the, for want of a better word, digressions, that are present in the previous chapters are not present in this one. The authors present a focused argument/conversation that the reader can follow.
Question number four tackles the question, "What was the Star of Bethlehem?" The authors quickly dismiss the theory of a nova or a supernova by stating that there is no evidence of either having occurred at the time period. The theory of the Star of Bethlehem being a comet is also dismissed because, according to the authors, comets were seen as a sign of doom at that time, and people were unlikely to view it as a sign of hope. Then, the authors discuss the possibility that it didn't exist and was just something to embellish what actually happened, and the possibility that it was a miracle. Eventually, they conclude that a definitive answer is, as of now, impossible.Now, some people might be frustrated with the lack of a definitive answer. However, in my opinion, the authors did this question justice. While there are many possible and even probable explanations, seeing as we were not there, we cannot know for sure. By not pretending that they can give a definitive answer, they are only being honest. They do provide different possibilities, which is all that we can ponder.
The fifth question deals with what will happen at the end of the Earth. The two authors answer with what science supposes will happen and how people might deal with things like the sun dying, climate change, etc. However, they don't deal much with what the Bible claims about the end of the world. They sort of just state that Jesus will come back and rule, but don't go into much depth. I think it was written with the assumption that most people knew the prophecies and/or that most people wouldn't be interested in the details of the Biblical side of the question. Now, I know some people aren't interested in it. However, as the book is supposed to be about faith and science, I think that both sides should have been given equal consideration. Also, they do go off on some tangents in this section which, while not completely unrelated, don't seem absolutely vital to the question at hand.
Finally, the book arrives at the titular question. The authors decide that they would baptize an extraterrestrial, but only if she (or he; they use she, but they probably just do so in the generic form) asks them to. They then delve into how baptism should be a gift, not forced on someone, and that extraterrestrials may not want to be baptized. However, should they exist and want to be baptized, then they are obviously sentient creatures of God and have the right to be baptized. The section was clear and focused, not veering off topic.
Overall, I think the book is interesting. It does raise some questions and I did learn some things. However, I don't think I'd read it from cover to cover again (rather, if I was interested in a specific topic, I might just turn to that section). For one thing, the authors seem to digress too much. While I can kind of see excusing this because the book is supposed to be a conversation and conversations have digressions, it made me lose interest in the book at times and wish they'd just focus on the question. Another thing that bothered me is that they do not always give an equal balance to science and faith. While some questions have more to do with one than the other (whether one would baptize an extraterrestrial has more to do with faith while the reclassifying of Pluto has more to do with science), others, such as the end of the world and Genesis vs. the Big Bang, deal with both equally and I found that they tended to focus on science more than faith. I wouldn't mind so much if they made it more equal, but both questions sort of brushed the faith part aside. As this book is supposed to be about bother science and religion, I feel like we should have had more of an equal debate. All this being said, I'd give this book a 3 out of 5.
Disclosure: I received a copy of this book from the publisher through the Blogging For Books program in exchange for an honest review.
Right off the bat, Consolmagno and Meuller state that their purpose is to provide possible answers to some of the questions that they are often asked and to demonstrate that science and faith do not have to be at war.I liked them stating their purpose at the beginning of the book. It makes it clear to the reader why they are publishing the book, instead of forcing the reader to wait until the end of the book in order to divine what was going through the authors' minds when they decided to write their book.
After this introduction, the two tackle the question of whether the Big Bang Theory or the Genesis account of creation is true. This part I didn't like that much. They dismiss the idea of a literal "7-Days" creation theory a bit too quickly for my liking. For instance, Consolmagno and Meuller state that there are several creation stories in the Bible and they contradict each other. I am unaware of any Biblical creation story other than Genesis. Sure, there are verses that refer to it. However, I am unaware of any that are actual stories, as opposed to references, let alone ones that contradict it. Now, it's possible I'm forgetting some part of the Bible, but that confusion could have been solved by including the verses and/or stories in the book for reference. The authors also state that the Bible claims that the Earth is flat, when it actually refers to the Earth as circular (Isaiah 40: 21-22; Proverbs 8:27). The fact that the authors fail to take these verses into account makes me questions how much they considered all the possibilities. They go through a discussion of how different people throughout history interpreted the Genesis story, focusing a lot on how it is only recently that the Catholic Church has rejected a less than literal interpretation of Genesis. At the end of this discussion, they seem to arrive at the conclusion that it is probably neither current science nor our interpretation of scripture is correct because, as demonstrated by their talk of science, what science believes about how the world was formed will undoubtedly change with time, and we may not be interpreting scripture correctly. While I do believe this is a valid point, I disagree with the way it was argued. I feel that the discussion of histories of scientific views was done in a way that was too lengthy. It took up most of the section and yet wasn't related back to the question at hand until the very end of the section. I don't know if it would count as an actual digression,as it was relatable to the question, but I kept wondering when they were going to tie it all together and make a statement that answered the question. The authors did discuss the Big Bang Theory, but I don't think they went into enough depth. They seem to assume that modern science points towards it and, while many people do believe in the Big Bang, there are those who argue against it and I have to say that a lot of their arguments are very convincing. For instance, why is it that everything in nature goes from order to chaos, whereas the Big Bang Theory proposes that there was chaos and then order? How come science overlooks the vast improbability of life reacting in just the right way to create the building blocks of life, then on top of that, those building blocks, set in a environment with lots of obstacles, managed to arrange themselves, without guidance, into a life-form, then that life-form mutated to form more complex life-forms, then...well, you get the picture. Like I said, I am going off other scientists' findings, not my own. I don't have a major in science and I do not even know how to begin conducting the experiments necessary to find the answers to these questions. However, seeing as the authors are debating whether the Big Bang Theory is credible, I think that they should at least consider some of these questions and explain why they are or are not valid.
The next section focuses on what happened to Pluto (or why it isn't considered a planet anymore). They explain that the way things are categorized change over time and that, given the current way that the term "planet" is defined, does not match Pluto. Because of this, for data and cataloging purposes, it is more accurate to categorize Pluto with smaller bodies. I still feel like they discussed thing at a longer length than they needed to. The example they used to explain Pluto's reclassification was the similar reclassification of meteorites. In my opinion, they spent longer on meteorites than necessary. However, unlike the first section, every point was linked back to the main issue (the reclassification of Pluto) much quicker than it had been before. They do spend about 6-7 pages discussing how our understanding of meteorites has changed before referring back to Pluto, but that is nothing compared to the lengthy list of historical understandings of creation that came before the eventual link back to whether the Big Bang or Genesis is correct. However, Mueller and Consolmagno do provide what I feel is an adequate answer to the question. That nothing happened to Pluto; our definition of the word "planet" changed and, for the purpose of accuracy and communication, we needed to change how Pluto was classified.
The following question focuses on what happened to Galileo. A prevalent view is that Galileo was convicted of suspicion heresy for claiming that the Earth moved around the sun, put under house-arrest, and denied visitors. Mueller and Consalmagno acknowledge that he was convicted of heresy and put under house-arrest, but that he was allowed visitors. They also argue that, while his scientific views did play an important role in his sentencing, it had more to do with politics at the time and Galileo's penchant for rubbing his superiority of other people in their face. I haven't studied Galileo's life in-depth but, from what I can tell, the authors give a factual representation of his life. I know many would disagree with their interpretation of what led to his conviction and punishment. However, their reasoning is sound, being based off of known events, writings, and knowledge of the people involved. Because of this and because none of us were there or knew the people involved, their opinion seems as good as anyone's. In addition, the, for want of a better word, digressions, that are present in the previous chapters are not present in this one. The authors present a focused argument/conversation that the reader can follow.
Question number four tackles the question, "What was the Star of Bethlehem?" The authors quickly dismiss the theory of a nova or a supernova by stating that there is no evidence of either having occurred at the time period. The theory of the Star of Bethlehem being a comet is also dismissed because, according to the authors, comets were seen as a sign of doom at that time, and people were unlikely to view it as a sign of hope. Then, the authors discuss the possibility that it didn't exist and was just something to embellish what actually happened, and the possibility that it was a miracle. Eventually, they conclude that a definitive answer is, as of now, impossible.Now, some people might be frustrated with the lack of a definitive answer. However, in my opinion, the authors did this question justice. While there are many possible and even probable explanations, seeing as we were not there, we cannot know for sure. By not pretending that they can give a definitive answer, they are only being honest. They do provide different possibilities, which is all that we can ponder.
The fifth question deals with what will happen at the end of the Earth. The two authors answer with what science supposes will happen and how people might deal with things like the sun dying, climate change, etc. However, they don't deal much with what the Bible claims about the end of the world. They sort of just state that Jesus will come back and rule, but don't go into much depth. I think it was written with the assumption that most people knew the prophecies and/or that most people wouldn't be interested in the details of the Biblical side of the question. Now, I know some people aren't interested in it. However, as the book is supposed to be about faith and science, I think that both sides should have been given equal consideration. Also, they do go off on some tangents in this section which, while not completely unrelated, don't seem absolutely vital to the question at hand.
Finally, the book arrives at the titular question. The authors decide that they would baptize an extraterrestrial, but only if she (or he; they use she, but they probably just do so in the generic form) asks them to. They then delve into how baptism should be a gift, not forced on someone, and that extraterrestrials may not want to be baptized. However, should they exist and want to be baptized, then they are obviously sentient creatures of God and have the right to be baptized. The section was clear and focused, not veering off topic.
Overall, I think the book is interesting. It does raise some questions and I did learn some things. However, I don't think I'd read it from cover to cover again (rather, if I was interested in a specific topic, I might just turn to that section). For one thing, the authors seem to digress too much. While I can kind of see excusing this because the book is supposed to be a conversation and conversations have digressions, it made me lose interest in the book at times and wish they'd just focus on the question. Another thing that bothered me is that they do not always give an equal balance to science and faith. While some questions have more to do with one than the other (whether one would baptize an extraterrestrial has more to do with faith while the reclassifying of Pluto has more to do with science), others, such as the end of the world and Genesis vs. the Big Bang, deal with both equally and I found that they tended to focus on science more than faith. I wouldn't mind so much if they made it more equal, but both questions sort of brushed the faith part aside. As this book is supposed to be about bother science and religion, I feel like we should have had more of an equal debate. All this being said, I'd give this book a 3 out of 5.
Disclosure: I received a copy of this book from the publisher through the Blogging For Books program in exchange for an honest review.
Tuesday, November 25, 2014
The History of Cleopatra, Queen of Egypt, by Jacob Abbott
The History of Cleopatra, Queen of Egypt, by Jacob Abbott chronicles the life of Cleopatra VII (or, as we tend to refer to her, just Cleopatra). I have not studied Cleopatra in depth, so what I am writing is based off of this book. I have glanced at a few online articles and it seems like the book was fairly accurate. However, it is possible that an Egyptologist would disagree. Because of this, I am not taking accuracy into account when I review this book.
Cleopatra was the last Egyptian Pharaoh (or second to last, depending on how you interpret her son's rule). Born to a line where violence and politics were deeply connected to familial relationships, she was witness to and a participant of many family fights that ended in blood, betrayal, and death. Her ascension to the throne came at a time of civil war and was only accomplished with the aid of Julius Caesar. Whether through genuine affection or because she thought it would give her political power, Cleopatra began an affair with Caesar (who was already married) and, on his death, with Marc Antony (who was also married). In addition, Cleopatra was imprudent with her money, using it to constantly indulge herself. Her lavish lifestyle and her affairs with married men contributed to the fall of the Ptolomeic dynasty.
Abbott takes a long time to get to the topic of Cleopatra. The author first discusses the land of Egypt and the Ptolemies (Cleopatra VII's ancestors). While these can be related back to and are somewhat vital to understanding Cleopatra's life, the author spends too much time on them. It is not until Chapter Four that Cleopatra enters the book with anything other than a mere mention. Even afterwards, the author focuses a lot on the characters surrounding her, such as Caesar, Brutus, Cassius, Marc Antony, etc. At one point, there are ten pages in a row that do not even mention Cleopatra. While these figures are central to Cleopatra's life, Abbott could have discussed them while focusing more on how Cleopatra was acting during the crucial events, her motivations for influencing these men, etc. Now, I feel obligated to admit that the entire book was very interesting and I enjoyed learning about all of these people. However, when one picks up a book entitled "The History of Cleopatra" one expects to and usually wants to read about Cleopatra. I feel that the earlier chapters could have and should have been condensed and the later events written from an angle that involved Cleopatra a bit more than it did. This book was interesting but, written as it was, it should have been entitled something along the lines of "A History of the Ptolemy Dynasty and its Relation to Rome".
There are a few misused words and/or awkward phrasing of ideas. However, there are not enough to get in the way of reading and comprehending.
Overall, I would give this book a 3.5 out of 5 stars. Maybe this is a bit harsh; after all, it is interesting to read. However, as it is called, "The History of Cleopatra", I would deduce that Abbott's goal in writing this book was to inform the reader on the life of Cleopatra. He does this to some degree but digresses a bit too much.
Cleopatra was the last Egyptian Pharaoh (or second to last, depending on how you interpret her son's rule). Born to a line where violence and politics were deeply connected to familial relationships, she was witness to and a participant of many family fights that ended in blood, betrayal, and death. Her ascension to the throne came at a time of civil war and was only accomplished with the aid of Julius Caesar. Whether through genuine affection or because she thought it would give her political power, Cleopatra began an affair with Caesar (who was already married) and, on his death, with Marc Antony (who was also married). In addition, Cleopatra was imprudent with her money, using it to constantly indulge herself. Her lavish lifestyle and her affairs with married men contributed to the fall of the Ptolomeic dynasty.
Abbott takes a long time to get to the topic of Cleopatra. The author first discusses the land of Egypt and the Ptolemies (Cleopatra VII's ancestors). While these can be related back to and are somewhat vital to understanding Cleopatra's life, the author spends too much time on them. It is not until Chapter Four that Cleopatra enters the book with anything other than a mere mention. Even afterwards, the author focuses a lot on the characters surrounding her, such as Caesar, Brutus, Cassius, Marc Antony, etc. At one point, there are ten pages in a row that do not even mention Cleopatra. While these figures are central to Cleopatra's life, Abbott could have discussed them while focusing more on how Cleopatra was acting during the crucial events, her motivations for influencing these men, etc. Now, I feel obligated to admit that the entire book was very interesting and I enjoyed learning about all of these people. However, when one picks up a book entitled "The History of Cleopatra" one expects to and usually wants to read about Cleopatra. I feel that the earlier chapters could have and should have been condensed and the later events written from an angle that involved Cleopatra a bit more than it did. This book was interesting but, written as it was, it should have been entitled something along the lines of "A History of the Ptolemy Dynasty and its Relation to Rome".
There are a few misused words and/or awkward phrasing of ideas. However, there are not enough to get in the way of reading and comprehending.
Overall, I would give this book a 3.5 out of 5 stars. Maybe this is a bit harsh; after all, it is interesting to read. However, as it is called, "The History of Cleopatra", I would deduce that Abbott's goal in writing this book was to inform the reader on the life of Cleopatra. He does this to some degree but digresses a bit too much.
Monday, November 24, 2014
Sleepy Hollow: Children of the Revolution, by Keith DeCandido
Children of the Revolution, by Keith DeCandido is a novel based on the tv show, Sleepy Hollow. The novel switches between the past and the present. In the past, Colonel Johann Rall summons the demon Abaddon to the body of the witch, Serilda (who viewers may remember from Season One)and George Washington must do his best to combat this new threat. In the present, Ichabod has a vision of Katrina, telling him to find his Congressional Cross, a reward he had been sent 'posthumously'. Serilda's followers are hunting down and murdering people for these crosses, planning to use them to resurrect Serilda (and thus Abaddon). The problem is, since Ichabod was (to the public's knowledge) dead, Katrina was on the run, Jeremy wasn't known to be Ichabod's son, and Ichabod's father had disowned him, the cross was not given to Ichabod's family as it should have been. With no time to lose, the team (they need a name) begins their search for the cross, racing against time to stop the witch and demon from being returned to this world.
Overall, I liked the book. It presented a case/mystery/problem that could have happened in the show. It's well written, with little to no grammatical/spelling errors, and all plot points seem to be used. All loose ends (except for those which need to be left untied for the show) are tied up. My only complaint is that Ichabod seemed a bit too oblivious to modern culture. In the show, he is confused, but there are certain things that he either understands must be a reference, ignores, or just comes up with his own explanation for. For instance, one time Irving asks Ichabod, "So, what's the plan, Stan?", and Ichabod responds with, "My-my name is Ichabod." (Location 918 on Kindle). On the show, Ichabod may have been confused, but he probably wouldn't have called attention to it. He most likely would have figured it was either a reference or that Irving was just rhyming and left it at that.
I would give this book a 4.5 out of 5.
Disclosure: I received a copy of this book from the publisher through the Blogging For Books program in exchange for an honest review.
Overall, I liked the book. It presented a case/mystery/problem that could have happened in the show. It's well written, with little to no grammatical/spelling errors, and all plot points seem to be used. All loose ends (except for those which need to be left untied for the show) are tied up. My only complaint is that Ichabod seemed a bit too oblivious to modern culture. In the show, he is confused, but there are certain things that he either understands must be a reference, ignores, or just comes up with his own explanation for. For instance, one time Irving asks Ichabod, "So, what's the plan, Stan?", and Ichabod responds with, "My-my name is Ichabod." (Location 918 on Kindle). On the show, Ichabod may have been confused, but he probably wouldn't have called attention to it. He most likely would have figured it was either a reference or that Irving was just rhyming and left it at that.
I would give this book a 4.5 out of 5.
Disclosure: I received a copy of this book from the publisher through the Blogging For Books program in exchange for an honest review.
Wednesday, November 19, 2014
The Secrets of Life and Death, by Rebecca Alexander
The Secrets of Life and Death, by Rebecca Alexander has two story lines. In the present day, Professor Felix Guichard is called in to consult on mysterious symbols found on the body of a dead girl. In his research, he meets Jack, who we learn is dead. Or was. She was supposed to die, but magic keeps her alive. However, people with her condition need to have certain sigils on their body and remain inside magic circles for a certain amount of time (hence the girl dying when she left them). It soon becomes clear though, that there is a bigger danger. With Maggie, a witch, Jack saves other people from dying so that they can live full lives and so their blood (which has magical properties) can be used to help others. Someone is hunting for revenants and they've focused on finding the one Jack just saved: a teenage girl. They don't know who this woman is. However, they know one thing: her intentions aren't pure.
In the past, Edward Kelley and John Dee (occultists/spiritualists) have been called to the court of Istvan Bathory. It seems his niece, Erzsebet, is ill with a debilitating condition that both weakens her and has left her barren. The mission seems simple. Using their knowledge and skills, Kelley and Dee will save this woman's life. However, as they learn more about the Bathory family, it becomes clear that saving Erzsebet may lead to an even greater danger.
The overall story line is interesting. It makes the reader want to keep reading to find out what happens next and how the magic works. However, there were two things that made it impossible for me to fully enjoy this book. The first is that Erzsebet is portrayed as a victim of a curse that has been in her family for generations. She is possessed by a demon, which leads to her becoming quite possibly the most prolific serial killer of all time. Erzsebet Bathory was a messed up woman. We might never know if she had some disease or psychological illness that made her behave the way she did. But, despite any circumstances that might have contributed to her torturing and murdering hundreds of girls, she was not a victim. There might be more things in Heaven and Earth than we understand but, unless we rule out every single scientific solution for a condition/problem/event, we should not assume that the person is besieged by supernatural assailants. Erzsebeth was a monster but, to the best of our knowledge, she was responsible for her actions, not a demon or a curse. To pretend otherwise is insulting to her victims. They may have lived a long time ago but they were just as human as we are and they don't deserve to have their murderer pitied.
The second feature is that the romance that develops between Felix and Jack seems a bit rushed. They go through a lot together and maybe it's only natural that their relationship progresses beyond the category of just friends, but it seems to happen too fast. One day they meet and, over a course of a few days, Felix is declaring his love for her. It just seems like it should have been slowed down a bit.
In conclusion, the basic plot line is entertaining, but the aforementioned points detracted from the story. I'd give this book a three out of five.
Disclosure: I received a copy of this book from the publisher through the Blogging For Books program in exchange for an honest review.
In the past, Edward Kelley and John Dee (occultists/spiritualists) have been called to the court of Istvan Bathory. It seems his niece, Erzsebet, is ill with a debilitating condition that both weakens her and has left her barren. The mission seems simple. Using their knowledge and skills, Kelley and Dee will save this woman's life. However, as they learn more about the Bathory family, it becomes clear that saving Erzsebet may lead to an even greater danger.
The overall story line is interesting. It makes the reader want to keep reading to find out what happens next and how the magic works. However, there were two things that made it impossible for me to fully enjoy this book. The first is that Erzsebet is portrayed as a victim of a curse that has been in her family for generations. She is possessed by a demon, which leads to her becoming quite possibly the most prolific serial killer of all time. Erzsebet Bathory was a messed up woman. We might never know if she had some disease or psychological illness that made her behave the way she did. But, despite any circumstances that might have contributed to her torturing and murdering hundreds of girls, she was not a victim. There might be more things in Heaven and Earth than we understand but, unless we rule out every single scientific solution for a condition/problem/event, we should not assume that the person is besieged by supernatural assailants. Erzsebeth was a monster but, to the best of our knowledge, she was responsible for her actions, not a demon or a curse. To pretend otherwise is insulting to her victims. They may have lived a long time ago but they were just as human as we are and they don't deserve to have their murderer pitied.
The second feature is that the romance that develops between Felix and Jack seems a bit rushed. They go through a lot together and maybe it's only natural that their relationship progresses beyond the category of just friends, but it seems to happen too fast. One day they meet and, over a course of a few days, Felix is declaring his love for her. It just seems like it should have been slowed down a bit.
In conclusion, the basic plot line is entertaining, but the aforementioned points detracted from the story. I'd give this book a three out of five.
Disclosure: I received a copy of this book from the publisher through the Blogging For Books program in exchange for an honest review.
Tuesday, November 18, 2014
Dandelion Fire by Nathan D. Wilson
When we last left Henry, his family, Zeke Johnson, Richard,and he, had knocked out Nimiane and shoved her through a cupboard. Henry had also found out that he was adopted and had come from one of the cupboards. Frank had also come from the cupboards, but at a different time than Henry. In this book, Henry burns his hand on a dandelion and goes blind. In his dreams he meets a strange man, Darius, who claims to be a wizard. Darius suggests that Henry is a wizard too. In hopes of making Henry his son, Darius kidnaps both Richard and Henry. Henry is prepared for a strange ritual but it turns out that it was already started or preformed on him. Darius' assisant helps Henry escape and Henry is then taken in by an elderly couple. Somewhere along the line Henry regains his sight.
In the meantime, Henrietta thinks that Richard and Henry have gone to Fitzfaeren without her and 'follows' them. She is captured by two men and brought to their mother and queen, Magdalene (who has magic). Magdalene tells Henrietta that, with the help of Eli (who is also Magdalene's brohter), Henrietta's grandfather stole the Fitzfaeren's artifacts and that that brought about the destruction of their city. Magdalene plans to hold Henrietta hostage in order to regain the artifacts. However, Henrietta escapes and meets up with Eli. Eli tells her that Nimiane is still alive and that she is headed towards the world they are in. As a result everything in the world will die. They set out towards Hyfling but are captured by Caleb, a Prince of Hyfling,and his men. Eli is recognized as a criminal in that city and is held in a bag. Henrietta is treated as a guest. Caleb attempts to return Eli to Magdalene but Magdalene disowns him . Seeing (with her powers) that Henrietta is the neice of Caleb (Frank is Caleb's long lost brother), Magdalene lets Caleb keep her as well. Caleb, Henrietta, Eli, and the men head towards Hyfling. Along the way,Eli escapes but upon recapture. swears fealty to Hyfling.
While this is going on, Darius has brought Richard back to the house and banishes the house and everyone in it (Frank, Dottie, Anastasia, Penelope, Zeke, Richard, and a police officer) to some other world. Darius then goes to join Nimiane. With nothing else to do, the group goes into one of the cupboards in an attempt to find Henry and Henrietta. The cupboard leads them to Hyfling.
Meanwhile, Henry has made his way home, but finding it abandoned with a note saying where the family is headed for, goes to Badon Hill. He is kidnapped by pirates/slavers but escapes with the help of fitzfairies (one of whom is named Fat Frank) and a wizard(Monmouth). At first Henry is held prisoner for releasing Nimiane. Everyone keeps calling him 'Mordecai's son' and talking about how his father has disappeared. Fat Frank and some other fitzfaeren help him escape and go with him to Hyfling.
Two fitzfairies die along the way, but the others get there and Henry's whole family is reunited.
Henry meets his biological mother,sisters, grandmother, cousins, and Uncle (Mordecai is the brother of Caleb and Frank). Mordecai returns and there is a big fight with Darius (who is possessed by Nimiane) and many people (including Eli) die. However, Hyfling emerges victorious and Henry and his family stay in Hyfling.
Okay, while this is very action packed and exciting and does answer some questions, it is also confusing. Everything the reader finds out is from overheard conversations. Henry hears bits and pieces of conversation (Mordecai's his father, Mordecai was betrayed and imprisoned by the council of the Fitzfaeren) and that's all one has to go one. Henry takes it in stride and doesn't ask any questions about it. If I was thrown into a magical world and heard people talking about my past I'd ask them to slow down and explain things. Henry doesn't do this. In the end, it is up to the reader to filter out bits of data. Not only is this an annoying way to gather information, but it also makes Henry seem unrealistic. So while I enjoyed the book because the characters were fun and a lot of cool things were going on, it could have been so much better if the author had slowed down a bit and had one of the characters explain the history and/or background of the world.
In the meantime, Henrietta thinks that Richard and Henry have gone to Fitzfaeren without her and 'follows' them. She is captured by two men and brought to their mother and queen, Magdalene (who has magic). Magdalene tells Henrietta that, with the help of Eli (who is also Magdalene's brohter), Henrietta's grandfather stole the Fitzfaeren's artifacts and that that brought about the destruction of their city. Magdalene plans to hold Henrietta hostage in order to regain the artifacts. However, Henrietta escapes and meets up with Eli. Eli tells her that Nimiane is still alive and that she is headed towards the world they are in. As a result everything in the world will die. They set out towards Hyfling but are captured by Caleb, a Prince of Hyfling,and his men. Eli is recognized as a criminal in that city and is held in a bag. Henrietta is treated as a guest. Caleb attempts to return Eli to Magdalene but Magdalene disowns him . Seeing (with her powers) that Henrietta is the neice of Caleb (Frank is Caleb's long lost brother), Magdalene lets Caleb keep her as well. Caleb, Henrietta, Eli, and the men head towards Hyfling. Along the way,Eli escapes but upon recapture. swears fealty to Hyfling.
While this is going on, Darius has brought Richard back to the house and banishes the house and everyone in it (Frank, Dottie, Anastasia, Penelope, Zeke, Richard, and a police officer) to some other world. Darius then goes to join Nimiane. With nothing else to do, the group goes into one of the cupboards in an attempt to find Henry and Henrietta. The cupboard leads them to Hyfling.
Meanwhile, Henry has made his way home, but finding it abandoned with a note saying where the family is headed for, goes to Badon Hill. He is kidnapped by pirates/slavers but escapes with the help of fitzfairies (one of whom is named Fat Frank) and a wizard(Monmouth). At first Henry is held prisoner for releasing Nimiane. Everyone keeps calling him 'Mordecai's son' and talking about how his father has disappeared. Fat Frank and some other fitzfaeren help him escape and go with him to Hyfling.
Two fitzfairies die along the way, but the others get there and Henry's whole family is reunited.
Henry meets his biological mother,sisters, grandmother, cousins, and Uncle (Mordecai is the brother of Caleb and Frank). Mordecai returns and there is a big fight with Darius (who is possessed by Nimiane) and many people (including Eli) die. However, Hyfling emerges victorious and Henry and his family stay in Hyfling.
Okay, while this is very action packed and exciting and does answer some questions, it is also confusing. Everything the reader finds out is from overheard conversations. Henry hears bits and pieces of conversation (Mordecai's his father, Mordecai was betrayed and imprisoned by the council of the Fitzfaeren) and that's all one has to go one. Henry takes it in stride and doesn't ask any questions about it. If I was thrown into a magical world and heard people talking about my past I'd ask them to slow down and explain things. Henry doesn't do this. In the end, it is up to the reader to filter out bits of data. Not only is this an annoying way to gather information, but it also makes Henry seem unrealistic. So while I enjoyed the book because the characters were fun and a lot of cool things were going on, it could have been so much better if the author had slowed down a bit and had one of the characters explain the history and/or background of the world.
Saturday, November 15, 2014
The Woman Who Would Be King: Hatshepsut's Rise to Power in Ancient Egypt, by Kara Cooney
Though Hatshepsut was one of Egypt's longest ruling Pharaohs, people have heard of her. Despite being an accomplished ruler, history has glossed over her many achievements. The Woman Who Would be King, chronicles Hatshepsut rise to power, her rule, her death, and the reasons why so few know her name.
Hatshepsut was born into a world where women were swept under the rug. Though able to be influential as wives, sisters, mothers, and regents of kings, women were unable to hold the throne themselves, unless there were no other candidates. Born to the first of the Thutmoside Kings, Hatshepsut would not have been born expecting to rule. She could expect to exert influence as a high priestess of Egypt's religious order. She would have expected to marry her half-brother, Thutmose II, and exert influence as Great Wife of the King, and later bear his child and become the Queen Mother. However, things took a different turn when her brother-husband without fathering any sons with Hatshepsut. While he had fathered sons with other wives, all these sons were infants and unable to rule. Traditionally the heir's mother would have acted as regent but none of the other wives were of high birth nor had they received the same political training as Hatshepsut. Hatshepsut claimed to receive a divine revelation from Re that she would be placed on the throne. Whether out of genuine conviction at this revelation and religious dedication, ambition, or a desire to maintain the strength of Thutmoside line, Hatshepsut arranged for herself to be made regent. As her regency progressed, Hatshepsut used her family history, Egyptian architecture, religion, and manipulated language to maintain power and eventually become Co-King with Thutmose III. As Pharaoh, Hatshepsut established many trade routes and commissioned numerous architectural innovations. Her rule lasted about two decades, yet there is no evidence that she used murder or violence to hold the throne. There seems to be no rebellion against her as Pharaoh. Instead, Hatshepsut seems to have held the throne through propaganda and skilled leadership. However, not everyone agreed that a female could be Pharaoh or that she had the right to the throne and, after her death, there was an effort to erase all mention of her as Pharaoh, leading to many statues and murals being defaced. This led to history all but forgetting her, until archaeologists were able to recover evidence of her reign.
Cooney chose a difficult person to write on. Because the Ancient Egyptians were more concerned with the facts instead of the motivations behind them, it is difficult to paint a portrait of the Pharaohs. We know what happened but we don't know why certain people acted in certain ways, what they thought about, or if the end result was a result of outside influence. It is doubly hard to piece together Hatshepsut's life because so much of the evidence we have has been defaced and some parts are lost. However, Cooney does a marvelous job of presenting what Hatshepsut may have been like. She tells the reader the limitations of our knowledge and lets them know that many things are suppositions. However, those suppositions are based off knowledge about Ancient Egyptian culture, the daily lives of those in the Royal Palace, and gender roles. Out of these, we are given a picture of how Hathsepsut most likely lived. When Cooney suggests a reason behind Hatshepsut's actions, she backs it up with evidence taken from studies of the Ancient Egyptians. Furthermore, Cooney humanizes Hatshepsut without turning the biography into a historical novel. She maintains the reader's interest throughout the entire book. I would definitely recommend this book to anyone who loves to read. It is a fascinating chronicle of an amazing woman. Five out of five stars.
Disclosure: I received a copy of this book from the publisher through the Blogging For Books program in exchange for an honest review.
Hatshepsut was born into a world where women were swept under the rug. Though able to be influential as wives, sisters, mothers, and regents of kings, women were unable to hold the throne themselves, unless there were no other candidates. Born to the first of the Thutmoside Kings, Hatshepsut would not have been born expecting to rule. She could expect to exert influence as a high priestess of Egypt's religious order. She would have expected to marry her half-brother, Thutmose II, and exert influence as Great Wife of the King, and later bear his child and become the Queen Mother. However, things took a different turn when her brother-husband without fathering any sons with Hatshepsut. While he had fathered sons with other wives, all these sons were infants and unable to rule. Traditionally the heir's mother would have acted as regent but none of the other wives were of high birth nor had they received the same political training as Hatshepsut. Hatshepsut claimed to receive a divine revelation from Re that she would be placed on the throne. Whether out of genuine conviction at this revelation and religious dedication, ambition, or a desire to maintain the strength of Thutmoside line, Hatshepsut arranged for herself to be made regent. As her regency progressed, Hatshepsut used her family history, Egyptian architecture, religion, and manipulated language to maintain power and eventually become Co-King with Thutmose III. As Pharaoh, Hatshepsut established many trade routes and commissioned numerous architectural innovations. Her rule lasted about two decades, yet there is no evidence that she used murder or violence to hold the throne. There seems to be no rebellion against her as Pharaoh. Instead, Hatshepsut seems to have held the throne through propaganda and skilled leadership. However, not everyone agreed that a female could be Pharaoh or that she had the right to the throne and, after her death, there was an effort to erase all mention of her as Pharaoh, leading to many statues and murals being defaced. This led to history all but forgetting her, until archaeologists were able to recover evidence of her reign.
Cooney chose a difficult person to write on. Because the Ancient Egyptians were more concerned with the facts instead of the motivations behind them, it is difficult to paint a portrait of the Pharaohs. We know what happened but we don't know why certain people acted in certain ways, what they thought about, or if the end result was a result of outside influence. It is doubly hard to piece together Hatshepsut's life because so much of the evidence we have has been defaced and some parts are lost. However, Cooney does a marvelous job of presenting what Hatshepsut may have been like. She tells the reader the limitations of our knowledge and lets them know that many things are suppositions. However, those suppositions are based off knowledge about Ancient Egyptian culture, the daily lives of those in the Royal Palace, and gender roles. Out of these, we are given a picture of how Hathsepsut most likely lived. When Cooney suggests a reason behind Hatshepsut's actions, she backs it up with evidence taken from studies of the Ancient Egyptians. Furthermore, Cooney humanizes Hatshepsut without turning the biography into a historical novel. She maintains the reader's interest throughout the entire book. I would definitely recommend this book to anyone who loves to read. It is a fascinating chronicle of an amazing woman. Five out of five stars.
Disclosure: I received a copy of this book from the publisher through the Blogging For Books program in exchange for an honest review.
Wednesday, November 5, 2014
The Woman in Black, by Susan Hill
The Woman In Black, by Susan Hill, tells the story of Arthur Kipp. The book begins with Arthur and his family gathered in their country house for Christmas. One soon finds out that Kipp is a retired solicitor, whose family consists of his wife, Esme`, his step-children, and his step-grandchildren. The family is gathered around the fireplace, telling ghost stories, when the step-children ask Arthur to tell one of his own. Arthur tries to back out, saying he has nothing to tell, but the step-children insist. Finally, Arthur tells them that he will not tell a story and abruptly leaves the room. After walking outside to regain his composure, Arthur reveals to the reader that he does have a ghost story, a true one, one that he has not told anyone and which has haunted him for ages. He then returns to the house and decides to commit his thoughts to paper, in an attempt to escape the turmoil that the past events have caused.
When Arthur was a young man, engaged to a woman named Stella, he was sent to the town of Crythin Gifford to attend the funeral of a Mrs. Alice Drablow and settle her affairs. Almost as soon as he arrives, Arthur is plunged into a world of intrigue. While the townspeople are friendly, they avoid the topic of Alice Drablow and her house, Eel Marsh House, as if it were the plague. Even more mysterious, is a woman in black, who Arthur sees at Mrs. Drablow's funeral, and who appears on the grounds of Eel Marsh house, even though they are supposed to be vacant. There are strange sounds on the marsh and noises in what should be a silent house. While Arthur tries to explain these away but, soon his answers only lead to more questions and he is forced to come to the conclusion that not all things can be explained.
This book has a great beginning. Before the first chapter is over, the reader is hooked. As the story progresses, tidbit by tidbit of information is added to form a mystery. It builds up to Arthur finding out the back-story of Eel Marsh House and the Woman in Black. However, then it ends a bit too soon. While Arthur does find out why the Woman in Black is haunting the house, he never does anything about it, even after it impacts him rather drastically. Of course, many people, if they were in his shoes, would be too terrified or distraught to try to end the haunting. However, the book feels like there should be one more scene to it. Maybe a scene where Arthur returns to the house to try to put a stop to the Woman in Black, or maybe one last encounter, face-to-face. Instead, we find out what the Woman in Black did to Arthur, and then the story is over.
All in all, this book is worth the read. The prose is lovely and most of the story is entertaining. It will keep readers focus and keep them guessing. The only problem is that it ends a bit too soon. I'd give this book a four out of five.
When Arthur was a young man, engaged to a woman named Stella, he was sent to the town of Crythin Gifford to attend the funeral of a Mrs. Alice Drablow and settle her affairs. Almost as soon as he arrives, Arthur is plunged into a world of intrigue. While the townspeople are friendly, they avoid the topic of Alice Drablow and her house, Eel Marsh House, as if it were the plague. Even more mysterious, is a woman in black, who Arthur sees at Mrs. Drablow's funeral, and who appears on the grounds of Eel Marsh house, even though they are supposed to be vacant. There are strange sounds on the marsh and noises in what should be a silent house. While Arthur tries to explain these away but, soon his answers only lead to more questions and he is forced to come to the conclusion that not all things can be explained.
This book has a great beginning. Before the first chapter is over, the reader is hooked. As the story progresses, tidbit by tidbit of information is added to form a mystery. It builds up to Arthur finding out the back-story of Eel Marsh House and the Woman in Black. However, then it ends a bit too soon. While Arthur does find out why the Woman in Black is haunting the house, he never does anything about it, even after it impacts him rather drastically. Of course, many people, if they were in his shoes, would be too terrified or distraught to try to end the haunting. However, the book feels like there should be one more scene to it. Maybe a scene where Arthur returns to the house to try to put a stop to the Woman in Black, or maybe one last encounter, face-to-face. Instead, we find out what the Woman in Black did to Arthur, and then the story is over.
All in all, this book is worth the read. The prose is lovely and most of the story is entertaining. It will keep readers focus and keep them guessing. The only problem is that it ends a bit too soon. I'd give this book a four out of five.
Tuesday, November 4, 2014
A Letter to My Cat: Notes to Our Best Friends, by Lisa Erspamer
A Letter to My Cat, is one of those rare books that will make you want to cry, but in a good way. This book collects letters written from humans to their furry, feline friends. Accompanied by lovely photos of cats, humans from all walks of life write to their cats, revealing how these wonderful companions have changed their lives. Some letters are about the ways that cats force their humans to attend to their needs and wants. Some talk about how, when one comes to love a cat, one stops caring so much about cat hair on clothes and torn up furniture. Others speak about the things that cats do that drive us crazy, but which we secretly love. Others delve into how some cats (both figuratively and literally) have saved their owners' lives.
Any cat lover will be able to relate to the feelings and thoughts described by these writers. Many readers will laugh, as they realize that the (seemingly ridiculous) things that other cat owners do to make their cats happy are things that the readers do, as well. Even those who are animal lovers, even if they are not cat people, will be able to relate to many of the emotions described in the book. Of course, those who are not animal lovers will find many of the writers insane but, since the audience is meant to be cat lovers, that should not be a problem. I would definitely recommend this book for any animal/cat lover.
Disclosure: I received a copy of this book from the publisher through the Blogging For Books program in exchange for an honest review.
Any cat lover will be able to relate to the feelings and thoughts described by these writers. Many readers will laugh, as they realize that the (seemingly ridiculous) things that other cat owners do to make their cats happy are things that the readers do, as well. Even those who are animal lovers, even if they are not cat people, will be able to relate to many of the emotions described in the book. Of course, those who are not animal lovers will find many of the writers insane but, since the audience is meant to be cat lovers, that should not be a problem. I would definitely recommend this book for any animal/cat lover.
Disclosure: I received a copy of this book from the publisher through the Blogging For Books program in exchange for an honest review.
The Secret Journal of Ichabod Crane (Sleepy Hollow) by Alex Irvine
The Secret Journal of Ichabod Crane, by Alex Irvine, is exactly what it sounds like. It takes place during the first season of Sleepy Hollow (the Fox tv show), starting with Ichabod's imprisonment in the first episode and ending partially through the last episode. This book includes Ichabod's thoughts on the events of the show and recollections of his life during the Revolutionary War era. It also contains small tales from his life that aren't in the show, as well as drawings done by Ichabod, newspaper clippings, and police files.
The book is very well written. There are few (if any) grammar/spelling mistakes. Irvine did a great job of capturing Ichabod's personality. All of the entries seem to be things that Ichabod would actually think or say. In addition, as the book progresses, there are small changes in Ichabod's thinking and writing that reflect how he has changed throughout the show, as he has assimilated to his life in the present era. The author clearly researched, not only the tv show, but the history of the Revolutionary War era. The book includes tidbits of information that are historically accurate, yet most people would never hear about in their history classes. The files, drawings, newspaper clippings, etc., allow the reader to delve deeper into the characters and events of the show. There is even a code at the end of the book that, when cracked, gives (what I believe are) small hints at what is coming in the second season. The only possible downside I can see to this book is that one needs to be familiar with the show for it to make sense. Ichabod does not recap everything that occurs, rather he gives a brief description of what is happening and his thoughts. This is a plus for those who have seen the episodes and do not need to be given a play-by-play, but could be confusing to those who have never seen Sleepy Hollow. However, as the book is written for fans of the tv show, most of the audience should be familiar with the book and, therefore, should not be confused. In all, I'd say that this is a wonderful book and anyone who loves the tv show should definitely take the time to read it.
Disclosure: I received a copy of this book from the publisher through the Blogging For Books program in exchange for an honest review.
The book is very well written. There are few (if any) grammar/spelling mistakes. Irvine did a great job of capturing Ichabod's personality. All of the entries seem to be things that Ichabod would actually think or say. In addition, as the book progresses, there are small changes in Ichabod's thinking and writing that reflect how he has changed throughout the show, as he has assimilated to his life in the present era. The author clearly researched, not only the tv show, but the history of the Revolutionary War era. The book includes tidbits of information that are historically accurate, yet most people would never hear about in their history classes. The files, drawings, newspaper clippings, etc., allow the reader to delve deeper into the characters and events of the show. There is even a code at the end of the book that, when cracked, gives (what I believe are) small hints at what is coming in the second season. The only possible downside I can see to this book is that one needs to be familiar with the show for it to make sense. Ichabod does not recap everything that occurs, rather he gives a brief description of what is happening and his thoughts. This is a plus for those who have seen the episodes and do not need to be given a play-by-play, but could be confusing to those who have never seen Sleepy Hollow. However, as the book is written for fans of the tv show, most of the audience should be familiar with the book and, therefore, should not be confused. In all, I'd say that this is a wonderful book and anyone who loves the tv show should definitely take the time to read it.
Disclosure: I received a copy of this book from the publisher through the Blogging For Books program in exchange for an honest review.
Tuesday, October 28, 2014
Rise and Shine Little Child by Leigh Ann Hrutkay
This book is a cute and wonderful book to read to children. It follows a child and his mother as they experience a snow day. Though it is about a snow day, it is fun to read all year round. It's rhyming sentences and wonderful illustrations make it a real treat that should be on any child's bookshelf! What's more, the way the narrator speaks to the child conveys a parent's love for his/her child. The things that the mother does with her son are things that almost every parent will remember doing with their child. Whether a child, a parent, or just someone looking for a quick, heartwarming read, this book is a great choice.
Sherlock Holmes and the Heir of Albion by Ronan Coghlan
The books starts out with a reporter, Hector Wace, being hand-picked by Holmes to conduct an interview of the famous detective. Wace soon finds out that Holmes actually wants the reporter's help on a case. Moriarty (who survived from Reichenbach by falling on a goat) is the client. Moriarty has obtained a full pardon by promising to care for an infant. The professor wishes for Holmes to discover the origins of the child and take him back to his parents as soon as possible. Together, Holmes, Wace, and Gyratt (Holmes' friend. Watson is away on vacation) must unravel the mystery of this mysterious baby.
This book is so-so and, while it is not a complete waste of time, I would try checking it out of the library rather than spend money on it (if I could go back in time). I cannot find any mention of whether the author intended this to be comical or serious. If he did intend for this to be comical then he succeeded, but added enough seriousness in it to make the reader wonder what his intentions in writing it were. For examples:the Giant Rat of Sumatra is revealed to be a human/rat hybrid that talks and dresses as a human (Gyratt= Giant Rat). Moriarty is a petulant old man, who seems to lack the wits to be the "Napoleon of Crime". Watson's first wife died by falling into the bear pit at the zoo and one spectator remarked that one bear wasn't getting as much of Mary as the other bears.
As well as the book's plot line being slightly ridiculous, the book also has several typos and more than a few sentences that are awkwardly phrased. One example of the latter is, "Had it not been for your father's quick thinking by emptying the rock that was supposed to produce water when struck all over me, I might not be in this chair today"(Coghlan 155- Holmes to Wace). This could be more accurately worded as, "Had it not been for your father emptying upon me the rock that was supposed to produce water when struck, I might not be in this chair today." or "If your father hadn't put out the fire with water from the rock(that was supposed to produce water when struck), I'd be dead.".
If one is looking for something to laugh at, while this will not leave one gasping for air, it will give one more than a few chuckles. However, be prepared for numerous grammatical/spelling/structural errors. If one is looking for something Doyleish or is unable to look past said errors, look further
This book is so-so and, while it is not a complete waste of time, I would try checking it out of the library rather than spend money on it (if I could go back in time). I cannot find any mention of whether the author intended this to be comical or serious. If he did intend for this to be comical then he succeeded, but added enough seriousness in it to make the reader wonder what his intentions in writing it were. For examples:the Giant Rat of Sumatra is revealed to be a human/rat hybrid that talks and dresses as a human (Gyratt= Giant Rat). Moriarty is a petulant old man, who seems to lack the wits to be the "Napoleon of Crime". Watson's first wife died by falling into the bear pit at the zoo and one spectator remarked that one bear wasn't getting as much of Mary as the other bears.
As well as the book's plot line being slightly ridiculous, the book also has several typos and more than a few sentences that are awkwardly phrased. One example of the latter is, "Had it not been for your father's quick thinking by emptying the rock that was supposed to produce water when struck all over me, I might not be in this chair today"(Coghlan 155- Holmes to Wace). This could be more accurately worded as, "Had it not been for your father emptying upon me the rock that was supposed to produce water when struck, I might not be in this chair today." or "If your father hadn't put out the fire with water from the rock(that was supposed to produce water when struck), I'd be dead.".
If one is looking for something to laugh at, while this will not leave one gasping for air, it will give one more than a few chuckles. However, be prepared for numerous grammatical/spelling/structural errors. If one is looking for something Doyleish or is unable to look past said errors, look further
100 Cupboards by Nathan D. Wilson
In this book, Henry York is sent to live with his Aunt, Uncle, and cousins, after his overprotective, yet distant, parents are kidnapped. Once there, he finds that not every one lives the way that he has been raised. For example, some people play sports without wearing helmets! Other kids are allowed to drink soda! And many children are raised by their families, not nannies. However, these delights are nothing compared to the mystery of the house Henry now lives in. In the house, there is a door that won't open, even for a chain saw, and one wall that contains numerous cupboards, all of which have been plastered over. As he and his cousin, Henrietta, peel the paint off the cupboards, they realize that some of these cupboards lead to strange and possibly dangerous places.
This book is a great one to start a series with. It's one of those things that sounds like it has been done before but, when one reads it, the author has put an interesting twist on things. The characters seem like real people and each has his or her own quirks. One can imagine meeting this family in real life. The only thing that prevents me from giving it a five star review is that it leaves too many questions unanswered. i know that the first book in a series often raises more questions than answers, but this does so to a degree that it gets to be a bit confusing.
I look forward to the next book and hope that it answers some of these questions. However, I have to give this book a four out of five.
This book is a great one to start a series with. It's one of those things that sounds like it has been done before but, when one reads it, the author has put an interesting twist on things. The characters seem like real people and each has his or her own quirks. One can imagine meeting this family in real life. The only thing that prevents me from giving it a five star review is that it leaves too many questions unanswered. i know that the first book in a series often raises more questions than answers, but this does so to a degree that it gets to be a bit confusing.
I look forward to the next book and hope that it answers some of these questions. However, I have to give this book a four out of five.
About the Book Review Corner Spot
Like many people, I love to read. I also love it when people share what they think about the books they read, letting other people know what good books are out there. The Book Review Corner Spot is a blog that's dedicated to posting reviews for books so that all the readers out there can get an idea of what book they should look at next.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)