#5 (2012-cbriv) "Doc" by Mary Doria Russell

The only reason I picked up Doc (2011) was that it looked new and it was by Mary Doria Russell. I became a fan of hers after I read, and was completely engrossed by, The Sparrow (1996). Although I'm interested in any kind of history if it's well written, I don't have a particular fascination with the Wild West and its violence, shootouts, and gambling. My previous knowledge of the life of Doc Holliday came entirely from Val Kilmer's depiction of the character in Tombstone. However, just as Russell surprised me with her captivating science-fiction tale, I was surprised again once I started reading Doc.

Doc is a fictional story of John Henry Holliday. Russell begins the story with his birth and childhood. She follows him out of his native Georgia to Texas and eventually to Dodge, Kansas, where Doc meets up with the Earp boys and where most of the story takes place. I was concerned that a fictional account of such a well-known story might be distracting, that I would spend the entire novel wondering which parts were factual and which parts Russell had made up. However, Russell focuses on the more unknown parts of Holliday's life (at least unknown to me), the things that forged him as a person and inevitably led to "the stand-off at the O.K. corral." By the time Russell got to parts of Holliday's life that were even vaguely familiar, I was so invested in her telling that I didn't care how much liberty she was taking with the story.

Russell has a way of giving just enough background on all of her characters that I really felt like I understood where they were coming from and why they were acting in a certain way. And knowing and really understanding so many of the different characters that made up the city of Dodge made for a very realistic and rich backdrop as the setting for the novel. The lonely, the fortune seekers, the power hungry, and the dispossessed all came together to build a city from the ground up at the edge of civilization. And, my god, the women did not have an easy time of it out there.

When I saw Doc on bookshelves I was initially surprised that Russell would follow a science-fiction novel with a historical western, but the two books had some remarkable similarities. The sense of community and family that Doc was able to build with the Earp brothers reminded me of the sense of community among the small group heading to a far off planet in The Sparrow. Both groups were pioneers and both groups depended on each other for friendship, love, safety, and survival.

SPOILER??? - When I picked up the book I had assumed that the focus would be on the famous showdown at the O.K. corral in Tombstone, Arizona. So, I was a little confused when I was 4/5 of the way done with the book and everyone was still in Dodge. I think it made the ending feel a little unfocused because I couldn't tell where it was going. Now that I'm done, I think it's admirable that Russell thoroughly explained the humor and dark tragedy of Doc Holliday's life without even getting to the most famous part. I knew the characters so well by that point, I didn't even need Russell to describe what occurred that day.

#4 (2012-cbriv) "War" by Sebastian Junger

“In a very crude sense the job of young men is to undertake the work that their fathers are too old for, and the current generation of American fathers has decided that a certain six-mile-long valley in Kunar Province needs to be brought under military control. Nearly fifty American soldiers have died carrying out those orders.”

I can’t remember how or why I ended up with War (2010) by Sebastian Junger on my Kindle. I just recently watched Restrepo, a fascinating movie, which might have been what made me aware of the book, but I couldn’t say for sure. I know I was worried that the book was just going to be a written account of the movie, but it ended up being much more expansive and personal.

War is the result of five trips that Sebastian Junger took to Afghanistan with a photojournalist named Tim Hetherington. The two were embedded with troops in the Korengal Valley in Eastern Afghanistan. This valley is only about six miles long and a couple miles wide but was seeing more fighting than anywhere else in either Iraq or Afghanistan. In addition, the terrain was incredibly difficult to navigate and the accommodations were sparse and rough at best. Junger tells the story of the men from Second Platoon, Battle Company who lived, fought, and died in the Korengal Valley with him.

I am something of a pacifist although I don’t always know if it’s feasible in the real world to avoid war and fighting altogether. There are a lot of shitty people out there and sometimes violence is required to protect yourself, but I am very frustrated by war. It always seems like a pissing contest between powerful people wanting more power who have no care for the manifold tragedies they unleash. If the people most affected by war: the ones who fight it, the ones who have to live through it, could decide whether we go to war, I think there’d be a lot less of it. However, I feel the least I can do for the thousands of American soldiers around the world, fighting and trying to survive, while I live on in complete comfort, is to try to have some understanding and appreciation of what they’re going through.

Sebastian Junger’s book gave me a searing glimpse into what combat was like for the young men he was embedded with. Not only did I see day-to-day living on the bases, but Junger also described some combat operations, attempts to get the locals on the American side, and many, many fire fights. In addition, I learned about the men who lived there, their struggles, and how living in a place for fourteen months when your life is constantly in danger can mess with your head. The book was fast paced and easy to read, with excitement and tragedy around every corner.

The only small issues I had were that it was difficult to keep track of the names of the soldiers and platoons. Junger seemed to jump around from one person to the next, quickly and unexpectedly. There were only a couple soldiers that I knew by name and had an idea of who they were. The story was still completely fascinating, but my confusion made it a little less personal. Junger also stated later in the book, “I must point out that without the friendship and acceptance of the men of Second Platoon this would have been a very different book and possibly not worth writing.” Not surprisingly, Junger became very attached to the men he lived with and who constantly kept him alive. Every once in awhile I got the sense that Junger had adopted some of the attitudes of the men, and that he had become less than a neutral observer. However, I also thought this book was captivating and eye-opening, and I would definitely recommend it.

And here are some quotes that I don’t want to forget but don’t fit into my review:

-“Collective defense can be so compelling—so addictive, in fact—that eventually it becomes the rationale for why the group exists in the first place.”

-“On and on it went, lives measured in inches and seconds and deaths avoided by complete accident.”

-“Good soldiers died just as easily as sloppy ones, which is pretty much how soldiers define unfair tactics in war.”

-“Once you thought about them on those terms it was hard not to wonder whether the men themselves—not the American and Taliban commanders but the actual guys behind the guns—couldn’t somehow sit down together and work this out.”

-“Not because I’m scared but because I’m used to war being exciting and suddenly it’s not. Suddenly it seems weak and sad, a collective moral failure that has tricked me—tricked us all—into falling for the sheer drama of it. Young men in their terrible new roles with their terrible new machinery arrayed against equally strong young men on the other side of the valley, all dedicated to a kind of canceling out of each other until replacements arrive. Then it starts all over again. There’s so much human energy involved—so much courage, so much honor, so much blood—you could easily go a year here without questioning whether any of this needs to be happening in the first place.

#3 (2012-cbriv) "The Introvert Advantage: How to Thrive in an Extrovert World" by Marti Olsen Laney

I can’t remember when I first learned about introverts and extroverts, but there was never any doubt that I was an introvert. All I needed to know was that introverts liked/needed time to themselves. I genuinely like people, but I have always required quality solitary time. Anyway, some random posting on facebook about the qualities of introverts made me start to wonder a bit more about my innate personality. I couldn’t find the original book mentioned on Facebook at the library, but I picked up The Introvert Advantage: How to Thrive in an Extrovert World (2002) by Marti Olsen Laney in an effort to learn more about myself.

The Introvert Advantage contained some interesting bits of knowledge, and it has given me a different perspective of myself and parts of my life. However, I was looking for a book explaining why I think and act the way I do. The Introvert Advantage often focused on trying to convince the reader that being an introvert is not that bad, as well as self-help tips for how to live as an introvert. First, when Laney lists some of the qualities of introverts, it just made me think, “Crap, being an introvert is worse than I thought.” Introverts need more sleep and rest, don’t like being active, can be sensitive to the sun, walk and talk slowly, need more recovery time, and can be sensitive to heat and cold. For someone who wants to be a firefighter, these wussy qualities are not helpful. Second, some of the self-help tips were corny or obvious. I’m sure she didn’t mean it like this, but it was almost insulting to be told to try talking to people.

One rather haunting chapter for me was her description of relationships. Since I am still very much in the process of getting over a recent breakup, reading her section on introvert females dating extrovert males kind of brought it all back. I know we had bigger issues than just our personalities conflicting. But reading through the section did make me wonder if things could have gone differently if we had understood eachother better.

Every once in awhile Laney would blurt out some fascinating little tidbit that I had no idea was related to being an introvert. For instance, when learning, left-brained introverts value the written word or the word of an authoritative source. They may need data that supports what someone says in order to trust their information. Also, introverts are often more comfortable sitting in a group than standing. Both of these are very true for me, but I thought they were just weird preferences I had. It was these little nuggets that really interested me. But the author never explained why. Although there was a rather unclear description of how introvert and extrovert brains work differently, the fact that introverts have a longer pathway in their brains to process information does not explain all of the personality traits associated with introverts. Why are introverts more comfortable sitting than standing? Why do we feel more exposed? Why are we more self-conscious? Is it just because we are more aware? I would have been much more interested in the book if it delved deeply into these questions and stayed away from the self-help business.

#2 (2012-cbriv) "Elizabeth Costello" by J.M. Coetzee

“In his new work of fiction, J.M. Coetzee has crafted an unusual and deeply affecting tale told through an ingenious series of formal addresses. Vividly imagined and masterfully wrought, Elizabeth Costello [2003] is, on the surface, the story of a woman’s life as mother, sister, lover, and writer. Yet it is also a profound and haunting meditation on the nature of storytelling that only a writer of Coetzee’s caliber could accomplish.”

I had never read anything by Coetzee before, although he appears to be very well regarded. He has won the CNA Prize (South Africa’s premier literary award) three times; the Booker prize twice, and a bunch of others. In addition, Elizabeth Costello won the Nobel Prize for fiction back in 2003. And if all this acclaim weren’t enough, my father gave me the book, exhorting its virtues and telling me I had to read it.

I am somewhat disappointed in myself for not appreciating or seeing the genius of this novel, but I am forced to admit that I just didn’t get it. Although I am aware that some parts were well written, I was not moved. The beginning I found slow but with some interesting details and arguments. However, instead of gaining steam, learning more about the characters and feeling more involved with the story, as I was expecting to happen, by the end I had lost any interest I had in the character, and was frustrated at the unending discussions. However, I did sleep better the week I was reading this book than I had in a long time. I would pick up the book right before bed and after a couple of pages barely be able to keep my eyes open.

Elizabeth Costello is an Australian writer. She has written a number of critically acclamed novels in her past but is now facing old age. The story is written through a series of public talks that either she, or someone she knows well, gives. The themes vary pretty drastically from: the ethics of eating meat (one I found more interesting); to the nature of the novel; to something about the study of humanities versus religion (this is when I really started losing interest); to the essence of being a writer and death (this is when I really got tired of Elizabeth Costello as a character). Along with these philosophical discussions are glimpses into Costello’s relationships with her son, daughter-in-law, sister, and former lover.

I am a very concrete thinker. I don’t mind discussing philosophical ideas, but to keep me interested they need to be based in something that affects people. That’s why I appreciated Elizabeth Costello’s interactions with her friends and family. Coetzee quietly and subtly brings up the complicated feelings and tensions that come with relationships. However, I immediately got frustrated when the subject became too ethereal. I don’t care how Elizabeth Costello’s sister defines the study of humanities and how that somehow makes her religious ways better. And I am bitter that I was forced to read pages and pages of these discussions that held no meaning for me, just to get a small glimpse into the characters’ lives. Considering the myriad prizes this author and this book have won, I may be in the minority with my reaction to this book, but it was not for me.

#1 (2012-cbriv) "The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest" by Stieg Larsson

The second novel in this series left off [SPOILERS THROUGHOUT] with the main character finally in the custody of the police and her life hanging in the balance. I assumed the author wouldn't kill off his main character--at least before the end of the book, but I was concerned and interested in what would happen to Lisbeth Salander. So I got a hold of and read The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest (2009) by Stieg Larsson much faster than I normally get to sequels.

The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest is the last (apparently, unless they gather Larsson's notes together and create another) book in the Millenium series. The series features Lisbeth Salander, an anti-social computer genius who has been badly treated by most of the people in her life. I'm going to skip plot details since most people already know them, and at this point clarity would only really come with a synopsis of all three books. And I'm too lazy. Instead I will focus on why I ended up liking this series, despite my first impression.

The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo was my least favorite book of this series. I think I've mentioned in other reviews that I almost didn't even bother with the second novel. I'm not sure if I had heard that Larsson was a feminist, but his feminism did not come across to me while I was reading that first book. Instead, it felt like it was written by someone who was glorifying violence against women. And allowing Lisbeth to "get back" at her guardian did not make it better and excuse all of the sexual violence--both the violence directed at Lisbeth as well as that directed against all of the women brutally murdered by the serial killer. I also wasn't thrilled with the serial killer murder mystery. There are a ton of mystery books featuring scary serial killers. Thus, I figured the only reason it had become so well known and popular was that people were intrigued by all the violence.

However, the second and third books I enjoyed much more. The story focused almost exclusively on Lisbeth's past and present. The books answered some lingering questions from the first book, better explained some of the violence in the first novel, and made Lisbeth a more compelling character. The second and third novels also expanded the scope of the series from a routine murder/mystery to one that explored issues of misogyny, violence against women, the power of the state, the role of the media, and the criminal justice system.

They were also fast and fun to read. I have heard complaints about Larsson going into too much detail, and I can see where that's coming from. However, I rarely got bored and the extensive background information gave the story more depth and meaning. It was also enjoyable to see Lisbeth actually rely on and work with other people. She was still similar to a superhero in her ability to gain the upper hand, both physically and mentally, against her opponents; but working together to take down a secret, corrupt government agency made for a fun read.

2011 (cbriii) #18 "The Art of Racing in the Rain" by Garth Stein

The Art of Racing in the Rain (2008) by Garth Stein was, I think, the 2011 choice for the "One Book One Denver" program that started back in 2004. I like the idea of encouraging reading and I've read all the books they've chosen for this program, including: The Thin Man, The Story of Edgar Sawtelle, and Caramelo as well as some others. It usually leads me to reading books that I would not have otherwise found, and I appreciate the change. I found The Art of Racing in the Rain to be a sweet, quiet story that was hard to put down.

The beginning of the novel begins with Enzo, near death, and telling the story of his life, and through him, the lives of his owners. Enzo is chosen by his new owner, car mechanic Denny Swift, when he is just a puppy. Enzo and Denny's life changes when Denny falls in love with and marries Eve, and they start a family. The family goes through a number of especially tough times and betrayals--all told through Enzo.

I read some reviews, and I think it's a fair critique, that Enzo is often not a recognizable dog. Stein just called him a dog and then voiced all of his own personal likes, dislikes, and world views through him. I wondered why we were supposed to give more weight to Enzo's opinion when he didn't seem much different from any human. Almost all of his knowledge is gained from watching television. Thus, even though there are some meaningful snippets, as far as a book that will show you the meaning of life, I don't think this is the one.

"Learn to listen! I beg of you. Pretend you are a dog like me and listen to other people rather than steal their stories."

"To live every day as if it had been stolen from death, that is how I would like to live. To feel the joy of life as Eve felt the joy of life. To separate oneself from the burden, the angst, the anguish that we all encounter every day. To say I am alive, I am wonderful, I am. I am. That is something to aspire to. When I am a person, that is how I will live my life."

However, in the simple telling of a family drama, this book worked for me. I got sucked into Enzo's life and started caring about the characters. There are moments in the book where everything just clicks. Enzo's ongoing struggle to communicate with his owners is surprisingly relatable and Denny's loneliness hurt my heart. I was sitting on the bus crying when I read about Enzo's death. I know this has a lot to do with dredging up the pain of my own dog dying, but I thought it was well done. This novel is more than just a cute story about a dog; it digs a little deeper and makes you feel a little more. However, it does require some suspension of critical thinking and abandoning yourself to the story.

2011 (cbriii) #17 "The Psychopath Test: A Journey Through the Madness Industry" by Jon Ronson

I first saw The Psychopath Test: A Journey Through the Madness Industry (2011) when its author, Jon Ronson promoted it on "The Daily Show." The two Jon's discussed how his new book looks into the traits of psychopathy and how many corporate CEO's, etc. display these traits. I had just finished The Devil in the White City, which features a psychopath, and I was interested in learning more about how their minds worked. And the idea that there were people in power who were psychopaths--or perhaps people were able to obtain power because of their psychopathy sounded pretty fascinating.

But I found the entire book to be disappointing and frustrating. I am a big fan of Jon Krakauer because of his intensive research, intricate descriptions, and fair analysis of his subjects. The Psychopath Test was exactly the opposite. The book includes a series of loosely connected interviews with the author, somewhat related to mental health. There is not enough detail to get even a vague understanding of one subject before he abruptly switches to whatever other person he has decided to interview. Although each interview may have been interesting as an interview, there is not enough information to make a book. Why this book was even bought by the library and why it has positive reviews on Amazon is a complete mystery to me.

I was mistaken in thinking that the entire book was an in-depth look at psychopaths. However, even the part of the book that discusses psychopaths is incredibly unhelpful. Ronson jumps from some harmless guy in Norway who sent a cryptic book to a bunch of professors to a man in a mental hospital in Britain who is stuck there because his psychiatrists have determined that he's a psychopath. Needing more education on the subject, he visits an American psychologist who has come up with a "psychopath test." With this new information, Ronson interviews a business mogul who became famous for firing half of his workforce. The rest of the book moves on to how shows like Jerry Springer try to get crazy people on their show, but not too crazy. He looks at a crazy conspiracy theorist, and quickly discusses how more mental illnesses are being diagnosed and treated with drugs--especially bi-polar disorder in children.

I had two major problems with this book and Ronson's writing. The first is the lack of focus and analysis. Ronson almost touches on a number of very interesting questions and dilemmas regarding psychology, but he never gets into any of it. He never does enough research to have an enlightened discussion, and he never does any analysis. Psychologists can be a crazy bunch of people and they're often wrong. Should they really have the power of determining who is a psychopath and may be a danger to society? How do we know they're right? Are we letting a doctor who actually enjoyed shocking his prisoner patients make these decisions? What are the levels of psychopathy? What do they think causes it? Does it help people succeed in some instances? What is causing the increase of diagnosing children as bi-polar? What are the effects? What can be done about it? The entire book I was waiting for him to get into the meat of the issues, but instead he would just jump to his next subject.

The other frustration was that I felt manipulated by Ronson. He didn't have enough information to keep an entire book going, so instead of just telling us what he learned, he handed it out piece-meal in order to achieve some sort of effect. It's possible he was trying to take us on the same journey he took when he was interviewing people, but I just found it irritating. For instance, when Ronson goes to interview the business mogul, he tells us about the parts of the interview that may have made the business mogul appear to be more like a psychopath. It isn't until the next chapter that he mentions the parts that make him look more normal. If I can't trust the author to tell me the whole story, then I can't trust anything he's writing.

"We aren't all good people just trying to do good. Some of us are psychopaths. And psychopaths are to blame for this brutal misshapen society. They're the jagged rocks thrown into the still pond?" --Wait, does Ronson really believe this? Does he think he's found the cause of human suffering? Because it's a pretty sweeping statement with absolutely no support. And instead of looking into this question, he just moves on.

In describing psychopaths, Jon Ronson states they lack remorse. "It's the feeling we get when we're suddenly startled--like when a figure jumps out at us in the dark--or when we realize we've done something terrible, the feeling of fear and guilt and remorse." --The feeling of guilt for doing something wrong and the feeling I get when I'm startled and scared could not be more different. Perhaps psychopaths don't feel either, but I'm not sure why Ronson is equating the two.

The two paragraphs above are just a couple examples of what bothered me about this book. Perhaps some of my disappointment comes from my expectations of something different but I have not been more annoyed with a book I've read in a long time.