 |
J
jackie ater jack
christopher anderson
|
|
| Trust me. The first chapter is worth the price of admission alone. That said, the first chapter is all I've read, but good biographies can be so good, and this book appears to be just that. I'll give you a hint: Jackie Kennedy lovingly held (by instinct apparently) a piece of JFK's brain until they got to the hospital. And that's just a teaser. |
|
|
|
reviewed by: kristen |
January 2002 [link] |
recommend 2 thumbs up
|
japanland: a year in search of wa
karin muller
|
|
| This book is really fascinating. The writer, a 35 year old woman who's cash-strapped, obsessed with judo, and can't seem to find anything she wants to commit to, decides to go to Japan. For a really long time. Though connections at her judo center back in the U.S., she's able to stay with Genji (a retired and very wealthy businessman who excelled at judo) and his wife Yukiko, a complete and total perfectionist for whom Karin can't seem to do anything right. The writer takes a lot of chances and gets to see some amazing things: an outdoor Kabuki performance done in a small village during a snowstorm, the Yamabushi ascetic purification ceremony, Masamune the master swordsman creating a sword. The book is also full of fascinating anecdotes and stories about Japan, as well as beautifully written portraits of the people she met on her crazy wanderings. She finally finds her own"wa"–focus, harmony–at the end of the book. Very enjoyable. |
|
|
|
reviewed by: victoria |
January 2006 [link] |
recommend
|
jernigan
david gates
|
|
| I can't believe I didn't review this before (I'll blame Kent). This is the DEFINITIVE how-do-I-put-this-right depressed/loser/depressed person/depths of depression book. If you want to feel good about your life, read this. It was well written, very very genuine (high praise from me), and just a great book. This one would be in my top 11 books - easily. The main character (I won't spoil it.) has the most fascinating life-changing (for the worse) moment EVER. This book is poetic, wry, and ultimately dive-y. Although it sort of trickles at the end (don't most books), it is soooooooo like drinking whisky every day and just giving up on silly dumb rat-race life. I also love this book because the main character loves Pamprin (one of my reasons to live before I got, as they say, on the Pill). Did I recommend it highly enough? I read it the same period (excuse the pun) that I read "The Bell Jar" and this book has tons of retention for me. It's also got rabbits. |
|
|
|
reviewed by: kristen |
September 2000 [link] |
recommend
|
jesus land
julia scheeres
|
|
after the james frey debacle, i tread lightly when reading memoirs, which unfortunately has been my favorite literary genre the past few years. the one thing that strikes me while reading julia scheeres' book 'jesus land' is just how believable it is. at the same time, the incidents in the book are shocking and written in gut-wrenching, visceral prose that is not exploitive or self-pitying.
in the book, the young julia scheeres grows up in a strict christian household where secular music is not tolerated, where christian music is broadcast over the house intercom system – the same intercom system her mother uses to spy upon the children's conversations, an fearful omnipresence as real as that of the angry god scheere's parents infuse into nearly every household moment.
julia's father is a well-to-do surgeon. he and her mother go on missions to spread the word of christianity to poor nations. in keeping with their charity, they adopt two african american boys, david (around julia's age) and jerome (older). in addition to the seething racism the boys are exposed to in the small, religious town, they must also face the wrath of julia's father, who increasingly takes his stress and anger out on the two through beatings severe enough to require the services of dr. scheere's physician friends at the hospital – none of which suspect a thing.
julia, meanwhile, is subjected to increasing sexual abuse by the elder jerome, who sneaks into her room at night and threatens her with violence for telling.
the story centers on the bond between julia and david, who despite the differences in their skin, develop a deep relationship fueled by their shared exclusion, abuse, and bizarre homelife.
their story intensifies as both are shipped (at separate, but overlapping occasions) to a prison-like reform school in the dominican republic. the horrors they endure there together only strengthen their bond, although for much of their time there they are forbidden to speak to one another. every day i read this book i couldn't wait to pick it up again to see how these two were doing. you truly care for these characters (which is more than you can say about james frey's story).
this memoir is about a lot of things: race, religion, coming-of-age, etc., but at its heart it is about about how our family is often not our own flesh and blood, and how that bond can get us through unimaginable horrors. |
|
|
|
reviewed by: ericS |
March 2006 [link] |
recommend 1 thumbs up
|
jesus, interrupted
bart ehrman
|
|
First off, I think it's important to dismiss any of the common misunderstandings about Bart Ehrman and this book. The book is not a diatribe. It does not set out to debunk Christianity. Ehrman, in my opinion, is not angry, condescending, or uncaring in this book – quite the opposite, actually. Ehrman is not asking that you abandon your faith. I personally feel, having read the book, that Ehrman has served us up a wonderful tool, and has provided us with a great opportunity for discussion that could be very good for society at this point in time. It is also very important to understand that the book does not make any assertions that are new, radical, or unpopular among biblical scholars. And that is exactly what makes the book so incredibly fascinating, and quite honestly, shocking.
Ehrman is very clear from the get-go that he is not serving up anything that would be surprising to anyone who went through a non-evangelical seminary schooling. The assertions in Ehrman's book are something that most ministers and scholars of the New Testament have learned. They are things that have been agreed upon by the vast majority of biblical scholars. The only shocking part is that we, as a nation and a society so greatly influenced by the Bible, know so little about The Bible. We think we know a lot about it, and in many ways we do. We know the parables. We know, and can recite from memory, entire portions of scripture. We know the many characters, their many trials, and we know the great many lessons to be learned from The Bible. But those of us who claim we know our Bible – what do we really know? We tend to believe that it is the inerrant word of God. We view it as a book. We call it "The Good Book". We treat it as a package, a unit, as we do most other books we own.
The problem is that we do not approach the Bible from a historical-critical perspective. We do this with any other manuscripts or literature when we want to better understand it. Why do we not approach our most beloved text in the same way? We read each book in the Bible, but rarely do we compare narratives and note their striking theological and historical differences. We often do not take into account when each book was written, to whom, by whom, and for what reason(s). Mostly, this is due to the popular notion that it is God's book, and it is inerrant or divinely inspired and therefore its attributes are divine and universal. If we believe that, then we are not doing a very good job of reading.
Ehrman notes the phenomenon of compressing different narratives into one clean narrative – creating a narrative that cannot be found existing on its own in the Bible. He writes of our reluctance to read the books of the Bible horizontally – meaning comparing separate accounts of the same events in different books, rather than compiling aspects of each into one imagining. If we read the books of the Bible, Gospels or otherwise, horizontally, we notice how much of what we know about the Bible is contradictory, irreconcilable, historically incorrect, or theologically incompatible. He urges that in order to fully understand what each author is trying to say, we need to look at the details of each account – each author is using devices to make a theological point, a point that is lost when we create our own narratives from more than one account.
Here are some things, from Ehrman's book, that many of us do not know, or accept. And it is important to note that these are not simply Erhman's assertions, but are well-documented by Biblical scholars, and Ehrman provides a wealth of footnotes, and supporting information and bibliographies which he urges the reader to explore on their own. And that is one thing Ehrman does do – he urges the reader, on many occasions, to read your own Bibles and do your own research. These are only a few bullet items that I found really interesting – this only skims the surface of what the book has to offer.
• "Of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, only eight almost certainly were written by the authors to whom they are traditionally ascribed: the seven undisputed letters of Paul and the Revelation of John" (which may not be the John most people believe it to be.)
• The other nineteen books fall into three groups: "Misattributed writings", "Homonymous writings" (written by someone who has the same name as someone else, i.e. James was most likely written by a James, but not written by Jesus' brother James – its reason for inclusion as scripture), and "Pseudepigraphic writings" (written in the names of people who did not actually write them – scholars have known this for over a century).
• "In Matthew, Jesus refuses to perform miracles in order to prove his identity; in John, that is practically the only reason he does miracles."
• "Jesus' disciples were "lower-class, illiterate, Aramaic-speaking peasants from Galilee." "The authors of the Gospels were highly educated, Greek-speaking Christians who probably lived outside Palestine."
• There exists a wealth of early Christian forgeries (Gospels allegedly written by Peter, Philip, Thomas, James the brother of Jesus. There were forged apostolic acts, "such as the Acts of John and of Paul and Thecla; we have epistles, such as the letter to the Laodiceans, 3 Corinthians, letters between Paul and the Roman philosopher Seneca, and letters allegedly written by Peter to James in order to oppose Paul; and we have a number of apocalypses, an Apocalypse of Peter (which nearly made it into the canon, and an Apocalypse of Paul". It is likely that forgeries could have made it into the canon.
• "This view that the New Testament contains books written under false names is taught at virtually all the major institutions of higher learning except strongly evangelical schools". "It is the view taught in all the major textbooks on the New Testament used in these institutions. It is the view taught in the seminaries and divinity schools. It is what pastors learn when they are preparing for ministry."
• The Gospels were likely written after the year 70. Between the time of Jesus and these writings, Christianity was spreading through major urban areas of the Mediterranean region, solely by word of mouth. The way to convert people away from their (mostly) pagan religions was to tell them stories about Jesus: what he said and did, and how he died and was raised from the dead. Word of mouth, in a world of no mass media. If you look at our own ability to create urban legends, exaggerate, or alter details in the age of information, it would be disingenuous to assume that in the decades of repeated oral histories of Jesus, details did not undergo changes before they were committed to paper.
• If Jesus lived and died in the first century, what do the Greek and Roman sources from his own day through the end of the century have to say about him? The answer is breathtaking. They have absolutely nothing to say about him. He is never discussed, challenged, attacked, maligned, or talked about in any way in any surviving pagan source of the period. There are no birth records, accounts of his trial and death, reflections on his significance, or disputes about his teachings...his name is never mentioned once in any pagan source. And we have a lot of Greek and Roman sources from the period: religious scholars, historians, philosophers, poets, natural scientists; we have thousands of private letters; we have inscriptions placed on buildings in public places. In no first-century Greek or Roman (pagan) source is Jesus mentioned."
• CS Lewis put forth the formulation that since Jesus called himself God, there were only three logical possibilities: he was either a liar, a lunatic, or the Lord. Ehrman states that "none of our earliest traditions indicates that Jesus said any such thing about himself. And surely if Jesus had really spent his days in Galilee and then Jerusalem calling himself God, all of our sources would be eager to report it." "Only in the latest of our Gospels", John, a Gospel that shows considerably more theological sophistication than the others, does Jesus indicate that he is divine." Perhaps Lewis's formula is flawed. Perhaps Jesus was actually "a first-century Palestinian Jew who had a message to proclaim other than his own divinity".
• The idea of the divine being becoming human was not introduced until the Gospel of John, written after the other three Gospels.
• There are "flat out discrepancies among the books of the New Testament. Sometimes these discrepancies could be reconciled if one worked hard enough at it with pious imagination; other times the discrepancies could not be reconciled, however fanciful the explanation." (i.e. Jesus dies on different days in Mark and John).
• "A whole range of theological perspectives came into existence, not during the life of Jesus, or even through the teachings of his original apostles, but later, as the Christian church grew and came to be transformed into a new religion rather than a sect of Judaism. These include some of the most important Christian doctrines, such as that of a suffering Messiah, the divinity of Christ, the Trinity, and the existence of heaven and hell."
These are only a few examples of items that I personally found fascinating (there scores more tidbits, inaccuracies, contradictions, and theological problems, that Ehrman details), and in some cases shocking. I grew up in the Methodist church. I was exposed to the Bible as much as your average Christian. Obviously I formed my own opinions, as we all do, in regards to the Bible's inerrancy, historical accuracy, etc. I took a few courses in college in which we studied the Bible from a historical critical perspective. These had a huge influence on my changing views of The Bible and of religion in general. Therefore, many of Erhman's assertions, opinions, and conclusions, did not come as a surprise. But the experience of reading "Jesus, Interrupted" is certainly eye-opening even for those who have been exposed to reading the Bible from the historical-critical perspective.
I understand the reluctance of many to read the book. I understand the knee-jerk reaction to Ehrman. Sure, anytime we are asked to truly examine our own long-held beliefs, we are hesitant. With these understandings, I would urge anyone who has any interest in the Bible to read the book. It is not meant to change your faith. It likely will, however, change aspects of your faith. Ehrman does is not stating there is no God. He is not stating that Jesus did not exist. He is not saying Jesus did not perform miracles or rise from the dead. There are some things we cannot know from historical critical research. That is where faith comes in. All Ehrman is urging is for us to allow ourselves to truly know and understand the human aspects of the New Testament. Why the Bible exists as it is, who wrote it, and why they wrote what they wrote. There are two texts that greatly affect us in our daily lives: The Bible and the Constitution. It is shocking that we know so little about how both came to be. It is up to us to make our own decisions about the things in it which we cannot prove or disprove. But we have no excuse for not exploring and understanding centuries of painstaking research on the most important text ever written. If Ehrman is not your cup of tea, there are numerous other books, and plenty of divinity programs serving it up in another form.
It's a fascinating read. Ehrman is a refreshing voice in non-fiction. He's incredibly knowledgeable, funny, and likeable, regardless of your religious views. I urge everyone, believers and non-believers, to spend some time with his writings. You will be challenged and you will learn a lot, no matter your background (okay, unless you've been through seminary school), and that's something that's rare in these days when we tend to live in ideological echo chambers. |
|
|
|
reviewed by: ericS |
April 2009 [link] |
recommend
|
julie and julia: 365 days, 524 recipes, 1 tiny apartment kitchen
julie powell
|
|
I have been waiting for this book to come out for about a year and a half now - ever since Julie Powell's "The Julie/Julia Project"' blog ended with the news that she would be writing a book. I loved the blog. I was a little less enchanted with the book. Too much backstory, too many random stories about her friends' love lives and not enough mention of the cooking! Also - and I didn't like this about her blog either - she was working for a government agency that was dealing with rebuilding after 9/11 and although it was a crappy admin-assistant job and they way she talks about 9/11 is just crass and unfeeling.
If you followed the blog, the book is a fine enhancement of it; if you didn't read any of the blog, you may not enjoy the book at all (or you may love it since you don't know what you're missing!). I really wanted to read more about the recipes and more about the cooking of those recipes but many were left out of the book.
All in all, a very clever concept that has launched what I now call the "blog-to-book phenomenon" and taken Powell from aspiring actress and lowly temp to freelance writer - she's even written a couple of (really great) pieces for The New York Times. |
|
|
|
reviewed by: lisa may |
October 2005 [link] |
recommend
|
jump the shark
jon hein
|
|
an excellent bathroom book, jump the shark explores all the tv show, celebs and political figures that have - and haven't - "jumped the shark" - a phrase coined by the author and his friends to signify the beginning of the end of something or someone. originated with a "happy days" episode where fonzi water skis and literally jumps over a shark. from that point on the show was crap. i'm happy to say that the simpson's have NOT jumped the shark.
you can also visit the website
jumptheshark.com |
|
|
|
reviewed by: lisa may |
February 2003 [link] |
recommend
|
just a corpse at twilight
janwillem van de wetering
|
|
I was disconsolate. I’m beginning to reach the point where I’ve read EVERY Amsterdam Cops entry, and I was upset that there were only a couple of books to get through. "Just a Corpse at Twilight" was the first book of this series I read six or seven years ago. I read them out of sequence, so I didn’t get any of the references.
I had just read "The Maine Massacres" which takes place years before this book, so I was interested to see if I could re-read a book. Previously, I’ve never done so. I hate backtracking. Here’s what I discovered: it’s much easier to re-read books that are plot-driven after several years than ones that are poetry and character and philosophy-driven.
Par example, I could re-read this book with ease and only had a vague recollection of the major plot twist. Basically, it was as if I’d never read the book. BUT, when I’ve tried to re-read "The Passion" or "Rituals", it’s not as satisfying as the plot is so nominal, that I’m well aware of the twists and turns. Anyhoo, this is about "Just a Corpse at Twilight". This book was great mostly because I knew the characters. I wouldn’t quite suggest it as a first read as there are many inside jokes, but then again, it was my first book in the series. The end was so beautiful that I’m still cooing.
|
|
|
|
reviewed by: kristen |
June 2001 [link] |
recommend
|
|
|
|
|
|
