Freakonomics

Steven Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner
2005

rating: good

plot: A non fiction book that takes the concepts of economics out of the classroom and applies them to real-world scenarios.



I don't usually go for non fiction books (I consider them elitist). But everyone was talking about this one (albeit two years ago) and I'm always interested in anything that has a Chicago perspective (Levitt is a economist at the University of Chicago).

The book is basically a collection of essays; economics articles by Levitt reworked for the layman by Dubner. They address questions like, Why do teachers cheat on standardized tests? and Do sumo wrestlers ever fix their matches? and Why do drug dealers live with their moms? They also manage to break down the complex issues of parenting into cost/benefit analyses. The essays are entertaining and they actually get you to think twice about statistics.

I took an economics class in college. One time a fellow student asked to borrow my notes for a class she missed and I was forced to reveal that my notebook was mainly doodles that terminated in long lines off the page (which tends to happen when you fall asleep while holding your pencil). But trust me, no knowledge of economics is required for this book whatsoever. However, I will say that the books leans towards the Democratic reader. Some readers will not be entertained to read about inner-city drug dealers portrayed sympathetically or to look at abortion issues from a purely social perspective. I, for one, was highly amused to read about these things, I'm just saying not everyone would be.

Anyway, I guess you could also just go to their Freakonomics blog and get the same idea.

I am Legend

Richard Matheson
1954

rating: very good

plot: The entire human race has turned into vampires (literal garlic-fearing, blood sucking, sun-sensitive vampires), except for one man who does his best to survive among them.

Dracula is not in I am Legend. But his friends are. Bwaaaa ha ha ha ha!

This is a survivalist story. Some sort of virus has turned the entire human race into vampires. And many are the reasoning, intelligent predators that are so familiar to us from the movies. Their main occupation seems to be stalking the last human on earth, Robert Neville. A common complaint on those pea-brained amazon.com reviews is that the real reason behind the extinction of the human race is never explained. Well, first of all, it is explained very briefly. But second of all, it doesn't matter. Does the man on the dessert island as why his ship sunk? Well, maybe he does. But you get my point. The story is about Neville coping and surviving as the last man on earth, surrounded by wild beasts.

Neville hunts vampires during the day, slowly learns what makes them tick and goes half insane with loneliness and bereavement. I would compare Neville's condition to that of the held-hostage Jonathan Harker in Bram Stoker's Dracula. He only slowly realizes what he's really dealing with, and then he is barely able to save himself from his situation.

This book is NOT like the Will Smith movie. The only similarity is that Smith's character is also the last man on earth surrounded by animals. But the themes, plots and endings are different. I felt the movie had a hopeful, theological message. Not so the book. This is one of those books many people would find depressing (although I feel the sadness is in the plot, not the engaging narrative). Also, the movie was a thriller; this book a horror, like a Steven King novel.

The dimwits on amazon.com were also put-out because I am Legend is actually a novella and the last half of the book is completely unrelated short stories. The stories were terrifyingly good horror. If you like Steven King short stories, you'll like these (King obviously being influenced by Matheson).

Lavinia

Ursula K. Le Guin
2008

rating: good

plot: A re-imagining of portions of the Aeneid by Aeneis' wife, Lavinia.



I am not a fan of the Roman hero Aeneis.* In my view, he is the second biggest screwer-over of a good woman in the whole of Greek mythology. The biggest being that jerk-wad Jason. But at least Jason's Medea had an impressive revenge. Aeneis' Queen Dido went out like a wimp - basically throwing herself on a funeral pyre when, after a year of seeing to Aeneis' every need, he tells her, "nuts to you, we weren't officially married anyway, see you later sucker," and sails away.

But of course I knew Le Gruin, most famous for her Earthsea series, would write a compelling story. Indeed, she managed to make Aeneis a sympathetic character. But the story wasn't about him; it was about Lavinia, the princess who didn't even have a single line of dialog in the epic poem.

When I picked up the book, I thought it would be like Marion Zimmer Bradley's, The Firebrand, which was a straight retelling of the Trojan war from Cassandra's perspective. Instead Le Gruin had the narrator, Lavinia herself, step back and acknowledge that she was telling a story that was based on the poem. Lavinia has a wider knowledge of her fate and the fate of her descendants that your typical first-person narrator. I think Le Gruin was going for a reflection of the original poem. Consider that the poet Virgil wrote the Aeneis in a time when people didn't believe in the literal personification of Gods anymore. He wrote it as an imagined history of the Roman empire (maybe a little bit like how people these days write about King Arthur and Merlin as the founders of modern Brittan).

I would recommend this book to anyone who has an interest in epic stories about love and war (although the book is brief compared to your typical epic). The book takes Lavinia from girlhood, through the war over her hand in marriage, through the rest of her life as Queen. No knowledge of the Aeneid is necessary to read this. Although after I finished, I was driven to pick up, for the thousandth time, Edith Hamilton's Mythology. Hamilton's book is a concise summary of all the important myths and poems that I recommend for anyone with even a passing interest in Greek/Roman mythology.

*note: Although Aeneis himself was Trojan, the Aeneid was written by Virgil in the time of Caesar Augustus as a Roman rallying myth.

Reading RULES!

I am pictured reading Helen's Babies. Or am I?

The local alternative rock station, Q101, is promoting Reading is Fundamental, which is a charity that helps kids learn to read. A listener called in and had just one thing to say: "Reading RULES!"

I agree with that anonymous caller. Reading does rule.

In fact, teaching kids to read is a cause close to my heart. Because the sad truth is:

I never learned to read.*

I actually write my book reviews based on what a friend reads to me from the books' dust covers. To write this blog, I randomly press on the keyboard until the pattern of the pretty lines and squiggles are sufficiently pleasing to view.

My friend who reads the blurbs has been on vacation.** Which explains why I haven't posted anything new lately.

*I realize that in the past I may or may not have specifically lied about my literacy.

**Or may not exist.

Wideacre

Philippa Gregory
1987

rating: good

plot: In this bodice-ripper, a strong-willed 18th century woman takes drastic measures to ensure that her father's estate, which would typically by law pass to the male heir, be bequeathed instead to herself.



Confession: I like to read romance novels a few times a year. Second confession: I chose this book solely because I heard it contained particularly steamy love scenes.

There is obviously a huge market for romance novels and I think it's a misconception that they are all drivel. There is, I think, a wide range of romance novels. There are the Harlequin kind which are mainly plot-less, like what you see on late-night TV soft-core. There are the Danielle Steel/Nora Roberts kind that are like cookie-cutter Lifetime movies with detailed love scenes. Gregory's book falls into the category of incognito romances. These are the kind of books that would completely work if the author removed the sex scenes; you might not even realize it is an incognito romance when you start reading it.

Gregory is famous now for writing The Other Boleyn Girl, which was recently a movie. (I read that one, too. Also an incognito romance.) Wideacre takes place on an 18th centry estate. Beatrice is a young woman supremely frustrated that she cannot by law inherit the estate, although she is the best farmer and business-person in her family. Starting when she is a teenager, she develops truly shocking plans to install herself in the power seat of the estate.

Beatrice is a fabulous anti-herioine in the tradition of Becky Sharp of Vanity Fair and Marquise de Merteuil of Les Liaisons Dangereuses (andthe Marquise's modern incarnation, Kathryn Merteuil of Cruel Intentions). And the plot is very VC Andrews, if you catch my drift. This is definitely a fun read if you feel like living vicariously through a deliciously devious, plotting female.

Water for Elephants

Sara Gruen
2006

rating: good

plot: An elderly man recounts the summer when he ran away with the circus.



Jacob is an elderly man in a nursing home. He has a family who loves and visits him, but this still leaves him countless hours by himself to reflect on his life and his failing body. He narrates the story of the summer during the depression when he was about 20 years old and ran away with the circus. Jacob spends his days in hard labor, while admiring from afar the beautiful sequin-costumed acrobat Marlena.

This is a nice solid book for all adult readers. A book-club read if I ever found one. I read it while on vacation, so can personally attest that it's also a good pool-side read. The most interesting aspect was the first-person account of Jacob's struggles with aging. In a way, though, it really brought home the idea of a happy ending. Yes, we all know the happy ending when the hero "rides off into the sunset." But what about the rest of his life? It was comforting to know that whatever happened at the end of the summer in the circus, Jacob ended up with a long and happy life (that's not a spoiler - he indicates as much in his introductory paragraphs).

The Life of Pi

Yann Martel
2001

rating: very good

plot: The story of the life of a pious Indian man named Piscine, "Pi", the main part of which involves him being shipwrecked for months with a tiger.



The dust jacket on this book said, "This story might just make you believe in God." I almost put it down right then; not because I thought the book would convert me but because I feel that's an off-putting, pompous claim. By the time I finished the book, I realized the dust jacket got this wrong. The intention of this book isn't to covert the reader; it's to make the reader reflect deeply on religion.

Martel clear sentiment is that religion is just man's interpretation. The question that I'm still pondering is whether he meant that it's man's interpretation of nature or interpretation of God.

Martel starts the book in first-person, recounting how he found the man called Pi, who allowed Martel to record his life story. (This reminded me a lot to the approach of William Goldman in The Princess Bride.) Martel then switches to using the first-person voice of Pi to tell the story. Pi describes his boyhood in India, the most distinguishing part of which involves the religiously curious Pi practicing the Hindu, Muslim and Christian religions at the same time. He feels it's obvious that all worship God in beautiful ways; the respective church elders do not agree.

Pi's father is a zookeeper. Due to political change in India in the 1970's, Pi's family plans to move to Chanda with the animals. They board a Japanese cargo ship. The ship sinks in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Only Pi and the zoo's tiger survive. Pi and the tiger drift on the ship's lifeboat for seven months. Martel does not hold back in his descriptions of Pi's desperation and attempt to cling to his humanity.

When I finished the book, the first thing I thought was this author was an atheist who was very subtly trying to make his point. After further reflection, I decided the author was a religious man. Now, I believe that Martel is just a brilliant author who has found a way to engage the minds of his audience. Perhaps the only meaning he intended is the meaning the reader finds.

Neil Gaiman

Panda (left), Neil Gaiman

Last night I went to see Neil Gaiman on his Chicago stop of his book tour. The location, one town over, could not have been more convenient for me if his publishers consulted me beforehand. I've been looking forward to this event ever since his last book tour, about two years ago.

Gaiman is the author of the graphic novels (Sandman), fantasy novels (Stardust) and movies (Beowulf). He's maintained a devoted following through his blog (he's just like me in that respect). He is my second favorite author, which is entirely his own doing, because Gaiman first introduced me to (not personally, of course) Gene Wolfe, who is my first favorite author. Gaiman shared the stage with Wolfe at an event I went to about four years ago. I was intrigued by Wolfe's answers in the Q&A, and my interest was further piqued by Gaiman's obvious respect for him, so I started picking up his books. Here is a link to one of the interviews Gaiman did of Wolfe. (Gaiman started his career as a journalist, so even now I will see him do the odd interview of a famous person.)

Gaiman read a whole chapter from his new book, The Graveyard Book (which I now own and will soon be reviewing here), then we watched scenes from his new movie Coraline, then he did a Q&A. I'm always amazed at the stupid questions people ask, but really the questions are just an excuse to get Gaiman talking. He's an engaging speaker.

There was no book signing at this event (too many people), which I was glad about. I really don't get the whole deal with getting autographs. I don't need proof that I saw someone. And I certainly don't need to stand in line two hours to get that proof. If I go to see an author, I want to hear that author talk. I love the author for his creative skills, not signing-his-own-name skills.

A few highlights from his talk:

A story is what keeps me turning the pages and doesn't leave me feeling cheated at the end. -- He basically summed up my thoughts about how some stories are just for fun!

A good ending should feel inevitable. -- I agree. Whether it's a happy ending or a tragic ending, it's more satisfying if it flows the the rest of the story. I always remember watching the movie Vanity Fair and at the end thinking that the ending just didn't seem right. I picked up the book (wonderful, by the way) and found the ending completely different.

When writing, don't use big words when good solid words will do. -- This is one I will have to take to heart, as I tend to get a little verbose. OMG, does "verbose" count as a big word? I think it does. I meant to say, "I can get a little wordy."

TV is my first favorite (books second)

Damian Lewis and Sarah Shahi

I had been busting at the seams to tell someone about this TV show when I realized I have a blog! I can say whatever I want! Who cares that my blog is about books? My first love will always be TV!

Anyway. Life. The best show on TV. (Yes, I watch Mad Men. Yes, I watch Heroes. Yessss, I watch Dexter. Still.)

I have been enjoying the action-packed plot-driven TV shows that have been on the past few years (see: Heroes*). But when I watch my Buffy DVDs, I remember fondly the TV shows where the dialogue is the driver of the show. Where you don't want to be distracted because you might miss the smartest line of the night. On Life, those lines are delivered with perfect timing by Damian Lewis or Donal Logue. Really, the show it most reminds me of is Deadwood (without the swearing, naturally). And that's no coincidence seeing as I've spotted three actors from Deadwood on Life.

So, if you can't get enough of delicious snappy dialogue, please give this show a try. It's in the second season and they're not really holding your hand, so I will sum up the plot: Charlie was a detective who was put away for life for brutally murdering his best friend and his friends' family. He didn't do it. After 12 years in prison he was fully exonerated; his freedom and his life were returned to him. In a settlement, the police department gave him millions of dollars and his old job back. Most of the show is solving murders, but the subplot has Charlie trying to find the real killers. So far, he has found the actual killer and put him in jail, but has not found the person who hired the killer. Also, he has taken in the psychologically traumatized young daughter of his murdered friend. Also, maybe if you're lucky, Christina Hendricks will continue to make appearances on the show.

What are other excellent dialog-driven shows (like Buffy, Firefly and Deadwood)? If you tell me, I shall watch them.

*OK, Sylar & Noah as mis-matched partners? Really? What's next? Are they going to fall in looooove?

Good Fairies of New York

Martin Millar
1992

rating: good

plot: A pair of party-animal fairies escape their Scottish home and flee to New York, where they cause mischief between a lonely girl and the anti-social boy who loves her from afar.



As someone who enjoys a good fairy tale, this book was a refreshingly unique take. Millar plops these fairies down into the spot where there is probably the least amount of magic in the world - the respective New York apartments of Kerry, young artist chronically plagued by Chrone's disease, and Dinnie, a dim-witted terrible street musician. The fairies, Heather and Morag, spend much of the time drunk and fighting melodramatically.

This book is more about reading of the ridiculous fairy antics than about teaching or moral or even changing the lives of Kerry and Dinnie. It's a fun read whether or not you have read other fairy lore stories.

Banned Books Week

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

On Monday, the start of Banned Books Week, The Guardian ran an editorial by Philip Pullman, author of the Golden Compass. His essay combines two topics that I love to be irreverent about: censorship and religion. I should really read one Pullman’s books because it seems we agree fully about the concept of religion:

Religion, uncontaminated by power, can be the source of a great deal of private solace, artistic inspiration, and moral wisdom. But when it gets its hands on the levers of political or social authority, it goes rotten very quickly indeed.

(We also both agree that books, you know, shouldn’t be banned.)

No One Belongs Here More Than You

short stories
Miranda July
2007

rating: good

plot: These short stories are brief glimpses into the extreme emotions of socially awkward people.



Back in 2007 Miranda July made waves with her impressively low-tech self-promotion for this book. Go to her website to be amused (click on the tiny pink arrow on the bottom right corner).

The stories aren’t your typical beginning-middle-end tales. Instead, July presents a sort of snapshot of the thoughts of a seemingly average person. But doesn’t getting even a fleeting glimpse into someone’s mind always reveal things are not what they appear to be?

I usually stay mum on all plot points of a novel, but I think I’ll tell you about one of the stories just to give you an example. The one story that stuck with me was about a woman who was born with a disfiguring birthmark on her face, then later in life had it completely surgically eradicated. Although she married and had a happy life, she was consumed by thoughts that if her husband had met her with the birthmark, he wouldn’t have loved her. This despite the fact that her husband seemed like a caring person who already told her it wouldn’t matter to him what she looked like. She never realized her preoccupation wasn’t about him at all; if she still had the birthmark, she wouldn’t have been ready to fall in love. Aren’t these the kind of frustrating what-if questions we all ask ourselves?

Little Women

sometimes split into two novels: Little Women and Good Wives
Louisa May Alcott
1868

rating: very good

plot: The lives of four sisters from girlhood through marriage in the American Civil War and Reconstruction periods.



I was given Little Women as a gift when I was a child. I tried to get through it but I was supremely uninterested. After looking at this book on my bookshelf for twenty years, I finally decided to give it another go. I’m glad I did because I would mark this as one of my favorite “classic” novels. The reason for my distaste as a child is simple; this novel is about young women growing up and getting married. School teachers might try to pass it off as a historical novel, but this is a pure romance in the way of Hallmark movies.

We meet Meg, Jo, Beth and Amy while they are still teenagers holding forth with their mother while their father is away at war. The archetype each girl represents is as true today as it was 150 years ago. Meg is the pretty one who has her heart set on romance. Jo is a tom-boy who hopes to earn her living as an author (Jo being, of course, Alcott herself). Beth is angelic, musical and thoughtful (see Jane in Pride & Prejudice). Amy is the outspoken, spoiled but lovable baby.

The beauty of Little Women is that the romance doesn’t end with the marriages. The novel follows them through the compromises and trials of matrimony. My favorite scene in the book involves a newlywed Meg. She is trying to be the perfect wife, always encouraging her husband to bring home his colleagues so she can show off her housekeeping. One day she attempts to make jelly. By the end of the day, the kitchen is strewn with pans and the currant fruit is spread all over in her unsuccessful attempts to get the jelly to GEL. Just then her husband pops his head in the kitchen and announces that he’s brought his colleague home to dine. She just loses it, "tell him I'm away, sick, dead - anything. I won't see him and you won't have anything else here." They give each other the silent treatment for a few days until finally, "she softly kissed her husband on the forehead. Of course that settled it; the penitent kiss was better than a world of words, and John had her on his knee in a minute."

What I love about that scene is that it could have come out of my own marriage (well, maybe without the currant jelly). I don’t mean the Susie Homemaker part; I mean the part where newlyweds try hard to be agreeable but still have minor misunderstandings as they’re getting used to each other. I’m not sentimental, but it makes me a little choked up to think that human nature truly doesn’t change despite centuries of “progress”.

Overall, nothing very exciting happens in this book; it’s more of a slow glimpse into the lives of the girls over the years. The fun lies in Alcott's beautifully worded prose and insight into the human condition. It’s a great comforting read.

Snow Flower and the Secret Fan

Lisa See
2006

rating: very good

plot: The lives of two girls in nineteenth century China.



A beautiful book. I still find myself thinking about this story.

The book describes the lives of Lily and Snow Flower in 19th century China. A large part of their girlhood was occupied with foot binding. This is a part of Chinese history I knew of only in passing prior to this book, but afterward I researched for my own information. Foot binding is the century-old tradition of fracturing and re-forming girls feet, creating small nubs that were considered sexually attractive and, more importantly, vital for making a marriage. The process took years and many of the girls died from complications of this mutilation, not only when it was occurring but later in life. This crippled the women, enslaving them to their husbands and households.

But I’m projecting modern ideas onto this practice. The narrator, Lily, and her female relatives had no such notions about imprisonment. For them, the foot binding is a necessary rite of passage. Lily describes this process, then betrothal and then life after marriage for both herself and Snow Flower. Her outlooks is generally optomistic. Meanwhile, the author, See, raises excellent points about women’s status, place in society and duty to family and friends. So does this through her narrative; not through philosophical ramblings.

It's possible that as a firm feminist, I was more affected by some of the themes of this book than other may be; but still it would be hard for anyone to read this and be unaffected.

Wicked

The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West
Gregory Maguire
1996

rating: meh

plot: The life story of the Wicked Witch of the West, who spent most of her years as an advocate for societal change but at the end degraded into the evil villain we find in The Wizard of Oz.



I just want to point out that I read Wicked before it was cool. I read this book when it first came out. My gentle reader will remember that I was an avid reader of the Oz books as a child, so when I saw this new release back in 1996, my interested was certainly piqued. I remember liking it. I was 17 years old.

An incredibly intriguing concept. Take the Wicked Witch of the West, who we all know to be a cackling harpy, and make her into a protagonist we care about. How did this drastic fall from grace occur? I think Maguire has a fabulous story here. Elphaba, the witch, begins her life as, if not lovable, then endearing. Her gradual change into the creature who meets Dorothy is heart-wrenching and dramatic, but well-explained.

This book is not intended as a prequel or companion to the Oz books. This is not a book for children. Or people who like the musical Wicked. Maguire describes Oz as a country on the brink of race-war, torn by politics. He spends most of the book outlining long philosophical arguments regarding good/evil and human/animal rights and gosh knows what else. It can frankly get dull.

I would have rated this book “good” if the only problem were a few boring, ranting passages.

OK. So we have two Ozes. The first is the movie, The Wizard of Oz. The second is the book, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. The differences between the book and the movie are unimportant in general conversation, but vitally important when one is writing a book based on one of them. And this is my problem with Wicked. Maguire didn’t decide. He used both. In one passage he will talk about Ozma of Oz (a character only mentioned in the book). In another passage he notes that the magic slippers are ruby. (They are ruby only I the movie; in the book they are silver.) I won’t bore you with the nerdy list of back and forth references, but the book is full of them.

My point is, you can’t base the book on BOTH the movie and the book. It makes no sense. I am a world class suspender of disbelief, but this was just befuddling. “But,” you might say, “didn’t Maguire just write this book for the casual audience who only saw the movie?” But then why include all those inside references to the Oz books?! Why include those references to only then throw them out the window when the storyline intersected with the movie? Why?

My brain hurts.

(I previously mentioned my feelings about the musical Wicked. I won’t repeat them here.)

Throw Like A Girl

Jean Thompson
short stories
2007

rating: good

overview: Stories about the every-day lives of women.



I love reading short stories. The necessary jam-packing of action into a short story excites my imagination and reading just one can keep me thoughtful and satisfied for the rest of the day. (But I usually devour two or three at a time because I can’t help myself.)

Thompson’s stories are about women from all walks of life who typically by the end of the narrative will have some sort of realization. It’s almost a collection of thoughts that you might find in the head of that given women.

I’m not sure exactly how to review a book of short stories. These were good stories, but they didn't have me thinking about them hours later. Let's say it is a good book to carry into a waiting room with you.

The Gospel According to the Son

Norman Mailer
1999

rating: bad

plot: The gospels (i.e. the first four books of the new testament) retold from Jesus’ point of view.



Although I’m a firm atheist, I’m fascinated with mythology. In my mind, mythologies were the first submissions to the fantasy genre. I started reading about Greek and Roman mythology when I was in grade school. I know that business inside and out by now. And I’m learning a little about Norse mythology as I get the chance. But the Judeo-Christian mythos that I grew up with is as fascinating as those Greek myths that came only shortly before it.

Besides, who here doesn’t love a good Catholic Church conspiracy plot?

With this book, I was not looking for a debunking of Jesus’ miracles; I was looking for a personal retelling of the New Testament. I was disappointed. This book is a literal paraphrasing of the four gospels. Those four gospels, by the way, are hopelessly dull and devoid of human emotion. So was this book.

Mailer didn’t add any scenes. What happened during the twenty years in which the gospels are silent on Jesus’ life? Who knows? Mailer sure doesn’t tell us. What really happened when a boy Jesus spent days talking to the church elders? Why, he was talking with them. What else do you need to know? What was going through his mind when he wrote on the sand before the woman who was about to be stoned to death? According to Mailer, a big fat nothin’.

If you thought you were interested in this book, instead read Lamb by Christopher Moore (which I will be reviewing at a later date). Or, to be completely honest, just read the New Testament. (I'm not kidding.)

Ghost World

Daniel Clowes
Serialized 1993-1997; compilation 1998

rating: good

plot: Two angsty teenagers sound off about their friends, their town and their lives in general.

Scarlett Johansson and Thora Birch in the 2001 movie.

I’m not one for graphic novels. Although I love the stories, I’ve never been able to get into the erratic picture/text lay out of the books. The Uncanny X-Men doesn’t work for me, although those are my favorite superheroes. Neither does Sandman, although Neil Gaiman is my favorite author. But my mom gave me Ghost World and I wanted to try it because it’s about two angsty teenage girls and the layout is clear and boxy.

The comic is a low-key look into the lives Enid and Becky, who overanalyze every situation and make their best efforts to seem as cutting edge as possible. Take, for instance, the couple they see every day in the local diner, who the girls are convinced are Satan worshipers simply because they look so mundane. Or when Enid dyes her hair green and insists it’s not because of the resurgence of the punk craze; it’s because she just felt like doing it. Needless to say, I love Enid and Becky because they are just like me.

I would recommend this to anyone who was interested in a quick read about two people who can’t get out of their own heads. (Although the protagonists are two girls, the plots are not distinctly feminine.)

Ozma of Oz

L. Frank Baum
1907

rating: good

plot: Dorothy accidentally returns to Oz only to find that she and her newly accumulated odd-ball friends must save the new child-ruler, Ozma, from the underground lair of the Nome King.



It really doesn't help my case for knowing how to read when the first book on my list is a children's book. But this was the first book I read this year and I am far too meticulous to post the books out of order.

Ozma of Oz is the third book in Baum's Oz series (the first being, of course, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz). There's a whopping 14 books in the series. I read all of them when I was a kid. If you are a big fan of the Julie Garland movie, I recommend you approach the Oz books with caution, as they are not written in Technicolor. If you are a big fan of the Broadway musical Wicked, I recommend you do not read the Oz books at all because you are clearly the type of person who is only satisfied when literature is butchered to the point where they bring the witch back from the dead in the end. For pete's sake. (Oh yeah...spoiler alert.) However, if you enjoyed the movie Return to Oz, you should read the whole series because that movie is a dead-on interpretation. (The movie's plot is based on two books: Ozma of Oz and the second book in the series, The Land of Oz.)

The Oz books are frankly written non-stop adventures. They are page-turners in the same way we all know the Harry Potter books to be page turners. But they in no other way resemble Harry Potter books. If I were to make any comparisons, I would say they are like Discworld meets Dick & Jane.

What you have to remember is that these books were written between 1900 and 1910, back when there really weren’t many novels exclusively for children. The books allow fascinating insight into the behaviors expected from children in that time. Again remembering the publication year, the female characters in the series are surprisingly adventurous and independent. Baum was a great supporter of Women’s Suffrage. While his approach may seem quaint to us now, he exhibits in these books a clear belief of female equality.

If I’m lumping the Oz books together instead of talking about Ozma of Oz it’s because the stories start to run together in my mind. The book is really about Dorothy, not Ozma. This is Dorothy’s first return to oz after she was carried about back to Kansas by the silver slippers. (The second book, The Land of Oz, didn’t feature Dorothy at all.) She befriends a new assortment of odd companions and goes on a new assortment of zany adventures.

I recommend an Oz book if you enjoy fantasy adventure and you’re looking for a quick, fun read. But I recommend reading them in order as the stories build on each other.

I blog, therefore I am

I have read 46 books so far this year. I am going to write a blog post on all of them. My hope is that my posts will reach the type of people who, like me, are always looking for new reading material.

Here is me with my glasses on. Doesn't it look like I know how to read? Well, it's true. I do know how to read.


My life's general silliness is already well documented on my Flickr page, Hey Hey Helen, but I probably won't be able to help myself from adding non-book-related posts here as well.