TheDaver.net

Well, I’ve wrapped up another few books so I guess I’ll give my two cents worth. Up first is a book called “Freakonomics.”

I typically enjoy books like this, ones that dig around some arcane issue and present lots of “gee whiz” facts and figures. And, lo and behold, I DID enjoy this book. Just not that much. It had its moments, times when it was pretty intriguing and all. By and large, though, it was kind of…boring. It really wasn’t about economics, nor was it about the “hidden side of everything,” as purported on the cover. It simply took a few issues (drops in crime, children’s names, financial world of drug dealing) and presented interesting takes on them. Don’t get me wrong; as I said, I did enjoy the book. There are definitely some gems of information here. But on the whole, it was a plane trip read and pretty forgettable. I guess the main thing I took from the book is that there is usually a whole lot more to the story than what first appears obvious (which itself is obvious, or am I missing something?)

———————————————

Next is “The Shack.” This is (I think) a “hot” Christian read right now, and was given to me by an old friend (he sent out LOTS of copies, I think.) It’s one of those “movement” type books that, by all appearances, has gathered quite a following. There are websites and discussion groups…I’m sure somewhere some emergent church pastor has started a 12-week study of the book.

If you couldn’t tell yet, I didn’t think much of the book (sorry Tim, if you’re reading.) The book does have an interesting storyline, one which was pretty gripping at times. But…wow. I can’t believe some of the stuff people find “life changing.” First off, there is plenty of non-Biblical theology to keep one busy for a while. Not that the book is heresy or anything, but it reeks of emergent, post-modernistic, “turn your back on tradition if you want to know Jesus” kind of muck. I just don’t get why so many people latch on to such weird stuff. I guess for some the journey through life consists of a constant re-invention of the faith (”Blue Like Jazz,” anyone?)

Secondly, the writing is atrocious! OK, maybe too strong a word, but it is poor. I think there is a cabal of Christian authors who secretly plot and pledge to never write above a certain competency level. It’s as if the fact they are writing about God/Jesus/Holy Spirit/Redemption/Grace/whatever excuses them from actually pursuing the craft. This book is one of the more egregious examples of cruddy writing I’ve come across in a while. To wit: “One can almost hear a unified sigh rise from the nearby city and surrounding countryside where Nature has intervened to give respite to the weary humans slogging it out within her purview.”

(Excuse me while I go outside to barf.)

The final thing I’ll mention is this: the book is full of devices which are so predictable, so “been there, done that” it’s amazing to me the author hasn’t been sued for plagiarism. I won’t go into all the ways this book reveals itself to be not much more than other people’s work, but I really felt, at times, as if I was reading a compendium of a bunch of books on my bookshelf.

Ah, enough. Time to move on.

—————————————————-

Finally, I’m reading (not quite finished yet) a story by Henry James called “The Turn of the Screw.”

I’ve always liked turn of the century (the last century) ghost stories such as this (Read “The Upper Berth” by Francis Marion Crawford (1894) and tell me it’s not a GREAT little ghost story.) Henry James was not specifically a writer of ghost and otherwise supernatural tales, but he turned out a few great ones along the way of his illustrious career.

The story is quite difficult to read. James spends a lot of time creating atmosphere and tension, so there are long, descriptive passages with little dialog. In addition, he uses “nested” sentences quite often, sentences with clauses and phrases and additions set apart within commas and dashes. I’ve had to read some sentences over and over, out load even, just to get the gist of what he’s trying to say. Here’s an example from the first page:

The case, I may mention, was that of an apparition in just such an old house as had gathered us for the occasion– an appearance, of a dreadful kind, to a little boy sleeping in the room with his mother and waking her up in the terror of it; waking her not to dissipate his dread and soothe him to sleep again, but to encounter also, herself, before she had succeeded in doing so, the same sight that had shaken him. It was this observation that drew from Douglas–not immediately, but later in the evening– a reply that had the interesting consequence to which I call attention.

Whew! Good stuff though. Certainly not for everyone, but I love this kind of writing, and I love the effort it takes to tease out the story. Authors wrote differently those 100 years ago, and they spent more time and took more effort to create, not just say. Huge difference to me, and part of the reason I turn again and again to these types of stories.

———————————————

That’s it for now. Do me a favor, if you blog, pass along your info to me. I want to read it!

Trackback URI | Comments RSS