Usually my choice of what to read is predetermined—I've seen a review, or there's been a recommendation, possibly from one of you. Very rarely do I go in a bookstore and browse; no way any budget could cover such a financially damaging activity. But, curiously enough, that's how I acquired Age of Consent by Howard Mittelmark. The cover art—a creepy house and a pair of blue eyes, reminiscent of The Village of the Damned—attracted me, and the cover blurb—"kids will be kids—even if it kills them"—sealed the bargain. Upon completion, the book turned out to be both better and worse than I expected it to be.

The story itself was part of the better. An only-partly-crazy-at-the-beginning-of-the-book professor of religion buys the Oneida House in upstate New York,a house near the college where he is to start a new teaching job. Historically the place has had two other owners: Joseph Smith of Mormon fame in the 19th century and a group of hippie, wannabe terrorists in 1971. The story bounces back and forth from the present to 1971, with one ghostly man appearing in pictures from all three times. It's pretty cool, moving into an attempt at meaningful when the religion professor has a breakthrough and discovers that evil exists because "God wanted man to suffer." (page 223) Following this insight, characters who had any degree of sanity lose it, and all three eras connect.

Now we're left with the worse side. While errors did not appear on every page, Age of Consent is one of the most poorly written books I've ever read. At first I kept thinking an editor should have caught most of the problems, and I was ready to give the author a break—until I noticed the blurb on him said he was both a writer and an editor. Gloves came off; here's the worst:

1) The son of the religion professor has lived all his life in Brooklyn. He'd been an overweight loner, ignored by his father and unpopular at school. Based on that thumbnail sketch, I found it really odd that he would recognize a small baseball club as "the kind fishermen use to bash in the heads of the spikier, nonedible fish they reeled in, the ones that were all bones and spikes." (page 95) Hello? I find it distracting when characters know things that seem totally outside their life experiences. (And I won't even make a big deal out of the fact that neither Word nor the online American Heritage Dictionary recognize nonedible as a word.)

2) "She turned to rejoin her friends in the living room and saw Phil coming down the hallway from the kitchen." (page 230) The next sentence describes Phil searching through a drawer in he kitchen. Three readings later I figured out "she" was the one "coming down the hallway." Gimme a break. It's junior high grammar. A diagram would have pointed out the error to Mr. Mittelmark, the author and editor. Insert a snort of disgust.

All in all, I can't say the book is bad. I kept turning pages, often appalled, sometimes amused, but always curious about what would happen next.

The Watsons Go to Birmingham—1963, a YA novel by Christopher Paul Curtis, disappointed me, but it wasn't the book's fault. My disappointment came from what I was expecting. When I bought the book, I knew 1963 was the year when the four little girls were killed in the bombing of a Birmingham church. Therefore I expected the book to center on Birmingham and, most likely, end with the bombing. My expectation strengthened when I noticed that the book was, indeed, dedicated to the four little girls.

But that's not what the book is about. The Watsons are a black family, composed of mother, father, two sons and one daughter, living in Flint, MI. The structure is episodic with Kenny, the middle child, narrating troubles with the cold climate, the family's aging and decrepit car, his classmates and siblings. During the last fourth of the book, the family drives to Birmingham where Kenny's older and rebellious brother will stay with their maternal grandmother for the summer. Their trip, not surprisingly, coincides with the bombing and there's concern that the youngest child, the girl, might have been among the victims.

All in all, it's not a bad story—just not what I was expecting.

Been There, Done That is a book about Eddie Fisher written by Eddie Fisher and Dick Fisher. And with that relatively simple sentence I start off confused. A book about a person written by that person and someone else. So is it a biography? An autobiography? I hate making that sort of decision.

Regardless, I enjoyed reading it. Eddie Fisher comes across as total slime, a sliminess only surpassed by that of Richard Burton. But then, since the book is sort of written by Eddie Fisher, his ranking Burton as worse than himself should not be a surprise. I think my first awareness of Eddie's sliminess came when I looked at his selected pictures. There are pictures from his childhood, pictures of him and Frank Sinatra, pictures of Liz, pictures of him and Liz, and one picture of him with an unidentified woman, Carrie Fisher and Paul Simon. Anyone notice who all is missing from that list? The mothers of his children perhaps? Right-o. Collect your ten points and move right along.

Actually the best moments of the book were sentences that for some reason or another made me gasp or laugh out loud. So:

1) On Debbie Reynolds as the girl next door: "… only if you lived next door to a self-centered, totally driven, insecure, untruthful phony." (page 70) And that makes her different from most people in your business, how?

2) Once, out on a drive with Liz soon after Mike Todd has died, Eddie claims the following dialogue took place: EDDIE: "I'm going to marry you." LIZ: "When?" EDDIE: "Soon. As soon as possible." Eddie then comments that "if they had written dialogue like this for Bundle of Joy , that picture would have been a success." (page 141) Ah, Eddie, I wouldn't take any bets on that. Or: don't give up your day job.

3) "America was waiting for Eddie Fisher to get married? Fidel Castro had overthrown Batista in Cuba, the Chinese Communists were invading Tibet, and America was waiting for me to get married." (page 159) Gee, the times, they aren't a-changing.

4) At one point the producers of Cleopatra wanted to change directors. Liz was dead set against it. Eddie remarks, "She was tremendously loyal to anyone to whom she wasn't married." (page 179) Meow. But funny.

5) About John Kennedy, Fisher says, "…he was more interested in gossip than Russian missiles. Most people are, I've found. The only people who aren't are called Republicans." (page 239) Another good one.

6) Regarding the time when he was kicking drugs, Eddie says, "I was willing to try anything; I just didn't want it to be too inconvenient." (page 304) There's a bit of that in all of us, I imagine.

7) Toward the end of the book Eddie acknowledges he's been a bad parent and says, "I can't explain why. There were no obvious reasons. Maybe I was too self-involved, too selfish." (page 316) Ya think?

Anyway, it was a fun book to read. But you don't have to 'cause I've told you the best parts.

I liked Kathy Reichs' Break No Bones much better than I thought I would. The book is part of America's current love affair with forensic science; in fact the protagonist in Break No Bones, Temperance Brennan--love that name!—-is the main character in TV's Bones. The love affair, however, is one in which I do not share. Thus, I did not expect to enjoy Break No Bones, and I admit to skimming the paragraphs that had extensive descriptions of the bodies and what each particular meant. But I can't deny the book some very strong plusses. Specifically:

1) Ms Reich has some of the best chapter-ending cliffhangers that I've encountered since, possibly, the Nancy Drew series. I can't count the number of times I'd be stopping at the end of a chapter and simply had to read the first paragraph of the next one to see what was going to happen. That's writing I enjoy.

2) I quickly identified with the protagonist. "Some student's boom-box pounded out a tune I didn't recognize by a group whose name I didn't know and wouldn't remember if told. (page 5) Temperance and I bonded.

3) Occasionally I ran across a really well written sentence. "Silence roared between us." (page 169) Few words, great image. Can't get any better than that, IMHO.

4) Guess Ms Reich goes into the group of writers whose details I'll trust. At one point a character says, "Forgiveness is the fragrance that the violet sheds on the hell that has crushed it." (page 185) She attributes the line to Mark Twain, but it didn't sound all that Twainish to me. Off to google I went. Yep. He wrote it. Now I wonder where. Clicked through one google page, but a specific source was not given. Anyone out there know?

I do have to admit to one of those niggling, I-can't-believe-I'm-this-picky moments. Tempe and her boyfriend have an argument and talk it out. "Startovers?" he asks. "Ollie ocean free," she replies. (page 173) Ollie ocean free? What I remember is "Ollie ollie oxen free." Back to google. Mine was there, and I actually found "Ollie ollie ocean free" as part of a song called "The Best Is Yet to Come" by Dennis DeYoung. So I'll acknowledge she's more right than I thought she was, but she's still missing one "Ollie."

Will I read any other Temperance books by Reich? Probably—-but I have my up-and-coming barnesandnoble.com order to read through first. Will I start watching Bones ? Nope.

I really, really liked the first two hundred plus pages of Lisa Scottoline's Daddy's Girl. I have dog-eared pages where I was going to point out good passages and moments when I thought the writer had presented an insight into our current world, but I'm not covering any of it. Why not? Because words cannot describe how much I hated the final hundred or so pages.

For over half the book the plot moves well, and the characters are interesting. And then there's a chase. The heroine is on the run because she's about to be arrested for a crime she didn't commit. The cops eventually catch her; she escapes. The cops catch her again, this time she kicks one of them in the shin and escapes. They catch her again, and then just when she's about to be shoved into the patrol car, she again kicks her captor in the shin and escapes. Give me a break!

There is one final plot twist at the end, but before it occurs around sixty pages are devoted to tying up every conceivable loose end and explaining everything the heroine has learned from her adventures. No one's going to read Daddy's Girl without getting any message Ms Scottoline wants to convey. So, at that point with everything wrapped up tighter than a Christmas present and every lesson clarified for me, did I care about a final twist in the romantic line? Not on your life!

Will I ever read another book by Lisa Scottoline? When hell freezes over, I might think about doing so—but I doubt it.

Just finished a book that I had originally thought a "gay niche" title until I saw it is on the L.A. Times best seller list as #4 -- Armistead Maupin's latest, Michael Tolliver Lives .

If you read Tales of the City or watched the excellent TV series, you will be familiar with the fact that Tolliver is "Mouse", one of the central characters of of the cast of characters first created in a newspaper serial.

The book shows Maupin has not lost his magical touch and updates the lives of the surviving characters into mid age. Altogether a wonderful read, few surprises and a few insights on aging that make it a worthwhile summer excursion.

I didn't need to read Shrub: The Short* but Happy Political Life of George W. Bush by Molly Ivins and Lou Dubose. Let's face it: I already detest the man and his policies. Why throw gasoline on the fire? But I did read it, and there were amazing moments of insight.

1) Molly Ivins on Bush's luck: "The guy is not just lucky; if they tried to hang him, the rope would break. (page xxi) Yep. I used to think Reagan was lucky; Bush wins by a mile.

2) On big "bidness" hassles in Texas: "…an African proverb is sometimes cited: 'When elephants fight, the grass suffers.'" (page 101) People in the US? We're grass—if not toast.

3) On environmental protections in Texas: "The agency also began providing advance notice of 'surprise inspections' of large industrial facilities, thus lending a surprising new meaning to surprise." (page 113) Crocodile tears for miners? The thought came to mind.

4) Perot was involved in Texas's education reform. "The trouble with Texas schools, said Perot, is too much football. Pretty much the whole state flat fell down at hearing such heresy, bewildered as a goat on AstroTurf." (page 130) Damn. If I'd known Perot felt that way about football and education, I might have voted for him. Just kidding. I think.

5) The sad thing about this last quote is I read it ten minutes after Scooter Libby's not-a-pardon was announced. Timing is, as always, everything. The book quotes from a profile of Bush that appeared in a 1999 issue of Talk magazine. The interviewer asks if Bush ever met with any death row inmates who were requesting commutations. Bush said no, added that in addition he refused to meet with Larry King who was interviewing a woman on death row. Bush admitted he did watch the resulting Larry King Showwhere King asked the woman what she would say to Bush. Imagining how she might have responded, Bush answers: "'Please,' Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, 'don't kill me.'" (page 153) When the profile was published, the Bush campaign claimed the interviewer misunderstood. The interviewer said he didn't. Whatever. My question is: When are people going to grasp that George W. Bush is not a nice man?

*Ivins now concedes she was wrong about "short." Too bad that she was.

Thank you Martha, I bought "Daddy's Little Girl" and cannot remember why. It must have have been her visit to Imus. I will send it off to the book sale at the humane society unread.

Mary Daheim's The Alpine Pursuit was okay. (Damned by faint praise? You betcha.) It's billed as an Emma Lord mystery, so I'll go out on a limb and assume there's more than one book about Emma Lord. Emma runs a small town weekly newspaper and, apparently, solves crimes in her spare time. I don't know that I'll go search for any more of her adventures, but I didn't show disgust by hurling this book across the room when I finished it. A solid C, maybe a C+.

Before You Leap: A Frog's-Eye View of Life's Greatest Lessons by Kermit the Frog was a Christmas present, and having finished it last night, I have now read the last book in my 2006 Christmas loot.

Before You Leap is a two-part book. The first part is a brief, actually very brief, history of the Muppets. Nothing I didn't already know, but Kermit's descriptions of his fellow Muppets are often clever. The Swedish Chef for example: "Here was someone who could get food to disagree with you even before you ate it." (page 50) Actually there's a CD Rom game called Muppets Inside where you can find out how disagreeable—nay, even dangerous—vegetables can be. (Am I revealing too much? Will you respect me the next time I post something serious?)

The second part is a how-to treatise, explaining for the most part how to get along with others. It's heavy on the subject of friendship, the best passage IMHO being a bit of dialogue between Kermit and Fozzie.

And that put me in mind of a conversation I had one Thanksgiving in the 80s. Homer Hickam, curiously enough, was part of the conversation. Now Homer is Huntsville's premier writer, author first of Rocket Boys, which became the movie October Sky. I knew Homer before all his fame when his second wife, active in community theatre, was a friend of mine. One fall I had planned to go home to see my parents in DC for Thanksgiving. MS, however, had other ideas and started to worsen the Tuesday before. I gave up on the idea of home and had dinner with the frequently-mentioned-in-posts Tessa and some other friends, including Homer and his then wife. At one point we were talking about my cancelled plans, and Homer said, "I don't know why you'd want to go home when your family is right here." If nothing else, Before You Leap reminded me of a time before my only reaction to Homer Hickam was jealousy. I find that nice.

Phil, I started A Thousand Splendid Suns this morning. So far it's as close to I-can't-put-it-down as any book gets for me. Review follows in a day or two.

Phil was right about A Thousand Splendid Suns by Khalad Hosseini. It's a powerful book that presents an eye-opening picture about the place of women in countries ruled by today's Islamic law. I also recommend it—with the warning that it's not light or fun reading.

From what Phil said, I expected emotional power. What I need not expect—and was overjoyed to find—was a truly engrossing story. One theory of building plot is that the writer chases his hero, in this case heroine, up a tree and then throws rocks at him/her. A lot of rocks are thrown in Splendid Suns, making it IMHO really suspenseful. There were times when I'd glance at the next page just to see how a scene was going to end. (Just a tiny glance, mind you. Anything more than that or anything that involves turning a page is cheating.) Then I'd go back and read from where I glanced.

I dog-eared some pages, but the joy of this book is not from meaningful or clever quotes. Its power comes from the horrors of the world it creates and, at least for me, the strength and surprise of everything that happens.

Yep, sometimes the author did capture a specific something with an economy of words.

1) The romantic interest, Tariq, is thinking about the heroine, Laila. "He knew she could not wipe away the obligations of her life anymore than he could his." (page 166) Wow! Characters with … what else? … real character. Back to Aristotle. Tragedy tells the story of a good—translate moral—man. And what if what makes him good is also his tragic flaw? I love this book!

2) Pages 248 and 249 present laws that went into effect when religion became government. They're strict, horribly strict. ( American women would be shot at dawn.) But only one surprised me: "If you keep parakeets, you will be beaten. Your birds will be shot." (page 248, italics his) Huh? What's with parakeets? Anyone know if parakeets hold some position—either holy or the opposite—in the Islamic faith? Inquiring minds and all that.

There are a couple others, but upon second look, I think they might give away too much.

I have to admit that I didn't particularly like the ending. I'll grant it was right for a best-seller, but it didn't do justice to the book—IMHO. Still, thumbs definitely up.

I'm getting really tired of books that start out good and then dwindle into boring. Sadly, A Good and Happy Child by Justin Evans follows that now all too familiar pattern. The protagonist, George Davies, is a new father who cannot (will not?) touch his son. In order to discover why, he turns to journals he wrote when as a preteen he experienced mystic happenings. Perhaps the book's aim was to prove a little mysticism goes a long way. If so, it succeeded. But I sense its goal was grander, as it explored issues of religion, of good and evil, and their very existence in today's world. Did young George truly see a demon? Did he exorcise it himself? Did his experiences parallel those of his father who may have been killed by demons during a pilgrimage to South America? Ultimately did I care? Not really, but I do entertain a hope that if/when this book becomes a major motion picture, Hollywood's handling of pea soup has improved.

I think I had previously read THE ALPINE RECLUSE by Mar Daheim prior to this latest period of time spent in the fictional town of Alpine Washington. Alpine is a small town with a weekly newspaper owned by the main character Emma Lord.

There is a murder, a lot of gossip, talk of the weather, and an ending that is very surprising.

It was a good way to spend the weekend. It just dawned on me that Mary Daheim's book titles run through the alphabet. The first was The Alpine Advocate.....the one before THE ALPINE RECLUSE was THE ALPINE QUILT.

Well I'm ready for "S".

Respectfully Submitted,

Kathy Albers

Guess I won't be sending The ALPINE QUILT or THE ALPINE RECLUSE your way.....

Smiles,

Kathy Albers

Reporting in: I'm almost halfway through listening to Ayn Rand's ATLAS SHRUGGED. Should be reviewing in another four or five days.

ATLAS update. Remember the interminable chariot race in BEN HUR? Five fish to go, four fish to go, etc? There's an ATLAS parallel: Fifteen disks to go. Or: "Fifteen disks on the wall, fifteen disks on the wall. Take one down etc."

AARGH!

I remember reading both Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead in my college days. Ann Ryand and Leon Uris were my first venture into "adult" fiction beyond required reading lists.

I enjoyed them then. I have absolutely no desire to re visit any of them.

I must say that after reading the last Mary Daheim books and now reading Janet Evavonivich, I think too much candy can be a BAD BAD thing. I'm finishing JE's "13" book and will post a review of five books in five days and then I'm turning to some good Newberry books.

Kathy

This year's Newberry is in my B&N.com order that should arrive tomorrow.

It's funny but I took in Rand's Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged as political documentaries. So much of what she wrote had puzzled me back when I was learning about the Constitution and our Bill of Rights. I would read the words of our founders and be unable to locate them in the governments from the late 50s through the 60s. I was very aware of the pressure from the majority of people that hurt the new thinkers of the era that she wrote about. She was warning us of the power of the masses within a Democracy. The acceptance of that which we were told were good things upset me badly and I finally saw her points.

Rand's style has been criticized because her heroes are found in her own ideal people. Hank Reardon and Howard Rourke were her ideals and she used them to demonstrate their lasting power that overshadowed the ignorance of the government, local in Fountainhead and Federal in Shrugged.

She was the spokesman for individual freedoms and no one has since done such a fabulous job. She walks over the subject of faith and ignores the superstitions of the religious masses. That has turned the Christians against her but not a day goes by that her name is not spoken in awe of her essays and novels.

About every 10 years I reread Shrugged as a renewal of my own desires for a governmenr based on freedoms not silly prohibitions. Sadly many who respect her writings tend to over analyze her words. It has brought many people into missing the points whe wanted emphasized. That is what is so interesting about Rand is that just about everyone has a opinion on her subjects. I remember when her essay "The Virtue of Selfishness" was in print and the religious masses wanted every charitiable action done in the name of God and Rand spoke out that it in most cases these actions were done because it brought joy to the giving person. I never did convince my mother that doing for others was done as an offer of love not as a deed to prove something to God. She did not have the mind set to read Rand and she was annoyed that both my girls read both books including her book of essays.

My planned review of five books in five days was going to be a sentence or two short.

The Alpine Recluse by Mary Daheim
Set Sail for Murder by Carolyn Hart
The Alpine Scandal by Mary Daheim
Twelve Sharp by Janet Evanovich
and Lean Mean Thirteen by Janet Evanovich

All of these books are of the genre of cozy mysteries. They have continuing characters that are endearing and quirky. The main characters frients are always interesting to say the least. Reading these books is my version of spending time with characters I like in a weekly sit com.

Although in reality I think I remember plots in sitcoms a litttle longer than I do the plots in these books.

Still I purchase them and read them. It is called ESCAPE.

I did like LEAN, MEAN THIRTEEN which is the latest Stephanie Plum novel because of two scenarios that I found enjoyable.

Stephanie wants to take in a petty criminal to re-bond him but this man cannot leave his house for fear the cable company might one day listen to his appeal to fix the cable leading into his house and if by chance, the company would come and this petty crook would not be at home, his appeal would loop to the back of the requests and he would NEVER EVER get the quality internet access he desires.....Haven't we all been there?

Stephanie's other shout out was for a company that I greatly respect: COSTCO. Stephanie is faced with an empty stomach and empty pocketbook, so with her COSTCO card she grazes until her belly is full at the free samples along the warehouse isles.

I love to shop COSTCO around the noon hour.

Kathy

Sandy,
My "review" of Atlas Shrugged will probably cover a lot of ground. I'm very glad I've read the three of hers and I'm very glad I read them in the order I did. I think the most pleasant surprise I've had with Rand is what a good storyteller she is. In AS when the story was heading toward the train crash, I couldn't put it down. But when she "landed" in happy valley and all the super businessmen would talk out their views, I was bored silly. I got the point long before they stopped talking about it. Now, however, Dagny (sp?) is back out in the world where the idiots are taking over. There's conflict and action, and I'm a happy listener.

Kathy,
Literature as escape. Hummm. Squack! Does not compute FOR ME and I imagine the problem is too many years and courses as a drama and English major. Part of my enjoyment is ferreting out the writer's take on things and how he/she presents it through plot, character, thought, etc. I guess you can take the girl out of the literary analysis, but you can't take the literary analysis out of the girl. I mean, I see the 87th precinct novels as escape but I can't help analyzing them. Your approach is probably better. Mine probably leads to insanity. Out, out damned metaphor!

You need to talk about books with Pat Blackman. She's given up on me, too.

Can I go to COSTCO with you for lunch?

I was a library science major. I had to read ALL the Caldicott and Newberry books....read, contrast, compare. I like finding "gems" in the books I read but not reading just for brain expansion. I'm glad I forced myself to read THE PATH for instance but I can't say that I look back to that trip as one of pleasure.

Martha, now that I'm not afraid of driving your WALL DRUG Nimbus 1000 we can go to lunch anywhere.

I started the 1964 Newberry Book -- I think it's called "It's Like That Cat." I confess I put it down to finish a book with the terrible title "Wed and Buried."

I'm hopeless.....

Kathy

Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged is done; all 42 discs have been listened to. Now where to begin? Oh, where to begin? This review will have to be different from my normal format because I realized early on that when you listen to a book, there aren't any pages to dog-ear. Obviously I'm going to have to deal with broad strokes, so:

Almost a week ago I attended an ice cream breakfast, given by a fellow garden home owner here in the retirement community. I started off with my customary social charm, trying to think of responses when other ladies talked about their grandchildren, churches and conservative beliefs. So there I was, winning friends and influencing people, when one lady actually started a conversation about books. The heavens opened; I was in my element. I acknowledged that I was currently "reading" Atlas Shrugged. The lady helped me along by saying that surely I was reading it again. Nope. I said I'd never read it before. She asked why? I opened my mouth to say, "I was an English major. English majors don't read Ayn Rand." But before I had taken a breath of air, I realized how snotty the remark sounded and stopped myself. Now, a week later, is it still snotty? Yes. But it's also a great way to start a review.

English majors don't read Ayn Rand, at least not as part of any course curriculum. (Actually they may do so now, but I'm talking early sixties.) So, let's say it's a true statement. But is it a valid statement? Let's see.

Sandy said she reads the Rand novels every few years as political treatises. No argument there; they are that. And in that regard they present Rand's political views clearly. (Assuming, of course, that I'm understanding what she's saying.) So do I buy into her views? I've never been that crazy about characters that, IMHO, personify the ubermensch. (Boy, am I surprised that Wikipedia doesn't list Atlas Shrugged as an example of the ubermensch in recent literature. I sure think it belongs there. Do I have another subject for a doctoral dissertation? Alas, no. My heart remains with the 87th precinct.) The problem I have with such ubermensch characters in literature is there's no room for growth or development. Rand's characters—the good guys—start out as perfect and spend the book explaining why they are perfect. The idiots, on the other hand, do stupid things and never realize the stupidity of what they're doing. I will grant, however, that they're fun to read about. To me the best parts of Atlas Shrugged were when the government morons were messing up what the industrialists had built.

Related to character, I think Rand missed the boat with a character named Cheryl. She's married to Dagny's brother and eventually learns that truth and honor rest with Dagny, not her brother. Sad to say, IMHO, Cheryl learns this and four pages later Rand kills her off. I was sorry to see her go, in no small part because she illustrated to me what novels do best. Actually, I think the two above paragraphs support why English majors don't read Rand. The reader learns a great deal about political theory but, IMHO, very little about humanity and even less about how novels are put together and work.

The other area where Rand drives me crazy is her heroines' approach to sex. Good sex is violent; good sex is degrading. Sorry. Dominance/submission has never held any appeal for me, particularly the submissive side.

Finally, putting all the above aside, I'm really glad I've read her books. When her characters aren't in bed or aren't expounding on how the world should be, Rand can tell a gripping story. That's most likely what I'm going to remember.

Martha. I told you that Rand does not write about people like you or me, she writes about ideal people. She doesnt have time to have her characters change and develop into the kind of people we would understand. She writes her ideals and allows the reader to follow or shut down. I loved Cheryl and she was a tragic character and many universities use her character to discuss Rand's writings.

It may be a global thing but UCLA, USC, Stanford, Berkeley and even smaller private universities all discussed Rand in the 60s.
I took a class on Rand at UCLA along with "Whose Afraid of Virginia Wolf?" In 1980, at Berkeley, Dr. Leonard Piekoff who was Rand's heir and the keeper of Rand's papers did a class at Berkeley and the class filled up in 15 minutes after it was posted. I will admit that the Western States love new thinkers and new approaches to all subjects. Yes, Rand wrote of violent sex but it turns loving and that may be a hint to her own nature. Maybe if you had been raised in the West instead of the South you might understand the meaning of Rand and Objectivism.

I'm often insulted with Hemmingway for the same reason you fault Rand. The human mind and body is so diverse that we should never try to put them or ourselves in any category. You never mentioned John Galt's speech. On many occasions I will re read this speech and it makes everything else I read insignificant. I read this book for the first time when I realized I may have married the wrong man. She gave me the strength to live on my own agenda and ignore the cheap tricks I found in my own home. My own morals never changed and I accepted the fact that my husband was a simple hypocrite. I did not consult him again in my plans for the kids. We ignored him and we ended up just fine. Rand has been my moral guide all these years and helped me get over the fact that I did not have to believe in God to be a whole person.

Men seldom read Rand as they cannot understand what she is. I saw her interact with her husband and it was a beautiful thing to see. She had a fling with another man but it meant nothing in the long run and he used her celebrity for his own financial gain. So what?

I have a belief that might upset you but I believe Rand wrote for people like me who are always searching for the ideal in life and not people like you who have a different plan for life. I'm certain you are serene in your life and I might be considered a wreck. So what?

I was raised in Marin County and Silver Spring, Maryland. I did college in Ohio and Indiana. On my own I did 2 years of NYC, then moved to Huntsville. The south mystifies me.

I didn't mention his speech because, for me, not making any other judgment, it was way too long. When he said (paraphrasing), "For two hours you've not been understanding me" my reaction was "No, for two hours you've been boring me."

I think I do understand some aspects of Objectivism. Just because I don't wholeheartedly embrace a philosophy doesn't mean I don't understand it. Linda Ellerbee once said she had a history professor that saw history and big events as a river. In his theory some writers, I'd say Rand, write about the river and theevents. Ellerbee went on to say that other literature, her example was THE FANTASTICKS, was about what happened on the banks. I probably identify more closely with what's happening on the banks.

There's a lot in AS and even in John Galt's speech that will stay with me. Everything has two sides, one right and one wrong; evil lies in the middle. I'll be mulling that for a while because, yes, I consider black and white extreme shades of gray.

I think because I have so many doubts myself, I simply don't identify with her types of characters.

Plan in life? Never had one, never will--a truth that probably drove my parents crazy.

Rand in English classes. In my junior year in college I spent a few months in a smart kids' program where we read many of the Utopia novels. All through AS I kept thinking it would have been a good addition to the reading list.

I have no idea what her place on campus is today. Let's face it--it takes a long time for academics to decide anyone is worthy of being included. AS was published in 1957. No way it would be in a midwestern college program in the mid sixties. Even Faulkner barely made it.

And in all sincerity I have to say the followiing. We are just discussing a book as literature,aren't we? We're not getting upset because we don't see it the same way. I hope we're not.

THE GOOD HUSBAND OF ZEBRA DRIVE by Alexander McCall Smith

review: A+

I hope Mr. Smith is getting a salute from the tourism bureau of Botswana. If I ever do a Safari, it would be in this region.

Respectfully Submitted,

Kathy Albers

I had no cosmic plan in mind when I read George Orwell's 1984 right after Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, but they sure have lots in common. Both portray societies where the least common denominator has taken over. Rand's capable individuals escape by creating their own—and much better—society. Sad to say, Orwell's individuals are browbeaten and tortured into thinking and following the party line. But then since Orwell's individuals are nowhere near as self-sufficient as Rand's, their sad end is not surprising.

I also found a similarity in my response to both books. When a story was being told, I enjoyed them. When they wandered off into explanations of government and philosophy, I was bored. Like I said, reading them back to back was interesting.

I had read 1984 years and years ago—back when it was more science fiction than a picture of our current world. The thing that impressed me most this time through was Orwell's semantic approach. Newspeak, the language of Oceania, prides itself on the removal of words. After all, what need is there for the word "freedom," if the concept no longer exists? Conversely, if whatever doesn't exist, there's no need for it to have a symbol. People don't and can't talk about what doesn't exist.

Maybe in another generation or two, I'll read it again and something else will catch my attention. I don't think I'll hold my breath.

Martha et al -

Found this and thought you all would appreciate and maybe have some fun with it!

The Gender Genie

Have Fun....

I had no cosmic plan in mind when I read Chris Hedges' American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America right after George Orwell's 1984, but they sure have lots in common. OMG! I'm finding links between everything. But it's okay. I'm not making note cards explaining the connections and covering the walls of my room with them. Until that happens, I'm safe. I'm in no danger of waking up to find myself a prisoner in a movie directed by little Opie Cunningham.

Seriously, though, I wasn't even thinking about parallels until in American Fascists I read the following: "Dominionists* and their wealthy right-wing sponsors speak in words and phrases that are familiar and comforting to most Americans, but they no longer use words to mean what they meant in the past. They engage in a slow process of 'logocide,' the killing of words." (page 14) I snapped to attention. Newspeak is upon us, and it's being brought to us by the Christian right as they gain political power.

And the rest of American Fascists (AF) continues to be just as scary. It analyzes the use of fear evangelicals employ as they bring people into the fold, and I was taken back to a teenage experience. One summer two of my friends attended a camp called Word of Life in upstate New York. They had a great time and the next year I wanted to go with them. My parents, apparently leery of religious cults long before the phrase entered our language, opposed the idea, but I won out. For two weeks I experienced the fear AF discusses. Now I joke and say that in that two-week span I was saved at least thirty times and dedicated my life to the lord probably fourteen. It's funny sixty years later, but I was one terrified kid. I'm troubled that the technique is still in use. And I also wonder how it works for so many. In all those times I was saved, the born-again grace never lasted. I'd hear the next night's sermon and know I wasn't any different. If I'd been a sinner the night before, I hadn't changed; I was still a sinner. I wondered then—and I wonder now—how people could accept the comfort of being born again so easily.

Anyway, back to AF. At one point fundamentalism is defined as "the religion of those at once seduced and betrayed by the promise that we human beings can comprehend and control our world." (page 81) Sounds to me like the thinking behind the war on terror. The Republicans are gonna keep us safe. Yeah. Right.

Most scary of all is that AF makes some points that convince me the Christian right is winning. And creationism is now a science. Stephen King couldn't create a scarier world.

AF frequently devotes pages to individual preachers in the christian right. Rod Parsley is one of them, and the worst aspect about him comes near the end of his section. "He has, in the past, urged followers to burn their household bills and give the money to him to be free of debt." (page 163) And his followers believe they are listening to a man of god. Does anyone still think?

Bottom line? It's a frightening book, even more so as we anticipate a second terrorist attack and know how our administration, backed by the christian right, will use it to create more fear that in turn will mean, to many, that it's now necessary to curtail even more rights. Is there any way to stop it?

*I couldn't find "dominionists" in a dictionary. From context, my understanding is that it means those who strive for dominion.

Now I'llgo check OpAl's link.

I entered the first 300+ words of a novel I'm trying to sell. Seems that by their figuring,I'm male.

The author of the AF review above is also male.

I'm starting to have identity issues.

To Whom God Speaks was also written by a male. At least it's consistent.

Summer's End, the play that's going to have a Florida reading, is also by a male.

It's fun, but I think I'll stop now.

Martha,

I've sent this, your latest review, to my brother-in-law who I think does make little note cards and connect them with string.

The "being saved/surrender" event is powerful, even if it is a mind illusion. Trying to be in control of everything, everybody, everywhere is damn tiring. That is the reason it is so comforting to have someone/thing to which to surrender. Christ? The Republican Party?

I watched the wife of Alan Jackson as she appeared on tv today to promote her book, IT'S ALL BECAUSE OF HIM. She points to that point of surrender in her life that changed her outlook. In the book A MAN CALLED PETER, Catherine Marshall mentions a time of acceptance of her TB. Prior to that acceptance she had fought against the disease's ravages. Only in these books, she surrendered and got well. (If she hadn't gotten well, now we wouldn't have the book, now would we?)

God Bless those who are not so inclinded to surrender. They are the ones that keep us from following any Pied Piper.

Respectfully Submitted,

Kathy Albers

(When are we going to have another movie date? I'm getting cobwebs on my cobwebs rotting away here on this hill.)