Day 13 (+2): Arming the Sling--A Review of Malcolm Gladwell's "Davidand Goliath"

I'm not really one for non-fiction self-help. But when we had to vote on this month's Book Club selection, I was intrigued by the write-up about David and Goliath. It said it would blend history and psychology and self-help. I thought, Maybe I'll like this one.

And I wasn't completely disappointed. 

First, let's start off with the good--I like the variety of stories that Gladwell highlights. There are the "local interest" types, the ones that might get picked up by a regional new; the "I would have never known", where the person's identity is often changed and their experience is highlighted; and the "historical figures", the ones we might read about in speciality history books. And he breaks down situations really well. In the beginning, he looks at each aspect of the famous Biblical tale of the underdog facing the giant, showing how David actually had every tactical advantage. The book then goes into the various situations, and shoes why what we think of advantages (such as Goliath's size) aren't always the best thing (David's speed allowed Goliath almost no time to react to the sling attack). It also showed that disadvantages can motivate and enable us to act in ways that others would not risk. 

I had two major problems with the book. One, he seemed to place a huge emphasis on the way these people approached a situation, casting their thought processes a strategic type light. And while I know that some of these people were specifically thoughtful in their actions, a lot of them I'm sure just acted. It's the same way that when you talk to those that risk their own health and safety to save another person's life and ask why they did what they did, they often respond with a variant of "I don't know-- I just acted." I would have liked for him to acknowledge more that people sometimes unconsciously act, whether they are the underdog or the giant. 

The second thing was his writing framework style. His words were easy to understand; his train of thought was not. When focusing on the Troubles in No. Ireland, he referred to an economic report by Nathan Leites and Charles Wolf called Rebellion and Authority, which was written specifically on how to deal with insurgent situation. Gladwell argues their thoughts were wrong, using the Troubles as examples. But he brings up these few lines from the report again later, and again, and again. His ideas are consistent, but he seems repetitive and scatterbrained--it's more like I'm reading the transcript of a speech than an edited book, the way he'll pull in information and stories from the previous chapters at will-nill. 

Overall, I'd give it a 3.4/5. 

Day 7: Do You Wanna Build a Snowman? A Review of Disney's Frozen

Last night, I finally saw Disney's Frozen. Yes, I do realize with the current polar vortex, that my movie choice was quite appropriate. Whatever. I had to wait for the boy to get back from LA before I went and saw it; we wanted to see it together :3

My opinion? Splendid.

To be honest, I was worried when I first saw the trailer. I knew at the time that Idina was going to be in it, about I was excited. However, the trailer? Well, it highlighted the goofier side more. It was all I was hoping it wouldn't be. It looked like Tangled: Now with Ice! I knew enough about the movie to know that Elsa and Anna were sisters, and that intrigued me. And knowing the source material that inspired the movie (which, in case you didn't know, is Hans Christian Andersen's "The Snow Queen"), I wanted to know more how that translated into this adaptation.

What won me over in the end to go see it was the clip of Idina as Elsa, singing "Let It Go". It reminded me of Wicked's powerful "Defying Gravity" in so many ways--theme, style, actual singer (haha). I also remembered that I hadn't like the idea of Tangled at first, mainly because i was sad at the move to more CGI and the "boyification" to make it more marketable. Oh, and because Kristin Chenoweth was no longer in the movie. But after I saw Tangled one night when babysitting Annie? Well, I went to Wal-Mart, bought the damn thing for myself, and brought it to Brett's apartment. I then insisted he see it then. (It's kind of a thing with us--watching the new Disney films together.) And we watched it then--him for the first time, me for the second in a six hour span.

So, Frozen was pretty damn awesome. It did have some of the slapstick that the trailed had focused on, but the movie spread it out more, didn't overload it (like another movie company.... *coughcough* Dreamworks *coughcough*). The music is wonderfully done, set up more like a Broadway show than a movie. Which makes sense, since Robert Lopez, one of the musics writers, has primarily worked on Broadway before this. The score, by Christophe Beck, is splendid.

And while Elsa is awesome in her own way, I really identified with Anna, in a lot of ways. After the movie, I mentioned this to Brett, and he agreed that her mannerisms and way of speaking correlated with my own. There's also the younger sister aspect that I totally get.

Which brings me to the main reason I loved it--yes, there's funny bits, and there's romance, but it's really a story about sisters, about familial connections. I'm glad that Disney is going in that direction of relationships in general, not focusing on just the love connections, you know?

The only issue I had with it is that for the soundtrack, they had Demi Lovato do the pop cover. It's alright, I guess. I just am confused, when you have one of the greatest Broadway stars of the last 20 years on your casting roll and who sings the original movie version, why don't you just have her do a pop cover, and be done with it? It's just strange and kind of ridiculous.

All around, good movie to check out, and I highly recommend it.  Go see it if you haven't.

Day 4: Right Beneath Our Feet--A Review of Andrew Carroll's "Here is Where"

Let me start off with saying that this book is much better than what you might imagine if you knew how long it took me to read it (Oct. 22 to Jan. 3).

I first discovered the book sometime this summer on a plane ride (I want to say in May on my way back from my brother's graduation, but it could have been in July on the way back from Seth & Suchi's wedding) in the airplane magazine. They had printed the introduction, which I read and enjoyed. It seemed like something right up my alley for non-fiction: random historical knowledge few people now about, told in a travel log sort of way. When I got back, there was a wait list for a copy from the local library, so I put in my request and kept reading other stuff.

I finally got word back in October that it was my turn. I can't remember if I started reading it right away, but meh, not a big deal.

I re-read the introduction, in which Carroll discusses discovering the Edwin Booth saving Robert Lincoln's life, and visiting the station to get immersed in the place. It's a story I've heard before (many times), but I liked how he went out and searched for the setting--in this case, Exchange Place in Jersey City, NJ. It might not be the same way it was back then, but it's still the same location. What's really astonishing, he says, is that there's no indication of what happened here. And while some people may disagree with him about the importance of this event, he lists the events of note on the plaque there and argues that this happenstance should be noted as well. He goes on, when a passer-by asks him what he's looking at, to recount the Booth/Lincoln tale, something I would as done myself, as I am quite the over-sharer. On his way back to DC, he decides he's going to take a trip to these forgotten bits of history, or even just the ones that aren't really commemorated as they should be.

At first, I was worried--he visited Niihau, HI, and tells the story of a Japanese pilot who crash landed there after Pearl Harbor, and how the villagers fought back to protect America, by keeping the pilot's information papers from him and trying to detain him until authorities got there. It's actually a really great story, and I'm not doing it any justice, but the problem was I had heard this story before as well. It was one of the few times in my life I was angry at myself at being so trivia-nerdy, and hoped that the rest of the book wasn't filled with stories I had heard before.
Thankfully, my fears were soon quelled, as the rest of the book contained American historical stories that I hadn't know.

Well, I was 100 pages into the book, and it was time to return it to the library. Since there was someone else who had requested to borrow it after me, I couldn't renew. So I had to bring it back; I noted my page, and asked the librarian to put it at the bottom of the list.

When I finally got the book again in December, it was heyday season of me reading the book club selection and holiday preparation, so I didn't get started on it again until the day after Christmas. And I powered through the remaining 350 pages pretty quickly.

The book in general is quite good, and I suggest history buffs, fans of travel writing, and almost anyone in general to read it. His voice is quite self-aware, and I found myself giggling at those moments when in his quest across the US put him in awkward positions (like taking pictures of what he thought was a former military base, when it turns out it's very much active, as he soon finds out when the "men in black" roll up). I sighed at some of the more heartbreaking parts of our country's past, like the orphan children from large cities shipped out to the country (with the best of intentions) to help them from starving on the streets but often found themselves in worse, more laborious situations. I cringe at some of the medical stuff, especially when Dr. Joseph Goldberger, in an effort to prove that pellagra was a deficiency disease like scurvy and not communicable, "mixed the dried, flaky scabs from various pellagrins with their urine, nasal secretions, and liquid feces, and then, as colleagues looked on, swallowed the concoction whole." I don't know what's worse: this disgusting act, or the fact that I could think of a very similar situation immediately. As Brett aptly put it when I told him about Goldberger, "Science is gross sometimes."

My only problem with the book is the way that he goes off on tangents at every site. And while there are connections and the line of thinking is easy to follow, it becomes information overload sometimes, and fairly quickly. I could see people that prefer the more "straight-shootin' " type of writing to be put off by his winding way of having everything connect. Which they do, quite naturally, in unexpected ways.

I'll end my review with the quote he begins the last chapter with:

I haven't been everywhere, but it's on my list.--Susan Sontag

This book made me want to go out and search for places, to show my gratitude for what other people did to advance my country in various ways. And while I'm not planning on making a cross-country trip to do so (though that would be fun), I'll get to all the places on my list eventually.