I love reading about hurricanes, and I love reading about the lives of fairly ordinary people who endure a lot. This book had both of those things. A great account of the 1900 Galveston Hurricane, told not only through the thoughts of weather man Isaac Cline, but through the recorded experiences of others that survived as well.
First off, here's what you won't find here. You won't find a lengthy scientific discussion of the Galveston Hurricane. There's some of it, and Larson does talk a bit about what drives hurricanes and hurricane hazards, but this isn't really a science book or weather book.
Instead it's a very human account of a great catastrophe. It's an account not of famous people and what they thought of the event, but the accounts of everyday residents of Galveston Island. It talks about what they saw, thought, heard, and smelled.
Larson is probably one of the best descriptive writers I've had the privilege to read. His vocabulary and power to evoke an image is utterly astounding. As he writes about the city in the aftermath of the storm, he gives a description of what can only be described as the closest possible thing to hell on earth. Pyres of thousands of bodies that raged all over the island in the weeks after the storm. Think of the sights, the sounds, the smells. Larson portrays it all.
This is a great book for a weather fan, someone who's interested in the power of hurricanes, or someone that just likes a good story. Check it out, you won't be disappointed.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Book Thoughts: "True Grit," by Charles Portis
I'm amazed at how many people that I talk to didn't know True Grit was a novel. They just tend to think it's a classic John Wayne flick that got remade last year. Well, I haven't seen the John Wayne version since I was little kid on my granddad's farm (he had all the John Wayne movies), so I can't judge that.
I loved the novel though. I was curious, after seeing the new film version, to see if the dialogue and voice used in the movie was really written that way in the novel. It really is, and I love it. To me, Mattie's narrative voice is one of the most unique in literature, certainly in books I've read. She comes across as a child beyond her years in some regards, but immature as well, and her strong will gets her into trouble a couple of times in the novel.
The 2010 version of the film follows fairly closely to the line of the novel, though the Coen brothers certainly put their stamp on it. They made it a bit more complex by adding to the conflict between Rooster and LaBoeuf. In the book, it really doesn't go much beyond words bantered back and forth, but they escalate it in the movie quite a bit. It certainly doesn't hurt the story at all. Also, though the description seems a bit sparse at times, but there are some truly beautiful passages describing the American heartland, which adds another unique touch to a great story.
Give it a shot, and see the movie!
I loved the novel though. I was curious, after seeing the new film version, to see if the dialogue and voice used in the movie was really written that way in the novel. It really is, and I love it. To me, Mattie's narrative voice is one of the most unique in literature, certainly in books I've read. She comes across as a child beyond her years in some regards, but immature as well, and her strong will gets her into trouble a couple of times in the novel.
The 2010 version of the film follows fairly closely to the line of the novel, though the Coen brothers certainly put their stamp on it. They made it a bit more complex by adding to the conflict between Rooster and LaBoeuf. In the book, it really doesn't go much beyond words bantered back and forth, but they escalate it in the movie quite a bit. It certainly doesn't hurt the story at all. Also, though the description seems a bit sparse at times, but there are some truly beautiful passages describing the American heartland, which adds another unique touch to a great story.
Give it a shot, and see the movie!
Monday, March 28, 2011
Book Thoughts: "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris
This really was a scary book.
Harris takes the case against religion to frightening levels. Where Dawkins and Hitchens may argue that being religious is foolish and imprudent, Harris argues that religion is downright dangerous. He makes a pretty compelling case. After all, religion tends to be our favorite reason to kill each other.
Harris chronicles the crimes of Christianity, and even points out that the Jewish faith isn't all that tolerant, but he perceives the main threat as coming from Islam, and that's a bit of a controversial idea for some liberal minded folks who think that Islam really is a religion of peace that's been hijacked by a few weirdos. He spends several pages just listing passages from the Koran that dictate either violence against, hatred, or at least dismissal of non-muslims. While it's true enough that the Bible is full of these passages as well, Harris draws a line here by saying Christianity has for the most part moved on from even paying attention to those passages, while a sizable proportion of the Muslim world fully believes in that theology. The real bad news is that these medieval minded folk are acquiring weapons that medieval Christians and the folks from the Inquisition couldn't have even dreamed of.
I marked this one down a star because of the last couple of chapters though. Harris begins to talk about Eastern Mysticism and meditation as perhaps a legitimate path to higher experiences, and he asserts that they can be viewed more empirically than organized religion. I might give him that, but the book itself seemed to just kind of diverge on a tangent. Perhaps I just needed to read it closer.
All in all, a very thought provoking read.
Harris takes the case against religion to frightening levels. Where Dawkins and Hitchens may argue that being religious is foolish and imprudent, Harris argues that religion is downright dangerous. He makes a pretty compelling case. After all, religion tends to be our favorite reason to kill each other.
Harris chronicles the crimes of Christianity, and even points out that the Jewish faith isn't all that tolerant, but he perceives the main threat as coming from Islam, and that's a bit of a controversial idea for some liberal minded folks who think that Islam really is a religion of peace that's been hijacked by a few weirdos. He spends several pages just listing passages from the Koran that dictate either violence against, hatred, or at least dismissal of non-muslims. While it's true enough that the Bible is full of these passages as well, Harris draws a line here by saying Christianity has for the most part moved on from even paying attention to those passages, while a sizable proportion of the Muslim world fully believes in that theology. The real bad news is that these medieval minded folk are acquiring weapons that medieval Christians and the folks from the Inquisition couldn't have even dreamed of.
I marked this one down a star because of the last couple of chapters though. Harris begins to talk about Eastern Mysticism and meditation as perhaps a legitimate path to higher experiences, and he asserts that they can be viewed more empirically than organized religion. I might give him that, but the book itself seemed to just kind of diverge on a tangent. Perhaps I just needed to read it closer.
All in all, a very thought provoking read.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Book Thoughts: "The First World War," by John Keegan
I'm not really sure where to start with this book, it's just so immense. However, it's very readable, even for someone who doesn't have a great deal of background in military history, such as myself.
The task of trying to summarize the action of the First World War into one volume is huge, but Keegan manages it quite well. For a reader who is looking for a good basic overview of the action of the war, I'd say this book would be hard to beat. Keegan hits all the highlights and still manages to take time to discuss events in some of the external theaters of the war, such as Africa.
The first part of the book deals with the circumstances in Europe that lead to the outbreak of war, chiefly the competing colonial interests between Britain, France, and Germany. Keegan moves deftly through the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand into the opening moves of the war in 1914, as well as suggesting several instances where the crisis could have been averted had cooler heads prevailed. This part ends with the stalemate on the Western Front in 1914, and the Germans finally propping up the Austrians in the east.
The second third of the book largely deals with most of the major action on the Western Front, including Verdun and the Somme. Here, however, Keegan spends a lot of time on the Eastern Front, as well as the war in Africa and the Middle East. He also spends a good bit of time on the naval war in the North Sea, which I found to be highly interesting.
The final part of the book begins with a treatment of the Russian Revolution, the Russian Civil War, and the end of the war on the Eastern Front, with Russia ceasing to be a military force. From there, Keegan charts the end of events on Western Front, starting with the Third Battle of Ypres, going through the Allied offensive at Amiens and the German offensive "Micheal," which made territorial gains, but weakened the remnants of the German army that the territory was lost again, which fresh American troops coming in to help engage German units with tired, under-supplied, and horribly hungry troops. Finally, the book ends with the abdication of the Kaiser, the disintegration of the Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empires, and a discussion of the ways the Second World War came from the First.
Here's what you won't find in this book. You won't find a lot of discussion on individual soldier's lives in the trenches. Also, you won't find a ton of first hand accounts from the soldiers. There isn't really a discussion of the Treaty of Versailles, since the combat pretty much ended in November, 1918. Also, the book is written from a European perspective, so there isn't a ton of information about how and why America got into the war. This isn't a bad thing. Despite popular opinion here in the states, it all really isn't about us, and the biggest part of The Great War had little or nothing to do with the USA. All I'm saying is, if you're looking for a more in depth discussion of America's involvement, you won't get much of it here.
In the end, I thought the book did a fantastic job of covering such a broad subject in less than 500 pages. When you do that, you're not going to please everybody. The only criticism I would level would be that some of the narrative gets a little windy and long, particularly in the first third of the book. Still, I believe it would be hard to match Keegan's overview of the war as a whole.
The task of trying to summarize the action of the First World War into one volume is huge, but Keegan manages it quite well. For a reader who is looking for a good basic overview of the action of the war, I'd say this book would be hard to beat. Keegan hits all the highlights and still manages to take time to discuss events in some of the external theaters of the war, such as Africa.
The first part of the book deals with the circumstances in Europe that lead to the outbreak of war, chiefly the competing colonial interests between Britain, France, and Germany. Keegan moves deftly through the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand into the opening moves of the war in 1914, as well as suggesting several instances where the crisis could have been averted had cooler heads prevailed. This part ends with the stalemate on the Western Front in 1914, and the Germans finally propping up the Austrians in the east.
The second third of the book largely deals with most of the major action on the Western Front, including Verdun and the Somme. Here, however, Keegan spends a lot of time on the Eastern Front, as well as the war in Africa and the Middle East. He also spends a good bit of time on the naval war in the North Sea, which I found to be highly interesting.
The final part of the book begins with a treatment of the Russian Revolution, the Russian Civil War, and the end of the war on the Eastern Front, with Russia ceasing to be a military force. From there, Keegan charts the end of events on Western Front, starting with the Third Battle of Ypres, going through the Allied offensive at Amiens and the German offensive "Micheal," which made territorial gains, but weakened the remnants of the German army that the territory was lost again, which fresh American troops coming in to help engage German units with tired, under-supplied, and horribly hungry troops. Finally, the book ends with the abdication of the Kaiser, the disintegration of the Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empires, and a discussion of the ways the Second World War came from the First.
Here's what you won't find in this book. You won't find a lot of discussion on individual soldier's lives in the trenches. Also, you won't find a ton of first hand accounts from the soldiers. There isn't really a discussion of the Treaty of Versailles, since the combat pretty much ended in November, 1918. Also, the book is written from a European perspective, so there isn't a ton of information about how and why America got into the war. This isn't a bad thing. Despite popular opinion here in the states, it all really isn't about us, and the biggest part of The Great War had little or nothing to do with the USA. All I'm saying is, if you're looking for a more in depth discussion of America's involvement, you won't get much of it here.
In the end, I thought the book did a fantastic job of covering such a broad subject in less than 500 pages. When you do that, you're not going to please everybody. The only criticism I would level would be that some of the narrative gets a little windy and long, particularly in the first third of the book. Still, I believe it would be hard to match Keegan's overview of the war as a whole.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Book Thoughts: "The Last Lieutenant," by John C. Shively
What a great book, and refreshing in a way. First off, I have no military experience and very little knowledge of such things outside of the Civil War, which I've read a ton about. World War II and the War in the Pacific are fairly recent interests of mine, and I'd really recommend this book for someone like me who is just starting or who wants to get a look at day to day life for a soldier in one of these island battles.
The book is an account of one man's experience on Iwo Jima. That man, Jim Craig was a platoon commander in the US Marine Corps. Craig and his platoon spent much of the first 27 days of the battle right in thick of things, ferreting out Japanese defensive positions well established in caves and underground. Indeed, of the 60 men under Lt. Craig's command on Iwo Jima, only 10 walked off the island with him. 20 of them had been killed and 30 had been wounded and evacuated. In fact over a third of the Marines killed in WWII died on Iwo Jima.
The story itself is presented as various accounts from Craig to his nephew, John Shively. Some are long, some are shorter, all of them have something to say about the overall battle and the life the Marines experienced during the "36 days of hell." The book is not an overview of the entire battle. It is not a military text or an evaluation of the tactics used in the battle. It very much is exactly what it claims to be, "A foxhole view of the epic battle for Iwo Jima." Anyone who is interested in the subject matter would be better for reading it.
Lt. Craig survived the battle and was awarded the Purple Heart. After rehabilitation in Maui, he participated in the US Occupation of Okinawa as an MP. He was discharged from the Marine Corps in 1946.
The book is an account of one man's experience on Iwo Jima. That man, Jim Craig was a platoon commander in the US Marine Corps. Craig and his platoon spent much of the first 27 days of the battle right in thick of things, ferreting out Japanese defensive positions well established in caves and underground. Indeed, of the 60 men under Lt. Craig's command on Iwo Jima, only 10 walked off the island with him. 20 of them had been killed and 30 had been wounded and evacuated. In fact over a third of the Marines killed in WWII died on Iwo Jima.
The story itself is presented as various accounts from Craig to his nephew, John Shively. Some are long, some are shorter, all of them have something to say about the overall battle and the life the Marines experienced during the "36 days of hell." The book is not an overview of the entire battle. It is not a military text or an evaluation of the tactics used in the battle. It very much is exactly what it claims to be, "A foxhole view of the epic battle for Iwo Jima." Anyone who is interested in the subject matter would be better for reading it.
Lt. Craig survived the battle and was awarded the Purple Heart. After rehabilitation in Maui, he participated in the US Occupation of Okinawa as an MP. He was discharged from the Marine Corps in 1946.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Book Thughts: "Fall of Giants," by Ken Follett
This was the first book of Ken Follett's that I've read, and I found it to be very enjoyable. His reputation for great historical research and detail is well deserved, and that is clearly the strong point of "Fall of Giants."
The book kicks off in 1911-1914, with a meeting of political minded folk at a dinner party for the king of England in Wales. From this meeting, strands go out into the story that cover five different families and their experiences during the World War I years. One family is a Welsh mining family, one is an English nobility, one an American high society family from Buffalo, one a German noble family, and the other a family of Russian workers.
Through the eyes of these characters we witness the dangerous lives of Welsh miners, inside looks at both the British and American governments during these critical years, the events that lead up to World War I, the Great War itself, the aftermath and horrific effects of the treaty of Versailles on the German people, and the Russian Revolution. It is an epic truly sweeping in it's scope.
First, the strong points. As I mentioned earlier, Follett's historical research and his ability to immerse the reader in time period is unmatched in anything I've read, and I've read a lot of historical fiction. The scenes are vivid and alive, from the royal halls of London, to the trenches in France, to the slums of Petrograd. The characters are also very vivid and believable. Follett makes you feel the emotion of love turned away, family betrayal, grief over war deaths, and the inflamed passions of revolution. His style in all of this is as smooth as silk.
Unfortunately, this smooth style makes the major weak point seem even weaker. I'd say the weak point is this: At times, Follett seems to fancy himself as an erotic romance writer. Generally speaking, when he tries, he doesn't pull it off, and the contrast between these horribly awkward scenes and the wonderful prose of the rest of the book is stark. These scenes are real clunkers, but thankfully most of them come near the beginning of the story. As it progresses and the characters themselves progress, the love scenes later in the story fit in much better.
In the end, the story is epic and well written. The action moves quickly, and it would be hard to notice that the book is nearly 1000 pages long. "Fall of Giants" is the first in a 3 book series and I can't wait until the next one comes out, according to Follett, it will cover World War II.
The book kicks off in 1911-1914, with a meeting of political minded folk at a dinner party for the king of England in Wales. From this meeting, strands go out into the story that cover five different families and their experiences during the World War I years. One family is a Welsh mining family, one is an English nobility, one an American high society family from Buffalo, one a German noble family, and the other a family of Russian workers.
Through the eyes of these characters we witness the dangerous lives of Welsh miners, inside looks at both the British and American governments during these critical years, the events that lead up to World War I, the Great War itself, the aftermath and horrific effects of the treaty of Versailles on the German people, and the Russian Revolution. It is an epic truly sweeping in it's scope.
First, the strong points. As I mentioned earlier, Follett's historical research and his ability to immerse the reader in time period is unmatched in anything I've read, and I've read a lot of historical fiction. The scenes are vivid and alive, from the royal halls of London, to the trenches in France, to the slums of Petrograd. The characters are also very vivid and believable. Follett makes you feel the emotion of love turned away, family betrayal, grief over war deaths, and the inflamed passions of revolution. His style in all of this is as smooth as silk.
Unfortunately, this smooth style makes the major weak point seem even weaker. I'd say the weak point is this: At times, Follett seems to fancy himself as an erotic romance writer. Generally speaking, when he tries, he doesn't pull it off, and the contrast between these horribly awkward scenes and the wonderful prose of the rest of the book is stark. These scenes are real clunkers, but thankfully most of them come near the beginning of the story. As it progresses and the characters themselves progress, the love scenes later in the story fit in much better.
In the end, the story is epic and well written. The action moves quickly, and it would be hard to notice that the book is nearly 1000 pages long. "Fall of Giants" is the first in a 3 book series and I can't wait until the next one comes out, according to Follett, it will cover World War II.
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Historical Crossroads.
When I got home from work tonight, I was looking forward to tuning into Fox Soccer Channel and losing myself in coverage of the third round of the FA Cup, in which my club, Chelsea plays tomorrow.
However, like all Americans tonight, my attention was drawn elsewhere. It was drawn to Tuscon, Arizona, a place where I've visited many times and a place where one of my best friends lived and went to school. Today it was a place of violence, a place the United States of America will finally look at itself in the mirror and will hopefully recognize a historical crossroad.
Outside a supermarket today a crazy terrorist. Yes, terrorist, walked up to a political gathering being hosted by Arizona Congresswoman Gaby Giffords, pulled out a 9mm Glock, and started shooting. He shot the Congresswoman in the head, he also killed six people, including a Federal Judge and a 9 year old girl. Luckily, people got to this guy before he got to take the coward's way out, so he'll live to stand trial for his crimes.
Assassination. It's a word that people my age and younger are really only familiar with from school. We think of Lincoln, of JFK, of RFK, of Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. It's a word we're all now more familiar with, as it happened outside a grocery store today.
What does that mean for America? How do we view ourselves and our political discourse? Surely there will be many folks (saw it quite a bit on Fox News tonight) that will be out to paint the shooter as a screw that came unhinged, as a madman with no political motive whatsoever. Do you really buy that? I'm not questioning whether the guy is crazy or not, I'm sure he is. Still, crazy people have motives too, and the plain fact of the matter is that this man sought out this gathering and the police in Arizona have confirmed that Giffords was the target. Now that we know that crazy people do this sort of thing, does that make us look irresponsible?
It sure does. Was it irresponsible for Sarah Palin to have a map on her website depicting Giffords district with a crosshair over it, urging people to "aim and reload" for democrats? Yes. You'll notice tonight that that particular graphic no longer appears on her site. Was it irresponsible for Giffords opponent in the last election to urge his followers to join him in firing a machine gun at her? Absolutely!
People who engage in this kind of politics need to be held responsible for this.
Can we please stop seeing each other as a devil and start seeing each other as all on the same team again?
Please watch this powerful special comment from Keith Olbermann.
However, like all Americans tonight, my attention was drawn elsewhere. It was drawn to Tuscon, Arizona, a place where I've visited many times and a place where one of my best friends lived and went to school. Today it was a place of violence, a place the United States of America will finally look at itself in the mirror and will hopefully recognize a historical crossroad.
Outside a supermarket today a crazy terrorist. Yes, terrorist, walked up to a political gathering being hosted by Arizona Congresswoman Gaby Giffords, pulled out a 9mm Glock, and started shooting. He shot the Congresswoman in the head, he also killed six people, including a Federal Judge and a 9 year old girl. Luckily, people got to this guy before he got to take the coward's way out, so he'll live to stand trial for his crimes.
Assassination. It's a word that people my age and younger are really only familiar with from school. We think of Lincoln, of JFK, of RFK, of Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. It's a word we're all now more familiar with, as it happened outside a grocery store today.
What does that mean for America? How do we view ourselves and our political discourse? Surely there will be many folks (saw it quite a bit on Fox News tonight) that will be out to paint the shooter as a screw that came unhinged, as a madman with no political motive whatsoever. Do you really buy that? I'm not questioning whether the guy is crazy or not, I'm sure he is. Still, crazy people have motives too, and the plain fact of the matter is that this man sought out this gathering and the police in Arizona have confirmed that Giffords was the target. Now that we know that crazy people do this sort of thing, does that make us look irresponsible?
It sure does. Was it irresponsible for Sarah Palin to have a map on her website depicting Giffords district with a crosshair over it, urging people to "aim and reload" for democrats? Yes. You'll notice tonight that that particular graphic no longer appears on her site. Was it irresponsible for Giffords opponent in the last election to urge his followers to join him in firing a machine gun at her? Absolutely!
People who engage in this kind of politics need to be held responsible for this.
Can we please stop seeing each other as a devil and start seeing each other as all on the same team again?
Please watch this powerful special comment from Keith Olbermann.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
