2002 : My Life In Books

 Which book should I read for 2002?

Geisha, A Life by Mineko Iwasaki

OR

Three Junes by Julia Glass

OR

Lay That Trumpet In Our Hands by Susan Carol McCarthy

For more background on what this is all about, click here.

To vote on Goodreads, click here.

Let's Bust a Recap : Coriolanus

It's February which means it's time for some Shakespeare, but before I pick up Merry Wives of Windsor which is the comedy on the docket for 2026, I've got to get Coriolanus done and dusted. So today, let's talk about one of old Billy the Bard's last tragedies and then hopefully we'll be back in a few weeks to talk about his Merry Wives. 

Coriolanus is basically about this guy Caius Marcius who's just kindof this mid Roman. He has money and he thinks the plebeians are a total waste of space, but he's also not really in a position of power either. He's hotheaded and bloodthirsty and a complete snob. 

So the Volscians are trying to overthrow Rome led by Tullus Aufidius (whom Marcius deems a worthy adversary by the way, because why even fight if it's not going to be a good fight) and Marcius leads a troop of soldiers into the city of Corioles and completely wrecks it. The Romans basically hoist him on their shoulders and take him back to Rome singing Hail the Conquering Hero and Rome names him Coriolanus for his total devastation of this city. So from now on, I'll refer to him as "Coriolanus". 

Meanwhile, I should mention that his mom Volumnia, who has this very creepy reverse-Oedipal thing going on, has been sitting back at home with Coriolanus' wife and kid waxing on about how she hopes the battle is bloody and that her son is victorious but, you know, with some wounds to make it more dramatic and hot. It's weird. His wife Virgilia is like, "I mean, I hope he wins too, but we want him to be okay, right?" To which Volumnia is all, "The bloodier the better." Like I said, weird.

So Coriolanus is back and being honored by all the powerful people and his mom is all, "Here's your chance to move up politically." But Coriolanus hates this idea because it involves putting himself on display and basically begging for votes from the plebes. Who, as I mentioned, he considers to be a waste of space. But he's a momma's boy so he does what his mother tells him and we have a whole scene of him showing off his battle scars (literally) to the commoners and trying not to absolutely blow his top while his friend Menenius (the only person in the whole play who is actually a reasonable and likable human being) is trying to get him to keep it together and not to lose it on these citizens. 

He ends up getting the people's support—almost not—but before he can even take his place as a consul, these two other guys, Brutus and Sicinius who have hated him from the beginning, stir the people up into a riot against him. Honestly, I can't really blame the people because Coriolanus is such a stuck-up jerk—definitely not Prom King material—but why Brutus and Sicinius care so much is a little beyond me. Jealous losers.

At this point, Coriolanus finally loses his barely controlled temper and not only does he rip the Romans a new one, he goes off to such an extent that he gets himself banished. He comes back with the very mature, "NO, I BANISH ROME FROM MY PRESENCE." Good one, bro. 

So what does he do? He goes to Tullus Aufidius (his mortal enemy, remember?) and says he wants to wreck Rome now and will T.A. help him do it? Because that seems like a reasonable response and nothing could possibly go wrong with this plan, right?

T.A. says sure, let's go right now. 

So Coriolanus is now marching against Rome and the Romans are in a panic because for all his faults, we've already established that Coriolanus can kick some serious butt in a fight. So all his friends are going to him trying to talk him out of this madness. But obviously, he's not hearing any of it. So the Romans are like, "Get his mom." 

I mean, good move. 

So Volumnia goes to her son, taking Virgilia and Coriolanus' son with her, and they have this whole back and forth where Coriolanus is basically all, "There is nothing you can say that will keep me from burning Rome to the ground." And even his kid is like, "If you do this, my entire goal in life will be to grow up and fight you myself." Which Coriolanus doesn't really seem to care about, but his mom finally talks him out of it (momma's boy, remember?) and Coriolanus succeeds in making peace between the Romans and the Volscians. 

So now the Romans and the Volscians are loving him and old T.A. is not happy about it. Coriolanus returns to the Volscian capital and obviously there's a big to-do, but T.A.'s buddies aren't having any of it and publicly assassinate Coriolanus. 

I mean, he kindof had it coming. I know this is supposed to be a tragedy but are we sad about this?

Once Coriolanus is dead, T.A. all of a sudden gets a conscience and is all, "This is sad. I'm sorry. Let's give him a proper send-off." And they all pick up his body and carry him out. And that's the end. 

lol

Coriolanus was a very engaging play and I read it pretty quickly, but it was also a little confusing because I wasn't sure if I was supposed to like Coriolanus or not. As I said, no one in the play was remotely sufferable except for Menenius so whenever Menenius was giving a reasonable defense of Coriolanus, I was like, "okay, maybe he's not the worst guy ever" but then as soon as Coriolanus himself showed up I was like, "No I definitely hate that guy." So basically I'm a plebeian. Ha! What I'm coming to realize about Shakespeare (and maybe I've said this before) is that the only difference between his tragedies and his comedies are that everyone dies in the tragedies. Sometimes his comedies are very sad, and a lot of the time his tragedies are hilarious, but the difference is just whether or not people die. So when I pick up Shakespeare, I'm never sure what I'm going to get. And that's fun. 

2001 : My Life In Books

 Which book should I read for 2001?

Life of Pi by Yann Martel

OR

Peace Like a River by Leif Enger
OR

The Eyre Affair by Jasper Fforde

OR

A Voyage for Madmen by Peter Nichols

For more background on what this is all about, click here.

To vote on Goodreads, click here.

Let's Bust a Recap : Before We Were Yours

Okay, this book was extremely popular when it was published in 2017, and so many people recommended it to me. I read it last August, and maybe I'm the outlier here, but I did not like it.

Buckle up for a scathing review and possibly some spoilers, and if you're one of the ones who loved it and recommended it to me: sorry, not sorry. 

Lisa Wingate's 2017 New York Times bestseller Before We Were Yours is structured as a dual timeline, going back and forth between 1939 Memphis, Tennessee and present day Aiken, South Carolina. In 1939, we're following the story of Rill Foss who is desperately trying to keep her family together after she and her four younger siblings are kidnapped and taken to an orphanage. In the present day, we're following the story of Avery Stafford, a wealthy young lawyer from a prestigious old money Southern family with the perfect handsome fiancé to boot. A chance encounter with a confused elderly lady at a nursing home who mistakes Avery for someone else has her questioning her entire family history and sets her on "a path that will ultimately lead either to devastation or to redemption." And that's straight from the back-of-the-book blurb. Not dramatic at all.

This "historical fiction" novel (and yes, those quotes are dripping with sarcasm) is meant to highlight one of the most notorious scandals in our nation's recent history: that of Georgia Tann and the Tennessee Children's Home Society, a front for her black market adoptions which was operational from the 1920s to 1950. Tann trafficked literally thousands of children through the Home Society, and when I say the uterine cancer that took her life mere weeks before charges were brought against her was too good a death for her: I mean it. People have praised this book for bringing to light this "little known" part of history, but this scandal has been covered pretty extensively in books, podcasts, documentaries, TV, and even a movie. I'm not so sure we needed Lisa Wingate's novel. Her writing isn't bad, but she doesn't shy away from the horrific things that went down in Georgia Tann's organization including child abuse, child rape, and even child murder, and I felt sick the entire time I was reading this book. I kept waiting for a brilliant resolution to make all the misery worth it, but we never get one. 

And don't get me started on Avery's storyline. It felt like Wingate just wanted to write a Hallmark romance but have people take her seriously so she tangled it up with the most horrific scandal in our nation's history so she could get that "historical fiction" tag. While I did wonder where Rill would end up and that kept me turning the pages, there was nothing remotely mysterious about how Avery's story would turn out. You saw every beat of her dumping-her-perfect-family-approved-fiancé-for-the-laid-back-single-dad coming from a mile away. (Sorry for all the hypens.) 

Before We Were Yours has been compared to Orphan Train by readers and marketers alike, and, before I even knew that, I was definitely getting those vibes while I was reading. But compared with Christina Baker Kline's excellent novel, Wingate's Before We Were Yours felt manipulative and her manufactured happy ending fell incredibly flat for me. It wasn't the worst book I've ever read, but all things considered, it didn't add up to a good experience for me, and I wouldn't recommend this one. 

What book didn't live up to the hype for you?

2000 : My Life In Books

 Which book should I read for 2000?

The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay by Michael Chabon

OR

The Thief Lord by Cornelia Funke

OR

Rachel's Tears by Beth Nimmo & Darrell Scott

For more background on what this is all about, click here.

To vote on Goodreads, click here. 

Let's Bust a Recap : The Reason for God

Here we are again, recapping my most recently finished book. Generally speaking, non-fiction doesn't stay with me as long as good fiction does so when I read a book like The Reason for God, I want to recap it right away before I forget everything I thought about it. There are always exceptions to this rule, of course, but those exceptions definitely don't apply to The Reason for God as it's a library book that I wasn't able to mark up and will be returning soon so I won't even have a physical copy to refer to when writing a blog post. This was the first book selected by my book club for 2026—yes, we're trying to resurrect our poor book club—which is why I went off-list so early in the year to check out a library book instead of reading one of the 700+ unread books that live in my house. 

Tim Keller was a very popular pastor and Christian apologist who founded Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City back in 1989 which has now grown to a congregation of over 5,000. In his 2008 book The Reason for God, he urges skeptics to wrestle with their doubts about Christianity and encourages believers and non-believers alike to "rise to the level of disagreement rather than simply denouncing one another." In the first half of his book, he attempts to dismantle seven common objections to Christianity. Then he writes an "Intermission" in which he sets the stage for the second half of his book, the second half being his reasons for believing Christianity. He ends with a heartfelt appeal to his readers to examine their own motives for belief or disbelief and offers them practical advice on how to begin a journey of faith for themselves. 

Personally, I thought the first half of the book was pretty weak with chapters three (dismantling the argument that Christianity is a straitjacket) and seven (dismantling the argument that you can't take the Bible literally) being the exceptions. He makes some good points overall, but a lot of his arguments come across like the old playground taunt I know you are but what am I? If I was a skeptic, I have a hard time believing his defense would be particularly moving for me or even really give me much to think about. (But to be fair, I'm not a skeptic so I may be way off the mark.) The second half of the book in which he is giving reasons for Christianity is much stronger, although on the whole his arguments are very repetitive. He quotes other theologians a lot and to good effect...but in a way that makes me want to pick up their books instead of reading his. (Particularly the philosopher Alvin Plantinga whom I had never heard of and am making this my note to self to get my hands on one of his books.) C.S. Lewis has obviously been a huge influence in Keller's life—can't fault him for that; I'm right there with him—but if I was recommending a book to a skeptic of Christianity, I'd just go ahead and give them Lewis rather than Keller. I did really like how Keller referenced popular books, movies, and authors in making some of his points which, I think, makes The Reason for God more accessible to a 21st century audience. 

If you're reading this, I don't want you to think I'm being super critical of Keller's book. This is the first book by Keller I've ever read and after reading it, I'd be open to reading other books by him. This year, I'm reading through a daily devotional of selections from Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones' writings, and as I was nearing the end of Keller's book, I came to a selection in my devotional on Faith and Reason that helped me pinpoint why exactly Keller's book wasn't resonating with me. Lloyd-Jones states that faith is not a matter of reason. He goes on to explain that "our reason brings us to the point where we realize that reason is not enough, and at that point we have nothing to do but submit ourselves to...faith." While Keller certainly touches on this in The Reason for God, it's not a point that gets hammered home and it's a crucial point to make in writing a book like this one. 

Overall, maybe The Reason for God could be a really helpful book for someone who is honestly looking to engage with the claims made by Christianity but having a hard time swallowing them for one reason or another. It may be helpful for Christians to be able to hold their own positions with greater clarity and greater humility. But it also may not be. I appreciated how respectful Keller was in his writing to both camps and how he encourages thoughtful discussion. I'm glad I read it, and I'm interested to see what type of discussion it will spark in our book club. 

1996 : My Life In Books

 Which book should I read for 1996?

The Color of Water by James McBride

OR

The Notebook by Nicholas Sparks

For more background on what this is all about, click here. 

To vote on Goodreads, click here.