Author: Viktor E. Frankl
Genre: nonfiction, psychology
Publication info: Washington Square Press, 1984 (first published in English in 1959, and it has gone through many editions)
Pages: 221 (including bibliography)
This book makes me want to shout for joy!
Undoubtedly you've heard of this book. I think I first heard about it when I was in fourth or fifth grade, and it wasn't until now that I finally read it. I can see now that I was missing out on something great. If you are one of those people, like I was, who says, "I've heard that's a good book. Maybe I should read it," I say, Yes, you definitely should!
Most people know this book as one man's harrowing account of his experiences in a Nazi concentration camp. It is certainly that, but it is also much more. It is not so much a story of what happened to him and his friends but an explanation of what he learned from those experiences—and how he took what he learned and created a revolutionary school of psychiatry called logotherapy.
Logotherapy is the therapy of meaning. The preface to the edition I read explains logotherapy as a sort of Freudian analysis turned on its head. Whereas Freud and his followers would have you search into your childhood for some kind of trauma—usually sexual in nature—and confront that to solve your problems, Frankl and his school asks you to dig deep for a meaning in your life—a purpose for living. Frankl himself, for example, often thought of his wife while in the camp. In fact, he talked with her, and doing so kept him going even while everything around him was so terrible.
Frankl's utterly realistic approach is refreshing. During my short-lived stint as an English major, I took a couple classes on literary theory, and I quickly grew frustrated with the psychoanalytical technique of finding sexual symbolism in everything. But instead of having us look at our frustrations in base, animal desires, logotherapy has us look at our existential crisis, our search for meaning. We are humans first, animals second.
I suppose one of the greatest lessons to learn from this book is that no matter what our circumstances are, we can choose how we respond to them. It's hard to imagine circumstances more appalling than what Frankl faced. He really had nothing but his own life, and that just barely. But he found a meaning in his life and chose to live for it. All of us can do the same.
The book has two major sections. The first is the story of his time in concentration camps. It is disturbing and heartbreaking, but the way he writes about it will surprisingly give you hope. The second part summarizes the practice of logotherapy. Since that part is more abstract than the first, I thought it would be harder to read, but I actually really enjoyed it. It's grounded in reality as I mentioned, and the way Frankl understands life and people is very reassuring. It was at the end of these more abstract parts that I wanted to shout for joy.
I think everyone would benefit from reading this book. Viktor Frankl was a brilliant man, but I think his real greatness was his warm, caring insight into the nature of human beings. Read this book. Isn't it about time you did?
Friday, October 8, 2010
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Lincoln's Melancholy
How Depression Challenged a President and Fueled His Greatness
Author: Joshua Wolf Shenk
Genre: nonfiction, biography
Publication info: Houghton Mifflin, 2005
Pages: 350 (including notes, bibliography, and index)
Have you heard? Abraham Lincoln was an amazing man. And he was also seriously depressed.
I hesitate to call this book a biography, because it doesn't discuss the events of Lincoln's life as a biography normally would. You don't really get a complete picture of his life from this book alone. But you do get a close look at one aspect of his life that until recently has been either ignored or outright denied by other biographers: Lincoln's depression. It is Shenk's goal in this book to show that Lincoln was in fact depressed, to show how he responded to his "melancholy" and what he did with it.
The research behind this book is impressive. Shenk goes straight to primary sources, using letters from Lincoln and interviews with people who knew him personally. All this evidence makes clear that Lincoln dealt with serious depression long before the condition was a recognizable illness. Along the way, Shenk gives us a picture of what depression in general is like, and I appreciate his doing so. I believe he's had personal experience in that area, so he knows what he is talking about. And what he says rings true for me.
But the remarkable part about Lincoln in this book is not the extent to which he suffered but rather what he was able to make out of his agony, his melancholy. Shenk emphasizes that Lincoln didn't passively endure his depression; he drew power from it somehow and used it to achieve the great things he did. Many times Lincoln expressed the desire to commit suicide, but he didn't do it, because he felt that he had a calling in life, something great to do. We all know now what great things he did, but the fact that he didn't—the fact that he didn't know he would be remembered or even accomplish anything of value—and yet carried on through his agony is one reason (among many) that he was so amazing.
I would recommend this book to just about anybody. If you are interested in the life of Abraham Lincoln (and what American wouldn't be?), you will like this book. If you want an inspiring story about overcoming enormous obstacles, this could be the one you're looking for. And especially if you have had close experience with depression, you will appreciate the insights of this book. You will find a great example of how to live a meaningful life even when your own mind is working against you.
Author: Joshua Wolf Shenk
Genre: nonfiction, biography
Publication info: Houghton Mifflin, 2005
Pages: 350 (including notes, bibliography, and index)
Have you heard? Abraham Lincoln was an amazing man. And he was also seriously depressed.
I hesitate to call this book a biography, because it doesn't discuss the events of Lincoln's life as a biography normally would. You don't really get a complete picture of his life from this book alone. But you do get a close look at one aspect of his life that until recently has been either ignored or outright denied by other biographers: Lincoln's depression. It is Shenk's goal in this book to show that Lincoln was in fact depressed, to show how he responded to his "melancholy" and what he did with it.
The research behind this book is impressive. Shenk goes straight to primary sources, using letters from Lincoln and interviews with people who knew him personally. All this evidence makes clear that Lincoln dealt with serious depression long before the condition was a recognizable illness. Along the way, Shenk gives us a picture of what depression in general is like, and I appreciate his doing so. I believe he's had personal experience in that area, so he knows what he is talking about. And what he says rings true for me.
But the remarkable part about Lincoln in this book is not the extent to which he suffered but rather what he was able to make out of his agony, his melancholy. Shenk emphasizes that Lincoln didn't passively endure his depression; he drew power from it somehow and used it to achieve the great things he did. Many times Lincoln expressed the desire to commit suicide, but he didn't do it, because he felt that he had a calling in life, something great to do. We all know now what great things he did, but the fact that he didn't—the fact that he didn't know he would be remembered or even accomplish anything of value—and yet carried on through his agony is one reason (among many) that he was so amazing.
I would recommend this book to just about anybody. If you are interested in the life of Abraham Lincoln (and what American wouldn't be?), you will like this book. If you want an inspiring story about overcoming enormous obstacles, this could be the one you're looking for. And especially if you have had close experience with depression, you will appreciate the insights of this book. You will find a great example of how to live a meaningful life even when your own mind is working against you.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
The Historian
Author: Elizabeth Kostova
Genre: fiction, mystery, horror
Publication info: Little, Brown, 2005
Pages: 642
Nerds have adventures too!
That's one thing I like about this book. When I was talking recently with a friend about The Historian, the best way I could describe it was as a "nerdy thriller." Unfortunately, I was only about halfway through at the time and had yet to discover that there really isn't much thrill after all. But nerds abound—all the major characters are serious academics who do some intense research. I guess I enjoy that because that's the way my career may take me, except I hope my research doesn't endanger my life as it does theirs.
The Historian centers on the legend of Dracula, who was a real person otherwise known as Vlad the Impaler, prince of Wallachia. When the unnamed narrator asks her father about a strange book she finds in his study, he reluctantly tells her of his quest to find Dracula's tomb and his missing dissertation adviser, Bartholomew Rossi. Professor Rossi, you see, had also been given a similar mysterious book, sending him on a quest to learn about Dracula and whether or not he is still alive—or better put, undead.
If you're confused by this description, that's because it's my best attempt to capture the multiple layers of the book. The bulk of the story is actually a story within a story, the narrator's father telling his tale. But included in that tale are other tales from other people, resulting in even more layers. I count all this as a fault in the book, because with all these stories within stories, the overall plot loses its immediacy. At times when I almost feel suspense, I remember that what I'm reading took place nearly twenty years before the time of the present story. I think the story could have been much more exciting if it was structured and presented in a different way.
The strengths of the book are its research and atmosphere. It's hard to tell where historical fact ends and fiction begins, and I enjoy that aspect. It has certainly motivated me to learn more about Vlad Dracula. I enjoy that the book treats Dracula and vampires in a way totally different from other literature and movies (including a currently popular series I won't name).
Atmosphere is a big part of the book. The author shows great skill in describing some breathtaking settings all across Europe. I especially enjoy the major segment of the story that takes place in Hungary, since I've been there myself. I love the visits to old libraries, archives, monasteries, and churches. They are fun places to be, and they are fun places to read about.
Overall, The Historian is pretty good, pretty interesting, but it falls short of being a really suspenseful, thrilling story. I feel bad for the publisher that bought the manuscript for two million dollars, thinking it had the next Da Vinci Code on its hands. I'm not saying Dan Brown is a great author, because he's not, but he's much better at suspense than Elizabeth Kostova is.
Still, you might want to give this book a try, especially if you're interested in Dracula and vampires (the dangerous kind, not the sparkly kind). You might enjoy it more than I did.
Genre: fiction, mystery, horror
Publication info: Little, Brown, 2005
Pages: 642
Nerds have adventures too!
That's one thing I like about this book. When I was talking recently with a friend about The Historian, the best way I could describe it was as a "nerdy thriller." Unfortunately, I was only about halfway through at the time and had yet to discover that there really isn't much thrill after all. But nerds abound—all the major characters are serious academics who do some intense research. I guess I enjoy that because that's the way my career may take me, except I hope my research doesn't endanger my life as it does theirs.
The Historian centers on the legend of Dracula, who was a real person otherwise known as Vlad the Impaler, prince of Wallachia. When the unnamed narrator asks her father about a strange book she finds in his study, he reluctantly tells her of his quest to find Dracula's tomb and his missing dissertation adviser, Bartholomew Rossi. Professor Rossi, you see, had also been given a similar mysterious book, sending him on a quest to learn about Dracula and whether or not he is still alive—or better put, undead.
If you're confused by this description, that's because it's my best attempt to capture the multiple layers of the book. The bulk of the story is actually a story within a story, the narrator's father telling his tale. But included in that tale are other tales from other people, resulting in even more layers. I count all this as a fault in the book, because with all these stories within stories, the overall plot loses its immediacy. At times when I almost feel suspense, I remember that what I'm reading took place nearly twenty years before the time of the present story. I think the story could have been much more exciting if it was structured and presented in a different way.
The strengths of the book are its research and atmosphere. It's hard to tell where historical fact ends and fiction begins, and I enjoy that aspect. It has certainly motivated me to learn more about Vlad Dracula. I enjoy that the book treats Dracula and vampires in a way totally different from other literature and movies (including a currently popular series I won't name).
Atmosphere is a big part of the book. The author shows great skill in describing some breathtaking settings all across Europe. I especially enjoy the major segment of the story that takes place in Hungary, since I've been there myself. I love the visits to old libraries, archives, monasteries, and churches. They are fun places to be, and they are fun places to read about.
Overall, The Historian is pretty good, pretty interesting, but it falls short of being a really suspenseful, thrilling story. I feel bad for the publisher that bought the manuscript for two million dollars, thinking it had the next Da Vinci Code on its hands. I'm not saying Dan Brown is a great author, because he's not, but he's much better at suspense than Elizabeth Kostova is.
Still, you might want to give this book a try, especially if you're interested in Dracula and vampires (the dangerous kind, not the sparkly kind). You might enjoy it more than I did.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
The Hunger Games
Author: Suzanne Collins
Genre: fiction, young adult, post-apocalyptic
Publication info: Scholastic Press, 2008
Pages: 374
Amazing. Profound. Moving. These are all words I would not use to describe The Hunger Games.
I realize I'm probably going against the majority opinion here, but I just can't understand why this book is so popular. The most I can say for this book is that it's a page-turner, and even then, it didn't have me wanting to turn pages until well after the first hundred. Until that point, I was mostly just annoyed.
Why was I annoyed? Because the book's premise is based on a situation so implausible and simplistic that it was next to impossible for me to care about what happens to any of the characters. (On a side note, I just learned that this book is apparently a direct rip-off of Battle Royale by Koushun Takami, but since I haven't read the other book, I'll confine my criticism to what I know personally.) In a near-future North America that has been ravaged by war and natural disaster, the cleverly named Capitol exercises control over the twelve districts of Panem by requiring each of them them every year to send one boy and one girl to participate in the Hunger Games, a fight to the death broadcast on television.
Okay. Why would they do something so disgusting and evil? Because apparently in this dystopian world, nobody has any sense of morality whatsoever. Yep, the Capitol is just that bad. No further explanation needed. And everyone in the districts just rolls with it. They grumble, they groan, but they send their children year after year. And the children? Well, as evil as they see the Games to be, they jump right in and try to kill as many others as they can. Does anybody else see how absurd this is?
Katniss, the protagonist (another requirement for dystopian societies: stupid names), volunteers to go to the games when her little sister is chosen. This is great because you see Katniss as a rebel right from the beginning; she regularly hunts outside the boundaries of her district, a crime punishable by death. So you expect to see her fight against this brutal system, right? She doesn't. Oh, she does a few things here and there to "stick it to them," but they really don't do anything productive. Ultimately, she just goes along with it like everyone else, leaving you wondering why we're supposed to like her.
My other major gripe about this book is that Katniss is always spared from making difficult moral decisions. A good story has good characters that develop throughout the story, and they do so by making tough decisions. We learn about them through the decisions they make. But Katniss has the convenience of being in an arena where people get killed off right and left. Let me explain. Without giving too much away, let's suppose she makes a friend or ally during the Games. Cool; now we wonder what she is going to do about having to kill that person eventually. It's going to be a real test of character for Katniss. But no worries—someone else kills off that friend, so Katniss is spared that difficulty. This happens multiple times during the story, and in the end, we still have no idea whether Katniss has any kind of moral fiber.
The Games themselves are pretty fun and exciting to read about. I'll admit I stayed up rather late one night reading it. But every time the kids fought with each other, I wanted to scream at them, "Does nobody see how wrong this is? Is anybody going to do something about it?" I think the author wants us to believe that the characters are powerless against the system, but if that's the case, she does a lousy job of showing it. I just don't buy it!
I have a few other complaints about the writing style that I'll mention only briefly. The speech tags ("he says," etc.) are done rather poorly. There is too much unneeded description and too little needed description (how big is the arena, anyway?). Events that are supposed to be surprises are easy to predict.
Finally, the ending of the book is really weak. The author couldn't have made it any clearer that there is a sequel if she pinned you down and screamed it in your face. I understand that it's the law (apparently) to write books in a series, but that doesn't mean that each installment shouldn't be able to stand on its own as a story. The flat ending of The Hunger Games makes it impossible for this book to stand on its own. But you can bet that I am never going to read the rest of the series.
Genre: fiction, young adult, post-apocalyptic
Publication info: Scholastic Press, 2008
Pages: 374
Amazing. Profound. Moving. These are all words I would not use to describe The Hunger Games.
I realize I'm probably going against the majority opinion here, but I just can't understand why this book is so popular. The most I can say for this book is that it's a page-turner, and even then, it didn't have me wanting to turn pages until well after the first hundred. Until that point, I was mostly just annoyed.
Why was I annoyed? Because the book's premise is based on a situation so implausible and simplistic that it was next to impossible for me to care about what happens to any of the characters. (On a side note, I just learned that this book is apparently a direct rip-off of Battle Royale by Koushun Takami, but since I haven't read the other book, I'll confine my criticism to what I know personally.) In a near-future North America that has been ravaged by war and natural disaster, the cleverly named Capitol exercises control over the twelve districts of Panem by requiring each of them them every year to send one boy and one girl to participate in the Hunger Games, a fight to the death broadcast on television.
Okay. Why would they do something so disgusting and evil? Because apparently in this dystopian world, nobody has any sense of morality whatsoever. Yep, the Capitol is just that bad. No further explanation needed. And everyone in the districts just rolls with it. They grumble, they groan, but they send their children year after year. And the children? Well, as evil as they see the Games to be, they jump right in and try to kill as many others as they can. Does anybody else see how absurd this is?
Katniss, the protagonist (another requirement for dystopian societies: stupid names), volunteers to go to the games when her little sister is chosen. This is great because you see Katniss as a rebel right from the beginning; she regularly hunts outside the boundaries of her district, a crime punishable by death. So you expect to see her fight against this brutal system, right? She doesn't. Oh, she does a few things here and there to "stick it to them," but they really don't do anything productive. Ultimately, she just goes along with it like everyone else, leaving you wondering why we're supposed to like her.
My other major gripe about this book is that Katniss is always spared from making difficult moral decisions. A good story has good characters that develop throughout the story, and they do so by making tough decisions. We learn about them through the decisions they make. But Katniss has the convenience of being in an arena where people get killed off right and left. Let me explain. Without giving too much away, let's suppose she makes a friend or ally during the Games. Cool; now we wonder what she is going to do about having to kill that person eventually. It's going to be a real test of character for Katniss. But no worries—someone else kills off that friend, so Katniss is spared that difficulty. This happens multiple times during the story, and in the end, we still have no idea whether Katniss has any kind of moral fiber.
The Games themselves are pretty fun and exciting to read about. I'll admit I stayed up rather late one night reading it. But every time the kids fought with each other, I wanted to scream at them, "Does nobody see how wrong this is? Is anybody going to do something about it?" I think the author wants us to believe that the characters are powerless against the system, but if that's the case, she does a lousy job of showing it. I just don't buy it!
I have a few other complaints about the writing style that I'll mention only briefly. The speech tags ("he says," etc.) are done rather poorly. There is too much unneeded description and too little needed description (how big is the arena, anyway?). Events that are supposed to be surprises are easy to predict.
Finally, the ending of the book is really weak. The author couldn't have made it any clearer that there is a sequel if she pinned you down and screamed it in your face. I understand that it's the law (apparently) to write books in a series, but that doesn't mean that each installment shouldn't be able to stand on its own as a story. The flat ending of The Hunger Games makes it impossible for this book to stand on its own. But you can bet that I am never going to read the rest of the series.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Nine Stories
Author: J. D. Salinger
Genre: fiction, short stories
Publication info: Bantam, 1964 (originally published in 1953)
Pages: 198
J. D. Salinger is probably best known for his novel Catcher in the Rye, but this small collection of short stories is my first exposure to his work. Now I can see why he is considered one of the best authors of the twentieth century. These stories present aspects of life that are bizarre yet authentic—something that few authors can accomplish very well. And although most of these stories are quite tragic, they are also quite enjoyable to read.
But probably the thing I noticed most, and the thing I most appreciated, was the dialogue. Most of the stories in this collection are dialogue-heavy, but I didn't mind that at all because this is probably the best dialogue I have ever read. The characters interrupt each other, leave thoughts incomplete, and refer to situations that don't get fully explained. Have you ever read a story in which one character explains something to another character for no other reason than to explain it to the reader because both characters already know it? It's bad practice, and you won't see any of that in Salinger's writing. One of my favorite examples is in "A Perfect Day for Bananafish." Muriel is talking on the phone with her mother, who is concerned about Muriel's husband after "that incident with the trees." We never find out what that incident was, but we learn all we need to know about the husband's character from that simple reference. Salinger is simply artful with dialogue.
The downside is that the dialogue in these stories often includes a great deal of profanity. It's believable, but not necessarily pleasant. Potential readers be warned!
And speaking of not pleasant, none of these stories really have happy endings, if that's an important thing to you. Some of them end quite tragically, in fact. I for one enjoy that sort of thing, but not everyone does. I'm really glad this book of stories was recommended to me. If you're looking for some good literature that will make you think, this book is a good idea. You'll laugh (yes, some of it is really funny), you'll hurt, you'll wonder—all good things in literature.
Genre: fiction, short stories
Publication info: Bantam, 1964 (originally published in 1953)
Pages: 198
J. D. Salinger is probably best known for his novel Catcher in the Rye, but this small collection of short stories is my first exposure to his work. Now I can see why he is considered one of the best authors of the twentieth century. These stories present aspects of life that are bizarre yet authentic—something that few authors can accomplish very well. And although most of these stories are quite tragic, they are also quite enjoyable to read.
But probably the thing I noticed most, and the thing I most appreciated, was the dialogue. Most of the stories in this collection are dialogue-heavy, but I didn't mind that at all because this is probably the best dialogue I have ever read. The characters interrupt each other, leave thoughts incomplete, and refer to situations that don't get fully explained. Have you ever read a story in which one character explains something to another character for no other reason than to explain it to the reader because both characters already know it? It's bad practice, and you won't see any of that in Salinger's writing. One of my favorite examples is in "A Perfect Day for Bananafish." Muriel is talking on the phone with her mother, who is concerned about Muriel's husband after "that incident with the trees." We never find out what that incident was, but we learn all we need to know about the husband's character from that simple reference. Salinger is simply artful with dialogue.
The downside is that the dialogue in these stories often includes a great deal of profanity. It's believable, but not necessarily pleasant. Potential readers be warned!
And speaking of not pleasant, none of these stories really have happy endings, if that's an important thing to you. Some of them end quite tragically, in fact. I for one enjoy that sort of thing, but not everyone does. I'm really glad this book of stories was recommended to me. If you're looking for some good literature that will make you think, this book is a good idea. You'll laugh (yes, some of it is really funny), you'll hurt, you'll wonder—all good things in literature.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Everwild
Book 2 of the Skinjacker Trilogy
Author: Neal Shusterman
Genre: fiction, young adult, fantasy (sort of)
Publication info: Simon & Schuster, 2009
Pages: 424
For those of you keeping score at home, Everlost was the very first book I reviewed on this blog. I raved about it for its brilliance in depicting a world utterly bizarre and foreign and yet at the same time eerily familiar and believable.
A few months ago, I was surprised to come across Everwild, the sequel to Everlost, in the library. I didn't know there was gong to be a sequel. The ending to the first book certainly leaves open the possibility, but not the necessity, of a sequel. Being naturally wary of sequels, I was hesitant to check this book out, but since I loved the first one so much and wanted to return to the world of Everlost, the limbo world of dead children, I just couldn't help myself.
I loved this one too. Maybe this isn't the best-written book in the world or the most profound, but I just love being in the world these books describe.
Everwild begins a short time after the previous book ends. Nick, the newly dead kid from the first book, has embarked on a quest to help all Afterlights (inhabitants of Everlost) to "get where they are going"—in other words, to escape Everlost. But the power-hungry Mary Hightower is on a quest of her own to villify Nick and gain as many followers as she can. Nick soon realizes he will need to confront her, so he sets out to amass an army. And to do that, he'll need to go into the mysterious region of Everlost known as the Everwild.
Meanwhile, Allie, who died at the same time as Nick, is trying to find her family and see how they have been doing since her accident. She is developing her skills as a skinjacker, an Afterlight who can "borrow" the bodies of the living. But skinjacking soon becomes a dangerous obsession for her, leading her to discover a most surprising truth about herself.
I don't want to give too much away here, especially if you haven't read the first book. But I would just like to say that I enjoyed this book immensely, and I was actually pretty sad when it was over. I read it over a single weekend when I was sick, and at the end I thought maybe I had read it too fast. I just can't overemphasize how fun the whole idea is. Some parts had me laughing out loud. And yet while it's fun, it's also grim and eerie.
There are only two potential problems with this book that I can see. The first is that it features quite a bit of "teen angst"—love triangles and whatnot. You'd think Afterlights wouldn't be concerned about love, but they manage somehow. It's not terrible, though. I just wanted to point that out for people who might be bothered by it.
The other point is that whereas Everlost had a pretty satisfying conclusion, Everwild pretty much screams for a sequel. Now it's obvious on the cover that this is part two of a trilogy, so it should be no surprise, but still, it's going to be hard to wait for the third book to come out. It took three years for this one to come, so I might have to wait another couple years before I find out what happens to these Afterlights.
To anyone looking for an interesting and fun book to read, I recommend this series. Definitely read Everlost first, though. And if you have read Everlost and liked it, continue the adventure with Everwild. I'm sure you'll enjoy it as much as I did.
Author: Neal Shusterman
Genre: fiction, young adult, fantasy (sort of)
Publication info: Simon & Schuster, 2009
Pages: 424
For those of you keeping score at home, Everlost was the very first book I reviewed on this blog. I raved about it for its brilliance in depicting a world utterly bizarre and foreign and yet at the same time eerily familiar and believable.
A few months ago, I was surprised to come across Everwild, the sequel to Everlost, in the library. I didn't know there was gong to be a sequel. The ending to the first book certainly leaves open the possibility, but not the necessity, of a sequel. Being naturally wary of sequels, I was hesitant to check this book out, but since I loved the first one so much and wanted to return to the world of Everlost, the limbo world of dead children, I just couldn't help myself.
I loved this one too. Maybe this isn't the best-written book in the world or the most profound, but I just love being in the world these books describe.
Everwild begins a short time after the previous book ends. Nick, the newly dead kid from the first book, has embarked on a quest to help all Afterlights (inhabitants of Everlost) to "get where they are going"—in other words, to escape Everlost. But the power-hungry Mary Hightower is on a quest of her own to villify Nick and gain as many followers as she can. Nick soon realizes he will need to confront her, so he sets out to amass an army. And to do that, he'll need to go into the mysterious region of Everlost known as the Everwild.
Meanwhile, Allie, who died at the same time as Nick, is trying to find her family and see how they have been doing since her accident. She is developing her skills as a skinjacker, an Afterlight who can "borrow" the bodies of the living. But skinjacking soon becomes a dangerous obsession for her, leading her to discover a most surprising truth about herself.
I don't want to give too much away here, especially if you haven't read the first book. But I would just like to say that I enjoyed this book immensely, and I was actually pretty sad when it was over. I read it over a single weekend when I was sick, and at the end I thought maybe I had read it too fast. I just can't overemphasize how fun the whole idea is. Some parts had me laughing out loud. And yet while it's fun, it's also grim and eerie.
There are only two potential problems with this book that I can see. The first is that it features quite a bit of "teen angst"—love triangles and whatnot. You'd think Afterlights wouldn't be concerned about love, but they manage somehow. It's not terrible, though. I just wanted to point that out for people who might be bothered by it.
The other point is that whereas Everlost had a pretty satisfying conclusion, Everwild pretty much screams for a sequel. Now it's obvious on the cover that this is part two of a trilogy, so it should be no surprise, but still, it's going to be hard to wait for the third book to come out. It took three years for this one to come, so I might have to wait another couple years before I find out what happens to these Afterlights.
To anyone looking for an interesting and fun book to read, I recommend this series. Definitely read Everlost first, though. And if you have read Everlost and liked it, continue the adventure with Everwild. I'm sure you'll enjoy it as much as I did.
Monday, July 12, 2010
The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains
Author: Nicholas Carr
Genre: nonfiction, popular science
Publication info: W. W. Norton, 2010
Pages: 276 (including notes and other supplemental material)
I feel like a hypocrite writing about this on a blog, but I need to get the word out. In The Shallows, author Nicholas Carr brings together the history of technology and neurology to explore how the World Wide Web is changing the way we read and write—and think. What he finds is not pretty.
Actually, it's more than not pretty. It's downright disturbing. If you're reading this blog, you're probably a frequent user of the Internet, so let me ask you: When you are reading a book, do you often get distracted and want to do something else after only two pages? Heck, do you even read books anymore? Do you find it difficult to go walking for any substantial length of time without pulling out your phone, even if nobody is calling or texting you? Your Internet use may be to blame. And it probably is.
You see, the Internet is changing the way our brains work. A few decades ago scientists began discovering that the human brain, even in adults, can be "rewired" to accommodate changing behaviors, both physical and mental. Basically, the brain gets better and faster at what it does the most. And since it's more than likely that most of us are using the Internet with increasing frequency, our brains are adjusting themselves to a style of thinking better suited to the Internet.
What style is that? It's fast. It's superficial. It's distracted. If you haven't noticed, Web pages are designed to distract you. They're full of snippets of information here, a navigation bar there, pictures and a video you can play over there. Not to mention your browser's multiple tabs and all the alerts it's set to give you for e-mails, blog posts, or Twitter updates. I'm not accusing Web designers of sinister motives, but the plain fact is that the Web is made for giving you an onslaught of information all at once.
And our brains are burdened with processing all that information. With every link we come across, our brains have to decide whether to follow it. We have to skim pages to get the information we need fast. (My guess is this blog post already looks too long for frequent blog readers.) And since our brains are "plastic," or adaptable, they rewire themselves to be more efficient at this kind of thinking.
What gets sacrificed as a result is our ability to think deeply and creatively. Yes, maybe our brains are faster at processing a lot of information fast, but only at a superficial level. By frequently taking advantage of what the Web has to offer, we are denying ourselves the ability to synthesize the information we receive and produce original thought. Doesn't that sound scary to you? I guess it all depends on what's important to you, but I certainly place a high value on deep and creative thinking.
Everybody please, please read this book. I hate to be an alarmist, but I feel this is very important. Carr does an excellent job describing relevant research and presenting a coherent argument, much better than I've done here. Plus, by reading a book like this, you're doing a brain a favor. Because the good news is that since our brains can adjust to more frequent Internet use, they can also be trained back. With a lot of discipline, we can become free thinkers again.
Genre: nonfiction, popular science
Publication info: W. W. Norton, 2010
Pages: 276 (including notes and other supplemental material)
I feel like a hypocrite writing about this on a blog, but I need to get the word out. In The Shallows, author Nicholas Carr brings together the history of technology and neurology to explore how the World Wide Web is changing the way we read and write—and think. What he finds is not pretty.
Actually, it's more than not pretty. It's downright disturbing. If you're reading this blog, you're probably a frequent user of the Internet, so let me ask you: When you are reading a book, do you often get distracted and want to do something else after only two pages? Heck, do you even read books anymore? Do you find it difficult to go walking for any substantial length of time without pulling out your phone, even if nobody is calling or texting you? Your Internet use may be to blame. And it probably is.
You see, the Internet is changing the way our brains work. A few decades ago scientists began discovering that the human brain, even in adults, can be "rewired" to accommodate changing behaviors, both physical and mental. Basically, the brain gets better and faster at what it does the most. And since it's more than likely that most of us are using the Internet with increasing frequency, our brains are adjusting themselves to a style of thinking better suited to the Internet.
What style is that? It's fast. It's superficial. It's distracted. If you haven't noticed, Web pages are designed to distract you. They're full of snippets of information here, a navigation bar there, pictures and a video you can play over there. Not to mention your browser's multiple tabs and all the alerts it's set to give you for e-mails, blog posts, or Twitter updates. I'm not accusing Web designers of sinister motives, but the plain fact is that the Web is made for giving you an onslaught of information all at once.
And our brains are burdened with processing all that information. With every link we come across, our brains have to decide whether to follow it. We have to skim pages to get the information we need fast. (My guess is this blog post already looks too long for frequent blog readers.) And since our brains are "plastic," or adaptable, they rewire themselves to be more efficient at this kind of thinking.
What gets sacrificed as a result is our ability to think deeply and creatively. Yes, maybe our brains are faster at processing a lot of information fast, but only at a superficial level. By frequently taking advantage of what the Web has to offer, we are denying ourselves the ability to synthesize the information we receive and produce original thought. Doesn't that sound scary to you? I guess it all depends on what's important to you, but I certainly place a high value on deep and creative thinking.
Everybody please, please read this book. I hate to be an alarmist, but I feel this is very important. Carr does an excellent job describing relevant research and presenting a coherent argument, much better than I've done here. Plus, by reading a book like this, you're doing a brain a favor. Because the good news is that since our brains can adjust to more frequent Internet use, they can also be trained back. With a lot of discipline, we can become free thinkers again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)