Book Review: The Blue Sword by Robin McKinley

Compared to “The Next Decade” I devoured this book. I finished it in two days (before I could even finish the blog post about the other). My last post got a bit long so I decided to institute a “format” for these reviews. Hopefully this will make writing them a quicker process.

The Blue Sword

Why I read it: It was on the Harvard 100 list and I bought it for my Kindle before I decided to use my own list.

Plot teaser: Harry is a girl who has just been displaced from her home. The death of her father caused a forced relocation to the outskirts of the Homeland where her brother and kind foster parents take her in. Harry (awful name for a female character) is abruptly whisked away by the “barbarian” King Corlath. Who, on the brink of war with the feared Northlanders, has other plans for her. mHarry with the help of fate and some "magic" becomes the heroine of a nation.

Style: It is mostly 3^rd person limited. Most of the story is told from Harry’s perspective but the author does occasionally switch to Corlath or some of the other minor characters. She has good descriptions but they are not particularly captivating or unique.

Thoughts: Overall I enjoyed the book. It was well paced and believable. The story is tight (if slightly predictable) with a good dose of character growth, kingdoms, magic, and mystery. The problem is that much of the mystery is never revealed and you are left wondering about a lot of things. I found myself continually comparing it to “The Goose Girl” by Shannon Hale. Both heroines are transplanted, both have a special gift, and both have royal romances. However for many reasons I think Hale’s book is far superior. Her Isi is a much more complete and compelling heroine, her writing is beautiful and her characters feel like old friends. As much as I liked this book I don’t understand why it was on the list or why it won so many awards. I can only imagine that being published in 1982 it was unique for its time. Today a strong female heroine fantasy novel is fairly common.

Quotables:

“She had always suffered from a vague restlessness; a longing for adventure that she told herself severely was the result of reading too many novels when she was a small child.”

“Like the grain of sand that gets into an oyster’s shell. What if the grain doesn’t want to become a pearl? Is it ever asked to climb out quietly and take up its old position as a bit of ocean floor?”

Read this if you like: Shannon Hale, Westmark Trilogy, The Hunger Games

Book Review: The Next Decade

Reading this book took much longer than anticipated so I am a little past the 2 week mark. It was insightful, well-written and had lots of intriguing ideas. I am a big fan of George Friedman and STRATFOR (his think tank). I read his “The Next 100 Years” last fall and was interested in this new offering. Much of the ground that Friedman covers in “Decade” was also covered in “100 Years”. There were multiple times I felt I was reading the same book.

My three favorite things from this book were: the concept of the Machiavellian presidency, the discussion of the American Empire, and the inherently geographic analysis.

The Machiavellian presidency is simply defined as a president that can wield American power to preserve American ideals even if he is simultaneously violating these ideals. As examples he offers Lincoln, FDR, and Reagan. As he says in his book summary: “Each possessed a deep moral core. Each fully understood the uses of power, lying and violating the Constitution and human rights to achieve the respective moral necessities of the abolition of slavery, the destruction of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, and the destruction of the Soviet Union.” This concept provides an interesting framework for analyzing American presidents.

I love Friedman for calling it as he sees it. “The issue of whether the United States should be an empire is meaningless. It is an empire”. He makes a very compelling argument for the existence of the American Empire and how this realization must govern foreign policy. I know many Americans advocate isolationism. They need to read this book so they can understand how such a policy would never work.

The best part of all Friedman’s publications are in his approach. Friedman thinks geographically which makes my geographer heart…er brain…sing. The last half of the book is devoted to a regional analysis of the world and how America should manage each. An example quote: “India and China are divided by a wall—the Himalayas—that makes sustained conflict and high-volume overland trade virtually impossible”

In total I found this a great and informative read. Because it was so much like it’s predecessor I recommend reading “The Next 100 Years” and then first few chapters of the “The Next Decade”.

Quotables:

“Just because something like the elimination of terrorism is desirable doesn’t meant that it is practical. Or that the price to be paid is rational.”

“Now that they have lost their empires, Europeans always speak in terms of caution”

“Terrorism is not an enemy but a type of warfare that may or may not be adopted by an enemy”

“If for political reasons a president cannot clearly identify who is to be fought and why, then he must carefully reexamine whether he can win, and thus whether or not he should engage.”

“Ideals without power are simply words—they can come alive only when reinforced by the capacity to act.”

Next up “The Blue Sword” By Robin McKinley this has been billed as a fantasy YA novel. So it should be right up my alley!

Love and Austen

have always proudly declared that “Disney gave me unrealistic expectations about love”. Who can help but love the fairy tale formula. They are full of, as Belle says, “far off places, daring sword fights, magic spells, a prince in disguise!” They captivate the imagination, have fantastic heroes, and always end with a happy couple. Interwoven into our childhood, such stories are easy targets for every self-diagnosing Freud wannabe. But I am pretty sure that my ideas about love and relationships were not formed solely during my Disney years. In point of fact I think Ms. Jane Austen probably deserves a large amount of blame for any unrealistic notions I have concerning love.

“I am half agony, half hope. Tell me not that I am too late, that such precious feelings are gone forever. I offer myself to you again with a heart even more your own than when you almost broke it, eight and a half years ago.”-Captain Wentworth

It seems that all of Ms. Austen’s leading men are eloquent in love. As a teenager my heart flipped at their pronouncements of love. I just knew that the leading men in my life would be equally verbose in confessing their love. I still cling to this expectation. I know there are still eloquent men out there…somewhere.

Men of sense, whatever you may choose to say, do not want silly wives-Mr. Knightly

Darcy, Wentworth, Edward, Brandon and Edmond all agree with Mr. Knightly. They want and get thinking, independent women. My own non-scientific sampling seems to prove the opposite. I have found that men will happily be friends with such women but rarely date them. The girls that marry early are almost always the sillier variety. Perhaps there are no modern Knightly longing (or I haven’t met one).

“She (Elizabeth) hardly knew how to suppose that she could be an object of admiration to so great a man.”-Pride and Prejudice

Elizabeth, Emma, Anne, and Eleanor (yes I call them by their first names because they feel like old friends) were all surprised by the declarations of love that were offered. Elizabeth is sure Darcy hates her. Emma knows that Knightly is about to marry her friend. Anne thinks that Captain Wentworth is indifferent. Eleanor believes Edward is married to another. They are all wrong. They captured the love of wonderful men and had no clue. More than once I have thought that perhaps that I was in the same kind of relationship. That he really liked me, he just didn’t know it. Certainly realization would arrive in a romantic declaration. Ya. Not so much.

"I am perfectly convinced by it that Mr. Darcy has no defect. He owns it himself without disguise."-Elizabeth Bennett (said ironically)

Lastly Ms. Austen probably did the most damage by introducing me to Fitzwilliam Darcy. His morality and social awkwardness endeared me. He rejected girls who played to his vanity. He fell in love with the vivacious, independent, and witty Elizabeth Bennett. He proved his worth by continuing to love her even after being thoroughly rejected. Investing considerable energy and assets he saved her family from ruin. He took her criticisms and endeavored to grow from them. From the very beginning he became the ideal. An ideal, I fear, that will never be matched in reality.

So here I am full of my ill-conceived notions and expectations about love and relationships. Even though I know the damage these novels have done I still love them. In fact I am now seized by a strong desire to go and read them again!

The Book Project

Mr. Darcy when speaking about what it means to be an accomplished woman
said: "to all this she must yet add something more substantial, in the
improvement of her mind by extensive reading". I believe he is right and so
I have decided to embark on a reading project.

I don't want to read just anything. I want the books I read to inspire and
teach me.

At first I was going to use one of those "100 Greatest" book lists. I
Google-ed and researched and finally picked the Top 100 list by Harvard Book
Store. Touted as "books that moved us, that changed the way we think about
the world, and that we will happily read over and over again". It sounds
like a great collection of wonderful books. Then I realized that
just blindly reading through a list (even a really good list) was the
epitome of mindlessness.
I have been making book lists for years. I have 80 books saved in my Amazon
wishlist. I have a fantastic list from my high school English teacher that I
have been working on for 8 years (yikes I am old!). I have 37 titles left
in the Hugo/Nebula award winners list. Add to all that the various book
recommendations I have received over the years and I have more than enough
books to keep me reading for a years.
So here are the rules:

1-Variety must be maintained! I can't read two simliar books in a row i.e.
two novels, two sci-fi.

2-I will not force myself to read the book if I hate it. But I must read at
least 25% of the book before I can stop reading.

3-The goal is to read a book every 2 weeks. Faster is better but slow and
steady can win the race.

4- Upon finishing (or not finishing) each book I will write a review on this
blog. This way I can synthesize the information learned and maybe help
others to find some good reads.

With that here we go:
First book: "The Next Decade: Where We've Been . . . and Where We're Going "
By George Friedman

Successfully Mormon

I read recently about Gov. Huntsman's possible White House bid. I don't know much about him but the article seemed to indicate that he plays down his religion. I dislike that.
I am not saying that Gov. Huntsman or any high profile Mormon should act like a full-time missionary. However, I recently sat in a fireside where an Apostle said that if we were truly converted we would share our beliefs more and he urged us to be "appropriately bold".
I think that many Mormons struggle with how to share their religion-- how to be appropriately bold. I have been pondering this idea and thus was very excited to stumble upon Clayton M. Christensen.

I was reading a Readers Digest article that was a very popular talk turned article for the Harvard Business Review titled "How Will You Measure Happiness?". (I loved the article and should be doing a post just on it) As I read it I couldn't help but think "Gosh this guy sounds Mormon..." When I got to an internet connection I looked him up and sure enough he is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and according to Forbes "one of the most influential business theorists of the last 50 years"

Even more exciting for me was this wonderful essay he has on his website about his faith. "Why I Belong and Why I Believe" is an excellent distillation of what it means to be Mormon . I won't paraphrase it here because it needs to be read in full. I also recommend his February cover story in Forbes.

To me Clayton M. Christensen is a great role model for being appropriately bold. He is matter-of-fact in his beliefs. He openly talks about his spiritual experiences and how his faith guides his life. Being a spiritually driven individual is nothing to be ashamed of and I think all high profile Mormons should take a page out of his book.

Should I write this story?

Driving home from my sister's new home tonight I was suddenly seized by a story idea. This actually happens quite frequently. I will just be thinking and then some random characters will pop into my head and play out scenes from some unknown story. Usually these stories don't have ends or beginnings. They are just unanchored snippets that drift into my conciousness. But tonight the story came in a bit more complete. Maybe cause I had such a long drive.

I got home and immediately found myself trying to capture the scenes. I think I caught the essence of the idea. Although the imagery isn't quite there. The story centers around the last survivors of the human race. These astro-pioneers are all that remains when the Earth finally destructs (fuzzy on the details of how or why). I have at least a male and female lead. Not sure about the rest. Obviously this isn't fully developed but I am thinking about trying to turn it into a short story or maybe more. Read the very rough snippets below and tell me what you think!

The air tasted stale. Every bit it's recycled self. He hadn't minded the stale taste. It served as a constant reminder that he was not in Kansas. That his life though full of boring and mundane tasks, was very unique. After all not everyone lived on the moon. Except with Earth gone "everyone" had become the moon base. So now everyone lived on the moon. No one lived on the Earth. A complete reversal from the reality of 50 years ago.
The staleness of the air began to cloy at his throat as he processed the fact that he would never taste fresh air again. For the rest of his life he would only know the stale taste of recycled air.

The stomach acid burned up her throat and this time she didn't even bother to try and stop it. She just hung her head over the toilet and let it come. To think that Mom had been worried about her! She had told her Mother that statistically speaking her mission on the moon was safer than staying on Earth. How that fact gnawed at her. Statistically speaking she now represented a 1/30 of the projected human population. The probability of survivors on the Earth was 10000000 to 1. She clung to math. Numbers had always had the ability to comfort and sooth her. They always told the truth. But right now she didn't want truth. She wanted so desperately to believe that even with a .0000065% chance her Mother and little brother had survived. That she was not orphaned from family, heritage, and planet. But numbers don't lie.

Anyone who paid attention to world politics knew that it was a revolutionary time. That the mankind was once again reshaping itself and it's boundaries. There were no indications that this "crisis" would be any different than all the others history had thrown at mankind. But this time the threats weren't empty. This time all the dooms day prophets were right and the clock struck midnight. I wonder if they are happy? Those creepy, dirty, people who stand on city corners and warn that the end is near. Did they laugh in exhalation as the atmosphere burned around them? Were they proud to be proven right?

So thoughts.......

History, Schmistory

I loved "The King's Speech". I think does such a great job of showing the indomitable fire of the human spirit. I also love that it is getting recognized by the Academy. But like many historical movies this one takes a few liberties.
Christopher Hitchens (who I usually disagree with it) has an interesting article pointing out how the movie glosses over Edward VIII's Nazi sympathies and George VI's desire for appeasement. He has some valid points, but from his closing remarks it is clear that he has a deep dislike for Great Britain's current ruling family.

"Almost the entire moral capital of this rather odd little German dynasty is invested in the post-fabricated myth of its participation in "Britain's finest hour." In fact, had it been up to them, the finest hour would never have taken place. So this is not a detail but a major desecration of the historical record—now apparently gliding unopposed toward a baptism by Oscar."

At first I thought he was being a bit over zealous in his condemnation of the movie. But I realize that it is a sad fact that for many a movie is their only historical reference point. When a movie grossly exaggerates or changes history this can be an issue. TIME magazine put a list together of the worst offenders.
With this in mind I am going to make a greater effort to use any historical movie as the inspiration for learning more about a subject and NOT the final word.