Good Omens

Title: Good Omens, The Nice and Accurate Prophecies of Agnes Nutter, Witch

Author: Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett

Publication date: 1990

Book's setting: Present Day (ish)

Random facts: I bought Good Omens on the day that the rapture was supposedly going to happen. Looking back that is ironic.

Plot summary: I have never had such a hard time articulating a review before. It's all sentence fragments and exclamation points. But I'm trying, I really am. Here we go? Crowley is a demon and Azirphale is an angel. They have been left on earth to prepare for the Apocalypse and in the meantime have become friends and rather fond of humanity. Adam is the Antichrist, a young boy destined to be the destroyer of earth. Anathema is the descendant of Agnes Nutter, a medieval witch who wrote a book of prophecies on the end of the world. Newt is the descendant of the witch hunter who burned Agnes. Death, Famine, War, and Pollution are the four Horsemen who are preparing the world for destruction. Good Omens is the story of the end of the world, and how all the above characters manage to bring about (or attempt to resist) the Apocalypse.

Favorite aspects: The pacing and the scene changes were cinematic and hilarious and wonderfully planned. The climax of the book was so fast-paced and insane that it stopped feeling like reading and felt more like inhaling. Basically I liked everything about this book. I liked Newt and Anathema's predicted, plotted, totally unromantic relationship. I adored Crowley and Aziraphale, whose bromances negates all other bromances in the history of literature. I laughed out loud at the secondary motorcycle gang from Hell. (Most of the time I couldn't tell, but that bit had "Gaiman was here" all over it.) I liked all the crazy pop culture references that no one will understand in 200 years. I loved how it was brimming with HISTORY. I appreciated how sometimes I almost started taking it seriously, and then had to pull back and remember I was only reading. I guess most of all, I liked how it wasn't anything like reading a book. It was a multi-media cultural event. Or something.

Least favorite aspects: Where is the sequel? Can there at least be an appendix? Or a collection of short stories? Come on guys!

Other works it reminded me of: Love in the Ruins by Walker Percy; Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams; but also a little bit of everything?

Sadie's merciless breakdown: I read the first 50 pages of Good Omens very carefully in bed the night I bought it. (I went out of my way to buy it. I'd never read it before and I don't do that often, but I wanted to read it and the library didn't have it so I called up Barnes and Nobles and they put a copy aside for me and I bought it. $18 for a paperback. Shame.) Then I realized I was about 1/7 done with the funniest book I'd ever read, so I stopped.
I read the next substantial part while sitting in Coraddo on 70th street after a Lady Gaga concert. I shouldn't be allowed to read in public. There was a gay couple and their friend sitting at the table with me (it was crowded) and whenever I hit a really smashing sentence I was tempted to tell them about it. I didn't of course. I kept reading on the subway. All the way from 70th to the Junction. Then I had to stop because I had to go to work.
I got home from work at 6:30pm. Instead of reading more I watched tv with my sick sister. I woke up the next day with the flu. The next five days were spent too delirious to read. I finished the book on a Wednesday. It was 86 degrees out and felt like it could very well be the end of the world. I sat outside of my apartment building and decided it probably was. (Remember, I still have the flu.)
When I finally finished it I decided it was probably one of the best things I'd ever read. Still think so.
In light of Good Omens I could never write anything witty about it. Every possible witty thing was put into the novel. So instead I gave you my pathetic reading experience. (Well, going to a Lady Gaga concert is far from pathetic. However Coraddo's overpriced coffee is.)

Recommendation rate: Just read it. Even if you have to spend $18 on a paperback and $4.50 on the subway fare to get you to the bookstore.

Redeeming Love

Title: Redeeming Love
Author: Francine Rivers
Publication date: 1991
Book's setting: 1850
Random facts: One of my best friends recommended it to me and I have this policy in which I must read every single book my friends love.
Plot summary: Redeeming Love is a vibrant interpretation of the Book of Hosea. Set in the 1850's the novel follows the life of Angel, a bastard child sold into prostitution after her mother's dead. When California farmer Micheal Hosea feels led by the Holy Spirit to marry Angel and save her from a life of prostitution, she doesn't come willingly. Redeeming Love is a novel about sacrificial love, salvation, and following God, no matter what he asks of you. Although Angel's journey toward salvation is the core of the novel, a host of compelling minor characters weave their way in and out of the story, impacting Angel's life in unexpected ways.
Favorite aspects: The first thing I liked (which is sort of small) was how well-researched it was. Sometimes books like this are thrown together and don't feel truthful, but Rivers obviously poured a lot of time into it, and it showed. I really love the time period it was set in and Rivers captured it in all its vibrant glory. Something about the prairie. I love it. The second thing I liked (much bigger) was Angel. She was one of the most developed characters I've read in a long time. She was spectacularly plotted and really well developed and not one point in her story line seemed false. She must have been incredibly hard to write but I was drawn to her and sympathized with her throughout the entire novel. It's not often that I meet someone like her in a novel. I'm not going to forget her.
Least favorite aspects: The more I read the more sensitive I become to writing. Obviously not everyone can be Marilynne Robinson- I get that. But this book was too good for it's writing. I'm not going so far as to say Rivers is a "bad" author, but I don't think her skill matched the task at hand. Redeeming Love had no literary beauty or style. It was just a plot being conveyed sensibly. It lacked the flavor and emotional high that moving literature has. Usually I'm not picky about writing if the plot is strong... but religious fiction demands more grace in the writing.
Other works it reminded me of: Not My Will by Francena Arnold; Rodzina by Karen Cushman.
Sadie's merciless break-down: Needless to say, this was a strange follow-up to Atonement. I am a Christian. Basically what that means is that I see grace, redemption, atonement, and unconditional love everywhere. I see it in Harry Potter and Pirates of the Caribbean of all places! I can find grace in anything. If you're not religious and you don't see it it's simply because you don't know where to look.
Okay. So. I think that Redeeming Love was heavy-handed. They say show don't tell, right? Number one rule of writing. Rivers broke it. I'm not sure what tipped the scale but the heavy narration bogged down the spiritual awakening. I feel awful saying this. It was a good novel, all things considered. The story arch was consistent and the characters were round and the themes were important. It was good enough that I finished it... but something was missing. Or rather something was over-exposed until it stopped feeling precious. Does this make sense? Am I being way too hard? Should I have waited longer in order to digest McEwan's delicate prose before plunged into Redeeming Love? I don't know. It just didn't move me like I thought it would.
ON A COMPLETELY UNRELATED NOTE. I almost wrote this book a couple of times. (Without the sex and the religion.) It was going to be called Apple of the Prairie. It was going to be awesome. I never got further than the first chapter. I am seriously considering revisiting that idea.

Recommendation rate: If you really like Christian lit then give it a go, you may love it. If you're not one for religious fiction then just pass on it.

Called Out of Darkness

Title: Called Out of Darkness: A Spiritual Confession

Author: Anne Rice

Publication date: 2008

Book's setting: Rice's life, from the 50's through the 90's.

Random facts: I'm on a quest to read all the favorite books of everyone I love. Amanda recommended Called Out of Darkness to me and I couldn't say no!

Plot summary: Called Out of Darkness is Rice's memoir of her falling out with Christianity and her re-entry into the church, decades later. It's very complete. She starts when she is a very young child and ends with her present. She details all the different eras in her life and the different beliefs she had at those times, but constantly reminds the reader where her life was taking her- back to God, back to a complete belief in him.

Favorite aspects: First of all, I'm not Catholic nor was I raised one. Most of what I know about Catholicism as a sector of Christianity I learned from books or, sadly, tv. Rice really lay down what it was like to be raised Catholic, what it was like to be a part of the church; she captured that appeal. However she was also honest about what drove her away from religion while in college. It was a very candid memoir and I think I learned a lot from it. I was really inspired as well.

Least favorite aspects: I have never read Rice's vampire novels. In Called Out of Darkness she talked often about how the plots of her fantasy novels would reflecting the struggles she was having with atheism. Although I can imagine what the religious symbolism in her fantasies must have been, without ever reading them it was hard to grasp exactly what she meant sometimes.

Other works it reminded me of: Girl Meets God by Lauren F Winner.

Sadie's merciless break-down: I could say a lot right here. I could say so, so much. Instead I'm just going to quote Anne Rice.
"One afternoon I accosted my son, Christopher, on the staircase and demanded, 'Do you believe in God?' Here was a young man not yet twenty, brought up to believe in nothing, and in that time of life when beliefs are most easily dismissed. And Christopher, after a moment's reflection, responded, 'Yes, I believe in God.' How could that have happened? How could our free-thinking son believe in God?
The creation was talking to me of God. My visceral responses to the purple evening sky, to the canopy of oak branches that sheltered out front steps, to the flowers blooming beyond garden fences- my most cherished memories of the beauty of Port-ay-Prince, Haiti, or Rio de Janerio, or Venice, Italy- all this was speaking to me of God. The world around was filled to the brim with God."

Recommendation rate: If you're a Christian or interested in Catholicism this is a really fascinating book.

How the Irish Saved Civilization

Title: How the Irish Saved Civilization

Author: Thomas Cahill

Publication date: 1996

Book's setting: Nonfiction- Fall of Rome to Late Antiquity

Random facts: It was on the New York Times Bestsellers list. Nice.

Plot summary: Starting with the fall of Rome and St Augustine, Cahill tells the story of the decline into the dark ages. Focusing mainly on Ireland, he explains their barbaric past as well as the coming of St Patrick and Catholicism. Basically it's about how the Irish monks and clerics saved the world. They preserved records and copied over philosophy and poetry and kept the Bible safe while the rest of the world was in turmoil. And then how, years later, they emerged and spread their knowledge, dragging Europe out of the dark with the same works that had made it great hundreds of years before.

Favorite aspects: I love history. Reading this book really gave me a new way of looking at the Dark Ages. It's interesting, Europe never actually pulled itself out of the plague filled, war torn world. Really it was the remnants of the Roman Empire, Catholicism, and previously existing science and literature that saved them. So think what would have happened if the Church hadn't been able to jump-start the rebirth of Europe... How long would it have taken humanity to go through all those steps again? Would we even be here now if Plato and the Bible hadn't been preserved? It's almost like that was God's way of assuring that Christianity would survive the Dark Ages and constant barbarian wars and the black death and all the awful stuff in the Middle Ages. Monks were really spectacular people.

Least favorite aspects: Cahill quoted a lot of ancient literature but the set up was very odd and I had a hard time reading the poems. Although I think I can blame a publisher for that.

Other works it reminded me of: Story of the World by Susan Wise Bauer; The Door in the Wall by Marguerite de Angeli.

Sadie's merciless break-down: I read the majority of this book one night from 11pm-3am. It was after a long day and I was very grumpy and hormonal. My cat was asleep on my stomach and I just read all night, feeling moody and alone. The fall of Rome depresses me. It makes me literally sad- the way natural disasters and murders and relatives in the hospital make me sad. Yesterday I was watching Doctor Who with my little sister... and of course it was the Roman Nestene Duplicates episode. Auton Rory has nothing to do with this book, except for that they were Romans and made me sad all over again. Dying civilizations toy with my emotions in crazy ways.
But Rome isn't the point of this book. Ireland is. Or rather, how Ireland had to pick up the pieces of a dying Roman society before everything was lost forever. I've never been overly fond of Ireland. Not that I dislike it or anything, but I am not Irish and never felt a connection to them. Scotland was always more mysterious to me. (Tam Lin and all.) But How the Irish Saved Civilization gave me a new respect for them as a little country. I root for the underdog and Ireland is like, the original underdog. I was at dinner with the Dooley family on St Patrick's Day and I was complaining that I didn't really understand Patrick or Ireland or anything and how oblivious I was to them as a society and country. All I know about Irish people are Brooklyn Irish bars like McMahons and O'Riley's. So Mr. Dooley lent me this book and demanded I read it. I'm glad I did.

Recommendation rate: If you're a history buff then you should read it. Otherwise it's just dates and facts and sexy Romans and half-naked Celts. Your choice.

Housekeeping

Title: Housekeeping

Author: Marilynne Robinson

Publication date: 1980

Book's setting: Turn of the century to mid-century

Random facts: Nominated for the Pulitzer Prize.

Plot summary: "There is so little to remember of anyone - an anecdote, a conversation at a table. But every memory is turned over and over again, every word, however chance, written in the heart in the hope that memory will fulfill itself, and become flesh, and that the wanderers will find a way home, and the perished, whose lack we always feel, will step through the door finally and stroke our hair with dreaming habitual fondness not having meant to keep us waiting long."

Favorite aspects: Being a sister, being half of a whole, being Lucille, this was one of the most gloriously horrifying books I've ever read. It was worse than I Capture the Castle or We Have Always Lived in the Castle. Ruthie and Lucille's relationship was so explicit even though it was actually shoved to the side in favor of stories about Sylvie and their grandmother. The chapters that chronicled Lucille growing up and leaving were more poignant than entire novels written about sisters. I think that Robinson is oven over-praised for her beautiful writing at the expense of her story telling. Obviously her word selections were unparalleled, but Housekeeping was grander than a collection of lovely words. It was had gorgeous core that explored what it means to 'keep house' and to hold a family together. I don't know if anyone has ever done that before. Another thing I loved was how Robinson is unashamed of her religion. An entire section near the end is dedicated to paralleling the story with Bible stories. It was a bit of a life-changing book for me.

Least favorite aspects: This book has skyrocketed into my top favorite books list. I couldn't even conceive of a flaw. Unless truth and realism and painful depictions of life are flaws.

Other works it reminded me of: Wise Blood by Flannery O'Connor; Pictures of Hollis Woods by Patricia Reilly Giff; The Neumiller Stories by Larry Woiwode.

Sadie's merciless breakdown: I'm going to get heavy for a moment. Housekeeping was about two sisters growing up with a solemnly ignored bereavement. It was the twisted version of me and Kate and Daniel. Daniel's been following me lately. I've been seeing him in my friend's brothers. Or perhaps I'm not seeing him. Perhaps I'm feeling his absence. As I get older I've been more aware of art with bereavement themes. Inception for instance (But my feelings on Mal are another story entirely). I have never read a book that so openly explored suppressed sorrow like Housekeeping. The parallels between Lucille and me and Ruthie and Kate only made it odder. I just read it and I kept thinking- this book is for me, for her, it's about us, it has to be. I think a good definition of 'art' is when it expresses your emotions better than you could yourself. When art reminds you of who you are. Feeling so close to these character is strange considering it is obviously a dark and unhappy novel. I am not consumed by this strange sorrow all the time. It's hard to admit, but more often than not I forget Daniel. Yet Housekeeping was a peek into a part of me I often forget I have.
Robinson's books mainly explore the concept of home. Home as refuge, home as a prison, home as a place where you are required to love others, homes being desperately rebuilt after tragedy, homes being torn apart by tragedy. It's a very real concept and something that is largely ignored. At least it seems to be ignored in the literature I'm used to reading. Even if you've never lost a loved on or suffered mental illness I'm sure you've known someone who has been through these things. Maybe at the very least Housekeeping will help you understand people better.

Recommendation rate: In my humble opinion it is a must-read.

Absence of Mind

Title: Absence of Mind, The Dispelling of Inwardness from the Modern Myth of the Self

Author: Marilynne Robinson

Publication date: 2010

Book's setting: Nonfiction

Random facts: Robinson's third book of essays. She's also published three modern fiction novels.

Plot summary: Absence of Mind is a collection of four essays on religion in the light of science and philosophy. Basically, a new take on the age old "science vs faith" debate. Robinson sets out to shame modern thought. She focuses mainly on Freud and Darwin and their impacts on society and modern thought. Instead of trying to debunk them by proving God's existence or something she merely points out inconsistencies among their philosophies and tries to prove how religion can and should exist side-by-side with science and post-modern ideologies. (I'm too dumb to explain her thoroughly. Just read it.)

Favorite aspects: To be honest, I often get annoyed at Christians constantly trying to debunk evolution or whatever. I guess I don't think it can be proved, and I'll just go on my merry way without worrying about it. Does that make me a bad Christian? I don't know, I hope not. But Robinson managed to point out the flaws in modern Darwinist credos politely and gracefully. I think that's my favorite aspect of Robinson's theological writings. She is always very polite. She demands your respect by respecting other, although she isn't afraid of disagreeing with the fundamental ideologies of the 21st century. Also I really liked the part in Thinking Again where she talks about the reasons for the theory of multiple universes. I'd never thought about that before.

Least favorite aspects: How can you disagree with a woman who has PhD and a Pulitzer Prize? (joking.) But really, Absence of Mind blew my brain open in a very convincing way. I don't have anything bad to say.

Other works it reminded me of: Heretics by GK Chesterton.

Sadie's merciless break-down: This book almost made me feel stupid. I pride myself in actually enjoying books like these, but this one almost killed me. Although I did understand her subject matter and was comfortably familiar with all the men and theories she mentioned throughout her essays, her sentences were so elegant and heavy and ridiculously profound I had to take Absence of Mind word-by-word. It took me two weeks to read, partly because I am lazy, but mostly because I just wanted her words to really sink in.
It was like a modern day Heretics, or the natural progression of what Chesterton was dealing with in 1905. If anyone reads this blog, or has any sort of respect for my opinion in literature, then I'd recommend reading Heretics followed by Absence of Mind.
Let me quote the internet here. Someone on Amazon said that Absence of Mind was "in defense of the consciousness." I think that sums it up pretty nicely.

Recommendation rate: If you enjoy modern theology then you need to read it, and while you're at it also pick up Robinson's Death of Adam.

Out of the Silent Planet

Title: Out of the Silent Planet

Author: CS Lewis

Publication date: 1938

Book's setting: The 1930's

Random facts: First book in a trilogy.

Plot summary: A professor, Dr. Ransom, is wandering around the English Midlands. He runs into some mad scientists who drug him and fly him to a strange and unidentified planet. Ransom manages to escape from his captors and wanders the planet. He finds the alien culture who lives there and manages to make himself welcome.

Favorite aspects: It was an interesting story, really it was. It was very well written, but it is CS Lewis, so I could hardly have expected otherwise. Lewis does a really magnificent job shaping his aliens civilizations, languages, and species. More than a story with a structured plot it is a study of the history and linguistics of the alien creatures Ransom meets. Lewis' descriptions of outer space were lovely and grand. The scene where Ransom is in the spaceship, slowly drifting away from from Earth (the silent planet) is truly lovely. Out of the Silent Planet has moments of great beauty and chilling magnificence, no doubt.

Least favorite aspects: Because it read a bit more like an academic journal than a story it got dull in places and really confusing in others. So don't pick up this book thinking that it is just Lewis' take on sci-fi the way the Narnia series was his take on fantasy. It's a lot more than that.

Other works it reminded me of: The Wonderful Flight to the Mushroom Planet by Eleanor Cameron; The Man Who Was Thursday by GK Chesterton

Sadie's merciless break-down: Truth time. I thought it was boring. I was really disappointed. I wasn't disappointed because it was a bad book, it just wasn't the book I thought it was going to be. Lewis got carried away explaining the nuances of the alien's grammar to me, and forgot to develop characters or write a comprehensive climax. It sported moments of chilling beauty, but they were lost or swallowed up by effort it took for me to remember the difference between a honodraskrud and a hnakrapunt. One means "monster slayer" and one means "that drug that looks like grass." It was just exhausting.
Also I kept comparing it to other stuff. It was the unfunny or less creepy version of something I'd read before. I think that sort of sucked the joy out of it for me. Of course if you're not really well-read in the sci-fi genre than this book might have all sorts of brand-new imagery and ideas. I still can't decide if it was more like the vintage version of Avatar, the religious version of Farscape, or the speculative version of Robinson Crusoe. I probably never will decide.
Then again, maybe I was just too stupid to get it.

Recommendation rate: If you like books that sit on the fence between fiction and theology then you will probably like it. If you enjoy sci-fi... I guess giving it a try can't hurt. If you disprove of alien civilizations don't bother, even if you adore CS Lewis.