QUEEN OF KINGS: The Immortal Story of Cleopatra. Headley, Maria Dahvana. c. 2011

This is the first novel published by Maria Dahvana Headley. It is a retelling of the story of the death of Cleopatra and Antony, imagining if Cleopatra had placed a spell on herself to remain immortal. The narrative is fast-paced and in the style of a thriller, although full of rich details about the period, and it's fusion of different cultures and religions across the Mediterranean and northern Africa. There is plenty of magic and witchcraft in this story, all while fleshing out each character, even the minor ones, with a fresh, modern realism.

The one problem I had with the book was that, at times, it was TOO fast-paced and breathless. The narrative rushes headlong to the story's final scenes. I felt like I had to catch my breath while reading it, and it became a little confusing keeping track of who was where, and when, etc.

Overall, though, this was an enjoyable read. Not boring in the least. Finally, the historical note by the author in the back was very helpful. It directed me to another novel about Octavian, which I've only begun, and the recent non-fiction book ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA, by Adrian Keith Goldsworthy. I'm currently making my way through the latter, and it is well written and fascinating.

I do recommend this for fans of historical fiction, of Antony and Cleopatra, and anything regarding ancient Rome.

THE LACUNA. Kingsolver, Barbara. 2009.

I read this, or tried to, this past winter, 2010.

I have loved Barbara Kingsolver's previous books. THE POSIONWOOD BIBLE is a contemporary masterpiece, and her other novels have been compelling and well written as well.

THE LACUNA - not so much. And I'm not sure why.

Once again, Kingsolver creates a character and sets him in the midst of history being made - in this case, in the household of Frida Kahlo and Diego Rivera, Mexico City, early twentieth century. It is a politically and artistically radical household, contrasted with the mild-mannered-fade-into-the-background narrator and main character, one Harrison William Shepherd. Shepherd is an American citizen, son of a single mother that uses men for social climbing, being raised in the current turmoil of Mexico City and the rising specter of socialism. He becomes a household assistant and errand boy for Frida Kahlo and later, Leon Trotsky.
However, Kingsolver renders her main character too pale and passive amongst his brightly colored surroundings, I think. Shepherd spends his days recording and observing the ideas and actions of those he works for - the Riveras and Leon Trotsky - but does not reveal enough of himself amid this narrative. This, in my opinion, makes for a very boring story and a boring narrator. In the latter half of the novel, when Shepherd is living on his own, it seems he isn't fleshed out enough to really care about. I honestly couldn't finish the book, simply because I was so bored with it and didn't care what happened to Shepherd. We already know what happened to Trotsky, Kahlo and Rivera. In order for this novel to be successful, we have to also care about Shepherd too in his role as narrator. What does he learn, what does he become, what does he love? Kingsolver makes William so wishy-washy and passive, one really never discovers the answers to the above, as well as what he seeks in the first place. He's homosexual and hides it. So what? It doesn't define who he is, and niether, really, does the lives of his artist/revolutionary friends.

That's the best I can do to describe why the story fails to compel me to keep reading. I was disappointed as I bought the 1st ed. hardcover of this, certain that Kingsolver would be worth it. It wasn't.

Not recommended, even if you're really, really into B. Kingsolver. Definitely do not make this your first read by her. I'm hoping this is just an uncharacteristic snag for her and she will once again grace us with one of her compelling, insightful novels.

COLLAPSE. Diamond, Jared. 2005

I read this last winter, but forgot to post a review here.

The complete title reads Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed.

The book chronicles the rise and fall of the following civilizations: the Anasazi of the American Southwest, the Vikings of Greenland, Easter Island, and the Mayans.

I mainly read this book because I wanted to learn more about Easter Island and it's demise, and I did glean some pertinent, yet too brief, information from this book.

However, the book's premise is not really to be a detailed history of the above civilizations, yet to give an overview of their strengths and weaknesses, especially in terms of how they used their surrounding environment. In the above cases, the societies collapsed or, more accurately, dwindled away to nothing, because of their gradual, yet unrelenting depletion of natural resources.

One of the things that strikes me, personally, about Easter Island, is the question of when the inhabitants finally realized their days were literally numbered, and their resources would, indeed, disappear by the very next generation (if not sooner) - and they had to have undoubtedly realized it at some obvious point - why they didn't try and do something to turn the situation around. Why weren't some trees set aside to make rafts or boats to escape to another island? There is apparently no indication of it. All evidence suggests that the inhabitants simply bided their time while continuing to do the very same things that brought them to their demise - cut down trees, raise pigs and chickens and non-native crops in an environment that was not naturally set up for it, engage in petty tribal warfare and build huge, time and labor-consuming monuments that no one today really understands.
Sound familiar?

COLLAPSE apparently has offended quite a few folks, I'm not sure why. Doomsday predictions based on true events hurts?

Overall, a well-researched book, clearly and concisely written for the layman, with some hard lessons to swallow. I recommend it whether it depresses you or pisses you off.

The Book of Job

Like in the Bible - *that* Job.

Maybe I should put this in my book blog, but thought, since Job is - well- he epitomizes Everyman, in a great sense - that I'd post my thoughts on Job here. Because I know everyone's dying to know what I think of Job, :).

I read Job recently with a study group at the UU church I attend. I've read Job before, partly in eighth grade, then again, my senior year in high school. both of those times I was at different places in my life. I'm not sure how much I got out of it in eight grade at all, but I have to admit, in high school, reading Job (and Exodus) was one of the factors in my ultimately "losing my faith". I realize now, after a third reading at the age of 44, how my current interpretations of Job might even have left me a believer, after all - although not at all in the same way I was,then.

One thing I never understood about Job was why God - all-powerful, all-knowing - could allow Job to suffer so, then finally appear, after much pleading on Job's part, to say, "Hey, stuff happens - stop your belly-aching and enjoy the things you have left." Because that's basically what He says! And Job's like, "Oh, yeah, sorry, God, never really thought about it like that - I'll try that approach." And all gets better. Until Job dies.

We read Ecclessiastes before this, and that's basically a long-winded, yet poetic and beautifully written question(s) about the meaning of life. Why are we here, what are we supposed to do now that we are here, never mind how we got here in the first place... ? Questions, questions, where are the answers? Does God provide them? Well, according to both Ecclessiastes and Job, yes - and no. Both books remind me of the question/statement posed by Jesus later in the New Testament - "Consider the lilies of the field..." Meaning (to me, anyway) the lilies of the field just are - they are lilies of the field, they live within the context of the field, they survive, they thrive, then at the end of their season, die, like everything else. Like us. But do they question God for their ultimate withering and dying, for their being trampled upon or picked or eaten, perhaps? No. Then, why do we?

In Job, this last question is addressed throughout the book. God makes a bet with Satan that, if Satan inflicts Job with all kinds of horrors and tragedies - the death of all of his livestock, crops, servants, and even all of his children, AND a nasty rash to boot - Job will still never denounce Him. And God wins the bet. Throughout Job's extreme suffering, three friends visit him and accuse him of being sinful and unjust - why else would God allow these terrible things to befall him? But Job defends himself throughout that no, he is very just, he has never sinned against God, he is undeserving of his punishment, and would God please show up somehow and explain why He is allowing one of his faithful servants to suffer? Because Job trusts that God has some good explanation for this.
After God doesn't show up for a long, agonizing time, however, Job loses it - sorta. He does not denounce God, but he questions, more and more adamantly, what the heck God is trying to prove. Basically "What did I ever do to you?" He still defends himself as being just and undeserving of such punishment.

Then, near the very end of the book, God shows up in a "whirlwind". And he basically says to Job - Life sucks. Get over it - and what do you want ME to do about it? Alleviate your suffering? Hey, your friends were here, that's what they were for. Do special favors for you to save your family and livestock from suffering and death? Hey, I just created the world and let it be - I don't have time for micro-management. And besides, now that you've suffered, you'll appreciate your future good health and your future children and wealth even more. In short, you'll know and appreciate real joy, because you know now what it is to suffer and to lose this joy.

Wow. Reading this now, when I'm 44 and had my own share of minor tragedy and loss - as all of us have by this age - I get this. I get Job's point of view, but I get what God is saying, too. (Of course, I paraphrased and I highly recommend you read the actual text - it's also very poetically written.) There's a long chapter in which God says, Look, I created the world, the universe and I created the good with the bad, everything coexists and that's how it is. I let it be. I let you, Man, be. Yes, I'll take care of the logistics - the air, the soil, the food chain... but the rest is up to you, really. Life is what you make it. And bad things happen to good people. And what you take from that, from your own suffering, is up to you - but, BUT - if you can take all the bad stuff that happens in the world and still think highly of the world and other men, i.e., still be "good" - then you will understand. And when you understand, you will accept life, even when you know and understand you will one day die.

Yeah, this is some heavy stuff and it reminds me of Buddha's fourth Noble Truth - the Eightfold Path, that says, Yes, we all suffer but here is the "middle path" that will let you go on and deal with the suffering. Not - here is the ultimate answer to the question why we all suffer - no, here is the path that will help you accept life with it's joy and suffering together - here is the WAY.

I also learned, in this class, that the books of the Old Testament were gathered together around 400-500 BCE (or B.C. if you're old-school) around the same time that Buddha was alive and teaching the Eightfold Path, the Middle Way. It was also the time of the "great" Greek philosophers such as Plato. In other words, the work of inventing agriculture and architecture is done, now it's time to sit and reflect. What have we gained? What have we lost?

SHUTTER ISLAND. Lehane, Dennis.

Read in early March 2010.

SHUTTER ISLAND is the suspense novel the Martin Scorsese movie was based on. I saw the movie first. The movie was, of course, excellent.
However, I wanted to read the book, as Scorsese usually does a great job of translating novels into film (and he did so here, as well) and the novels he uses are usually good.

SHUTTER ISLAND was good - not great. Nothing life-changing or genre-shattering. A quick read, and very engrossing. It is also has several thought-provoking moments that resonate throughout the story. So, it is what I'd call a "substantial" read. I didn't feel like I wasted my time reading it.

The narrative consists of two federal marshalls in 1954 who are sent to a mental institution on Shutter Island, a somewhat remote island off the mid-atlantic coast. The marshalls have been requested to help find an inmate/patient that has escaped. What ensues from here is a mystery shrouded in the storms of both the physical world and the psychological.
The setting is perfect and reminiscent of the best Poe mysteries - an old, spooky hospital that was once a POW camp in the Civil War; a remote island fraught with thunderstorms, blowing tree limbs and wet leaves, and much creeping around dark, dripping hallways and abandoned sea-caves. Ghosts, in the form of dreams - or are they? - float in and out of the narrative. Rats even make an appearance.
The story itself, too, is very reminiscent of Poe's stories, where the stormy, violent scenery becomes a metaphor for the protagonist's mind.

All in all, SHUTTER ISLAND is very well done. I was never bored reading this.

Just one last note - I happened to have liked the movie's ending better. Although the movie closely follows the book, the ending is slightly different and more ambiguous. Personally, I feel that is more in keeping with the tradition and ambience of the gothic mystery. The novels' ending is a little more clear-cut.

I would read more of Lehane's novels, if I had a weekend or a few days in between reading something else. In my opinion, this is good airplane/beach/pool/vacation reading. Extremely entertaining, careful and thoughtful narrative, and engaging, likable characters.

REcommended for a quick, painless read.

The New Oxford Annotated Bible

I just bought this Bible from B&N online,** and have had it for a week now. I bought it because I'm taking a class on Scriptures at the Unitarian church I attend, and this season's class focuses on Ecclesiastes and Job. I'll comment later on these two texts, but for now I want to comment on this Bible as a whole.

Anyway, I am exceedingly pleased with this version of the Bible. The translation is the "New Revised Standard Version", includes the Apocrypha, and it is beautifully - and, seemingly, thoroughly - translated. So much nicer to read than my copy of THE WAY, a contemporary translation I own, published in the 1970s. I think THE WAY has it's merits and uses, being intended for a younger audience, but after reading through some of the New Oxford, I can easily see where much is left out of the translation in THE WAY.
As for the King James version - well, it's also beautifully translated, but, let's face it, it was a very political translation, and there really isn't any need for the biblical texts to be read in Shakespearean English. Although it sounds real nice. . .

The best thing about the NEW OXFORD Bible, however, is the commentary and footnotes on every single page, and the commentary before each book. This commentary focuses on the social, cultural, and political climate of the period in which a book was written, as well as citing any evidence of WHEN the book was first written. There is commentary on the translation(s) as well. All of this, of course, makes for a much easier, more comprehensive, and therefore, enjoyable read of the Bible.

I highly recommend this version of the Bible for anyone wishing to read the Bible, Christian or not.



** This is the Augmented Third Ed. by the way.

BREAKING DAWN. Meyer, Stephanie. c.2008

If I didn't know any better, I'd think that BREAKING DAWN, the fourth and final book in the Twilight series, was a parody of the series itself. It is so ridiculous and badly written it almost must be on purpose.
But, it's not. This is, indeed, the finale to the saga of Edward, Bella, and Jacob. And it's unbelievably bad. So much so, I do believe it is the worst book I have ever read. Ever. I am serious. I don't mean Robin Cook bad, or Danielle Steele bad. Meyer's first three books in this series, which I reviewed below, were actually on par with Cook's and Steele's writing. I mean, it's seventh-grade tortured, rambling diary entry and submit it to a fiction contest bad. It's THAT bad and then some.

While some of the writing in Meyer's first three books was often mediocre and amatuerish, I really enjoyed reading them because of the truly intriguing love story she wove. The story itself had depth and the characters were believable and well-developed. By the third book, ECLIPSE, the reader expected certain things from the characters and we knew their motives and desires.

In BREAKING DAWN, not only is the writing terrible, but the events that unfold are ridiculous, unbelievable, and serve no purpose to the story but to fill up pages. The greatest travesty - and the book's major flaw- is that the characters are suddenly mere shells of their former selves. Jacob and Edward no longer fight for Bella and her soul, but give into her every whim. Bella is no longer afraid of anything and does not even struggle as a new vampire. She gives birth to a creepy promiscuous baby who drinks human blood - but the babe isn't a vampire herself and is actually very sweet. Um - why? What purpose does this serve? Well, it serves the same purpose as Jacob then imprinting with Bella's baby, and Bella becoming the best and sweetest and most angst-free vampire in the world. That is, everyone gets a happy ending.

And I, the reader, am so damned bored and disappointed. What happened to Edward wanting to save Bella's soul? What happened to Jacob at all? BREAKING DAWN has minimal conflict, maximum fairy-tale happy resolutions, and zero arc.

I really wish Meyer had ended the series with ECLIPSE.

BREAKING DAWN is not recommended at all (except for a compost heap or bonfire), even if - and especially if - you read TWILIGHT, NEW MOON and ECLIPSE. Just pretend the fourth book doesn't exist and imagine your own ending for Bella, Edward and Jacob. Anything you can think of will be better than this book, trust me.

TWILIGHT Series; TWILIGHT/NEW MOON/ECLIPSE. Meyer, Stephanie. c.2005, 2006, 2007.

So I finally caved and read the Twilight series. My daughter, who is eleven, owns these books and read them herself. I was never interested in them myself until I took her and her friend to see the movie NEW MOON (the movies are worth the cinematography and soundtrack, but nothing else). Although the acting and narrative pacing in the film left much to be desired, I did become intrigued with the story, so decided to read the books, especially after my daughter - who is herself an avid reader - highly recommended them. (I should have paid more attention when she professed disappointment in the series' final book, though, BREAKING DAWN - and that book will be reviewed separately from the first three.)

I'm lumping the first three books into one review, because, honestly, it's all one story, one narrative. (And I should note here that the story encompasses three books due to very large print and redundant dialogue and mise en scene - but more of that later.)
I did notice that Meyer's writing improves a bit (only a bit, though) with NEW MOON and ECLIPSE, and the taut web of Bella's relationship with both a vampire and a werewolf becomes more entangled and mesmerizing with each book.

First, the things I really enjoyed about the first three books -
All three novels are fast and engaging reads. Meyer weaves an incredibly compelling story of the tumultuous love triangle of Bella, Edward and Jacob, a story reminiscent of Wuthering Heights, yet narrated in a voice familiar to contemporary 21st c. adolescents.

TWILIGHT, the first book, introduces us to Bella and the community of Forks Washington - a landscape under a constant cover of cloud, mist and lush green forest. Bella has just moved here from perpetually sunny Phoenix AZ and the contrast is sharp and significant. She meets Edward Cullen, a strange classmate at her new school. Edward acts in ways she should interpret as red flags - but instead, Bella is intrigued, entranced, even. At the same time, Bella befriends a Native American boy, Jacob Black, who lives on a nearby reservation. Jacob is everything Edward is not - easygoing, bubbly, lighthearted, and playful. Edward is mysterious, dark, serious, almost brooding - and extremely pale. Guess which one Bella falls inexplicably in love with?
Jacob and Bella become fast and close friends, though, due to Jacob's honest, open nature and this is where the tension rides. Jacob falls in love with Bella, but Bella is so obsessed with Edward - and Edward so obsessed with her that he practically stalks and controls her - that she finds herself unable to return Jacob's affections despite her almost unconditional love for him.
Jacob is clearly - even after certain events in New Moon - the better, "safer" candidate for Bella. The reader can see that, yet, at the same time, we are just as drawn to the romantic, tortured figure of Edward.
Meyer is quite adept at sustaining this tension throughout all three books. The tension builds in NEW MOON when Edward is mostly absent but Bella pines for him - literally - and Jacob feels the sting of unrequited love. And it runs headlong into a climax in the third book, ECLIPSE.

I read all three books in a week. I could not put them down, and could not wait to discover what would happen. Would Bella come to her senses and be afraid for her mortal life? Would she ever see the good, mortal guy (Jacob) right in front of her? Would Edward ever do the truly noble thing and leave Bella forever or would he continue to torment her and himself forever? And, finally - would he actually go so far as to make her one of the undead, simply because he cannot live without her?

The story, throughout each book, held me in it's grip as I agonized along with the three main characters.

I was disappointed in the writing, however. Throughout all three, much of the dialogue is repetitive and almost seems to be used as filler, as if Meyer had a contract to write so many pages and struggled to do so. This frustrated me, furthermore, because I craved more details to the story. For such a thick book, so much seemed to be missing. I would have loved to have read flashbacks from Edward's point of view regarding his long history as a vampire and his ongoing struggle to remain "good". As it was told here, I felt many things, including this, were explained away too simplistically. I wanted to feel more the internal struggle Edward had with himself and with the knowledge of his power over Bella. I wanted Bella to question her own motives more. From the very beginning, she simply resigns to the fact that Edward is a vampire, but, hey - she loves him, no worries. Uhh, yeah. It's never fully explained why Bella is NOT afraid of Edward, even though some of his early behavior (before she realizes what he is) bothers her - and why she so readily accepts that he is a vampire. There should have been scenes and dialogue exploring this further. As is, the narrative feels rushed and sloppy at times.

However, there's seemingly no end to the descriptions of the many ways Edward kisses Bella's throat and lips. Not so much in NEW MOON (and it's the best book of the three, I think) but in both TWILIGHT and ECLIPSE, a good deal of the narrative takes place in Bella's bedroom at night, where Edward protects her - from herself and other vampires - and watches over her while she sleeps. Of course, before her slumber, there is much anguished, controlled kissing and cold-hard skin in the midst of burning desire. It got to the point where I was a little bothered by it - especially considering it's marketed to teen girls. It's an effective technique for conveying the prolonged anguished desire of teenagers trying to be noble, but - why is it constant? Is this Meyer's idea of Mormon soft-core porn or is it a morality tale that got away from her?

Overall, I really enjoyed the first three books. These are not life-changing books, however, and I can honestly say you're not missing anything by not reading them. In fact, you may save yourself some frustration if you don't as you won't then feel compelled to read the final book - BREAKING DAWN - which is arguably one of the worst books ever written. But that's my next review, and that's why it's separate. The first three - TWILIGHT, NEW MOON AND ECLIPSE - were highly entertaining and even thought-provoking at times. I just wish Meyer had stopped with ECLIPSE and let us draw our own conclusions about what finally happened to Bella. She let us draw our own conclusions about so many other missing details. . .