Mark Haddon needs to learn to write shorter titles for his book. For the past year or so, every time I've gone into the bookstore I see this book. That's staying power. So I bought it, even though it has a cut out of a poodle on the front cover.

Plot: The dog is murdered. Maybe that's why it was upside down on the front cover. The dog's neighbor decides to investigate the murder. Said neighbor is a highly functioning teenage autistic boy. He has trouble relating to people and understanding emotions. That kinda goes with the autism. He figures out who killed the dog, but that just sets a greater story into motion.

What I thought: The book is written from the perspective of the autistic boy. It was really interesting reading how he didn't understand emotions and couldn't understand that the way people say something is just as important as what they are saying. Getting inside the mind of an autistic boy was very enlightening.

The plot proved to be a good counter point to the style. While the style was interesting and thought provoking, the plot was boring and plain. I finished the book, so it wasn't completely stupid.

Here's a quote from when the boy finds the dog:

The dog was dead. There was a garden fork sticking out of the dog. The points of the fork must have gone all the way through the dog and into the ground because the fork had not fallen over. I decided that the dog was probably killed with the fork because I could not see any other wounds in the dog and I do not think you would stick a garden fork into a dog after it had dies for some other reason, like cancer, for example, or a road accident. But I could not be certain about this.

Later in the book, the boy is listing his behavior problems. One of the items on the list is hating france. I don't understand why he thinks this is a problem. If anything, it shows good judgement.

Should you read it? Maybe. There are better books out there, but the point of view in this one made it fun. It's pretty short too, so you won't waste too much time with it.

Ciaran tried to watch a cartoon called Deathnote. It was too violent, so we went parental on him. So he started reading something. Much to our chagrin, he was reading Deathnote the book. So we took the book away and I read it.

Plot: There is a detective named L. He is chasing after a murderer called B. L doesn't go out in public, so he picks an FBI agent to do his foot work. She goes around and investigates the murders, finds the murder and solves the case. Whoopie.

What I thought: It was way too violent for Ciaran. On it's own it was ok. Not a great murder mystery, but ok. I finished it, so I guess it wasn't too bad.

Should you read it? Nope. I hear Sherlock Holmes is a good read.

I started reading this book by Paulo Coelho and Olga asked why I bought it. Was it on sale? Did I hear about it somewhere else? Nope. I think it was the cover, because I feel that you can always judge a book by it's cover.

Plot: A shepherd boy is out tending to his sheep when he has a dream telling him where his treasure is. After a little prodding from a king, the boy goes off to find this treasure. Along the way he grows spiritually and causes people to die. But that's ok, because the story isn't about those people, it's about the shepherd.

What I thought: At first I thought it was written for slow seven year olds. I'm not sure if that was Paulo's writing or the translation. Either way, I wasn't impressed at first. It seemed to be one of those books about growing spiritually.

Then a few days into the book [info]olga_ukraine had a friend over and the three of us watched The Secret. The friend said that the movie reminded her of this book that her boyfriend gave her called the Alchemist. She described it and low and behold, it was the book I was reading. I got shivers up and down my spine, which was cool.

As I got towards the middle and end of the book it got a little more interesting. I'm not saying it's the best book in creation, but it was a decent read.

Should you read it? If you're a slow seven year old, then go for it. Otherwise, yeah, go ahead and read it.

A while ago I was in the book store and my addiction to buying books kicked in. This one was on sale, ergo I bought it. I was also thinking that the movie was lame, but usually the book is better. So I took a chance. I decided to read this one now because the last book I read sucked and this one was thin. I was in the mood for something lightweight.

Plot: OK, first off - this book was a collection of short stories by Richard Matheson. There was no clue about that on the cover. So when I was reading, I got to the end of I Am Legend then read what I thought was the next chapter. They didn't blend well, so I investigated.

No really, here's the Plot: Nothing like the movie. Ok, maybe a little like the moive, just take out all the suck and replace it with good writing. Wait, that's what I thought about it. Here's the plot for real. Everyone is mutated into vampires. Except this one guy. So he has to live by himself while trying to cure/kill the vampires. Then he meets a woman and things go down hill from there.

This book was written a real long time ago, like in the 50s. I've noticed that in books back then it's always bad news when the protagonist meets up with a woman.

What I though: The book is awesome! It's scary, and gripping and fun. And there isn't a stupid Hollywood ending. And it doesn't try to be religious and God proving like that stupid movie. I really enjoyed reading this book, and had a very hard time putting it down some times. This is what books are supposed to do. You're not supposed to read books because you think other people will be impressed that you actually read books and think you're smart. Books are supposed to make you enjoy reading, because the book draws you in. I am Legend does that.

Here's a fun quote:

On the phonograph, music played, quiet and unhurried.

Outside, the vampires waited.

What I thought about the other stories: Richard Matheson is the man. On the cover there is a quote from Stephen King saying that Matheson was an inspiration. I think Stephen King is a watered down version of Richard Matheson. There were times when I was reading a story and I was scared to put the book down. Not because I'm a little girlie, but because the stories get into your soul and scare you. It was fun!

The other stories in the book are:

Buried Talents - OK, but either he ripped off Stephen King's Dead Zone or the other way around.

The Near Departed - A great little story

Prey - I almost wet myself in fear

Witch War - Kinda fun, but not too scary

Dance Of The Dead - disgustingly creepy

Dress Of White Silk - Amazing and freaky once you finish

Mad House - kinda predictable, but really well written

The Funeral - Fun and not scary

From Shadowed Places - I didn't get the ending

Person To Person - Really cool idea and really well written

Should you read it? Yes, at least I Am Legend. The other stories were mostly good, but I Am Legend is worth reading just because you'll feel better about sitting through the movie.

A long time ago, in a Borders store pretty darn close to my home, the family went shopping. There was a sale, so I decided to pick up a few books. People of the Book was one of those books, because it had an interesting summary and it was thirty percent off. Since this was on sale, I thought I was supposed to buy it, because my mom used to tell me to only buy stuff on sale.

Plot: There is a Jewish book called a Haggadah that is found and rescued in Bosnia during the recent conflict there. The protagonist is called in to do some research on the book. So she goes about her business and researches various clues found in the book (like a hair and some red stains found on some of the pages). While she is doing the research, the reader gets to read the origin stories of said clue.

What I thought: It took me a real long time to read this. That's the book's fault. If the book was interesting or enjoyable I think I would have finished it a lot sooner. This book was real easy to put down. Actually, I think the only reason I finished it was because I took it to Ukraine and Russia and it was the only English book around.

Should you read it? No. Assign it as punishment to unruly teenagers.

A long time ago, in a bookstore over in Laurel, I bought two books. They had stickers on them that read, "3 for 2". So I picked up another book for free. This is one of those books. I'm not sure if it was the free one or not, but when I got it I didn't have a clue what it was about. It called out to me. Plus the sticker was covering 'Falls' in the title so it just said 'Empire'. That reminded me of Queensryche, which is the real reason I picked up the book. Funny how I remember that from a year or two ago.

Last year I picked up the book to start reading, then a lot of stuff happened. Like I moved. Twice. And a whole lot of other stuff that goes along with moving (and falling in love, which is the reason I moved - twice).

Plot: The hero of this story is Miles, a midlife guy who runs a grill in the middle of the dying town of Empire Falls. His life is in upheaval, because that makes good stories. Seriously, who ever read a good story about nothing. So this is a book about Miles' trouble and tribulations.

Here's some quotes, because Richard Russo is a better writer than me:

Max leaned back on his stool, squinting across the dark room, trying to make out who it was. Since he'd turned seventy, his eyes weren't as good as they used to be. Fortunately, he could still climb like a monkey.

"Where to now?" the driver wanted to know when C.B. Whiting climbed into the back of the limo."Home," C.B. said, loading the revolver. "I'm anxious to see my wife."

In a way, John Voss is like Jesus - blameless, perhaps, but nevertheless the center of all the trouble. If Jesus had gone away, things in Galilee would have returned to nromal, just as her father had promised they soon would here in Empire Falls.

What I thought: This book is GREAT!!! (Please don't use a mental Tony the Tiger voice when you read that.) Russo is amazing at creating great personalities and deep characters. I wish I had read the book in a shorter period of time, because I'm sure I missed part of the big picture by setting the book down for months on end.

Should you read it? Yes, it's really worth the time.

I don't know how I got this book. Maybe it's from a yard sale, maybe I stole it from drmellow. Who knows? That isn't important. What's important is that I read it and now I'm reviewing Mr. Stephen King's book.

Plot: There is a guy who suffers from a head injury. Actually, it's a few head injuries. And a coma, I guess that's kinda important. Then the guy woke up, but he was kinda freaky looking, because he'd just been asleep for a handful of years. Think horrible, horrible bed head. But he woke up psychic. He could touch people and see visions about them. Sometimes it was visions about what they had done in the past, sometimes it was the future )he told one person their house was on fire), sometimes it was about the future. Lots of people didn't believe him, and he didn't really want to milk it for fame, but he did a few good things to help save people, so it was all good.

Then he decided to go watch politicians at the rallies. He shook their hands. He got visions. Some were good, some were bad. He saw one real bad one, and then some stuff happened, then the book was done.

What I thought: It was ok, but not great. Maybe worth the read, but there's a lot of better stuff out there.

Should you read it? Enh, if there's nothing better on your bookshelf.

Wicked is a book written by Gregory Maguire. From the picture in the back of the book he looks like a stuck up yuppy snob. I already don't like him. But I read his book, so on with the review.

Plot: The Wicked Witch of the West from Oz wasn't born a grown up witch. She was born a green little girl with really sharp teeth. As she was growing up she saw the Wizard take over Oz, enslaving the populations and completely rolling back Animal rights. The witch didn't like this, so she tried to revolt. Thus the conflict between the witch and the wizard. Oh yeah, and Dorthy makes a guest appearance towards the end of the book.

What I thought: I liked the idea. I thought it was a great idea. The first part of the book was interesting enough so when the middle part started to get boring I still wanted to finish, just in case. Sucks to be me. The just in case ended up being fizzle, fizzle, fizzle...

Should you read it? Nope. You should watch 24 backwards and brag to your friends that you can time travel.

A little while ago a few of my friends lent me this book. They were just about to pee their pants as they were telling me about it. Apparently it is the book that every guy has to read. I checked my genitals and decided that I needed to read the book.

Plot: It's a bunch of short stories. The guy claims they are true stories about the events that made him the person he is. Most of the stories involve alcohol and sex.

What I thought: When I first started reading it reminded me of the college guys that dress up real preppy then go out to the dance clubs to use the stupid drunk sluts that hang out there. The stories got better as the book progressed, mainly because they stopped being about how awesome this guy thought he was and started being about how much of an idiot the author is.

Should you read it? No.

Chuck Palahniuk wrote Survivor. He also wrote Fight Club. I saw the movie Fight Club, so I figured I buy the book. Plus, there was a buy 2 get one free deal at the book store. I needed a third.

Plot: Tender Branson is the last surviving member of a death cult. He uses this to become rich and powerful and famous. Some people die, there is a big landfill full of burning porn and some more people die. There is also a plane kidnapping and that sort of stuff. Then it's page 1 and the book is over.

What I thought: The first thing that got my attention was the book starts on chapter 47, page 289. Its a countdown from there to the end. I really like that. It played with part of the story, but I really liked it because I knew how much reading I had left.

I also liked the plot.

Here's some quotes, because I don't want to have to think about writing anything right now, but I want more words in this review.

After the caseworker told me about everybody in the Creedish district colony being dead and all, the first thing I did was start smoking. The smartest thing I've ever done is start smoking. When the caseworker dropped by to say rise and shine, and the only other surviving Creedish went south last night, then I sat myself in the kitchen and upped my suicide process with a good stiff drink.

It's church doctrine that says I have to kill myself. They don't say it has to be a hurry-hurry instant quick death.

Should you read it? Yeah, it was pretty good.

I've read a few Moore books and I've really enjoyed them. So naturally I went to the bookstore with the intent of buying his complete catalog. Well, that didn't happen, but I did pick up a few of them. Where do you fit in? You get to read this review.. Aren't you just one lucky little bean?

Plot: A redhead turns into a vampire. The guy that turned her plays around with her by not telling her anything about how to be a vampire (think Interview With The Vampire). So the redhead vampire starts living her new life. Or death. Or living death, whatever. Anyway, she goes around and does stuff like meeting an aspiring author who lives with her and helps her out. Actually, this is a love story, so that's what the plot is. You know, it's really hard condensing an entire book into one or two paragraphs. So I've really left a lot out. Except the explosion at the end. I can't leave that out.

What I thought: It was OK, but not his best work. Actually the best parts in my opinion were the chapter titles near the end. Those were great. The chapters themselves were good, but not as spectacular as I wanted. It was a good read, but not a great read.

In this first quote the vampire is talking to the want-to-be-author about how she'll never physically change.

Tommy grinned. "You do have a great body."
"I could loose five pounds," Jody said. She inhaled sharply and her eyes went wide, as if she'd just remembered some explosives she'd left in the oven. "Oh my God!"
"What?" Tommy looked around, thinking she had seen something frightening, something dangerous.
"This is horrible."
"What is it?" Tommy insisted.
"I just realized--I'm always going to be a pudgette. I have jeans I'll never get into. I'm always going to need to loose five pounds."
"So what, every woman I've ever known thought she needed to loose five pounds."
"But they have a chance, the have hope. I'm doomed."
"You could go on a liquid diet," Tommy said.

The second quote is just funny (Bummer is a dog).

Bummer did not answer. He was dreaming of a park full of large trees and bite-sized mailmen. His legs twitched and he let out a sleepy ruff each time he crunched one of their tiny heads. In dreams, mailmen taste like chicken.

Should you read it? Read The Vampire Lestat by Anne Rice instead. Moore references that book here, and it really is a good book.

A while ago one of my coworkers got me thinking about a game. You are presented with three cards. One is good, two are bad. You pick one at random. The game's host shows one of the other cards. You have to decide if you should keep the card you have or switch with the host. At work, we agonized over the problem but eventually came up with the correct solution. Then it was pretty obvious (but there is a 'hidden' assumption)

So what does that have to do with the book? When my brother heard about the problem he was like, "Hey tart, there's a book about it. I'll let you borrow it." Well, he let me borrow it and I held up my (assumed) end of the bargain by reading it. Ergo this review.

Plot: Nope, this is one of those books that's supposed to enlighten you on something. The something in this case being how to make good decisions. But wait, there's more! This is a book about how to use probability without telling us anything about probability. It also tells us we should be rational in our decision making process. Yeah right, that'll happen.

What I thought: There were some really good parts to this book. My favorites revolved around the discussions on voting and politics. The rest of the book didn't really interest me that much, but it was slightly worth reading. One thing I really liked about the book was that the author kept saying that understanding probability is the key to all good decisions, but refused to even try to explain any means of determining some probabilities. I understand that a book about math is gonna be about as interesting as dirt, but it just struck me funny that the book refused to shed light on the base of it's main focus.

I pulled a few quotes out, because I agreed with them. The quotes I didn't agree with aren't included here, and I've edited them out of my brother's book with a black Sharpe.

The first quote is about how the author was really impressed with a grand building in Vienna.

The epiphany was the sudden realization that such a magnificent structure could not be built in modern times, anywhere. There is no decision process in a popular democracy that can accommodate any large project, however worthy, let alone support it over the time necessary for completion.

I've been saying that for year. Democracy won't build pyramids. You need a slave class and a single God-like dictator. The second quote is about how our moral codes are relative and based to a large degree on our history.

...but if you think about it, all our moral imperatives are themselves local to time and place, and are simply distillations of earlier societal needs, codified so we no longer have to think about where they come from -- like the multiplication table. Sometimes these lessons are collected in a body of laws, sometimes in religious mandates, sometimes in various codes of ethics, and so forth, but they all, in the end, reflect the pragmatic needs of some earlier society that somehow survived. Imperatives left to us b ancient history and experience, however persuasively packaged, and however well trained we may be to obey them, fall quickly by the wayside under immediate stress. Recent human history provides far too much horrible proof of this.

Yep, another thing I've been saying for years. I also agree with the author that jury trials have gotten to the point of being more about money and less about justice, but I'm not gonna quote anything on that subject.

A good friend gave me this book as a gift. I'm not sure what she was trying to tell me...

Plot: There was no plot. The book is a lot of questions that the authors answer. The questions are kinda cool. Like, why do men fall asleep after sex and what turns snot green.

What I thougt: Pretty good book. There were parts where the authors included some IMing between the two. Those parts were pretty lame, but the rest of the book was pretty interesting. The answers were pretty good, so it's an educational book. A lot of the questions were good, so it's also an entertaining book.

Should you read it? Sure, but don't expect a plot.

The subtitle for this book is "A Novel". That's just brillant. If I was the author I wouldn't be giving out secrets like that. Actually, if the person holding the book couldn't figure out it was a novel I'm not sure I would want them reading anything I wrote. BTW, this is a review.

Plot: A pilot gets in a lot of trouble when he gets drunk and takes a hooker up for a spin in a corporate jet. Actually, the problem is when he crashes. To avoid all the problems he just caused the pilot runs to fly a Lear jet for a missionary in the Pacific Islands. It's a strange island. For one thing, the missionary there has a Lear jet. For another thing, the first person the pilot meets is a cannible that decides to eat him. Well a lot of things happen and the pilot doesn't get eaten in the beginning of the book.

What I thought: I got this book because I read another one of Moore's books (Lamb). I liked his other book, so I gave this one a spin. It was great! A little silly at times, but well thought out and really funny. It was one of those books that when you get near the end you have to stay up and finish even if you're really tired and running a slight fever and you want to go to bed.

In the following quote the pilot (Tuck) is talking to the missionary's wife.

"And I haven't even shown you the best way to fight boredom on our little island."
Tuck concentrated on the gauges and the runway. He said, "What church do you and your husband work for?"
"Methodist."
"You'll have to tell me about it."
"What's there to tell? Methodists rock!" she said, then she giggled like a little girl as Tuck pulled the plane into the sky.

Exactly. Methodists rock!

Should you read it? Yep. I'm gonna try to get some Moore of his books. Haha, I'm an idiot.

One of the guys at work brought this book in and abandoned it with a note saying, "Free to good home." Another coworker picked it up, then lent it to me while she finished the book she was currently working on. Since I wasn't reading anything at the moment I took it up to give it a try. Just so you know, it isn't a story. It's one of dem dere 'educated' book.

Plot: Kinda, but not really. It's a book about an economist using his mojo on non-economist issues. He asks interesting questions, then finds interesting answers. Interesting being a highly subjective word. Some of the questions asked are do parents matter, what do high school teachers and sumo wrestlers have in common, and how are crack gangs similar to McDonalds.

What I thought? It was pretty good. I think a theme might be that some times common sense and number crunching results in different answers to the same questions. The assumption is that the numbers don't fib, so whatever the number cruncher says is the almighty truth. Maybe that should have been capitalized.

Even taking the skepticism into account, I thought the book was interesting enough to finish. I especially liked the chapters about abortion lowering crime and how crack gangs are set up.

Should you read it? If you want. It wasn't the most enlightening book I've read, but it was a pretty good read.

So I started the book a week or two ago. The cover looked really interesting. There was this big machine towering over a burning house. What's not to like? Then I opened it up and started reading it. Then I fell asleep. This happened many times and I only got to page 26 before giving up on it.

Plot: I'm guessing there is a war. I think it was between Martians and humans. Judging by the picture on the cover the Martians win.

What I thought: zzzzzzzz

A quote to prove my opinion:

It is still a matter of wonder how the Martians are able to slay men so swiftly and so silently. Many think that in some way they are able to generate an intense heat in a chamber of practically absolute non-conductivity. This intense heat they project in a parallel beam against any object they choose, by means of a polished parabolic mirror of unknown composition, much as the parabolic mirror of a lighthouse projects a beam of light.

How that quote should have been written:

The aliens had some totally sweet heat rays.

Should you read it? If you are having a hard time getting to sleep this might be the book for you.

Bill Bryson lived in England for twenty years. Then he came back home to the US. He heard about the Appalachian Trail so he decided to walk it. For those not in the know, the AT is about 2,100 miles stretching from Georgia to Maine. That's a long drive. Even longer walk. When he got out of the woods he wrote a book, darkangel451 recommended it to me, I read it and now I'm writing this review (which is present tense for me now, but will be past tense when you read it).

Plot: Some guy decided to walk the AT starting from Georgia and going north, because going south from Georgia wouldn't be the AT. He got an overweight recovering alcoholic friend to accompany him. They weren't really experienced/intelligent hikers at the beginning. Before setting out they got supplies and packed everything up. Well, not everything. While packing each of them decided to leave some stuff behind (like the non important stuff - food). The first day on the trail they decided to lighten their packs by throwing some stuff away (food). They did this independent of each other, so when they got to the first camp site all they had to eat was noodles, Snickers and Little Debbie snacks.

Here's a quote from the book. The two guys are down to one last Little Debbie snack. They've met this obnoxious girl earlier, lost her, but she just caught back up with them.

"I wondered where you guys had got to," she scolded. "You know, you are like really slow. We could've done another four miles by now easy. I can see I'm going to have to keep my eyes on you from now--say, is that a Hostess cupcake?" Before I could speak or Katz could seize a log with which to smite her dead, she said, "Well, I don't mind if I do," and ate it in two bites. It would be some days before Katz smiled again.

Yeah, Katz has the correct idea. Proper trail etiquette in this situation is to put the fool down if she eats your last Little Debbie snack. It's too late to educate her, so make an example out of her for other hikers.

Not only did the book have a plot, but it also gave general information about the AT, some of the areas it goes through and the environment in general. It was interesting stuff, and I think it can all boil down to this: Bryson is a hippie. The environment is going to the dogs, people keep messing stuff up and sooner or later the Earth is going to collapse into a singularity, destroying all life and existence in general. While this might not be terrible for our generation, the future generations are getting the shaft (shut your mouth). Boo-freakin-hoo. I work with today's youth. They don't deserve a good planet. I think everyone older than 21 should go buy a few gallons of oil and use it to set some tires on fire. Show those little punks who's owns this place! Yeah, make fun of my age and see if you don't get a nuclear rod stuck up your butt, you little twerps...

What did I think? I'm going to hike part of the trail at the end of Dec.

Should you read it? Yes. Maybe it'll motivate you to get off your glowing butt and do something outside. I've done some hiking so I was amused with some of the things they admitted to doing. Even if the longest hike you've ever done was to your car I think you'd still enjoy the book.

Last year one of my coworkers lent me this book. I didn't have anything I really wanted to read and I respect the lender, so I took the book. I started reading it, got interrupted by life, then recently picked it back up and finished it.

Plot: This is a non-fiction book about the life of an English literature teacher living and teaching in Iran. She grew up before the Islamic Revolution and taught during and after the revolution. The story is about her life and the life of a few of her students during the revolution. The hardships and oppressions that they endured as women during these times. The fights between the academics and the politicians. Her decisions about teaching, conforming to the political decrees, and her eventual decision to move to America (the Land of the Free, or the Great Satan depending on who you believe - maybe the land of the Great Free Satan, I don't know).

I would pull some great quotes from the book, but I don't really feel like doing that right now. But they are there.

What I though: It was a really good book. Nafisi takes you to a world that you don't really ever want to go in reality, but you are curious about none-the-less. I think this book is a good way for us Americans to learn about a culture that we are going to bomb in the next year or so.

Boo!

Did I scare ya?

Get it...State of Fear...

OK, MC wrote another book. I was looking for an easy read, so I picked it up. I like his style of writing. The words are pretty small, so I understand everything. The ideas are usually well thought out and sources are documented. Its like a scientific report on a middle school reading level. Actually, its nothing like a scientific report. Its like a fiction book based on current science ideas (on a middle school reading level). And the middle school reading level is just what I was looking for.

Plot: Some rich guy gives some money to the good environmentalists to sue the EPA for a country that is sinking because of global warming caused by greenhouse gasses from America. The story takes adventures all around the globe from Antarctica to LA to some other places that I don't remember how to spell. Goes something like this: plane ride, crash and fall, blue ring octopus, more planes, no trains, but lots of automobiles, guns, cannibals and barking crocodiles. Oh yeah, there's a tsunami, but only the surfers notice.

Criton attacks the ideas that global warming is caused by people and that global warming is a bad thing. He gives lots of references to back up what he says. Sometimes it seems that every other page has a reference to a scientific essay that is on a much higher reading level than middle school (I looked at a few).

So where does the title come from? Read the book and find out. Or give me a cookie and maybe I'll tell you. I'm in the mood for crushed Oreo, like you find in a Blizzard or McFlurry.

What I thought: Hmmmm...maybe he's got a point. But maybe he could write just as persuasive a book from the point of view that global warming is an immediate threat to Earth. I agree with a lot of the political stuff he says about policy making and scientific research. I'm skeptical that his point of view on global warming and all that jazz is the only one documented in research.

For the record: I'm for global warming and abrupt climate change. I want the DC area to be warmer. I'm willing to turn Florida into a desert to achieve this. I'm also willing to allow massive flooding from ice melts. The Eastern Shore is expendable, as long as I have a chance of getting beach front property.

Should you read it? Yep. It'll make you feel better about all the polluting you're doing right now. Either that or you'll probably realize how much of a hypocrite you are for saying we should reduce carbon emission.

K.D.Weaver is the new preacher at my church. He wrote a book, which my father bought and I read. The Sophist is a philosophical book, so I have to at least give it a professional courtesy. This is not an easy book for me to review, because something I say might get back to the author.

The idea of the book is to critically examine and destroy the assumptions that you common people hold. It was written using a format that I forget what is called. One person makes a statement and the Sophist (the smart philosopher) tells that prole why they are wrong and stupid. Sometimes the original person make a rebuttal, but the Sophist shoots said person down. A few of the things talked about are desire, self and evolution.

What did I think? At first I wasn't impressed. Most discussions were a page or two long, so they didn't go into depth on any of the subjects. I also thought there were a lot of jumps of faith and perhaps a little bit of flawed logic. Most of my problems were when the Sophist said something like, "x isn't y, therefore it must be z." I didn't see why it had to be z and not xxx. Because I like xxx stuff.

Tonight I finished the book. I was planning to work out, but I got a real big headache. So I poured myself a nice screwdriver and picked up the book. As my cup emptied I found myself agreeing more and more with the Sophist. One of the things I agreed with was under the evolution heading, which I'm going to plagiarize right now:

Most people think that natural things come from animals, insects, plants, and whatever they produce. Anything artificial people regard as the by-product of human beings. But what is the basis for this distinction? Animals, insects, plants and humans all come from the same point of origin, whether a person calls that origin God, evolution, or mother nature. So why is the by-product of humans artificial while the by-product of animals, insects, and plants natural?

This thought hit dead on with a thought I had a while ago. My coworkers and I were debating cloning and DNA tinkering. I think designer babies and building people for spare parts came up in the arguments. I was on the side that cloning and DNA tinkering was OK, while everyone else in the argument was on the other side. The argument that they kept coming back to was that these things are unnatural and humans shouldn't play God. At the time I told them they were godless heathens because that's what I do when I can't think of anything else. However, as I thought about it I realized that people usually use the unnatural argument only when they are talking about humans. Pretty much if it is created by humans in recent times it is unnatural, and everything else is natural. Personally, I think this argument is stupid and people who use it are plebs.

Should you read it? If you are philosophically motivated it is a short and easy read. If you aren't a philosopher maybe you should just stick to watching TV. Either way, have a screwdriver, because vodka takes the edges off life.

neebs lent me a few books. Where There's Smoke by Ed McBain was one of them. I was in the mood for a short, easy read and this looked like that book. So I picked it up and two days later I'm writing this review.

Plot: There is a police detective that gets bored with work so he quits. He becomes a private eye (kinda) and looks for the perfect crime. He wants to find a crime that he can't solve. That is the only thing that will give him satisfaction. So he stumbles across a case that involves a woman who thinks she's Cleopatra and body stealing.

What I thought: It was written in 1975. It read like it was written in 1975. Boring. My least favorite part was the last chapter when the criminal confessed to everything during his first interrogation.

Should you read it? God, this book sucks...

neebs lent me this book when whe unloaded those Richard North Patterson books on me. I wanted to hurry up and read them all so I could give them back.

Plot: A really smart scientist makes a breakthrough in therepudic cloning, but a senator grandstands to pass a law making the procedure illegal. The two make a deal where the scientist will cure the senator of parkinsons if the senator doesn't let the bill become a law. Lots of shaddy deals are made and lots of people compromise on thier ethics (except the senator, who by definition has no ethics).

The plot is thickenes with the Shroud of Turin, mobsters, politics and medical stuff. All of this combined to make a decent subject matter.

What I thought: First off, the dialog just plain sucked. Two of the main characters have been living with each other for years, but when they talk it's like two strangers trading cooking recipies. Second off, the book used words that were too big for me. Ok, maybe that's more my fault, but I still didn't like it. Over all the book had a really great idea, but a poor implementation. Ialso didn't like the ending, because it was stupid. I think the author just got tired of writing one day and decided on a quick and easy way to end the story that didn't require any thought or effort on his part.

Should you read it? No, but send drmellow a copy for his birthday.

This is one of those books I got just because I kept seeing it. I think that is called good marketing. Anyway, I got it and started reading it last week. I started by reading the back cover where it said, "This is a remarkable novel about divine female power, a story that women will share and pass on to their daughters for years to come." After reading that I resisted the very strong urge to throw the book away by saying that I'd read the first few chapters and see how it works for me.

The story starts on a peach farm in North Carolina during the Civil Rights movement. A girl is living with her father (who is mean) and a black housekeeper. The mother is dead, because the girl accidentally killed her when she was real young. Something happens, the housekeeper gets arrested and beat up (because she's black), the girl spring the house keeper and runs away trying to find inner peace and more information about her mother. The two end up on a bee farm in South Carolina run by three black sisters. The girl learns about bees, racism, love, hate, and a little about her mother. Other stuff happens, then the book is over.

This book was great. I had a hard time putting it down. I might have even cried during part of it, but I'm not admitting to it if I did. This isn't my favorite book (Hearts in Atlantis by Steven King still holds that title), but it is in the top five-ish. All that crap on the back cover was stupid marketing. It was a story about a young girl growing up and learning about life. A well written story at that.

Usually when I'm reading a book I try to pull some quotes out for my review. I had a hard time with this book, because there was something I liked on just about every page (except page 142, that page sucked). I did pull three out:

The hardest thing on Earth is choosing what matters.

August is the leader of the three black sisters running the bee farm.

"There is nothing perfect," August said from the doorway. "There is only life."

People, in general, would rather die than forgive. It's that hard. If God said in plain language, "I'm giving you a choice, forgive or die," a lot of people would go ahead and order their coffin.

I was just kidding about page 142. It was just as good as the rest of the book, which was pretty freakin good.

Should you read this book? Yes. If you are illiterate then learn to read just so you can read this book. If you are blind and have no feelings then get someone to read it to you. If you are a guy then read the book, but go shoot or burn something afterwords to reaffirm your masculinity (but only if you really need to).

I finished reading a book a while ago. I'm just getting to the review right now.

The book is Rasputin: The Saint Who Sinned written by someone. It was about Rasputin. He was a saint. He sinned. Then he was stabbed, poisoned, shot and drowned. He sure was hard to kill, but they eventually got it done.

OK, enough of the fourth grade book report style. Rasputin was a Siberian 'holy man' who got introduced to the czar and czarina of Russia (the people in charge of the country). The czarina pretty much fell in love with Rasputin because he represented the plebeians and could heal her son when he was bleeding (the son suffered from hemophilia). But wait, Rasputin wasn't all good. He drank to excess, made women sleep with him for political favors, probably raped a few people, and manipulated the government for quasi-personal gain. He was around during the first world war and really screwed Russia over during that time.

Eventually enough people got annoyed at Rasputin and offed him. Then some other people offed the czar and his family. There was a lot of turmoil, then the commies eventually took over. Regan defeated them and now Putin just said that the Russian government is fired. I would think that an entire government getting fired would be something serious, but no one is getting all hot and bothered over it right now. I'm going to assume they know more about it than me.

The book was ok. It was a history book, but I enjoyed the subject. I kept reading about stuff the czar did and thought, "No one is that stupid". Then I remembered a bunch of his subjects eventually killed him and all his family because he let Russia fall into decadence.

Recommendation: If you want to know more about Russia under Nicholas' reign then the book is ok. I don't really have anything to compare it to, so I have to assume it is accurate. If you don't want to know about the religion and politics of Russia right before WW1, then you should probably avoid this book.

In celebration of writing this review in haiku style, I will use the haiku style to write this review. (*note: I'm not big on haikus, so there is a good chance that I messed something up. Feel free to not tell me about any mistakes.)

Neebs gave me this book
I read it after a while;
Now review haiku

Politician dies
Lawyer defends assassin;
This is book's first part

Rock star and lawyer
Deal with kidnapping and death;
In the second half

This is decent book
Good characters and good plot;
But no surprise end

Should you read it now?
While good, others are better;
I say yes and no

Monkeys with grenades
Attacking giant spiders;
Would make better book

I was told I had to read this book. So I started reading it. Then, when I was reading it, I was told it was a great book. Now I'm finished, so I write this review.

Plot: There is this guy named Owen Meany. He is special. Not Timmy special, more like Saint Francis of Ass. special. Owen starts out as a child and grows up. Some of you probably know that Timmy doesn't do much other than sit in a wheelchair while he is growing up. This is another difference between Owen and Timmy. Owen plays basketball, vandalizes churches and school, participates in the Vietnam War, and accidentally pees on the narrator's cousin (but Owen and the cousin eventually become good friends, as in doing each other friends). Owen also teaches the narrator a lot of good life lessons and brings him to faith.

Moral: Yes. Everything happens for a reason, God has a plan for everything and if you really love someone you'll be willing to maim them.

What did I think? I'm gonna get static for this, but I wasn't all that impressed. It was a long book, and the end was pretty predictable. I think it was predictable because the author told us how it would end halfway through the book. There were just a few details that needed to be filled in.

Should you read this? No. Watch TV instead. Or learn to speak French.

Two nights ago I finished reading One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia Marquez. By finished I mean I gave up because I was not enjoying it.

Plot: No, I don't think so. As best I could figure there is a town with people in it. Some of the people are grown-up some are children. Some of the people are dead, but they are lonely in death so they come back. I think? Who knows, who

cares? Not I.

What I thought: I thought it was the best story in creation. Which is why I gave up on it. Seriously, I thought it was confusing and boring with a slight bit of stupidity for spice. I should have known that I wouldn't have liked it when I sa

w that it was a selection from Oprah's book club. She's a twit for selecting that and I hope she gets indigestion.

Should you read it? I'm going to let neebs borrow it, because I'm wicked. Everyone else should avoid it.

A few months ago my father gave me The Confessions of Nat Turner to read. He gave me a warning, saying I might not like it, blah, blah, blah... Whenever people give me books they always warn me about them. Its not like you people are offering me rabid monkeys. I think I can handle myself against a few hundred pages of books.

Plot: Nat Turner was a slave back in the day. His owner decided that you actually can teach black people stuff, so he gave Nat an education. Nat became educated and religious through study of the Bible. Nat also became a skilled carpenter. Nat's owner decided he was going to help Nat learn more about capendering then free him. He told Nat his plans. Then times got hard and Nat got sold to someone who had no intentions of freeing him. After being a slave for a few more years Nat started a slave rebellion. He did a decent job with the rebellion until everyone in his 'army' got slaughtered or caught. When I say he did a decent job I mean that he killed a lot of white people in cold blood, which is what he set off to do.

What I thought: I liked the subject matter. The story was told from Nat's point of view as he sat in prison waiting to be hanged. He was telling the confession of his life to his lawyer. I didn't like the way the story was told. It was boring. Very drawn out and boring. I think I fell asleep a couple of times when I was trying to read it. Right now I'm happy that I finished it, because now I can read something new.

A note on lawyers: If you are on trial for killing people and you lawyer's opening remarks are that you are guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt and deserve to hang you might as well bend over and kiss your but goodbye.

BTW - Fell free to give me a monkey.

Earlier this week my mother gave me this book to read. My first thought: I don't really care all that much about that talk show guy. Different Morrie. Then my mother said something like, "Someone dies in the end, you'll like it." It was a small book, so I said I'd look it over.

Plot: Morrie dies in the end. That wasn't a spoiler. The extended plot is that Morrie is diagnosed with Lou Gehrig's disease. The author is an old student of Morrie. The two get back in touch and Morrie teaches the author about how to live a good life that you won't be ashamed of later on when you are dead. The subjects that are covered include: the world, feeling sorry for yourself, regrets, death, family, emotions, fear of aging, money, how love goes on, marriage, our culture, and forgiveness (I pretty much just copied the TOC).

What I thought: Yep, lots of good advice for how to live your life. I personally thought a lot of it was pretty obvious, but I think that might be because I have become one with existence.

While reading this there was one issue that really bothered me. The entire story was totally lacking in monkeys and gun fights. In this case it all worked out, but I think a lot of books could be improved by a gun toting monkey.

A quote:

"It's natural to die," he said again. "The fact that we make such a big hullabaloo over it is all because we don't see ourselves as part of nature. We think because we're human we're something above nature."

Yes, you guys would be at peace more with yourselves if you realized that you are one hundred percent part of nature and everything you do is one hundred percent natural. Including driving a car and surfing the internet.

Should you read it: It's like Life 101: The Obvious That Most Overlook. If you are at a trouble spot in your life or you are looking to start living more spiritually than physically then this might be a good book for you. Otherwise, just stick with the TV - you won't be bothered with thinking and you'll be easier to corral once I go into politics.

My friend let me borrow her book. It's a long title, so I'll just refer to it as the book. She was telling me about it, I asked to borrow it, I got it, I took a few months to read it and now I'm writing the review.

Plot: This is one of those self help books that doesn't really have a plot. What it does have is LOTS of GREAT info on relating to the other sex. That's gender, not kinky. There are chapters on what men and women want out of a relationship, how women and men act towards each other, what people hear when something is said, how to ask for support and lots of other great things.

What I thought: It was a great book for the information. It was a little boring for me at times (which is why it took a month), but definitely worth finishing. There were a lot of times when I was reading about how men act and I said, yep, that's it exactly. Reading about how men act and feel was a great way for me to remember that I'm ok for acting and feeling the way I do. Reading about how women act and feel was a great way to help me understand them.

I think this is a great book for anyone who wants to deal with anyone else. I think it would be especially good for people in trouble relationships, but I think everyone can learn something from it. I also think I've learned stuff that will help me with general relationships with people. It isn't specific to romantic relationships (although that's where the emphasis is).

Not only does the book have theoretical knowledge, but it also has exercises for getting to where you want to be. It tells you step-by-step what to do. This is good.

Should you read it? Yes, especially if you want to be able to communicate deeply with other people.

OK, there is one quote that I just have to pull out. This is a great book, but I felt obligated to quote this:

"Doing" is an excellent way to prime a man's love pump.

A while ago neebs dumped some books on me. Magical Thinking by Augusten Burroughs was one of them. When she gave me the stack she said this one was HILL-AIRious (or however she says it). Then she warned me that the author was gay. I didn't really care about the guy's sexuality, because I was reading his book, not trying to get a lunch break or anything else you could get on The Block in Baltimore for $20.

Plot: This guy did stuff in his life. The book is a lot of short stories about events that happened to Augusten. Each chapter is a separate event, starting in his childhood and moving up and through his adult life. I don't know if the events are fact or fiction, but I'm gonna guess that they are a little of both.

What I thought: I thought it was HILL-AIRious!!! There is some seriously funny stuff in this book. A lot of the humor is sarcasm, which I particularly enjoy. The book was an easy read, because of the way it was set up. The chapters were the correct length, so you could easily sit down, read a chapter then go set something on fire (or whatever it is you people do when not reading).

Here's me ripping off Augusten:

Perhaps my supernatural abilities come from my spiritual beliefs. I belive in the baby Jesus. And I believe he is handsome and lives in the sky with his pet cow. I believe that it is essential the cow like you. And if you pet the cow with your mind, it will lick you hand and give you cash. But if you make the cow angry, it will turn away from you, forget you exist, and your life will fall into shambles. I believe that as long as the cow likes you, you can get what you want.

Should you read it? Yes, this is a great book. Let me warn you that the guy is very openly gay. Some of the book deals with his sex life, so if you are squeamish about gay sex, then perhaps this book might put you on edge. If that is the case, you should get over it, because it really is a great book.

A little while ago darkangel451 suggested I read The Lovely Bones. I think she is pretty smart and has good taste so I picked it up. Then I read it, because that's what you're supposed to do with books. As opposed to burning them, which is what Nazis do. I've only burnt one book in my life, ergo I'm not a Nazi.

Back to the book (that didn't get burnt). Here's the plot: A young teenage girl is raped and murdered by some guy. She dies (usually that's how murders end) and her soul goes to Heaven. The rest of the book is written in the first person from her perceptive looking back down Earth. Actually, all of the book is written that way. She looks down on her family and friends and sees how they (fail to) cope with her murder. Some other stuff happens at the end of the book, but I'm not going to tell you what it is.

How did I like it? I thought a lot of it was really depressing. You're sitting there reading about how a family is trying to deal with the murder of their child and sister. I now think that darkangel451 is a sick and twisted individual. It was a good story and a decent read. I pulled out a quote for proof that I actually read it instead of just pretending to.

And as Flora twirled, other girls and women came through the field in all directions. Our heartache poured into one another like water from cup to cup. Each time I told my story, I lost a bit, the smallest drop of pain. It was that day that I knew I wanted to tell the story to my family. Because horror on the Earth is real and it is every day. It is like a flower of like the sun, it cannot be contained.

Doesn't that just cheer ya up?

Should you read it? Only if you want to cry for the sins of the world and the pain people give to each other like little presents of lit dynamite. But it was a pretty good read.

The cover of the book has a picture of a naked black kid and a tiger laying in a row boat. There are sharks and turtles and other fish swimming in the water around them. There is definitely a story behind this picture. And it was a good story. We'll just forgive the author of being born to Canadian parents. It wasn't his fault, but he really shouldn't advertise the fact on the back of the book.

Here's the plot: Pi (the name of that naked kid) ends up being a teenager from India. His father runs a zoo there. Politics suck so the father decides to sell the animals and move to Canada (first mistake). The family get on a cargo ship with some of the animals. The ship sinks (second mistake) and everyone dies (final mistake). Everyone except Pi, a zebra, one of them orange monkeys, a hyena and a big old tiger. That group escapes the ship wreck by crowding into a life boat. Yep, Pi is screwed.

Most of the story is about how being stranded on a life boat in the middle of the Pacific with a full grown tiger really sucks. Man does it suck. If you are ever in a shipwreck and you see a full size tiger swimming around don't throw a life line to it. That's what Pi did. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Eventually Pi hits Mexico and gets better. The end, close the book, write a review.

It was a great story. What made it even better was the end. It is one of those ends where you sit there and say, "What just happened?" and you are compelled to read the book again, but from a different perspective. I don't want to give any surprises away so I'm not going to say much more about this.

Should you read it? Yes, then come talk to neebs and me about it. We don't really agree with what really happened in the book, but we respect each other's beliefs. We just want more input on the subject (unless you agree with her, then shut your pie hole).

A while ago chris025 lent me Sideways. I started it, but quickly lost interest. So a few days ago I gave up on Sideways and picked up The Last Juror because I knew Grisham would be good enough.

Plot: Long haired liberal hippie William becomes Willie when he moves down south and buys the small local newspaper. He isn't really a liberal hippie per say, but to the south he's one of them damned yankees. Its the 1970s and everything is segregated openly (as opposed to now, where its done without mention). Right after Willie buys the newspaper someone is brutally murdered, which really boosts the sales of the paper. There is a trial that's a big to-do. 10 years later people who served on the jury started getting killed. Blah, blah, blah... The end.

What I thought: Enh. It was ok, but not a masterpiece. Not really one of Grisham's bests. But it was good enough that I read it all the way through.

Should you read it? Enh.

Last night I finished reading The Last Jihad by Joel C. Rosenberg. A while ago one of my coworkers was talking about it. I was reading something else so I ignored him. Then earlier this week neebs threw the book at me and told me that I HAD to read it. Since I am currently procrastinating on programing sounds I decided this was perfect.

The basic plot is this. Oil is found in Israel/Palestine. Iraq wants to destroy Israel. Some fighting breaks out, terrorists attack the western alliance countries, yadda yadda yadda. Israel gives the US an ultimatum: nuke Baghdad within an hour or they will. More stuff happens, people are betrayed, ordinary people become heroes and the book ends.

While I was reading it I asked my coworker what he thought about it. He said it seemed interesting, but he couldn't read it because Saddam played a role as the ultimate evil person. Whenever Saddam was mentioned my coworker always got the mental picture of him with bushy hair being checked for lice after he got captured. That kinda took away from the powerful and evil person the book needed. Hearing this made me involuntarily come up with my own mental image. "Relax guy, its not real." from South Park. Regardless, I was still able to finish the book without laughing.

There was one part of the book where the President and some cabinet members were debating using nukes. One side of the argument was that America should use nukes to protect itself and its allies (Israel in this case). The other side of the argument was that America should never use nukes, because nukes are kinda bad in a pretty serious way. This got me thinking a little and I asked the book a few questions. Is self preservation an ok reason to kill people? Is it ok to kill innocent people (if there are any on the planet) in order to protect other innocent people from a threat that is extremely likely but isn't for certain? Is it still just survival of the strongest? Should a country be willing/obligated to make sacrifices for the benefit of the planet? If so, how much of a sacrifice?

After I asked these questions plus a few more the book just sat there and did nothing. I then realized that I was talking to an inanimate object (again) and went to sleep.

Conclusion: I enjoyed the book. It didn't grip me like the recent Dan Brown book's I read, but it was still a good read and worth the time. Should you read it? I don't see why not. At the least it will get you to stop watching TV, which is really a bad habit in itself.

The subtitle for the book is: The Gospel According to Biff, Christ's Childhood Pal. That's a lot of stuff to write in the title of an entry...

drmellow lent me this book and told me it was a good read, so I should read it. Usually I don't get into religious books that my brother enjoys, but this one seemed blasphemous enough to keep me entertained.

Plot: This mainly deals with the story of Christ growing up from the eyes of Biff. Biff is a guy the same age who is kinda a reality check for Christ. Mainly the book goes over the thirty years between being born and being the Messiah. A lot of the story is about Christ visiting the three wise men who came when he was born. He learns different things from the different wise men. Actually, it is a book about different religions and what Christ was able to learn (good/bad) from each of them. I'm not sure what the first religion was (maybe Confusism). The other religions were Buddhism and Hinduism. After learning about the different religions, Christ and Biff go home and Christ is killed.

What I thought: Hilarious book. I thought it had some decent things to say about religion in general and the different religions it talked about. There wasn't anything really deep, but it was somewhat educated. Definitely funny, especially if you enjoy blasphemy.

Here's some plagiarism:

Biff and Josh (Jesus) are talking to a boat captain about sex, because Josh is curious and Biff is having a hard time explaining it.

Titus was laughing. "You Jews and your sin. You know if you had more gods you wouldn't have to be so worried about making one angry?"
"Right", I said, "I'm going to take spiritual advice for a guy who fucks turtles."

Here Joshua is talking to Biff about reaching enlightenment.

Joshua looked at me as if I'd just awakened him from a nap. "All the time we spend meditation, what are you really doing, Biff?"
"I'm meditation--sometimes--listening to the sound of the universe and stuff."
"But mostly you're just sitting there."
"I've learned to sleep with my eyes open.
""That won't help your enlightenment."
"Look, when I get to nirvana I want to be well rested."
"Don't spend a lot of time worrying about it."

Should you read it? Yes, unless you are really conservative and religious. Then you should just be reading the Bible. And quit reading my journal.

The Kite Runner had a lot of good advertising a few months ago. So it was natural that I picked up on it and decided to read it. So instead of buying a copy I got yarbiedoll to lend me her copy.

Plot: The main character grows up in Afghanistan before the Russians attack. He is a spineless little rich boy. He has a lower caste friend that always sticks up for him, but he doesn't return the favor. They both grow up, but grow apart (because of the main character). Then the main character flees to America where he grows up some more. He gets a phone call that tells him he has to come back to Afghanistan to make things right.

What I thought: Great book. It was neat to read about the changes in Afghanistan over the years. before the Russians and through to the Taliban. It was also a real good book about the personal struggles that the characters had to go through. Very well written to. I had to check to see if it was fiction or real life, that's how well written it was.

Should you read it? Yep. It had some not pleasant subject matters. Deal with it. The book was worth it.

There is an old professor who says something that is taken the wrong way. He is accused of being racist and kinda forced to retire. His wife dies and he has an affair and some other stuff happen (including, but not limited to murder and ice fishing). A local author befriends the professor and discovers something incredible. He then writes a book about the professor's life.

The Human Stain is about the writing of The Human Stain. I like that. I like that a lot. The story about the professor was an interesting idea that I had never thought about before and I also liked it.

This book has some really great story telling. One of the characters was a Vietnam Vet. The stories about what he went through during the war and dealing with everything once he got back was amazing. Philip Roth did an extraordinary job developing the characters into real people who you understood and cared for.

On the other hand, the book is a little wordy. A good editor would have been nice. Actually, it would have been nice if there was a strong sudden wind when he was taking the manuscript to the publisher. A wind strong enough to take out about seventy pages here and there. When I was reading parts near the end I was reminded of something Samuel Beckett once said. Every word is like an unnecessary stain on silence and nothingness. I don't think that is something I should be agreeing with when I'm reading a book.

I hear they made a movie based on the book. I think they are stupid to try. There was a lot about the book that doesn't translate to a screen.

Should you read it? Yes. It was worth it, but don't feel bad about skimming parts.

A little while ago someone told me to read The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy It was probably my brother, but who knows.

I bought a paperback version that included all five novels of the trilogy. It also included a 'bonus story'.

Plot: Earth is destroyed but a guy named Arthur Dent escapes by the alien Ford Perfect. They travel the universe and get into lots of interesting situations.

What I thought: The first book was really neat. After that it kinda got silly and boring. I gave up on the last novel. It just felt that the overall story wasn't very connected.

Should you read it? Maybe read the first one, then give up after that. It just isn't worth it.

Special note: if you work in the IT field then you might want to read parts of it so you can understand what all your dorky coworkers are talking about.

A few years ago my father rented the movie Hart's War. I had never heard of it, but it ended up being a real good story. A little while ago I found the book at a yard sale. I didn't know it was a book first, so I was excited when I first got it. I promptly put the book in a stack of 'to read' and forgot all about it. A week or two ago I found it and now I've read it.

Plot: It takes place in a German POW camp during WWII. The German's owned the camp, the allies were the POWs. Since the P in POW stands for prisoner the allies generally wanted to be ex-POWs by escaping. Since the German's are Nazis they do not want to let the POWs become ex-POWs. Anyway, a black American gets captured and put into the camp (as a POW). Some of the white people (everyone else in the entire camp) do not take to kindly to having to share space with a black person, so there is lots of tension. One night a cracker gets shanked and the black guy is charged with murder. Hart becomes the lawyer for the black guy. The trial is a sham, with Germans and Americans trying to screw the black guy over. But other Germans and Americans try to help the black guy out. Eventually the truth is revealed and the Americans who survive go home and die there (instead of Germany)

What I thought: Really good movie, really good book. Two similar stories, but different enough.

Here are some quotes, because that's what jesabaseeba did in her last review and I want to be just like her.

Sometimes I think we live in a world so obsessively devoted to looking forward that it frequently forgets to take the time to look back. But some of our best stories reside in our wake, and, I suspect, no matter how harsh these stories are, they help tell us much about where we are heading.

Should you read it? Yes.

There is a big sticker on the cover of this book. It was in the Oprah's Book Club. So, for some reason that I can't comprehend now I bought it. Then it sat on my bookshelf for a few months without getting read. Probably because the last Oprah book I read was One Hundred Years of Solitude by some twit who deserves to spend a hundred years in solitude for writing that crap. But enough of that, I'm reviewing this.

Plot: There is a farmer in China before the revolution. He is dirt poor, because he is a farmer and that's how farmers are. But he owns some land, because that's what farmers own. The story starts off with the farmer going into the town and buying a slave/wife. Actually, I think his father bought her for him, but I forget now. The rest of the book is about the farmer starting a family, almost starving, building a family, buying another wife and getting rich and becoming a respectable member of society (as opposed to being a farmer).

What I thought: It was a good read. You got to see how the farmer changed his ways and his outlook on life as he got some money. One thing that annoyed me about the farmer was the way he treated his first wife. She wasn't that smart or pretty, but she was an incredible person. She bore him a few children and would go back to help in the fields the same day that the children were delivered, which she did by herself. She also played a huge role in the farmer getting rich. So what did the farmer do? As soon as he got some money he bought a pretty wife. To make matters worse, one of the slaves he bought with the wife was one of the slave overseers or something like that from the house the wife was originally from. That first wife was none to happy about that, but she dealt with it, because that's what women do in this story.

Should you read it? Ehh, it was ok. Not a great read, but not stupid either. I enjoyed it, but I think part of the reason is because I'm a generation from the farm. There wasn't much action...hold on a second...I think this was one of those books that you are supposed to learn a lesson from. Here's the lesson: farming = poverty.

Last night around 10 I decided to go to bed. I wasn't really tired so I figured I'd read a little bit of a new book. The Five People You Meet In Heaven was next in the stack so I picked it up. I put it down when I finished it around 1:45am.

Plot: The guy dies and goes to Heaven. Surprisingly, he meets five people. The all beat the crap out of him. Just kidding, they don't beat him up. Seriously, what type of demented person would think of writing a book like that? What they do is tell him how his life and their lives interacted. They also each teach him a lesson about life (maybe a tad bit late for that?).

This was a nice and touching story. The overall plot is that no one lives a pointless life. Everyone is connected is ways that we can't see and don't understand. Its an old idea, but I like it. It was good to be reminded of the idea with a nice story like this.

Here are some quotes, to make it look like I've written a longer review.

"You have peace," the old woman said, "when you make it with yourself."

OK, I really believe this is true. Everyone struggles for inner peace, but lots of people (maybe most of us) seek it using external means. Kinda silly when you think about it. Make peace with yourself and you will be able to make peace with the rest of the world. Actually, it will come automatically, you won't have to do anything else. This is good news for us lazy people.

She smiled. "Do you think we had that?" Eddie didn't know how to answer. "We had an accordion player," he said.

Eddie was the guy who died. From his answer here it would seem that he wasn't the smartest person around. But that is ok, because they had an accordion player.

Should you read it? Yes. It was short and good. Plus I'm a book slut, so I only rarely say don't read something.

My dad lent me this book. I thought it would be interesting to read because one of my coworkers is a speeding ticket or two away from living in a shack and writing a manifesto about why the federal government sucks. We've had many discussions about the government and taxes. The discussions usually are him complaining about how the people don't have any freedoms now and that we are living under an oppressive government. While I agree with a lot of the stuff he says I like to be a twit and argue with him.

Plot: The government sucks. Income taxes suck. We should get rid of income taxes and have a flat tax on retail sales of goods and services.

Actually, this book is a way to explain the proposal that Linder put in front of Congress. I think he is using the book to get support for his legislation.

What I thought (evil side): I'm against changing the system. The system is too confusing for anyone to understand. I can use that for my own personal gain.

What I thought (good side): I would prefer a sales tax over income tax. I also think that the tax system needs to be simple enough that any high school graduate could understand it in its entirety.

www.fairtax.org

It was a pleasure to burn.

That was the first sentence of the book. Hell yeah, this is definitely my type of book! I don't remember why I got this book, but I got it, lent it out, pushed it aside, then finally read it. Now I want to go set some stuff on fire.

Plot: Firemen don't put out fires, they start them. They burn books, because books suck when compared to fires. I would so be a fireman if they went around setting fires in real life. Heck, I've considered being an arsonist as a hobby. Back to the book. There is this guy, Guy, who is a fireman. He runs into this teenage girl and gets corrupted (because that's what teenage girls do to married men). Then he goes against the censorship of the system and gets in trouble with society. I'll pull a quote from the book to sum up the moral of the story: Burn all, burn everything. Fire is bright and fire is clean. Maybe that isn't a moral, but I think it could be a life motto.

What I thought: Guy had the perfect life. He had a house, a wife and his job was going around setting stuff on fire. Then he had to expand his mind, which always gets people in trouble. He should have stayed where he was, setting things on fire. Did I mention that fire played an big role in this book. Needless to say, I loved this book. I like explosions and all, but NOTHING beats a nice big house fire that erupts for 20 or 30 minutes before the structure collapses into a smoldering ruin. God, I'm getting all hot and bothered just thinking about it.

Should you read it? Yes, and then to celebrate take the book outside and set it on fire.

Side note: this is a book dealing with the difficult subject of censorship. Try not to focus on that part or you will end up unhappy and a bum like Guy.

Yes, I read another Dan Brown book. He is the guy that brought us hits like Angels & Demons. And who could forget The Da Vince Code?

This time the place is America (where it should be). Fort Meade to be exact. drmellow once said that Ft. Meade is where the army makes all its ale or beer (can't remember which he said). They also do other minor things there, like house the NSA. A lot of this story takes place in NSA headquarters.

One thing I didn't like about the book was that it mocked me. I would read a chapter and say, "Wow, I just figured all this out." Then the next chapter would say exactly what I figured out. After a few times I got to thinking that maybe I wasn't brilliant after all. Perhaps Mr. Brown was having his way with my mental facilities. I don't like being toyed with like that.

One passage near the end really striked me. It doesn't have anything to do with the plot, so I'll talk about it here.

The stairs were steep; tourists had died here. This was not America - no safety signs, no handrails, no insurance disclaimers. This was Spain. If you were stupid enough to fall, it was your own damn fault, regardless of who built the stairs.

OK, so maybe part of the story didn't take place in America. Anyway, I liked this passage because I agree with it. Americans are lazy and stupid. They do something idiotic, then sue someone because they got hurt. There was a movie a while ago where some of the characters laid down in traffic. Some kids imitated it and got killed. Now I'm not happy that the kids died, but I am happy that they aren't going to breed. The parents immediately sued the movie people, because there was money to be had. If I do something stupid like that (entirely possible) I hope no one gets sued or blamed. I want my survivors to chuckle and cremate me (assuming there is a body left to burn). People have to take responsibility for their actions. Just like when I was working on some hardware and one of my coworkers came over and started asking stupid questions and bothering me. I smirked and suggested that he lick the circuits. He was smart enough not to do that, so he lived. If anyone is stupid enough to do what I tell them to do while smirking, well...

I enjoyed the book. But I got off on the technical stuff as well as the mystery/suspense. Should you read it? I really don't care either way, but I will let you borrow my copy.

This is the fourth Dan Brown book I've read. Here's the plot: NASA makes a discovery that will change everything. I mean EVERYTHING. This is good news for NASA, because the've been messing things up recently. It is also good news for the sitting President, because he keeps bailing NASA out when they mess up. It is an election year and the President is getting hammered in the polls (because of NASA). So the president sends some people to check up on the discovery. One of the people is a 'young' NRO agent who also happens to be the President's rival's daughter (but it's ok, because she doen't like her father). Another person the president sends to the discovery site is a homicidal oceanographer who hosts an incredibly popular TV show about science.

Obviously this is a fiction book. I think it is kinda a stretch for Mr Brown to think we would be able to comprehend a world where a science show is incredibly popular with the plebes common people.

There were cool things in this book. Space rocks, nuclear subs, sharks, Delta-Force assassins, politics, and scandal. Part of it took place in that Arctic circle, which is just plain cool. Haha, get it? Just plain cool.

Among other issues, this book brought up a subject I think about a lot. The privatization of space. Right now government agencies pretty much own space. This book says that NASA is able to keep its monopoly on space by running at a loss. They can launch commercial satellites at a loss and keep commercial launchers out of business. Before reading this book I was leaning towards the thought that space should be privatized and NASA should be dismantled. I felt this way, because I thought private industry would be able to develop space a lot more efficiently than NASA. I personally would be able to go to one of the private businesses and make a killing. After reading the book I've changed my mind. People in general are too greedy and incompetent to make the right decisions. One scenario that book brought out was the idea of someone strip mining an asteroid. In order to cut costs, the asteroid's flight path would be changed so it would pass close to Earth. A mistake on that scale could mean extinction. I don't want to be extinct just yet and I trust companies less than the government (which I don't trust).

Should you read it? I enjoyed it. However, I'm starting to find Dan Brown books to be somewhat the same form. The details change, but the books follow the same structure. It is almost like his books are from the same Mad Libs.

Last night I finished The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown. This is a murder mystery with lots of religious stuff. It is a great book and I recommend it to anyone. It pulls you in from the first chapter and captivates you through the entire story. The addiction level is right up there with live journal. I finished the 450 page book in about 5 days, which is quick for me.

I finished reading Catch-22 last night. This is an anti-war book set near Italy during WWII. The plot follows the adventures of a squadron of bomber crews with focus on one guy, Yossarian. He doesn't want to fly any more missions, mainly because the Germans shoot back at him. Getting shot sometimes entails getting killed, which Yossarian doesn't really want to do. So Yossarian spends time pretending to be sick and just pain out openly refusing to fly missions. It doesn't help that the squadron commander keeps increasing the number of missions a person has to fly before being able to go back to the states.

All in all this book was a hard read. It was hard because for the most part it was pretty boring. There were some really good parts that were hilarious, but these weren't as often as I would have liked. They were just enough to make me keep reading the book when I usually would have moved on. Here is one of the parts that I really liked. Yossarian is in a hospital, imitating another patient because he wants to get sent back home.

The soldier who saw everything twice nodded weakly and sank back on his bed. Yossarian nodded weakly too, eyeing his talented roommate with great humility and admiration. He knew he was in the presence of a master. His talented roommate was obviously a person to be studied and emulated. During that night, his talented roommate died, and Yossarian decided that he had followed him far enough.

The end to this book was really good. The last two chapters were philosophical and interesting to read. I'm not sure if they were worth reading the entire book, but they definitely made me less annoyed at having spent so much time on it. One part really caught my attention, because I've had conversations with a few of my friends where this general idea has come up. Yossarian is in the hospital (for real reasons) and he is trying to decide what to do when he gets out. He can make a deal with his superior officers and go home, face a court marshal, stay and fly more missions or try to run away. Yossarian is speaking,

"The chaplain can jump in a lake."
"Oh, dear." Major Danby sighed, shaking his head in regretful disappointment. "He's afraid he might have influenced you."
"He didn't influence me. You know what I might do? I might stay right here in this hospital bed and vegetate. I could vegetate very comfortably right here and let other people make the decisions."
"You must make decisions," Major Danby disagreed. "A person can't live like a vegetable."
"Why not?"
A distant warm look entered Major Danby's eyes. "It must be nice to live like a vegetable," he conceded wistfully.
"It's lousy," answered Yossarian.
"No, it must be very pleasant to be free from all this doubt and pressure," insisted Major Danby. "I think I'd like to live like a vegetable and make no important decisions."
"What kind of vegetable, Danby?"
"A cucumber or a carrot."
"What kind of cucumber? A good one or a bad one?"
"Oh, a good one, of course."
"They'd cut you off in your prime and slice you up for a salad."
Major Danby's face fell. "A poor one, then."
"They'd let you rot and use you for fertilizer to help the good ones grow."
"I guess I don't want to live like a vegetable, then," said Major Danby with a smile of sad resignation.

I thought this exchange was good and reassuring. There have been lots of times in my life where I didn't want to make hard decisions. I just wanted someone to tell me exactly what to do. This reaffirms my belief that deep down I don't really want anyone telling me what to do. I have to make my own decisions and live with the consequences. Right now is not one of the time when I want someone to tell me what to do (I'm talking about employment here). I know that if someone else made this decision they would at best make it by thinking about what they think is best for me. Since they aren't me they won't have to deal with the consequences, ergo they should not be the one making the decision.

So, the real question: should you read this book? No, it wasn't worth it. Instead you should read Hearts in Atlantis by Stephen King. That is my favorite book, but I don't know anyone else who has read it.

The next book I plan to read is The DaVinci Code. One of my co-workers read it and told me I would like it (a few times he told me this). Then when neebs moved in she told me I should read the book. So I got her copy and now I plan to read it.

Tonight I decided to give up on Bush Unplugged by Marc Umile. It's a book that a coworker suggested to me, because he knows I'm a bleeding heart liberal and have lost all respect for President Bush.

Here's the plot: This book is another character attack on the sitting President. The attack includes the Bush family, friends, and cohorts. It starts in the oil fields of Texas and ends somewhere I suppose. I think the goal of the book was to show a pattern in Bush's poor leadership technique.

What did I think? I was annoyed at Mr. Umile. The book was too personal for him. He made 'threats' to expose more information if anything happened to him or his family. He used name calling. It just read like he was too mad with the subject matter to make a decent argument, which is a shame, because I think a decent argument is there. The biggest complaint I had with the book was when he called Bush a 'chickenshit'. I have no respect for George Bush right now, but I do respect the office he holds. I found the language to be offensive and uncalled for.

Should you read it? No, don't even recommend it to your enemies. Slap anyone who recommends it to you and burn all copies that are given to you.

I'm a fan of JG. I like his stuff. It's usually interesting and well thought out. So I grabbed this book and put it on the shelf for when I wanted an easy but interesting book.

Plot: There is a power broker that goes to jail. He gets pardoned, but some people want to kill him. So the government sets him up to live in Italy. They help him get established with his new identity and fitting in.

What I thought: If I wanted to learn how to read Italian I would take a class. There was way too much speaking in Italian with the translation following. Damn it, I'm an American and I don't appreciate other languages.

Other than that gripe, I thought the book was boring. The plot was thin, the characters were stupid and in general it wasn't a good book. I'm no longer a JG fan. Maybe I'm just getting bored with his stuff because it's all the same. That isn't it. His stuff is going down hill.

Should you read it? Nope. When I finally finished it I actually said out loud, "Well, that really sucked."

Last night I finished reading Brave New World. This is an intellectual book, so you're not gonna get the usual review from me. The major thing I picked up on in the book was its discussion on society. In the book the present society is one where the people are grown in test tubes and conditioned for a certain type of work as a child. There is a definite caste system where lots of dim manual laborers are created and only a few intellectuals are created to guide society. Growing up the people are conditioned into liking and disliking certain things (like flowers and books). This makes them happy in life when they get a job according to their caste. The lower caste groups are heavily conditioned so that their life is more predictable.

Half way through the book one of the intellectuals takes a holiday to the uncivilized world and finds a boy that had been born of civilized parents (as opposed to the uncivilized Indians). The boy had lived his entire life with the Indians and had only heard stories from his mother about the civilized world. The intellectual brought the boy back to the civilized society. Long story short is that it didn't work out well and a few people got banished, and a few other people died.

The first part of the book didn't really provoke much thought for me. It seemed that the conditioning was a lot more intentional than what we do now, but a lot of current society is conditioning for what that society as a group holds valuable. I kinda think a society has to do that in order to survive (the society, not the individuals). In the book the conditioning was brain washing (repeated messages telling how to act, but giving no reason for why). The difference between education and brain washing is not easy to pin point or define. The basics of my education and knowledge are built on things that I have to assume and were figuratively beat into my skull at an early age.

I definitely see mass information (except maybe the internet) as a way for a relatively small group of people to control the general public. I think TV, newspapers, books, and radio are all easy ways to shape the way people think and act. I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing. Most technology requires compromises. For TV you get a lot of people informed, but the compromise is that only a few people get to decide what is told. Good or bad, I don't care. I just see that as the way things are right now.

Near the end of the book the boy has a conversation with one of the few world controllers. The current civilized society is rather placid. Everyone is happy most of the time. Everyone has a place in society, and everyone is conditioned to want to be in that place. There is no jealousy because most people are born with lots of identical twins (like 50 or more) and everyone is sleeping with everyone else. There is also this great drug, so if you do start to feel a little down you can take a 'holiday' and everything will be better when you sober up (no hang-over). The society has been designed so there is no inner turmoil.

The down side to the current society is that there are no emotional peaks. There is no frustration, lust, love, hatred, nothing. There is also no art, religion, real science or anything that will bring out emotional peaks. The people are happy, but they don't experience the thrills of ecstasy or the horrors of...being horrified (I don't know....)

A year or two ago I was talking to someone about the rapper Eminem. Most of his work revolves around anger and hatred and decadence. My friend and I decided that it must have sucked for Eminem growing up and he had to put up with a lot of unpleasant stuff. But it made for some really good (emotional) music. The pain is evident in the passion of the art.

Anyway, I got thinking about what type of society I would want to live in. Would I be willing to sacrifice religion in order to end war? Or cure all diseases at the cost of having a family? When I was thinking about these things I was really torn, like there were two people debating (maybe my left brain against my right brain). I couldn't decide on individual choices. So I decided to think what type of society I would like to live in. Right now I think I would rather live in the civilized society of the book than the real society of the present. I would give up music, religion, privacy and my quest for knowledge in order to always be happy and have inner peace. Plus that drug (soma) sounds pretty nice.

[note: I just wrote a lot of other stuff, but it was rather personal and I don't want to share right now. I'll end this entry here. Oh wait, forgot something...]

Should you read this book? Yes, unless you are already happy with everything. If that is the case, go on doing exactly what you're already doing.

The idea of the book was pretty much the same thing as The Da Vinci Code. Perhaps Jesus was married and had at least one child. Perhaps Jesus didn't die on the cross. Perhaps Marry Magdalen, his wife, escaped to France with thier children. Perhaps the family tree is the Holy Grail. Perhaps pigs will fly out of my rear-end and enslave the human race.

Ok, the last perhaps wasn't explicitly stated in the book, but you can kinda imply it. If you are stoned and watching a TV show about my rear-end.

What did I think. It's a nice twist to the whole Christian mythology. Some of it makes more sense to me as sounding more rational than the popular myth of Jesus. Some of it took away from the mythology. An underlying theme of the book attacked the Catholic church, which I think is a good thing.

There was one idea in the book that did not sit well with me. I felt spiritually sickened when I read this idea. France? Come on, that doesn't just border on blashpamy. If the authors of this book end up going to hell, then I hope its for saying that Jesus' possible offspring would have anything to do with France or the French (unless it was to condemn those heathens).

Should you read it? No, because rational thinking is the path to hell. All who readeth of this book shall burn in eternal flames. Just kidding, if blasphemy and heresy is your cup of tea, then you might like this book.

The Bhagavad Gita is a set of scriptures in the Hindu spiritual texts. I don't know much about Hinduism or the scriptures of the religion, so don't assume what I say is correct, but feel free to enlighten me on any mistakes.

India is in the middle of a civil war. A greedy and wicked family is trying to take control of India, while Arjuna and his family are trying to stop them. I think each family was supposed to rule half of India, but one family decided it wanted to rule all of India. The two families and their supporters meet on the battle field. Before any fighting is started Arjuna (a warrior from the 'good' family) has Krishna, his charioteer (who also happens to be God) drive him out in the middle of the battle field so he can look at his enemies. Arjuna doesn't want to fight. He knows a lot of the people in the other army and he doesn't want to kill them. He tells Krishna this and time stops for everything except Arjuna and Krishna. The two of them have a conversation, which is the Gita.

Here is what I got out of my reading. There is a single God that is the life and death of all things. People are in a constant state of birth and death. To break this cycle a person should become one with God. That way when the person dies their self reunites with God instead of being reborn. One way to become one with God is to meditate and abandon all desires. A person should perform actions, but not be concerned with the results.

That was the main gist I got out of it. I'm trying to keep the journal entry short(ish), so I'm not going to go into depth on the subject. I'm sure there was a lot that went over my head.

Should you read it? If you are spiritually inclined then I think you should. Even if you don't agree with what is said it is good to see another point of view and gain a little more insight into other religions. If you aren't spiritually inclined then go watch TV.

A little while ago neebs lent me a few books. One of them was Balance of Power by Richard North Patterson. Another one was Private Screening by the same liberal yankee author. I didn't notice it was the same author until I started reading Balance. The main character, or protagonist as a literate liberal yankee might call it, had the same last name as someone who got shot and died in Screening. Turns out they were brothers. So now I find myself involved in not just some single novels. I've gotten myself caught up in a series. I like them, if the stories are good and the author is literate. But not too literate (like that Tom Clancey fellow became - he needs a good editor in the ownership of multiple red pens).

Plot: The POTUS wants to ban cop killer pistols and assault pistols. The NRA (called the SSA in the book) wants every American to own an arsenal. Some people close to the POTUS get shot so the POTUS goes on a warpath against the NRA and the gun manufacturer. There are two basic stories going on. One is a political battle in the Senate, the other is a lawsuit. Both are going on parallel. You'll have to read the book to see how they work out.

The book is about gun control. The author says in an afterwards that he has strong feelings for gun control. The book reflects this view. It is propaganda against the NRA and for strict gun control.

What I thought: This was a GREAT book. It was much better than Private Screening. I plan to check out some of the other books that Patterson guy. On the gun control issue I agree with Patterson. I've gotten in a few arguments with people at my old job because I see no problem with banning certain types of guns and bullets. Looks like I'm a liberal. Who would've thought it?

Should you read it? Yep.

Short review:

Good book. Go read it.

Long review:

This book is about a plot to mess up the Catholic Church. It revolves around the science/religion conflict. Dan Brown is also the author of The Da Vinci Code, which is another great book. Go read that one, but read this one first. Here is a warning: both books are addictive, so make sure you'll have enough time to finish reading them.

Erik was bothering me about reading this book. Actually, we went to a book store the other day and he practically wet himself telling me about this incredible book and blah blah blah... So I bought the book, because I figured that was the easiest way to shut him up andkeep him from embarassing himself and me in the process.

Plot: The author's parents die. He has to take care of his much younger brother (about 10 - 15 year difference). The book is about how the author deals with the loss of his parents, taking care of his brother, and life in general.

What I though: This is a really good book. A lot of it is hilarious and there is enough self examination to make it work as a serious book.

Here's a quote about him nurtuing his younger brother after a baseball game:

As we hit our street, Spruce, and the ground flattens out, I inquire, as gently as I possibly can, about his hitting, or lack thereof.
"So, why do you suck so much at hitting?"
"I don't know."
"Maybe you need a lighter bat."
"You think?"
"Yeah, maybe we'll get a new bat."
"Can we?"
"Yeah, we'll look for a new bat or something."
Then I push him into a bush.

There are a few other quotes I was going to pull out. Orgies, children trying to kill each other and some of that self examination I was talking about earlier. If you want to read those quotes you should get the book and read it. Plus, you'll get a nice picture of a stapler at no extra cost.

Should you read it? Yes, it will make you a beter person. And you'll understand the bit about the stapler.