In one version of my future, I attend graduate school so I can get a PhD in Philosophy, focusing on biomedical ethics. I find the topic endlessly fascinating, and full of such interesting and open-ended questions. So I can’t believe that I waited this long to read this book. I’d really like to dive into the subject matter of the book, so if you’re planning on reading it and want to avoid all manner of spoilers, here’s my one sentence review: it’s good, it grapples with interesting issues, and the version on Audible is probably the first time I’ve really enjoyed a novel as an audiobook. Also – don’t watch the movie version (which I’ve been doing while writing this review). It’s just so different, and the choices they make really take away from the story the book is trying to tell.

The basic premise of the book is that Anna is seeking medical emancipation from her parents, who want her to give a kidney to her dying sister Kate. Anna is 13, Kate is 16, and their older brother Jesse is 18. Anna was conceived as a genetic match for Kate after Kate was diagnosed with leukemia at age 2. The book is told in alternating chapters from many characters perspectives: Sara, the mother; Brian, the father; Anna; Jesse; Campbell, the attorney hired by Anna (pro-bono) to take on the case; and Julia, the guardian ad litem who is tasked with reporting to the court on what is best for Anna. The audio book really excels here because each character’s chapter is voiced by a different voice actor, which brings a real richness to the storytelling.

One thing the book does extremely well is telling us Kate’s story without ever giving us Kate’s perspective on things. It’s a bold choice, considering she’s the reason for the situation. But Ms. Picoult knows what she’s doing – she wants us to all to consider what the rest of the family goes through, because they all revolve around Kate and her constant illness. Jesse’s chapters focus on the fact that he hasn’t had really any attention, and that he’s dealt with by becoming an arsonist (perfect choice, since Brian, the father, is a fire fighter). Campbell and Julia have a side story, a history, that both seems a bit unnecessary but also serves to remind us that people have lives that go on outside of this family. The parents’ chapters are heartbreaking and brutal, especially Sara’s chapter where she describes giving birth to Anna. She’s so focused on saving the umbilical cord blood that at no point does she express any interest in her newborn. I don’t doubt that Sara loves all of her children, but I don’t know how she can love them all with the same passion she carries for saving Kate.

Anna’s chapters are challenging because she’s only 13, and she is so torn between loving her sister desperately and wanting a life of her own. Anna’s been called on to save her sister repeatedly, through stem cell donation, bone marrow transplants, and other donations. It’s affected her ability to do things, like go away to summer hockey camp (because her sister might need something from her). Anna and Kate are really close, though, so you know Anna is internally conflicted about wanting to save her sister and wanting a life for herself.

The issues that Ms. Picoult is grappling with in this book are so numerous. Is there something wrong with genetically engineering a child with the express purpose of saving another child’s life? Can the parent love the engineered child in the same way – can he or she ever see the child as an independent being, as opposed to being the one who is responsible for saving the other child’s life? What about other siblings in a sick child’s family? Even outside of all the issues of the sister being asked to contribute to and save the other sister’s life, what happens inside a family where one child is chronically, likely terminally, ill? Is it wrong of the other children to want to have lives, even if their ill sibling can’t? And how can a parent be asked to provide opportunities to the healthy children when they are so focused on saving the sick one? I can’t imagine being in that situation – it seems so horribly challenging, and exhausting, and unfair. And finally, what about the child who wants to make decisions for herself and stop being tied to her sister? It seems so easy to say ‘it’s just a ______’ (blood donation, bone marrow donation, etc.), but really, there’s got to be a limit. And can we expect a child, or a teenager, to pass those limits?

Having read the book, I’m still not sure how I feel about any of these questions. But they’re interesting, and as science progresses, we’re going to have to explore more of them.

Four stars.

While at a friend’s house for dinner last week, a friend lent me this book. This is the same one who turned me on to steampunk, so I trusted her judgment. I found this to be a really compelling, interesting and infuriating book about one component of the horrors of Hurricane Katrina. However, I really wish that I hadn’t Googled Mr. Zeitoun when I finished it, for reasons I’ll share at the end. This review will contain some spoilers, because there is a bit of shift in the middle of the book that I’d like to address.

The book is told alternatingly from the perspective of Mr. Zeitoun, a Muslim originally from Syria, and his wife Kathy, a woman who converted to Islam in her youth. The first part tells of their preparation for the storm, going between their perspectives. Additionally, the book gives us their back stories in pieces during the build up to the storm and beyond. The main thing to know is that the Zeitouns own a painting and contracting company, as well as a few rental properties. They also have four children.

Mrs. Zeitoun and the children leave New Orleans, but Mr. Zeitoun stays behind. He keeps an eye on their house, and checks in on their rental properties as well. He makes it through the storm, and even the levee breech that floods the first floor of his home. Over the next week, he travels around New Orleans in a canoe, helping with a few rescues and taking care of some left-behind pups. But a week after the storm, he is at one of his properties with a tenant and friend, and gunmen storm in.

We learn that he has been arrested, and are given a look at the utter failure of the criminal justice system after Katrina. The unwarranted arrests, the abhorrent treatment, the suspension of all rights of those accused to even know what they are accused of. Mr. Zeitoun was not allowed to contact his wife at all while he was in jail, waiting for a hearing – for over a week she thinks he is dead. Because of his ethnicity, the police tell him he’s suspected of being Al Qaida, or Taliban. It’s utterly absurd, and a reminder that in a disaster, some people rise to the occasion and some people use it as a reason to mistreat others. Unfortunately, that holds true for civilians and military / law enforcement alike, although it seems that those in power are more likely to take advantage of the situation than those without power. One example is an interview with one of the law enforcement officer who arrested Mr. Zeitoun – he tells of how he and his fellow officers would steal fuel and cigarettes from convenience stores because they ‘needed’ that to do their work; meanwhile these same officers were shooting and arresting people for ‘looting’ things that they needed for survival. The double standard is so disturbing.

I’m also disturbed and reminded of how often the public is willing to let law enforcement and the military do what they ‘need’ to do in a disaster, regardless of who they hurt, what laws they break, or how despicable their actions would (or should) be viewed during regular operations. I work in emergency management. Things fall apart. You do have to adjust, but it seems as though so many folks in power use disasters as an excuse to adjust things to they have even more power (I’m looking at you, post-9/11 PATRIOT ACT).

Even more spoilers ahead.

Ready?

Okay. So Mr. Zeitoun is released after three weeks, and the charges are, I believe dropped. I figure that’s the biggest spoiler of all, because the entire second half is a lot of ‘will he ever get out’ storytelling.

One last thing. After finishing the book I googled “Zeitoun” to get a picture of him and his family, and the first couple of links are to the website, and the book on Wikipedia. Disturbingly, however, this was the third link down: Zeitoun found not guilty on charges he tried to kill his ex-wife. Holy shit, guys. So they divorced, he was charged with beating Mrs. Zeitoun at one point, and then charged with trying to kill her. Yikes.

Two Stars

During a training on equity and social justice, the leader showed a bit of Simon Sinek’s talk on “Starting with Why”. She only showed a couple of minutes, but I was intrigued enough to buy his book.

The Good
The underlying concept is interesting and I think pretty useful. While the book is focused on success in the business world, I think the concept is sound when applied in other sectors and even one’s personal life. The theory is this: most companies can say what they do (build computers), and most can communicate how they do it (using great technology, sturdy resources, intelligent staff), but the truly successful companies can say WHY they do what they do. ‘Starting with Why’ means looking beyond the traditional ‘I do it to make money’ concept to pinpoint what your real reasons are for doing something. Once that’s been identified, you should make choices that align with your ‘Why.’ The big examples he uses to illustrate this are Southwest Airlines, Apple, and Wal-Mart (before the founder died). As far as concepts go, it’s not bad.

The Bad
But the bad is so bad. On my e-reader version, the book is 246 pages long. It wasn’t until page 108 that a woman appeared. All of Mr. Sinek’s examples were of cis men who started businesses or were leaders; the vast majority of them were also white men. Martin Luther King Jr. does get discussed, but other than him? It’s like a nightmare – a bunch of white dudes talking about how awesome they are.

The first mention of a woman is a woman in the military, too. So he didn’t find a woman who had started a company that fit his theory; he had to look in the military. Hmmm. His second reference to a woman comes another fifty pages later, and it’s not even a reference to an actual human. You know how sometimes authors alternate the generic pronouns they use when illustrating a point? “If someone wants to do x, he should…” or “If someone wants to do y, she should…”? Well, only once did I catch Mr. Sinek using a female pronoun … and it was in a situation describing being emotional. REALLY?! Dude. It’s like satire at this point. Very few women mentioned, and when mentioned it’s focused on non-business work or on emotion.

There are also some fairly white-savior moments, like when he was describing an organization founded to ‘help’ kids in the Middle East ‘realize they can do more.’ Um, hmmm. Perhaps that organization was different than described, but in reality it sounds like a pet project a rich white kid decided to do without really looking at what the community needed. Not exactly something to shout about. He also uses such demonstrably false phrases as “Working hard leads to winning.” Sometimes is does lead to winning, but sometimes (many times, depending on where you start in life) it does not.

Overall
As I said, the concepts aren’t bad, and I actually plan to apply them to my working life. But I definitely do not recommend the book. Watch the Ted talk. Maybe see if he has an article out there you could read. But save yourself the headache of plowing through an unintentionally whitewashed, male-centric version of history as told by Mr. Sinek.