Four Stars

Best for: Anyone who likes fairly humorous personal memoirs, especially of the healthcare variety. Probably not best for those currently pregnant, unless they want to read a bunch of vignettes about the various things that might go wrong during labor and delivery (though to be fair, only one such vignette ends poorly, and that’s near the end of the book).

In a nutshell: Former junior doctor Adam Kay unearthed his diaries from the few years he was a doctor working in the NHS.

Worth quoting:
“It’s a surreal feeling being this tired — almost like being in a computer game. You’re there but you’re not there. I suspect my reaction times are currently the same as when I’m about three pints deep. And yet if I turned up at work pissed they’d probably be unimpressed — it’s clearly important my senses are only dulled through exhaustion.”
“ ‘It’s funny — you don’t think of doctors getting ill.’ It’ true, and I think it’s part of something bigger: patients don’t actually think of doctors as being human. It’s why they’re so quick to complain if we make a mistake or if we get cross.”

Why I chose it:
Much like “Eleanor Oliphant is Completely Fine,” there are only so many times I can see a book that looks mildly interesting prominently displayed before I say “FINE. I’LL READ IT. BACK OFF.” Plus, it’s a memoir (check), it’s funny (check), and it involves health (check).

Review:
Adam Kay used to be a doctor. Now he’s a TV writer (UK shows primarily, as far as I can tell) and a talented author, given his debut. This book followed Kay from his first post-medical-school posting through to the day he decides to leave his career. The “Heartbreaking” pull quote on the front cover seems mostly to refer to the incident that leads Kay to quit; the rest of the book is frankly pretty hilarious.

For those not living in the UK, some of the terms can be a bit challenging to get used to, but Kay explains them quickly and easily. As someone who has spent all but a year and a half of her life in the US, I was always confused by the term “junior doctor.” And I think that kept me away from this book for a bit (did I really want to read a bunch of stories about Meredith first year on Grey’s Anatomy? Watching it on TV is one thing, but first years seem to make loads of mistakes, so it seems like it’ll be kind of dark…), but apparently literally everyone except “consultants” are called junior doctors here (UK natives, please correct me if I’m wrong). Consultants are simply the ones who have been around longest and worked their way up the ladder. So a junior doctor could be someone who has been a doctor for many years.

Kay and his editors do a great job of presenting the information. While there are some running themes — namely that free healthcare is amazing and the NHS is fantastic but damn it it needs more support for the providers — and a glimpse or two into Kay’s personal life — his friend Ray, his partner H, and another friend for whom he provides literally life-saving phone calls — the book is split into chapters based on his postings and jobs. It’s chronological, with each section starting with a little overview of things to come, and then a bunch of diary entries that range from a paragraph to a couple pages.

Kay includes footnotes often, which took a few pages to get used to but which I ultimately appreciated greatly. As someone who watches a lot of medical TV (yes, I do still watch Grey’s Anatomy and yes, I still enjoy it), and who has many friends who have given birth, there are terms I’ve heard and kind of understood but didn’t totally get, and many of those are explained here. Kay also has a wicked sense of humor, which caused many a out loud chuckle from me.

The only areas where I took some issue with the writing were his negative comments about Jehovah’s Witnesses (I know, the ‘no blood’ thing must both doctors a great deal, but maybe dial it down a notch) and his seeming annoyance at making accommodations for obese people. Both of those things only came up once, and I didn’t get he sense that they came from places of hate, but they did take me out of the story for a bit.

Three Stars

Best for: Those looking for a Victorian-set novel about England that isn’t happy and (spoiler alert) doesn’t end in a happy romance.

In a nutshell: Alex Chase is miserable and cannot find a way to be happy.

Worth quoting:
“The despair that invades an undeveloped being is the blackest in the world, because of its utter want of perspective.”
“What do girls want to write to one another for? They can’t have anything to say.”
“One suffered until one could bear no more, and then it was all numbness and inertia.”

Why I chose it:
There is an amazing bookshop in London called Persephone Books. They are not just a shop; they publish works as well, focusing primarily on forgotten female authors. I visited earlier this year and snapped up three books; this is the first I’ve gotten around to reading.

Review:
This book is not for those going through a rough patch. It does not end on a high note, and there isn’t much along the way to make the reader feel hopeful. But at the same time, it feels honest, as not all people experience a life that is full of happiness, or redemption, or joy.

Alex is the eldest of three girls and two boys, and is being raised in a Victorian home that is clearly well-off (her father is, in fact, a sir). We meet Alex when she is just 12 years old, and she is clearly emotionally distraught. She craves attention and seems only to think to find it by misbehaving. Not intentionally so much; she just doesn’t think about the consequences (see what I did there) of her actions. When her lack of thought leads to her sister being seriously injured, she is sent to a convent for education.

At the convent she receives an education but does not make friends, and receives negative attention (if she receives any at all). She is painfully awkward, and unable to make the connections she craves. She is infatuated with a fellow classmate who barely acknowledges her existence until she realizes that Alex might be a good social connection.

That friendship never pans out, and when Alex is of age to come out to society, she doesn’t find much success. Her mother seems to care, as does her father, although her father throughout the book says some very heartless things. No one seems to care much that Alex is clearly distraught and depressed; Alex herself is often unable to articulate her own wants and fears. Part of that stems from the Victorian era, and part of that I think stems from piss-poor parenting.

She clings to anyone who might give her attention, eventually leading her to join a convent but unfortunately things do not improve for her. The last hundred pages or so are rough to read, not because they are poorly written, but because Alex continues to experience such an inability to navigate the world she lives in.

As I said, it is not a happy book, but I think it is good enough that I can recommend it to those who might find the premise interesting.

3 Stars

Best for: People looking for a push to consider leaving social media.

In a nutshell: Silicon Valley veteran (seriously, he worked on internet stuffs in the early 80s) attempts to make the case that social media — in its current form — is harming us and society, and tried to get us to quit. Mixed results follow.

Worth quoting:
“Yes, being able to quit is a privilege; many genuinely can’t. But if you have the latitude to quit and don’t, you are not supporting the less fortunate; you are only reinforcing the system in which many people are trapped.”
“The core of the BUMMER machine is not a technology, exactly, but a style of business plan that spews out perverse incentives and corrupts people.”
“You know the adage that you should choose a partner on the basis of who you become when you’re around the person? That’s a good way to choose technologies, too.”
“When we’re all seeing different, private worlds, then our cues to one another become meaningless… Can you imagine if Wikipedia showed different versions of entries to each person on the basis of a secret data profile of that person?”

Why I chose it:
I’ve been spending time this year focusing on how I spend my time – I read “How to Break Up with Your Phone” and “Silence” in quick succession. I’ve also been more and more frustrated with how much time I find myself checking Facebook and Twitter, so I thought I’d see if this book helped push me one way or the other.

Review:
Author Lanier’s premise is that the internet is not bad, but our current social media options (most, at least), are. He uses the abbreviation BUMMER throughout as shorthand for what he calls “Behaviors of Users Modified, and Made into an Empire for Rent.” He makes some good arguments, but his writing leaves a lot to be desired. Part of my issue is seeing the word BUMMER multiple times a page (it feels like I’m being shouted at) and part of my issue is that the editing of this book is not great. There are a lot of ideas slotted into a lot of subcategories that makes it difficult to follow at times.

Lanier makes some great points. He discusses how our empathy for others has eroded because it is based on knowing a bit about what they experience, but the algorithms mean we all are seeing different things. It’s hard to respond to someone talking about something you’ve never been exposed to, or that is the complete opposite of what you’ve been exposed to. He also — and I think this is his strongest point — suggests we look at the type of person we are when we’re on different social media platforms.

As I said above, he’s not saying that it’s *the internet* that is to blame, but instead the business model that sells the consumer as the product. It’s not so much about malice (although the people behind the bots that helped sway the US election were certainly full of malice from my perspective), but about subtle adjustments to what we see so that we then do what makes the advertisers the most money. It’s obnoxious and is hurting our society.

Lanier has issues with some of the big companies — mainly Facebook, Google, and Twitter. And the companies owned by them, including WhatsApp and Instagram. I have to admit I’m confused by his disdain for WhatsApp, because they don’t do ads and the content of the messages is encrypted.

So where does that leave us? Yesterday I deleted my Facebook account … sort of. I’m trying to make a career out of writing, so I kept my blog’s Facebook page, which needs to have an administrator, so I created a new Facebook account that has no friends. I also deleted all the tweets from my personal account, and am now only posting things I write to @AKelmoreWrites on Twitter. I’d love to delete it all, but I also would love to figure out how to have a writing career, and the two things seem diametrically opposed.

4 Stars

Best for: People who know that there’s a deeper problem with the police than most of our society will acknowledge, but don’t have all the evidence at their fingertips.

In a nutshell: Sociology professor Vitale offers a logical and thorough examination of the many different areas where police are seen as necessary but are, in reality, making things worse. And, more importantly, offers alternatives to police involvement in those areas.

Worth quoting:
“At root, they fail to appreciate that the basic nature of the law and the police, since its earliest origins, is to be a tool for managing inequality and maintaining the status quo.”
“A kinder, gentler, and more diverse war on the poor is still a war on the poor.”
“We must break completely with the idea of using police in schools. They have no positive role to play that couldn’t be better handled by nonpolice personnel.”
“We must move beyond the false choice of living with widespread disorder or relying on the police to be the enforcers of civility.”
“They need stability, positive guidance, and real pathways out of poverty. This requires a long-term commitment to their wellbeing, not a telephone referral and home visits by the same people who arrest and harass them and their friends on the streets.”

Why I chose it:
I know that the police (in general) in the US are not helping. But even suggesting that perhaps their power needs to be tamped down is often greeted with disbelief and the suggestion that they are necessary. I wanted a book that would provide me with the facts I needed to counter the disbelief.

Review:
This is a well-researched, well-sourced, well-written discussion of the state of policing in the US. Author Vitale starts with a history of policing to redirect readers from the idea that the police were created to protect people. He then breaks down policing into eight areas where they are often seen as ‘necessary:’ police in schools, police as responders to people in mental health crisis, police sweeping up those experiencing homelessness, police “saving” sex workers, the war on drugs, police in gang areas, police at the border, and police silencing political opponents.

My favorite part of this book is that Vitale offers not just descriptions of the problems, but also attempted reforms (and why they aren’t sufficient), and then offers ALTERNATIVES. That is what, I feel, is missing in so many books that take on this topic. They share important information and outline the problems, but then sort of throw up their hands in a ‘yup, it sucks’ manner. Vitale instead points out what will actually work, and it’s often much better (and cheaper) for the community.

The best examples of this are in the sections on police in schools, police and homelessness, police and those with mental illness, police at the border, and police as political silencers. The solutions offered in the police and sex work and police and the war on drugs sections require a bit more on society’s part, but are definitely do-able. The solutions offered on gang violence, however, admittedly require a much larger shift in how we provide support to our communities than many people accept.

The section on the border patrol was especially poignant given what is going on in the United States right now; I know many of us would like to see ICE abolished, and this book certainly helps make that case.

The only thing that was missing, and that I would have liked to see, would be a discussion of the need (or not) for police to investigate crimes. Does Vitale think that in situations where murders have taken place, we could have a small police squad? Or does he think the community could manage that as well? I’m unsure what that could look like, but would enjoy reading his thoughts on that.

4 Stars

Best for: Those looking for a bit of inspiration in tough times; those who want to learn more about a group of WWII women (the Rabbits) who haven’t received a lot of coverage.

In a nutshell: Three women’s lives intertwine – Caroline, a retired US broadway star who volunteers at the French Consulate in NYC, Kasia, a Polish teen who is just starting to assist the resistance, and Herta, a German Doctor who experiments on young girls in a concentration camp.

Worth quoting:
“To make things worse, Washington tightened visa restrictions, and it became almost impossible to enter the United States from Europe.”
“A new thing the Nazis had forced upon us was patriotic music, played via loud-speaker outside the theater.”
“It’s just a thing, Kasia. Don’t waste your energy on the hate. That will kill you sure as anything. Focus on keeping your strength. You’re resourceful. Find a way to outsmart them.”
“The county doesn’t want more foreigners.” — “Foreigners? Half the country just got here a generation ago. How can you just let people die?”

Why I chose it:
I’m not sure why I originally purchased it, but I brought it with me when I moved. I decided to read it now partly because of the horrendous actions the US government is taking against refugees seeking asylum. I thought there might be some parallels, and there definitely are.

Review:
That whole idea of ‘never again’ seems to ring hollow these days. It’s distressing how a book set nearly 80 years in the past can resonate with the current state of the world. And yet, here we are.

Note: There are some minor spoilers below, but this is a novelization of real events, so it’s more history than spoilers. Also, this review is LONG.

First, let’s start with the fear I had: that the depiction of the Nazi doctor Herta (who really existed) would attempt to bring the readers to, if not an understanding of her perspective, then at least an explanation for her actions. But nope. Herta is evil in the scariest way: she’s not extraordinary. She doesn’t bark orders or dream up new ways to kill people. She is not pleased with her first task, of ‘expediting’ the deaths of those at the ‘reeducation’ (read: concentration) camp who were ‘too ill.’ She loves Germany, and sees nothing wrong with what Hitler is doing. She doesn’t try to get away from her tasks, which includes the horrific sulfonamide experiments on teenage girls.

Ms. Hall Kelly’s depiction of Herta shows that there are no excuses for participating in such activities, and that even if there are parts of your personality that are perfectly pleasant and normal, you can still do evil things. Even more so than in “All the Light We Cannot See,” the author here is effective in avoiding the trope that you have to be a monster to do monstrous things. Herta is a human. A horrible human, but she’s still a human. Nazis weren’t animals; they were people who made the active choice to harm other humans; to view them as less than.

I share this somewhat spoiler-y (there is no redemption arc for Herta) information so that those who might find any book that tries to find the good in the Nazis repugnant needn’t worry that this is one of them.

The style of this book is quite effective – each of the three women featured speak from their own perspective in alternating chapters. In the first part, it’s a simple 1 / 2 / 3 pattern; in the second part it mostly sticks to that; by the third and final part, Herta is featured less as we focus on the post-war lives of Caroline and Kasia. Many chapters end in cliffhangers, which can get a bit old, but for the most part it worked well.

I appreciated a couple of things about how Caroline was portrayed (keeping in mind that she is a real person): that she was still living her life even against the backdrop of the horrors of war, and that part of her life involved helping people she didn’t know and might never meet. There is a romantic entanglement that shows that the world does not stop when bad things happen, even if perhaps we feel it should. Caroline does a lot, working at the consulate, selling possessions to fund care packages for orphans in France and then fighting on behalf of the Rabbits years after WWII is over. I don’t know if she could have done more, but there are certainly others who were doing less. She cares about people who have been harmed, even when some of her countrymen think we should all move on.

Finally, Kasia. Kasia is the one character who isn’t 100% real, although she is based mostly off of a real Rabbit. The Rabbits were Polish political prisoners at a concentration camp who were operated on in horrendous ways (by Herta, and by others). Over ten years after the end of the war, many still had challenges getting quality medical care, as Poland went from Nazi control to Communist control when the war ended.

Kasia changes the most in this book, from a 15-year-old whose biggest issue is that the boy she likes seems to be into her best friend, to someone having an understandably difficult tie adjusting to what the Nazis did to her, her family, her friends, and her country. She survives six years in the ‘reeducation’ camp, and at one point wonders how ordinary life could be as challenging. She is not perfect; she is spirited, scared, and filled with guilt as she blames herself for getting her family in the position they find themselves in. It is heartbreaking but ultimately hopeful.

As I said in the beginning, this book reminds me of what is going on in the US regarding immigration. I’m going to quote the book at length here because I think this is important.

Mr.s Mikelsky held Jagoda [her baby girl] tight.
“Give it to me,” the prisoner-guard said.
Mrs. Mikelsky only held tighter.
“She’s a good baby,” I said to the guard.
The guard pulled harder at the child. Would they tear her in two?
“It can’t be helped,” the guard said. “Don’t make a scene.”
…
“Just take it,” Binz said with a save of her crop.
The guard who had come with Binz held Mrs. Mikelsky from behind while the first guard pried Jagoda from her mother’s arms.”
…
The guard hiked the baby higher on her shoulder and walked back through the incoming crowd.
Mrs. Mikelsky crumbled to the floor like a burning piece of paper as she watched her baby be taken away.”

First, notice the guards always refer to the little girl as “it?” She’s not a human baby, she’s a thing to them. Hopefully you can see why this stood out to me. ICE agents might claim to just be following orders, but what they are doing to people is inhumane and disgusting, and somehow it’s just … happening. Some members of the US Congress are speaking out, but US citizens haven’t taken to the streets, haven’t shut down all of the detention facilities. We could argue that we’re exhausted because every day, the US President or his minions do something more horrendous than the day before. And that’s true. We must pick our battles. But preventing children from being torn from their parents arms, and all of them being locked into cages? That seems to be a damn good battle.

4 Stars

Best for: Those of us feeling a bit hopeless as we see that facts don’t seem matter to so many people.

In a nutshell: Over five brief but information chapters, author Matthew D’Ancona walks us through what has been happening lately (focusing on Trump’s election and Brexit), offers some ideas of how we got here, and suggestions about what we can do to keep the hole from deepening.

Worth quoting:
“Yet political lies, spin and falsehood are emphatically not the same as Post-Truth. What is new is not the mendacity of politicians but the public’s response to it.”
“This collapse of trust is the social basis of the Post-Truth era: all else flows from this single, poisonous source.”
“All that matters is that the stories feel true; that they resonate.”
“Among the most pernicious myths to afflict our times is the insistence that there is an unbridgeable gulf between an intellectual, ‘over-educated’ elite and ‘ordinary people’ in the ‘real world.’”
“It should be a core task of primary — not secondary — education to teach children how to select and discriminate from the digital torrent.”

Why I chose it:
I am someone from the US who now lives in the UK. I’m watching as Trump destroys relationships with allies, rips children from parents, and generally screws over the US, while watching the UK continue punching itself in the face as it refuses to accept that Brexit is a utterly shit idea. I was looking for something to pulls me out of the despair.

Review:
This is an interesting and well-written book that left me feeling slightly more optimistic, although it’s definitely not a panacea. Mr. D’Ancona has researched the history of politics (and philosophy; more on that in a minute) to provide a feasible argument for how we’ve gotten to a place where facts matter very little, and opinions on what is true are all equally weighted even when they very much shouldn’t be. He spends time discussing climate change and anti-vaccine absurdities, but most of his focus is on how Trump was elected and how Brexit happened.

He offers support for his thesis that we are shifting to a place where emotions matter more, but he is careful to point out that we haven’t ever lived in some utopia where everyone accepts and views reality in the same way. I think that’s important, because while things are definitely getting worse, it’s naive to believe that there was a time that was dramatically better. The concern is that its getting so much worse, and will keep going unless we actively stop it.

When the President* refers to facts as fake news, and people believe him, it’s hard to not feel as thought everything is a lost cause. How do you reason with someone like Jenny McCarthy who ignores all the actual evidence and decides that her son is all the proof she needs? How do you get through to people who have a worldview — and values — that are incongruous with many facts?

Mr. D’Ancona talks about the influence of post-modernism on where we are (though he is careful to point out that this seems less intentional — Trump likely doesn’t know what that even is); that it makes some measure of sense since that school of thought asks us to question our reality. The problem comes when you view all the perspectives of that reality as equally valid.

So, what can we do? The final chapter focuses a lot on technology, but also on our need as people to be vigilant about checking our sources and not spreading misinformation. This is where I start to diverge a bit from Mr. D’Ancona — he talks a lot about trying to reach those who, for example, voted for Brexit. I’d argue that perhaps the better use of our time is trying to work with those who have expressed indifference in the past, at least initially. In the US in 2016, 100 million people didn’t vote. Perhaps they are less invested in manipulating facts, and are just tired of trying to sort it all out. Perhaps we can reach them.

Five Stars

Best for: People interested in world politics.

In a nutshell: Tim Marshall examines many (though not all) of the flags of nations, as well as flags of political movements and other organizations as a way to examine what these symbols mean to people.

Worth quoting:
“The people of the nations of Europe have stubbornly resisted becoming one, not because they don’t like each other but because they like themselves.”

Why I chose it: I thoroughly enjoyed Mr. Marshall’s examination of how geography influences world politics, so I was excited to see he has other books on somewhat similar topics. Considering what’s going on in the US with the national anthem, NFL, and protests against racial injustice, this seemed especially appropriate.

Review:
Can you make flags interesting? If you’re Tim Marshall, you can, and you do. I inhaled this book, finishing it over the course of two days while on vacation (in Portugal, whose flag includes a coat of arms that dates back to the 1100s). It’s not just an explanation of the symbolism of flags (though it is that); it’s a look at how the flags are viewed by those who fall under them, and by those who are outside them.

The book starts out with chapters on the US flag and the UK flag; I learned some new things about my own nation’s flag, and about the flag of my current home nation. It was interesting to be reminded of how the US flag is often burned abroad, and how the flags of both the US and UK have been co-opted at times by far-right nationalist groups that might make other residents of those nations uncomfortable with displaying them.

From these two deep dives into imperial nations, the book shifts to focusing on themes along different types of flags. Mr. Marshall looks at many flags of the EU member nations (and the EU flag itself), the flags in the Middle East, flags that are meant to invoke fear, flags in Asia, flags in Africa, flags in South America, and a smattering of others (including the Jolly Rodger and the Red Cross).

The book is full of some fun facts that you might find useful at a pub quiz or when playing trivial pursuit (1/6 of the world’s flags have Christian symbolism on them!), but it’s also full of interesting observations about what it means to have a flag, and what a flag can mean for a people, or a movement. June is Pride month in the US, and there is discussion of the rainbow flag in this book. While you might not be clear on what each of the six stripes represents (don’t worry, Mr. Marshall will inform you), you know what it means when you see it. That’s powerful.

Four Stars

Best for: People who love words. So, you know, ALL OF US.

In a nutshell: Mirriam-Webster Dictionary lexicographer Kory Stamper shares a behind the scenes look at what goes into that tome so many of us take for granted, the dictionary.

Worth quoting:
“The fact is that many the things that are presented to us as rules are really just the of-the-moment preferences of people who have had the opportunity to get their opinions published and whose opinions end up being reinforced and repeated down the ages as Truth.”

Why I chose it:
I love words!

Review:
I’ve been in a bit of a reading black hole the past month. After powering through all three of the Crazy Rich Asians books in like a week, I posted just one (ONE!) review in May. I have maybe three or four books that I’m a chapter or two into, but I just couldn’t get into any. So I picked this one up because it seemed fun, and thank Maude, I’m cured. This was a delight to read, and has kick-started my consumption of the written word.

Being a dictionary editor sounds partially amazing and partially horrible. No one talks except outside the office on lunch breaks (which, most days, is my dream, but still, I like to at least have the option), and there’s a lot of time spent reading. Unfortunately, the reading isn’t for pleasure so much as it is to look for interesting examples of words being used, to refer back to at a later time when revising the dictionary.

I’ve never put a whole lot of thought into dictionaries; I don’t own a physical one anymore, but I think I might pick one up after reading this. Ms. Stamper has a great grasp of language (as you’d hope), and manages to make what could be extraordinarily dry subject matter come alive with interesting stories, clever anecdotes, and vivid imagery. Its a great little book that I think my fellow Cannonballers would enjoy.

4 Stars

Best for: People visiting Lisbon

In a nutshell: It’s an Eyewitness Guide. They have pictures and highlights.

Worth quoting: N/A

Why I chose it: I’ve tended to enjoy the Eyewitness Guides in the past, and we’re going to Lisbon later this month.

Review:
I appreciate that these books start with some history of the area that they cover. I have basically no knowledge of Portugal, other than that when I look at a map of Europe, it looks like a face to Spain’s hair. Now I know a little bit more, including it was devastated by an earthquake in the 1700s.

This book seems perfect for visiting for just a few days — there isn’t an overwhelming amount of information, and the four main areas don’t have loads of suggestions for things to do, but there’s enough to have some choices. I also enjoy that while the attractions are grouped by neighborhood, the sections on other sort of run-of-the-mill items are separated. For example, instead of scattering a few interesting bookshops throughout the neighborhood highlights, they’re all clustered together under ‘bookshops’ so I can figure out which I want to see and then build them into my time when I’ll be in that area.

I tend not to use the hotel recommendations in these books (that’s what Trip Advisor is for), but the recommendations on restaurants and just the overall discussion of what type of food to expect and seek out in Lisbon will come in handy, as will the two totally doable walking tours.

The only thing that I found lacking were the photographs. There are a lot, don’t get me wrong, but they are mostly details of buildings and parks. I’m still not entirely sure what the skyline of Lisbon looks like. (Yes, I know Google image search exists, but you know what I mean).