Three Stars

Best for:
Writing classrooms.

In a nutshell:
Longtime writer and editor Harold Evans offers lessons to improve writing.

Worth quoting:
“We are more likely to understand the argument if we know where we are heading.”
“Anything that goes wrong will always be wordier than anything that goes right.”

Why I chose it:
I’m always looking to improve my writing.

Review:
In the first few pages of this book the author speaks well of both Churchill (racist) and Kissinger (war criminal), so I did have a little trouble moving past that. I was expecting something closer to Stephen King’s ‘On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft’; instead it is closer to a good text one might find in an introductory journalism or creative writing course at University. That is, it is well-written and helpful but dry (ironic, eh?) and repetitive.

Nearly every section comes down to editing; specifically to cutting words so one communicates in the simplest way. And that is solid advice! It’s just … there are only so many ways once can reiterate the same point.

Though, to his credit, Evans does find many ways to do just that. Most chapters include sample text that he then edits to be easier to read or straightforward. I could see those samples being helpful in a classroom: offer the originals to students and have them edit them down and compare to Evans’s edits. Some chapters also include lists of phrases that are redundant, or words that are misused, which makes the book worth keeping around. I’ll add it to my writing reference stack, and look at it occasionally.

Keep it / Pass to a Friend / Donate it / Toss it:
Keep it for the reference value.

Two Stars

Best for:
I cannot recommend this to anyone.

In a nutshell:
I couldn’t really tell you. I could reproduce the description from the back of the book, but I think that’s unfair to other authors whose books can be described by their readers without resorting to that. Though according to the reviews that have already seeded Good Reads it is ‘shocking.’

Worth quoting:
Here is an example of the writing that fills each page:
“He’d sooner have gotten mad at time’s perceived acceleration over life’s void of fulfillment. An illegal fraction represented best how fucked this so-called sentience was — and yet here she was, brooding over an extemporized jest.”

Why I chose it:
This was a free advance reader copy available through the Cannonball Read. I jumped at it because it’s set in Seattle (a place I called home for 10 years as an adult) and sounded intriguing.

Review:
This is either my first or second DNF (did not finish) review for Cannonball Read. I struggled with even doing this but I think if a book is offered free for review I at least owe it to the author to be as honest as I can be without being an asshole. I don’t think the review will be getting back to the author directly, and I can’t imagine he’d agree with or enjoy my criticism, but I’m offering it anyway, because that’s what we do here.

Are you familiar with @GuyInYourMFA? I believe that this book may have been written by the people those tweets satirize. Not because of the subject matter necessarily (there seems to be a female lead who isn’t described in an absurd way, and the plot isn’t just about a white man finding himself), but because of the writing style.

When I titled this review “The Writing Got In the Way,” it’s because it is genuinely difficult to read. And not in a the capital-G Great American Novel type of way that I admittedly don’t find appealing but understand serves a purpose; but because it seems like the author is trying so hard to sound complex and intelligent that it comes across as the opposite.

Do you remember the episode of Friends where Chandler and Monica ask Joey to write a letter of recommendation to the adoption agency? And Joey is worried it doesn’t sound smart enough so he goes through and replaces nearly every word with a related (though not necessarily matching in context) word? And it ends up being completely unintelligible? This book feels like 400 pages of that letter.

Multiple adjectives are included where one (or none) would suffice. Simple concepts (such as ‘a year’) become needlessly multi-syllabic (”two solstices.”) Now I will grant that there is a type of book where “two solstices” would sound poetic and lovely as a description of the movement of time; this book isn’t that one. Also, and I’m being pedantic here, but two solstices isn’t actually a year. At its shortest, it could be six months and a day. Only from the next sentence do we learn it’s meant to signify a year. So it’s oddly flowery AND inaccurate.

I went down a bit of a rabbit hole when this book didn’t show up on Amazon and learned that Emerald City is one of three books set to be released by a new publishing house this year. A publishing house co-founded and owned by the author who claims the book represents “hyper-intelligent energy” that readers are “starved for.” Hmmm. The book is meant to be released in three weeks but still has no presence on Amazon (the above link is to the out-of-print version) or Indie Bound, so I’m not sure it’s going to make it.

However, if there is a chance that the author will publish it later, my strongest advice would be to get a brand-new, completely outside editor to cut through the unnecessary metaphors and similes. Someone who can pare this book down to the core plot to allow the characters to exist. Someone who understands that ‘intelligent’ is not synonymous with ‘uses ten words when five would work.’

I don’t write fiction so I can’t imagine how hard it must be, but it seems that the author has made it even harder for himself by writing it in this way. I just couldn’t get past the first 50 pages, and so cannot recommend this to anyone.

Keep it / Pass to a Friend / Donate it / Toss it:
I offered to return it, but it shall instead be finding new purpose in the recycling bin outside my apartment.

Four Stars

Best for:
Those who enjoy novels that move around in time. Those who liked Station Eleven.

In a nutshell:
The fever has taken over the world. Candace has survived it, and is now traveling with other survivors. Through chapters alternating in the past and present, we learn what Candace’s life (and the life of her immigrant parents) was like, and is like now.

Worth quoting:
“It made me wistful for the illusion of New York more than for its actuality, after having lived there for five years.”

Why I chose it:
I saw it in a few book stores and kept picking it up. Finally had to go for it.

Review:
This is a situation where I don’t want to give away too much, because I think the less you know, the more interesting the book is. I accidentally glanced at just a bit of one Cannonballer’s review in my feed and while they didn’t spoil anything, I think something they mentioned did take away from my reading of it because I couldn’t get it out of my head. So I suggest that, if you’re at all interested in reading this book, you just pick it up and read it.

The book looks at so many big ideas — capitalism, immigration, survivalism, urban living — but also smaller, relatable intimacies, such as competition at work, relationships (romantic, platonic, familial), daily life choices. Her boyfriend Jonathan starts out as a mildly interesting character, but I found Candace’s evolution of her view of him to be relatable and more interesting that Jonathan himself.

I like the style of going back and forth in time – I’m not sure this book would be as compelling were it told in a straightforward manner. But at the same time, author Ma is a talented writer, able to create a vivid picture without flowery or overly-descriptive language. I have a strong idea of what the manufacturing plant in China looks like, the hotel, Candace’s New York apartments, her office. I did live in New York for many years, so I think that may have increased my enjoyment of the book a bit, but if it were set in another major city I’m sure I would have devoured it all the same (in any case, I started this book on a Wednesday and finished it Thursday evening, and worked both of those days).

Keep it / Pass to a Friend / Donate it / Toss it:
Pass to a Friend. One has already called dibs, in fact.

Five Stars

Best for:
People who enjoy quality fiction, ridiculously good writing, and are looking for something a little different in their protagonist.

In a nutshell:
Writer Arthur Less’s ex-boyfriend is getting married. Arthur Less is about to turn 50. Instead of wallowing, Arthur Less decides to accept all the literary invites he’s received and spend the summer traveling the world.

Worth quoting:
“You and me, we’ve met geniuses. And we know we’re not like them, don’t we? What is it like to go on, knowing you are not a genius, knowing you are a mediocrity? I think it’s the worst kind of hell.”

Why I chose it:
My sister was reading this over the holidays a couple of years ago. We saw it in a bookstore and she said she really enjoyed it so I picked it up.

Review:
What a fun and unexpected novel. I’ve lately been enjoying media about older adults (Grace and Frankie is a favorite) because I just don’t think — outside of endless procedurals on CBS — we have enough stories about people who aren’t in their 20s and 30s. Occasionally some 40s sneak in there, but movies like The Wife, or books like Less, are interesting explorations of parts of life we don’t often see.

Arthur Less is an author who has one ex who is a well known and highly regarded genius poet and another who is about to get married. He’s not sure what’s going on with his latest book, and he’s not sure what’s going on in the rest of his life. So when the invitation to his ex’s wedding he instead decides to go to an awards ceremony in Italy, to teach a course in Germany, to go to a writer’s retreat in India. And he learns things about himself along the way, but not the things you think.

Yes, I realize that might sound like a gay male version of Eat Pray Love but I PROMISE you it is not. It’s so much more.

But this isn’t just a well-crafted, well-plotted book. It’s a book that also has gorgeous writing that isn’t pretentious. It isn’t a challenge to read, but instead an utter pleasure. I mean, look at this sentence fragment: ‘an almond croissant is soon in his hands, covering him in buttered confetti.’ That is GORGEOUS. Gorgeous. And now I want an almond croissant.

Keep it / Pass to a Friend / Donate it / Toss it:
Keep it. Knowing how it ends, I want to read it again.

Three Stars

Best for:
People looking for a perfectly entertaining collection of essays about mid-life.

In a nutshell:
Author Druckerman shares what she has learned as she entered her 40s.

Worth quoting:
“As you keep looking at things, you see more and more in them.”

Why I chose it:
I finished my book and had a train ride back to the UK ahead of me. This was one of the English-language books available, and it was by an author I’d read before.

Review:
As I mentioned in a previous review, I’m turning 40 next year, so some of my book choices are focused on that reality. This book happened to fit into that trend, and it offered some interesting insights. Some of the chapters within the book are clearly repurposed versions of previous essay’s Druckerman has written, but she manages to make them mostly fit together.

On thing I appreciate about her writing is her honest self-assessment. Well, at least it seems honest (I don’t know her), as it isn’t always flattering, nor is it self-deprecating in a way that reeks of false humility. She wonders if she has any immutable characteristics; she struggles to make friends.

She isn’t totally relatable, and I don’t think I agree with all of her suggestions and advice, but some components – especially chapters 18 (’How to figure out what’s happening) and 21 (how to say no) – resonated with me. I’m definitely happy I picket it up.

Keep it / Pass to a Friend / Donate it / Toss it:
Donate it (I’ll be tossing it, but only because I got a lot of tomato juice on my copy)

Five Stars

Finished: 2 August 2019

BINGO:
Summer Read

Best for:
Fans of the Liane Moriarty school or interwoven stories with a serious mystery at the center.

In a nutshell:
Sarah and Eddie spent an amazing week together before he left for a quick holiday. She hasn’t heard from him since, even though they basically declared their love for each other. Is he just a jerk, or is there something else going on?

Worth quoting:
N/A

Why I chose it:
Wandered into a bookshop looking for Nine Perfect Strangers, but it’s still in hardback so way too big for travel. This cover reminded me of Moriarty’s style, then I read the back and thought ‘yup, this is perfect to read on the lake this summer.’

Review:

Whew, after two serious non-fiction books in a row I needed this. It isn’t exactly light reading, but it was quick and enthralling and I quite literally did not want to put it down. (Seriously, I was annoyed when I had to set it aside so I could shower this morning.) I started it yesterday late in the day and finished it over lunch today. I wanted to know how it ended, but I also enjoyed the path author Walsh took to get us there.

The book is broken into three parts, and most of it is told from the perspective of our protagonist Sarah. We learn early on that she’s lost her sister at a young age, and she carries that loss with her into adulthood, where it factors into major life choices like leaving the UK for the US and her career path. She meets Eddie on a visit home to the UK but doesn’t yet tell him the details of her childhood.

Then, he’s gone. They promise to meet up after his trip to Spain but she doesn’t hear from him again after they part ways. He doesn’t respond to texts or voicemail and hasn’t checked in on social media (but also hasn’t blocked her), leading Sarah to think, given how intense their week together was, that something has gone horribly wrong.

To tell you anything more would take away from your enjoyment of this book. But please trust me when I say that there are some turns you see coming and some turns you don’t. And I’ll be honest in that the ending wasn’t the one I would have picked but I think it still works well (hence the five star review).

Really my biggest issue with the whole book is the part where Sarah realizes she didn’t ask Eddie how he was going to vote on the Brexit Referendum (the book starts in the summer of 2016). If there was any chance he was going to vote Leave, I’d say that ghosting was really a blessing.

Keep it / Pass to a Friend / Donate it / Toss it:
Donate it – leaving it at this lake house so the next guests can enjoy it.

Four Stars

Finished: 1 August 2019

BINGO:
Award Winner: 2016 Labor History Best Book

Best for:
Those who enjoy a good case study / ethnography and are interested in the state of organizing today.

In a nutshell:
Academic Jamie Woodcock is interested in labour organizing and, as his PhD dissertation spent time in a call center to learn more about the work — and the resistance — taking place there.

Worth quoting:
“‘There were all sorts of rules.’ For example, ‘hanging coats on the back of your chair was banned, little things like that.’ These were things that did not affect the productivity of workers directly. This suggests the rules were more about power.”

“The advent of computer surveillance means the fiction of the ever-watching supervisor could become reality. Even if they were to miss something at the time, the records can be scoured for transgressions after the fact.”

Why I chose it:
I know the author through my partner. We were at his flat for dinner, and I noticed the book on the shelf and asked if I could read it.

Review:

As mentioned above, I have met the author.

Right up front, to be clear: this is an academic book. Some people who write particularly interesting dissertations on topics that might be of interest to the general public are able to convert their dissertation into a book, as Woodcock has done here. And it generally works quite well. Yes, there are some sections that are a little hard to follow as I don’t have a strong background in labor writing (I’ve yet to read any Marx, for example), but at no point was I confused as to the general points the author was making.

The book looks at call centers in the UK and how organizing might be able to take hold there. In order to better understand the work, Woodcock didn’t just research it, he performed it, getting hired at a sales call center that peddled insurance. From that vantage point he was able to better understand the pressures and stresses in the center (sales targets looming large overhead, bonuses that management push as simple to obtain but that few ever get) and experience the little ways that the workers resist management attempts at exerting power over the workers.

Call center work sounds horrible in general — no one getting a sales call is happy to get one, though some folks might listen long enough to become interested in the product. But the working conditions are so stressful, and management puts in place little rules (like needing to wear business casual clothes even though no customer sees them) designed to remind workers that they are at the mercy of management. They are also on zero-hour contracts and can be fired at will. It’s not great.

But can it be better? I mean, other than eliminating the industry altogether, what options exist for those who do need this work, at least as a stopgap? That is what Woodcock looks at in relation to his time there — what can those who can be fired mid-shift do collectively to get better working conditions or pay? Are unions still relevant, and if they are, are they set up to support this type of work?

As I said upfront, this is an academic book, but it was an easy read, and I felt I learned a lot about labor studies, labor history, and organising.

Keep it / Pass to a Friend / Donate it / Toss it:
Pass to a Friend — my partner

Four Stars

BINGO:
Science

Best for:
Those looking for specific clear descriptions of what the earth may look like at different levels of warming.

In a nutshell:
Science writer Wallace-Wells looks at what has happened so far, what is likely to happen, and what the greater implicates will be as related to climate change.

Worth quoting:
“Almost regardless of your politics or your consumption choices, the wealthier you are, the larger your carbon footprints.”

“More than 140 million people in just three regions of the world will be made climate migrants by 2050.”

“Every round-trip plane ticket from New York to London, keep in mind, costs the Arctic three more square meters of ice.”

Why I chose it:
The author spoke with Chris Hayes on his ‘Why is This Happening?’ podcast. I’ve not yet listened to the episode but will now that I’ve read the book

Review:

This book is great if you are interested in having more information on specifically what we are looking at when it comes to climate change. In addition to everything we’ve seen recently (more storms, the hottest temperature ever recorded in the UK and other parts of Europe, fires raging above the arctic circle), Wallace-Wells dives deeply into the specific horrors we can expect to see, including: loss of crops, increased deaths in hot temperatures, areas becoming unlivable, oceans dying, air becoming more polluted, and climate conflict, among others. It is bleak.

It’s even more distressing when you consider, as he does, that we’ve known there are issues for years an we continue to do nothing. If we’d started cutting back on our emissions when we learned about these issues we would have been able to make slight cuts annually; now we need to make huge changes, which means altering every aspect of our lives, starting at the government and corporate levels (sorry, but the ableist straw bans so many people pushed for over the last year won’t do much of anything to slow global warming; in fact our plastic use apparently has very little direct impact on climate change in general).

The book is an interesting and well-researched read, but it doesn’t offer much in the way of solutions. ‘Reduce emissions everywhere, everyone’ may in fact be the reality we need to fact, but there’s nothing here that offers ideas for a path forward. At times it feels almost fatalistic, even though the author repeatedly points out that the future is not written and we can still make changes. By describing the problem and talking a bit about what it means philosophically should humanity essentially go extinct, the author keeps himself in a very specific lane.

I would have perhaps enjoyed instead a book that included all of this science writing and then, with a second author and a second part, laid out the specific steps we need to take. We need action in the form of huge, sweeping changes, which starts with voting in the leaders who will take those actions. But also … I’d like to see what are the actions that have been proposed and are feasible? And what does feasibility look like when we’re talking about something as dire as this? I included that quote about flights at the top of my review because, despite all I’m doing to reduce my footprint (not eating meat, not having children, not owning a car), I’m writing this on family vacation in New England, having flown in from London a week ago. I fly to the US at least twice a year, and in that I’m causing a huge problem. Should air travel stop? What would that mean for other aspects of life? Movement of goods? Movement of mail? Do those of us who live far from family just say goodbye?

I guess my point here is that I’m already sold on the problems, though it is good to have specific areas to point to. I’m interested now in learning about the different solutions and having the conversation about what it means to implement those solutions.

Keep it / Pass to a Friend / Donate it / Toss it:
Donate it

Four Stars

Best for:
People interested in what it looks like to truly, deeply, live one’s values.

In a nutshell:
Mark Boyle once lived without money for three years. Now he’s gone further – he’s given up everything we would consider to be modern technology. (But how is there a book, you ask? We’ll get there.)

Worth quoting:
‘What are we prepared to lose, and what do we want to gain, as we fumble our way through our short, precious lives.’

Why I chose it:
For the past couple of years I’m been very interested in life that is closer to nature, especially as it relates to environmental impact. Plus, this is a hefty and gorgeous book.

Review:
Spoilers for the TV Show The Good Place throughout.

For my CBR review post I chose a Chidi quote from The Good Place: ‘Principles aren’t principles when you pick and choose when you’re gonna follow them.’ In fact, throughout my read of this book I kept thinking of that show; specifically the twists in the third season, where we discover that no one has gotten into the Good Place for 500 years because it’s just too damn hard to make the right decisions.

I think even having strong, well-thought-out principles is rare. Religion may give it to some people, but even then, what does it really mean to, for example, love your neighbor as yourself? Or do no harm? How far are you willing — and able — to go in living your values? I’ve seen the phrase ‘there’s no ethical consumption in capitalism’ shared on social media often. I mean, I’m typing this on a computer that is slowly dying; if I want to buy another one, what company do I support? The one that gives no money to charity and built a giant new headquarters without considering including childcare facilities (Apple), or the one that supplies computers to the US agency currently keeping immigrant children in cages (Dell)?

Not great choices, eh? If we want to truly live a low-harm life, can we life the lives so many of us in industrialized nations are living? And if not, what does our life look like?

Author Mark Boyle wants to live by his principles, at least, as far as I can tell. He doesn’t elaborate on what those principles are in a list or any specific way, but he seems to generally want to live what he considers a real life – one that is closer to nature and a way to experience true connection to the earth. Which is amazing, but I think it is narrow-minded to suggest that this is the true way to live a good life. I don’t get the sense from Boyle that he believes everyone must live as he lives, but I do get the sense that he believes he is more connected to the idea of what it means to be human than, say, someone using a computer. I find that mildly amusing.

There are many eye-roll moments, but honestly not as many as there could be. And the storytelling itself is interesting. Boyle breaks down his first year of no tech (hand-tools only, no car, no electricity, no running water, no screens) by season, sharing the work he has to do to keep his sharehold land and cabin functioning. He grows his own food, catches his own meat (which he does grapple with as a former vegan). He doesn’t make his own clothes yet, and he does things like hitchhike if he needs to travel far. He doesn’t use a phone, which means he’s only reachable by letters.

And I think that’s where I do get a little annoyed with Boyle. Not because he’s choosing to live this life, but because he’s pushed it onto others secondarily. And that’s totally fine — other people aren’t required to approve of or participate in how I live my life — but when the only way a parent can reach their child with serious news is via letter, I think that’s kind of uncool. Yes, I realize that this is how it used to be before any phones were available, but it’s not how it has to be now.

I don’t agree that living without technology necessarily makes one closer to understanding what it means to be human, and I don’t think living with technology means one is necessarily disconnected. There are extremes in both ways of viewing the world. I don’t believe that camping is objectively better or worse than sleeping in a bed. But at the same time, I do understand that while the ends might be fine (being able to talk to my parents who are currently 6,000 miles away), the means can be problematic (how did the materials needed to make my phone get there). I mean, I gave up eating meat because I couldn’t come up with a way, given my currently life circumstances, to rationalize it, but I do see why Boyle does choose meet.

There’s a lot to think about with this book. How can we be closer to who we want to be? What does it mean to live this life? Are we living it deeply? And, obviously, who gets the luxury right now of moving to a bit of land in rural Ireland and living completely off the grid? We didn’t all spring forth with endless options around us when born – we may have intergenerational debt or trauma or cultural expectations or family relationships that can’t just be ignored or even processed by vowing to give up email.

I’ll be thinking about this book for awhile.

Keep it / Pass to a Friend / Donate it / Toss it:
Keep it

Three Stars

Best for:
People who enjoy coming of age stories that are (or try to be?) a bit edgier.

In a nutshell:
Marianne and Connell are classmates in a small town in London. His mother cleans her house. They do not run in the same social circles. Things transpire, and they grow up.

Worth quoting:
“Committee members of college clubs, who are dressed up in black tie very frequently, and who inexplicably believe the internal workings of student societies are interesting to normal people.”
“In school the boys had tried to break her with cruelty and disregard, and I in college men had tried to do it with sex and popularity, all with the same aim of subjugating some force in her personality. It depressed her to think people were so predictable.”

Why I chose it:
It’s being promoted in all the bookshops. The bookseller at the shop close to my work (where I tend to wander on lunch breaks at least once a month) claimed it was even better than her last book. I disagree.

Review:
Connell and Marianne are from different walks of life – his mom is a single mother who, among other things, cleans the mansion of Marianne’s family. Marianne’s father is dead, her brother is cruel, and her mother is uninvolved (and also possibly cruel? Unclear). They are both smart, and they become friends via hooking up. Then they part ways but reconnect in college. Each chapter is a skip in time (sometimes three weeks, sometimes three months, sometimes five minutes) and usually — maybe always? I don’t have the book anymore — alternates between the two characters. The bookseller described it as a ‘will they / won’t they,’ but it’s really a ‘they did, and probably will again, and is that a good thing?’

I get what the author was going for here, but I don’t think it worked for me. I’m not sure how one can successfully do coming of age across five or six years (instead of, say, over the course of one year of high school or college), but I don’t think this is it. By the end of the book I still saw the characters as teenagers playing at being adult, even though they did have very real issues and concerns. And even though the entirety of the book focuses on these two individuals, I don’t get a sense of who they are, really. Connell is meant to be deeply written, but I don’t leave feeling I know much about him. Marianne I felt gets a bit more development, but the way her story is handled seems almost salacious for the sake of being salacious. Which, I guess makes sense? I mean, I don’t know how else the author could have written those components, but they still didn’t work for me. Overall I’m disappointed.

Keep it / Pass to a Friend / Donate it / Toss it:
Donate it (to the vacation rental home I was in when I finished it)