Four Stars

I love the movies Pure Luck and Innerspace. They are ridiculous, and probably do not hold up, but I love them. I also hold a special place in my heart for The Three Amigos. The one thing they have in common? Martin Short.

This is a very sweet book, which makes sense, because Mr. Short is, by all reports, a very sweet guy. He seems kind, generous, and funny in a dorky way that works for some people but not everyone. And if written by anyone else, I think this book would rub me the wrong way. It’s basically a few chapters about his early life, followed by a whole lot of name dropping. But the thing is, he’s not actually dropping names. These are just his friends, and they of course feature prominently in his memoir.

Mr. Short faced some rough stuff in his life. He lost his older brother when he was in his early teens; by the time he was 20 he was an orphan. His wife died in 2010, after 30 years of marriage. He’s experienced a lot of loss, but he’s also experienced a lot of joy. He’s had an extraordinarily successful career without necessarily being everywhere all the time. I don’t know if most people think of him as a big name of comedy, but I think comedians think of him as a big name in comedy, and they would know. I also have some issues with some of his choices – especially using a fat suit as Jiminy Glick – but I do genuinely believe it does not ever come from a place of hate.

One thing I really took away from this book is the Nine Categories. It sounds like a cult, but it’s kind of amazing, and I think I’m actually going to try it. Basically, as he faced some challenging times in his career, he wanted to keep things in perspective, and make sure he was devoting time to the things in his life that matter. So, to quote him:

“I decided to systematically compare my performance in that one specific category of my life – work – with my performance in the other important life categories, and to give them all equal importance.” (emphasis mine).

Man, that is a refreshing outlook. It doesn’t put work at the center of everything. In case you’re interested, the categories are:
– Self
– Immediate Family
– Original Family
– Friends
– Money
– Career
– Creativity
– Discipline
– Lifestyle (this is meant to include both having fun and making a difference in the world)

I love it.

I read the book, but I believe he read the audio version, and I’m betting that would be fantastic.

“In 1996, the church sent CDs to members to help them build their own websites, which would then link them to the Scientology site; included in the software was a filter that would block any sites containing material that vilified the church or revealed esoteric doctrines.”

This book is 450 pages long, and filled with horrifying – and fascinating – things. But it wasn’t until page 386 that I actually stopped in my tracks and dog-eared the page with the above sentence. It is just so deeply fucked up to use what should be a nice, innocent gesture (‘here, let us help you build a website’) to do something so underhanded.

I love this book. It is dense but extremely easy to read. It is laid out logically, it is exquisitely researched (his fact-checkers on the New Yorker article that preceded this book had over 900 items they verified), and it is fascinating. I took so much more away from this than just “man, that is a screwed up religion.” Because honestly, I think if we had access to any religion’s leadership within the first few years of its existence, with the investigative resources we have now, someone could write a book like this. I am pretty sure that the leadership of many (most?) organized religions have done some seriously screwed up things (e.g. covering up pedophilia, **cough** Catholicism **cough**), but I don’t think that means that the practitioners are evil, or stupid, or mentally deficient.

This book delves into so much that I could write pages and pages about it. It talks about what makes something a religion – is it spirituality, is it a belief structure, is it a group of practitioners who do similar things – as opposed to a cult. It discusses the dangers of government choosing what is and is not a religion (in the U.S., it’s basically all up to the IRS, which is just weird). It looks at whether this tax exemption designation is really fair, given the fact that it can cover up all manner of hideous human rights abuses (such as those suffered by the Sea Org members of Scientology).

Mr. Wright also looks at the responsibility those who make themselves the face of religious movements have to those who are treated horribly by the church leadership. When I mention Scientology, you all probably picture Tom Cruise first, then John Travolta. If you think on it a bit, you might picture Jenna Elfman, or Kirstie Alley. Given what Mr. Wright so carefully and deliberately lays out as the horrible actions taken by church leadership, and the mountains of evidence available about the violent nature of its current leader, should we hold these people responsible for their willful ignorance?

If that weren’t enough, the book also got me thinking about the nature of belief, and what people are willing to do when they think their life and salvation are on the line. If you are a deep believer yourself, but of a more established religion, some of the things church members go through might not seem so unbelievable if you replace Scientology with a fundamental version of any belief system. If you truly believe that L. Ron Hubbard had some deep connection to the realities of the universe, and the meaning of life, and that the systems he has provided are the best way to make you the best person you can be, then it makes sense that you would stay even when you are scrubbing a dumpster with a toothbrush.

But that gets to the huckster piece of things. Was L. Ron Hubbard mentally ill? Evil? A con man? Much of the first half of the book really focuses on him, and I get the sense that he was a bit of a con man but that he was mostly a deeply troubled person who probably could have seriously benefited from the psychiatry that he built his church to fight against. It’s possible his writing has helped a lot of people. But the Church – that is, the leadership, and those who don’t speak out against and fight back – have done so much harm. And it isn’t so easy to just say ‘why don’t you leave’ – the book outlines so many horrifying ways that the church leadership manipulates people into staying. It’s complicated and an almost textbook example of how to control people with fear.

So what I’m saying, 750 words later, is: read the book. It’s fascinating.

Three Stars

This is another book where I should have read the description more closely. I thought this would be a book about the ills of sugar, and in a way, it was. But what it more specifically was about was one man’s experience with type-two diabetes (including learning from his father, who lost most of his leg and his life to the effects of the disease). It was a compelling story, but the mixture of arrogance and naïveté that the author manages to put forth left me feeling like I could have better spent my time learning about this subject.

Mr. O’Connell is a writer, so that helps. Books by doctors can be a challenge if they don’t also have the skill of being able to explain very scientific terms in ways that those of us not in the medical field can understand. He has written for Men’s Health magazine, and Muscle and Fitness which, for me, left me a bit skeptical. I enjoy magazines like that on occasion (I used to subscribe to Fitness and Self, both of which are aimed at women), but I also am fairly distrustful of some of the articles, especially ones that suggest that something that medical professionals have discussed for years are have ‘obvious’ answers. And Mr. O’Connell, unfortunately, falls into making those claims often. It’s possible he’s correct, but that’s where the arrogance gets to me.

The naiveté, however, comes in when the author talks about how he was able to take control of his type-two diabetes. He had access to many different tests that I don’t think most insurance covers (which could be a problem in itself, although he doesn’t discuss that), and has a job with the flexibility that allows him to do things like eat every two hours. I could do the same, but I’m fairly certain that most non-office jobs don’t allow for that – in factories pregnant women have been fired for needing to just leave to go to the bathroom more than once a shift. And the type of food he says we need to eat is what we usually hear these days, but the cooking time and the cost can be prohibitive, especially to those who might most benefit from it. Plus, he includes loads of (mostly unsubstantiated) supplements to the point that I was reminded of those magazine articles I used to skim skeptically. Even if they work, if anyone has walked into a vitamin or supplement store lately, you know how expensive that all is. And he doesn’t really touch this at all.

I think the information he shares is, for the most part, helpful, and some of it does seem very scientifically sound. He makes strong cases for errors that the entities we most trust on these issues – such as medical associations, including the American Diabetes Association – are getting a lot of the issues around type-two diabetes wrong, but at the same time he spends three chapters arguing that something that only one doctor (his) thinks is a huge issue, but other medical professionals definitely do not. Is his doctor the lone correct voice? Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaybe. But I don’t think this author is in a position to determine that, and he speaks as though he is.

Three Stars

If you’ve been in a bookstore in the last few months, you’ve probably seen this book. Or maybe I’m the only one who kept noticing it. The cover shows two white girls, probably ten years old, with their heads together, half of each face outside of the frame. It was part of a ‘buy two, get one free’ sale at Powell’s (the same one that resulted in me reading The Martian, so I’m forever thankful for it), and the back looked like it might be good. And it was, mostly.

The book is set in St. Louis, and is told from the point of view of Kate, who has an identical twin sister Violet (Vi). According to the back cover “…in junior high, Kate makes a fateful decision that drives the sisters apart.” Eventually the sisters “find themselves drawn together again.”

I don’t think that really adequately captures what this book is about. Maybe it’s a good thing, because I’m not sure I would have read it if I’d actually known what it was about. I’m not spoiling anything that you don’t learn ten pages in – these sisters are psychic. Yeah, I didn’t get a supernatural vibe from that description either, but that sixth sense is kind of a giant part of the book, and since it is introduced in the first chapter, it’s kind of odd it isn’t mentioned in the blurb. Or maybe they rightfully thought it might turn off people who would otherwise enjoy it. The ‘fateful decision’ also isn’t, really fateful. Or nearly as dramatic as the description would describe.

But the book is really interesting because it follows a woman who is otherwise what we’d likely describe as ordinary. Educated woman not working outside the home because she’s raising two young children; husband with a decent job. She also has a less than ideal family, and had a much less than ideal childhood. The author does, I think, a good job of creating a very vivid world, and showing that not everyone who we think is ‘ordinary’ is as they appear. I’m not thrilled with the ending, although it seems fairly true to the characters involved. I say add it to your library list.

Two Stars

Hmmm. This book could have been fantastic. Sadly, it was closer to mediocre. There is a lot of good information in it, and I am taking the message to heart. But it was not presented well, and so I can’t really recommend it to others. The author does have a website, however, which might be better (I haven’t checked it out yet).

The book takes quite a while to get going. The entire first chapter felt like filler. I think much of the information could have been shared in two or three pages, not 19.

In that intro, the author attempt to protect his ideas from criticism by saying that he abides by four principles, and if you don’t, that’s fine, but then this book is not for you. Those principles are:
1. You must be open to new ideas
2. You must be dissatisfied with the status quo
3. You must be willing to take personal responsibility
4. You must be willing to work hard

I am absolutely on board with 1, 2 and 4 as they are. And I’m on board with what I hope is the concept behind number 3. However. I find, based purely on my own experience, that “personal responsibility” is often the code privileged people use to blame other people for not doing what they do. I think the concept of taking control makes sense – I’m not a fatalist, and I don’t think people are just stuck wherever they are – but I’m also not so naïve as to think that a white dude living in the U.S.A. might have a bit of an easier time taking ‘personal responsibility’ than others.

But let’s move past that. As I said in the beginning, there is a lot of good stuff in here, but the way it is presented isn’t the best. Also, the author fills the book with anecdotes to illustrate his points (good) and little relevant quotes (also usually good). However, you might recall if you read my review of “Start with Why,” I’m quite aware of the gender and race of the examples authors choose to use. In this book, there were by my count 88 quotes and anecdotes; 73 were men and 13 were women. And most were white. It’s hard to view someone as a harbinger of non-conformity when so much of what he finds inspirational comes from such a homogenous group.

Is that entirely fair? Probably not. Especially because, as I’ve said a couple of times, there is a lot in here that is useful. It’s just not a good book.

Five Stars

Do you like maps? Infographics? Data? London? Do you think Edward Tufte is a genius? Then do I have a book for you…

I love maps. I think they are my favorite form of decoration. They are also fascinating to me – the idea that someone figured out and then drew to scale where every little bit of a place is. One of my favorite episodes of the West Wing involves a discussion of how maps can both show data and distort it, and how that has implications for much more than just visual aesthetics.

This book takes all manner of data to create 100 maps and infographics that do, as promised, ‘change how you view the city.’ I was lucky enough to live in London for a year, so some of the maps might mean a bit more to me than someone who has never visited, but I think that a similar book for a city I’ve never visited (say, Mexico City, or Chicago) would still be just as fascinating.

The authors break the maps down into five broad categories: where we are, who we are, where we go, how we’re doing and what we like. In a couple of the sections, the authors take very old maps, and overlay velum with new information so you can view how things (such as the distribution of poverty) have changed. At other times they use sparklines to show how death rates have changed by each of the 32 boroughs and by cause of death. They take a survey that measured four different components of happiness and created a system so that by looking at the eyes, mouth, shading and lines tell how those components all interact, on average, by borough.

Some of the graphics are quirky and, while interesting, are worth a quick read; others I could have spent an hour pouring over. Some are also just stunning; in fact, as a birthday present my husband ordered one of the graphics, and it is being framed as we speak. Like I said, I love maps.

This book is a snapshot; it was published in fall 2014 so the information should be thought of as a glimpse in time; some of the information came from the 2011 census (the data just having been released in 2013). I hope that they will revisit this concept after the 2021 census, creating new but related infographics so we can see how the diverse city is changing.

One star

I’m known for being quite sarcastic. I know that some people find sarcasm to be the lowest form of communication; I’m okay with that. So it isn’t surprising that, as part of a trio of joke gifts (the other items being a screaming pickle and a Jesus refrigerator magnet set), my husband and I were gifted this book by our friends.

It is so bad. I don’t know what they were going for, but unless it was unoriginality, they missed the mark. I know that it is odd to call out a book about insults and comebacks as being too mean … but it is. It’s not clever, it’s extremely lazy. There are certainly things that people should be insulted for – cruelty, racism, bigotry – but that doesn’t really comprise any of the insults in this book. Instead, the authors go for the insults that uphold the status quo. There’s nothing subversive about mocking people who are fat, or ugly, or mentally ill. It doesn’t require any cleverness. I’m guessing that literally anyone reading this review can come up with a (completely unfunny) fat joke at the drop of a hat, because society thinks fat people should be mocked.

For a book of insults to be worth reading, I think it should include the type of insults that really cut to the bone. Figure out insults for the people who mock fat people. Come up with some comebacks to when someone marks on another person’s mental health status. If you’re wanting to joke about hygiene, do something better than offer “you must be a feminist” (like, what?).

You’ll notice this book is available on Amazon for $.01. Save your money – it’s not worth that.

Three Stars

This is the third of Dr. Gawande’s books I’ve read and reviewed for Cannonball Read, and it’s probably my least favorite. However, it’s still a decent book that I’m glad I read.

The book is ostensible about ‘how success is achieved in this complex and risk-filled profession,’ talking about medicine. And there are certainly many really compelling stories about medicine. But I wasn’t really able to follow any sort of coherent theme to the stories. I almost felt like I was reading a collection of interesting essays as opposed to a book that was seeking to make a strong point about how to improve the field of medicine (and, in turn, other field).

Dr. Gawande splits the stories into three sections: diligence, doing right, and ingenuity. There are three-five stories in each section that purport to demonstrate the benefits of diligence, doing right or ingenuity. I think the strongest, most interesting section for me is the Doing Right section, especially in areas such as the ethics of physicians participating in the death penalty. And as I said, all of the stories are interesting to read, but I don’t think Dr. Gawande does a great job connecting them or really telling the ready what point he’s looking to make.

The book ends with a few pages that seem to come out of nowhere but that I think could have been woven into the book to create that theme that I felt was missing. Dr. Gawande proposes five things to do to improve in your field: ask an unscripted question, don’t complain, count something, write something, and change. I can see applying these to my current work, and would have enjoyed reading more about them in relation to the stories he has told throughout the book.