You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
adamrshields's reviews
1942 reviews
The Anti-Greed Gospel: Why the Love of Money Is the Root of Racism and How the Church Can Create a New Way Forward by Malcolm Foley
The early chapters are likely where most people will be doing the most highlighting. It is where the very nature of what racism is doing is being challenged. This is not a 100% change in approach, but I think a helpful refocus. Because it is an explicitly Christian presentation, it brings into play the role of distorted thinking and ethics brings into our larger societal systems. For Foley, the fact that slave owners must dehumanize to justify slavery or segregation means that other areas of ethical thinking are also distorted. Personal ethnics matters, but also so does systemic reasoning. The very nature of "efficiency" can be about minimizing waste, but once your ethics have been distorted, efficiency can use the loss of the concept of all being made in the image of God to justify profit over people.
There are other books that lay out some of the history of how Christianity and business interests intersected in unhelpful ways. Kevin Kruse points out that business interests used Christian rhetoric and institutions to mobilize Christians politically. Jesse Curtis talks about how business principle snuck into church planting and church growth models to maintain segregated churches. Sean McGever talksabout how evangelism and mission of the church blinded the 17th and 18th century church to slavery’s evil. There are a lot of other books I have not gotten to about how extractive industries, particularly oil interests influenced modern evangelicalism. The development of capitalism has definitely impacted Christianity's understanding of the role of economics.
Foley's PhD dissertation was about lynching and his background in the historical study of lynching is central to The Anti-Greed Gospel. After the introduction and two chapters laying how the idea of racial capitalism and how it is engrained in our society, Foley lays out three examples of how we tend to respond to racism in the case of lynching. Two of those are mostly inadequate examples and one is a more positive examples. Francis Grimké and Atticus Haygood are the two negative examples. Grimke sees the problem of lynching as domination and exploitation. But his response as a pastor starts with black self improvement and white education. “Grimké falls into the same trap that many of us do: we see the material effects of racism, yet we address only the spiritual and mental remedies.” (p62) Later Grimké shifts to accepting violence when he sees that racial uplift and white education are not stopping lynching. (Grimké came to understand what many have learned, that information alone will not stop racism.)
Atticus Haygood also is opposed to lynching and, as the president of Emory University, was viewed as a racial progressive. But as with many white progressives before and after the civil war, he opposed the structures of slavery or Jim Crow, but not the underlying cultural assumption of racial hierarchy.
Foley's third figure, Ida B Wells, understands the structural nature of lynching and probably most importantly, that the surface level blame on black men raping white women was almost never the actual precipitating factor. In most cases, lynching was primarily about terrorism for the purpose of maintaining economic superiority. Whether it was individuals or communities, lynching was more likely to happen in communities where there was increasing Black economic self sufficiency. The KKK is one factor but at the time of most of Wells' work, the larger KKK movement had been pushed underground. The KKK from the 1880s until the 1920 less important structurally than it was before or after that period. Foley is pointing out here that Wells saw that economic independence was the center of lynching and how she maintained her Christian faith, about repentance and grace, while also drawing attention to how the lies of lynching worked to hide its actual reality.
Lynching no longer worked as a wide spread reality when economic systems changed and federal and state officials were no longer allowed to just look away from the problems. One of the point of her writing was that racial hierarchy placed the blame of lynching on the black victim's "crime." But the actual "burden was on white communities not to lynch but rather to be faithful to the faith that they claimed because, rather simply, one could not lynch and be Christian at the same time. As simple as that declaration may sound to us, it yielded death threats for Ida." (p 85)
After the end of the introduction of the concept of racial capitalism and the exploration of the idea in history through the model of lynching, Foley spends the last third of the book grappling with how Christianity understands the problem of greed and how solidarity is a solution to that problem. A full chapter is spent on how Christianity grapples with violence as a response to oppression before moving onto another chapter about the role of truth in opposing sin. The final chapter call on the reader to look at a new vision of the kingdom of God to inspire creative thinking about how we can oppose racism (and greed) in a church that values truth and love and lives out that truth and love in solidarity with the vulnerable.
I think there are a number of reasons why at least on this initial introduction to racial capitalism, the concept of racism as primarily a problem of greed is more convicting than racism as a problem of individual hatred. First, basically no one self identifies as racist at this point. Even George Wallace after his overtly segregationist run for president in 1968 denied that he was a racist. But it is pretty hard to deny that greed does not have influence in our lives.
Second, I think that what I find most helpful about CRT is that it thinks about the problems of race in systemic terms not individual terms. For the purposes of CRT it does matter if you have racial animus as an individual, CRT is really only looking at systems. Racial capitalism maintains that systems oriented view, while having space for personal introspection. David French (I am paraphrasing from memory) says something like, "many non-racist people uphold racist policies for non-racist reasons." What French is pointing out is that systems do not fix themselves and once in place there are many reasons why those systems perpetuate themselves without individual motivations. Racial capitalism makes sense of school boundaries maintaining segregation for economics reasons. The impact is still segregation and still needs to be opposed. But I think a lot of white moderates or progressives are far more interested in maintaining their economic position than they are in addressing racism.
I think a third potential for racial capitalism is the history of Christian thinking about wealth. There are a number of other illustrations in The Anti-Greed Gospel, but this quote talking about Basil hints at the larger tools of Christianity to deal with greed.
4.75
Summary: A reframing of the concept of racism, not as hatred on the basis of skin color, but as greed.
Racial capitalism is a concept that I have been aware of, but not dived deeply into. I read part of Asian Americans and the Spirit of Racial Capitalism by Jonathan Tran but put it aside when I had some other pressing things and never came back to it. I think, in part, I set it aside because I needed to grapple with some other things first. I have followed Malcolm Foley on social media (and his podcast) for a while. I have observed him from a distance coming across the concept of racial capitalism and how that shifted some of his language around racism. I pre-ordered The Anti-Greed Gospel a while ago precisely because I thought he could introduce the topic in a way that I could understand.
About a week before the book was released, Netgalley emailed and offered me an advance digital copy for review. The Anti-Greed Gospel fairly short. I read a chapter or so before bed and finished it in five days. (There are 8 chapters and the main text is about 165 pages. I had 55 highlights in my copy which you can see here.)
As I was reading I kept thinking that in some ways Critical Race Theory is centering how legal structures were the primary tool of racism while Racial Capitalism centered out greed and capitalism were the primary tool of racism. But that is both too simple and not nuanced enough. It is pretty well known that legal structures were essential to creating the concept of race. Race as we understand the modern category did not exist before the enlightenment when categorization became a mainstream tool of not just science, but also of economics and other areas of academics and culture. That is, of course, not to say that no one recognized that there were different skin colors, but to say that phenotypical skin color was not determinative of worth, value or identity in the way that scientific racism developed from the 18th to the 20th century.
Racial Capitalism and Critical Race Theory (CRT) both agree that legal structures were essential to creating a racial caste system in the US. And CRT and Racial Capitalism both agree that racial categories are a social reality, not a biological reality. There are other overlaps, but one of the common objections to CRT is that it believes that racism doesn't go away, it shifts. I think there are some nuances in how I (in my very non-expert way) see how some of the nuances of Racial Capitalism agree with that point, but shifts the view in a way that can be more helpful than CRT is broadly.
If racism is primarily an issue of greed and the oppression or subjugation of others for the purpose of wealth creation, then that approach is different from looking at legal structures that CRT does. Both of my introductions to Racial Capitalism were from Christians, so I do need to read a secular presentation to balance that out. But Foley and Tran are willing to talk about greed and the underlying capitalist system with a spiritual lens. (Similar to how some Christian presentations of CRT also can do that.) In spite of using a Christian lens, I think you can see that part of what racial capitalism is pointing out is that culture and systemic structures (law, capitalism, eduction, etc) work together to maintain the structures of racism so that neither interpersonal attacks not systemic attacks apart from one another get at the core problems of racism. Foley draws on the MLK and the civil rights movement for descriptive language.
Racial capitalism is a concept that I have been aware of, but not dived deeply into. I read part of Asian Americans and the Spirit of Racial Capitalism by Jonathan Tran but put it aside when I had some other pressing things and never came back to it. I think, in part, I set it aside because I needed to grapple with some other things first. I have followed Malcolm Foley on social media (and his podcast) for a while. I have observed him from a distance coming across the concept of racial capitalism and how that shifted some of his language around racism. I pre-ordered The Anti-Greed Gospel a while ago precisely because I thought he could introduce the topic in a way that I could understand.
About a week before the book was released, Netgalley emailed and offered me an advance digital copy for review. The Anti-Greed Gospel fairly short. I read a chapter or so before bed and finished it in five days. (There are 8 chapters and the main text is about 165 pages. I had 55 highlights in my copy which you can see here.)
As I was reading I kept thinking that in some ways Critical Race Theory is centering how legal structures were the primary tool of racism while Racial Capitalism centered out greed and capitalism were the primary tool of racism. But that is both too simple and not nuanced enough. It is pretty well known that legal structures were essential to creating the concept of race. Race as we understand the modern category did not exist before the enlightenment when categorization became a mainstream tool of not just science, but also of economics and other areas of academics and culture. That is, of course, not to say that no one recognized that there were different skin colors, but to say that phenotypical skin color was not determinative of worth, value or identity in the way that scientific racism developed from the 18th to the 20th century.
Racial Capitalism and Critical Race Theory (CRT) both agree that legal structures were essential to creating a racial caste system in the US. And CRT and Racial Capitalism both agree that racial categories are a social reality, not a biological reality. There are other overlaps, but one of the common objections to CRT is that it believes that racism doesn't go away, it shifts. I think there are some nuances in how I (in my very non-expert way) see how some of the nuances of Racial Capitalism agree with that point, but shifts the view in a way that can be more helpful than CRT is broadly.
If racism is primarily an issue of greed and the oppression or subjugation of others for the purpose of wealth creation, then that approach is different from looking at legal structures that CRT does. Both of my introductions to Racial Capitalism were from Christians, so I do need to read a secular presentation to balance that out. But Foley and Tran are willing to talk about greed and the underlying capitalist system with a spiritual lens. (Similar to how some Christian presentations of CRT also can do that.) In spite of using a Christian lens, I think you can see that part of what racial capitalism is pointing out is that culture and systemic structures (law, capitalism, eduction, etc) work together to maintain the structures of racism so that neither interpersonal attacks not systemic attacks apart from one another get at the core problems of racism. Foley draws on the MLK and the civil rights movement for descriptive language.
"Race is not about hate and ignorance. It’s about greed. It always has been. And the purpose of this book is that you might understand the unholy relationship between race and greed, best understood not as a marriage but in terms of parentage: race and racism are children of Mammon....At its center is the claim that hate and ignorance are not at the root of race; rather, that root is greed. Notably, King, especially in the last few years of his life, drew attention to the three-headed evil that has plagued Western civilization: racism, materialism, and militarism. More pointedly, however, he drew attention to them in their most violent and common instantiations: white supremacy, capitalism, and war. These have been the inextricable evils of our day; we cannot address one of them apart from the two others. After revisiting King’s framework, I realized that self-interest binds these three evils together. This led me to recognize the three evils for what they really are: a demonic feedback loop of self-interest." (p1 and 6)
The early chapters are likely where most people will be doing the most highlighting. It is where the very nature of what racism is doing is being challenged. This is not a 100% change in approach, but I think a helpful refocus. Because it is an explicitly Christian presentation, it brings into play the role of distorted thinking and ethics brings into our larger societal systems. For Foley, the fact that slave owners must dehumanize to justify slavery or segregation means that other areas of ethical thinking are also distorted. Personal ethnics matters, but also so does systemic reasoning. The very nature of "efficiency" can be about minimizing waste, but once your ethics have been distorted, efficiency can use the loss of the concept of all being made in the image of God to justify profit over people.
There are other books that lay out some of the history of how Christianity and business interests intersected in unhelpful ways. Kevin Kruse points out that business interests used Christian rhetoric and institutions to mobilize Christians politically. Jesse Curtis talks about how business principle snuck into church planting and church growth models to maintain segregated churches. Sean McGever talksabout how evangelism and mission of the church blinded the 17th and 18th century church to slavery’s evil. There are a lot of other books I have not gotten to about how extractive industries, particularly oil interests influenced modern evangelicalism. The development of capitalism has definitely impacted Christianity's understanding of the role of economics.
Foley's PhD dissertation was about lynching and his background in the historical study of lynching is central to The Anti-Greed Gospel. After the introduction and two chapters laying how the idea of racial capitalism and how it is engrained in our society, Foley lays out three examples of how we tend to respond to racism in the case of lynching. Two of those are mostly inadequate examples and one is a more positive examples. Francis Grimké and Atticus Haygood are the two negative examples. Grimke sees the problem of lynching as domination and exploitation. But his response as a pastor starts with black self improvement and white education. “Grimké falls into the same trap that many of us do: we see the material effects of racism, yet we address only the spiritual and mental remedies.” (p62) Later Grimké shifts to accepting violence when he sees that racial uplift and white education are not stopping lynching. (Grimké came to understand what many have learned, that information alone will not stop racism.)
Atticus Haygood also is opposed to lynching and, as the president of Emory University, was viewed as a racial progressive. But as with many white progressives before and after the civil war, he opposed the structures of slavery or Jim Crow, but not the underlying cultural assumption of racial hierarchy.
"Haygood’s theological and ethical imagination had atrophied to the point that he could claim that Black Americans were “brothers and sisters” and yet deny racial equality in every sense of the word. As much as he called for Black education and so-called brotherhood, Haygood still categorized Black people as a “national problem.” The point at which people themselves become a problem rather than the injustices that they are subjected to is the point at which ethical thought dies." (p72)
Foley's third figure, Ida B Wells, understands the structural nature of lynching and probably most importantly, that the surface level blame on black men raping white women was almost never the actual precipitating factor. In most cases, lynching was primarily about terrorism for the purpose of maintaining economic superiority. Whether it was individuals or communities, lynching was more likely to happen in communities where there was increasing Black economic self sufficiency. The KKK is one factor but at the time of most of Wells' work, the larger KKK movement had been pushed underground. The KKK from the 1880s until the 1920 less important structurally than it was before or after that period. Foley is pointing out here that Wells saw that economic independence was the center of lynching and how she maintained her Christian faith, about repentance and grace, while also drawing attention to how the lies of lynching worked to hide its actual reality.
Lynching no longer worked as a wide spread reality when economic systems changed and federal and state officials were no longer allowed to just look away from the problems. One of the point of her writing was that racial hierarchy placed the blame of lynching on the black victim's "crime." But the actual "burden was on white communities not to lynch but rather to be faithful to the faith that they claimed because, rather simply, one could not lynch and be Christian at the same time. As simple as that declaration may sound to us, it yielded death threats for Ida." (p 85)
"When lynching was conceived of as punishment, the only question that some asked was whether victims did something to deserve it. The proper moral imagination saw the brutality of lynching and concluded that no human being was worthy of it. Wells not only readjudicated every lynching but also indicted the very system that made lynchings appear reasonable." (p 87)
After the end of the introduction of the concept of racial capitalism and the exploration of the idea in history through the model of lynching, Foley spends the last third of the book grappling with how Christianity understands the problem of greed and how solidarity is a solution to that problem. A full chapter is spent on how Christianity grapples with violence as a response to oppression before moving onto another chapter about the role of truth in opposing sin. The final chapter call on the reader to look at a new vision of the kingdom of God to inspire creative thinking about how we can oppose racism (and greed) in a church that values truth and love and lives out that truth and love in solidarity with the vulnerable.
I think there are a number of reasons why at least on this initial introduction to racial capitalism, the concept of racism as primarily a problem of greed is more convicting than racism as a problem of individual hatred. First, basically no one self identifies as racist at this point. Even George Wallace after his overtly segregationist run for president in 1968 denied that he was a racist. But it is pretty hard to deny that greed does not have influence in our lives.
Second, I think that what I find most helpful about CRT is that it thinks about the problems of race in systemic terms not individual terms. For the purposes of CRT it does matter if you have racial animus as an individual, CRT is really only looking at systems. Racial capitalism maintains that systems oriented view, while having space for personal introspection. David French (I am paraphrasing from memory) says something like, "many non-racist people uphold racist policies for non-racist reasons." What French is pointing out is that systems do not fix themselves and once in place there are many reasons why those systems perpetuate themselves without individual motivations. Racial capitalism makes sense of school boundaries maintaining segregation for economics reasons. The impact is still segregation and still needs to be opposed. But I think a lot of white moderates or progressives are far more interested in maintaining their economic position than they are in addressing racism.
I think a third potential for racial capitalism is the history of Christian thinking about wealth. There are a number of other illustrations in The Anti-Greed Gospel, but this quote talking about Basil hints at the larger tools of Christianity to deal with greed.
"Basil utters a heart-stopping line in his sermon, aptly titled To the Rich: “The more you abound in wealth, the more you lack in love.” Basil, in his particular context, sees that the Scriptures frame a world in which accumulation almost always happens at someone else’s expense, and that person is often needy. Thus, the more you have and hold, the less you love your neighbor.
Basil here gives the reason for Christian generosity: it is not an extra nice-to-have element of the Christian life; rather, it is a fundamental act of obedience to the Great Commandments and, particularly, to the eighth and tenth commandments. It is difficult to steal and covet when your primary relationship with goods is thinking of how they can be redistributed to meet needs. None of this denies familial obligation, but it does remind us that love of neighbor requires redistribution, not just a different attitude about money." (p 20)
The Battle for WondLa by Tony DiTerlizzi
4.25
This is a single review for the whole trilogy. I am cross posting on all three books.
Summary: Twelve year old Eva has grown up in an underground shelter, all alone with just a robot who has cared for her from birth. When the shelter is breached, Eva confronts a world unlike anything she could have imagined.
Young adult fiction is a comfort food of books, but I have not kept my finger on new books coming out, so I am frequently finding books that are new to me, but not new books. I stumbled on Wondla because it is a cartoon series on Apple TV+. I hadn’t seen anything about it before I stumbled one it, but I was looking for something that that I could watch with my kids and my teenage nieces. My kids are starting to get old enough to be able to watch things that have some tension in them.
We binged six of the seven episodes in a weekend and then watched the last a few days later. Season one of the TV series is the first book of the trilogy. And presumably the second season (which is coming but doesn't have a release date) will be the second book. In print, each of the books is roughly 450 pages. I read all three in less than 2 weeks. The first I read as an ebook from Kindle Unlimited, the next two I was able to check out from our local library in print. The Kindle editions were fine, but the print has great art in color that does not come out as well in a black and white kindle file.
A rough rule of thumb is that the intended audience of a book is the same approximate age as the main protagonist. In this case, Eva is 12 and she turns 13 in the context of the story. The cartoon has moved Eva to 16 years old and that shifts the cartoon story just a bit. In many ways, I think 12-13 is the better target. While Eva is very mature for her age, shifting her to 16 changes the story a bit for the 2nd and 3rd books. I haven't seen the 2nd and 3rd seasons of the show, but my guess is that there will be a bit of a romance in them, which doesn't make sense for a 12 year old. But more importantly the younger age makes more sense of Rovender Kitt (Rovee), the wise Alien who finds Eva and teaches her about the forest and becomes a father figure to her. It is not that older teens do not also need father figures, but I think the connection and the dependence works better with the younger age.
I do not want to give away too much of the story. But when Eva escapes the "Sanctuary" (similar to the underground silos in Hugh Howley's books, also on Apple TV+), the world she finds is not the world she was expecting. Eva has been prepared for a high tech human world. Fabrics can heat or cool and heal. Robots have personality and significant capacity. Everyone has a digital assistant that records their life, connects to others and provides information. But the world she finds is alien in every way. There are plants and animals that can't be identified and they are often dangerous. And multiple different kinds of alien species, one of which is hunting her and was the one who destroyed the sanctuary.
A plot point which is never explained in a way that I thought made any sense, is that Eva learns that she can speak telepathically to the animals and plants. That becomes very important to the story as it progresses, but it is unclear to me as a reader, if this was because she was chosen in particular in some way, or because there is something different in her. It would make sense for her to discover that gift in the second book at an event that will be clear when you read it, but that isn't what happens.
In most ways I think this should be considered a post-apocalyptic fantasy book. As becomes apparent, the reason that the sanctuaries exist is because humanity was in trouble and this was their backup plan. So the whole story is post-apocalyptic. As in many other cases, it also becomes dystopian because a leader arises out of the apocalypse. That is the case here. I suggest it is really fantasy more than science fiction because while there is technology, it is more magic than advanced science. Eva never really understands or cares to understand the tech. Instead it is her (magical) ability to talk to the animals and plants and the connection to the land that matters, which feels more magical than science.
As is my preference, this is book that keeps moving, but the characters are important. Several characters are a bit too one dimensional, but most are pretty well developed There is space to make mistakes and correct them. Part of that is Rovee's advice throughout the book to listen to what people do more than what they say. He understands that there are different perspectives. He also understands that people lie. And not all differences in perspective are lies or deception. The attention to the action more than the words matters to the book. Rovee is teaching Eva to discern what matters. Sometimes aliens are good, sometimes bad. Sometimes what you perceive as good or bad is wrong with greater understanding and context. And maybe more important, those around you that seem good, can also do bad things.
This is a middle grade leaning young adult book which is helping the reader to see the world around. The world can be hard. You may get frustrated approaching with your situation or the tasks at hand. But you still have to keep moving on when there is a discernible next step.
This was originally posted on my blog at https://bookwi.se/wondla-trilogy-by-t...
Summary: Twelve year old Eva has grown up in an underground shelter, all alone with just a robot who has cared for her from birth. When the shelter is breached, Eva confronts a world unlike anything she could have imagined.
Young adult fiction is a comfort food of books, but I have not kept my finger on new books coming out, so I am frequently finding books that are new to me, but not new books. I stumbled on Wondla because it is a cartoon series on Apple TV+. I hadn’t seen anything about it before I stumbled one it, but I was looking for something that that I could watch with my kids and my teenage nieces. My kids are starting to get old enough to be able to watch things that have some tension in them.
We binged six of the seven episodes in a weekend and then watched the last a few days later. Season one of the TV series is the first book of the trilogy. And presumably the second season (which is coming but doesn't have a release date) will be the second book. In print, each of the books is roughly 450 pages. I read all three in less than 2 weeks. The first I read as an ebook from Kindle Unlimited, the next two I was able to check out from our local library in print. The Kindle editions were fine, but the print has great art in color that does not come out as well in a black and white kindle file.
A rough rule of thumb is that the intended audience of a book is the same approximate age as the main protagonist. In this case, Eva is 12 and she turns 13 in the context of the story. The cartoon has moved Eva to 16 years old and that shifts the cartoon story just a bit. In many ways, I think 12-13 is the better target. While Eva is very mature for her age, shifting her to 16 changes the story a bit for the 2nd and 3rd books. I haven't seen the 2nd and 3rd seasons of the show, but my guess is that there will be a bit of a romance in them, which doesn't make sense for a 12 year old. But more importantly the younger age makes more sense of Rovender Kitt (Rovee), the wise Alien who finds Eva and teaches her about the forest and becomes a father figure to her. It is not that older teens do not also need father figures, but I think the connection and the dependence works better with the younger age.
I do not want to give away too much of the story. But when Eva escapes the "Sanctuary" (similar to the underground silos in Hugh Howley's books, also on Apple TV+), the world she finds is not the world she was expecting. Eva has been prepared for a high tech human world. Fabrics can heat or cool and heal. Robots have personality and significant capacity. Everyone has a digital assistant that records their life, connects to others and provides information. But the world she finds is alien in every way. There are plants and animals that can't be identified and they are often dangerous. And multiple different kinds of alien species, one of which is hunting her and was the one who destroyed the sanctuary.
A plot point which is never explained in a way that I thought made any sense, is that Eva learns that she can speak telepathically to the animals and plants. That becomes very important to the story as it progresses, but it is unclear to me as a reader, if this was because she was chosen in particular in some way, or because there is something different in her. It would make sense for her to discover that gift in the second book at an event that will be clear when you read it, but that isn't what happens.
In most ways I think this should be considered a post-apocalyptic fantasy book. As becomes apparent, the reason that the sanctuaries exist is because humanity was in trouble and this was their backup plan. So the whole story is post-apocalyptic. As in many other cases, it also becomes dystopian because a leader arises out of the apocalypse. That is the case here. I suggest it is really fantasy more than science fiction because while there is technology, it is more magic than advanced science. Eva never really understands or cares to understand the tech. Instead it is her (magical) ability to talk to the animals and plants and the connection to the land that matters, which feels more magical than science.
As is my preference, this is book that keeps moving, but the characters are important. Several characters are a bit too one dimensional, but most are pretty well developed There is space to make mistakes and correct them. Part of that is Rovee's advice throughout the book to listen to what people do more than what they say. He understands that there are different perspectives. He also understands that people lie. And not all differences in perspective are lies or deception. The attention to the action more than the words matters to the book. Rovee is teaching Eva to discern what matters. Sometimes aliens are good, sometimes bad. Sometimes what you perceive as good or bad is wrong with greater understanding and context. And maybe more important, those around you that seem good, can also do bad things.
This is a middle grade leaning young adult book which is helping the reader to see the world around. The world can be hard. You may get frustrated approaching with your situation or the tasks at hand. But you still have to keep moving on when there is a discernible next step.
This was originally posted on my blog at https://bookwi.se/wondla-trilogy-by-t...
A Hero For WondLa by Tony DiTerlizzi
4.25
This is a single review for the whole trilogy. I am cross posting on all three books.
Summary: Twelve year old Eva has grown up in an underground shelter, all alone with just a robot who has cared for her from birth. When the shelter is breached, Eva confronts a world unlike anything she could have imagined.
Young adult fiction is a comfort food of books, but I have not kept my finger on new books coming out, so I am frequently finding books that are new to me, but not new books. I stumbled on Wondla because it is a cartoon series on Apple TV+. I hadn’t seen anything about it before I stumbled one it, but I was looking for something that that I could watch with my kids and my teenage nieces. My kids are starting to get old enough to be able to watch things that have some tension in them.
We binged six of the seven episodes in a weekend and then watched the last a few days later. Season one of the TV series is the first book of the trilogy. And presumably the second season (which is coming but doesn't have a release date) will be the second book. In print, each of the books is roughly 450 pages. I read all three in less than 2 weeks. The first I read as an ebook from Kindle Unlimited, the next two I was able to check out from our local library in print. The Kindle editions were fine, but the print has great art in color that does not come out as well in a black and white kindle file.
A rough rule of thumb is that the intended audience of a book is the same approximate age as the main protagonist. In this case, Eva is 12 and she turns 13 in the context of the story. The cartoon has moved Eva to 16 years old and that shifts the cartoon story just a bit. In many ways, I think 12-13 is the better target. While Eva is very mature for her age, shifting her to 16 changes the story a bit for the 2nd and 3rd books. I haven't seen the 2nd and 3rd seasons of the show, but my guess is that there will be a bit of a romance in them, which doesn't make sense for a 12 year old. But more importantly the younger age makes more sense of Rovender Kitt (Rovee), the wise Alien who finds Eva and teaches her about the forest and becomes a father figure to her. It is not that older teens do not also need father figures, but I think the connection and the dependence works better with the younger age.
I do not want to give away too much of the story. But when Eva escapes the "Sanctuary" (similar to the underground silos in Hugh Howley's books, also on Apple TV+), the world she finds is not the world she was expecting. Eva has been prepared for a high tech human world. Fabrics can heat or cool and heal. Robots have personality and significant capacity. Everyone has a digital assistant that records their life, connects to others and provides information. But the world she finds is alien in every way. There are plants and animals that can't be identified and they are often dangerous. And multiple different kinds of alien species, one of which is hunting her and was the one who destroyed the sanctuary.
A plot point which is never explained in a way that I thought made any sense, is that Eva learns that she can speak telepathically to the animals and plants. That becomes very important to the story as it progresses, but it is unclear to me as a reader, if this was because she was chosen in particular in some way, or because there is something different in her. It would make sense for her to discover that gift in the second book at an event that will be clear when you read it, but that isn't what happens.
In most ways I think this should be considered a post-apocalyptic fantasy book. As becomes apparent, the reason that the sanctuaries exist is because humanity was in trouble and this was their backup plan. So the whole story is post-apocalyptic. As in many other cases, it also becomes dystopian because a leader arises out of the apocalypse. That is the case here. I suggest it is really fantasy more than science fiction because while there is technology, it is more magic than advanced science. Eva never really understands or cares to understand the tech. Instead it is her (magical) ability to talk to the animals and plants and the connection to the land that matters, which feels more magical than science.
As is my preference, this is book that keeps moving, but the characters are important. Several characters are a bit too one dimensional, but most are pretty well developed There is space to make mistakes and correct them. Part of that is Rovee's advice throughout the book to listen to what people do more than what they say. He understands that there are different perspectives. He also understands that people lie. And not all differences in perspective are lies or deception. The attention to the action more than the words matters to the book. Rovee is teaching Eva to discern what matters. Sometimes aliens are good, sometimes bad. Sometimes what you perceive as good or bad is wrong with greater understanding and context. And maybe more important, those around you that seem good, can also do bad things.
This is a middle grade leaning young adult book which is helping the reader to see the world around. The world can be hard. You may get frustrated approaching with your situation or the tasks at hand. But you still have to keep moving on when there is a discernible next step.
This was originally posted on my blog at https://bookwi.se/wondla-trilogy-by-t...
Summary: Twelve year old Eva has grown up in an underground shelter, all alone with just a robot who has cared for her from birth. When the shelter is breached, Eva confronts a world unlike anything she could have imagined.
Young adult fiction is a comfort food of books, but I have not kept my finger on new books coming out, so I am frequently finding books that are new to me, but not new books. I stumbled on Wondla because it is a cartoon series on Apple TV+. I hadn’t seen anything about it before I stumbled one it, but I was looking for something that that I could watch with my kids and my teenage nieces. My kids are starting to get old enough to be able to watch things that have some tension in them.
We binged six of the seven episodes in a weekend and then watched the last a few days later. Season one of the TV series is the first book of the trilogy. And presumably the second season (which is coming but doesn't have a release date) will be the second book. In print, each of the books is roughly 450 pages. I read all three in less than 2 weeks. The first I read as an ebook from Kindle Unlimited, the next two I was able to check out from our local library in print. The Kindle editions were fine, but the print has great art in color that does not come out as well in a black and white kindle file.
A rough rule of thumb is that the intended audience of a book is the same approximate age as the main protagonist. In this case, Eva is 12 and she turns 13 in the context of the story. The cartoon has moved Eva to 16 years old and that shifts the cartoon story just a bit. In many ways, I think 12-13 is the better target. While Eva is very mature for her age, shifting her to 16 changes the story a bit for the 2nd and 3rd books. I haven't seen the 2nd and 3rd seasons of the show, but my guess is that there will be a bit of a romance in them, which doesn't make sense for a 12 year old. But more importantly the younger age makes more sense of Rovender Kitt (Rovee), the wise Alien who finds Eva and teaches her about the forest and becomes a father figure to her. It is not that older teens do not also need father figures, but I think the connection and the dependence works better with the younger age.
I do not want to give away too much of the story. But when Eva escapes the "Sanctuary" (similar to the underground silos in Hugh Howley's books, also on Apple TV+), the world she finds is not the world she was expecting. Eva has been prepared for a high tech human world. Fabrics can heat or cool and heal. Robots have personality and significant capacity. Everyone has a digital assistant that records their life, connects to others and provides information. But the world she finds is alien in every way. There are plants and animals that can't be identified and they are often dangerous. And multiple different kinds of alien species, one of which is hunting her and was the one who destroyed the sanctuary.
A plot point which is never explained in a way that I thought made any sense, is that Eva learns that she can speak telepathically to the animals and plants. That becomes very important to the story as it progresses, but it is unclear to me as a reader, if this was because she was chosen in particular in some way, or because there is something different in her. It would make sense for her to discover that gift in the second book at an event that will be clear when you read it, but that isn't what happens.
In most ways I think this should be considered a post-apocalyptic fantasy book. As becomes apparent, the reason that the sanctuaries exist is because humanity was in trouble and this was their backup plan. So the whole story is post-apocalyptic. As in many other cases, it also becomes dystopian because a leader arises out of the apocalypse. That is the case here. I suggest it is really fantasy more than science fiction because while there is technology, it is more magic than advanced science. Eva never really understands or cares to understand the tech. Instead it is her (magical) ability to talk to the animals and plants and the connection to the land that matters, which feels more magical than science.
As is my preference, this is book that keeps moving, but the characters are important. Several characters are a bit too one dimensional, but most are pretty well developed There is space to make mistakes and correct them. Part of that is Rovee's advice throughout the book to listen to what people do more than what they say. He understands that there are different perspectives. He also understands that people lie. And not all differences in perspective are lies or deception. The attention to the action more than the words matters to the book. Rovee is teaching Eva to discern what matters. Sometimes aliens are good, sometimes bad. Sometimes what you perceive as good or bad is wrong with greater understanding and context. And maybe more important, those around you that seem good, can also do bad things.
This is a middle grade leaning young adult book which is helping the reader to see the world around. The world can be hard. You may get frustrated approaching with your situation or the tasks at hand. But you still have to keep moving on when there is a discernible next step.
This was originally posted on my blog at https://bookwi.se/wondla-trilogy-by-t...
The Search for WondLa by Tony DiTerlizzi
4.25
This is a single review for the whole trilogy. I am cross posting on all three books.
Summary: Twelve year old Eva has grown up in an underground shelter, all alone with just a robot who has cared for her from birth. When the shelter is breached, Eva confronts a world unlike anything she could have imagined.
Young adult fiction is a comfort food of books, but I have not kept my finger on new books coming out, so I am frequently finding books that are new to me, but not new books. I stumbled on Wondla because it is a cartoon series on Apple TV+. I hadn’t seen anything about it before I stumbled one it, but I was looking for something that that I could watch with my kids and my teenage nieces. My kids are starting to get old enough to be able to watch things that have some tension in them.
We binged six of the seven episodes in a weekend and then watched the last a few days later. Season one of the TV series is the first book of the trilogy. And presumably the second season (which is coming but doesn't have a release date) will be the second book. In print, each of the books is roughly 450 pages. I read all three in less than 2 weeks. The first I read as an ebook from Kindle Unlimited, the next two I was able to check out from our local library in print. The Kindle editions were fine, but the print has great art in color that does not come out as well in a black and white kindle file.
A rough rule of thumb is that the intended audience of a book is the same approximate age as the main protagonist. In this case, Eva is 12 and she turns 13 in the context of the story. The cartoon has moved Eva to 16 years old and that shifts the cartoon story just a bit. In many ways, I think 12-13 is the better target. While Eva is very mature for her age, shifting her to 16 changes the story a bit for the 2nd and 3rd books. I haven't seen the 2nd and 3rd seasons of the show, but my guess is that there will be a bit of a romance in them, which doesn't make sense for a 12 year old. But more importantly the younger age makes more sense of Rovender Kitt (Rovee), the wise Alien who finds Eva and teaches her about the forest and becomes a father figure to her. It is not that older teens do not also need father figures, but I think the connection and the dependence works better with the younger age.
I do not want to give away too much of the story. But when Eva escapes the "Sanctuary" (similar to the underground silos in Hugh Howley's books, also on Apple TV+), the world she finds is not the world she was expecting. Eva has been prepared for a high tech human world. Fabrics can heat or cool and heal. Robots have personality and significant capacity. Everyone has a digital assistant that records their life, connects to others and provides information. But the world she finds is alien in every way. There are plants and animals that can't be identified and they are often dangerous. And multiple different kinds of alien species, one of which is hunting her and was the one who destroyed the sanctuary.
A plot point which is never explained in a way that I thought made any sense, is that Eva learns that she can speak telepathically to the animals and plants. That becomes very important to the story as it progresses, but it is unclear to me as a reader, if this was because she was chosen in particular in some way, or because there is something different in her. It would make sense for her to discover that gift in the second book at an event that will be clear when you read it, but that isn't what happens.
In most ways I think this should be considered a post-apocalyptic fantasy book. As becomes apparent, the reason that the sanctuaries exist is because humanity was in trouble and this was their backup plan. So the whole story is post-apocalyptic. As in many other cases, it also becomes dystopian because a leader arises out of the apocalypse. That is the case here. I suggest it is really fantasy more than science fiction because while there is technology, it is more magic than advanced science. Eva never really understands or cares to understand the tech. Instead it is her (magical) ability to talk to the animals and plants and the connection to the land that matters, which feels more magical than science.
As is my preference, this is book that keeps moving, but the characters are important. Several characters are a bit too one dimensional, but most are pretty well developed There is space to make mistakes and correct them. Part of that is Rovee's advice throughout the book to listen to what people do more than what they say. He understands that there are different perspectives. He also understands that people lie. And not all differences in perspective are lies or deception. The attention to the action more than the words matters to the book. Rovee is teaching Eva to discern what matters. Sometimes aliens are good, sometimes bad. Sometimes what you perceive as good or bad is wrong with greater understanding and context. And maybe more important, those around you that seem good, can also do bad things.
This is a middle grade leaning young adult book which is helping the reader to see the world around. The world can be hard. You may get frustrated approaching with your situation or the tasks at hand. But you still have to keep moving on when there is a discernible next step.
This was originally posted on my blog at https://bookwi.se/wondla-trilogy-by-t...
Summary: Twelve year old Eva has grown up in an underground shelter, all alone with just a robot who has cared for her from birth. When the shelter is breached, Eva confronts a world unlike anything she could have imagined.
Young adult fiction is a comfort food of books, but I have not kept my finger on new books coming out, so I am frequently finding books that are new to me, but not new books. I stumbled on Wondla because it is a cartoon series on Apple TV+. I hadn’t seen anything about it before I stumbled one it, but I was looking for something that that I could watch with my kids and my teenage nieces. My kids are starting to get old enough to be able to watch things that have some tension in them.
We binged six of the seven episodes in a weekend and then watched the last a few days later. Season one of the TV series is the first book of the trilogy. And presumably the second season (which is coming but doesn't have a release date) will be the second book. In print, each of the books is roughly 450 pages. I read all three in less than 2 weeks. The first I read as an ebook from Kindle Unlimited, the next two I was able to check out from our local library in print. The Kindle editions were fine, but the print has great art in color that does not come out as well in a black and white kindle file.
A rough rule of thumb is that the intended audience of a book is the same approximate age as the main protagonist. In this case, Eva is 12 and she turns 13 in the context of the story. The cartoon has moved Eva to 16 years old and that shifts the cartoon story just a bit. In many ways, I think 12-13 is the better target. While Eva is very mature for her age, shifting her to 16 changes the story a bit for the 2nd and 3rd books. I haven't seen the 2nd and 3rd seasons of the show, but my guess is that there will be a bit of a romance in them, which doesn't make sense for a 12 year old. But more importantly the younger age makes more sense of Rovender Kitt (Rovee), the wise Alien who finds Eva and teaches her about the forest and becomes a father figure to her. It is not that older teens do not also need father figures, but I think the connection and the dependence works better with the younger age.
I do not want to give away too much of the story. But when Eva escapes the "Sanctuary" (similar to the underground silos in Hugh Howley's books, also on Apple TV+), the world she finds is not the world she was expecting. Eva has been prepared for a high tech human world. Fabrics can heat or cool and heal. Robots have personality and significant capacity. Everyone has a digital assistant that records their life, connects to others and provides information. But the world she finds is alien in every way. There are plants and animals that can't be identified and they are often dangerous. And multiple different kinds of alien species, one of which is hunting her and was the one who destroyed the sanctuary.
A plot point which is never explained in a way that I thought made any sense, is that Eva learns that she can speak telepathically to the animals and plants. That becomes very important to the story as it progresses, but it is unclear to me as a reader, if this was because she was chosen in particular in some way, or because there is something different in her. It would make sense for her to discover that gift in the second book at an event that will be clear when you read it, but that isn't what happens.
In most ways I think this should be considered a post-apocalyptic fantasy book. As becomes apparent, the reason that the sanctuaries exist is because humanity was in trouble and this was their backup plan. So the whole story is post-apocalyptic. As in many other cases, it also becomes dystopian because a leader arises out of the apocalypse. That is the case here. I suggest it is really fantasy more than science fiction because while there is technology, it is more magic than advanced science. Eva never really understands or cares to understand the tech. Instead it is her (magical) ability to talk to the animals and plants and the connection to the land that matters, which feels more magical than science.
As is my preference, this is book that keeps moving, but the characters are important. Several characters are a bit too one dimensional, but most are pretty well developed There is space to make mistakes and correct them. Part of that is Rovee's advice throughout the book to listen to what people do more than what they say. He understands that there are different perspectives. He also understands that people lie. And not all differences in perspective are lies or deception. The attention to the action more than the words matters to the book. Rovee is teaching Eva to discern what matters. Sometimes aliens are good, sometimes bad. Sometimes what you perceive as good or bad is wrong with greater understanding and context. And maybe more important, those around you that seem good, can also do bad things.
This is a middle grade leaning young adult book which is helping the reader to see the world around. The world can be hard. You may get frustrated approaching with your situation or the tasks at hand. But you still have to keep moving on when there is a discernible next step.
This was originally posted on my blog at https://bookwi.se/wondla-trilogy-by-t...
Epiphany: The Season of Glory by Fleming Rutledge, Fleming Rutledge
3.25
Summary: An exploration of the season of Epiphany, a celebration of the glory of Christ's incarnation and revelation of himself to us.
I appreciate this book while also being a bit frustrated with it and I am not completely sure why. I started it last year during the Epiphany season and didn't finish it. So I started it again right at the end of Christmas season so that I would have it done by the start of Epiphany. But again I didn't finish and I really forced myself to finish. I have previously read Rutledge's book on Advent, which is mostly a collection of sermons. And I read about 75% of Rutledge's' Crucifixion and I have dipped into several other of her sermon collections, but again, never finished them.
Sermon collections are not something that really are intended to read straight through. So dipping into them but not finishing is I think to be expected for the genre. But there is something else that I think feels off here. I very much appreciate Rutledge's wisdom and attention to the tradition of the Episcopal church. She turns 87 later this year and we need to pay attention to elders who have seen changes in history. I also think that she is one of the best preachers I have ever heard. I have spent a lot of time watching her old sermons on youtube.
The third things I really appreciate about Rutledge that is in full force here is her attention to Jesus. Rutledge was part of the first generation of women to be ordained in the Episcopal church. That Episcopal church has not always centered Jesus and I think at times she is preaching to a sliver of the church that hasn't centered Jesus. But at the same time, I am not part of that part of the church. I do think there is a need to pay attention to Jesus and his humanity and his death and resurrection. But as much as I did appreciate learning about the season (she is pointing out that Epiphany is a season, not just a single day feast) that centers on Christ's incarnation and glory the attention felt more like retrieval of tradition instead of attention to the need for a season of epiphany.
Maybe I am just the wrong reader for this book, because part of the conception of the whole series is new attention to the liturgical calendar. I want to understand tradition and why the liturgical seasons are as they are, but I didn't feel connected to the great tradition for the purpose of the future. I don't remember where I read it, but somewhere in James KA Smith's work, he talks about the problems of participating in the liturgy while in a culture that doesn't either believe in Christianity or recognize the liturgy. Based on my memory, I think he was talking about the problems of fasting or participating in lent and other seasons that were intended to be communal, solely as an individual. Smith is pointing out that we are not Christians on our own, but in community even as that community is not reflected in broader culture.
Part of Smith's critique of The Benedict Option was that Dreher was advocating retreat from culture when Smith believes that Augustine and others were calling for engagement with culture. What we have seen from Dreher and a significant part of the American church is a reliance on a strongman to get his own way, instead of seeking creative ways to live out the life of Christ within a culture that is no longer designed for you.
I think both Lent and Christmas were writing consciously to help the reader understand how to celebrate the liturgical seasons within a culture that is not designed for us. And in particular how to celebrate when many cultural values are overtly opposed to the underlying values of the season we are celebrating. I don't want to be too strong here, because Rutledge is focusing on glory, in a way that is very cross cultural. I think she is right that the church doesn't understand glory in the way that earlier generations of the church did. But I also didn't feel like I was given much more than just the reality of that lack. Maybe part of the problem is that for Lent and Christmas the problem is that the culture isn't celebrating what the season is celebrating, but Rutlege is pointing out that the church isn't celebrating what the season is celebrating. Those are different problems.
It feels contradictory to both say that this book was too long and didn't do enough, but that is what I am left with. It is about 50 percent longer than Lent (although only about 10 pages longer than Christmas) and I think it either needed to cut 30-50 pages, or pivot to a different lens to look at Epiphany. It isn't that I think anything here is bad or heretical or wrong. It is that either it should have been shorter or covered more ground.
This originally posted on my blog at https://bookwi.se/epiphany/
I appreciate this book while also being a bit frustrated with it and I am not completely sure why. I started it last year during the Epiphany season and didn't finish it. So I started it again right at the end of Christmas season so that I would have it done by the start of Epiphany. But again I didn't finish and I really forced myself to finish. I have previously read Rutledge's book on Advent, which is mostly a collection of sermons. And I read about 75% of Rutledge's' Crucifixion and I have dipped into several other of her sermon collections, but again, never finished them.
Sermon collections are not something that really are intended to read straight through. So dipping into them but not finishing is I think to be expected for the genre. But there is something else that I think feels off here. I very much appreciate Rutledge's wisdom and attention to the tradition of the Episcopal church. She turns 87 later this year and we need to pay attention to elders who have seen changes in history. I also think that she is one of the best preachers I have ever heard. I have spent a lot of time watching her old sermons on youtube.
The third things I really appreciate about Rutledge that is in full force here is her attention to Jesus. Rutledge was part of the first generation of women to be ordained in the Episcopal church. That Episcopal church has not always centered Jesus and I think at times she is preaching to a sliver of the church that hasn't centered Jesus. But at the same time, I am not part of that part of the church. I do think there is a need to pay attention to Jesus and his humanity and his death and resurrection. But as much as I did appreciate learning about the season (she is pointing out that Epiphany is a season, not just a single day feast) that centers on Christ's incarnation and glory the attention felt more like retrieval of tradition instead of attention to the need for a season of epiphany.
Maybe I am just the wrong reader for this book, because part of the conception of the whole series is new attention to the liturgical calendar. I want to understand tradition and why the liturgical seasons are as they are, but I didn't feel connected to the great tradition for the purpose of the future. I don't remember where I read it, but somewhere in James KA Smith's work, he talks about the problems of participating in the liturgy while in a culture that doesn't either believe in Christianity or recognize the liturgy. Based on my memory, I think he was talking about the problems of fasting or participating in lent and other seasons that were intended to be communal, solely as an individual. Smith is pointing out that we are not Christians on our own, but in community even as that community is not reflected in broader culture.
Part of Smith's critique of The Benedict Option was that Dreher was advocating retreat from culture when Smith believes that Augustine and others were calling for engagement with culture. What we have seen from Dreher and a significant part of the American church is a reliance on a strongman to get his own way, instead of seeking creative ways to live out the life of Christ within a culture that is no longer designed for you.
I think both Lent and Christmas were writing consciously to help the reader understand how to celebrate the liturgical seasons within a culture that is not designed for us. And in particular how to celebrate when many cultural values are overtly opposed to the underlying values of the season we are celebrating. I don't want to be too strong here, because Rutledge is focusing on glory, in a way that is very cross cultural. I think she is right that the church doesn't understand glory in the way that earlier generations of the church did. But I also didn't feel like I was given much more than just the reality of that lack. Maybe part of the problem is that for Lent and Christmas the problem is that the culture isn't celebrating what the season is celebrating, but Rutlege is pointing out that the church isn't celebrating what the season is celebrating. Those are different problems.
It feels contradictory to both say that this book was too long and didn't do enough, but that is what I am left with. It is about 50 percent longer than Lent (although only about 10 pages longer than Christmas) and I think it either needed to cut 30-50 pages, or pivot to a different lens to look at Epiphany. It isn't that I think anything here is bad or heretical or wrong. It is that either it should have been shorter or covered more ground.
This originally posted on my blog at https://bookwi.se/epiphany/
King: A Life by Jonathan Eig
4.75
Summary: The first definitive style biography of King in nearly 40 years.
At the end of the audiobook is an interview with Jonathan Eig and Lerone A. Martin, author of The Gospel of J Edgar Hoover. Their discussion about the lack of full biographies and the new sources is compelling. I had not realized that it has been over 40 years since Stephen Oates biography and nearly 40 years since Garrow's biography. Because I have read more recent books like The Seminarian and the The Sword and the Shield (joint biography of King and Malcolm X) as well as a number of histories were King played a major role in just didn't realize until I heard that interview how long it had been since a full biography.
Also detailed in that interview is new sources have been found or released. Eig is a journalist by training and history. You can tell that in his writing, but we are at that transition period when the Civil Rights generation is passing away. Eig says he was able to interview over 200 people who knew King. Some like Juanita Abernathy knew King well and were known figures. But Eig also interviewed minor figures, like his barber in Montgomery.
I am letting that interview at the end frame some of my thinking about the book, but it was clear from the start of the biography that Eig was trying to portray King as a flawed man. Similar to Alter's framing of Jimmy Carter, Eig has significant respect for King as a subject, but to write well about the whole man we do need to understand his weaknesses. I am going to talk more below about how he handles those weaknesses, but in that interview he said he wanted to keep King from being reduced and simplified.
One last point from the interview is that one of the significant sources that is fairly new are FBI files. Not all files have been declassified yet, but some have. Another set was declassified after the book was released. And another large set it scheduled to be released in 2027. Eig has no doubt about King's involvement in extramarital affairs. But he balances that with a more clear understanding of how J Edgar Hoover and the FBI as a whole were not just observers of affairs, but significant opponents of not just the civil rights movement in general but King in particular. The antagonism of the FBI and Hoover in particular was a significant part of how the shift in attitude toward both King and the civil rights movement. It was not just the point when King voiced opposition to the Vietnam war, but throughout the whole movement the FBI was acting as a propaganda machine against the civil rights movement, not just with the public but especially in harming the relationship that King had with the President and the Department of Justice. The affairs were one excuse, but not the first excuse or the main excuse for why the civil rights movement and King in particular were dangerous. The very next day after the 1963 March on Washington, the FBI puts out a memo labeling King as the greatest threat to American democracy. Hoover, as detailed in Lerone Martin's book was a Christian Nationalist with strong views of white racial superiority. He both viewed the civil rights movement as a communist plant or distraction, but also a violation of the natural order.
After King's assassination, COINTELPRO became better known for its work at undermining the civil rights movement with informants and plants and work to internally weaken civil rights organization including threats against funders, but the formal work of COINTELPRO was in existence by 1956. The "anonymous" letter encouraging King to commit suicide is well known, but less well know is how much effort the FBI put into seeding false or misleading stories into he press about Civil Rights leaders (including King) and working to undermine financial support of the movement. I suspect that as much as we know and is detailed here in Eig's book, more will be revealed in upcoming document releases.
Part of what I think is handled well by Eig is King's limitations. Everyone has a limited capacity (no one can do it all or be all things). King was empathetic, a great orator and deeply interested in his faith and justice. But he wasn't a grass roots organizer like Ella Baker or a theoretical philosopher of race and justice. His orientation to avoid interpersonal conflict meant that personal negotiation with political or business opponents to integration had a different private and public mode. But more importantly, his lack of balancing factors in his life meant that he was always traveling and following the action, not focused on proactive work. (Again, this was influenced by the FBI's work to interrupt funding.) The effort of keeping SCLC funded and running was left him unable to be with people in more grassroots ways that kept him energized. King was pushed into a role of icon at a very young age, which asked him to be all things in a way that no human could have.
There is a very good discussion about the 1965-1968 era and the ways that the Civil Rights movements began to break apart. That has of course been discussed widely in many different ways. Part of the traditional discussion is the slowness of change. Brown v Board and Montgomery happened in 1954, but laws around housing segregation, the biggest factor in school segregation in metro urban areas was not passed until 1968. The Cold War, one of the background factors in propelling civil rights forward crashed into Vietnam protests, which lowered the pressure on federal officials to respond to global interests. The slowing of US economic growth in the mid 1960s which moved to rapid inflation and recession in the 1970s and 80s allowed politicians and business leaders to scapegoat civil rights, affirmative action and welfare programs instead of globalization and aging business infrastructure. Many discussion about the breakup of the civil rights movement is about the movement stripped of the larger context of history. I think Eig could have included more about the broader context, but he included more about the context than what I have seen in other presentations.
As I was reading Eig's book I started reading an advance copy of Malcolm Foley's Anti-Greed Gospel. Foley is presenting a model of discussion of race centered on racial capitalism. Broadly, this can be thought of an a different mode of discussion based on racism as an economic reality similar to the way that Critical Race Theory is centered on racism as a legal reality. CRT I think has value in talking about how slow structural changes to US law and practice were. The fact that my kids today go to a school that is 90% racial minorities and 70% low income, when another school just a half mile away in the same district is 11% Black or Hispanic and 7% low income is a structural issues. But racial capitalism as an idea I think also speaks to that structural issue (resistance to changing school zoning because of its impact on housing prices) as well as the way that funding for the Civil Rights movement drying up exactly when it started to expand its target beyond voting rights. King always had a vision for the role of economics in racism, but many of the white participants in those movement did not fully embrace that. And the pragmatic supporters of desegregation who were more interested its impact on anti-communism efforts than on the way that the civil rights movement was connected to a global anti colonialism movement fell away when King started speaking about Vietnam.
No book is perfect, and it is difficult to present a figure like King well when so much of his story is fixed in the minds of most readers. But I think there is value in King: A Life not just because there is new data and that Eig spends a lot of time on Coretta in ways that some others do not (including being the first to write about personal letters between Coretta and Martin). Eig is a punchy writer and the story moves along with force that is not always the case with long biographies. Obviously, this is a book that won a Pulitzer Prize, so it does not need my stamp of approval. About halfway through the book I was not sure there was much different form Oates biography and other shorter versions of King that I had read, but I think the second half of the book showed why this biography has been so well received.
This was originally posted on my blog at https://bookwi.se/king/
At the end of the audiobook is an interview with Jonathan Eig and Lerone A. Martin, author of The Gospel of J Edgar Hoover. Their discussion about the lack of full biographies and the new sources is compelling. I had not realized that it has been over 40 years since Stephen Oates biography and nearly 40 years since Garrow's biography. Because I have read more recent books like The Seminarian and the The Sword and the Shield (joint biography of King and Malcolm X) as well as a number of histories were King played a major role in just didn't realize until I heard that interview how long it had been since a full biography.
Also detailed in that interview is new sources have been found or released. Eig is a journalist by training and history. You can tell that in his writing, but we are at that transition period when the Civil Rights generation is passing away. Eig says he was able to interview over 200 people who knew King. Some like Juanita Abernathy knew King well and were known figures. But Eig also interviewed minor figures, like his barber in Montgomery.
I am letting that interview at the end frame some of my thinking about the book, but it was clear from the start of the biography that Eig was trying to portray King as a flawed man. Similar to Alter's framing of Jimmy Carter, Eig has significant respect for King as a subject, but to write well about the whole man we do need to understand his weaknesses. I am going to talk more below about how he handles those weaknesses, but in that interview he said he wanted to keep King from being reduced and simplified.
One last point from the interview is that one of the significant sources that is fairly new are FBI files. Not all files have been declassified yet, but some have. Another set was declassified after the book was released. And another large set it scheduled to be released in 2027. Eig has no doubt about King's involvement in extramarital affairs. But he balances that with a more clear understanding of how J Edgar Hoover and the FBI as a whole were not just observers of affairs, but significant opponents of not just the civil rights movement in general but King in particular. The antagonism of the FBI and Hoover in particular was a significant part of how the shift in attitude toward both King and the civil rights movement. It was not just the point when King voiced opposition to the Vietnam war, but throughout the whole movement the FBI was acting as a propaganda machine against the civil rights movement, not just with the public but especially in harming the relationship that King had with the President and the Department of Justice. The affairs were one excuse, but not the first excuse or the main excuse for why the civil rights movement and King in particular were dangerous. The very next day after the 1963 March on Washington, the FBI puts out a memo labeling King as the greatest threat to American democracy. Hoover, as detailed in Lerone Martin's book was a Christian Nationalist with strong views of white racial superiority. He both viewed the civil rights movement as a communist plant or distraction, but also a violation of the natural order.
After King's assassination, COINTELPRO became better known for its work at undermining the civil rights movement with informants and plants and work to internally weaken civil rights organization including threats against funders, but the formal work of COINTELPRO was in existence by 1956. The "anonymous" letter encouraging King to commit suicide is well known, but less well know is how much effort the FBI put into seeding false or misleading stories into he press about Civil Rights leaders (including King) and working to undermine financial support of the movement. I suspect that as much as we know and is detailed here in Eig's book, more will be revealed in upcoming document releases.
Part of what I think is handled well by Eig is King's limitations. Everyone has a limited capacity (no one can do it all or be all things). King was empathetic, a great orator and deeply interested in his faith and justice. But he wasn't a grass roots organizer like Ella Baker or a theoretical philosopher of race and justice. His orientation to avoid interpersonal conflict meant that personal negotiation with political or business opponents to integration had a different private and public mode. But more importantly, his lack of balancing factors in his life meant that he was always traveling and following the action, not focused on proactive work. (Again, this was influenced by the FBI's work to interrupt funding.) The effort of keeping SCLC funded and running was left him unable to be with people in more grassroots ways that kept him energized. King was pushed into a role of icon at a very young age, which asked him to be all things in a way that no human could have.
There is a very good discussion about the 1965-1968 era and the ways that the Civil Rights movements began to break apart. That has of course been discussed widely in many different ways. Part of the traditional discussion is the slowness of change. Brown v Board and Montgomery happened in 1954, but laws around housing segregation, the biggest factor in school segregation in metro urban areas was not passed until 1968. The Cold War, one of the background factors in propelling civil rights forward crashed into Vietnam protests, which lowered the pressure on federal officials to respond to global interests. The slowing of US economic growth in the mid 1960s which moved to rapid inflation and recession in the 1970s and 80s allowed politicians and business leaders to scapegoat civil rights, affirmative action and welfare programs instead of globalization and aging business infrastructure. Many discussion about the breakup of the civil rights movement is about the movement stripped of the larger context of history. I think Eig could have included more about the broader context, but he included more about the context than what I have seen in other presentations.
As I was reading Eig's book I started reading an advance copy of Malcolm Foley's Anti-Greed Gospel. Foley is presenting a model of discussion of race centered on racial capitalism. Broadly, this can be thought of an a different mode of discussion based on racism as an economic reality similar to the way that Critical Race Theory is centered on racism as a legal reality. CRT I think has value in talking about how slow structural changes to US law and practice were. The fact that my kids today go to a school that is 90% racial minorities and 70% low income, when another school just a half mile away in the same district is 11% Black or Hispanic and 7% low income is a structural issues. But racial capitalism as an idea I think also speaks to that structural issue (resistance to changing school zoning because of its impact on housing prices) as well as the way that funding for the Civil Rights movement drying up exactly when it started to expand its target beyond voting rights. King always had a vision for the role of economics in racism, but many of the white participants in those movement did not fully embrace that. And the pragmatic supporters of desegregation who were more interested its impact on anti-communism efforts than on the way that the civil rights movement was connected to a global anti colonialism movement fell away when King started speaking about Vietnam.
No book is perfect, and it is difficult to present a figure like King well when so much of his story is fixed in the minds of most readers. But I think there is value in King: A Life not just because there is new data and that Eig spends a lot of time on Coretta in ways that some others do not (including being the first to write about personal letters between Coretta and Martin). Eig is a punchy writer and the story moves along with force that is not always the case with long biographies. Obviously, this is a book that won a Pulitzer Prize, so it does not need my stamp of approval. About halfway through the book I was not sure there was much different form Oates biography and other shorter versions of King that I had read, but I think the second half of the book showed why this biography has been so well received.
This was originally posted on my blog at https://bookwi.se/king/
The Book of Hours by T. Davis Bunn
3.25
Summary: A widower inherits a British estate, but he may lose it before he is even unpacked.
I am trying to read more fiction. This is a goal that I have almost every year. I really am conviced that fiction is important, but I have a tendancy to gravitate toward "important" books. I saw that the Book of Hours was on sale and I picked it up. I read his book The Maestro when I was in high school and I enjoyed it. It was a book about a musician who was a real artist and as he came to faith he saw he could incorporate his faith and art. I real a lot of Christian novels as a teen and I have read very few past my teen years because so few felt worthwhile.
As I read The Book of Hours I couldn't help but think about it as a novel version of a Hallmark movie. I enjoy a Hallmark movie very now and then, but I don't really confused it for great art. It is fluff and fluff every now and then if fine. As much as can enjoy some fluff here and there, I do think that Karen Swallow Prior's critique of Christians as overly attached to Victorian values, and mistake those Victorian values for Christian ones fits here. This is a sentimental novel that deserves the critique that Prior has for senatamental novels. But it also fits all of the standard Hallmark tropes. A widower from out of town inherits an estate. He is penniless and finds the estate is going to soon be sold for back taxes. He meets the town's young (single) doctor who immediately hates him for not caring about the property and allowing it to fall into disrepair. There is a greedy developer to provide some tension.
And while I don't think it really makes sense within the story, the widower's wife and her beloved aunt jointly wrote him clues before they both died that he has to find. If he does, he may find something valuable that he can sell to keep the property. That is if the sketchy gardener (who used to date the doctor) doesn't stop them first. Along the way the widower and the doctor help the local vicar in his fight to get the church bells reinstated in the town again so that the community can remember that God. The sentamental, nearly love at first sight, romance between the grieving widower who seems to have gotten over his late wife's cancer death very quickly after showing up doesn't have any real depth.
The story is fine. For the $2 price I paid, I am not disappointed, but I also have no real interest in picking up another book by the same author. There are a lot of good novels that have more depth to them than this one.
I posted this on my blog originally at https://bookwi.se/book-of-hours/
I am trying to read more fiction. This is a goal that I have almost every year. I really am conviced that fiction is important, but I have a tendancy to gravitate toward "important" books. I saw that the Book of Hours was on sale and I picked it up. I read his book The Maestro when I was in high school and I enjoyed it. It was a book about a musician who was a real artist and as he came to faith he saw he could incorporate his faith and art. I real a lot of Christian novels as a teen and I have read very few past my teen years because so few felt worthwhile.
As I read The Book of Hours I couldn't help but think about it as a novel version of a Hallmark movie. I enjoy a Hallmark movie very now and then, but I don't really confused it for great art. It is fluff and fluff every now and then if fine. As much as can enjoy some fluff here and there, I do think that Karen Swallow Prior's critique of Christians as overly attached to Victorian values, and mistake those Victorian values for Christian ones fits here. This is a sentimental novel that deserves the critique that Prior has for senatamental novels. But it also fits all of the standard Hallmark tropes. A widower from out of town inherits an estate. He is penniless and finds the estate is going to soon be sold for back taxes. He meets the town's young (single) doctor who immediately hates him for not caring about the property and allowing it to fall into disrepair. There is a greedy developer to provide some tension.
And while I don't think it really makes sense within the story, the widower's wife and her beloved aunt jointly wrote him clues before they both died that he has to find. If he does, he may find something valuable that he can sell to keep the property. That is if the sketchy gardener (who used to date the doctor) doesn't stop them first. Along the way the widower and the doctor help the local vicar in his fight to get the church bells reinstated in the town again so that the community can remember that God. The sentamental, nearly love at first sight, romance between the grieving widower who seems to have gotten over his late wife's cancer death very quickly after showing up doesn't have any real depth.
The story is fine. For the $2 price I paid, I am not disappointed, but I also have no real interest in picking up another book by the same author. There are a lot of good novels that have more depth to them than this one.
I posted this on my blog originally at https://bookwi.se/book-of-hours/
The Mythmakers: The Remarkable Fellowship of C.S. Lewis & J.R.R. Tolkien by John Hendrix
4.25
Summary: A graphic novel biography of Lewis and Tolkien’s friendship.
This is the fifth book I have read by John Hendrix. I have written about his biographies of John Brown and Dietrich Bonhoeffer. This is more like the biography of Bonhoeffer than John Brown. The biography of John Brown was about 40 pages and more similar to Hendrix’s books about Jesus in that length and format. The longer biographies, this one and the Bonhoeffer one, are a combination of text and graphics. It is not unusually for there to be 200 words on a page. Some pages are predominately graphics, especially the sections where a lion and a wizard are narrating the story. But there are long sections that are more text heavy.
And when you think about these as graphic novels, you should think about a graphic novel as a format, not an age target. These are readable for late teens, but they are not children’s books. There are long sections about the academic meaning of myth, or how stories communicate truth. I have seen a couple of reviews that thought those longer sections were not as helpful, but I can see their point. This isn’t a biography of the two men as much as it is a biography of the conversation that Tolkien and Lewis and another friend had about viewing Christianity as “true myth” that helped Lewis overcome his objections to Christianity.
That famous conversation wasn’t just instrumental to Lewis’ conversion to Christianity, it was also instrumental to Christianity reclaiming story as a feature in understanding the Bible and the world around us. I recently read a book about how Lewis was influenced by medieval thought and Hendrix’s book also pointed out how Lewis and Tolkien, because they were shaped by literature, helped to move Protestant Christianity to rediscover story and myth as important intellectual categories. Myth doesn’t mean “untrue” or fiction, myth in Lewis and Tolkien's view was about deeper systems of thought. I don’t think that Lewis or Tolkien would approve of Jordan Peterson’s use of the Old Testament, but Peterson has been influenced by the idea of myth that Lewis and Tolkien were promoting and which is discussed well here.
Necessarily, graphic novels use the format of image to communicate. I think Hendrix does a great job of communicating information, using the format to communicate in ways that text alone would make difficult. And he includes a lightness and humor to his books that is appropriate to the subject, but make the books enjoyable.
This was originally posted on my blog at https://bookwi.se/mythmakers/
This is the fifth book I have read by John Hendrix. I have written about his biographies of John Brown and Dietrich Bonhoeffer. This is more like the biography of Bonhoeffer than John Brown. The biography of John Brown was about 40 pages and more similar to Hendrix’s books about Jesus in that length and format. The longer biographies, this one and the Bonhoeffer one, are a combination of text and graphics. It is not unusually for there to be 200 words on a page. Some pages are predominately graphics, especially the sections where a lion and a wizard are narrating the story. But there are long sections that are more text heavy.
And when you think about these as graphic novels, you should think about a graphic novel as a format, not an age target. These are readable for late teens, but they are not children’s books. There are long sections about the academic meaning of myth, or how stories communicate truth. I have seen a couple of reviews that thought those longer sections were not as helpful, but I can see their point. This isn’t a biography of the two men as much as it is a biography of the conversation that Tolkien and Lewis and another friend had about viewing Christianity as “true myth” that helped Lewis overcome his objections to Christianity.
That famous conversation wasn’t just instrumental to Lewis’ conversion to Christianity, it was also instrumental to Christianity reclaiming story as a feature in understanding the Bible and the world around us. I recently read a book about how Lewis was influenced by medieval thought and Hendrix’s book also pointed out how Lewis and Tolkien, because they were shaped by literature, helped to move Protestant Christianity to rediscover story and myth as important intellectual categories. Myth doesn’t mean “untrue” or fiction, myth in Lewis and Tolkien's view was about deeper systems of thought. I don’t think that Lewis or Tolkien would approve of Jordan Peterson’s use of the Old Testament, but Peterson has been influenced by the idea of myth that Lewis and Tolkien were promoting and which is discussed well here.
Necessarily, graphic novels use the format of image to communicate. I think Hendrix does a great job of communicating information, using the format to communicate in ways that text alone would make difficult. And he includes a lightness and humor to his books that is appropriate to the subject, but make the books enjoyable.
This was originally posted on my blog at https://bookwi.se/mythmakers/
His Very Best: Jimmy Carter, a Life by Jonathan Alter
4.5
Summary: A comprehensive biography from an admiring, but critical author.
I picked up His Very Best on audiobook a few days before President Carter passed away. I had wanted to read one of the recent biographies for a while, and the sale price, and then his death moved it to the top of my list.
It is very clear that Jonathan Alter wanted to reassess Carter's presidency and his place in history. Alter frames the book with Carter's attempt to do his "very best." The line is from a question that Carter was asked when he was applying to work with Hyman G. Rickover in the Navy's nuclear program. Rickover asked Carter if he had done his best while at the Naval Academy. And Carter told him that he had not always done his best. But that question haunted Carter and much of his life, he did attempt to his best all the time.
Carter had the mind and personality of an engineer. He expected that when people were presented with the facts they would come to the same conclusions he did. One of Carter's real strengths as the president was that he often thought about the long term in ways that many politicians do not. Carter was far from perfect, but many of the most important results of Carter's legacy took years and in some cases decades, to start to be seen.
Carter was split. He is known for his ability to talk with people do the long term work to bring people together. But he also was known by Congress at the time as not particularly caring about their opinion and at times being outright offensive. The Panama Canal deal happened in large part because his people did cut deals and drew people into supporting a project that was important for the long term. He spent weeks meeting in small groups with not just congress, but with local and state officials who would provide cover for Congressional members who he needed to take a hard vote. But Carter's health care plan, which he knew was of significant importance to Ted Kennedy, was announced without telling Kennedy or consulting him in its development. Carter often offended his own party even more than the GOP because Carter opposed local initiatives as unhelpful pork projects.
Outsiders often come to the office of the President and not understanding how much of the job is acting and being presidential. Carter thought it was a waste of time and money to play "Hail to the Chief" when he entered a room and ordered it stopped. But it was quietly brought back after about a year because his team came to realize that some of the pomp was important to maintaining the office. Carter often wrote his own speeches or significantly edited the work of his speechwriters to remove all of the rhetorical flourishes. His speaking style was bare facts and that made him less interesting to listen to compared to Reagan and others who drew people in with stories and rhetoric. Again, it seems that as his presidency went on, Carter allowed his speechwriters more leeway and his speeches got better.
Part of the thesis of the book is that he was a far better president than what is commonly assumed, but that his post-presidency was less important than assumed. The Carter Center has done good work. Habitat for Humanity is the largest non-profit home builder in the world and in 2022 was the sixth largest home building in the US of any type. Alter is not trying to minimize Carter's post-presidency, but rather reframe it in relation to the presidency and the presidency is the most powerful job in the world and no other can compare.
Part of the post-presidency is that while Carter did have some success in diplomacy, he had a lot of failures and he had bad relationships with all subsequent presidents. Carter wanted to play a role, but didn't seem to understand how to relate to his successors. Routinely when he was involved in a diplomatic role, he would talk to the press before he would talk to the sitting president. And he didn't follow directions or give credit to the sitting presidents well.
Carter was both humble and quite proud. He was uninterested in personal wealth. He did not accept speaking fees, or if he did, those speaking fees were donated to the Carter Center or other non-profits. The home he lived in was worth less than $200,000 at the time of his death. When working in at Atlanta, he and Roselyn slept in a Murphy bed in his Roselyn's office not a full apartment. But he had an ego and it was often bruised.
This biography shows a flawed man who worked hard trying to prove himself to others. He was shaped by his faith, but simply having faith does not mean that you are not flawed. While Roselyn was a significant advisor during the presidency and she changed the role of the First Lady to be more policy oriented, Carter routinely made decision without consulting her, especially early in their marriage. While Carter did appoint more racial minorities and women to the judiciary than all previous presidents combined and had a diverse cabinet and senior advisors, he did not have a great record on race or gender in all areas.
Carter attempted to get his church to desegregate in the 1960s, but his attempt failed. And he maintained his membership in that segregated church until he left the presidency. Atler and others believe that much of the work of his post-presidency was animated by his lack of effort during the civil rights era. There is a tension, if Carter had been active in civil rights, he would not have become an elected official. But Carter did not seem to have taken real accountability publicly for positions and actions that he did take which were harmful to women or racial minorities. And at least some of the things he did claim to have done seem to be exaggerations.
The only type of humans there are, are flawed ones. This books does not paint Carter as a hero. But it does show him as someone that tried very hard to do what he thought was right. And there is an important role for that type of book. I did not come to this biography blind. I had previously read Carter's memoir A Full Life: Reflections at Ninety, Balmer's spiritual biography, Redeemer, and several of Carter's other books, only writing about his book on faith. I have also picked up a longer book about Carter's presidency, President Carter and Kai Bird's biography, but I do not think I will read those soon. From what I have gleaned, Alter's biography seems to be considered the best.
This was originally posted to my blog at https://bookwi.se/his-very-best/
I picked up His Very Best on audiobook a few days before President Carter passed away. I had wanted to read one of the recent biographies for a while, and the sale price, and then his death moved it to the top of my list.
It is very clear that Jonathan Alter wanted to reassess Carter's presidency and his place in history. Alter frames the book with Carter's attempt to do his "very best." The line is from a question that Carter was asked when he was applying to work with Hyman G. Rickover in the Navy's nuclear program. Rickover asked Carter if he had done his best while at the Naval Academy. And Carter told him that he had not always done his best. But that question haunted Carter and much of his life, he did attempt to his best all the time.
Carter had the mind and personality of an engineer. He expected that when people were presented with the facts they would come to the same conclusions he did. One of Carter's real strengths as the president was that he often thought about the long term in ways that many politicians do not. Carter was far from perfect, but many of the most important results of Carter's legacy took years and in some cases decades, to start to be seen.
Carter was split. He is known for his ability to talk with people do the long term work to bring people together. But he also was known by Congress at the time as not particularly caring about their opinion and at times being outright offensive. The Panama Canal deal happened in large part because his people did cut deals and drew people into supporting a project that was important for the long term. He spent weeks meeting in small groups with not just congress, but with local and state officials who would provide cover for Congressional members who he needed to take a hard vote. But Carter's health care plan, which he knew was of significant importance to Ted Kennedy, was announced without telling Kennedy or consulting him in its development. Carter often offended his own party even more than the GOP because Carter opposed local initiatives as unhelpful pork projects.
Outsiders often come to the office of the President and not understanding how much of the job is acting and being presidential. Carter thought it was a waste of time and money to play "Hail to the Chief" when he entered a room and ordered it stopped. But it was quietly brought back after about a year because his team came to realize that some of the pomp was important to maintaining the office. Carter often wrote his own speeches or significantly edited the work of his speechwriters to remove all of the rhetorical flourishes. His speaking style was bare facts and that made him less interesting to listen to compared to Reagan and others who drew people in with stories and rhetoric. Again, it seems that as his presidency went on, Carter allowed his speechwriters more leeway and his speeches got better.
Part of the thesis of the book is that he was a far better president than what is commonly assumed, but that his post-presidency was less important than assumed. The Carter Center has done good work. Habitat for Humanity is the largest non-profit home builder in the world and in 2022 was the sixth largest home building in the US of any type. Alter is not trying to minimize Carter's post-presidency, but rather reframe it in relation to the presidency and the presidency is the most powerful job in the world and no other can compare.
Part of the post-presidency is that while Carter did have some success in diplomacy, he had a lot of failures and he had bad relationships with all subsequent presidents. Carter wanted to play a role, but didn't seem to understand how to relate to his successors. Routinely when he was involved in a diplomatic role, he would talk to the press before he would talk to the sitting president. And he didn't follow directions or give credit to the sitting presidents well.
Carter was both humble and quite proud. He was uninterested in personal wealth. He did not accept speaking fees, or if he did, those speaking fees were donated to the Carter Center or other non-profits. The home he lived in was worth less than $200,000 at the time of his death. When working in at Atlanta, he and Roselyn slept in a Murphy bed in his Roselyn's office not a full apartment. But he had an ego and it was often bruised.
This biography shows a flawed man who worked hard trying to prove himself to others. He was shaped by his faith, but simply having faith does not mean that you are not flawed. While Roselyn was a significant advisor during the presidency and she changed the role of the First Lady to be more policy oriented, Carter routinely made decision without consulting her, especially early in their marriage. While Carter did appoint more racial minorities and women to the judiciary than all previous presidents combined and had a diverse cabinet and senior advisors, he did not have a great record on race or gender in all areas.
Carter attempted to get his church to desegregate in the 1960s, but his attempt failed. And he maintained his membership in that segregated church until he left the presidency. Atler and others believe that much of the work of his post-presidency was animated by his lack of effort during the civil rights era. There is a tension, if Carter had been active in civil rights, he would not have become an elected official. But Carter did not seem to have taken real accountability publicly for positions and actions that he did take which were harmful to women or racial minorities. And at least some of the things he did claim to have done seem to be exaggerations.
The only type of humans there are, are flawed ones. This books does not paint Carter as a hero. But it does show him as someone that tried very hard to do what he thought was right. And there is an important role for that type of book. I did not come to this biography blind. I had previously read Carter's memoir A Full Life: Reflections at Ninety, Balmer's spiritual biography, Redeemer, and several of Carter's other books, only writing about his book on faith. I have also picked up a longer book about Carter's presidency, President Carter and Kai Bird's biography, but I do not think I will read those soon. From what I have gleaned, Alter's biography seems to be considered the best.
This was originally posted to my blog at https://bookwi.se/his-very-best/
The Spiritual Formation of Evelyn Underhill by Robyn Wrigley-Carr
Like all good biographies of writers, The Spiritual Formation of Evelyn Underhill makes me want to read Underhill directly. She wrote about 40 books over her lifetime, most of the later books were based on the talks that she prepared for her retreats. She would prepare a series of 4 to 6 talks over a weekend and maintain that basic outline for the 5 to 8 retreats that she led each year. In addition to her talks, she made herself available for half hour spiritual direction sessions and then maintained correspondence with the retreatants after that. There are multiple books of her edited correspondence in addition to her other books.
This is not a flashy book, but it is a highly sourced book. There are multiple citations per page to ground the book in the actual writing, journals or correspondence of Underhill or von Hügel or others that influenced or were influenced Underhill. I would have like a little bit more about the role of gender and family. She was the first woman to lecture clergy in the Church of England and she did not have children. She also wrote several novels prior to her non-fiction work and I would have liked to hear some more about the role that fiction played in her theological development (if any). And I would have liked more on the development of her influence both in the world of Protestant spiritual retreats and through her writing. I know of her because she was influential, but I don’t really know how or why she became influential so that I reading about her about 80 years after her death.
(Flannery O’Connor was also significantly influenced by Baron von Hügel as was detailed in Terrible Speed of Mercy: A Spiritual Biography of Flannery O’Connor and The Life You Save May Be Your Own.)
This was originally posted on my blog at https://bookwi.se/the-spiritual-forma...
4.5
Summary: Part biography, part spiritual direction guidebook, part instruction in wisdom.
I have known of Evelyn Underhill for a long time, but she was one of those characters of Christian history who I have never read or read about and only had vague impressions of. One of the people I meet with for spiritual direction was talking about her and that prompted me to pickup The Spiritual Formation of Evelyn Underhill by Robyn Wrigley-Carr.
This is a recent book, it came out in 2020, but I am somewhat surprised I haven’t heard more about it. As someone who is a spiritual director, I think this would be a great book to use in a training program. It is not directly a spiritual direction training book, but the book is framed by looking at the influence of her own spiritual director, Baron Frederick von Hügel, and how they both were shaped and how that shaping impacted their work as spiritual directors. My own training was very helpful and it included a number of the old books that shaped Underhill and von Hügel, but with the exception of reading Ignatius of Loyola’s autobiography, there was very little discussion of how biography and social position impacts your work as a spiritual director.
This is not a full biography, and I would like to read a full biography of Underhill, but it contains enough biographical content to make sense of Underhill’s life. At times, spiritual formation can be overly oriented around ideas and practices and not pay attention enough to other areas. Underhill was fascinated with mysticism. Both her and von Hügel wrote books about mysticism before they met. But part of what the book points out about their spiritual direction relationship is that von Hügel was concerned that Underhill was too focused on mysticism and the intellect. His guidance drew her first to see the church as a necessary component, not because we need the church to be saved but because it grounds us in a community of people. There was a theological component to von Hügel’s guidance, as one of the more well known Catholic thinkers in England at the time, he believed in the sacramental nature of the Eucharist. Underhill was Anglican, but also came to believe that the Eucharist was an important mystical reality. Together they came up with a minimum and maximum approach to spiritual practices for Underhill. Because she was a writer as a profession and primarily worked as a spiritual director in retreat settings, she had a lot of seasons of extreme busyness. When she was busy, she had a minimum of 2 Eucharist services a week that she attended. But she also had a maximum of 4 so that she was also encouraged to have a wide variety of experiences.
Similarly, as a way to combat her orientation to individual mysticism and intellectualism, as part of his guidance, she made it a practice to visit 3 or 4 poor families a week in their homes. This was charitable work, but also community building. She wasn’t just being a patron, she was building community across class lines as another way of grounding her faith outside of mysticism and intellectualism.
There is a lot of basic wisdom for spiritual directors or anyone else about how to approach spiritual disciplines and formation.
I have known of Evelyn Underhill for a long time, but she was one of those characters of Christian history who I have never read or read about and only had vague impressions of. One of the people I meet with for spiritual direction was talking about her and that prompted me to pickup The Spiritual Formation of Evelyn Underhill by Robyn Wrigley-Carr.
This is a recent book, it came out in 2020, but I am somewhat surprised I haven’t heard more about it. As someone who is a spiritual director, I think this would be a great book to use in a training program. It is not directly a spiritual direction training book, but the book is framed by looking at the influence of her own spiritual director, Baron Frederick von Hügel, and how they both were shaped and how that shaping impacted their work as spiritual directors. My own training was very helpful and it included a number of the old books that shaped Underhill and von Hügel, but with the exception of reading Ignatius of Loyola’s autobiography, there was very little discussion of how biography and social position impacts your work as a spiritual director.
This is not a full biography, and I would like to read a full biography of Underhill, but it contains enough biographical content to make sense of Underhill’s life. At times, spiritual formation can be overly oriented around ideas and practices and not pay attention enough to other areas. Underhill was fascinated with mysticism. Both her and von Hügel wrote books about mysticism before they met. But part of what the book points out about their spiritual direction relationship is that von Hügel was concerned that Underhill was too focused on mysticism and the intellect. His guidance drew her first to see the church as a necessary component, not because we need the church to be saved but because it grounds us in a community of people. There was a theological component to von Hügel’s guidance, as one of the more well known Catholic thinkers in England at the time, he believed in the sacramental nature of the Eucharist. Underhill was Anglican, but also came to believe that the Eucharist was an important mystical reality. Together they came up with a minimum and maximum approach to spiritual practices for Underhill. Because she was a writer as a profession and primarily worked as a spiritual director in retreat settings, she had a lot of seasons of extreme busyness. When she was busy, she had a minimum of 2 Eucharist services a week that she attended. But she also had a maximum of 4 so that she was also encouraged to have a wide variety of experiences.
Similarly, as a way to combat her orientation to individual mysticism and intellectualism, as part of his guidance, she made it a practice to visit 3 or 4 poor families a week in their homes. This was charitable work, but also community building. She wasn’t just being a patron, she was building community across class lines as another way of grounding her faith outside of mysticism and intellectualism.
There is a lot of basic wisdom for spiritual directors or anyone else about how to approach spiritual disciplines and formation.
When the tactics of fear are used in Christian communities to motivate a life of trust in God and love of neighbour, habits of maturity never have a chance to develop.
….our everyday normal lives provide the material for our spiritual formation: without activities and interests that are not directly religious, we lose the ‘material’ for ‘Grace to work in and on’ and ‘penetrate’, thus these interests should be ‘taken up’ for the ‘sake’ of religion, alternating non-religious and religious study.
Though Evelyn was always candid as a spiritual director, she was careful not to be too directive. Following Ethel Baker’s ideas concerning the ‘excessive’ powers of the director, she imitated the Baron’s reluctance to interfere, believing that the ‘object’ of spiritual direction is organizing the directee’s life so they can walk alone. Von Hügel’s maxim became her own: ‘The best thing we can do for those we love is to help them to escape from us.’
Like all good biographies of writers, The Spiritual Formation of Evelyn Underhill makes me want to read Underhill directly. She wrote about 40 books over her lifetime, most of the later books were based on the talks that she prepared for her retreats. She would prepare a series of 4 to 6 talks over a weekend and maintain that basic outline for the 5 to 8 retreats that she led each year. In addition to her talks, she made herself available for half hour spiritual direction sessions and then maintained correspondence with the retreatants after that. There are multiple books of her edited correspondence in addition to her other books.
This is not a flashy book, but it is a highly sourced book. There are multiple citations per page to ground the book in the actual writing, journals or correspondence of Underhill or von Hügel or others that influenced or were influenced Underhill. I would have like a little bit more about the role of gender and family. She was the first woman to lecture clergy in the Church of England and she did not have children. She also wrote several novels prior to her non-fiction work and I would have liked to hear some more about the role that fiction played in her theological development (if any). And I would have liked more on the development of her influence both in the world of Protestant spiritual retreats and through her writing. I know of her because she was influential, but I don’t really know how or why she became influential so that I reading about her about 80 years after her death.
(Flannery O’Connor was also significantly influenced by Baron von Hügel as was detailed in Terrible Speed of Mercy: A Spiritual Biography of Flannery O’Connor and The Life You Save May Be Your Own.)
This was originally posted on my blog at https://bookwi.se/the-spiritual-forma...