Sharing Thoughts about Books with Others (STBO) discussion

Journal Entry #1

It's a Sunday morning and I woke up too early. Did a little reading. I had an idea. I came across a journal writing idea about writing to a historical figure and then write how that particular historical figure would answer me. That should be my writing for the day.

There's so many people in history to ask a question.

Since I've been reading a lot of William Shakespeare's plays this season I should ask him a question.

Dear Mr. William Shakespeare,

I have read some of your plays. I would like to ask, was Hamlet really crazy in your story? Thanks for answering.

Yours,
Richard

Now I wonder how would Shakespeare answer this .... hmmm ....

To his dearest reader Richard,

Thanketh thee for being a readeth'r. Prithee calleth me Will. To answer thy questioneth, Hamlet wast not crazy in the beginning of the playeth. I bethink that gent did start becoming crazy after that gent hath killed Polonius at which hour that gent yerked that gent through the curtain bethinking twast his uncle. At yond pointeth Hamlet did get crazier and crazier.

I desire this answers thy questioneth.

Thy assured friend,
Will

Journale Entry #2

Since I had time and early morning is the best time to write because a person is more lucent. So I decided to revise and update my book review of Crime and Punishment from November 2020.

Revised and Updated Book Review today of Crime and Punishment here:

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

And of course ever since my interest in Iron Man after watching the Avengers movie, I've been reading a lot of Iron Man stories and wrote another book review on that one here:

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Journal Entry #3

The northeast coast of the United States has been blanketed with snow and ice as a a severe blizzard is freezing the northeast. Once again I am writing book reviews. I have finished reading The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli. I'll draft a book review for that later today.

I have just posted two book reviews(Y The Last Man #7 and Iron Man #164) here in Good Reads this morning:

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Journal Entry #4

I'm not entirely certain what to write about today. I did post two new book reviews here in Good Reads earlier. Anyway, since I finished The Prince by N. Machiavelli earlier this week, maybe I should write about classics. I don't read any particular genres, though I do tend toward books that discuss issues that interest me, or sometimes I choose to read something that is unfamiliar to me, to see what it's like, to step outside my reading comfort zone. I often read fiction but I really enjoy non-fiction as well, but I read non-fiction less frequently than fiction.

I am not a huge consumer of the classics. Perhaps because it was the type of literature that was forced-fed to me by my teachers back in Intermediate School and in High School. Not for any particular reason, other than I read a bit of everything and I only have so many hours (sadly) to read. I have read some of the classics from British authors, some French, some Russian, some American, and some South American (Colombian & Brazilian). There are definitely different approaches to storytelling between these classics. South American classics, for instance, those that I have read anyway, seemed to incorporate over the top and somewhat mystical and/or fantastical story lines.

I find with classics, often the stories are complex and really engrossing, in the sense that there are many characters and multiple story lines within the larger plot, somewhat akin to driving somewhere and taking a number of detours or stops. You eventually reach your destination but the drive is long and sometimes your detours are pleasant, sometimes they're boring or not worth the time spent. But just like any other book, sometimes I enjoy classics and sometimes I don't. Great Expectations is a classic I just couldn't get through, and I finish 99% of the books I start reading from beginning to end. So that tells you my opinion of that particular classic.

In terms of Russian classics, I've read Anna Karenina, Crime & Punishment, and War and Peace. I am not well-versed in Russian classics. But in comparing them with the classics I've read from authors of other backgrounds, the Russian classics are very dark and there's an undercurrent of despair. The novels often discuss at some length, the society of the times and societal expectations and the divide between the peasant and the city dwellers, the rich and the poor, and corruption. I preferred Anna Karenina, if I had to choose, but Crime & Punishment was very suspenseful at times and toward the end I couldn't put it down (even though it took me several months to finish reading it).

However, one of the things I think may have influenced the lengths of some of the classics is that many were originally published as serials in newspapers of the day. I presume the authors had a vested interest in extending their stories - either to meet their commitment for X number of story segments or because they earned more by have more segments. Crime & Punishment begins quite slowly for the first 50 pages and then there is an inciting incident and then Dostoevsky contemplates, for a few hundred (sometimes extremely slow) pages, the effect of the crime on the guilty party and how it affects one psychologically and physically. Within this broad story of a crime that's been committed there were also sub-plots of an arranged marriage to help one's family rise from abject poverty, prostitution, the role of women, a discussion of whether crime is ever acceptable and under which circumstances, the Napoleon complex, a lot of smatterings about philosophical/political/societal issues current to the time period in which the novel was written, and a suspenseful psychological cat-and-mouse game between the main character and a police official.

The Russian classics are dense, particularly dense, because they engulf you in the plot but also the society of the time. If you are going to read any Russian classics, it might be handy to look up something about Russian history for the time period in which the story is set, as it helps to understand the story better.

Of the Russian classics I've read, I've enjoyed how the stories are so full, so dark and complex, so messy. That there are so many characters, with sometimes difficult to pronounce/remember names, can be a small issue, but I didn't find that it affected me much. I think Russian classics often examine all social classes, whereas British classics tend to be smaller in scope and often focus on one particular social class or the issues encountered by one family. Russian authors kind of tackle everyone at the same time, so you get bits and pieces of what it's like at all levels of society. And while South American classics are written in a similarly dense and circuitous style, they seem to be more light-hearted and even hopeful, somehow, when compared with the Russian classics.

It's not easy for me to dissect and categorize what I've read.

In terms of Crime & Punishment, I know there are many people on Goodreads who absolutely rave about this book, and some even disparage those who don't think it's the greatest book ever written. I enjoyed it... but I've enjoyed other books more than that particular book. I felt it could have been a hundred pages shorter and I was bored in the middle section when there was a lot of discussion and not much at all happened. But, yet, somehow, I still did liked the book very much, and I found it engrossing, even though it was a very slow read for me.

I'm not sure that classics are any different from reading any other genre, except that you sometimes are given the opportunity to see what the issues of the day were when the novel was written. But if, say, you're reading romance novels, the quality of writing and language and the complexity of the plots in classics are infinitely greater. I remember reading The Bluest Eye by Toni Morrison a couple of years ago. Though it was a dark and depressing book, the writing had depth to it and layers to peel back. I think a true measure of a well-written book is just that: maybe not liking the story or finding spots or some sub-plots were boring, but seeing so many different layers in the story being told. So many different issues, so many ways of examining the story being told. I would say that classics do that and only the most well-written non-classics manage to accomplish that.

And here's the link to the two book reviews I posted earlier in case anyone wants to read them:

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Journal Entry #5

I would strongly encourage people to read about subjects they are already interested in. Non-fiction doesn't have to be history or war or biography/memoir.

For instance, I'm a bit of a foodie. A couple of years ago I read a terrific non-fiction book called "The Fortune Cookie Chronicles" by Jennifer Lee. It's all about the history of Chinese food in America, with chapters such as: Where do fortune cookies come from? Who was General Tso, and what's his connection to chicken? and Why do Chinese restaurants all across the U.S. have nearly the same menu! Very fun and enjoyable book.

Similarly, I enjoyed a book called "The Billionaire's Vinegar" by Benjamin Wallace. The story was about how these super-rich guys were getting conned into spending a fortune to buy extremely old bottles of wine, including one that was over 200 years old and was supposedly owned by Thomas Jefferson. The book has a weird array of characters, and I learned a bit about the wine business.

Another fun (and very short) non-fiction book I enjoyed was called "The Man Who Invented Christmas" by Les Standiford. It's all about how the enormous popularity of Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" changed how the British and Americans celebrate Christmas.

Finally, I read a book a few years ago called "I'm Dying Up Here" by William Knoedelseder about how famous comedians like David Letterman, Jay Leno, Robin Williams and others started around the same time, and how crazy and ambitious they all were.

These were subjects I found interesting. I'm sure there are non-fiction subjects everyone will enjoy as well. I'd encourage them to explore them.

Finally, I posted another review earlier. Here is the link to that review:

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Journal Entry #6

It's Romance Week 2021 according to Good Reads. I should write a journal entry on romance some time.

Journal Entry #7

I finally wrote and posted the review on The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli. I'll have to re-read that once again, at around 70 pages, it can be done in one sitting. I'll just let it simmer and perhaps re-read it this summer.

The link below is the book review I posted here in Good Reads on The Prince:

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Journal Entry #8

This is one of the most personal book reviews I've ever written. With the nostalgic factor, actually factored in, this would have been perfect for me. It allowed me to-recapture the era of the time as a little kid. Amazing. It's like as you are writing, there are pop ups in your mind of visuals in that era, like re-living a particular place and its people, vehicles, buildings that were down, but have been torn down and replaced, and for some reason a more simpler place from a child's eye.

Here is the link to that book review of The Punisher which was written by Mike Baron, who was an Eisner-award winner. The Eisner is the highest award that can be bestowed to a writer/illustrator/creative team in the Sequential Arts industry.

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Journal Entry #9

I was just watching old archival interviews from the Book TV show of C-Span. and came across an interview of Christopher Hitchens and he just happened to mention the author, Gore Vidal. I remember reading a couple or three books of Gore Vidal several years ago. Gore Vidal is an interesting person aside from an outstanding author. He is a military veteran of World War II, a known homosexual, was interested in politics and sex, an atheist who was very preoccupied with religion, and was an intellectual who never went to the university, citing he would not have learned anything useful. He wrote scores of books, and even ran for Congress in the state of California. He was ingrained in politics as his blind grandfather was the first senator of Oklahoma, and had him around to read him tons and tons of books and documents. He was a cousin of former First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, and was privy to life in the White House, or when the presidential couple was on vacation in Florida. He had outstanding wit and can be very funny in interviews while keeping a straight face.

I drafted a review of his book, Lincoln. It's a biography of President Lincoln, and takes into details his wartime cabinet and generals (both the great ones, and the moronic ones), and had it in the view of a fictional interloper named Charles Schuyler. Okay he added a few tidbits here and there, but otherwise this historical novel of Lincoln can be read as a history of his era and a biography as well.

Vidal was a good writer, aside from being a good interview. Lincoln is a thick book, but it was easy to get through. His research was also top-notch, as far as I could determine, so I learned a lot. Even though some of the book was fictional, Vidal tried to just fill in the gaps in the historical record in a logical way, making a very interesting story flow better. He did not make stuff up to please himself or to promote some of his own thinking. He tried to be very honest in his portrayal.

Here is the link to the book review I posted earlier of Lincoln by Gore Vidal:

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Journal Entry #10

It is Romance Week here in Good Reads, as you can see in their marketing logos at the top of the Good Reads page you are viewing. I should write a journal entry on love. But not fluff, or something corny. Perhaps something different.

Okay, I've read the story of Pablo Escobar, the legendary deceased drug lord of Colombia. If there was ever a cocaine king in that illegal industry it would be him.

Cocaine... Love is comparable to cocaine. Upon ingestion, it affects the pathway to the brain that is switched on by the hormone dopamine.

Now if you go to a major hospital and visit neurologists. And they put you through an MRI test or a CT Scan test, they can compare you being in love and another who is high on drugs, the findings will show drugs and love activate the same brain regions.

As the anthropologist Helen Fisher quoted, "Romantic love is such a euphoric 'high,' because it produces craving, obsession, compulsion, distortion of reality, emotional and physical dependence, personality change and loss of self-control. Many psychologists regard romantic love as an addiction-- a positive addiction when your love is returned, a horribly negative fixation when your love is spurned and you can't let go."

Journal Entry #11

Okay. I just placed the order with Amazon books and will probably receive the following three books by the end of the month. I was never really interested in reading about politics, except in regards to American history.

But perhaps I can just see what the fuss is all about.

The Making of Donald Trump by David Cay Johnston
Promise Me, Dad: A Year of Hope, Hardship, and Purpose by Joe Biden
The Truths We Hold: An American Journey by Kamala Harris

To be honest I'd rather read the thriller fiction by the collaboration of Bill Clinton and James Patterson. But who knows if this book would be any good. It might have been ghost written.

Journal Entry #12

Back then when I was in grade school, everyday after lunch grade schoolers would go to the open school yard for playing time equivalent to 1 class period. All the guys would run up to the far side with their handballs (usually blue in color) and quickly take positions who gets what side of the wall and the game begins.

Basically, you throw the handball against the wall and then it bounces of the wall and either goes a high pop up in the air or a direct line drive ground ball results. Now sometimes there can be from say 3 to 12 or more students involved. Now you can catch the ball, but make sure you catch it and not let the ball fall in the ground. If the catcher of the ball somehow drops the ball then he must make a run for it for the wall and touch it before getting beamed with the ball. If someone drops the ball, then you can get the ball and make sure you don’t drop it or bungle it up and drop it. Once you have the ball then you can hit the person who dropped the ball before they touch the wall. The resulting hit usually hurts. I mean it can really sting.

Thereby suicide meaning if you drop the ball is like committing suicide coz you are dead and have to run for the wall to be safe. Moonies meaning you get “mooned” in the ass or another portion of your body if you get hit with the ball.

Need I say that a lot of school yard fights start this way Looking back it was very hilarious as you drop and run backwards so as to avoid getting hit or to be able to dodge the fastball coming right towards you.

Ahhh the folly of children’s games, when life used to be simple.

* * * * *

And I wrote another review of Y The Last Man. This time I covered #9 in the series. Here is the link to that posted review in case anyone is interested:

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Journal Entry #13

I've been watching a lot of ancient history documentaries in youtube. And once in a while I'd dabble into reading some historical fiction. I think I enjoy it, if done well, because a good author will put you at the ground level of what was said and done during key historical moments, and do so without introducing a major character that would alter the actual historical events. I'm not sure if I'm explaining myself well. In essence, historical fiction gives you access to learn about interesting times in history, but also blends elements of entertainment and story telling, often not found in pure historical books. Think Band of Brothers rather than a D-Day Documentary. Both have merit, but one can be more entertaining, and I find that makes them a gateway to wanting to learn more about history for me.

And speaking of historical fiction. I just posted a book review on Roman Blood by Steven Saylor, a crime fiction novel based in the setting of the Ancient Roman Republic. Here's the link to that review:

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

And of course a quick read of The Thing by John Byrne here's the link to the book review and synopsis:

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Journal Entry #14

Seeing the movie Dune, I remember reading this thick book that took me the good portion of a year, several years ago. This is what I thought of Dune.

I've heard people say that this is the novel that created modern science fiction. I am very uninformed about the history of science fiction so I cannot make up my mind as to how true this statement might be. But what I do see is that this novel is clearly a classic. It's inspired countless writers, readers and even a few heavy metal lyricists. Should you read it? Yes. I recommend classics to everybody and the significance of Dune in the history of science fiction is undisputed. Then why oh why will I rate it slightly above 3 stars?

Pros:

1. The world of Dune: I found myself drawn to the idea of this world. There is some inexplicable charm to Akarris - it's strikes the imagination and leaves a very strong impression. The potentials of such a concept are endless.

2. Density: this is not a light read (it took me almost a whole year to finish this book). You'll find yourself going on a long and laborious journey exploring and contemplating politics, philosophy, religion, life and death. This is a double edged sword, however.

3. Details: it is clear Herbert has gone to great depths to make this world real. The history of this world, the characters, backstory everything has been thought out in enormous detail.

4. Scale: this is a tale of epic proportions. It is the story of a Messiah and like most epics has a moral at the end of it. This is in Herbert's own words "“This, then, was one of my themes for Dune: Don't give over all of your critical faculties to people in power, no matter how admirable those people may appear to be. Beneath the hero's facade you will find a human being who makes human mistakes. Enormous problems arise when human mistakes are made on the grand scale available to a superhero. And sometimes you run into another problem.”

Excerpt From: Herbert, Frank. “Dune Genesis.” iBooks."
Dune attempts to tackle some serious subjects and takes itself very seriously. This attempt itself is commendable - or at least makes an interesting read.

Cons:

1. Writing: Please don't hate me, but I find Herbert a terrible writer. His language is dull, his descriptions are often long-winded and deal in pointless detail. He cannot paint a picture or captivate us with words - he gets by on the charm of his ideas. Subtlety is not one of his strengths. These are decided flaws for me.

2. Characters: not one character, apart from Liet-Kynes excited my interest, admiration or compassion. We feel nothing for any of the characters except perhaps mild curiosity. Paul, from the start, irritated me. He is always too confident, too dull, too fixed in his ideas and not cold enough, nor warm enough to be an object of interest. He rarely makes mistakes and the mistakes he does make are not great. The Baron is too much of a caricature than a man with real thought processes. He is a blend of the evil and the ridiculous - we see nothing good and nothing intelligent. Which brings me to -

3. Too easy of an antagonist: the opposition is not great. The enemies are foolish. The hero is brave and wise and strong. The subtleties of politics creates a little suspense but we all know how it's going to end -

4. Plot: is very predictable. I don't know if this was the first book to have such a generic plot but I do know that countless other books now follow this same basic outline. And the extracts at the start of each chapter don't help. We don't even have to try too hard to predict things since the protagonist does it for us anyway.

5. Tries too hard: the books attempts to explore religion, politics and philosophy. Always interesting dimensions to add to a story and start off as such. But eventually Herbert stops asking any new questions or exploring new aspects and we have endless paragraphs of very deep and very rehashed thoughts. Rehashed throughout the book, I mean. They get tedious fast. Speaking of tedious, how is Paul so incredibly introspective, all knowing, confident, strategically gifted, and an invincible fighting machine?! Can you talk about insufferable? The antagonist has all the disadvantages, and the protagonist all the advantages. There really isn't much of a struggle, I might as well read the Bible.

Also the book takes itself too seriously. It's an epic - almost religious in its tone. The only objection for me here is that it's not to my taste. Taste is subjective though, so I won't hold this against him.

It all comes down to poor writing, a bad grasp of characters and their motivations. He could have infused a little charm with some unpredictability or stronger characters but the lack of charm is really quite awful. Instead of constantly telling us his characters are strong he could have shown us. And a little vulnerability might have made them believable.

Journal Entry #15

I've been listening to some audiobooks lately about the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War. It's a whole different experience when it is read to you as compared to me reading it. It's more emotional as the voice narrator of the audiobook would have emotional ranges during the battle. You can hear the tone shift immediately to excited fear that resulted in courage in a firefight.

Several years ago I read "Horse Soldiers" which was a well-written, interesting book. But the book only covered a very narrow part of the Afghan war. The story followed a small group of CIA and special forces soldiers who fought the Taliban and took over Afghanistan. The narrative began just before the September 11th attacks and ended about two months later.

The story was widely covered at the time. Some people may remember hearing about American soldiers fighting on horseback in Afghanistan, but was somewhat forgotten after ten years of war in two countries (Iraq and Afghanistan). The soldiers were very brave, dedicated men, which made for an interesting story. And not all of them survived. In fact, if you ever visited the new World Trade Center, there's a statue of a soldier on horseback that was dedicated to these men.

In a book like Horse Soldiers, I was just flat-out entertained! It was a great read; well-written, researched, and fast-paced. If I read anything in any genre, I always liked to be entertained, but most especially, to be fulfilled after reading it. Secondly, it was fulfilling to read Horse Soldiers. You get a lot of the basis of what happened behind the scenes of when the war was in its infant stages. For example, how ineffective the carpet bombing was that the USA did right away (that over here in the United States was portrayed as something great), until they dropped the horse soldiers inside so they could accurately provide targets and coordinates from up close to the targets. A part of being fulfilled, is, I guess, being informed. Finally, just plain learning something. especially when you hear so much misinformation from the media.

War is perhaps the most complex activity that nations and people engage in, and it involves management of basic human feelings like fear and terror, and sometimes altruism. So there is something for every reader even if the experience of war is abhorrent.

Journal Entry #16

After watching a vampire movie recently, I was reminded of reading Dracula by Bram Stoker over a decade ago.

I like reading classic novels as part of general knowledge. I also find reading and comparing the writing styles from different eras interesting. Most classic novels are less focused on action and more focused on characters: their thoughts, emotions, and interactions. When I read that the hero felt this way or thought that way, I invariably noticed how strikingly similar these are to what I or someone I know have thought or felt. It showed me that despite the hundred plus years since their time and mine, despite the very different societies and cultures, humans are fundamentally the same. We can change our clothes and our cars, but we still love and hurt and hope and fear, and that is a great comfort to me. There are many modern novels that express these things, too, but I think the chronological distance helps to reinforce the universality, least for me.

And on to Dracula, to begin with, the novel doesn't bear a whole lot of resemblance to the modern incarnations of vampires, so it's probably best if you can manage to drop any preconceived notions about what you're getting yourself into. It's undeniably a horror novel, but it's a traditional Gothic one. In short, this means that the "scare factor" is built around a slow-growing sense of malaise that culminates in a fairly tame (at least by today's standards, especially the gory standards) final showdown and then happily ever after. There are some fangs and blood-drinking and battles, but they're not the heart of the story. Since I don't love scary things, especially slasher-type flicks, this sort of horror is about the only type that kind of appealed to me.

Stylistically, Dracula is pretty interesting, too. Stoker's storytelling jumps from epistolary form to diary entries to straight narration and back again. These changes play with the mind a little. They cause confusion, not in that they make things complicated, but the different narrators and points of view raise doubts - which actually helps one to increase the feelings of foreboding.

Finally, I also like how open to interpretation the novel is. It, like many classical novels, is not meant to be read just literally. Stoker was clearly making deeper implications. He's not slap-you-in-the-face obvious as to what exactly those are, though, so one can read all sorts of things into it. For example, Stoker was of the old school with regard to women. He liked them proverbially barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen. If one looks at the novel from a feminist point of view, then, it can been seen as an indictment of the change in women that was happening in the late 19th/early 20th century. One woman, the angel of the house, is praised and loved while the other, the whorish new woman, is condemned. One could also read it as an almost Marxist war on classism (good commoner versus evil aristocrat), as a sort of England is Best sort of attack on Eastern Europe, and undoubtedly many more ways. To me, it's fun to think about the different things he might have meant. I'm aware, however, that that may not be everyone's definition of fun, so I will also say that it's an entertaining story in its own right. But not too entertaining for my taste.

* * * * *

Geez I could have used what I just wrote as another book review for Dracula. Well, I thought I posted a good book review earlier today here in Good Reads. Here is the link to that book review earlier in case you are interested in reading it:

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Journal Entry #17

I remember I was on a John Green kick several years ago, where I read about three or four of his book on that particular month. That's the thing with contemporary fiction. It's easier to sympathize with the characters and situations, especially when the reader liked that particular book.

In this case one of the John Green books I read was Paper Towns. The final part of that book was what resonated in my mind the most. My final thoughts about Part 3. Part Three, the final part of the book, consisted of a hectic and somewhat reckless but incredibly fun drive from Orlando to the paper town of Agloe, New York. Q, Ben, Radar, and Lacey have less than a day of almost non-stop driving to make it in time to find Margo. They quickly divided up their roles and focused on maximizing their efficiency in getting to their destination. This involved a number of funny incidents, such as when Q accidentally bought a confederate flag shirt for Radar (who is black) to wear and Ben having to pee into a beer bottle. But in general, they’re doing fine until hour twelve when Q almost ran the minivan into two cows in the middle of the road.

Q's attitude about Margo continued to fluctuate. He accepted the fact that he cannot actually become her and that he cannot fully know her, though he reacted furiously when Ben suggested the same to him based on his experience with Lacey. He also continued the theme of self-discovery juxtaposed against a lack of understanding of Margo. When they are about to crash into the cows, Q felt a very significant sense of resentment at Margo for drawing them into the chase which could have cost them their lives. He started to see the costs that Margo's actions have imposed upon him and his friends.

Hours thirteen through twenty-one passed quickly. They have survived their bout with the cows in the street and are relieved. Q slept for much of this time and continued to make observations on the nature of his experience of pursuing Margo. But the core chapter is the final one, named "Algoe" after the paper town where they located Margo. Finding Margo is the climax of the book but it is also something of an anti-climax. She is alive and seemed dead to them in terms of her emotional engagement towards them. Lacey, Ben and Radar are quickly disgusted with her bratty behavior and leave her and Q alone. They fight initially because Margo was surprised and scared and overreacted and Q was upset that Margo was not more gracious or happy to see them. After they calmed down, Margo and Q reviewed all the details of the time period covered by the book. It seemed that Q had significantly overthought Margo's intentions. She had never wanted to be found and her elaborate escape plan was actually put together with some haste when she decided to leave Orlando three weeks earlier.

Margo revealed that her black notebook contained a story she began long ago about her and Q hunting down the killer of Robert Joyner. It seemed that Margo had romanticized Q as well and that through her own soul-searching she had come to a similar realization about trying to see Q for who he is. They exchanged discussions of their metaphors and frames for thinking about the other, and realized their limitations. But the beauty in their discussion is that it helped them to see each other as vulnerable, as idolizing the other and it allowed them to connect deeply and romantically, which manifested themselves physically in several kisses and bodily closeness. The tragedy of their love is that they have finally seen each other for who they are but that they have fundamentally different dispositions and approaches to life. Margo is not future-oriented. She still wants to travel and be a free-spirit. Q is more pragmatic and insists on the value of planning for the future. He does not want to uproot himself from his life and his friends. To do so would be to remain inauthentic. The book ended with Q and Margo in a tragic embrace, but happy to have finally met the real Margo and the real Q.

And those are my final thoughts on this book. I have to say overall that Paper Towns is an interesting read. However, it is not the roller coaster that is The Fault in Our Stars. My favorite part is back on Part 1, where the 11-part revenge took place. That was the most entertaining part of the book. There were parts that were slow, but overall, it is quite an entertaining read about friendship, and getting to know yourself as a person.

* * * * *

And of course I posted the review here in Book Reads. Here's the link:

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Journal Entry #18

I was surfing Netflix the other night, and decided on watching something that'll make me laugh. I came across John Wick with Keanu Reaves. And then I remembered he made Bill and Ted, so I watched that instead. And one of the historical figures Bill and Ted grabbed from history was Socrates, the Greek philosopher. I remember reading The Republic by Plato back when I was a student in the university. It was very interesting considering the different political regimes (tyranny, democracy...). It helped to understand how a regime was fair or not. Not only did I find it intellectually stimulating (which I prized more than anything else), it also opened my eyes to the realm of philosophy and I've been hooked ever since. This journal entry will be on my reading of that philosophy book, and what I learned from it.

I learned about Socrates through the words of Plato, about an exemplar thinker and teacher, and about the importance of applying clear thought to problems, and to resist oppression regardless of the cost. Some of it was difficult to read (thinking about it now, make that a lot was difficult to read), but the dialogues could be very lively. It painted portraits of different characters arguing over heartfelt positions, and slow-minded aggression constantly deflected with quick-minded wit. It argued for roles and institutions of governance that protected the weak from tyranny and might. In that sense it was a very universal story with Socrates as a (somewhat) traditional Hero. It is a dialog in which Socrates outlined his vision of an ideal society. Since western civilization's roots stem from ancient Greece, the writings of great thinkers like Plato and another one, Aristotle, are invaluable insights for anyone who is curious why the world exists at it does today.

In terms of The Republic's story, I have to say that there wasn't much of a narrative. Although it was written in the form of a dialogue, somewhat like a play. It is more of a philosophical text than a story, but there are certainly narrative elements. For example, Plato's famous metaphor of the cave involved the progression of a hypothetical character, but was not meant to be dramatically compelling. Rather it was to illustrate Plato's point. The Republic isn't so much a story as it is a dialog. Imagine being in a room with a handful of brilliant people. What would the conversation sound like? That's what The Republic is. Socrates was the leading thinker who had a vision of an ideal society, and his friends asked loaded questions for clarity.

Look at all the problems in the world today and you can see that very few are genuinely "new." Things like poverty, corruption, crime, environmental destruction, and general malaise date back thousands of years. In this book, Plato offered his thoughts, along with a good many philosophical thought experiments, which in turn stimulated your own thinking. He certainly don't have all the answers, but he painted a wondrously bizarre picture in the process of getting to his conclusions. And best of all, his arguments and reasoning beg you to think them through and figure out where he went astray so you can come up with your own ideas.

In addition, the book's legacy is enormous, virtually every paradigm devised since its writing has been influenced by it. Ideas about what a State can and shouldn't be allowed to do, how to educate the people, how culture is preserved and passed on, how culture and politics influenced the individual's character and motivations, whether "might is right" (i.e. survival of the fittest) applied to people and whether it ought to, etc. can be found in this book. To learn and understand more about the world today, I find it extremely useful to look back at books I read like classics such as The Republic and discover where today's ideas came from.

Looking back I really liked Plato's writing. In The Republic he started off with a group of friends just sitting around waiting for a festival to start and their conversation just picked up and carried them away. The bulk of the book is in the form of a dialogue, albeit a very one-sided one. It's fun to see how one topic grew and developed into another just through the characters' discussion, and some of the developments are just so farfetched and ridiculous you can't help but laugh.

Journal Entry #19

I'm in the mood to write book reviews of books I've read over the years, even before becoming a Good Reads member. I'm just going to have some lunch, and then type away later this afternoon.

I'm going to share thoughts later this afternoon about some Literature I have read over the years. I will post it here later this afternoon.

Journal Entry #20

I love reading classics because it gave me a peek into days gone by. It may sound a bit simple because we now live in such a vastly different time, but it's good too see how it used to be and how people's view of the world has changed. Reading classics like this gave a different sense of history and the people that Steinbeck knew and wrote about. His views on the working class gave his characters weight and depth, while also respecting the work and lives that people like this led. They showed us the archetypes of human experience and we can relate to them because they touched on the deeper aspects of human ideals and relationships. Even though their examples are often extreme, we still identified and pushed our minds to understand and empathize with these stories and characters. Thus we learned and grew through an appreciation for and identification with these aspects of the foundation of humanity. The characters and events in Of Mice and Men dealt with dreams and hopes, with friendship, violence, and struggle, and in the end with destiny and fate. Also, a classic like Of Mice and Men has a sort of prestige associated with it that novels lack today. Reading classics improved understanding of what a book can be as far as the content of the book being emotionally tied to real world problems, and how those problems can play out in dramatic sequences.

Steinbeck was a master of painting settings for his readers. This can be really helpful at times when reading his books but also caused some chapters to drag on and on. I like it for the most part, mostly because it's an escape. He made it easy to jump out of the hustle and insanity of today and grab hold of a slower more physical world. Of Mice and Men took place on a ranch in the early 20th century. Steinbeck painted an accurate picture of life during that time. Most of his settings and character development took place all at once (it's a defining feature of classic novels), and it happened all at the beginning. The plot in all of his stories definitely pick up afterwards. Also, the setting (place and time,) the relationship between Lennie and George and their dream. Steinbeck did a great job with establishing a location. He made you see the location and feel it as well. The setting was just as much a character as the people (and an indicator of things to come.)

Lennie and George are such a likable duo. They're both distinct personalities, but compatible, like Yin and Yang. You never saw how they met, or what made them close, but you don't need to because you felt it. Their bond, and the extent they went for each other, was moving. Their dream, what they're working as laborers for, was really The American Dream. They were so close to achieving it when the story took place and because of how likable they were, as a reader, I wanted them to have it.

The writing style was straightforward, the pace was consistent and always moved, the atmosphere was well-established, the character interaction and dialogue was wonderful, and the ending was a shocker. Trust me the ending really made the book. It elicited strong emotions. Steinbeck knew his environment and story in 'Of Mice and Men.'

Another of Steinbeck's strong points was his prose. Much like Hemingway, he wrote in a simple, minimalist style. He didn't really discuss the character's inner psychology or feelings. He let their actions, inaction speak for themselves themselves. There was no pretension or pandering to his reader. I never felt Steinbeck was telling me a story, I always felt like I was in the story.

"Of Mice and Men" showed friendship between two men while they struggled to earn a living as farm laborers. There was also a layer of noir added to their story, as situations arose the reader recognized, but the characters were unable to see until it was too late. Steinbeck's story set classic tragic plots into the 20th century, then sat back and let these plots spin to their inevitable conclusion. Due to it's length, "Of Mice and Men" was a good introduction to Steinbeck's writing style.

The reason his stories are so great though because the themes and characters he uses appeal to our basic human emotions and ideas, e.g. freedom, love, loyalty, etc. It's a short novel that has a great deal of meaning.

* * * * *

And here are the two book reviews I posted this weekend:

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Journal Entry #21

This weekend I overheard two old men talking about Vonnegut in the subway. I read Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse Five back in school w long time ago. Vonnegut was one of the American writers who went their own way. Instead of the more traditional style he chose a special brand of humor mixed with the elements of our often tragic times. His characters do not often understand where they are, or what they experienced, but in reading about them, as readers we do. It made us ask some serious questions about ourselves.

SH5 brought the human madness witnessed in WW II and the narrator in the novel found himself, at one point, in just such a situation.

I read a couple of Vonnegut's books, years ago, and he was an author for readers that questioned society the most. It was always better to question than to answer. I may have to agree with him, since all our answers have always been filled with mistakes, while our questions still stood intact.

My hat's off to Vonnegut and his special vision, his humor, and his powerful prose.

Here is the link to my very long book review I posted earlier of Slaughterhouse Five in case you are interested in reading it:

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Thanks I'll add to my reading list. Reminded me of the single Kurt Vonnegut novel I've read, back in 1985 upon its release: Galápagos; that was a great read I recall, if not one of his most popular or well-known novels.

Sof wrote: "Thanks I'll add to my reading list. Reminded me of the single Kurt Vonnegut novel I've read, back in 1985 upon its release: Galápagos; that was a great read I recall, if not one of his most popular..."

Hi Sof. Glad my reading journal here allowed you to find a book to your liking. I hope you have a good experience reading SH5 by Vonnegut.

Journal Entry #22

I just had lunch earlier. And for some reason, after eating, my mind was correlating my meal with a book I have read in the past. I suppose books are like meals. Sometimes you have Prime Rib, a glorious Steak and Potatoes, or classic Lobster meal, which my mind associated with books that had deep character developments and epic timeframes in the setting's era. And these types of meals, you take your time eating it, and those types of books takes your time consuming it (i.e. books like Crime and Punishment or War and Peace). Of course at other times, you want a quick snack, like a Snickers chocolate bar. That's for short stories, or anthologies (a published collection of poems, essays, or short stories).

Sometimes, a good workingman's meal will do. And years ago on a plane travelling to the Far East (22.5 hours of flight time with two foreign airport stopovers) I picked up a Lee Child thriller from those small bookstore stalls in John F Kennedy JFK International Airport in New York, USA. That is what a good Jack Reacher book is. A good bluc collar meal: a thick juicy burger, grilled just right, with all the right condiments and no extra filler. Guaranteed to satisfy every time. And if you are a vegan/vegetarian, it would be a delicious Boca Burger).

The book was Lee Child's first book. It was titled, Killing Floor. It is a good enough book, and is a continuing series written by Lee Child. I believe there is about 24 or 25 novels in this series at this time. I use the term "series" very loosely because there is no prerequisite to start at the beginning. The beauty of the Reacher stories is that you could pick up any one of them and it tells its own contained story. There are recurring characters, but the only true constant is the main character, Jack Reacher.

Most of the books followed a pretty tried and true formula: Jack rolled into town, got into trouble, crossed the wrong people, found a pretty local woman, and meted out painful vigilante justice. These were the broad strokes, but Child filled in all the colors like a true artist. He's a master at creating suspense and making you not able to turn the pages fast enough. He told you just enough to keep you up later than intended, but didn't string you along just to pad the length.

One thing I usually found interesting in these books by Child is you usually knew who the bad guys were. The real mystery was what they're really up to. The books are not all slam-bang action, though. There is mystery and logic and deduction. Reacher could hold his own against Sherlock Holmes or the detective aspect of Batman/Bruce Wayne.

Perhaps I should write a review of Lee Child's book. I've read a couple. I think I'll post a review of Killing Floor this afternoon.

Journal Entry #23

Two of my favorite authors who always gave a great interview were Christopher Hitchens and Salman Rushdie. Unfortunately, Hitchens has passed away, but both intellectuals gave insightful interviews about stories, writing, religion, atheism, politics, war, and social concerns about the world. You can always learn something new about life after reading their interviews or listening to them. And especially from their books.

Rushdie's "Midnight's Children" was the first book I've ever read by an Indian author and one of the only books I've read that took place in India and the surrounding countries. It really broadened my world view. At the time, I had to read it for a class so I did a lot of research outside of the book (on things like geography and some of the important figures mentioned in the book because they were real people) and I would really recommend doing the same if you read this novel. It was an amazing read.

It was really appealing to me because I learned that Rushdie's work was persecuted for it's blunt honesty and magical realism overlaying true facts. He wrote this novel for American readers, and if you payed close enough attention, he was making fun of the fact that western people didn't know anything about Indian (or other cultures') history (If you want to look for this - research dates of events). It was also told in a cyclical fashion so you knew half of what happened later before you fully understood what was happening in the current time which was an interesting play on time perspective. It's honestly one of my favorite books, even though it was complicated and long. It's a pretty unremarkable base storyline of an old man who is writing an autobiography, but his life was so full of twists and turns, facts and fiction, and concealments and revelations that it's exciting no matter where you are in the plotline.

He also wrote the "Satanic Verses." This was the most controversial book of the 20th century. This book caused Rushdie to go into hiding and a fatwa was issued by Ayatollah Khomeini sentencing Rushdie to death. Copies of this book were burned and protested and banned. You`ll be surprised to know that even now (in the year 2021 )this book is still banned in India, Pakistan and most Muslim majority countries.

As to the book itself, it followed two protagonists, Saladin and Gibrael, into their lives. It`s a completely different reading experience, Rushdie`s talent as a writer never ceased to amaze me. He`s more of a communicator than a writer. The book followed a stream-of-consciousness narrative using an unreliable narrator. Even though it`s an enjoyable read, I wouldn`t say it`s an easy read, you have to read it at a constant pace, otherwise you are sure to miss the key points of the story. Rushdie also reflected on the political situation of that time. One of the main themes in the novel was of Cultural identity. When Saladin left India to go to London, he hoped to forget his country and its culture forever., but try as he might, he`s always haunted by his identity and culture throughout the book.

The book was an amalgamation of different stories intertwined with each other. The two protagonists assumed themselves to be
the angel and the devil. The subplot followed the prophet Mohammad and the beginning of Islam and was recounted through the hallucinations of the protagonist. Although the book has elements of magical realism, Rushdie always reminded the reader that they were reading a work of fiction.

I hope this gave interested readers a sense of my feelings about the book. I do think that most of the people who protested this book actually haven`t read the book. I think they don`t have the intelligence or patience to grasp Rushdie. I`m not questioning anyone`s intelligence but it`s just absurd that some people would want to kill someone for writing a book!

As for the eloquent Christopher Hitchens, he wrote many books. Hitchens was a solid writer, so regardless of whether I, or his many readers, agree with his premise that "God Is Not Great", we'll get to observe an excellent writer writing about a topic which he is passionate about. He's funny in a witty British way, which some people really enjoyed. But I think the number one thing I got from the book was an education on varied ways that organized religion and religion touched on and, according to Hitchens, detracted from or interfered with so many areas of life.

The book is primarily a case against organized religion with a focus on Christianity. He wrote about (and cited sources) the history of religions, the Church, and hypocrisy of religions in general. He gave specific examples of how, essentially, "they're all full of shit". But he does so in a much more eloquent way.

The book itself angered a lot of people, as you can imagine from the title, so be prepared to disagree with every little thing he said and be pleasantly surprised when you agree with him. It's a challenging read inasmuch as it really forced you to evaluate everything you think as you're reading it, but I found it was hard to put down.

There isn't a single thing I personally dislike about Hitchens' writing style. He was, and is, one of my favorite writers of all time, simply due to the way he used the English language. It was an extension of his personality. He knew how to put words together like no other.

* * * * *

Looks like I'll have to write book reviews of these three books and post it here in Good Reads. At least, I'll have the weekend to write them.

* * * *(*

On that note, I did write a lengthy book review and posted here on Goog Reads about the historical fiction, "Tides of War" by Steven Pressfield. Here is the link to that lengthy book review in case you are interested in reading it:

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Journal Entry #24

Scrolling back on previous journal entries, I reviewed Dracula by Bram Stoker. It reminded me when I also read Frankenstein by Mary Shelley back at the university. Mary Shelley was young (about 19, I think) when she started writing Frankenstein. There was a back story of how Mary Shelley lost her child shortly before she wrote this book. Also, there was another back story that she wrote the book while at a party with a host of other future horror writers, most of whom were male. But she wrote this one first.

The story itself was interesting and the language was vivid and detailed. I know a lot of people know this now but studying it back then was the first time I found out that Frankenstein was the doctor, and not the monster and it made me look at the story in a new perspective. The monster was different in the book as well and its story was told in a different way than the monster in any of the Frankenstein movies I've seen. It's nice to know how the original story went.

Reading this allowed a lot to think about life and its purpose. Frankenstein's character is more complex than one would expect a creation to be. He went through a self assessment of who he was and what he was meant to be.

It made me reflect on ourselves as society and humanity by our actions and how we shun the "wretch" away from us and deemed them away from what we considered human nature to be forgiving and loving. With Victor Frankenstein, who almost thought himself as a god when he created the creature and then rejected him because he was not normal for society. The creature was left to fend for itself. Even though the creature had a kind and naive nature, it changed when everyone treated him poorly and shunned him as a monster because of his looks, and over time he became bitter and angry and wanted revenge and hurt Victor because even his own creator won't show him kindness and mercy. It reflected on how wretched society was, and still is, and not the monster. It also used a lot of allusions to Christianity how God shunned Satan and became angry and wanted revenge. It really was a great but sad novel.

I posted a review of Frankenstein here in Good Reads earlier. If you are interested in reading it, here is the link to that book review:

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Journal Entry #25
If you are looking to read something different, then Sandman definitely meets those requirements. It's an older comic book and now reprinted in graphic novel collected format, with the individual issues first published back in 1989, but the content has held up remarkably well up to our current era. It was widely acknowledged as one of the best graphic novel series.

Overall, Sandman can be very dark and it dealt with a lot of heavy and sometimes uncomfortable themes, such as death, sacrifice, suicide, sexism, racism, LGBT rights, etc. For me the fascination comes from the way Gaiman explored these themes in a confronting yet respectful manner. He made you think, made you consider, and then let you make your own decision without imposing what he thought the right decision should have been. It's very effective storytelling.

In the first volume, "Preludes and Nocturnes", the story followed the Lord of Dreams (who is also known as the Sandman, Morpheus, Dream, and a bunch of other different names that different cultures have given him throughout time). He was one of the Endless gpds (along with Death, Destiny, Destruction, Desire, Despair and Delirium), and the story began with him being imprisoned and stripped of the tools of his office by a bunch of humans who were trying to capture Death. Preludes and Nocturnes covered the story of Dream's escape from imprisonment, and his journey to reclaim the tools of his office.

Preludes and Nocturnes is by far the weakest of the Sandman books, but even that was better than a lot of other stuff out there. This sequential art story was originally conceived as a way to bring back the Sandman into the DC comic book universe, so Preludes and Nocturnes are full of cameos by popular DC heroes and villains like John Constantine and Dr. Jonathan Crane (the Scarecrow villain in the Batman films). Neil Gaiman abandoned this idea at the end of Preludes and Nocturnes, so from The Dollhouse onwards, the series became more independent and was much better because of it.

The artwork in a graphic novel enhanced the story by providing visual cues that immediately and effectively set a mood or communicated an emotion, something that can be very lengthy and clumsy at times when constructed in prose form. In the first volume there were a couple of illustrators used. The art changes can be distracting, especially when the art for the series had a very unique style, and I think this was the case for Preludes and Nocturnes (it didn't help that they had to change artists at very short notice). But for the rest of the subsequent books it was not a problem. The different artists manage to keep the art consistent while adding some of their own flair.

Journal Entry #26

As reading any classic or worthwhile book, it is the introduction of a new idea, or more likely the reinvigoration of ideas that we already accepted or believed to be true. Thus it made me think of something I have read. A platitude was something meaningful that has been lost with its power through such frequent use. Books by causing self-reflection or a subtle or powerful catharsis re-established their power. It may sound a bit pretentious but they allowed you to internalize some truth or feeling through narrative or the "clarity "of the writing. That's true especially of Siddhartha being a philosophical book, or a spiritual tome. One garnered a specific thing, such as, ultimately though there may be wise men whom we can gain some insight from, or who may have set us on the right path. Nirvana or enlightenment can only be achieved by one's own insight and understanding through reflection.

It's a self discovery sort of journey, which I enjoyed. Although not everything necessarily struck a chord with me. Hess's style was simple and unadorned in this book, which may have worked almost perfectly.

It's a pretty quick read, but there's a real serenity in the pages. Siddhartha was a simple story about the boy who would become the Buddha. He was only a man and a teacher (he never claimed to be anything else), and not a god as modern Buddhism depicted him. He became enlightened from his experiences. This story was about his experiences, told in an uncomplicated form. Very enjoyable and inspiring.

As with other classics Siddhartha has timeless and overarching themes of social and moral conscience that can be applied to life at any time and internalized to facilitate personal reflection. It's also a beautiful escape to another time & culture I might not have otherwise experienced.

I loved that Siddhartha was on a journey, a personal quest. This was timely for me to read at this time. Hesse's writing was simple yet eloquent. It's very easy reading. It was easy to see his common themes of good vs. evil, spirituality and personal responsibility. His writing was artistic.

Journal Entry #27

"The Alchemist" by Paulo Coleho was a beautiful story, but it's not a novel, or even literature in the sense that we often think of when we talk about fiction. It's called allegorical fiction, where the story and characters are less developed and the real focus was on the message, or the moral of the story.

When I read fiction, I wanted to be entertained, of course, but what I really wanted was to learn a truth about the human experience. Good literature (and all good art) allowed us to understand the truth of the human experience, to view it from a perspective that we haven't looked at yet. This broadens our horizons, it opened our minds and if it very, very good, it can change our lives. Of course we have to be receptive to it. Otherwise it never just happened to us as passive bystanders.

The Alchemist, more than anything else, was a book about God. Not the God of any major, organized religion, but God as love, compassion, and understanding. God as a force of nature; God as gravity, God as electromagnetic radiation. It's about how every single thing and every single person and animal in the universe were all connected.

It's about a young shepherd who followed a recurring dream to fulfill his destiny. He learned about the "Soul of the World" through intuition and following omens.

If you like to think about "the big questions" then this book will be a fun read for you. It was very short, very easy to read, and very beautifully written.

"The Alchemist" is also a homage and new interpretation of Joseph Campbell's idea of the Hero's Journey. It's an easy read because the story is so basic: through a series of strange events, the protagonist found himself setting out on a journey to parts unknown in search of a treasure, but because it's also deeply philosophic in content, I think what you get from it as a reader depends on what you bring into it. I would describe it as a cross between "1,001 Arabian Nights" and "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance." If you like reading or are curious about the nature of the Universe and challenges of just being human, I think you would enjoy this. Without being too direct, the book focused on themes of love, finding purpose and meaning in life, and even though it's a bit cliche, the whole journey-is-the-destination thing. Personally, I got from it a better sense of what my values really were and how I really wanted to live my life, but even if it doesn't do that, I still found it entertaining and moving. The story itself was good, with memorable characters who are also affected by the main character's journey; the setting was evocative, and the ending was satisfying.

Journal Entry #28

Okay if you scroll back up to a couple of weeks ago to Journal Entry #23, I talked about Salman Rushdie's two books. And I briefly talked about his book Satanic Verses which he received a fatwah and death threats even up to this day. He went into hiding with bodyguards for a good part of a little over a decade since 1989 because of that book. I finally wrote a book review of Satanic Verses and posted it earlier. Here is the link to that book review:

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Journal Entry #29

I just finished reading Captain America. At the time, Ed Brubaker wrote fantastic Captain America stories whether it was Steve Rogers who wore the uniform, or James "Bucky" Barnes who wore the uniform. This was around the Marvel era when editorial mandate had Steve Rogers apparently "die." The way Ed Brubaker wrote his Captain America stories, it was like a love letter of respect and admiration to the character of Captain America.

Ed Brubaker has been the regular Captain America writer for Marvel for the decade of 2000's. Prior to that, Ed Brubaker was on an exclusive contract with Marvel's primary competition, DC, where he was the regular scribe for Catwoman and Detective Comics that featured Batman. He received a phone call from one of Marvel's hottest writer at the time, Brian Bendis, who was a friend of his. Brian talked to Ed about joining Marvel also known as the House of Ideas. Ed still continued to stay at DC. At which point he was asked which Marvel character he wanted to work on so that he can be persuaded to switch to Marvel. Ed resoundingly answered, "Captain America." Ed then received a call from Marvel Editor in Chief Joe Quesada, and they talked about Captain America, wherein Ed's idea coincided with Joe wanting someone to do a story where Captain America's dead sidekick would be brought back to life in the Marvel Universe.

Ed always wanted to do a Captain America story because he grew up a military brat, or a Navy brat specifically. He travelled from base to base, and he even went to school in the U.S. Base in Guantanamo Bay, which is in Cuba. He was surrounded by the military and intelligence personnel, and just loved reading Captain America in that setting. The character "spoke" to him because he was a super soldier, and fought in an actual war, World War 2. He wasn't a superhero with superpowers flying around and fighting aliens and space invaders. He wanted to do a Captain America story because it appealed to him, but he wanted to write it his way, a modern version, more like a James Bond type of genre, spies, and espionage. A thriller. Ed brought back Bucky to life in the Marvel Universe, to the negative uproar amongst Marvel fans. That was about early 2000's, around 2004. Around 2012, Jim Barnes, either as Captain America or as the Winter Soldier, was one of the most popular characters in the Marvel Universe thanks to the fantastic written work of scribe, Ed Brubaker.

And now that I've dispensed a little history on the writer of Captain America, I will get to the story. This story was a departure from Ed Brubaker's work on the Captain America series. His majority of Captain America stories, Ed's style was more of a noir espionage feeling. The mood was a thriller in the sense of a James Bond atmosphere. This story departed from that and was more of an adventure. Don't get me wrong, there were still traces of that espionage/thriller mood , but the atmosphere was not noir-ish. It's more superheroic based than reality based, so the reader will need to have that suspension of disbelief.

The story opened up with Captain America dressing up and getting ready to attend a funeral of friend, wartime colleague, and former lover. He was joined at the funeral by his current love, Sharon Stone, Nick Fury, and Dum-Dum Duggan. Someone attempted to snuff Duggan's life as they left the funeral, but Captain American saved Duggan's life. Captain America snapped into action as a Living Legend always does, bigger than life. He darted toward the shooter, but the adversary is as quick as Captain America and made his getaway. They do a cat and mouse routine, and in the highway, Captain America was shocked that it was someone from his past that he hasn't seen since 1944. The story then proceeded with flashbacks in World War 2 action with Captain America, Nick Fury, Peggy Carter, Jimmy Jupiter, and Agent Bravo, who was another super soldier. According to superspy legend, Colonel Nick Fury, Jimmy Jupiter had a superpower that allowed him to access to a slipstream space, a dimension between layers of reality that Jimmy called, The Land of Nowhere. Jimmy had the power to enter the place and shape it with his imagination. That was how Nick Fury and his team back in World War Two secretly entered hidden enemy bases. Jimmy would hone in on enemy forces' dreams and accessed them. But one mission went awry, where the agents and soldiers entered The Land of Nowhere to go to a hidden enemy base and got stuck there, because a Nazi spy amongst the Allied Forces ranks hit Jimmy in the head sending him to a coma. And those men were trapped along with the enemy whose dreams were accessed by Jimmy. Fast forward to the current time, Jimmy snapped out of his coma, and those who were trapped in the Land of Nowhere who were still alive, came out of the Utopia they created in that world, and ended up on America's reality of the current timeline. The vengeful adversary put all the blame on Captain America.

The aspect of "Man Out of Time" is repeated throughout the book. It was prevalent in Steve Rogers's mind almost throughout the book. His childhood was the depression era which was back in the 1930s America. His first five years of being Captain America was as a soldier in World War Two.

At the same time, his main adversary kept reminding Steve that the current world was worse than he and Rogers's World War Two world. The adversary blamed Steve Rogers for what has happened to America, that Congress was bought and paid for, while Captain America just stood by holding the flag, and let it all happen. Furthermore, the adversary added that America has lost its ways. the robber barons have bought the whole country. They owned the press and the general populace believed the lies they told. Even at the end of this book, he blamed Captain America and denounced the Star Spangled Legend has failed America.

The surprising part about the book that made me smile, was the genuine love that Sharon Carter, Agent 13 of SHIELD, had for Steve Rogers. Steve McNiven, the illustrator, captured the emotions, and depictions of thoughts in the characters' faces. He captured Sharon's feeling of comfort next to Steve in bed, depicting her reassurance that she was next to the love of her life. And at the end of the book, when Captain America was trapped in the Land of Nowhere with the adversary, with no hope of bringing him back except from a dying Jimmy Jupiter, she spoke to a comatose Jimmy Jupiter and pleaded with him to hear her, tears and all, to help her bring Captain America back to the real world. The pain and anguish on her face was really captured by Steve McNiven. He captured her raw emotion of someone who has just lost her most precious possession, the love of her life, that you as the reader, wanted to comfort her, and reassure her that you were pulling for a miracle for her.

Steve McNiven's clear lines enhanced the book. He drew the scale mail, the flag colors of Captain America's uniform as if he were having a great time. He had some great visual designs of Captain America's movement and aspects of his character. There was a part in the book where Captain America jumped out of the plane because their secret attack was compromised, and the hero sprung to action was captured perfectly. He captured the intensity of Captain America in that scene perfectly. The Star Spangled Hero leaped into action, no pun intended.

Finally, it's not Ed Brubaker's best work, but it was much better than many stories around. Ed took Captain America on a different direction with this story, but he still nailed storytelling at its best with this one. You can read this and be entertained enough to read it over and over. I did.

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Journal Entry #30

There's so many books on the to-be-read list. All different genres. I want to read all at the same time, but cannot decide which one to concentrate on. Should I concentrate reading a historical fiction, a fantasy, a dystopian, crime fiction, classic or something else.

Reading a historical novel gives a sense of the time. A sense of the place, and if is written well, with reasonable scholarship, an understanding of the place and time I wasn't familiar with, then it would be rewarding Good historical novels help give a feel for place and time, while teaching a little in a manner that is accessible. To be more particular with historical fiction, I'd say that it's probably the closest you'll ever get to "telepathic time travel." Yes, the world was a total construct of the author, but getting that little buzz of, "Hey, this might be kind of what it was like back then," is a nice feeling, especially if it is an era of history that I'm already interested in.

Then again, reading fantasy immerses me in a world unlike the one we currently live in. This may be by means of magic, through different creatures, or perhaps it's just a story of a completely different world altogether. These stories usually involve a hero of some sort, and they always seem to be very "special" compared to the others in the story. For me it really just takes me away to some other place and it brings me deep into the story.

Dystopian fiction has been really popular the last decade and a half. Adult dystopian novels help me think about humanity and what is possible in new ways. They hold up a dark mirror, a whispered warning, "Be careful what you wish for." Because every well-written dystopian society started off as someone's idea of a utopia. (YA dystopian novels are fun, with a young protagonist fighting against the system, but they rarely give me the same insights.)

Now, reading crime fiction and mystery depends on what sub-group of that you want to read. These crime fiction genres frequently overlap (mystery, thriller, spy fiction, etc.), since there is a crime involved. Given that, there are a few subtle differences. Mystery genre typically involves a crime being committed and typically no one knows who did it. The protagonist is generally a cop or a private detective trying to solve the riddle. I would categorize Agatha Christie, Arthur Conan Doyle books in this segment. Crime may involve a cop/detective chasing a criminal or more frequently a criminal trying to evade law. This particular book straddles both.

I've been reading classics since back in school. But those were assigned reading. As an adult I get to select the ones I want to read and they are rewarding. I feel a sense of belonging to the global reading community. My idea of a classic is a book that is revered by millions world wide. A classic has enough well written phrases and ideas that over time the world incorporates them into regular day to day conversation. Also classic authors give you access to great minds and because their ideas are attached to stories they're likely to stay with you and enrich your own mind and life.

Perhaps I can read something else, like a graphic novel. There are so many different kinds. Perhaps the most popular one, which was included in Time magazine's 100 greatest novels of all time, Watchmen by Alan Moore. Alan Moore has such an interesting take on the 'superhero' that has not been seen before (before it came out in the 1980's that is). He exposes the characters for all of their good and evil for the readers to see. With that being said, this story is a little more graphic than most stories of its time. Each character has a story all their own and underlying issues that each of them must face in order to regroup and come together. The way it is written with illustrations really rings you in the story. This graphic novel flashes back from past to present day, giving a full explanation of the character.

So I'm back in the beginning again. What kind of book should I concentrate reading... who knows.

Journal Entry #31

I finished reading The Diary of a Young Girl by Anne Frank a few weeks ago.

It was one of the most well-known non-fiction memoirs/books from WWII and was a very good introduction into this period of history if you are interested in reading history.

As you may have already knew, this was the diary of a young Jewish girl hiding (not to be found by the Nazis) on the hidden back part of a factory/office building with her whole family. The building was previously owned and managed by her father. And it was not only a few weeks, they were in the cruel quarantine of the war for years.

The reason why this book was unique, optimistic, and in the same time also heartbreaking was that Anne was a typical young teenager with the same thoughts, desires, fears, being worried about everyday things, and this mindset continued in the time of her hiding. We can learn a lot about the daily struggles of her family. She was extremely optimistic and thinking positively and it made the whole book somewhat surreal.

Her story helped me to understand what my great grandparents and grandparents went through the war. Though we have no Jewish origin, the war and the cruelty of it was hard for everybody.

The book itself was not brutal or extremely shocking verbally, It was the hidden context (you read her naive thoughts and knew exactly what was going on in the world at that time) which mades it a special experience.

* * * * * *

I wrote and posted a review of this book here in Good Reads. In case you are interested in reading it, here is the link below to that review:

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

* * * * *

Journal Entry #32

Classics are called like "classics" for a reason, they're the originals. They're the basis and inspiration for most storylines of novels today. The way authors wrote before was also interesting because the language and culture evolved over the years. Newer books are 'easy reads' because they are closer to the language of our generation today. For me, reading a classic was more challenging since I had to put my shoes in their old world and understand their language and how life was before today's advanced technology, etc.

The themes of both classics and modern fiction are pretty much similar (i.e. love, tragedy, adventure etc.), but the difference were aforementioned --- the language, the period, culture, and the lifestyle of the people back in their era.

Anna Karenina is a good read if you want to know the background of Russian politics and society (how it was divided somehow by the upper class and peasants). It was also a great book of different types of love (familial, brotherly, friendship, sexual, true, etc.) which are all evident in the relationships of the characters. It's not the happiest story but there is a great moral for sure.

I will have to write a book review on Good Reads for this book some time. Perhaps after re-visiting the story some time.

Journal Entry #32

As we are still in the middle of the ongoing worldwide pandemic since the end of 2019 up to our current time (which today would be Sept. 17, 2021), I thought about reading a book about a pandemic in a dystopian setting. This summer I read Station Eleven by Emily St. John.

I thought it was a well crafted story with interesting diverse points of views that intersected nicely. For me it was a little dark, I find the subject matter: a pandemic, a little difficult in the midst of one but it discusses the importance of the arts through dark times which is something I’m thinking about a lot right now. Also on a personal note a lot of the novel took place in Toronto which is where the author was from so that was a cool aspect for me and a surprise. So yeah... overall a good book, current events making it both a poignant and challenging read.

That said, I also liked the plot and characters, especially the rag-tag theatre group who continued to bring culture to what was left of the world. Comics play a role in the story, too and being a fan of Kavalier and Clay, this was another facet of the story I enjoyed. I don't reread many books, but this will be one I'll read again sometime -- maybe after our own pandemic has passed.

I have also just posted a book review of this book here at Good Reads. The link is below in case you would like to read it:

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Journal Entry #33

I've just posted a book review of Catch-22 here in Good Reads. The link below is for anyone who is interested in reading it:

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Further to my posted review, I have additional thoughts that crossed my mind about the book.

I'd been wondering why it struck such a chord with me, and I suppose it probably has a lot to do with my situation at the time; I think I empathized a lot with the characters in the book, and the feeling of detachment and absurdity in daily life, although without the war part, obviously.

That being said, I think that even had I not drawn parallels between the characters in the book and my own life, I'd still have liked it. What sticks in my mind is that it was really funny (enough to cause me embarrassment on public transport), but also contained some really poignant and very sad passages.

There are a few strands which wind out in parallel throughout the book. There's a basic story, which was interesting enough to draw you along, but also a few episodes which are like half-remembered thoughts which repeat, with more details being added each time, like a kind of vague memory from a drunken night where you slowly remember more and more of what happened. Hopefully this isn't a spoiler as it's mentioned right from the start, but there's a recollection of someone being hit on the head with a high-heeled shoe, an injured soldier bleeding in a plane, and someone who comes up with a scheme for selling eggs. These repeat regularly, with a bit more of the events colored in each time like a recurring dream.

What I took from it as a novel, and I'm afraid you'll probably have read this in loads of the comments on the page about it, was that it gave a real sense of the absurdity of the war. I wouldn't say that it was anti- or pro-war particularly; just that it conveyed a feeling of how absurd and ridiculous war was to the people involved at the sharp end of it. The Catch-22 itself was a really great way of encapsulating what the whole book was about in just one passage. His description of what 'Catch-22' actually meant in military jargon was very memorable, but I don't want to spoil that bit for you, because hopefully it'll make you laugh.

As for Joseph Heller as a storyteller, for me he really carried it along well. It's a fairly long book, but between the humor, the tragedy, the ongoing storyline and the slowly unfolding recollections, it totally hooked me in.

In summary, after all that blathering, I'd have to say: yes, give it a go. Don't go into it expecting classic literature or 'the ultimate war novel' or anything. It's a great book that uses humor and interesting characters to explain one person's perspective of how people got by during the war. Everyone I've spoken to who has read it has also liked it, so hopefully it'll do it for you too as a reader.

Journal Entry #34

A thought has crossed my mind recently. Mysteries, thriller, and suspense novels. It's great watching this genre in films, particularly the classic old noir films of the 1940's to 1960's. In book form I am sure well written ones are great reads as well.

A mystery is a book where something has happened (typically a crime, but it doesn't have to be) and you have to try to figure out exactly what happened or, more often, who did it. As the author tells the story, you learn more and more and you get clues, so sometimes you can guess what happened (or who did it). Some authors give you enough information so that you can figure it out for yourself, some authors mislead you so that you make the wrong guess, some authors never let you know what's going on so you don't even know what happened when you're finished reading the book. (I don't like those kinds of mysteries, I feel cheated when the book's over. Luckily, very few mysteries are like that.) To me, a really good mystery is a book where you don't figure it out -- but when the author lets you in on what's going on, you feel that you should have figured it out, the clues were all there for you, you just didn't see them.

A suspense novel is where the author makes you wonder so much about what's going to happen next that you always feel tense. If it's a good suspense novel, it's hard to stop reading at the end of each chapter, because you just have to find out what's going to happen next. A good suspense novel can really be exciting -- it's like the feeling when you're watching a scary movie, and the hero is sneaking through a dark house, and with every step you feel like something bad is about to happen, and you're on the edge of your seat, and you don't even realize it but your muscles tense up and you start breathing a little faster, and you're just a little more alive than you were a minute ago. It's easier for a movie to do that to you (because you can see it), but a really good suspense novel can do that to you, too (because you can see it in your mind).

Some mysteries are very suspenseful as well, so I guess those books are both mystery novels and suspense novels.

* * * * *

On a separate note. I just posted a review of Blue Belle by Andrew Vachss for those that are interested in reading it:

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Journal Entry #35

Classics usually are far best written than nowadays literature aka contemporary fiction, from my point of view. But I will say this, contemporary fiction is more entertaining. Classics hardly lack anything. The plot is well introduced and well resolved, and the characters are consistent (at least the ones that are not boring). Maybe topics have apparently changed, but not human nature. Maybe some topics or how they are resolved may appear out of fashion through history, but it shows us that nothing has changed over the course of history. As I said, human nature remains the same. Therefore, classics' characters & plots etc. may be found in today's modern contemporary fiction stories.

Reading the classics, is always worth it in my opinion. I won't lie there are some that are terrible or just plain boring. This one wasn't I might add, but it strikes me as funny that many books from the late 1700's and early 1800's are very similar. What rich guy is the girl from a lesser family going to marry. That may be cheapening Jane Austen and other authors from that era, but it seems that is what a lot of those stories from that era are about.

The Red and the Black had made the new literature style - psychological realism. It is hard to explain, but this book is like a tool that shows your life in a different light. It is easy to read but makes you feel and analyze some people actions and behavior around you. What you'll get during the reading will just depend up to you.

Stendhal essentially made a "portrait" of the French community back in the middle of the 19th century. I personally loved how he went on laughing out every side, the liberals, the Church, as well as the aristocracy, pointing out their flaws, but he also showed their good sides.

Stendhal's novels. They are passionate, clever, deep, and some have also a good dose of humor. 'The Red and The Black' is a beautiful story of a passionate love that few other authors have ever been able to challenge. It is a universal story and the historical background doesn't change anything, even makes it more interesting. This is a kind of novel, that once you start it, you can't stop reading until you 'get exhausted', which means you read it like an obsessed, or drugged reader until the end.

* * * * *

I just posted a review of Stendahl's The Red and Black here in Good Reads just now for those that are interested in reading it:

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Journal Entry #36

Romance is in the air for this journal entry.

Romance, at its simplest, is a story that has as one of its main foci, a developing relationship between two people. (I say people, rather than a man and a woman because though it's a much smaller subset of the genre and less regularly available, there are romances that feature a relationship between two women or two men.)

I am inferring the appeal to the romance genre is also adding a real story to the romances; often there is a mystery or a task that the characters are focusing on that is just as strong (and generally features into the development of the relationship) as the romantic aspect.

Vivid characters, the characters and how they act as real people act is one of the most important parts of any story, be it romance or not. And for the romance genre there is the so called "HEA" aspect at the end of the book. The "happily ever after" ending. The appeal to these HEA's I suppose would be something where a romance reader would love to read HEA, with the explanation that once, when you get tired of nothing positive on the evening news, then you just have to turn to something else. A romance novel.

* * * * * *

By the way I just posted a review of the Midnight Warrior by Iris Johansen, which was a romance novel she wrote when she was known as a romance author, and not as a crime fiction author which she is now known. Here is the link to that review:

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...