Showing posts with label review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label review. Show all posts

Friday, March 18, 2016

In Flanders Fields: Poems of the First World War Review

Poetry is something I discovered in college. Sure, I knew what poetry was before that. I even enjoyed a few. But I really started to understand and appreciate poetry when I took a Lit. class. Of course, my own efforts to craft poems have been dreadful. But I went to school with a lovely girl who writes poetry for a living.

While perusing the shelves at Half Price Books, I came across a series of books containing poetry from the major wars. Pretty much everyone knows "In Flanders Fields" by John McCrae. It's everywhere on Armistice Day. But there was a lot of poetry going on during WWI. The poems in this book were all written by soldiers who fought and died in the war. Most never saw their work published. All offer a unique view of the world. Some of them had an unbelievably bright outlook on life. Many were able to tap into a very dark window of the universe.

Poetry has the unique ability of speaking from the soul. I'm constantly amazed at people who are able to use the most innocuous of words to articulate their feelings. True, some poems still just make no sense to me. But others... I'd like to share some of my favorites from this book.


The Answer
by J.M. Langstaff

O the Tyrant Lord has drawn his sword,
And has flung the scabbard away.
He has said the word that loosed his horde
To ravage, destroy and slay.
'Then where are those who will dare oppose
The blast of my fury's flame?'
But a salty breeze swept across the seas,
And back the clear answer came:
'We have heard the boast of your mighty host,
And slaves will we ne'er become;
Let our deeds declare what our hearts will dare,
We come! We come! We come!'


The Unconquered Dead
by John McCrae

"defeated, with great loss."

Not we the conquered! Not to us the blame
Of them that flee, of them that basely yield;
Nor ours the shout of victory, the fame
Of them that vanquish in a stricken field.

That day of battle in the dusty heat
We lay and heard the bullets swish and sing
Like scythes amid the over-ripened wheat,
And we the harvest of their garnering.

Some yielded, No, not we! Not we, we swear
By these our wounds; this trench upon the hill
Where all the shell-strewn earth is seamed and bare,
Was ours to keep; and lo! we have it still.

We might have yielded, even we, but death
Came for our helper; like a sudden flood
The crashing darkness fell; our painful breath
We drew with gasps amid the choking blood.

The roar fell faint and farther off, and soon
Sank to a foolish humming in our ears,
Like crickets in the long, hot afternoon
Among the wheat fields of the olden years.

Before our eyes a boundless wall of red
Shout through by sudden streaks of jagged pain!
Then a slow-gathering darkness overhead
And rest came on us like a quiet rain.

Not we the conquered! Not to us the shame,
Who hold our earthen ramparts, nor shall cease
To hold them ever; victors we, who came
In that fierce moment to our honoured peace.


Mental Cases
by Wilfred Owen

Who are these? Why sit they here in twilight?
Wherefore rock they, purgatorial shadows,
Drooping tongues from jaws that slob their relish,
Baring teeth that leer like skulls' tongues wicked?
Stroke on stroke of pain, — but what slow panic,
Gouged these chasms round their fretted sockets?
Ever from their hair and through their hand palms
Misery swelters. Surely we have perished
Sleeping, and walk hell; but who these hellish?

— These are men whose minds the Dead have ravished.
Memory fingers in their hair of murders,
Multitudinous murders they once witnessed.
Wading sloughs of flesh these helpless wander,
Treading blood from lungs that had loved laughter.
Always they must see these things and hear them,
Batter of guns and shatter of flying muscles,
Carnage incomparable and human squander
Rucked too thick for these men's extrication.

Therefore still their eyeballs shrink tormented
Back into their brains, because on their sense
Sunlight seems a bloodsmear; night comes blood-black;
Dawn breaks open like a wound that bleeds afresh
— Thus their heads wear this hilarious, hideous,
Awful falseness of set-smiling corpses.
— Thus their hands are plucking at each other;
Picking at the rope-knouts of their scourging;
Snatching after us who smote them, brother,
Pawing us who dealt them war and madness.

Wednesday, February 24, 2016

Let the Nations Be Glad! Review

Remember that goal I had to read 50 books this year? I may have vastly overestimated my capabilities in this matter. Turns out I actually don't have a lot of free time on my hands that can be devoted to reading. Who knew? Anyway, even if it turns into one a month, it's still worth it.

I blame part of my seeming reticence to read on the second book I chose to pursue.

Title: Let the Nations Be Glad!: The Supremacy of God in Missions
Author: John Piper
Published: 1993, 2003

As a missionary, this book should be primo on the list of things to read, right?

Maybe.

Honestly, it's more a treatise on worship masquerading as an argument for missions.

This book is not for the faint of heart. It's not for people with even a mild case of Attention Deficit Disorder. You will definitely feel the need to put it down and uncross your eyes.

Still, for as dense as Piper can get, he still has a lot to offer.

There can be no doubt that Piper has a deep love of God. (He also has an abiding love for Jonathan Edwards, but more on that later.) For him, everything we do should be an expression of how amazing God's nature really is. I can only imagine that John Piper is utterly exhausted much of the time with how much effort he puts into highlighting the supremacy and awesomeness of God in everything he does.

This is not a bad thing. But it can lead to some interesting conclusions.

I should mention that Piper tips the scales toward hyper-Calvinism. I do not. There was plenty I disagreed with. And some things that seemed to stretch the limits of 'useful information.' (I think Piper might actually need to evaluate his seeming devotion to Calvin. Based on a few contradictory passages, I don't think he believes certain things as much as he seems to think he does.)

But there was also quite a bit that was challenging and revelatory. For example, there was a very interesting study of the Greek word proskyneo. Of course, you need to know ancient Greek (or have access to someone who does) in order to follow the reasoning. But it's a really fascinating process with mildly useful implications.

Mostly, Piper confirmed resoundingly what I already believe: missions is extremely important. Maybe not for the reasons you'd immediately think, but extremely vital nonetheless.

Will I keep this book? Probably. If for no other reason than it can act as source material for the complete works of Jonathan Edwards. (Seriously, he is referenced every few pages.)

Favorite lines:

"God is the absolute reality that everyone in the universe must come to terms with."

"The reason we are not to exalt our own glory but God's is because he is God and we are not."

"God has given us prayer as a wartime walkie-talkie so that we can call headquarters for everything we need as the kingdom of Christ advances in the world."

"Unity in diversity is more beautiful and more powerful than the unity of uniformity."

"This is the essence of worship: to act in a way that reflects the heart's valuing of the glory of God."

BONUS: As an OMSer, I got a little thrill when Piper referenced Touch the World Through Prayer by our own Dr. Wesley Duewel.

BONUS, PT. 2: In the extremely fascinating section on hell, Piper includes part of a letter John Stott wrote to him. I underlines the following, because it's hilarious. "I just find you over-dogmatic ... leaving no room for the humble agnosticism which allows that God has not revealed everything as plainly as you make out."

BONUS, PT. 3: Piper includes part of a poem by Thomas Carlisle titled "You Jonah" that I found particularly resonant right now.

And Jonah stalked
to his shaded seat
and waited for God
to come around
to his way of thinking.
And God is still waiting for a host of Jonahs
in their comfortable houses
to come around
to his way of loving.

Thursday, January 21, 2016

Death Comes to Pemberley Review

Welcome to the first of the 2016 Bookapalooza! Yes, that's the name. I don't know if I'll actually hit 50 books, but we'll let the chips fall where they may. At the very least, you can see what's on my shelves and read a (hopefully) entertaining account of the tale. Here we go.

Title: Death Comes to Pemberley
Author: P.D. James
Published: 2011

I decided to read this after watching the mini-series of the same name. I watched the mini-series because Matthew Rhys was in it, but I actually liked it, and I wanted more background information. True to form, the book was vastly different from the show, but I still found it to be a fairly enjoyable read.

Death Comes to Pemberley is a sequel of sorts to Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen. P&P tells the story of Elizabeth and Darcy, their respective families, and how they eventually married despite social custom. To be perfectly honest, I've never read the whole thing. I tend not to enjoy romance novels. Of course, I also don't really like mystery novels, as I suppose this book would be classified. For the purposes of this review, I'm going to assume you have a passing familiarity with P&P.

The book begins several years after the events of P&P. Four of the Bennett daughters are now married, and Elizabeth and Darcy are the happy parents of two children. It's the day before the Lady Anne ball, and Elizabeth is anticipating the arrival of Mr. and Mrs. Bingley, Henry Alveston, and Colonel Fitzwilliam (now heir to an earldom). Alveston and Fitzwilliam (which is also Darcy's first name, as well as the name of his first child; it's very confusing) have made their interest known concerning the matrimonial state of Georgiana, Darcy's sister. The calm evening comes to an abrupt ending with the unexpected arrival of Lydia Wickham, screaming that her husband and Captain Denny have been murdered. An investigation reveals the two men in the woodland, Wickham holding Denny's body and crying that he's killed his only friend. As a magistrate and brother (by marriage) to a possible murderer, Darcy knows he cannot investigate personally and so calls Sir Selwyn, a neighboring magistrate, to conduct the investigation.

Investigative techniques in the early 1800s were rather less thorough than they are today (and I'm guessing the investigations today are less thorough than television would led us to believe), and so the question of suspicion is rather short. Colonel Fitzwilliam had gone for a ride and so did not have a ready alibi, but he's a gentleman, so it's unthinkable that he would commit murder. The Bidwells, a tenant family in the woodland, consist of two women and a sickly young man, and so they are dismissed from consideration as well. The coroner believes the wounds are consistent with a murder, and as Wickham confessed in front of witnesses (though later recanted), he is the obvious choice. Darcy, though he loathes Wickham for his treatment of Georgiana, has a hard time believing the man capable of murder.

The book is divided into smaller books, spreading the action over a period of roughly six months. It gives a fascinating picture of murder investigations and the impact on society. The inquest is handled locally, with a jury of the same men as always finding that Captain Denny was probably murdered, and likely by Mr. Wickham. The trial is held in London, a social event for the middle class. The outcome could possibly be deduced, though I didn't think it was overly obvious.

I found it a somewhat difficult read at first. It's written in the style of Austen, so a lot of flowery language and overly formal dialogue. The narrator shifts in perspective from Elizabeth to Darcy and remains with Darcy for the majority of the book. It makes sense, he's a man, but I would have appreciated a little more from Elizabeth, especially toward the end.

It's not a traditional mystery, which I appreciated. It's obvious that the time period was meticulously researched, and for the most part, nestles nicely in the background. Occasionally, however, it was clear that the author found something extremely interesting and wanted it to be in the book, but couldn't figure out how to get it in naturally. I understand the impulse. I'm frequently guilty of it myself. That's probably why I noticed it more. There are also quite a few monologues. Most make sense, but especially at the end, some were out of character or just there to spew information.

Overall, I quite enjoyed the book. Readers who enjoyed P&P will find this a worthy sequel, and the author even sneaks in a reference to Emma for the eagle-eyed. I think USA Today was a bit hyperbolic when they called it "incomparably perfect," but it's a good read and worth the time to parse the language. I probably won't keep it in my collection, but I'm glad I read it.

Favorite lines:

"She had wanted him out of their lives, but not that way--dear God, not that way."a

"I take it, Belcher, that your clever scientific colleagues have not yet found a way of distinguishing one man's blood from another's?"

"People should make up their minds whether to live or to die and do one or the other with the least inconvenience to others."

Tuesday, December 22, 2015

Star Wars. Spoilers. Obviously.

I saw the new Star Wars today.

(If you liked it, you may not want to continue reading.)

So back when they announced it, I thought it was a bad idea.

Good for the studio, of course, because they would make a ton of money even if it was terrible.

But bad for everyone who loves Star Wars because there was no way it could live up to the astronomical expectations.

Then the teaser came out. I still thought it was a bad idea. It didn't feel like Star Wars to me.

How is Star Wars supposed to feel?

I can't quantify it. Not fair or helpful, I know. But I was worried then that the people who made the movie would be too blinded by what had gone before to create something new but still wonderful.

Then the full trailer came out. I started to feel hopeful. It reminded me of what I loved about the movies.

Either way, there really wasn't any chance of me NOT seeing this movie. Which I resented because I knew Disney was banking on that and would be tempted to be lazy about actually making a good story.

Anyway. I saw it this morning.

I was really hoping I'd like it.

And there were parts I did like. Rey was cool. Finn was funny, if a little whiny on the order of Luke in A New Hope. BB-8 is adorable. Poe is pretty much The Most Interesting Man in the Universe.

But I didn't like enough of it. They spent an inordinate amount of time on Jakku. I almost laughed out loud the first time Kylo Ren spoke. (And then he took off his helmet and I did laugh. Can you say 'horribly miscast?') I looked at my watch after the first hour trying to figure out why it was taking so long. The Starkiller thing really didn't make sense to me. The plot didn't make sense to me. The ending (and the death) was extremely predictable. There were these long, lingering pauses on characters' faces that were supposed to be significant, but just looked like everyone had gas.

And then I realized that J.J. Abrams had done to Star Wars exactly what he did to Star Trek. It was exactly like the original, but different.

Here's the plot of A New Hope: Rebel leader hides plans in droid to doomsday device. Droid hooks up with desert dweller who is secret Jedi. They escape the planet with the help of a lovable rogue. At some point, a girl is rescued. Secret plans get to the Rebellion. The lovable rogue decides to leave, but ends up fighting for the good guys. The doomsday device has a fatal flaw that can be exploited by a guy in an x-wing. The beloved mentor dies in order to inspire his mentee. The doomsday device explodes inexplicably loudly for being in space.

Here's the plot of The Force Awakens: See above. Same, but different.

I've seen this movie before. I liked it before. I didn't need to see it again.

I understand Hollywood's love of sequels. It's easy to make money on something people are already familiar with.

But I expect a movie to be self-contained. It still has to have a plot that makes sense, and while it can reference what has gone before, I shouldn't need to know all of that to enjoy the movie. There was both too little and too much at the same time. Too little of the good stuff. Too much of the wrong things.

The nostalgia in this one felt cheap. Instead of smiling when the Millennium Falcon appeared, I just thought, "Really? Of all the planets, it happened to be here? That's an awfully big coincidence you're selling."

Same with Han and Leia. And Luke. They are old. And except for Han, they haven't aged well. It took me right out of the movie magic. And seriously, is there no one else in the universe to follow? The inbreeding is a little ridiculous.

Anyway, it felt like JarJar Abrams was saying, "See, I gave you Han Solo and Chewbacca. Now you have to love the new people I created."

The new people who are exactly like the old people. Kylo Ren is Darth Vader lite. Snoke (really?) is an unfathomable version of the Emperor. Hex or whatever is a poor imitation of Tarkin. And what was the purpose of Phasma? She couldn't even pull off Boba Fett levels of cool.

And don't get me started on the barely veiled reference to Hitler.

I really think Harrison Ford is glad he got killed off. He can see where this franchise is headed, and he is jumping ship while his death can still mean something.

Is it time for Captain America: Civil War yet?

(I'm sorry. I didn't hate it. Really I didn't. I just didn't like it.)

Thursday, July 23, 2015

Ant-Man Review

Thing 1: SPOILERS!! Duh

Thing 2: I was supremely ambivalent about this movie when I heard they were making it. I believe my exact words were "Seriously? They're making a movie about Ant-Man? Before Hawkeye or Black Widow get theirs?" I was not pleased. But it's part of the Marvel universe. I have to watch it. But I wasn't expecting much.

So. Here goes.

I actually really liked this movie.

Two reasons. First, the humor. Second, the plot.

The humor is what saved this movie. I think Marvel knew that no one was going to take this movie seriously. So they couldn't either. I won't say it was especially sophisticated humor, but it wasn't low-brow either. There were some legitimately funny moments, and more than just what the trailer showed. And especially some that were completely unexpected. I've seen enough movies that I can usually predict certain beats, especially the end. And yeah, I predicted much of the ending. But there were also moments that went against type.

More importantly, though, this is not an origin story. There isn't a long explanation of how Ant-Man came to be. He just is. And while there's a bit of the redemption, zero to hero stuff, it's not heavy handed. Ultimately, this is a heist movie. This is what I've been wanting replicated from the comics. A mostly regular guy just living his life, and occasionally being a hero. This is what happens when you stop something before it gets to the planet-saving stage.

There really weren't many superfluous characters. A few got lost in the shuffle. I recently saw Jurassic World, and the resemblance between Bryce Dallas Howard and Evangeline Lilly was unsettling. Fortunately there was some difference in personality. They didn't waste time on non-plot points, but it didn't feel systematic, either. Not much "We have to do A so we can get to B." It was very organic.

Moments I loved:

  • Breaking into Hank Pym's house. 
  • The initial Ant-Man test run. 
  • Breaking into Avengers HQ.
  • Falcon.
  • The heist itself. 
  • The train battle.
Annoying factor: the ants! Having spent the better part of early and late summer for the past five years killing the numerous carpenter ants that make their way into my apartment, I have no desire to feel sorry for the little buggers. But darn it if this movie didn't make me feel sad about a freaking ant!

Anyway. Was it my favorite Marvel universe stand-alone movie? Probably not. But I did enjoy it as a one off. 

And that's where its greatest strength becomes its greatest weakness. This character is not made for sequels. Bit parts in other films to solve specific problems and then disappear? Sure. But honestly, Hank Pym is more useful for his brain than Scott Lang is for his suit. Now, having The Wasp around makes it a little more interesting. But this was always the comics' greatest struggle. What needs can these characters meet that aren't already accounted for?

As far as I know, there aren't any specific plans for a sequel, though they set it up in the mid-credits scene. I just don't know if they can come up with a compelling storyline that maintains the needed separation from all the other superhero movies. 

So let's turn our attention to the post-credits scene. 

I squealed. Audibly. I really don't want to spoil it. You can probably find it online somewhere already. But I think I'm going to be more excited for Civil War than I was for Age of Ultron. I just have to wait until 2016 for it. 

Next question: Is Fantastic Four going to fit into the established Marvel 'verse? If so, how? Look, I like getting the whole band together. But spending even two minutes with each one makes for a very long montage of establishing shots. No wonder Infinity War needs two movies! The first one will probably have to be devoted to introducing everyone to each other. 

And what happens when Marvel's planned run is ended? Will we be super-heroed out? Or does Howard the Duck get his turn? Will that still be before Hawkeye and Black Widow?