Book review for Pleasant Valley by Louis Bromfield

Book Review for Pleasant Valley by Louis Bromfield

Copyright 1945. Why, you may ask, am I reviewing a book from 1945? Because I think it may be more relevant now than when it was written.

I found this book in the gardening section of a very small country library because it is classified as a “farming memoir” and it is, but it is much more. It's about economics, architecture, the stability of France (at least up until the book was written), dogs, oddballs, self-sufficiency, sustainability, conservation, politics, dangers of raising the federal minimum wage, causes of poverty and its perpetuation, maple sugar, a love of nature, and, oh yeah, farming.

The reason I say it's as relevant today as when it was written or even more so, is because though we have made our farming practices more advanced, we are still “strip mining” most of the land which is being farmed and in many areas not much is being done to actively restore land which has been exhausted in the past. If Mr. Bromfield could catch a glimpse into today, at our wildfires in the West and the flooding in the Mid-West while at the same time having an alarmingly decreasing water-table, he would be very tempted to say, “I warned you, I told you so, and told you how to fix it.” Admittedly, he does share that the methods used on his farm may not succeed as well in other places because the glacial soil his farm is located above gives some advantages in soil restoration.

I think it is relevant because there was a start of a “food revolution” during the writing of Pleasant Valley which then largely died off but, I think, is having a recurrence in present day. Sadly, the government was, in part, behind the last one. They were the ones who were leading the way towards better land practices, they wisely sought to spread conservation and good land stewardship through example (in the form of “pilot farms” and land areas) and helping promote a largely self-supported organization called Friends of the Land, made up of concerned citizens who recognized our land as one of Americans greatest assets. I say sadly because, currently, I think such government support is lacking or at least I have not heard much of it.

Pleasant Valley is about being connected to the land and realizing every citizen, whether on a tractor or in a sky-rise, is tied to the fate of the land. That what the farmer does and, really, every landowner does effects not just them but the country as a whole. The health of the land, the health of our farms and the animals and fruits grown there are linked to our health, our intelligence, our sense of security, our future and when our land is poor, it perpetuates poverty because our health, the development of our intelligence, our sense of security, and our hope for the future suffers.

The overarching theme of Pleasant Valley is that our land is our most valuable asset as a country and having as many citizens as possible to own a little piece of land which they can care for and nurture and, in turn, be nurtured by it is the best way to have a strong and stable democracy. This is because these people, in being tied to the land, have a stake in our country and its well-being and in having the security that land can offer (in terms of producing much of what that person actually needs, if times get tough), they are free to vote for the best government, they are more free to vote because they are not dependent on a certain type of government and their hand-outs.

The above idea kind of goes back to my post about people “putting down roots” versus having a renter mentality in relation to the community in which they live. The same idea applies, if someone is tied to a piece of land, is clearly shown that their security is bound to that piece of land and the health of it (and they are taught how to care for it), then they will better treasure it. Bromfield says this is how France survived multiple invasions and revolutions, though citizens lost jobs, though their currency and economy were affected and disrupted, many countrymen had small farms that their families had cared for and cherished, so they tightened their belts a little and were still able to independently survive without putting much of a stress on a already overtaxed, unstable government.

Another prevailing theme which Bromfield shares is to work with nature instead of against her, to learn from her methods in soil restoration and merely speed them up by the help you, as a farmer, contribute. To plant in such a way that you help the land as it provides for you, to design your farm so as to harvest water and hold onto it, rather than letting it all run away with your topsoil. To organize your fields, orchards, and vegetable garden so nature helps to pollinate, control pests, and encourage game.

As I was telling my mother about this book she shared that she remembers some family friends when she was growing up that had an orchard and, beside the orchard, they grew a variety of berries for the birds. The family did not really harvest the berries, but left them for the birds and the birds, in turn, did most of the pest control in the orchard. This is the type of thing Bromfield advocates.

This is a book that I would like to own so I could underline and look back through. Not only to better know how to care for the land I will hopefully someday own but also so I can live a better, more “simple,” fuller life.

Now for some quotes:

(from page 10)

The permanence, the continuity of France was not born of weariness and economic defeat, but was a living thing, anchored to the soil, to the very earth itself. Any French peasant, any French workingman with his little plot of ground and his modest home and wages, which by American standards were small, had more permanence, more solidity, more security, than the American workingman or white-collar worker who received, according to French standards, fabulous wages, who rented the home he lived in and was perpetually in debt for his car, his radio, his washing machine.

Sitting there it occurred to me that the high standard of living in America was an illusion based upon credit and the installment plan, which threw a man and his family into the street and on public relief the moment his factory closed and he lost his job. It seemed to me that real continuity, real love of one's country, real permanence had to do with not with mechanical inventions and high wages but with the earth and man's love of the soil upon which he lived.

Some wisdom shared by Bromfield's neighbor:

(from page 144)

He looked down at his big hands and noticed, as I did, that some of the black damp loam of the fence row still clung to them. He brushed them awkwardly together. “I was just digging into the fence row to see what was going on there underground. A fellow can learn a lot by watching his own land and what go on in it and on it...Nellie always said a farm could teach you more than you could teach it if you just kept your eyes open...Nellie...that was my wife”

“Of course,” I said, “I remember.”

Before I share the next one, I should share, Bromfield was not in the “middle class,” he was a bestselling author, wrote scripts for Hollywood, etc.

(from 132)

The middle class is the backbone of democracy – in fact democracy cannot exist without a flourishing middle class. Perhaps the simplest definition of the middle class is that of a group of citizens who own something, who have some stake in individuality, in freedom, in good government, in the protection of civil rights and in the nation as a whole. Democracy is essentially a giant co-operative in which all the citizens have a stake...A man with a stake in the nation is independent. He resists being pushed about and regimented. A man without economic security, dependent upon the state to care for him whether it be to provide jobs or to pay him a dole when he is out of a job, is helpless. He can only continue to vote for the kind of government which provides him with a roof over his head, a miserable wage and food for the mouths of himself and his children. For him there is no security and no other way out.

(from 314)

We have set about to turn the wheel of fertility moving forward again...What we have been doing has been a relatively simple thing. We have sought merely to build as Nature builds, to plant and sow and reap as Nature meant us to do; we have sought to rebuild the earth as Nature built it in the beginning. With man's ingenuity we have been able to do it more rapidly than Nature herself, but only because we worked with the law and within the idiom of Nature. Man has never been able to impose his own law upon Nature nor to alter her laws, but he can, by working with her, accomplish much...

(from 316)

Each farm is a tiny world in itself, with each day its small play of tragedy, of comedy, of farce. Each day is in itself a cycle of the history of the earth.

(from 318)

For the children the rewards have been greater possibly then for the adults. There has been health and good food and fields and woods to roam over, animals to care for ,streams to fish and swim in, and all those contacts with air and earth and water which make for wisdom and understanding and judgment and for those resources later in life which are indestructible and far beyond either fame or riches in the long and trying span of life. They have learned, I think too, the great importance and solace of work, not the aimless, monotonous work of riveting and fitting together nuts and bolts, but of work which creates something, work which is richly its own reward, within the natural scheme of man's existence – the kind of work which contributes to the progress and welfare of mankind and the plenty of the earth upon which he lives.

There are other portions I would like to share, but some of them are pages long, so I will just once again encourage you to read the book.

Some Non-book Reviews or Book Non-reviews?

I have discovered one of my weaknesses as a book reviewer and it is a fairly major one, I only review books I really like because I do not care enough for the books I disliked to write about them. To make up for this deficiency, here a some “non-reviews”...I suppose they are still reviews, but they will be very short and a little vague.

Firstly I will say, thanks to my new job and the fact that I am tucked back in a corner and rarely disturbed, I am free to listen to audiobooks (while working, of course) most of the day. In the past two weeks I have listened to 5 of them.

The Heart is a Lonely Hunter by Carson McCullers. It has been years since I read this book, but it is still strongly in my mind as one of my least favorite books ever. Perhaps my dislike is somewhat misplaced because I dislike it almost entirely because the people, in their relating to the main character (a mute), or, more accurately, their lack of relating to him, are so thoughtless as to his needs. But the world is sometimes cruel and people often don't seek to understand and put effort into their relationships. So though this book may have conveyed some truth about the cruel aspects of our world, I did not like it because it left me with a very “bitter taste” in my mouth and I do not think I will ever read it again.I do not remember this one clearly enough to give it a content rating.

Another very unenjoyable book was Toilers of the Sea. Now, despite their tediousness (I refuse to read abridged books) and, in The Hunchback of Notre Dame's case, lack of a happy ending, I very much enjoyed Les Mis. and The Hunchback of Notre Dame. The Toilers of the Sea is just as tedious or more so than the aforementioned books but has an ending leaving you feeling there is a pointlessness to life, a belief in broken promises, true love fought for does not win (okay, the love was a little one-sided, so it could be viewed more as an obsession than love), and just with an overall bad feeling. Apparently Hugo was in exile while writing this book, so maybe that was one reason for it unredeeming tragedy. I do not remember this one, either, well enough to give a content rating.

Recent audiobooks listened to which I will not be writing full-length book reviews of: Treason by Orson Scott Card and House of Dark Shadows by Robert Liparulo.

I suppose, taken on its own Treason is actually a decent book, it's quite interesting and original but because Card has written two of my favorite books (Ender's Game and Ender's Shadow), I was expecting more. Treason is a planet seemingly without any hard metals (thus the treasonous cannot build ships to get off-world) on which The Empire put “the cream of the crop” of humanity because they were seeking to overthrow the established order. After being there for thousands of years some of the families have taken their predecessors gifts to the extreme. The geneticists have engineered a people who can regenerate and recover from almost any wound (to the point where completely chopping off their head or totally burning them is the only sure way to kill them). The geologists have grown to understand things so thoroughly at their most basic levels that they can control earth and DNA with their minds. And others, I'm not sure what their forbearers occupation was, have learned to control the flow of time. I guess one thing I disliked is just that it is a little strange, the main character is a “Rad” (radical regenerate), which means he not only regenerates all his parts but begins to grow others. When we meet him as a late teenager he has begun to grow breasts and soon begins to grow an arm out of his shoulder. As well as being a little odd, besides the main character, you don't really get to know anyone, its a sort of lonely book. The book vaguely reminded me of Dune, so if you liked that then you may like this. As I said, despite its weaknesses, it is quite interesting. 

I would give Treason a rating of PG-13 for violence, sexuality, some language, and disturbing situations.

House of Dark Shadows has the makings of a good juvenile book: mystery, a linen closet which transports you to a school locker, magic doors that lead to other worlds, a bazaar house, a boy determined to right a wrong and, yet, though the end of the first book ended on a cliffhanger, I am not in a hurry to read/listen to the next one. I didn't really get attached to the characters, didn't really become invested in their adventures, I suppose those are its greatest downfalls, and those are some major downfalls to have. 

I would rate this PG for violence and disturbing situations.

Book Review for On the Wings of Heroes by Richard Peck

I think this would be a wonderful book for middle schoolers to read while they are learning about WW2 because it teaches them about how things were for those who were left at home and how greatly the war effected even them. The main character, Davy, and his friend collect scrap metal for the war effort, cat tail fluff to be used in life jackets for soldiers, people are asked to save their fat drippings, flatten their tin cans, turn in extra tires, and many things are rationed.

This book is about what war costs, even if you are far from the battlefield. It's about all that people gave up willingly during those days to help win the war. It's about some people being selfless, doing what they feel is their duty, going beyond the call of duty, and others trying to take advantage of the situation. It is about loss, fun, waiting, making a game of scavenging, and fear. Davy's brother goes to war, his best friend leaves because of war, his Dad is coiled up inside because of war (he fought and was injured in the First World War), things change because of war. It's how people thought the First World War would mean there wouldn't be anymore, at least not as big as that, and wondering, if that other war didn't end wars, what were all the sacrifices for?

I would rate it PG for a little violence and dealing with some tough issues. I know this is a fairly short review, but it was a fairly short book. It's worth reading, best if you have a middle school kid in your life you can talk about it with, but also just if you want an easy read about how things were here at home during that time period.

Book Review for Neverwhere by Neil Gaimen

I have now read this twice and listened to it once. Neverwhere is about the magical world which is next to our own; in the gaps, underneath us in the sewers and subways and up above us on the rooftops. It is inhabited by people we do not notice, that our eyes wander over without really seeing, people who have fallen between the cracks or who have always been there. There is a hunter who has lived a hundred years and is still young, a girl named Door who is quite appropriately named, a Marquis de Carabas who views the world as a joke which waits to be deceived, and a man, Richard, from London Above (the “real” London) who finds everything in London Below a little hard to believe.

Neverwhere is entertaining, original, exciting, and has fascinating characters. The hero can get a little annoying at times, Richard is so determined he does not belong in the adventure in which he finds himself that he is a little surprised at himself when he does anything useful. He has a hard time accepting everything and consistently wants to get back to his old, normal life. I suppose Richard particularly annoys me because, were I in his situation (not having any family or really even good friends to tie him to the “real” world) and I stumbled into a magical, mysterious world, I wouldn't look back, wouldn't question, but would wholeheartedly plunge in.

I very much enjoyed this each time I read it and the time I listened to it as well, but it does not teach any great lessons, it is not as profound as even some of the children's books I have reviewed. I suppose the lessons which can be learned are to have an opened mind, that our destinies (if you believe in such things) are sometimes hard for us to accept and very different than we think they should be, and that honor is sometimes hard to see.

I would rate it PG-13 for violence, some torture, disturbing situations, suggestiveness, and language. There are some very unsavory characters whose profession is dispatch of people, or to torture them, or both and they delight in it.

If anyone is interested, this was also a mini-series which Neil Gaimen was very involved in the production of. It was made in the early 90's. I tried to watch it but it was too 90's-ish and the characters were far from matching up to my mind's eye ideas of them.

Book Review for the Books Divergent and Insurgent by Veronica Roth

Perhaps my review of this will be a little biased because I have always been fascinated by books about utopian/dystopian societies. I love Fahrenheit 451, The Giver, The Hunger Games trilogy, and, though I didn't really like them, I still thought 1984 and Brave New World were very interesting.

I guess I will start by saying, I read both of the books (both around 500 pages) in a little over a week, so I obviously enjoyed them. They were exciting and were hard to put down. At the same time, they were definitely not as good as The Giver, Fahrenheit 451, or even the Hunger Games Trilogy. It's hard to describe why, exactly, other than to say they didn't make me feel as deeply and didn't make me pause to think as much. Also, at times, the quality of writing and choice of words wasn't as excellent as the aforementioned books.

I just realized that perhaps one reason I didn't love the books is because I didn't feel the society was entirely believable, I don't feel society can be put into merely 5 factions...but I suppose the fact that it is beginning to fall apart in the books shows the author does not think it can be divided as such either, at least not for long.

One thing which was nice is there was not really a triangle of love, as appears to often happen in recent books written for this age group.

What are the books about? They are about a damaged “faction” (not really a class or caste system, because one is not necessarily above another) based society in which members take an aptitude test at 16 to help them choose which faction they will join. They then must go through an initiation process. Some do not make it through initiation and become one of the “Factionless,” the outcasts and, if they do have a job, it is a job no one else wants. Some die during the initiation process, especially in the faction of Dauntless, which one of the main characters chooses to join.

The books are about discovering who you are, what you are made of, learning to face your fears, the difference between bravery and stupidity, selflessness and a sick sense of atoning for your wrongs by putting yourself at risk and allowing yourself to be hurt. They are about friendship and love, learning to trust and realizing people are more complex than they seem. They are about a perceived threat and how it can motivate people to act in different ways, cause them to betray those they love for what they view as the right course. They are about the question concerning “the greater good” versus the value of a life. They are about truth and information, how some think it best to “protect” people by keeping them in ignorance and some think people should know those secrets which can break apart your life and make the world a scary place.

Are they worth reading? Yes. Are they favorite? No. Am I looking forward to when the third one is coming out and will I re-read the first two before it does (it should be out the end of 2013)? Yes. Also, the fact that the author is only like 23 and wrote most or all of the first novel while in college is pretty amazing.

What would I rate them? PG-13 for violence, disturbing situations, some smooching, and a little language. Though there is a lot of violence, I would still say it's a step down from the Hunger Games books. There's nothing quite as gruesome as the Tracker-Jack scene or the Dogs-with-the-human-eyes (by the way, the movie tamed both of those scences down).

Side-note: In Insurgent there are a couple blatant inconsistencies which, unfortunately made it past the author, the editors, and the beta readers. The author is, of course, now aware of them and I'm sure will change them in future printings, but for now...you can have fun by finding them yourself. So you won't drive yourself crazy through the whole thing, they are near the end.

Book Review for The Wind in the Willows by Kenneth Grahame

First, some slightly negative things. You wouldn't think this book would be hard to categorize, it being about talking animals and their everyday adventures. Given the content, one would think it is definitely a children's book, right? Well, I view myself as someone who has a fairly extensive vocabulary and there are a few words I do not know the meanings to. Grahame primarily uses simple language but will occasionally inject these words. After having thought about it a little more, I think these unfamiliar words occur because of when the book was written. We simply do not often use some of those words anymore.

I know children's books don't have to make sense, but the world within the Wind in the Willows slightly annoys me. In this world there are humans and talking animals. It is unclear where animals actually “fit.” Mole, Rat, Badger, and others will eat ham and other meat, cows wander in pastures (I assume some being raised for beef), but since the aforementioned characters are intelligent, you wonder “What about the animals they eat?” You could think, perhaps domesticated animals are dumb, but then, the horse which drew Toad's wagon talked. Toad is big enough to drive a full-sized automobile, “human” enough to be put in a prison alongside humans, and yet the gaoler's daughter speaks of Toad almost as if he is a “common” animal, which can be trained and fed out of her hand.

All of the above aside, I have read The Wind in the Willows 4 or 5 times and I have thoroughly enjoy it each time. Though it is a children's book, I think it is one of the most beautifully written books I have ever read. You often almost feel as if you are reading a poem instead of prose. How Grahame captures the simple beauties of the river, describes the barrenness of a winter landscape, and the call of the elusive Pan are wonderful.

He paints characters which are easy to love and friendships that are splendid in their quiet way. Grahame shows how Ratty and Mole fit together so perfectly and yet also points out the allowances they make for one another; he shares how loyal, kind, and giving a friend Badger can be, despite all of Badger's reclusiveness; and then there's Toad, who is generous, prideful, loving, and ridiculous.

What is The Wind in the Willows about? It is about the River, which is the love of Ratty's life. Friendship, and how even perfect friends must sometimes sacrifice their own comfort or happiness to put their friend's needs and wants ahead of their own. It is about simple joys and longing, silly passions and loyalty. Picnics, lazy days, warm fires, homesickness, and wanting to leave home. It is about animals but also seeing in the characters Grahame has made those things which make us human.

I would rate this “G.” There is very mild violence and a tiny bit of language (such as someone being called an “ass”). Personally, I think this book would be best shared if read aloud, especially because some of the “bigger” words.

Book Review for To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee

You may be wondering why I am going to do on a review on a book this old, I mean, most of you probably had to read it for school at some point. Well, I am reviewing it because I've read it three or four times and it is one of my favorite books. If you haven't read it for a few years, I encourage you to read it again because it tries to teach some lessons that are best not forgot.

It can't really be called a "coming of age" story since Scout's too young to be coming of age, she's just eight, but it is about growing up. I believe one of the reasons why I love this story so much is because it takes place in the "good ole days" but shows how those days were also filled with darkness in some ways.

You see, in the town of Maycomb, based on the family you were from, you had a precast mold, "No Crawford minds his own business, The truth is not in the Delafields, etc." and certain families were expected to be drunks or poor or unbeholden to no one. The prejudices go deep, deepest when it comes to the color of your skin. So, alongside the story of the sleepy town, where everyone knows everyone and Scout, her brother, Jem, and their friend, Dill, have free reign of their street and try to get their reclusive neighbor to show his face. There runs a deeper, darker story of a black man wrongfully accused. Condemned, despite Scout's father's best efforts, because what it comes down to is a white man's testimony against a black man's, and a black man's testimony isn't enough in a small Southern town in 1935.

I love the characters. Scout and her rambunctious tomboyishness, her innocence, and the frequent attempts to turn her more into a "proper" lady. I love her brother, Jem, and his, at first, grudging loyalty to his father because he is just beginning to understand there are other, nobler ways to be a "real man" other than hunting, playing football, and being young and strong. I love their father, Atticus, and his sense of fairness, duty, and warmth hidden beneath his aloofness. Their friend, Dill, and his mischievousness resourcefulness. Their cook, Calpurnia, and her sense of pride in herself, her people, and in the family she is working for. I also love the neighbors for all their peculiarities.

It teaches lessons of loyalty and duty; of how essential it is for justice to be blind in regards to race, gender, and socioeconomic status; the importance of children feeling they are needed and wanted, as well as abstractly loved; that sometimes the best way to stop an angry mob is to remind them they're human through the voice of a child; and, though the good ole days were wonderful in many ways, some things are even better now and can be even better in the future.

My only regret is that Harper Lee did not write other novels. I am so glad she at least left us with this treasure.

Yet another reason why I love this book is for the closing remarks of Atticus, in the trial of Tom Robinson, which I think is one of the most excellent speeches ever written. I do not think it is short enough that I can write out the whole thing without infringing on copyright laws, so I won't. Also, it means more having the majority of the book before it, so I encourage you again, read this book or reread it. Here's a (rather long) excerpt from the speech:

Atticus paused, then he did something he didn't ordinarily do. He unhitched his watch and chain and placed them on the table, saying, "With the court's permission -"

Judge Taylor nodded, and then Atticus did something I never saw him do before or since, in public or in private: he unbuttoned his vest, unbuttoned his collar, loosened his tie, and took off his coat. He never loosened a scrap of his clothing until he undressed at bedtime, and to Jem and me, this was the equivalent of him standing before us stark naked. We exchanged horrified glances.

Atticus put his hands in his pockets, and as he returned to the jury, I saw his gold collar button and the tips of his pen and pencil winking in the light.

"Gentlemen," he said. Jem and I again looked at each other: Atticus might have said, "Scout." His voice had lost its aridity, its detachment, and he was talking to the jury as if they were folks on the post office corner.

"Gentlemen," he was saying, "I shall be brief, but I would like to use my remaining time with you to remind you that this case is not a difficult one, it requires no minute sifting of complicated facts, but it does require you to be sure beyond all reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant. To begin with, this case should never have come to trial. This is as simple as black and white.

"...And so a quiet, respectable, humble Negro who had the unmitigated temerity to "feel sorry" for a white woman has had to put his word against two white people's. I need not remind you of their appearance and conduct on the stand - you saw them for yourselves. The witnesses for the state, with the exception of the sheriff of Maycomb County, have presented themselves to you gentlemen, to this court, in the cynical confidence that their testimony would not be doubted, confident that you gentlemen would go along with them on the assumption - the evil assumption - that all Negroes lie, that all Negroes are basically immoral beings, that all Negro men are not to be trusted around our women, an assumption one associates with minds of their caliber.

"Which, gentlemen, we know is in itself a lie as black as Tom Robinson's skin, a lie I do not have to point out to you. You know the truth, the truth is this: some Negroes lie, some Negroes are immoral, some Negro men are not to be trusted around women - black or white. But this is a truth that applies to the human race and to no particular race of men. There is not a person in this courtroom who has never told a lie, who has never done an immoral thing, and there is no man living who has never looked upon a woman without desire."

Atticus paused and took out his handkerchief. Then he took off his glasses and wiped them, and we saw another "first": we had never seen him sweat - he was one of those men whose faces never perspired, but now it was shining tan.

"One more thing, gentlemen, before I quit. Thomas Jefferson once said that all men are created equal...There is a tendency in this year of grace, 1935, for certain people to use this phrase out of context, to satisfy all conditions. The most ridiculous example I can think of is that the people who run public education promote the stupid and the idle along with the industrious - because all men are created equal, educators will gravely tell you, the children left behind suffer terrible feelings of inferiority. We know all men are not created equal in the sense some people would have us believe - some people are smarter than others, some people have more opportunity because they're born with it, some men make more money than others, some ladies make better cakes than others - some people are born gifted beyond the normal scope of most men.

"But there is one way in this country in which all men are created equal - there is one human institution that makes a pauper the equal of a Rockefeller, the stupid man the equal of an Einstein, and the ignorant man the equal of any college president. That institution, gentlemen, is a court..."

"I'm no idealist to believe firmly in the integrity of our courts and in the jury system - that is no ideal to me, it is a living, working reality. Gentlemen, a court is no better than each man of you sitting before me on this jury. A court is only as sound as its jury, and a jury is only as sound as the men who make it up. I am confident that you gentlemen will review without passion the evidence you have heard, come to a decision, and restore this defendant to his family. In the name of God, do your duty..."

Perhaps the greatest reason to read To Kill a Mockingbird can be learned from a 1966 letter written by Harper Lee to James J. Kilpatrick, the editor of The Richmond News Leader, in response to the attempts of a Richmond, Virginia, area school board to ban To Kill a Mockingbird as "immoral literature":

“Recently I have received echoes down this way of the Hanover County School Board's activities, and what I've heard makes me wonder if any of its members can read.

"Surely it is plain to the simplest intelligence that “To Kill a Mockingbird” spells out in words of seldom more than two syllables a code of honor and conduct, Christian in its ethic, that is the heritage of all Southerners. To hear that the novel is "immoral" has made me count the years between now and 1984, for I have yet to come across a better example of doublethink.

"I feel, however, that the problem is one of illiteracy, not Marxism...."

I would rate this book as PG for brief violence, light language, but mostly for dealing with some pretty "heavy" stuff, in terms of a man being wrongfully accused of rape, and all the situations which arise from this.

Book Review of The Perks of Being a Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky

The first time I read this I was in college. It was a book that one person owned and then it was just passed among friends, which, for some reason, I think is appropriate for this book. I remember the first time I finished it, I was in the car and near the end, it made me want to throw up, it just made me feel ill. I guess I should say, before moving on, the very final "flavor in your mouth" is more pleasant. Once I got to the end of it, I looked out of the window for a long time, and then proceeded to read the whole thing again.

I just recently checked it out from the library and found the time to read it in two days. It's not an "adventure book," it's not necessarily gripping in its excitement, but it is hard to put down once you get into it.

Perks of Being a Wallflower is a coming-of-age story about a deeply feeling boy named Charlie. He watches people and understands them, he's a secret keeper for almost everyone and that can be one of the most isolating feelings of all. So Charlie begins to anonymously write letters to a mystery someone "because she said you listen and understand and didn't try to sleep with that person at that party even though you could have," so he doesn't have to keep so many secrets bottled up inside. Those letters are what make up the structure of the book and how the story is told. I am a huge fan of letters, maybe that is one reason why I love this book. Another reason is because I can relate to Charlie, though I have not tried some of the things he has and I do not think I am as passive in my relationships as he often is.

We start out the book with Charlie not really having any friends at all and soon find out that the boy he was closest to has "passed on." Which, I guess, is one reason Charlie starts the letters. Once he goes to high school Charlie is soon adopted by Patrick (a enthusiastic, quirky, boy) and Sam (a lovely, crazy girl). Although I don't think the line is said in the book, in the trailer of the film someone in Charlie's new peer group says, "Welcome to the island of misfit toys," which I think suits Charlie and his group of friends perfectly. Sam and Patrick see Charlie for what he is, a Wallflower, and value him for it. Maybe this is another reason so many people love the book, because there is a part in all of us that hopes to have friends which put up with us, understand us, and are as patient with us as Patrick and Sam are with Charlie...even if they are messed up.

Perhaps so many people like it because a part of them hopes Charlie is writing to them, trusts them enough to share his secrets with them. Or maybe it's like one reviewer said, the story reminds many of their own high school days, of old friends or misfits, and has echos of their own stories within it.

The Perks of Being a Wallflower is about relationships, trust, understanding who others are and who you are. It's about relating to others, trying to give your loved ones what they need, and learning you sometimes have to ask or guess and realize what you think they need is totally different than what they truly do. It's thinking about what shapes us and what shapes others, what causes us to expect the “love” we do, and, hopefully, makes us self-aware enough to give and receive a truer type of love. It's about kisses, fear, mix tapes, and monsters lurking from the past. It's about finding people with whom you can feel "infinite." It's about growing up.

I would give it a content rating of PG-13, nearing a possible R rating. This is for drugs, language, underage drinking, violence, sex (though it doesn't go into any details), and some disturbing situations. Also, if non-heterosexual relationships bother you, maybe you shouldn't read this book. One of the main characters is gay and part of the book deals with them having to figure out how they can love the person they want to love in a time and place where it is difficult to do that.

P.S. Somehow I missed the movie in the theaters, but I am SO excited to see it. Perhaps I will add-on a review of that once I have seen it.

A Song of Ice and Fire or, as I think they are more commonly known, A Game of Thrones

I have now read the first 4 books of this series and am waiting to get the next one from the library.

Somewhere I read a book critic who compared these books to The Lord of the Rings and, I have to say, I was a little offended. The LOTR world is black and white, good and bad, the heroes are noble and the villains are evil. That is not to say the characters are one-dimensional, that the heroes do not fail in their courage and the villains are devoid of goodness; but you can tell the heroes and the villains apart, you can fall in love with a character and root for them wholeheartedly. The world within A Song of Ice and Fire is made of black and white and gray, splattered with blood and semen. Forgive my imagery, but I think it is a fairly accurate description.

These books are brutal, filled with pillaging in every sense of the word. There is rape, incest, torture, murder, horrible betrayals, language, greed, lust, and crude humor. One of the characters says something along the lines of, after a while, war makes man forget he is human, that is the only way to explain some of the actions of various characters. That, or George R. R. Martin has a lower view of humanity than I. I suppose that's not fair, everything his characters do are things which are done by people in reality, whether in war or not; it just seems the predonerance of his characters do dispicable things. It is hard to know who the heroes are, it is hard to cheer for them; and it is hard to know who the villains are, it is hard to wish them ill.

Yet another reason not to like these books, and this may only bother me, is that there are so many different “main characters” and each chapter follows one character at a time. Potentially there can be a few hunderd pages between meeting up with a character again. This, combined with Martin's tendency to kill off characters, change their name, and continuly introduce new characters, makes it hard to keep up with everything. There were a few times I had to flip back to find out where I had left a character and a few chapters where I had to read a couple pages in order to remember who the character even was.

After all of that you may justly wonder, why do I read them? Well, first I will say, these are not books I ever plan to own and I will probably never read them again. Then why do I read them? I hint at it at the end of the paragraph above my last, Martin has created some of the most complex characters in literature. There are some so seemingly merciless, silly, and sadistic you almost wish to skip the chapters related to them and look forward to a time when they may be killed off. Then there are others you hated but then they grow as a person and so you come to like them, some you pitied but then begin to loathe because of their blind quest for vengence. I will say Martin is like Tolkien in that they both place great importance on character development. They are also alike in their thouroughness, they manage to create very believable worlds, though both have elements of fantasy (this is also to say, Martin is somewhat long-winded, like Tolkien).

I also read them because the author is a great storyteller, he draws you in, even if the world he draws you into is full of shadows, blood, and tears. Perhaps this is just because “winter is coming,” perhaps the world will change into a brighter place with the coming of the spring.

I would without a question rate these books rated “R” and perhaps even suggest an “NC-17.”