Reading, Writing, and... well, that's it.
I love to read. And write. I have very eclectic tastes in books and if I don't rant about them here, I'll drive my family and friends crazy. Since I read so much, I thought it best to record summaries of what I read here. This way all my reading is not in vain!
Saturday, May 23, 2026
The Princess and the Goblin by George MacDonald
Friday, May 22, 2026
A Praying Life by Paul E. Miller
"1. Don't demand that the story go your way. (In other words, surrender completely.)2. Look for the Storyteller. Look for his hand, and then pray in light of what you are seeing. (In other words, develop an eye for Jesus.)3. Stay in the story. Don't shut down when it goes the wrong way...When the story isn't going your way, ask yourself, 'What is God doing?'" (p. 205)
Saturday, May 16, 2026
The Quartet by Joseph J. Ellis
Obviously, I know a thing or two about American history, but this book brought some events at the time of the Founding into sharp relief and connected dots I had not.
It's contention is that Washington, Madison, Hamilton, and John Jay together, through their sheer force of will, reimagined what the American Revolution was about and shaped the American Constitution to reflect their will. It's pretty compelling.
What was clear to all was that America stood on a precipice. What would it be now that it had won its independence from Britain. That single goal united all thirteen colonies, but they were united by little else.
In fact, all the struggles Washington faced to fund the army through a recalcitrant Congress presaged the even harder battle after the war was won. Each state truly saw themselves as independent states. They united to defeat the British, but how to pay for that or how to run a united country afterwards was not a consideration. They had no desire to be the United States. Once the war was over, they did not even see the need for a functioning Congress. Of the delegates elected after the war, less than half even bothered to show up. The fact that we did not have an Executive or Judicial branch made perfect sense. Why would these thirteen, independent states need either. After all, hadn't they just thrown off an executive and judicial system which had tyrannized them? The Articles of Confederation, which controlled the colonies during the war, were intentionally weak, and apparently probably temporary.
Washington recognized right away the trouble the nation was in. He despaired that he had fought for an independent United States just to see it quickly devolve into myriad self-interested, squabbling petty kingdoms. As long as each state retained its sovereignty, they did not think about common commerce, paying debts, military protection, or foreign policy. Any attempt to promulgate a stronger central government was derided as a return to the monarchy they had just thrown off. Yet Washington clearly saw the anarchy this opened America up to. Small states would be helpless in the face of an unpaid and angry military. States would eventually war with each other over boundaries, navigation rights, etc. And all would be sitting ducks to European powers just waiting for the dust to clear.
John Jay went to England to negotiate the peace treaty after the war. So ineffective was the Continental Congress he left behind that he had no clear instructions or even a way to actually ratify the treaty he finally negotiated. Even when he came back with a phenomenal acquiesces from the British giving Americans all the land east of the Mississippi, the states' suspicions of each other prevented us from taking advantage of it. Unbelievably the North and South already looked at each other as competitors. Since the treaty would open up so much heretofore unclaimed land, both believed the other would use it to their disadvantage. Washington, a surveyor, knew the unbelievable gift the land was and was horrified that no one else seemed to see it. Jay saw what Washington saw and knew that a collection of infighting states would lead to one of the biggest missed opportunities in history.
Because Hamilton was not raised in a colony, he had no prejudicial connection to any one territory. In fact, he clearly saw the need for a united nation and the promise of political and economic advancement on the table. He also believed the war was about independence, not the overthrow of a particular type of governing system. He might have been ok returning to a monarchy as long as it was an American monarchy. He believed in America. He believed in the United States. He had no patience for The Thirteen Headstrong Squabbling States.
But even with these heavy hitters, America owes all to Madison. It was he who saw most clearly the need for a central government to unite the colonies. Despite the fact that he felt a strong connection to his native country, Virginia, he worked tirelessly behind the scenes to push and prod the biggest players to come together to write a new governing document that would unite the disparate states into one country. A true politician, he waited until the moment was right, after Shay's Rebellion scared men like Washington into action. Although Hamilton jumped the gun in his excitement, calling a convention to "revise" the Articles, Madison politicked behind the scenes making sure delegates amenable to radical change would be the ones to show up.
Then he developed a plan: The Virginia Plan. It gave each state power based on population, which coincidentally Virginia excelled in, and it gave the central government control over states' laws, meaning Virginia control over states laws. He lost in both arenas, rightfully so. But, he sparked a conversation about how to maintain the states' role in a federal government. Myriad compromises meant the line between state and national power would be blurred again and again. It would be up to future generation to find that line, but the seed was planted. Together these four laid out the principles that the Revolutionary War should have been fought for, but honestly wasn't.
The book does a fantastic job of showing how close we came to winning our independence only to lose it again due to our own stubbornness, pride, and stupidity. Without these four men, we do not get the United States of America. These men saw with an exceptional kind of clarity the opportunity being handed to the states, a kind of clarity other mere mortals did not have. Through sheer force of will they created the nation we have today.
Wednesday, May 6, 2026
Theo of Golden by Allen Levi
After noticing portraits lining the walls of the local coffeeshop, he sets out on a mission to bestow the portraits on their subject.
His generosity is always met with incredulity and a story. Each person he meets becomes a friend and a bit of a confidant. Some of the people remain in his life throughout the year he lives in Golden and some move on soon after receiving the gift.
Relatively early in his stay, however, he has the need to confide his full name and story to a local businessman from whom he rents a third-story apartment. It is in this small way that we begin to realize that there is more to Theo than he lets on.
Most of the book continues filling up with people and stories and the interactions they share. It's sweet, but certainly is not a plot-driven book. But the secret of Theo's identity hangs out there, tantalizing the reader. Occasionally Levi reminds us that there is more to the story, but it often sounds nefarious.
This is where I hate myself for saying it, because so much of the book is worth reading, but the fact that this is Levi's first book becomes apparent.
He ends the book in a way that is so pat and so obviously planned from before the book was written. It's the "elevator pitch" come to life. I felt very let down by the many strings all suddenly revealed and then connected. In the hands of a much more skillful writer, like a Charles Dickens, it could have been so much better. It's too abrupt and too perfect.
Oh well. It was a sweet read while it lasted.
Monday, April 6, 2026
Being Mortal by Atul Gawande
This is one a handful of books that I believe will stick with me... probably forever.
I'm glad that I read it, and also exhausted!
Here is the money quote at the end:
Being mortal is about the struggle to cope with the constraints of our biology, with the limits set by genes and cells and flesh and bone. Medical science has given us remarkable power to push against these limits, and the potential value of this power was a central reason I became a doctor. But again and again, I have seen the damage we in medicine do when we fail to acknowledge that such power is finite and always will be.
We've been wrong about what our job is in medicine. We think our job is to ensure health and survival. But really it is larger than that. It is to enable well-being. And well-being is about the reasons one wishes to be alive. Those reasons matter not just at the end of life, or when debility comes, but all along the way. Whenever serious sickness or injury strikes and your body or mind breaks down, the vital questions are the same:
- What is your understanding of the situation and its potential outcomes?
- What are your fears and what are your hopes?
- What are the trade-offs you are willing to make and not willing to make?
- And what is the course of action that best serves this understanding?
Tuesday, March 17, 2026
Farewell to Arms by Ernest Hemingway
I was right.
I didn't like it.
At all.
I thought it would be similar to All Quiet on the Western Front which makes a damning case against World War I and probably all wars. This book does not do that. It makes a damning case against bad dialogue and a poor plot.
I know I'm an outlier. It's Hemingway after all, and I suppose he's famous for a reason. But I'm not sure what that is.
The plot is thin: an American serves as an ambulance driver for the Italian forces in World War I before America enters the war. The unfamiliar terrain makes it even more difficult to perceive a plot. He gets hurt and spends a lot of time in a recovery hospital where he spends his evenings with a nurse. They say they love each other. She's feels married to him and he kinda/sorta agrees. We are never sure if they actually love each other or even know each other. It truly is all about the sex. For some reason, she's desperate to keep him. She is completely subsumed as an actual human to whatever he wants and says. Even if he doesn't know what he wants and says contradictory things. She's just there for it. He seems content to keep her around for as long as it lasts.
Once he returns to the war, things go south, and the army begins to retreat. Apparently that kind of failure leads to mock trials and summary executions of officers. Who knew? He and his now pregnant "wife" escape to Switzerland. Although the danger of being caught and executed is apparently a thing, we never see any real possibility of that. It's unclear if the army knows he's gone.
When it comes time to deliver the baby, there are complications, and... spoiler... she and the baby die. He returns to the hotel. The end. (It comes with multiple endings in which the baby lives or dies. But in all the endings she dies. Each is just as abrupt and meaningless.)
No case against war. No growth as a human. No insight into the human psyche. Just a self-absorbed man. knocking up a horribly foolish and naive girl, and she dies. Oh yeah. At one point, he shoots a fellow soldier point blank in a field, and I could never figure out why. He neither struggles with that nor regrets it. It just happens, like most of his life.
It reminded me a lot of Catcher in the Rye and not in a good way. It's the internal musings of a narcissist. I'm not sure why I'm supposed to care what he thinks or thinks about. He mostly spends his time and money (where does all the money come from?) on alcohol. Even his pregnant girlfriend drinks because it keeps the baby "small"?!?
Maybe the story is about two humans without a shred of humanity between them? Maybe it's about the ennui of war and the ever present sense of meaninglessness? Maybe it's about getting knocked up by an immature, self-absorbed, SOB?
One final note: the dialogue. Every character--male or female, young or old, American or not--spoke EXACTLY the same way. Boring drivel. (And interestingly all spoke like English was not their first language: halting, simple, non-reflexive.)
EXAMPLE conversation between Frederick (American, main character) and Catherine (British: the "wife"):
Catherine: "What are you thinking about now?"
Frederick: "Nothing."
"Yes you were. Tell me."
"I was wondering whether Rinaldi had the syphilis."
"Was that all?"
"Yes."
"Has he the syphilis?"
"I don't know."
"I'm glad you haven't. Did you ever have anything like that?"
"I had gonorrhea."
"I don't want to hear about it. Was it very painful, darling?"
"Very."
"I wish I'd had it."
"No you don't."
"I do. I wish I'd had it to be like you. I wish I'd stayed with all your girls so I could make fun of them to you."
"That's a pretty picture."
"It's not a pretty picture you having gonorrhea."
"I know it. Look at it snow now."
"I'd rather look at you. Darling, why don't you let your hair grow?"
"How grow?"
"Just grow a little longer."
"It's long enough now."
"No, let it grow a little longer and I could cut mine and we'd be just alike only one of us blonde and one of us dark."
"I wouldn't let you cut yours."
"It would be fun. I'm tired of it. It's an awful nuisance in the bed at night."
"I like it."
"Wouldn't you like it short?"
"I might. I like it the way it is."
"It might be nice short. Then we'd both be alike. Oh, darling, I want you so much I want to be you too."
"You are. We're the same one."
"I know it. At night we are."
"The nights are grand."
Insipid. Boring. Repetitive. Contradictory. Childish. Meaningless. Circular. It NEVER moves what little plot there is.
So how do I really feel?
Saturday, February 28, 2026
Taking Manhattan by Russell Shorto
was recommended to me somewhere, and since I am an American History nut, I had to read it. Shorto does an excellent job blending rich historical research and primary sources into an imminently readable story. We all know how it ends, but the journey is full of tension.
Russell Shorto argues that the 1664 transition of New Amsterdam from Dutch to English control was a negotiated merger of cultures that established New York's multiethnic identity. The narrative highlights how the city's, and by extension America's, pluralistic DNA was formed through this pragmatic shift rather than simple military conquest. (AI)
He expertly crafts the narrative by highlighting the two key players: Richard Nicolls (for the English), and Peter Stuyvesant (for the Dutch). Both were ambitious and fiercely loyal to their respective authorities. Neither wanted to see the city destroyed. Together, they saved the city by reaching a compromise that would allow the island to continue to grow and flourish under the protection of the English using Dutch ways of doing business.
The best takeaway was at the end. He follows the Duke of York, for whom the city is named, into his role as King James II. When he appeared to threaten to push Catholicism on England, William of Orange, husband of James' sister Mary, seemed poised to invade. Much like the takeover of New Amsterdam, the English saw wisdom in compromising and allowing William and Mary to reign as sovereigns, pushing aside James II, in a bloodless, "Glorious" revolution.
In the biggest irony of all, the English took Manhattan from the Dutch; the Dutch took England from the English.
Great book.


