shelfreflectionofficial's reviews
709 reviews
Straight Shooter: A Memoir of Second Chances and First Takes by Stephen A. Smith
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
4.0
“Do anything but bore them or lie to them, and you’ll be okay.”
Stephen A. Smith. An ESPN household name. Accurately self-described as bombastic, you’ll typically come across Stephen A. yelling— I mean speaking passionately— about all matters of things, not just sports, and giving you his hot take, ready to defend everything he says.
I was first ‘introduced’ to Stephen A. through a colleague who would listen to him every afternoon. I learned a lot about sports and “Staying Off the Weeeeeeeeeed!”
Even though I can only take him in small doses, I gotta respect a guy who is willing to tell it like it is. When I saw he had written a book I was interested to hear more about his story. I don’t read much about people in the sporting industry so I decided who better to hear it from than someone who is a ‘straight shooter’?
“Love me or hate me— it’s always one or the other— my story is one about what my world is like and what I’ve learned along the way.”
“You’ll see how love, belief, perseverance, self-awareness, family, friendships, and mentorship can take you places you’ve never been.”
He tells all in this book and walks us through his childhood, his college years, his first jobs, his big break, his suspension, his return, and everything in between. He doesn’t avoid the controversies that have become attached to his name or pretend he’s never made mistakes.
Perhaps he presents himself in a better light than he was (similar to Spare)— I have no way of knowing— but he admits many times where he was wrong or immature. He explains how he learned from his different mistakes and how they made him a better man and a better employee.
Again, I don’t regularly watch his show so I was never keeping up with all the news around him, but he talks briefly about when Max Kellerman left the show and I sense that there is more to that story than he says. He says he has nothing but good things to say about Kellerman and that they just didn’t jive well in the format of the show, but he also goes on to say that they only had one conversation since he left the show. He said it was cordial but working together every day for years and you never speak after that when you both still work at the same place? That doesn’t add up. So I think there’s more there than he lets on.
Overall, I felt like Stephen A. was true to his claims to tell it how it is. The ups and downs, the wins and losses, the success and the hardships that make up his life. He even exposes the many shortcomings (generous word) of his father.
“My mother made me promise that I wouldn’t [write a memoir] until after she died. I had told her I would have to write the truth about everything, including my father. She did not want anyone to read about that while she was alive.”
He kept his promise. His mother died in 2017 after battling colon cancer. The close and deep relationship he had with his mom (or ‘Mommy’ as he refers to her throughout the book) is very evident. He credits his mom for all the success he had because it was her who raised him and his sisters and provided for them.
“My family was not poor because we lacked the funds to live better— my father had a steady job and my mother worked… We were poor because my dad had another family on the side… That’s where he spent all his money, when he wasn’t gambling.”
His dad was a piece of work who continually took advantage of his family until his final day. It shows that Stephen A. had a lot of resilience and funneled those hardships into hard work, determination, grit, and a ‘don’t take no for an answer’ attitude. He was going to make something of himself and he was going to be a better man than his father- to be the man of the house and to provide for his family.
I think my favorite moment in the book was when he landed his first big contract and drives to see his mom to tell her- “It’s my turn now.”
If you’re familiar with Stephen A. Smith you probably already know that he did not play sports professionally and really didn’t even play them in high school or college save a stint at Winston-Salem. His basketball career ended when he blew out his knees.
But that did not stop him from advancing in life. He was already preparing to enter the broadcasting and journalism industry. He had his sights set on the ‘World Wide Leader in Sports’ and was going to do whatever it took to get there.
He talks a lot about his first jobs at newspapers and covering high school sports. He even covered the crime beat in NY for awhile.
His older brother, Basil, died in a car accident in 1992, but had told Stephen A.: ‘You’re going to be a household name.’
“Those words would push me during the years that followed whenever I felt too tired, too frustrated, too apprehensive, too apathetic, or even just too pleasantly distracted.”
Many reviewers say that the book read like a long resume, listing all of his jobs and accomplishments. And I suppose in a way that’s accurate. But I’m not sure it’s contrary to what I would expect to read about. People typically want to know ‘What did it take for you to make it?’ ‘What brought you to where you are today?’ And I felt like this book tells us exactly that.
I did get a little bored in some parts and the name-dropping did nothing for me because I don’t even know who most of the people were (except the obvious ones).
I do think he gives a lot of insight on how he became successful in a business like he’s in. How to become a TV personality. How to be valuable. And why he is the way he is.
Here are some of those things:
“Be impactful. That’s the difference between an employee and a talent… it was never enough for me just to do a job well— everything I did had to have an impact. I wanted to become someone whom nobody else could be like. And who wouldn’t be forgotten. I wanted to do stories that would guarantee that I would never be expendable.”
“Being connected to the same street element that a lot of the players were connected to helped make me an unorthodox journalist.”
“Everybody’s watching what I’m watching, so if I soft-pedaled an opinion about something I saw, viewers would see right through it and view me as something less than ‘real,’ and authenticity has been in short supply throughout the industry for years. That just wasn’t me.”
“I’d forgotten to ask myself if what I want is consistent with the bottom line of the company that’s paying me. If the answer is no, then the only thing you can do is accept the rules of the game until you gain enough influence to change them.”
“I never liked making enemies; I just don’t care if I have any.”
As he mentioned often, First Take (his big break and current show on ESPN), is a debate format show. The purpose is to debate which requires opposing viewpoints and arguing. It wouldn’t be a show if the two hosts agreed on everything. This format is where he really thrives because he always has an opinion and he knows his stuff.
I gotta say, as a woman, I’m not sure this format would work the same if it was all women. I think this often about sports— men somehow can yell at each other and debate and play rough sports and all that and still be friends at the end of it. I’m sure there are women who are able to do it without taking offense, but I’m just sitting over here like- Uh-oh… Are they mad at each other? Are their feelings hurt? Are they still friends?
Stephen A. did confirm- he never took anything personally and he was friends with both Skip Bayless and Kellerman when they were on the show.
He makes an interesting remark about his demeanor as a black man that gave me something to reflect on: “In my business, if you’re white and loud, you’re passionate. If you’re black and loud, you’re angry.”
I’m not sure what I think about this but I’ve contemplated my own reaction to someone talking loud, whether it’s sports news or reality shows, and trying to gauge- do I perceive differently loud black vs loud white people? Do I attribute anger or passion disproportionately? I don’t know, but it’s definitely something to be aware of and if it’s true, it makes me wonder why it would be like that?
It really is impressive what he can do. Whether you love him or hate him, you can see how his show would get high ratings.
He talked often about desiring to see more diversity (black people) at ESPN or in prominent positions of success. I feel like ESPN has been pretty diverse for awhile. I don’t think I’ve ever watched anything sports-related that has been all or really even mostly white.
Now the men to women ratio is the biggest disparity. Which frankly, makes sense. Women in general do not care as much about or aren’t as interested in sports as men. So the percentage of applicants to employees checks out. But I’m guessing it’s a lot harder to be a woman in Stephen A. Smith’s industry than a black man.
I’d be interested in reading a book from a woman who works with ESPN and get her take on the environment and the challenges she had to face.
One thing that I like and respect about Stephen A. Smith is that he seems to really think for himself. He says he’s politically independent, and I’m apt to believe him. He regularly calls himself an unapologetic black man and champions the success and advancement of black people in all industries, but he is not out there to just appease the black community. He takes it seriously to represent black people well, but some of his takes have offended even black people. He’s not a yes-man.
He writes about his interview with Trump and his opinion of him (“an utter disgrace” because he was not a president for the people but only for the people who voted for him) but he also backs the funding of police. He also regularly admonishes players for their drug usage.
“I had friends who got caught up in the drug game. They were shot and killed, became addicts, or ended up in jail. Those appeared to be the only three options in the drug game.”
I’m not sure if he’s exactly in the middle, but true independents are hard to come by and he seems as close as any. I think true independents are the most interesting because they don’t necessarily follow the narrative of a political party. I’d be curious to know more about what platforms from each side he picks to make up his politics.
I don’t agree with everything he says, but from what I’ve seen his opinions are mostly thoughtful not impulsive. Authentic and not pandering.
And he’s gotten himself into trouble. Which is really not that hard in today’s culture because every little word is scrutinized and people are ready to pounce and call for your head or at the very least, your job. He knows that firsthand.
I get the money-making, shareholder appeasing part of corporate America, but at the same time I’m tired of it. I’m tired of people being forced to apologize for saying something that offended someone, even if what they said was true.
He quotes Wake Forest soccer coach Coach Chyzowych who said, “Call it like it is. You’re not in the business to be liked. You’re in the business to be respected. Honesty, integrity, and fairness is what gets you respect. Not being liked.”
Again, I don’t agree with everything Stephen A. says, but I admire that he does not accept the position where he only says what will get him high fives.
One thing that I don’t respect (with the knowledge I have) about Stephen A. Smith is my own hot take. And it’s personal. But he talks about it in his book so I feel like it’s fair game.
He says, “I’ve never married, partly because I’m usually on the road for well over half the year, but mainly because I’ve never wanted to dishonor my marital vows, as my father did so flagrantly.”
I can respect this. If you don’t think you can keep your marital vows, don’t get married. That’s all fine and good. But he’s got two daughters with different mothers. Even if they didn’t make it ‘official’ how is this any different from breaking vows? You have one daughter, but then, essentially, he did go and have another family.
A major difference is that he clearly loves his daughters and everything he does is for them and their future, unlike his dad. I don’t doubt his love for his daughters. That seems very evident with the way he talks about them.
My issue is that he seems to think he has found a loophole that is really not a loophole. He is open about the time in his life where he was basically a womanizer. Not settling down, just chasing beautiful women when it was convenient. After he had his daughter that changed for him. But apparently not for long, because he had a second daughter with a second woman.
I know. I don’t have the whole story and I’m not claiming to know anything. Maybe the mothers of his daughters did not want to marry him or be with him anymore. That very well could be. I just felt like from the beginning Stephen A. Smith lamented his broken family and desired to not replicate that himself. I would just challenge that dishonoring can happen whether there is a piece of paper involved or not and that that does hurt people. He experienced it as a child and I would bet that his daughters might have some of the same feelings he did. Today’s culture is trying to eliminate the nuclear family and make it seem like all forms of family are equally ideal and beneficial, but that’s just simply not true.
The last part of the book is a recollection of his serious bout of Covid that was exacerbated by pneumonia. It was a near-death experience for him that really caused him to reflect on his life and change some things.
He never downplayed the priority of work in his life. He was more than dedicated to his work and spent many long hours doing his job and traveling for it.
“Success breeds a lot of things. But what it often breeds most is an insatiable appetite to keep succeeding.”
“My definition of ‘winning’ had to change.”
I’m glad he came to this realization when he could still make changes. He lamented all the family events he missed and the memories he wasn’t able to make. It’s not an easy thing to change your definition of winning, because it’s not like everyone else is doing it.
To people in general, fame and fortune is the marker of winning. Stephen A. had that. But he admitted that it didn’t satisfy. Because people are more important than money. People are more important than recognition on TV or on social media.
If more people changed their definition of ‘winning’ I think the world would be a better place!
Recommendation
If you enjoy reading memoirs, I think you’ll like this book. It may be a different kind of celebrity than you’re used to reading about because sports is a bit niche in terms of books, but it’s always interesting to read about successful people’s lives, their backgrounds, and what led to their success.
I think sports-interested people will enjoy this more than others, but you don’t have to care about sports to get something out of it. It’s not really a book that puts sports on a pedestal or even breaks down any particular game or match.
Sports is his job, but there’s a lot more that makes up the person of Stephen A. Smith and you’ll find that in these pages.
[Side note: Does the subtitle bother anyone else? I think it would be better to say First Takes and Second Chances than Second Chances and First Takes…. because First comes before Second… that’s Sports 101.]
[Content Advisory: many d-words, and a few f- and s-words; no sexual content]
Stephen A. Smith. An ESPN household name. Accurately self-described as bombastic, you’ll typically come across Stephen A. yelling— I mean speaking passionately— about all matters of things, not just sports, and giving you his hot take, ready to defend everything he says.
I was first ‘introduced’ to Stephen A. through a colleague who would listen to him every afternoon. I learned a lot about sports and “Staying Off the Weeeeeeeeeed!”
Even though I can only take him in small doses, I gotta respect a guy who is willing to tell it like it is. When I saw he had written a book I was interested to hear more about his story. I don’t read much about people in the sporting industry so I decided who better to hear it from than someone who is a ‘straight shooter’?
“Love me or hate me— it’s always one or the other— my story is one about what my world is like and what I’ve learned along the way.”
“You’ll see how love, belief, perseverance, self-awareness, family, friendships, and mentorship can take you places you’ve never been.”
He tells all in this book and walks us through his childhood, his college years, his first jobs, his big break, his suspension, his return, and everything in between. He doesn’t avoid the controversies that have become attached to his name or pretend he’s never made mistakes.
Perhaps he presents himself in a better light than he was (similar to Spare)— I have no way of knowing— but he admits many times where he was wrong or immature. He explains how he learned from his different mistakes and how they made him a better man and a better employee.
Again, I don’t regularly watch his show so I was never keeping up with all the news around him, but he talks briefly about when Max Kellerman left the show and I sense that there is more to that story than he says. He says he has nothing but good things to say about Kellerman and that they just didn’t jive well in the format of the show, but he also goes on to say that they only had one conversation since he left the show. He said it was cordial but working together every day for years and you never speak after that when you both still work at the same place? That doesn’t add up. So I think there’s more there than he lets on.
Overall, I felt like Stephen A. was true to his claims to tell it how it is. The ups and downs, the wins and losses, the success and the hardships that make up his life. He even exposes the many shortcomings (generous word) of his father.
“My mother made me promise that I wouldn’t [write a memoir] until after she died. I had told her I would have to write the truth about everything, including my father. She did not want anyone to read about that while she was alive.”
He kept his promise. His mother died in 2017 after battling colon cancer. The close and deep relationship he had with his mom (or ‘Mommy’ as he refers to her throughout the book) is very evident. He credits his mom for all the success he had because it was her who raised him and his sisters and provided for them.
“My family was not poor because we lacked the funds to live better— my father had a steady job and my mother worked… We were poor because my dad had another family on the side… That’s where he spent all his money, when he wasn’t gambling.”
His dad was a piece of work who continually took advantage of his family until his final day. It shows that Stephen A. had a lot of resilience and funneled those hardships into hard work, determination, grit, and a ‘don’t take no for an answer’ attitude. He was going to make something of himself and he was going to be a better man than his father- to be the man of the house and to provide for his family.
I think my favorite moment in the book was when he landed his first big contract and drives to see his mom to tell her- “It’s my turn now.”
If you’re familiar with Stephen A. Smith you probably already know that he did not play sports professionally and really didn’t even play them in high school or college save a stint at Winston-Salem. His basketball career ended when he blew out his knees.
But that did not stop him from advancing in life. He was already preparing to enter the broadcasting and journalism industry. He had his sights set on the ‘World Wide Leader in Sports’ and was going to do whatever it took to get there.
He talks a lot about his first jobs at newspapers and covering high school sports. He even covered the crime beat in NY for awhile.
His older brother, Basil, died in a car accident in 1992, but had told Stephen A.: ‘You’re going to be a household name.’
“Those words would push me during the years that followed whenever I felt too tired, too frustrated, too apprehensive, too apathetic, or even just too pleasantly distracted.”
Many reviewers say that the book read like a long resume, listing all of his jobs and accomplishments. And I suppose in a way that’s accurate. But I’m not sure it’s contrary to what I would expect to read about. People typically want to know ‘What did it take for you to make it?’ ‘What brought you to where you are today?’ And I felt like this book tells us exactly that.
I did get a little bored in some parts and the name-dropping did nothing for me because I don’t even know who most of the people were (except the obvious ones).
I do think he gives a lot of insight on how he became successful in a business like he’s in. How to become a TV personality. How to be valuable. And why he is the way he is.
Here are some of those things:
“Be impactful. That’s the difference between an employee and a talent… it was never enough for me just to do a job well— everything I did had to have an impact. I wanted to become someone whom nobody else could be like. And who wouldn’t be forgotten. I wanted to do stories that would guarantee that I would never be expendable.”
“Being connected to the same street element that a lot of the players were connected to helped make me an unorthodox journalist.”
“Everybody’s watching what I’m watching, so if I soft-pedaled an opinion about something I saw, viewers would see right through it and view me as something less than ‘real,’ and authenticity has been in short supply throughout the industry for years. That just wasn’t me.”
“I’d forgotten to ask myself if what I want is consistent with the bottom line of the company that’s paying me. If the answer is no, then the only thing you can do is accept the rules of the game until you gain enough influence to change them.”
“I never liked making enemies; I just don’t care if I have any.”
As he mentioned often, First Take (his big break and current show on ESPN), is a debate format show. The purpose is to debate which requires opposing viewpoints and arguing. It wouldn’t be a show if the two hosts agreed on everything. This format is where he really thrives because he always has an opinion and he knows his stuff.
I gotta say, as a woman, I’m not sure this format would work the same if it was all women. I think this often about sports— men somehow can yell at each other and debate and play rough sports and all that and still be friends at the end of it. I’m sure there are women who are able to do it without taking offense, but I’m just sitting over here like- Uh-oh… Are they mad at each other? Are their feelings hurt? Are they still friends?
Stephen A. did confirm- he never took anything personally and he was friends with both Skip Bayless and Kellerman when they were on the show.
He makes an interesting remark about his demeanor as a black man that gave me something to reflect on: “In my business, if you’re white and loud, you’re passionate. If you’re black and loud, you’re angry.”
I’m not sure what I think about this but I’ve contemplated my own reaction to someone talking loud, whether it’s sports news or reality shows, and trying to gauge- do I perceive differently loud black vs loud white people? Do I attribute anger or passion disproportionately? I don’t know, but it’s definitely something to be aware of and if it’s true, it makes me wonder why it would be like that?
It really is impressive what he can do. Whether you love him or hate him, you can see how his show would get high ratings.
He talked often about desiring to see more diversity (black people) at ESPN or in prominent positions of success. I feel like ESPN has been pretty diverse for awhile. I don’t think I’ve ever watched anything sports-related that has been all or really even mostly white.
Now the men to women ratio is the biggest disparity. Which frankly, makes sense. Women in general do not care as much about or aren’t as interested in sports as men. So the percentage of applicants to employees checks out. But I’m guessing it’s a lot harder to be a woman in Stephen A. Smith’s industry than a black man.
I’d be interested in reading a book from a woman who works with ESPN and get her take on the environment and the challenges she had to face.
One thing that I like and respect about Stephen A. Smith is that he seems to really think for himself. He says he’s politically independent, and I’m apt to believe him. He regularly calls himself an unapologetic black man and champions the success and advancement of black people in all industries, but he is not out there to just appease the black community. He takes it seriously to represent black people well, but some of his takes have offended even black people. He’s not a yes-man.
He writes about his interview with Trump and his opinion of him (“an utter disgrace” because he was not a president for the people but only for the people who voted for him) but he also backs the funding of police. He also regularly admonishes players for their drug usage.
“I had friends who got caught up in the drug game. They were shot and killed, became addicts, or ended up in jail. Those appeared to be the only three options in the drug game.”
I’m not sure if he’s exactly in the middle, but true independents are hard to come by and he seems as close as any. I think true independents are the most interesting because they don’t necessarily follow the narrative of a political party. I’d be curious to know more about what platforms from each side he picks to make up his politics.
I don’t agree with everything he says, but from what I’ve seen his opinions are mostly thoughtful not impulsive. Authentic and not pandering.
And he’s gotten himself into trouble. Which is really not that hard in today’s culture because every little word is scrutinized and people are ready to pounce and call for your head or at the very least, your job. He knows that firsthand.
I get the money-making, shareholder appeasing part of corporate America, but at the same time I’m tired of it. I’m tired of people being forced to apologize for saying something that offended someone, even if what they said was true.
He quotes Wake Forest soccer coach Coach Chyzowych who said, “Call it like it is. You’re not in the business to be liked. You’re in the business to be respected. Honesty, integrity, and fairness is what gets you respect. Not being liked.”
Again, I don’t agree with everything Stephen A. says, but I admire that he does not accept the position where he only says what will get him high fives.
One thing that I don’t respect (with the knowledge I have) about Stephen A. Smith is my own hot take. And it’s personal. But he talks about it in his book so I feel like it’s fair game.
He says, “I’ve never married, partly because I’m usually on the road for well over half the year, but mainly because I’ve never wanted to dishonor my marital vows, as my father did so flagrantly.”
I can respect this. If you don’t think you can keep your marital vows, don’t get married. That’s all fine and good. But he’s got two daughters with different mothers. Even if they didn’t make it ‘official’ how is this any different from breaking vows? You have one daughter, but then, essentially, he did go and have another family.
A major difference is that he clearly loves his daughters and everything he does is for them and their future, unlike his dad. I don’t doubt his love for his daughters. That seems very evident with the way he talks about them.
My issue is that he seems to think he has found a loophole that is really not a loophole. He is open about the time in his life where he was basically a womanizer. Not settling down, just chasing beautiful women when it was convenient. After he had his daughter that changed for him. But apparently not for long, because he had a second daughter with a second woman.
I know. I don’t have the whole story and I’m not claiming to know anything. Maybe the mothers of his daughters did not want to marry him or be with him anymore. That very well could be. I just felt like from the beginning Stephen A. Smith lamented his broken family and desired to not replicate that himself. I would just challenge that dishonoring can happen whether there is a piece of paper involved or not and that that does hurt people. He experienced it as a child and I would bet that his daughters might have some of the same feelings he did. Today’s culture is trying to eliminate the nuclear family and make it seem like all forms of family are equally ideal and beneficial, but that’s just simply not true.
The last part of the book is a recollection of his serious bout of Covid that was exacerbated by pneumonia. It was a near-death experience for him that really caused him to reflect on his life and change some things.
He never downplayed the priority of work in his life. He was more than dedicated to his work and spent many long hours doing his job and traveling for it.
“Success breeds a lot of things. But what it often breeds most is an insatiable appetite to keep succeeding.”
“My definition of ‘winning’ had to change.”
I’m glad he came to this realization when he could still make changes. He lamented all the family events he missed and the memories he wasn’t able to make. It’s not an easy thing to change your definition of winning, because it’s not like everyone else is doing it.
To people in general, fame and fortune is the marker of winning. Stephen A. had that. But he admitted that it didn’t satisfy. Because people are more important than money. People are more important than recognition on TV or on social media.
If more people changed their definition of ‘winning’ I think the world would be a better place!
Recommendation
If you enjoy reading memoirs, I think you’ll like this book. It may be a different kind of celebrity than you’re used to reading about because sports is a bit niche in terms of books, but it’s always interesting to read about successful people’s lives, their backgrounds, and what led to their success.
I think sports-interested people will enjoy this more than others, but you don’t have to care about sports to get something out of it. It’s not really a book that puts sports on a pedestal or even breaks down any particular game or match.
Sports is his job, but there’s a lot more that makes up the person of Stephen A. Smith and you’ll find that in these pages.
[Side note: Does the subtitle bother anyone else? I think it would be better to say First Takes and Second Chances than Second Chances and First Takes…. because First comes before Second… that’s Sports 101.]
[Content Advisory: many d-words, and a few f- and s-words; no sexual content]
Content Warnings
Minor: Cursing
The Book of Cold Cases by Simone St. James
dark
mysterious
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
5.0
“I’ve always believed that murder is the healthiest obsession.”
I specifically read this book for its supernatural bent (for a reading challenge) so I knew what I was getting myself into.
Those who are hardcore ghost thrillers and horror readers may find it too mild, but for someone like me who does not particularly enjoy supernatural thrillers (because they’re either demonic or it’s too easy to use ghosts as explanations) I thought this book had just the right amount of supernatural in relation to the rational.
I felt satisfied with the answers I got yet I still definitely felt the spooky vibes and imagined some of the jump scare moments that would have happened had it been a movie. It made for a great October read!
The main character of the book is Shea Collins who moonlights as a true crime researcher and writer on her website- The Book of Cold Cases. I think one of the main things I wish was different in this book was that as readers we would have felt more connected to Shea.
She still experiences PTSD and some paranoia because of a traumatic event that happened to her when she was nine. She is a bit of a recluse— doesn’t have any friends, occasionally sees her sister’s family, mostly just stays at home. Her job is just a way to pass the time in the story so it doesn’t really tell us much about her either. She just feels distant and not much personality other than her obsession with researching murders.
We do see some character development throughout the book, but the connection points were still small.
The premise of the book is this:
Shea stumbles upon an opportunity to interview Beth Greer, the acquitted but suspected serial killer in at least two murders in their small Oregon lake town during the 70s. It’s been many years since then but the murders were never solved.
Two seemingly random men were shot point-blank on the side of the road and found with a note that read:
“Am I bitter or am I sweet? Ladies can be either.”
…. the Lady Killer. Dun dun dun!
As I am writing this I am realizing I don’t think I like this nickname for the killer. It could read as a female killer or a killer of females. But the people who were killed were men. I think I would have thought of something different. UNLESS St. James wanted to tie in the ending. Which then I guess I like it.
ANYWAY.
After spending time with Beth in her creepy old mansion on the cliffs (“It was an abomination, that’s why she liked it.”), Shea realizes she is now involved in something otherworldly. The faucets turn on by themselves. She hears footsteps. Cabinet doors are all open at the same angle. Her voice recorder picks up a whispered voice that says ‘I’m still here.’
She believes Beth didn’t really kill those men, but knows more than she’s telling. Unless Beth truly is the manipulative murderer the public believed her to be...
“You have so many questions, so many things you want to know. You’ve come closer than anyone else ever has. You’ve almost finished the game, Shea. You’ve almost won. Just use your brain and figure out the last part.”
“Even though she never told the end of the story, she knew the sweet girl was the one who got eaten. The bitter girl was the one who survived.”
The book is formatted with chapters told from both Shea’s present-day POV and Beth’s 1970s POV. Then there are a few other excerpts from interviews or newspapers that provide background info.
I agree with some reviewers who wish ‘the twist’ would have been later in the book. I think it was divulged around halfway through. But at the same time, it seems like it needed to be out there so that Shea had leads to follow.
I like some of the other ‘uncertainties’ in the book that added mystery. I don’t want to give anything away so I won’t name them specifically, and they ended up being nothing, but the fact that something COULD have come from them was a nice element in the story to maintain suspense.
I am wondering one thing though— shouldn’t phone calls to prisoners be recorded? Never mind, I don’t think they did back in the 70s.
Recommendation
If you want a mysterious, spooky read that’s not demonic, gory, or over-the-top supernatural, this is a great option!
If you want something more hardcore, you may find this one boring.
There was a handful of swear words, but otherwise a pretty clean book. I think I would read another one of SImone St. James’ books.
[Content Advisory: handful of f- and s-words; no sexual content; no graphic gore other than a description of blood on the floor and the fact that the men were shot in the face.]
I specifically read this book for its supernatural bent (for a reading challenge) so I knew what I was getting myself into.
Those who are hardcore ghost thrillers and horror readers may find it too mild, but for someone like me who does not particularly enjoy supernatural thrillers (because they’re either demonic or it’s too easy to use ghosts as explanations) I thought this book had just the right amount of supernatural in relation to the rational.
I felt satisfied with the answers I got yet I still definitely felt the spooky vibes and imagined some of the jump scare moments that would have happened had it been a movie. It made for a great October read!
The main character of the book is Shea Collins who moonlights as a true crime researcher and writer on her website- The Book of Cold Cases. I think one of the main things I wish was different in this book was that as readers we would have felt more connected to Shea.
She still experiences PTSD and some paranoia because of a traumatic event that happened to her when she was nine. She is a bit of a recluse— doesn’t have any friends, occasionally sees her sister’s family, mostly just stays at home. Her job is just a way to pass the time in the story so it doesn’t really tell us much about her either. She just feels distant and not much personality other than her obsession with researching murders.
We do see some character development throughout the book, but the connection points were still small.
The premise of the book is this:
Shea stumbles upon an opportunity to interview Beth Greer, the acquitted but suspected serial killer in at least two murders in their small Oregon lake town during the 70s. It’s been many years since then but the murders were never solved.
Two seemingly random men were shot point-blank on the side of the road and found with a note that read:
“Am I bitter or am I sweet? Ladies can be either.”
…. the Lady Killer. Dun dun dun!
As I am writing this I am realizing I don’t think I like this nickname for the killer. It could read as a female killer or a killer of females. But the people who were killed were men. I think I would have thought of something different. UNLESS St. James wanted to tie in the ending. Which then I guess I like it.
ANYWAY.
After spending time with Beth in her creepy old mansion on the cliffs (“It was an abomination, that’s why she liked it.”), Shea realizes she is now involved in something otherworldly. The faucets turn on by themselves. She hears footsteps. Cabinet doors are all open at the same angle. Her voice recorder picks up a whispered voice that says ‘I’m still here.’
She believes Beth didn’t really kill those men, but knows more than she’s telling. Unless Beth truly is the manipulative murderer the public believed her to be...
“You have so many questions, so many things you want to know. You’ve come closer than anyone else ever has. You’ve almost finished the game, Shea. You’ve almost won. Just use your brain and figure out the last part.”
“Even though she never told the end of the story, she knew the sweet girl was the one who got eaten. The bitter girl was the one who survived.”
The book is formatted with chapters told from both Shea’s present-day POV and Beth’s 1970s POV. Then there are a few other excerpts from interviews or newspapers that provide background info.
I agree with some reviewers who wish ‘the twist’ would have been later in the book. I think it was divulged around halfway through. But at the same time, it seems like it needed to be out there so that Shea had leads to follow.
I like some of the other ‘uncertainties’ in the book that added mystery. I don’t want to give anything away so I won’t name them specifically, and they ended up being nothing, but the fact that something COULD have come from them was a nice element in the story to maintain suspense.
I am wondering one thing though— shouldn’t phone calls to prisoners be recorded? Never mind, I don’t think they did back in the 70s.
Recommendation
If you want a mysterious, spooky read that’s not demonic, gory, or over-the-top supernatural, this is a great option!
If you want something more hardcore, you may find this one boring.
There was a handful of swear words, but otherwise a pretty clean book. I think I would read another one of SImone St. James’ books.
[Content Advisory: handful of f- and s-words; no sexual content; no graphic gore other than a description of blood on the floor and the fact that the men were shot in the face.]
The Curse of Penryth Hall by Jess Armstrong
adventurous
dark
mysterious
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.0
“The past was no good to anyone, and digging about in it only brought about unpleasantness. It was best to leave it where it was. Past.”
This kept in line with my ‘spooky’ reads for October thus far. It’s a gothic mystery set in the brooding moors of the Cornish countryside in the 1920s.
There were some unexpected things and then some forgotten things that made this book not my favorite, but I think a lot of people will probably still like it. Plus the ending was ‘mostly’ satisfying which is good.
If you’re looking for a completely supernatural type of book and a murder that is only explained through ghosts or curses, etc, then you won’t find it here. Armstrong wove together reality and supernatural elements throughout the story and some were explained away, but she did leave a bit of mystery and intrigue by the end. I liked the balance as I am not a fan of books where it’s completely about the haunting things.
(We’ll see how I like The Book of Cold Cases which I’m reading next as I know it has some supernatural elements!)
The basic premise is this:
Ruby Vaughn, an orphaned and exiled girl from America who lives with a likable, bookish old man in Exeter, is tasked with taking some ancient and “dangerous” books to a "folk healer” in the Cornish countryside.
A simple task brings her to death’s doorstep at Penryth Hall, the place of heirs and curses.
But Ruby, being a rational and logical thinker is convinced that the death cannot be explained away by a ‘curse.’
“There’s no such thing as magic, Mr. Kivell. No curses. No monsters in the night. None of it. There’s a perfectly rational explanation for what happened to Sir Edward and I intend to get to the bottom of it.”
But if she gets too close to the truth, she might be next!
So who is this Ruby Vaughn character and do we like her?
“Between leaving America, war, and the death of my parents, I’d become a different creature. An almost feral fatalistic thing, living from chance to chance, existing only because death didn’t want anything to do with me. At least not yet.”
I like that she is a strong and courageous and smart girl, though a bit reckless. She spent time during the Great War on the front lines carting injured soldiers to safety. She is no stranger to death or danger.
I also like her relationship to Owen, the father-figure she lives with. We find out Ruby’s parents and sister died on the sinking of the Lusitania ship during the war. (Side note: If that interests you, read The Glass Ocean by Beatriz Williams). Before that happened, though, Ruby was exiled from her high-society life in New York because of a scandal. She was young, only 16, but during a time when men had the upper-hand, her vulnerability to a man in power resulted in her forced departure.
Owen also lost his family— his wife before the war and his sons during. “Leaving him a father in need of a child, and I a child in need of a father.”
I think Owen is my favorite character of the book. I thought he was caring and funny and I appreciated that though they shared familial grief and brokenness, they could do life together and bear each other’s burdens, looking after one another and creating a new family. Owen also has a curious twinkle in his eye and I have a feeling if this book turns into a series as it was hinted at, he’s got a lot of adventure left in him!
Ruby is also a rebellious one. She would be the ‘flapper’ type of girl, throwing parties of debauchery and resisting the restraints of societal norms. Instead of a flapper dress though, you would find her in pants, holding a whiskey, arguing with men, and loving whomever she pleases.
That last trait was one aspect I was not expecting.
The murdered man— Sir Edward— was married to her lifelong best friend, Tamsyn (a female). Tamsyn and Ruby had apparently been lovers to some degree and Tamsyn had broken Ruby’s heart at some point during the war. We are not given a lot of details of this.
Throughout the book we see regularly that Ruby still has feelings for Tamsyn and is struggling between loving her and being mad at her.
“I’d expressly vowed to never set foot in the godforsaken county ever again.”
“‘You walk around looking as if she’s ripped out your heart and is carrying it around with her in her pocket, and you can’t decide whether to go fetch it back or leave it where it is. Anyone can see that.’”
As for sexual content, there is none, but we are privy to Ruby’s thoughts and feelings toward both Tamsyn and another character (Ruan) that tell us of her love.
While I like a courageous woman who is willing to push against certain societal norms, I’m not sure if I liked her character as a whole. I’m not into glorified debauchery and rebellion for rebellion’s sake.
“I’d been around the world, to war and back, and done things that would make the most wicked of men blush.”
I don’t know what she means here, but I know enough to know I’m not a fan of it.
Who knows what direction Armstrong could choose to take Ruby in any future books? For some that may be exciting, but for me, I don’t think I’ll continue to read it.
So we’ve got Ruby as our main character and from whose POV the book is told, but our other main character is the folk-healer— Ruan— also known as the Pellar.
“What is a Pellar, Mrs. Pemrose? The way you speak of him he sounds like a cross between a physician, a witch, and priest.”
Though it didn’t fully come to fruition (at least in this book) we have the makings of an enemies-to-lovers type of situation. They begin at odds because Ruby doesn’t believe in curses or magic. She’s trying to figure this guy out and see what his angle is.
“The man was harder to read than my own penmanship.”
But as the story progresses, Ruby witnesses things she can’t explain. Plus there is some sort of supernatural connection between her and Ruan that adds to the mystery and their special bond.
This is where some of the magic remains a mystery. I’m not sure if the author did this intentionally, but to me, it feels like a loose end that was forgotten.
Ruby says that magic can’t be real "Because if such a thing were real, it opened up a box of questions about my own past that I wasn’t ready to answer.”
We know that Ruby has dreams that become reality. We know that she used to sleepwalk as a child. We know that she was “born in the cowl” which is rare and may or may not have some sort of supernatural effect? We also know that her and Ruan share the same birthday.
These are elements that hint at this ‘box of questions’ about her past. But that’s as far as we get. It was kind of a let down not to know more about her dreams as they are a main feature in this book’s story.
Another odd thing that was confusing was some of the ‘terms of endearment’ Armstrong had her characters use. As we don’t find out about Ruby’s romantic love for Tamsyn right away— it seems like just a really deep friendship at first— it became weird when Ruby’s first interaction with Mrs. Pemrose in the bedroom hints at romantic love as well.
Mrs. Pemrose calls her ‘lover.’ Which I’ve only heard used in a romantic context. The interaction alluded to some sort of memory they shared when Ruby had visited for Tamysn’s wedding. Nothing is further said about it.
It is only until later when another person uses that term ‘lover’ to Ruby in a situation that did not hint at romance that we realize there was nothing further to divulge between Ruby and Mrs. Pemrose.
So I think it must just be a cultural term they used then, as they often call Ruby ‘maid’ as well. But it was weird and misleading, especially considering Armstrong had already introduced an LGBTQ relationship. How were readers supposed to navigate the potential relationships if someone was called ‘lover’ non-romantically?
I was a bit put off by Ruby’s distaste for the vicar. It’s probably because I automatically feel defensive when someone mocks or hates Christianity. I mean the vicar is an immoral guy who has no business leading a church and was probably preaching an unbiblical religion (we have no way of knowing and it’s not a tenet of the story) so I don’t fault her for being against the man. But by hearing all of her thoughts surrounding the church or God in general, I’m not convinced she would think fondly of any vicar.
It’s an easy trope to use an immoral and preying religious man as a villain in a story. I know why it’s done, but I don’t have to like it.
Part of what adds to the ‘gothic’ and moody feel of the book is the Cornish setting.
“The old Cornish folkways predate even the Romans. There are things that occur there no one can explain, no one dares question. After all, Tintagel is the birthplace of Arthur, they say. The seat of kings.”
Many stories of giants, pixies, mermaids, and beasts have their origins in Cornwall. While they talked of pixies (piskies) in the book, I think there could have been more ‘story-telling’ around these myths or curses. The Curse of Penryth Hall is not of the fantasy genre so I’m not sure how much incorporation could still be done in the time period chosen for the story, but I wish there had been more lore intertwined with the curse.
Along those same lines, I think there were ‘secrets’ of the house that were hinted at but not really elaborated on that I think would have also added to the spooky vibes. It was more of an afterthought when they could have been played up more.
Randos
I learned a few interesting things that prove Jess Armstrong did her research. At the beginning it is mentioned that Ruby has constructed an in-ground pool at their house and that she thought it would become popular soon. The first hotel swimming pool in America was at the Biltmore in the 1930s so the timing of this was probably right and also weird to think about!
Also, sunglasses were mentioned. And I realized I had never thought about when those were invented. Sunglasses started to become more popular in the 1920s, so again, timely insertion. Look at Wikipedia's page for sunglasses and you'll find some interesting sunglasses Inuits created to block the sun's exposure.
Lastly, ‘Old Nick’ is another term for the devil. I hadn’t heard that before. It’s odd to be so similar to Old St. Nick (Father Christmas). I did a little research and it appears there is no certain explanation for where Old Nick was derived from.
“‘She was murdered… here?’ I repeated, staring at the rug. ‘It was thirty years ago, maid. I doubt there’s a great house in this country without a death or twelve within its walls.’ she said.”
This quote stuck out to me because I just read B.A. Paris’s book The Therapist in which a woman finds out her boyfriend bought a house where someone was just murdered and didn’t tell her about it and she refused to live there. So it was interesting to see this take and realize older houses have seen a lot of things. So, does the age of the house matter when considering whether or not to live somewhere someone was murdered? I’ve been curious to ponder what factors would influence a person’s choice.
“I was struck by the tenuous line between life and death on a farm. Everything was more real. More vital here than back in the ballrooms and theaters of New York.”
This quote also struck me as I recently heard someone talking about the political climate of a rural area vs an urban area. He mentioned that the closer you get to agricultural industry areas, the more conservative the political views are. That political ideas, thoughts, or plans are less abstract. On a farm, you have to grow something. You have to produce more livestock. Therefore, gender matters in a more real way. You go into a city where you are removed from the vitality of a farm, abstract ideas ‘make more sense’ or have less ‘detrimental’ implications.
Obviously there is lots to debate here, but I think it’s really interesting to think about farmers’ perspectives on life and the world where the line between life and death is “tenuous.” Where abstract ideas are not usually helpful or practical. What do we lose when we live in the abstract, ‘free spirit’ of the urban arts and commerce? What would we lose if we never ventured into the abstract?
Politics do seem to work that way in general so it's interesting to think about factors that play into that. Just some thoughts.
Recommendation
To reiterate: This book had some interesting elements and gave me some spooky Nancy Drew vibes. I was mostly satisfied with the ending and appreciated the intertwining of supernatural with rational.
There were several unexpected or forgotten things and the somewhat unlikability of the main character that made this book not really for me.
It’s not badly written, so I know some will like it. There were just elements that didn’t work for me.
As I also mentioned, it seemed like the epilogue hinted at another book. If that were the case, I would not continue to read the series.
**Received an ARC via NetGalley*
[Content Advisory: 1 f-word, 1 s-word, main character is LGBTQ but no sexual content]
This kept in line with my ‘spooky’ reads for October thus far. It’s a gothic mystery set in the brooding moors of the Cornish countryside in the 1920s.
There were some unexpected things and then some forgotten things that made this book not my favorite, but I think a lot of people will probably still like it. Plus the ending was ‘mostly’ satisfying which is good.
If you’re looking for a completely supernatural type of book and a murder that is only explained through ghosts or curses, etc, then you won’t find it here. Armstrong wove together reality and supernatural elements throughout the story and some were explained away, but she did leave a bit of mystery and intrigue by the end. I liked the balance as I am not a fan of books where it’s completely about the haunting things.
(We’ll see how I like The Book of Cold Cases which I’m reading next as I know it has some supernatural elements!)
The basic premise is this:
Ruby Vaughn, an orphaned and exiled girl from America who lives with a likable, bookish old man in Exeter, is tasked with taking some ancient and “dangerous” books to a "folk healer” in the Cornish countryside.
A simple task brings her to death’s doorstep at Penryth Hall, the place of heirs and curses.
But Ruby, being a rational and logical thinker is convinced that the death cannot be explained away by a ‘curse.’
“There’s no such thing as magic, Mr. Kivell. No curses. No monsters in the night. None of it. There’s a perfectly rational explanation for what happened to Sir Edward and I intend to get to the bottom of it.”
But if she gets too close to the truth, she might be next!
So who is this Ruby Vaughn character and do we like her?
“Between leaving America, war, and the death of my parents, I’d become a different creature. An almost feral fatalistic thing, living from chance to chance, existing only because death didn’t want anything to do with me. At least not yet.”
I like that she is a strong and courageous and smart girl, though a bit reckless. She spent time during the Great War on the front lines carting injured soldiers to safety. She is no stranger to death or danger.
I also like her relationship to Owen, the father-figure she lives with. We find out Ruby’s parents and sister died on the sinking of the Lusitania ship during the war. (Side note: If that interests you, read The Glass Ocean by Beatriz Williams). Before that happened, though, Ruby was exiled from her high-society life in New York because of a scandal. She was young, only 16, but during a time when men had the upper-hand, her vulnerability to a man in power resulted in her forced departure.
Owen also lost his family— his wife before the war and his sons during. “Leaving him a father in need of a child, and I a child in need of a father.”
I think Owen is my favorite character of the book. I thought he was caring and funny and I appreciated that though they shared familial grief and brokenness, they could do life together and bear each other’s burdens, looking after one another and creating a new family. Owen also has a curious twinkle in his eye and I have a feeling if this book turns into a series as it was hinted at, he’s got a lot of adventure left in him!
Ruby is also a rebellious one. She would be the ‘flapper’ type of girl, throwing parties of debauchery and resisting the restraints of societal norms. Instead of a flapper dress though, you would find her in pants, holding a whiskey, arguing with men, and loving whomever she pleases.
That last trait was one aspect I was not expecting.
The murdered man— Sir Edward— was married to her lifelong best friend, Tamsyn (a female). Tamsyn and Ruby had apparently been lovers to some degree and Tamsyn had broken Ruby’s heart at some point during the war. We are not given a lot of details of this.
Throughout the book we see regularly that Ruby still has feelings for Tamsyn and is struggling between loving her and being mad at her.
“I’d expressly vowed to never set foot in the godforsaken county ever again.”
“‘You walk around looking as if she’s ripped out your heart and is carrying it around with her in her pocket, and you can’t decide whether to go fetch it back or leave it where it is. Anyone can see that.’”
As for sexual content, there is none, but we are privy to Ruby’s thoughts and feelings toward both Tamsyn and another character (Ruan) that tell us of her love.
While I like a courageous woman who is willing to push against certain societal norms, I’m not sure if I liked her character as a whole. I’m not into glorified debauchery and rebellion for rebellion’s sake.
“I’d been around the world, to war and back, and done things that would make the most wicked of men blush.”
I don’t know what she means here, but I know enough to know I’m not a fan of it.
Who knows what direction Armstrong could choose to take Ruby in any future books? For some that may be exciting, but for me, I don’t think I’ll continue to read it.
So we’ve got Ruby as our main character and from whose POV the book is told, but our other main character is the folk-healer— Ruan— also known as the Pellar.
“What is a Pellar, Mrs. Pemrose? The way you speak of him he sounds like a cross between a physician, a witch, and priest.”
Though it didn’t fully come to fruition (at least in this book) we have the makings of an enemies-to-lovers type of situation. They begin at odds because Ruby doesn’t believe in curses or magic. She’s trying to figure this guy out and see what his angle is.
“The man was harder to read than my own penmanship.”
But as the story progresses, Ruby witnesses things she can’t explain. Plus there is some sort of supernatural connection between her and Ruan that adds to the mystery and their special bond.
This is where some of the magic remains a mystery. I’m not sure if the author did this intentionally, but to me, it feels like a loose end that was forgotten.
Ruby says that magic can’t be real "Because if such a thing were real, it opened up a box of questions about my own past that I wasn’t ready to answer.”
We know that Ruby has dreams that become reality. We know that she used to sleepwalk as a child. We know that she was “born in the cowl” which is rare and may or may not have some sort of supernatural effect? We also know that her and Ruan share the same birthday.
These are elements that hint at this ‘box of questions’ about her past. But that’s as far as we get. It was kind of a let down not to know more about her dreams as they are a main feature in this book’s story.
Another odd thing that was confusing was some of the ‘terms of endearment’ Armstrong had her characters use. As we don’t find out about Ruby’s romantic love for Tamsyn right away— it seems like just a really deep friendship at first— it became weird when Ruby’s first interaction with Mrs. Pemrose in the bedroom hints at romantic love as well.
Mrs. Pemrose calls her ‘lover.’ Which I’ve only heard used in a romantic context. The interaction alluded to some sort of memory they shared when Ruby had visited for Tamysn’s wedding. Nothing is further said about it.
It is only until later when another person uses that term ‘lover’ to Ruby in a situation that did not hint at romance that we realize there was nothing further to divulge between Ruby and Mrs. Pemrose.
So I think it must just be a cultural term they used then, as they often call Ruby ‘maid’ as well. But it was weird and misleading, especially considering Armstrong had already introduced an LGBTQ relationship. How were readers supposed to navigate the potential relationships if someone was called ‘lover’ non-romantically?
I was a bit put off by Ruby’s distaste for the vicar. It’s probably because I automatically feel defensive when someone mocks or hates Christianity. I mean the vicar is an immoral guy who has no business leading a church and was probably preaching an unbiblical religion (we have no way of knowing and it’s not a tenet of the story) so I don’t fault her for being against the man. But by hearing all of her thoughts surrounding the church or God in general, I’m not convinced she would think fondly of any vicar.
It’s an easy trope to use an immoral and preying religious man as a villain in a story. I know why it’s done, but I don’t have to like it.
Part of what adds to the ‘gothic’ and moody feel of the book is the Cornish setting.
“The old Cornish folkways predate even the Romans. There are things that occur there no one can explain, no one dares question. After all, Tintagel is the birthplace of Arthur, they say. The seat of kings.”
Many stories of giants, pixies, mermaids, and beasts have their origins in Cornwall. While they talked of pixies (piskies) in the book, I think there could have been more ‘story-telling’ around these myths or curses. The Curse of Penryth Hall is not of the fantasy genre so I’m not sure how much incorporation could still be done in the time period chosen for the story, but I wish there had been more lore intertwined with the curse.
Along those same lines, I think there were ‘secrets’ of the house that were hinted at but not really elaborated on that I think would have also added to the spooky vibes. It was more of an afterthought when they could have been played up more.
Randos
I learned a few interesting things that prove Jess Armstrong did her research. At the beginning it is mentioned that Ruby has constructed an in-ground pool at their house and that she thought it would become popular soon. The first hotel swimming pool in America was at the Biltmore in the 1930s so the timing of this was probably right and also weird to think about!
Also, sunglasses were mentioned. And I realized I had never thought about when those were invented. Sunglasses started to become more popular in the 1920s, so again, timely insertion. Look at Wikipedia's page for sunglasses and you'll find some interesting sunglasses Inuits created to block the sun's exposure.
Lastly, ‘Old Nick’ is another term for the devil. I hadn’t heard that before. It’s odd to be so similar to Old St. Nick (Father Christmas). I did a little research and it appears there is no certain explanation for where Old Nick was derived from.
“‘She was murdered… here?’ I repeated, staring at the rug. ‘It was thirty years ago, maid. I doubt there’s a great house in this country without a death or twelve within its walls.’ she said.”
This quote stuck out to me because I just read B.A. Paris’s book The Therapist in which a woman finds out her boyfriend bought a house where someone was just murdered and didn’t tell her about it and she refused to live there. So it was interesting to see this take and realize older houses have seen a lot of things. So, does the age of the house matter when considering whether or not to live somewhere someone was murdered? I’ve been curious to ponder what factors would influence a person’s choice.
“I was struck by the tenuous line between life and death on a farm. Everything was more real. More vital here than back in the ballrooms and theaters of New York.”
This quote also struck me as I recently heard someone talking about the political climate of a rural area vs an urban area. He mentioned that the closer you get to agricultural industry areas, the more conservative the political views are. That political ideas, thoughts, or plans are less abstract. On a farm, you have to grow something. You have to produce more livestock. Therefore, gender matters in a more real way. You go into a city where you are removed from the vitality of a farm, abstract ideas ‘make more sense’ or have less ‘detrimental’ implications.
Obviously there is lots to debate here, but I think it’s really interesting to think about farmers’ perspectives on life and the world where the line between life and death is “tenuous.” Where abstract ideas are not usually helpful or practical. What do we lose when we live in the abstract, ‘free spirit’ of the urban arts and commerce? What would we lose if we never ventured into the abstract?
Politics do seem to work that way in general so it's interesting to think about factors that play into that. Just some thoughts.
Recommendation
To reiterate: This book had some interesting elements and gave me some spooky Nancy Drew vibes. I was mostly satisfied with the ending and appreciated the intertwining of supernatural with rational.
There were several unexpected or forgotten things and the somewhat unlikability of the main character that made this book not really for me.
It’s not badly written, so I know some will like it. There were just elements that didn’t work for me.
As I also mentioned, it seemed like the epilogue hinted at another book. If that were the case, I would not continue to read the series.
**Received an ARC via NetGalley*
[Content Advisory: 1 f-word, 1 s-word, main character is LGBTQ but no sexual content]
Christianity and Science by James Perman Eglinton, Nathaniel Gray Sutanto, Cory C. Brock
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
4.0
“At present, the love of truth is in a poor state among people. It is absolutely not a virtue that is innate in all by nature. In daily life, we continually learn by experience that the truth is sacrificed to self-interest. Those who devote themselves to science are usually no exception to this rule.”
Okay, so this book is not for everyone.
And I don’t think I’m the target audience. I had seen Herman Bavinck quoted in a lot of books so when I saw that Crossway was putting out a translated book of his called Christianity and Science, I was intrigued.
But it wasn’t what I was expecting to be reading.
For one, it’s very challenging to read just in the writing style and vocabulary. I think the translators did a good job, but it was just a bit dense and hard to follow for the average reader. Plus I was not familiar with many of the references in the book. There were footnotes to help with that, but I quickly grew tired of also reading the footnotes.
Secondly, I think I was expecting more of a conversational style book on how Christians should interact with science. Today it’s a normal claim to make that Christians ‘don’t believe’ in science or that Christianity is at odds with it.
I was hoping for more of a discussion on that. Which there was some of that I think. I just honestly am not sure how much of the book I was truly grasping.
The editor says in a note at the beginning, “While many secularized Westerners continue to ponder the place of religion in a scientific world, Bavinck’s text challenges us to invert this perspective and learn, instead, to ponder the place of science in a religious world.”
Another important note from the editor gives more background on what Bavinck means when he uses the term science: “The Dutch term is broader in scope and encompasses all higher forms of reflective, critical knowledge… To Bavinck, the question of whether a scientist or a theologian speaks with greater authority would make little sense: to him theology is a science, belongs in the university of the sciences, and is practiced by scientists.”
Who is Herman Bavinck?
“Herman Bavinck formerly professor of dogmatics at the Free University of Amsterdam, and author of the magisterial four-volume Reformed Dogmatics… widely regarded as a modern classic in the Christian literary canon.”
He was a Dutch theologian who died in 1921 and was known for his Calvinist beliefs.
A few other notes on this book:
- It is a companion to Bavinck’s book titled Christian Worldview.
- There is often the Dutch word given in parentheses— apparently for greater clarity for those who know the Dutch language, but I feel like those people would probably just read the entire book in Dutch.
- The book itself looks nice, but it has a textured cover and for some reason retains some fingerprints making it look dirty.
One of the main philosophies of thought that Bavinck critiques is positivism.
“In Bavinck’s view, positivism was marked by a naive belief that empirical science is somehow neutral, objective, and presuppositionless— for which reason, positivists saw their approach to science as uniquely authoritative.”
So Bavinck talks about how no philosophy is truly neutral and that actually, if science is the pursuit of truth, then it falls back on the Christian concept of absolute truth. He also comments on the requirements of faith in both Christianity and in science (which includes history, literature, etc.)
“Concepts such as thing, property, cause, effect, law, condition, time, space, truth, falsehood, and more are assumed as realities despite their invisibility. Thus, faith is required to maintain objectivity.”
Positivism isn’t as largely held anymore as it was in Bavinck’s time. Today the philosophy is postmodernism. The reaches of this ideology is explored very interestingly in the book Cynical Theories (Cynical Theories is definitely a book I would recommend. It’s not a Christian book. It’s just a book that looks at critical theories’ origins and impact today which does overlap some with the principles in Bavinck’s book). In Cynical Theories, the authors say,
“The central themes of postmodernism include doubting that any human truth provides an objective representation of reality, focusing on language and the way societies use it to create their own local realities, and denying the universal.”
“Knowledge, truth, meaning, and morality are therefore, according to postmodernist thinking, culturally constructed and relative products of individual cultures, none of which possess the necessary tools or terms to evaluate the others.”
In Bavinck’s book there is a lot of discussion on how we come to know things. What is a valid way of ‘knowing’ or ‘learning.’ Positivism says science, but postmodernist thought even rejects that. Postmodernist thought questions whether or not objective knowledge or truth can be obtained at all. It also points to systems of power as controlling or deciding what can be known or how. This bleeds into critical theory and a whole host of other things.
So there are definitely still things to be learned from this book, but as to direct application to American society and culture, I’m not sure if positivism is the biggest ideology at work around us today.
“Research justice- acts upon the belief that science, reason, empiricism, objectivity, universality, and subjectivity have been overvalued as ways of obtaining knowledge while emotion, experience, traditional narratives and customs, and spiritual beliefs have been undervalued.” [Cynical Theories]
One example of how postmodern thought rejects science is given in Fat Studies that reject the science of the unhealthiness of obesity. We also see it in the rejection of the simple anatomy of two genders and their belief in the fluidity of gender in general.
I think there are two attacks on science today: the postmodern left who thinks that objective knowledge and the use of science is a construct for power, and then some sects of the right that think science undermines God and the Bible.
But as Christians we should know that science can’t undermine God. Science is ultimately the discovery of God and his truth and his creation. Everything must be tested against God’s Word— we don’t blindly accept all science, but we also don’t blindly reject it.
Some of the main points of Bavinck’s book (to my far less educated mind) are: a critique of positivism’s claims that science is an unbiased authority on truth and reality; that science is dependent on the concept of absolute truth which is founded in Christianity; argues for Christian education.
Some chapters were harder to read than others. One of the hardest to understand chapters was ‘Consequences of the Verdict’ and one of the easiest to read chapters was ‘The Blessing of Christianity for Science.’
Recommendation
I don’t think the average reader will enjoy reading this unless they are particularly interested in Herman Bavinck’s writing, used to reading old theological writings, or highly interested in an argument for Christian education.
I feel like I’m fairly well-versed in theology, but this was just pretty difficult to get through and requires some time— which frankly, I wasn’t really interested in putting in right now. If you’re willing to reread a lot of sections as well as the footnotes and are devoted to really understanding the writing, then you’ll be able to get out of it a lot more than I did.
If you’re looking for a book you can pick up here and there and easily grasp what the author is saying, this probably isn’t for you.
Also, I’m not super confident in my ability to summarize this book for you, so I would read more than my review when deciding whether or not to take this book on.
Even though my understanding of Christianity and Science is a bit spotty, here is a compilation of quotes that may give you a taste of some of the things you’ll find within.
Quotes
Here were some quotes that stood out to me:
“Philosophy is not in a position to make known the truth we need, not so much because the faculty of reason is so weak and limited but because the human being is so corrupted by sin. One’s pride, one’s self-love in particular, stands in the way of the discovery of truth.”
“Subjective sincerity is not proof of objective truth”.
“This is now the general prevailing concept of science. It is true that people give little or no consideration to the “epistemology” to which they are committed. They take it for granted that the concept of science is fixed and has been elevated above all criticisms and thus they are amazed when someone draws the correctness of this concept into doubt or earnestly disputes them. They are imprisoned in the dogma of the theory of presuppositionless science and hold it to be absolute, though they declare everything else to be relative.”
“There is a hatred against God and religion, against Christ and Scripture, against church and confession, which often clouds the clearest mind and confuses the most lucid thinking.”
“The first thing that advocates of this view [positivism] have to learn is that their definition of science is just one alongside others.. we must always remember that our view is not the only one in the world, and that, in addition to ours, there are others that have equal rights in the practice of life. If we do not recognize this, we become intolerant and exclusive, and we are not far from striving to suppress all others with violence.”
“The struggle for the liberation of higher education is precisely against the monopoly of scientific knowledge from a single direction, and has no other goal than to ensure that the various directions in science can freely wrestle with one another in society, and that competition is not rendered impossible through the granting of state privileges to one but not the other.”
“It is not acceptable to say beforehand that a person sets to work in scientific research without prejudice and proceeds from nothing but sensible or internally observable facts and phenomena, and yet from the outset continually brings along all sorts of assumptions that are not the fruit of empiricism but rather have a philosophical and metaphysical character.”
“[science] cannot strive against religion, against morality, against art… it can never bring forth and may never destroy [life].”
“We are not animals but humans— reasonable, moral, religious, aesthetic beings. The awareness of truth, goodness, and beauty is implanted in our nature; the distinction between true and untrue, between good and evil, between justice and injustice, between godless and pious is just as fixed in our consciousness as the distinction between light and dark, between day and night, between sour and sweet, between sound and silence, between use and destruction, between welcome and unwelcome. We would have to eliminate human nature itself if we wanted to rid ourselves of this awareness.”
“The purpose of science is to expand and correct ordinary knowledge.”— Julius Kaftan
“Art, religion, state, society, law, [and] morality are always subject to the direction of the age; it is a miracle when the practitioners of science make an exception to this [rule].”
“The practice of science needs not only a sharp view, a clear head, a diligent zeal, a good method, and a focused investigation. At the same time, it also demands a creative imagination, a gifted intuition, a surprising divination.. It has been the geniuses, not only in art but also in science, who have been given first place.”
“If religion is objective truth, then it is clear that religions that emerge among humankind cannot all be true to the same degree. Religions have this idiosyncratic quality, distinct from, for example, languages, in that they stand directly opposed to one another, in that one regards as lies what another counts as truth…”
“There is no science of religion in general unless God exists, is knowable, and has revealed himself. It is thus untrue and superficial if one person says to another ‘You are dogmatic, but we are scientific; you are prejudiced and sectarian, but in my research I set to work wholly objectively and accept nothing other than by evidence.”
“The concept of science did not arise through Christianity. The whole history of humankind has been a search for truth… [science] did not offer unity; it did not satisfy the heart. The world in all its wisdom did not know God. Christianity then saved science. The gospel was the proclamation of an eternal, undeniable, indubitable truth, which was revealed in Christ.”
“The tacit assumption of all science is that there is a sovereign, unchangeable truth, and that it is knowable to the human being… In Christianity, the truth is not a subjective idea, not the mutual relations of human ideas, but, rather, it is an objective reality that stands high above and yet remains accessible to the human being. Through this, science is given a fixed, strong, and essential foundation. For if there is no certainty to be had in matters of religion and morality and in respect tot he unseen, spiritual things, science loses a great deal of its value. It runs the risk also of falling prey of skepticism in other fields and is threatened with decay and ruin as a whole.”
“Sharp self-criticism and stern self-denial are necessary in order to remain faithful to the truth and not deny or falsify it by the craftiness of the heart. There is much truth we do not want because it is in conflict with our lives.”
“If there is no supernatural, if God is not to be thought of other than as the “personification” of natural laws, if there is no higher power than that which works in nature, then the human spirit is subjugated to matter, the religious-ethical life loses its foundation, and belief in the triumph of the good is a vain dream.”
**Received a copy via Crossway in exchange for an honest review**
Okay, so this book is not for everyone.
And I don’t think I’m the target audience. I had seen Herman Bavinck quoted in a lot of books so when I saw that Crossway was putting out a translated book of his called Christianity and Science, I was intrigued.
But it wasn’t what I was expecting to be reading.
For one, it’s very challenging to read just in the writing style and vocabulary. I think the translators did a good job, but it was just a bit dense and hard to follow for the average reader. Plus I was not familiar with many of the references in the book. There were footnotes to help with that, but I quickly grew tired of also reading the footnotes.
Secondly, I think I was expecting more of a conversational style book on how Christians should interact with science. Today it’s a normal claim to make that Christians ‘don’t believe’ in science or that Christianity is at odds with it.
I was hoping for more of a discussion on that. Which there was some of that I think. I just honestly am not sure how much of the book I was truly grasping.
The editor says in a note at the beginning, “While many secularized Westerners continue to ponder the place of religion in a scientific world, Bavinck’s text challenges us to invert this perspective and learn, instead, to ponder the place of science in a religious world.”
Another important note from the editor gives more background on what Bavinck means when he uses the term science: “The Dutch term is broader in scope and encompasses all higher forms of reflective, critical knowledge… To Bavinck, the question of whether a scientist or a theologian speaks with greater authority would make little sense: to him theology is a science, belongs in the university of the sciences, and is practiced by scientists.”
Who is Herman Bavinck?
“Herman Bavinck formerly professor of dogmatics at the Free University of Amsterdam, and author of the magisterial four-volume Reformed Dogmatics… widely regarded as a modern classic in the Christian literary canon.”
He was a Dutch theologian who died in 1921 and was known for his Calvinist beliefs.
A few other notes on this book:
- It is a companion to Bavinck’s book titled Christian Worldview.
- There is often the Dutch word given in parentheses— apparently for greater clarity for those who know the Dutch language, but I feel like those people would probably just read the entire book in Dutch.
- The book itself looks nice, but it has a textured cover and for some reason retains some fingerprints making it look dirty.
One of the main philosophies of thought that Bavinck critiques is positivism.
“In Bavinck’s view, positivism was marked by a naive belief that empirical science is somehow neutral, objective, and presuppositionless— for which reason, positivists saw their approach to science as uniquely authoritative.”
So Bavinck talks about how no philosophy is truly neutral and that actually, if science is the pursuit of truth, then it falls back on the Christian concept of absolute truth. He also comments on the requirements of faith in both Christianity and in science (which includes history, literature, etc.)
“Concepts such as thing, property, cause, effect, law, condition, time, space, truth, falsehood, and more are assumed as realities despite their invisibility. Thus, faith is required to maintain objectivity.”
Positivism isn’t as largely held anymore as it was in Bavinck’s time. Today the philosophy is postmodernism. The reaches of this ideology is explored very interestingly in the book Cynical Theories (Cynical Theories is definitely a book I would recommend. It’s not a Christian book. It’s just a book that looks at critical theories’ origins and impact today which does overlap some with the principles in Bavinck’s book). In Cynical Theories, the authors say,
“The central themes of postmodernism include doubting that any human truth provides an objective representation of reality, focusing on language and the way societies use it to create their own local realities, and denying the universal.”
“Knowledge, truth, meaning, and morality are therefore, according to postmodernist thinking, culturally constructed and relative products of individual cultures, none of which possess the necessary tools or terms to evaluate the others.”
In Bavinck’s book there is a lot of discussion on how we come to know things. What is a valid way of ‘knowing’ or ‘learning.’ Positivism says science, but postmodernist thought even rejects that. Postmodernist thought questions whether or not objective knowledge or truth can be obtained at all. It also points to systems of power as controlling or deciding what can be known or how. This bleeds into critical theory and a whole host of other things.
So there are definitely still things to be learned from this book, but as to direct application to American society and culture, I’m not sure if positivism is the biggest ideology at work around us today.
“Research justice- acts upon the belief that science, reason, empiricism, objectivity, universality, and subjectivity have been overvalued as ways of obtaining knowledge while emotion, experience, traditional narratives and customs, and spiritual beliefs have been undervalued.” [Cynical Theories]
One example of how postmodern thought rejects science is given in Fat Studies that reject the science of the unhealthiness of obesity. We also see it in the rejection of the simple anatomy of two genders and their belief in the fluidity of gender in general.
I think there are two attacks on science today: the postmodern left who thinks that objective knowledge and the use of science is a construct for power, and then some sects of the right that think science undermines God and the Bible.
But as Christians we should know that science can’t undermine God. Science is ultimately the discovery of God and his truth and his creation. Everything must be tested against God’s Word— we don’t blindly accept all science, but we also don’t blindly reject it.
Some of the main points of Bavinck’s book (to my far less educated mind) are: a critique of positivism’s claims that science is an unbiased authority on truth and reality; that science is dependent on the concept of absolute truth which is founded in Christianity; argues for Christian education.
Some chapters were harder to read than others. One of the hardest to understand chapters was ‘Consequences of the Verdict’ and one of the easiest to read chapters was ‘The Blessing of Christianity for Science.’
Recommendation
I don’t think the average reader will enjoy reading this unless they are particularly interested in Herman Bavinck’s writing, used to reading old theological writings, or highly interested in an argument for Christian education.
I feel like I’m fairly well-versed in theology, but this was just pretty difficult to get through and requires some time— which frankly, I wasn’t really interested in putting in right now. If you’re willing to reread a lot of sections as well as the footnotes and are devoted to really understanding the writing, then you’ll be able to get out of it a lot more than I did.
If you’re looking for a book you can pick up here and there and easily grasp what the author is saying, this probably isn’t for you.
Also, I’m not super confident in my ability to summarize this book for you, so I would read more than my review when deciding whether or not to take this book on.
Even though my understanding of Christianity and Science is a bit spotty, here is a compilation of quotes that may give you a taste of some of the things you’ll find within.
Quotes
Here were some quotes that stood out to me:
“Philosophy is not in a position to make known the truth we need, not so much because the faculty of reason is so weak and limited but because the human being is so corrupted by sin. One’s pride, one’s self-love in particular, stands in the way of the discovery of truth.”
“Subjective sincerity is not proof of objective truth”.
“This is now the general prevailing concept of science. It is true that people give little or no consideration to the “epistemology” to which they are committed. They take it for granted that the concept of science is fixed and has been elevated above all criticisms and thus they are amazed when someone draws the correctness of this concept into doubt or earnestly disputes them. They are imprisoned in the dogma of the theory of presuppositionless science and hold it to be absolute, though they declare everything else to be relative.”
“There is a hatred against God and religion, against Christ and Scripture, against church and confession, which often clouds the clearest mind and confuses the most lucid thinking.”
“The first thing that advocates of this view [positivism] have to learn is that their definition of science is just one alongside others.. we must always remember that our view is not the only one in the world, and that, in addition to ours, there are others that have equal rights in the practice of life. If we do not recognize this, we become intolerant and exclusive, and we are not far from striving to suppress all others with violence.”
“The struggle for the liberation of higher education is precisely against the monopoly of scientific knowledge from a single direction, and has no other goal than to ensure that the various directions in science can freely wrestle with one another in society, and that competition is not rendered impossible through the granting of state privileges to one but not the other.”
“It is not acceptable to say beforehand that a person sets to work in scientific research without prejudice and proceeds from nothing but sensible or internally observable facts and phenomena, and yet from the outset continually brings along all sorts of assumptions that are not the fruit of empiricism but rather have a philosophical and metaphysical character.”
“[science] cannot strive against religion, against morality, against art… it can never bring forth and may never destroy [life].”
“We are not animals but humans— reasonable, moral, religious, aesthetic beings. The awareness of truth, goodness, and beauty is implanted in our nature; the distinction between true and untrue, between good and evil, between justice and injustice, between godless and pious is just as fixed in our consciousness as the distinction between light and dark, between day and night, between sour and sweet, between sound and silence, between use and destruction, between welcome and unwelcome. We would have to eliminate human nature itself if we wanted to rid ourselves of this awareness.”
“The purpose of science is to expand and correct ordinary knowledge.”— Julius Kaftan
“Art, religion, state, society, law, [and] morality are always subject to the direction of the age; it is a miracle when the practitioners of science make an exception to this [rule].”
“The practice of science needs not only a sharp view, a clear head, a diligent zeal, a good method, and a focused investigation. At the same time, it also demands a creative imagination, a gifted intuition, a surprising divination.. It has been the geniuses, not only in art but also in science, who have been given first place.”
“If religion is objective truth, then it is clear that religions that emerge among humankind cannot all be true to the same degree. Religions have this idiosyncratic quality, distinct from, for example, languages, in that they stand directly opposed to one another, in that one regards as lies what another counts as truth…”
“There is no science of religion in general unless God exists, is knowable, and has revealed himself. It is thus untrue and superficial if one person says to another ‘You are dogmatic, but we are scientific; you are prejudiced and sectarian, but in my research I set to work wholly objectively and accept nothing other than by evidence.”
“The concept of science did not arise through Christianity. The whole history of humankind has been a search for truth… [science] did not offer unity; it did not satisfy the heart. The world in all its wisdom did not know God. Christianity then saved science. The gospel was the proclamation of an eternal, undeniable, indubitable truth, which was revealed in Christ.”
“The tacit assumption of all science is that there is a sovereign, unchangeable truth, and that it is knowable to the human being… In Christianity, the truth is not a subjective idea, not the mutual relations of human ideas, but, rather, it is an objective reality that stands high above and yet remains accessible to the human being. Through this, science is given a fixed, strong, and essential foundation. For if there is no certainty to be had in matters of religion and morality and in respect tot he unseen, spiritual things, science loses a great deal of its value. It runs the risk also of falling prey of skepticism in other fields and is threatened with decay and ruin as a whole.”
“Sharp self-criticism and stern self-denial are necessary in order to remain faithful to the truth and not deny or falsify it by the craftiness of the heart. There is much truth we do not want because it is in conflict with our lives.”
“If there is no supernatural, if God is not to be thought of other than as the “personification” of natural laws, if there is no higher power than that which works in nature, then the human spirit is subjugated to matter, the religious-ethical life loses its foundation, and belief in the triumph of the good is a vain dream.”
**Received a copy via Crossway in exchange for an honest review**
The Therapist by B.A. Paris
mysterious
tense
medium-paced
- Strong character development? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
5.0
This book is a bit of a slow burn but definitely worth it in the end. As with a lot of psychological thrillers, there are a lot of ‘normal’ (read repetitive) days we have to read through until the next ‘thing’ happens.
I’ve read a few other B.A. Paris books and that is her MO as well. Quite a bit of build up until things come together at the end. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t.
While a few times I felt the drag and just wanted to get on with it already, I mostly wasn’t bothered by the pacing. It’s not a very long book anyway which helped.
The basic premise is this: Alice, the main character, has moved into a house with her new-ish partner only to find out after the fact that her partner kept something from her: someone was murdered in their home.
The previous owner Nina— a therapist— was supposedly murdered by her husband. After he was accused he committed suicide and the investigation died down.
Alice is trying to fit into the tight-knit gated community of twelve homes— The Circle, but something is off and she starts to become convinced that the murderer is still out there and may be sneaking into her house. And everyone in The Circle seems more than content to forget anything ever happened.
I think the setting of this one definitely added to the psychological uncertainty. It’s twelve houses set in a circle around a central green space. It’s a gated community and has cultish vibes.
With so few houses, everyone knows everyone’s business and their comings and goings. It’s the perfect setting for neighbors to lie or deceive each other or for new neighbors to feel ‘out of the loop’ and suspicious of something the community might hide from newcomers.
The format of the book is mostly in the present with a few flashbacks to a therapist’s office sprinkled throughout the book. We aren’t sure who the therapist is in these flashbacks until the end.
There was an emphasis on the ‘relaxation therapy’ that seemed like it was going to be a thing but then ended up not and that was a bit strange. Usually when things are repeated and said at the end of a chapter they’re significant. I guess not?
I didn’t have this one figured out. I had some suspicions but Alice accused pretty much everyone at some point so it was hard not to follow along with her every whim.
I was very satisfied with the reveal and thought the suspense was good.
There were a couple indications throughout the book about something in Alice’s past. When Paris revealed what it was, it didn’t seem very influential to me. It didn’t seem worth including in the story unless it was going to be more consequential to Alice figuring out what happened.
I suppose it was important in terms of relationship to Leo, but when it was revealed in the story it was almost an afterthought and not really something the reader was too invested in anyway.
I have mixed feelings about Alice. She obsesses over the murder and starts to annoy her neighbors with all her questions and nosiness. She also shows paranoia about someone being in her house at night— which may or may not have happened.
No, she’s not the smartest protagonist we could have had and some of her choices are questionable.
But at the same time, I’ve read worse. B.A. Paris does seem to like this trope, and I can say that her use of it in The Breakdown was more frustrating than in this book. There weren’t constant remarks about her forgetfulness or being over-emotional or flighty.
She was mostly a normal person who is just trying to process something shocking that happened in her home and the distrust with her boyfriend who never told her about it. So in some ways the behavior can be explained by that.
To me, it didn’t seem like just another insecure and unstable female character who can’t be trusted.
One thing I was pondering as I read the book was how big a deal everyone was making about living in the house after a murder happened.
So I had to ask myself- would I ever live in a house where someone was murdered? Or at least murdered in a similar context as Nina?
I think I’ve been so far removed from murder, only really ‘encountering’ it in fictional stories that part of me says it wouldn’t bother me. But then I think that I would feel different in real life when it was so close to me.
I don’t know though. The housing market is crazy right now so if you could get a bigger, nicer house for a lot less money, it would be seem like enough to not let the house’s past bother you.
[Sidenote: If you like the concept of someone being in a house with a secret past, you may enjoy the book The Villa by Rachel Hawkins.]
I’ve read a lot of books by British authors so I’m coming across fewer words or phrases that I don’t know, but there were still a few in this book that I’ll mention, since I do that kind of thing.
People carrier= as far as I can tell, this is… a van. But with a lot of extra syllables. It also sounds like what my kids would call a van if they didn’t know the word van. And do smaller cars not carry people? What an odd word.
Gate-crasher= I’ve heard of wedding crashers, or party crashers, but gate-crasher is new. Probably because people in England have gardens instead of yards and those probably have fences with gates.
Peaked cap= based on Google images, this is a like a newsboy hat, however there were also pictures of police or military hats.
This isn’t a term, but apparently Brits have a special compartment in their wallets for stamps?! Am I missing something in American wallets?! Honestly, I don’t even have stamps in my house so I don’t know why I would put them in my wallet. That’s for my million retail store rewards cards.
Anywho.
I think this is an awesome book that is worth the slowish somewhat repetitive parts because the ending was so good. Plus it’s a pretty clean book with minimal swearing and no sexual content.
A lot of reviewers that have given this book a low rating have mentioned the ‘stupidity’ of Alice as the main reason for it, so if that’s something that can really get on your nerves, maybe you won’t like this book.
I didn’t think her behavior was so far-fetched that it was ridiculous to read, but I’m usually able to give some grace on ‘unrealistic’ behavior for the most part when I’m reading a psychological thriller.
So I’d say, definitely give this one a try!
[Content Advisory: minimal swearing; no sexual content.]
I’ve read a few other B.A. Paris books and that is her MO as well. Quite a bit of build up until things come together at the end. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t.
While a few times I felt the drag and just wanted to get on with it already, I mostly wasn’t bothered by the pacing. It’s not a very long book anyway which helped.
The basic premise is this: Alice, the main character, has moved into a house with her new-ish partner only to find out after the fact that her partner kept something from her: someone was murdered in their home.
The previous owner Nina— a therapist— was supposedly murdered by her husband. After he was accused he committed suicide and the investigation died down.
Alice is trying to fit into the tight-knit gated community of twelve homes— The Circle, but something is off and she starts to become convinced that the murderer is still out there and may be sneaking into her house. And everyone in The Circle seems more than content to forget anything ever happened.
I think the setting of this one definitely added to the psychological uncertainty. It’s twelve houses set in a circle around a central green space. It’s a gated community and has cultish vibes.
With so few houses, everyone knows everyone’s business and their comings and goings. It’s the perfect setting for neighbors to lie or deceive each other or for new neighbors to feel ‘out of the loop’ and suspicious of something the community might hide from newcomers.
The format of the book is mostly in the present with a few flashbacks to a therapist’s office sprinkled throughout the book. We aren’t sure who the therapist is in these flashbacks until the end.
There was an emphasis on the ‘relaxation therapy’ that seemed like it was going to be a thing but then ended up not and that was a bit strange. Usually when things are repeated and said at the end of a chapter they’re significant. I guess not?
I didn’t have this one figured out. I had some suspicions but Alice accused pretty much everyone at some point so it was hard not to follow along with her every whim.
I was very satisfied with the reveal and thought the suspense was good.
There were a couple indications throughout the book about something in Alice’s past. When Paris revealed what it was, it didn’t seem very influential to me. It didn’t seem worth including in the story unless it was going to be more consequential to Alice figuring out what happened.
I suppose it was important in terms of relationship to Leo, but when it was revealed in the story it was almost an afterthought and not really something the reader was too invested in anyway.
I have mixed feelings about Alice. She obsesses over the murder and starts to annoy her neighbors with all her questions and nosiness. She also shows paranoia about someone being in her house at night— which may or may not have happened.
No, she’s not the smartest protagonist we could have had and some of her choices are questionable.
But at the same time, I’ve read worse. B.A. Paris does seem to like this trope, and I can say that her use of it in The Breakdown was more frustrating than in this book. There weren’t constant remarks about her forgetfulness or being over-emotional or flighty.
She was mostly a normal person who is just trying to process something shocking that happened in her home and the distrust with her boyfriend who never told her about it. So in some ways the behavior can be explained by that.
To me, it didn’t seem like just another insecure and unstable female character who can’t be trusted.
One thing I was pondering as I read the book was how big a deal everyone was making about living in the house after a murder happened.
So I had to ask myself- would I ever live in a house where someone was murdered? Or at least murdered in a similar context as Nina?
I think I’ve been so far removed from murder, only really ‘encountering’ it in fictional stories that part of me says it wouldn’t bother me. But then I think that I would feel different in real life when it was so close to me.
I don’t know though. The housing market is crazy right now so if you could get a bigger, nicer house for a lot less money, it would be seem like enough to not let the house’s past bother you.
[Sidenote: If you like the concept of someone being in a house with a secret past, you may enjoy the book The Villa by Rachel Hawkins.]
I’ve read a lot of books by British authors so I’m coming across fewer words or phrases that I don’t know, but there were still a few in this book that I’ll mention, since I do that kind of thing.
People carrier= as far as I can tell, this is… a van. But with a lot of extra syllables. It also sounds like what my kids would call a van if they didn’t know the word van. And do smaller cars not carry people? What an odd word.
Gate-crasher= I’ve heard of wedding crashers, or party crashers, but gate-crasher is new. Probably because people in England have gardens instead of yards and those probably have fences with gates.
Peaked cap= based on Google images, this is a like a newsboy hat, however there were also pictures of police or military hats.
This isn’t a term, but apparently Brits have a special compartment in their wallets for stamps?! Am I missing something in American wallets?! Honestly, I don’t even have stamps in my house so I don’t know why I would put them in my wallet. That’s for my million retail store rewards cards.
Anywho.
I think this is an awesome book that is worth the slowish somewhat repetitive parts because the ending was so good. Plus it’s a pretty clean book with minimal swearing and no sexual content.
A lot of reviewers that have given this book a low rating have mentioned the ‘stupidity’ of Alice as the main reason for it, so if that’s something that can really get on your nerves, maybe you won’t like this book.
I didn’t think her behavior was so far-fetched that it was ridiculous to read, but I’m usually able to give some grace on ‘unrealistic’ behavior for the most part when I’m reading a psychological thriller.
So I’d say, definitely give this one a try!
[Content Advisory: minimal swearing; no sexual content.]
The Rosewood Hunt by Mackenzie Reed
adventurous
lighthearted
mysterious
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
4.5
[4.5 rounded up]
“When you’re the matriarch of the richest family in southern Massachusetts, everybody wants a piece of you.”
This was a compelling premise and a suspenseful read.
And if you are interested in a suspenseful read that doesn’t have death in it or a murder to solve, this would be a great option for you!
After her grandma’s sudden death (okay ONE death…), almost 18-year-old Lily is sent on a ‘treasure hunt’ for her supposed inheritance.
Some have said this book has The Goonies vibes (which is actually referenced in the book) or is similar to The Inheritance Games. I haven’t seen the former or read the latter, so I can’t speak to whether those are accurate comparisons.
However, I just googled The Goonies and I see it’s described as a group of misfits who find a map and go on a treasure hunt, so (minus the pirates), yes, it does appear to be similar.
Lily is a loner and jealous of her cousin, Daisy (who is essentially the Spare), and her group of friends.
“I’d rather be alone than feel alone with friends who only care about my last name and how much money is in my bank account. Which is currently, like, none.”
Part of the treasure hunt seems to be Gram bringing people into Lily’s life and creating an unexpected group of friends, bonded by the hunt and the danger that it puts them through.
I liked the premise of this book and the context of where the treasure hunt starts. If you haven’t noticed yet, flower names are the theme in the Rosewood family. Hyacinth was the first matriarch and managed to create an entire town (with the family namesake). Then there was Petunia, then Iris (Lily and Daisy’s grandma). Iris had twin sons named Arbor and Alder.
The setting of a town kinda ‘ruled’ or ‘reigned over’ by the Rosewood family creates a close-knit community (with flowers planted everywhere). Lily’s dad and uncle ended up getting a lot of the townspeople into some financial trouble so when Gram dies and the family fortune appears to have ‘disappeared’ it sends the entire town into a hubbub.
“Not only are we up against whatever tricks Gram has in store for us, but now we also have competition? If we don’t solve her clues fast, someone else could get to it first.”
One thing that I didn’t like was the map. Lily ends up having to find three other people with pieces to the map. I wish the map had served more of a purpose than just bringing the four people together. There weren’t really any clues to be found in the map, and they didn’t really need it to solve the clues. I think it should have played a bigger role.
The clues the teens follow are also story-specific so it’s not something the reader can ‘figure out’ alongside the characters. It can be done either way in books, and sometimes it’s fun to be try to solve a riddle or something, but it worked out just fine to merely be a spectator in this story.
I wouldn’t say that I was shocked at any point in the story and I could kind of predict most of the ending. Again, it was okay in this book. It’s a YA book so it makes sense that the author isn’t going to create an overly complex plot line. It didn’t make it less enjoyable for me to read. I was still curious what Gram was up to and how it would all play out.
A major thread in this book is friendship. Reed writes in her acknowledgements, “While The Rosewood Hunt is a story about many things, at its heart, it’s about the friendship that blooms during an unexpected journey.”
(Again the connection to flowers!)
I have mixed feelings about the friendship vibes. With the exception of Gram and Daisy and Lily’s relationship, almost every other familial relationship in the book was strained, negative, or non-existent. This was a story where friendship really seemed to replace family.
I think for teen readers, friendship will hit a lot of chords and is something they are interested in reading about. That’s cool. But at the same time, I feel like it’s pretty rare to maintain high school friendships beyond high school. Friends aren’t always, or usually, forever… at least in a consistent way.
I get it, Lily has lost all her family (besides Daisy) and so in some ways friends will become her family. But I don’t think this is the norm for teens. It almost seemed to glorify friendships above family relationships. And it’s hard to argue when their parents are all terrible. But as a reader who IS a parent and already sees ways the family structure and the role of parents in a child’s life is being undermined, I guess I would have liked to see some more positive family relationships or at least some sort of reconciliation with teens and parental figures.
I could see teens reading this and thinking— ‘all I need is my friends; they will love me better than my parents.’ And the majority of the time, that’s just simply not true.
But, I would be curious what teen readers think when they read this. Perhaps their perception of the story understands those idiosyncrasies.
Another thing I noticed, which I’m not sure I would necessarily want changed, was the caliber of dialogue these teenagers are engaging in. It’s a typical observation I make when I read YA novels so it’s probably just ‘the way it is,’ but sometimes these teenagers are way more self-aware than they would be in reality. And able to articulate some of the feelings in a very mature way (i.e. why they struggle with relationships and getting close to people and why they find it hard to connect with people).
Daisy’s character seemed more in line with what I would expect. But I’m not sure I would want to read a book full of Daisy-caliber characters so I’m not sure how much I should request realism here haha.
And actually, most of the dialogue was well-done and interesting to read. I enjoyed some of the humor sprinkled in as well.
Most YA novels with an adventure have a character who says something heroic like- ‘I can’t have any more people I love getting hurt, so I’m going to finish this by myself. I love you guys and need to protect you because this is all my fault anyway.’ The Rosewood Hunt is no exception.
Do I think teenagers would do this? No. But at the same time, I suppose it’s not a bad thing to portray a character thinking about someone other than themself. I remember being a teen and teens are pretty inward focused and can’t always see how their choices or words affect others. If a character in a book makes them look outward more and desire to put others ahead of themselves, that’s probably a good thing for teens to be reading.
I thought Reed did a good job with the hunt- making it work in the modern setting and considering it came on the heels of the death of a loved one. Sometimes I wondered why characters did or didn’t do something or say something, but for the most part, those ‘holes’ were explained by the end.
Except for Lily’s mom. I’m still not sure what the deal is with both of the moms, really.
And, I do have a money question… if there were very large trusts heavily invested in Rosewood Inc. and then their owners were able to just pull them all out, wouldn’t that tank the company? Also, I really don’t think the trusts should have been fully available at the age of 18— that’s way too much money for a person whose frontal lobe is not fully developed yet…
Recommendation
I would definitely recommend this for an adult audience, but for a YA audience I would see my content advisory below to see if it’s something you would want your teen reading or not.
It’s not a dark, twisty, murderous thriller; it’s a lighter, yet suspenseful read with a fun adventure inspiring friendship. It’s a quick read and one I think a lot of people would enjoy.
I do wish it had less swearing (it seemed to increase in the last 2/3 of the book) and more emphasis on family, but I still liked the book. Especially for a debut novel, I think Reed has crafted a great book!
**Received an ARC via NetGalley*
[Content Advisory: 43 f-words, 54 s-words, 7 b-words, no sexual content, four prominent characters are LGBTQ]
“When you’re the matriarch of the richest family in southern Massachusetts, everybody wants a piece of you.”
This was a compelling premise and a suspenseful read.
And if you are interested in a suspenseful read that doesn’t have death in it or a murder to solve, this would be a great option for you!
After her grandma’s sudden death (okay ONE death…), almost 18-year-old Lily is sent on a ‘treasure hunt’ for her supposed inheritance.
Some have said this book has The Goonies vibes (which is actually referenced in the book) or is similar to The Inheritance Games. I haven’t seen the former or read the latter, so I can’t speak to whether those are accurate comparisons.
However, I just googled The Goonies and I see it’s described as a group of misfits who find a map and go on a treasure hunt, so (minus the pirates), yes, it does appear to be similar.
Lily is a loner and jealous of her cousin, Daisy (who is essentially the Spare), and her group of friends.
“I’d rather be alone than feel alone with friends who only care about my last name and how much money is in my bank account. Which is currently, like, none.”
Part of the treasure hunt seems to be Gram bringing people into Lily’s life and creating an unexpected group of friends, bonded by the hunt and the danger that it puts them through.
I liked the premise of this book and the context of where the treasure hunt starts. If you haven’t noticed yet, flower names are the theme in the Rosewood family. Hyacinth was the first matriarch and managed to create an entire town (with the family namesake). Then there was Petunia, then Iris (Lily and Daisy’s grandma). Iris had twin sons named Arbor and Alder.
The setting of a town kinda ‘ruled’ or ‘reigned over’ by the Rosewood family creates a close-knit community (with flowers planted everywhere). Lily’s dad and uncle ended up getting a lot of the townspeople into some financial trouble so when Gram dies and the family fortune appears to have ‘disappeared’ it sends the entire town into a hubbub.
“Not only are we up against whatever tricks Gram has in store for us, but now we also have competition? If we don’t solve her clues fast, someone else could get to it first.”
One thing that I didn’t like was the map. Lily ends up having to find three other people with pieces to the map. I wish the map had served more of a purpose than just bringing the four people together. There weren’t really any clues to be found in the map, and they didn’t really need it to solve the clues. I think it should have played a bigger role.
The clues the teens follow are also story-specific so it’s not something the reader can ‘figure out’ alongside the characters. It can be done either way in books, and sometimes it’s fun to be try to solve a riddle or something, but it worked out just fine to merely be a spectator in this story.
I wouldn’t say that I was shocked at any point in the story and I could kind of predict most of the ending. Again, it was okay in this book. It’s a YA book so it makes sense that the author isn’t going to create an overly complex plot line. It didn’t make it less enjoyable for me to read. I was still curious what Gram was up to and how it would all play out.
A major thread in this book is friendship. Reed writes in her acknowledgements, “While The Rosewood Hunt is a story about many things, at its heart, it’s about the friendship that blooms during an unexpected journey.”
(Again the connection to flowers!)
I have mixed feelings about the friendship vibes. With the exception of Gram and Daisy and Lily’s relationship, almost every other familial relationship in the book was strained, negative, or non-existent. This was a story where friendship really seemed to replace family.
I think for teen readers, friendship will hit a lot of chords and is something they are interested in reading about. That’s cool. But at the same time, I feel like it’s pretty rare to maintain high school friendships beyond high school. Friends aren’t always, or usually, forever… at least in a consistent way.
I get it, Lily has lost all her family (besides Daisy) and so in some ways friends will become her family. But I don’t think this is the norm for teens. It almost seemed to glorify friendships above family relationships. And it’s hard to argue when their parents are all terrible. But as a reader who IS a parent and already sees ways the family structure and the role of parents in a child’s life is being undermined, I guess I would have liked to see some more positive family relationships or at least some sort of reconciliation with teens and parental figures.
I could see teens reading this and thinking— ‘all I need is my friends; they will love me better than my parents.’ And the majority of the time, that’s just simply not true.
But, I would be curious what teen readers think when they read this. Perhaps their perception of the story understands those idiosyncrasies.
Another thing I noticed, which I’m not sure I would necessarily want changed, was the caliber of dialogue these teenagers are engaging in. It’s a typical observation I make when I read YA novels so it’s probably just ‘the way it is,’ but sometimes these teenagers are way more self-aware than they would be in reality. And able to articulate some of the feelings in a very mature way (i.e. why they struggle with relationships and getting close to people and why they find it hard to connect with people).
Daisy’s character seemed more in line with what I would expect. But I’m not sure I would want to read a book full of Daisy-caliber characters so I’m not sure how much I should request realism here haha.
And actually, most of the dialogue was well-done and interesting to read. I enjoyed some of the humor sprinkled in as well.
Most YA novels with an adventure have a character who says something heroic like- ‘I can’t have any more people I love getting hurt, so I’m going to finish this by myself. I love you guys and need to protect you because this is all my fault anyway.’ The Rosewood Hunt is no exception.
Do I think teenagers would do this? No. But at the same time, I suppose it’s not a bad thing to portray a character thinking about someone other than themself. I remember being a teen and teens are pretty inward focused and can’t always see how their choices or words affect others. If a character in a book makes them look outward more and desire to put others ahead of themselves, that’s probably a good thing for teens to be reading.
I thought Reed did a good job with the hunt- making it work in the modern setting and considering it came on the heels of the death of a loved one. Sometimes I wondered why characters did or didn’t do something or say something, but for the most part, those ‘holes’ were explained by the end.
Except for Lily’s mom. I’m still not sure what the deal is with both of the moms, really.
And, I do have a money question… if there were very large trusts heavily invested in Rosewood Inc. and then their owners were able to just pull them all out, wouldn’t that tank the company? Also, I really don’t think the trusts should have been fully available at the age of 18— that’s way too much money for a person whose frontal lobe is not fully developed yet…
Recommendation
I would definitely recommend this for an adult audience, but for a YA audience I would see my content advisory below to see if it’s something you would want your teen reading or not.
It’s not a dark, twisty, murderous thriller; it’s a lighter, yet suspenseful read with a fun adventure inspiring friendship. It’s a quick read and one I think a lot of people would enjoy.
I do wish it had less swearing (it seemed to increase in the last 2/3 of the book) and more emphasis on family, but I still liked the book. Especially for a debut novel, I think Reed has crafted a great book!
**Received an ARC via NetGalley*
[Content Advisory: 43 f-words, 54 s-words, 7 b-words, no sexual content, four prominent characters are LGBTQ]
Content Warnings
Moderate: Cursing
Multiple LGBTQ characters
Wise Gals: The Spies Who Built the CIA and Changed the Future of Espionage by Nathalia Holt
informative
inspiring
slow-paced
3.0
“It is only in death that the full measure of their accomplishment can be revealed.”
I wanted to like this book. I’m into spy stuff and this book was written with declassified files obtained through the Freedom of Information Act so I was ready to get the scoop.
There were a few things here and there that were surprising, interesting, or enlightening, but for the most part I felt bored reading this book.
I fell asleep every time I picked the book up to read.
I think it would have engaged me better if it didn’t feel so disjointed.
It felt like whenever there were finally interesting things that caught my attention, she would cut to something else.
For example, one of the women is in a taxi and the driver misses the turn and drives her out in the middle of nowhere and stops. She thinks she’s about to be tortured or killed. Eventually he just drives her back into the city and she gets out of the taxi. But Holt never tells us what that was all about. I’m guessing we just don’t know, but even that wasn’t said.
This type of writing didn’t create suspense, it was a tease and it was frustrating.
Holt tracks the lives of five women who contributed to the creation and continuation of the CIA. It begins in WWII and talks about post-war operations, the Bay of Pigs, the Cold War and nuclear race, etc.
“Eloise’s career had taught her that it wasn’t the flashy operations that gained the most useful results. Instead, it was the maneuvers that the cowboys described as tedious, the ones that operated with small budgets, little attention from headquarters, and no uniformed personnel. It required an officer to engage in tasks that yielded no personal glory, entailing perseverance but not, preferably, bloodshed.”
Holt tries to draw connections between the five women, but there really isn’t much significant overlap.
She jumps around from one woman to another within the same chapter. Even though there are clear breaks between the switches, it was hard to keep their stories straight as to who was where and what struggles they were facing and what missions they were on.
I think it would have been a lot more engaging and easier to read if Holt broke the book up into five parts, chapters written focused on one woman at a time. Then we would get a better chronological view of their career and what sequence things happened.
I also wonder if this wouldn’t be better as a documentary with interviews and visuals.
Some of the interesting things I learned:
The microdot camera was becoming perfected by the 1940s which is a lot earlier than I realized. Technology is crazy to me. I remember this spy technique being used on a postage stamp in a movie (was it Mission Impossible?) but for some reason I think I thought it was futuristic spy tech. It was actually old school!
City 40 was the site of nuclear bomb testing and the radiation there was worse than Chernobyl. The CIA knew about it because of their reconnaissance missions on Soviet nuclear progress, but they kept it secret from the public because they didn’t want the Soviets to know about their surveillance. So all the citizens living in and around that city had no idea they were exposed to radiation.
Gloria Steinem worked for the CIA.
The CIA has mandatory retirement, usually at the age of 60, but sometimes 65. The FBI has it too, but theirs is age 57.
The CIA acknowledges that they engaged (probably still do?) in covert operations which were not necessarily hidden in terms of results but were supposedly untraceable to the CIA. Things like influencing elections of foreign countries or actions that would overthrow foreign leaders or influence certain laws. And I realize that if they have no qualms with influencing foreign elections, how am I supposed to believe that US elections are on the up and up? There just really is no way to trust an election is there? But I also don’t know what to do with that information so I think I just have to pretend everything is fine….
A common thread throughout the book is the inequality of women and men in this industry.
In 1952, 40% of the CIA was women but only 20% were getting paid the same salary level as 70% of the men when they were doing the same work. Some of the women even had advanced degrees.
“Male, pale, and Yale” was the formula for recruitment.
Each woman’s story includes many examples where they were denied promotions or raises or job assignments because they were women or mothers.
It was a common thought that women were not good hires or good to send overseas because they either had families or could get married and start families.
I suppose some of that train of thought still exists today.
But considering the nature of the work at the CIA I’m not sure to what extent I would agree or disagree with this train of thought.
Should certain military or intelligence positions be for men only? I don’t know if women should be denied just because they are women, but I think it makes sense that women may not be as interested in those types of jobs if they have families.
If there is a discrepancy in number of male to female agents in the field, I think it would make sense that there would be less women who would want to do that.
I do see how women could be particularly helpful in obtaining intelligence because people may find them easier to trust or to talk to. They probably do blend in better than men in a lot of ways and are less suspected of nefarious work.
I don’t know where I land on it all. I’m not sure I would go as far as outlawing women from doing certain jobs just because they are women, but I wonder if there’s wisdom in women refraining from certain positions (for a variety of reasons that space does not allow a rundown of in this context.)
For example, I would never want the military to be so inclusive of women that they would make women part of a draft, so there is obviously some difference there. I’m just not sure how far ‘protections’ should go, how much should be legislated, and how much should just be up to the woman.
Regardless, this book depicts five women who were up against ‘the man’ in trying to excel in a field that they were good at. Holt writes to expose their tenacity and perseverance and the sacrifices they made for their career and their country.
“Today roughly half of all CIA officers are women, working in locations spread across the globe… obtaining coveted field positions despite the ‘hazards’ the male CIA administrators of 1953 once warned of: partners, marriages, and children.”
Holt writes,
“To become a spy, you do not merely fill out a job application. The decision will override all other life choices, can never be altered, and is occasionally deadly. You are signing up not merely for a job, but a way of life. No family member, or friend will ever again have your complete confidence. You will surrender the comforts of your home and live abroad, likely for years. Your work and accomplishments are unlikely to ever be acknowledged outside your own intimate circle. Even death may not lift the shroud of secrecy.”
So yeah… I don’t think I’ll sign up to be a spy today. And I can imagine a lot of other women, especially those who desire families, would probably feel the same way.
There may be a disparity in number of women in the CIA, but in a lot of ways, it makes sense.
Obviously equal pay for equal work should still apply regardless of how many women are in the CIA, but I don’t know if we need to go all out trying to recruit women if the majority of women just prefer different careers.
Recommendation
I am interested in history and learning and the premise of this book was very intriguing, but the execution was lacking. I don’t think this book is for everyone.
If you are a history buff and have a knack for keeping multiple similar story lines distinct, you’ll probably love this book.
If you’re looking for a more exciting exposé on the CIA and women’s role in it, I think you’ll be disappointed.
Kristin Harmel’s blurb on the back of the book felt misleading to me. She says, “With the lyrical ease of a natural storyteller, Holt weaves deep research into an impossible-to-put-down tale that reads like historical fiction, though every word is true.”
I’m a fan of Harmel’s historical fiction, but this book does not come close to the same type of storytelling Harmel does. I wouldn’t call the writing lyrical, or with ease. And it was definitely put-downable for me.
The research Holt did was very evident. She put in the work to gather the information. I just think if she had organized it differently the storytelling would have vastly improved.
Related Reading
If you are interested in women’s role during WWII with cryptanalysis I would recommend the historical fiction books: The Rose Code and The Bletchley Women. Holt references Bletchley several times in this book.
There is also talk of the nuclear race. If that interests you, I would recommend Broker of Lies (talks about the Freedom of Information Act and takes place in Oak Ridge, TN- a site of the Manhattan Project ) or An Affair of Spies (talks of exfiltrating scientists working on German nuclear weapons and the Manhattan Project.)
Bomber Mafia is a non-fiction book that talks about those first bombs and how the invention of bomb sights changed warfare.
[Content Advisory: none]
I wanted to like this book. I’m into spy stuff and this book was written with declassified files obtained through the Freedom of Information Act so I was ready to get the scoop.
There were a few things here and there that were surprising, interesting, or enlightening, but for the most part I felt bored reading this book.
I fell asleep every time I picked the book up to read.
I think it would have engaged me better if it didn’t feel so disjointed.
It felt like whenever there were finally interesting things that caught my attention, she would cut to something else.
For example, one of the women is in a taxi and the driver misses the turn and drives her out in the middle of nowhere and stops. She thinks she’s about to be tortured or killed. Eventually he just drives her back into the city and she gets out of the taxi. But Holt never tells us what that was all about. I’m guessing we just don’t know, but even that wasn’t said.
This type of writing didn’t create suspense, it was a tease and it was frustrating.
Holt tracks the lives of five women who contributed to the creation and continuation of the CIA. It begins in WWII and talks about post-war operations, the Bay of Pigs, the Cold War and nuclear race, etc.
“Eloise’s career had taught her that it wasn’t the flashy operations that gained the most useful results. Instead, it was the maneuvers that the cowboys described as tedious, the ones that operated with small budgets, little attention from headquarters, and no uniformed personnel. It required an officer to engage in tasks that yielded no personal glory, entailing perseverance but not, preferably, bloodshed.”
Holt tries to draw connections between the five women, but there really isn’t much significant overlap.
She jumps around from one woman to another within the same chapter. Even though there are clear breaks between the switches, it was hard to keep their stories straight as to who was where and what struggles they were facing and what missions they were on.
I think it would have been a lot more engaging and easier to read if Holt broke the book up into five parts, chapters written focused on one woman at a time. Then we would get a better chronological view of their career and what sequence things happened.
I also wonder if this wouldn’t be better as a documentary with interviews and visuals.
Some of the interesting things I learned:
The microdot camera was becoming perfected by the 1940s which is a lot earlier than I realized. Technology is crazy to me. I remember this spy technique being used on a postage stamp in a movie (was it Mission Impossible?) but for some reason I think I thought it was futuristic spy tech. It was actually old school!
City 40 was the site of nuclear bomb testing and the radiation there was worse than Chernobyl. The CIA knew about it because of their reconnaissance missions on Soviet nuclear progress, but they kept it secret from the public because they didn’t want the Soviets to know about their surveillance. So all the citizens living in and around that city had no idea they were exposed to radiation.
Gloria Steinem worked for the CIA.
The CIA has mandatory retirement, usually at the age of 60, but sometimes 65. The FBI has it too, but theirs is age 57.
The CIA acknowledges that they engaged (probably still do?) in covert operations which were not necessarily hidden in terms of results but were supposedly untraceable to the CIA. Things like influencing elections of foreign countries or actions that would overthrow foreign leaders or influence certain laws. And I realize that if they have no qualms with influencing foreign elections, how am I supposed to believe that US elections are on the up and up? There just really is no way to trust an election is there? But I also don’t know what to do with that information so I think I just have to pretend everything is fine….
A common thread throughout the book is the inequality of women and men in this industry.
In 1952, 40% of the CIA was women but only 20% were getting paid the same salary level as 70% of the men when they were doing the same work. Some of the women even had advanced degrees.
“Male, pale, and Yale” was the formula for recruitment.
Each woman’s story includes many examples where they were denied promotions or raises or job assignments because they were women or mothers.
It was a common thought that women were not good hires or good to send overseas because they either had families or could get married and start families.
I suppose some of that train of thought still exists today.
But considering the nature of the work at the CIA I’m not sure to what extent I would agree or disagree with this train of thought.
Should certain military or intelligence positions be for men only? I don’t know if women should be denied just because they are women, but I think it makes sense that women may not be as interested in those types of jobs if they have families.
If there is a discrepancy in number of male to female agents in the field, I think it would make sense that there would be less women who would want to do that.
I do see how women could be particularly helpful in obtaining intelligence because people may find them easier to trust or to talk to. They probably do blend in better than men in a lot of ways and are less suspected of nefarious work.
I don’t know where I land on it all. I’m not sure I would go as far as outlawing women from doing certain jobs just because they are women, but I wonder if there’s wisdom in women refraining from certain positions (for a variety of reasons that space does not allow a rundown of in this context.)
For example, I would never want the military to be so inclusive of women that they would make women part of a draft, so there is obviously some difference there. I’m just not sure how far ‘protections’ should go, how much should be legislated, and how much should just be up to the woman.
Regardless, this book depicts five women who were up against ‘the man’ in trying to excel in a field that they were good at. Holt writes to expose their tenacity and perseverance and the sacrifices they made for their career and their country.
“Today roughly half of all CIA officers are women, working in locations spread across the globe… obtaining coveted field positions despite the ‘hazards’ the male CIA administrators of 1953 once warned of: partners, marriages, and children.”
Holt writes,
“To become a spy, you do not merely fill out a job application. The decision will override all other life choices, can never be altered, and is occasionally deadly. You are signing up not merely for a job, but a way of life. No family member, or friend will ever again have your complete confidence. You will surrender the comforts of your home and live abroad, likely for years. Your work and accomplishments are unlikely to ever be acknowledged outside your own intimate circle. Even death may not lift the shroud of secrecy.”
So yeah… I don’t think I’ll sign up to be a spy today. And I can imagine a lot of other women, especially those who desire families, would probably feel the same way.
There may be a disparity in number of women in the CIA, but in a lot of ways, it makes sense.
Obviously equal pay for equal work should still apply regardless of how many women are in the CIA, but I don’t know if we need to go all out trying to recruit women if the majority of women just prefer different careers.
Recommendation
I am interested in history and learning and the premise of this book was very intriguing, but the execution was lacking. I don’t think this book is for everyone.
If you are a history buff and have a knack for keeping multiple similar story lines distinct, you’ll probably love this book.
If you’re looking for a more exciting exposé on the CIA and women’s role in it, I think you’ll be disappointed.
Kristin Harmel’s blurb on the back of the book felt misleading to me. She says, “With the lyrical ease of a natural storyteller, Holt weaves deep research into an impossible-to-put-down tale that reads like historical fiction, though every word is true.”
I’m a fan of Harmel’s historical fiction, but this book does not come close to the same type of storytelling Harmel does. I wouldn’t call the writing lyrical, or with ease. And it was definitely put-downable for me.
The research Holt did was very evident. She put in the work to gather the information. I just think if she had organized it differently the storytelling would have vastly improved.
Related Reading
If you are interested in women’s role during WWII with cryptanalysis I would recommend the historical fiction books: The Rose Code and The Bletchley Women. Holt references Bletchley several times in this book.
There is also talk of the nuclear race. If that interests you, I would recommend Broker of Lies (talks about the Freedom of Information Act and takes place in Oak Ridge, TN- a site of the Manhattan Project ) or An Affair of Spies (talks of exfiltrating scientists working on German nuclear weapons and the Manhattan Project.)
Bomber Mafia is a non-fiction book that talks about those first bombs and how the invention of bomb sights changed warfare.
[Content Advisory: none]
Murder by Degrees by Ritu Mukerji
adventurous
dark
mysterious
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
4.0
“She willed herself to look back. He was there, just as she knew he would be… She lifted herself with her last remaining strength and jumped.”
Set in the late 1800s in post-war Philadelphia, this is an atmospheric mystery with disappearance and mysterious deaths, murder, and cover-ups.
The main character is a female physician, Dr. Weston, of Indian (India) descent during a time when females were not given much respect in the professional (or personal) world.
Having treated Anna, the missing young woman, in the past, Dr. Weston aids the police investigation into what happened to her.
Obviously technology is not the same then as it is now, so it was interesting to consider their methodology in following leads, determining cause of death, and tracking down a killer.
Some reviewers have commented that there are inaccuracies to this point. I have no qualifications to confirm or deny that, but to the average reader I don’t think there are any major discrepancies that would influence one’s enjoyment of the book.
I would give caution though, that you may not want to read this book on your lunch break. There are several medical scenes, including an autopsy, that are a bit graphic and not conducive to eating while reading.
Dr. Weston is Indian, but there wasn’t much of her heritage developed as far as character detail goes. There were a few descriptors here or there of items in her home that speak to her background, but otherwise, it was very much back burner and honestly, I even forgot a few times that she wasn’t white. (Which is probably partly because I’m white and it’s reflex to read my own ethnicity into characters, but partly because it just wasn’t a major part of her character as the author wrote it. )
This book speaks a lot to the disparities in class (rich vs poor) and gender (male vs female). I admit that sometimes I get tired of the discriminated-against-woman-living-in-a-man’s-world-and-having-to-prove-herself trope because it’s very popular right now. I’m probably not allowed to say that, especially as a woman, but hey, it’s what I often feel.
In Murder by Degrees the trope makes a lot of sense because of the context of the time period and so it didn’t get too annoying and the author didn’t make every male character to be against the protagonist so I appreciated that as well. All men, regardless of time period, aren’t misogynists.
Learning Corner
I had not read much during this time period and location so it was interesting to ‘travel’ somewhere new. There were a lot of references to places or streets that may mean something more to readers familiar with the Philly area, but I am not so if there were meant to be significant meaning behind any of it, it was lost on me.
As for the time period, I learned some interesting stuff.
The omnibus— an option for mass transport— was a thing. I found a picture of one here:
(photo in original post)
Body-snatching was a common occurrence. Corpses were stolen from graves and sold to medical schools for anatomy and dissection purposes. Sellers could get several month’s pay for a body so it was a lucrative ‘business.’
If you pour water into molten iron it will explode.
Mercury was used as a ‘healing’ agent. Thank goodness for scientific progression in medicine. Mercury has a whole host of negative side effects and harm to the body. It is also connected to the ‘Mad-Hatter’s’ disease because mercury was used in the felting process done by hatmakers and often resulted in tremors, anxiety, and depression.
Doctors were learning more about anesthesia during this time. This was coming off the Civil War when so many soldiers had to have limbs amputated… without anesthesia! I can’t even imagine.
The life expectancy in the 1800s was in the 60s during this time and it’s quite surprising considering the state of medicine at the time amongst other things! Quality of life, though, perhaps not as good.
Reading this book made me very thankful for modern medicine and doctors who know not to prescribe mercury…
SPOILER COMMENT
..
...
....
So, after knowing the ending, I was thinking back to when Paul ran away from the police that one time they came back to the house. Then he’s just MIA and everyone is just like, oh yeah, we don’t know where Paul is.
But no one was ever too concerned about it. A couple times they were like, hey is Paul back, and they were told no and they just didn’t seem to think that was significant.
I think that disconnect between that moment and what we know at the end of Paul’s role feels like a hole I wish was filled.
....
...
..
SPOILER OVER
Other Comments
After they find the body in the river, Dr. Weston was unsure about something.
“Something else was troubling her. It was what they hadn’t found. Something was missing and she couldn’t quite place it.”
I was curious to know what that was but I’m not sure if Mukerji ever closed that loop specifically.
There is a brief Halloween party scene. I read this in October so it had some fun October vibes and if you’re needing a book for a reading challenge that has a holiday in it, this may fit that prompt for you.
The title: Murder by Degrees.
I was trying to figure out what this title meant and why it was chosen. I can’t really tell. The only thing I can think of is that the murder was issued indirectly… by degrees… as in ‘six degrees of separation’ and how many people away someone is from you?
I don’t know if that’s right. That’s just all I could come up with because I don’t think the murder had to do with advanced educational degrees or with temperature, and it wasn’t a death where if, for example, a bullet missed by a tiny fraction.
What else is there?
So I think this book would have benefited from a different title. Unless I’m missing something.
Many reviewers seem to think that this will be a series.
I’m not sure why this is widely thought; this book could easily just be a standalone. There is no cliffhanger. Perhaps if they continue it, we’ll see the professional relationship between Dr. Weston and Davies (the police guy) continue to develop. There’s currently tension as Davies doesn’t take her very seriously, so there would be room for him to continue to grow in respect for her work and intellect and ability to help solve cases. I could see their partnership becoming a friendship.
That could work, but I don’t know how likely that would be.
Dr. Weston is a likable character and someone readers would definitely want to root for, especially given the era she lives in.
“It was her keen insight, her tenacity, and ultimately her courage that had brought them to the end of this arduous case.”
Recommendation
I would recommend this book. It’s not going to be a twisty hard-hitting thriller, but it’s a good mystery set in an interesting time period/place with a likable protagonist.
The beginning really draws you in and though I suspected some of the reveals, it was written in a way that did make me second guess myself.
I also appreciate that the book was clean. There was no cursing or sexual content other than stating some facts regarding the case or suspects in the case.
I think some of the medical details can take away from the story, the title could have been better, and a couple nitpicky things about the plot could be changed, but nothing that would make me think it’s not worth reading.
I say, go for it!
**Received an ARC via NetGalley*
[Content Advisory: none]
Set in the late 1800s in post-war Philadelphia, this is an atmospheric mystery with disappearance and mysterious deaths, murder, and cover-ups.
The main character is a female physician, Dr. Weston, of Indian (India) descent during a time when females were not given much respect in the professional (or personal) world.
Having treated Anna, the missing young woman, in the past, Dr. Weston aids the police investigation into what happened to her.
Obviously technology is not the same then as it is now, so it was interesting to consider their methodology in following leads, determining cause of death, and tracking down a killer.
Some reviewers have commented that there are inaccuracies to this point. I have no qualifications to confirm or deny that, but to the average reader I don’t think there are any major discrepancies that would influence one’s enjoyment of the book.
I would give caution though, that you may not want to read this book on your lunch break. There are several medical scenes, including an autopsy, that are a bit graphic and not conducive to eating while reading.
Dr. Weston is Indian, but there wasn’t much of her heritage developed as far as character detail goes. There were a few descriptors here or there of items in her home that speak to her background, but otherwise, it was very much back burner and honestly, I even forgot a few times that she wasn’t white. (Which is probably partly because I’m white and it’s reflex to read my own ethnicity into characters, but partly because it just wasn’t a major part of her character as the author wrote it. )
This book speaks a lot to the disparities in class (rich vs poor) and gender (male vs female). I admit that sometimes I get tired of the discriminated-against-woman-living-in-a-man’s-world-and-having-to-prove-herself trope because it’s very popular right now. I’m probably not allowed to say that, especially as a woman, but hey, it’s what I often feel.
In Murder by Degrees the trope makes a lot of sense because of the context of the time period and so it didn’t get too annoying and the author didn’t make every male character to be against the protagonist so I appreciated that as well. All men, regardless of time period, aren’t misogynists.
Learning Corner
I had not read much during this time period and location so it was interesting to ‘travel’ somewhere new. There were a lot of references to places or streets that may mean something more to readers familiar with the Philly area, but I am not so if there were meant to be significant meaning behind any of it, it was lost on me.
As for the time period, I learned some interesting stuff.
The omnibus— an option for mass transport— was a thing. I found a picture of one here:
(photo in original post)
Body-snatching was a common occurrence. Corpses were stolen from graves and sold to medical schools for anatomy and dissection purposes. Sellers could get several month’s pay for a body so it was a lucrative ‘business.’
If you pour water into molten iron it will explode.
Mercury was used as a ‘healing’ agent. Thank goodness for scientific progression in medicine. Mercury has a whole host of negative side effects and harm to the body. It is also connected to the ‘Mad-Hatter’s’ disease because mercury was used in the felting process done by hatmakers and often resulted in tremors, anxiety, and depression.
Doctors were learning more about anesthesia during this time. This was coming off the Civil War when so many soldiers had to have limbs amputated… without anesthesia! I can’t even imagine.
The life expectancy in the 1800s was in the 60s during this time and it’s quite surprising considering the state of medicine at the time amongst other things! Quality of life, though, perhaps not as good.
Reading this book made me very thankful for modern medicine and doctors who know not to prescribe mercury…
SPOILER COMMENT
..
...
....
So, after knowing the ending, I was thinking back to when Paul ran away from the police that one time they came back to the house. Then he’s just MIA and everyone is just like, oh yeah, we don’t know where Paul is.
But no one was ever too concerned about it. A couple times they were like, hey is Paul back, and they were told no and they just didn’t seem to think that was significant.
I think that disconnect between that moment and what we know at the end of Paul’s role feels like a hole I wish was filled.
....
...
..
SPOILER OVER
Other Comments
After they find the body in the river, Dr. Weston was unsure about something.
“Something else was troubling her. It was what they hadn’t found. Something was missing and she couldn’t quite place it.”
I was curious to know what that was but I’m not sure if Mukerji ever closed that loop specifically.
There is a brief Halloween party scene. I read this in October so it had some fun October vibes and if you’re needing a book for a reading challenge that has a holiday in it, this may fit that prompt for you.
The title: Murder by Degrees.
I was trying to figure out what this title meant and why it was chosen. I can’t really tell. The only thing I can think of is that the murder was issued indirectly… by degrees… as in ‘six degrees of separation’ and how many people away someone is from you?
I don’t know if that’s right. That’s just all I could come up with because I don’t think the murder had to do with advanced educational degrees or with temperature, and it wasn’t a death where if, for example, a bullet missed by a tiny fraction.
What else is there?
So I think this book would have benefited from a different title. Unless I’m missing something.
Many reviewers seem to think that this will be a series.
I’m not sure why this is widely thought; this book could easily just be a standalone. There is no cliffhanger. Perhaps if they continue it, we’ll see the professional relationship between Dr. Weston and Davies (the police guy) continue to develop. There’s currently tension as Davies doesn’t take her very seriously, so there would be room for him to continue to grow in respect for her work and intellect and ability to help solve cases. I could see their partnership becoming a friendship.
That could work, but I don’t know how likely that would be.
Dr. Weston is a likable character and someone readers would definitely want to root for, especially given the era she lives in.
“It was her keen insight, her tenacity, and ultimately her courage that had brought them to the end of this arduous case.”
Recommendation
I would recommend this book. It’s not going to be a twisty hard-hitting thriller, but it’s a good mystery set in an interesting time period/place with a likable protagonist.
The beginning really draws you in and though I suspected some of the reveals, it was written in a way that did make me second guess myself.
I also appreciate that the book was clean. There was no cursing or sexual content other than stating some facts regarding the case or suspects in the case.
I think some of the medical details can take away from the story, the title could have been better, and a couple nitpicky things about the plot could be changed, but nothing that would make me think it’s not worth reading.
I say, go for it!
**Received an ARC via NetGalley*
[Content Advisory: none]
Amazing Grace: The Life of John Newton and the Surprising Story Behind His Song by Bruce Hindmarsh, Craig Borlase
challenging
dark
hopeful
informative
reflective
sad
medium-paced
5.0
“‘My memory is nearly gone. But I remember two things: that I am a great sinner, and that Christ is a great Savior.’”
This is the year (2023) that we celebrate the 250th anniversary of the first singing of the hymn, Amazing Grace, by John Newton.
“The hymn has endured through two-and-a-half centuries and become today a powerful symbol for many people of hope in the midst of tragedy.”
This may be one of the most well-known songs in the country, but the story behind it— not so much. I grew up in the church and I had heard of John Newton, of course, but it was the post-repentant John Newton. The song’s message is even more powerful when you read of everything that came before it.
You’ll find Hindmarsh and Borlase’s book, Amazing Grace, to be enlightening, angering, and encouraging. It will challenge and convict but bring you to a place of hope and freedom.
Be warned: this is not an easy book to read. John Newton was an active participant in the slave trade from an early age. Not only was my knowledge of Newton expanded, but my knowledge of the slave trade was as well. It’s very hard to read about the dehumanization of the African people and the things that were done to them, the conditions and the abuse they endured.
“I was blind, but now, I see” is a poignant phrase. Utter blindness is the only explanation because there is no excuse for the near universal acceptance of the slave trade. And to God’s glory that even the deepest of sins can be forgiven. There is no wretch out of reach of God’s grace.
That is the story of John Newton.
“Where do we find hope today in the midst of deep divisions in society and violent disagreements? Where do we find hope for the human condition? Where do we find hope for all the griefs and sorrows that threaten to undo our own lives? Perhaps we need to look again at the perennial message of ‘Amazing Grace.’ Perhaps here we might find a renewed hope that however difficult the troubles in our lives, however deep our personal shame and regret, however dark the evil that stalks the earth, there is a mercy that is deeper yet, a forgiveness that makes all the difference, and a power for reconciliation greater than ourselves.”
The book is written from multiple sources including Newton’s autobiography, his diaries, logbooks, letters, and other published writings. There have been some creative liberties taken to fill in other facts and framework and thus this book would be considered a “dramatized biography.”
It didn’t read like a textbook. The writing was very well-done as they unraveled the story. Some of the language used was indicative of the times and not used in a condoning way (i.e. whore).
Even as the people in the story engage in sin in all matter of ways, including their words, the message of the book is not in accordance with that. The dignity of humanity, made in the image of God, is very much the conclusion. We are brought through the sin and failures of John’s life into his salvation and the continual process of being refined by the grace of God to the truth of humanity, sin, and reconciliation.
The Beginning
John’s father was an intimidating ship captain that instilled fear in John from an early age. Within the first chapter we see a six-year-old John sneaking out at night to see the dead body that was hung near the docks earlier that night. Shortly thereafter his mother dies of consumption. His father remarries and John is sent to boarding school where he endured beatings from his headmasters.
Considering this early trauma and the crude environment of growing up among sailors, it’s no surprise that John became a risk-taking, selfish, and rebellious teen. Many of his choices are driven by his forbidden love for Polly (Mary) who, after many tumultuous years, eventually becomes his wife.
When John finally gets to work on a ship as he had dreamed, the power goes to his head.
“He wore arrogance like a shield and used mockery as a whip.”
“Newton could barely utter a single sentence without resorting to profanities, and he had a particular disdain for anyone who declared himself a serious Christian.”
Until a series of events result in him being treated as a slave… or rather “servant of slaves.”
“Not an hour a day went by in which John was not humiliated in some way. He tried to ignore it, to block out the taunts and the abuse… He was trapped. There was no escape. All he knew— and he was ever going to know from this point on— was pain.”
These events were just the beginnings of the wild life of John Newton. The book continues and tells of more deaths and harrowing circumstances John finds himself in, some by surprise and some by consequence of his own behavior and choices.
In fact, the majority of the horror happens before John is even 28 years old.
We see many different forms of ‘faith’ in Newton’s life: from obedience and going to church because it was important to his mom; to complete rejection; to a near-death experience averted because of a church service inciting him to think he must be a saint in response; to finding obedience too hard and giving in to his fleshly desires and pleasures; to complete despair; and eventually to a right understanding of grace, mercy, and obedience out of love and gratitude.
The Slave Trade
The slaver ships would take goods from Europe down along the Guinea Coast to buy slaves. Once they got 100-200+ slaves they would make the trek across the Middle Passage to the West Indies to sell the slaves for sugar and rum and then head back to England. The voyages would typically take a year or more.
At one point, John lives in Africa with another slaver (Evans) and his royal, African wife (P.I.)— who was actually running the slave factory there. She had all the power and she didn’t like John so she turned Evans against him. He became their slave.
We know it is sin that corrupts. Slavery has been a historical staple in all cultures for many many years, though in different ways and practices. We can’t deny the major role white people played in the Trans-Atlantic slave trade business, but we also must be careful not to think that any one sin is bound to one race. Sin is nondiscriminatory.
- - - -
A few terms:
Royal African Company: held a monopoly on trade and shipped more slaves in trade than any other company
press-gang: the forced enlistment of men into the British Navy
bilgewater: water that collects at the bottom of the ship
thumbscrews: torture device often used on slaves
roundrobin: a petition, often against authority, which is printed in the middle of a paper and signed all around the outside of it to prevent the order of names or a ringleader to be identified; in this book, mutiny against the captain
- - - -
By the end of the book we are into the early 1800s and the public opinion about the slave trade is shifting. Hindmarsh introduces us to William Wilberforce and his dealings with Parliament to get the slave trade banned.
We hear the shocking tale of the Zong slave ship. After sickness struck their ship and they knew they’d suffer financial loss, the captain, knowing insurance didn’t cover profit loss due to sickness but did cover slaves thrown overboard as from storms, etc. he threw 130 slaves overboard alive in order to collect the insurance.
However, the insurance company refused to pay and the case went to court.
“Initially the jury sided with the crew, but the subsequent appeal— which created widespread publicity— ruled against the ship’s owners. It was a landmark decision, and one that brought the horrors of the Middle Passage to the public’s attention like never before.”
John Newton gave transparent and honest legal testimony against the slave trade.
He shared that “The people are gentle when they have no communication with the Europeans” and dispelled myths: “Most Africans did not endorse the trade. They were not naturally lazy. Their contact with Europeans did not civilize them but instead dragged them to the lowest levels of corruption.”
He also wrote against it, “‘There was nothing quite so iniquitous, so cruel, so oppressive, so destructive, as the African Slave Trade… [it] will always be a subject of a humiliating reflection to me, that I was once an active instrument in a business at which my heart now shudders.’”
We are also introduced to the relationship between John Newton and William Cowper, famous poet. Cowper (pronounced Cooper) experienced a lot of spiritual warfare and depression in his life, but he penned some very profound poems. Here are a few lines from his poem ‘Charity’
“But ah! what wish can prosper, or what pray’r,
For merchants rich in cargoes of despair,
Who drive a loathsome traffic, gauge, and span,
And buy the muscles and the bones of man!
Canst thou, and honour’d with a Christian name,
Buy what is woman-born, and feel no shame?
Trade in the blood of innocence, and plead
Expedience as a warrant for the deed?”
Newton’s Conversion and Hymn
Throughout his life Newton had several ‘come-to-Jesus’ moments in which he recognized God intervening in his life. However, it was indeed a journey to his salvation and his full realization of his sin.
The most major spiritual surrender happened when he found himself at sea in a vicious storm that left their ship in shambles. The crew even called him Jonah for bringing such devastation to their ship. The crew spent 27 days on board bailing water and trying to survive until somehow the ship found land again.
John finally had confessed in what he felt were his final moments, ‘I am a wretched sinner… Do with me as you please.’
“It was the moment where John finally placed his trust in the cross of Christ. It was the point when he finally realized that he needed God to do for him what he could not do for himself. He was a wretch, and he needed grace.”
However, there was more repentance to come because it was after this storm that John eventually becomes captain of his own slave ship.
“According to his logbook, he bought and imprisoned 468 African men, women, and children on board his ships. Sixty-eight of those people died on his watch, while the rest he delivered into the deadly slave system that powered the plantations of the West Indies.”
It is a lesson in cognitive dissonance that we can see Newton despairing of his (certain) sins and desiring to be obedient to God and do what is right and good, yet climbing aboard a ship and selling chained people like product.
“When John took his place on deck while the slaves were eating, surveying the men, women, and children that he had bought and held captive on his ship, he could only rest content and thank God. To his eyes, as he looked at men in leg chains, women fearful of rape, and children taken from their families, it looked like a peaceful, happy scene. he was so certain of this he made a point to write that they were ‘more like children in one family, than slaves in iron and chains.’”
“With few distractions and plenty of time alone in his cabin [to read, write, and pray], John was convinced that his time as a captain in the slave trade was a God-given gift that would allow him to mature as a Christian.”
It does not make sense. The blindness is blinding.
But thankfully, his story doesn’t end there, and after a few journeys at sea he is convicted more and more by what he is taking part in. Though illness was the catalyst to his leaving the trade, he eventually recognizes the horrors that he was part of.
He becomes ordained in the Church of England and writes many hymns to accompany his sermons.
“From his earliest childhood memories, John knew the power of hymns, and as a preacher he knew the limits of his sermons. He wanted people to be able to experience the grace and mercy of God for themselves up to a knowledge that went beyond the head and straight to the heart.”
On January 1, 1773, Amazing Grace was sung for the first time. At this point it was titled ‘Faith’s Review and Expectation.’ I think the eventual name change was a good choice.
But the lyrics of this song hit a different way when you realize the spiritual turmoil Newton had knowing his own wretchedness and accepting forgiveness for things too shocking to read.
“Through many dangers, toils, and snares
I have already come
This grace that brought me safe thus far
And grace will lead me home
Amazing grace how sweet the sound
That saved a wretch like me
I once was lost, but now I'm found
Was blind but now I see”
Modern Blindness?
One thing struck me as I contemplated the “appalling and near universal blindness” surrounding the slave trade. People in Europe put sugar in their tea, ignorant of the true price of that sugar. Or perhaps they had vague knowledge, but they were blinded to its sinfulness because they would rather have sugar than have to face the reality of how the sugar got to them.
I couldn’t help but think of a different form of human trafficking that is still prevalent today. I don’t think there is a universal blindness to the wrongs of human trafficking, but I do think there is a blindness to the market that fuels that human trafficking.
Porn.
This is not talked about in the book at all, this is a connection I’m making on my own that I felt compelled to share here. We are rightly horrified by the people who were willing to turn their back on the slave trade so that they could have sugar in their tea.
Yet people sit behind computers and phone screens consuming porn as if there is no harm in how that porn came to be. People are blind to the destruction that comes before and after porn.
People may not be sold because of the color of their skin, and we can be thankful for that, but the war on slavery is not over. People— namely children and women— are being sold as sex slaves and there seems to be a widespread belief that porn has no connection to it.
We are ignorant if we believe porn is an industry of righteousness, honesty, consensus, and freedom.
We may think we could never be like those Europeans. But sin. And our deceitful hearts. We are not immune to the lures of sin.
John confesses, “Custom, example, and interest, had blinded my eyes.”
“If something is accepted by everyone (custom), and everyone else is doing it (example), and it is to my benefit (interest), then we, too, are in danger of self-deception.”
Don’t be blinded by your desire for sugar. Let’s not wait for another Zong massacre before we finally open our eyes to the destruction porn’s market cultivates.
We learn many things from John Newton’s story, and the top of that list is God’s grace and forgiveness, but let’s not miss the conviction to treat humanity with dignity because porn and the industry it fills stands in direct opposition to that in every way.
Four Profound Truths
If you’re not sure what we should take away from this book, Hindmarsh and Borlase summarize the four profound truths we can learn from John Newton’s story:
- I can be forgiven. “Whatever shame or guilt you carry, however deep the regrets in your life, no matter what you have done, there is a mercy that is deeper yet.”
- I can be deceived. “If something is accepted by everyone (custom), and everyone else is doing it (example), and it is to my benefit (interest), then we, too, are in danger of self-deception.” “Majorities routinely oppress minorities and tell themselves convincing lies to justify this. Dehumanization is always a first step toward violence.”
- I can make amends. “even if it happens slowly and in stages… we must face up to the truth, repudiate what we once believed, and do what we can, however costly, to make amends.”
- I can be more like Jesus. “God’s grace changes us over our lifespan to make us more like Christ.”
Conclusion
I honestly thought I might be a bit bored by this book and had taken awhile to get to it on my list. Because I thought I knew what I was getting myself into.
I did not.
This is not a book that you say was ‘fun’ to read. But it was a powerful book, to be sure.
It enlightens you, educates you, and encourages you. It will make you feel sad and angry, but it’s a book of hope and forgiveness. It’s a book that reminds us that God is a God of both forgiveness and justice. In a world full of violence and oppression, we know that he sees and we know he will have final vindication.
It reminds us to reflect on our own sin. To confess where we’ve been blind. And to accept his forgiveness when we have repented. We are not disqualified from his grace. If God can save someone like John Newton, he can save us too.
We don’t have to have it altogether when we come to him. Newton didn’t. But God will continually refine us to look more like himself. His grace abounds!
“It is perhaps one of the most amazing things about God’s grace in the cross of Christ— that though the message of grace comes to us with impure hands, stained with violence, it yet offers hope and redemption to the wretched, and it plants the seeds of justice, reconciliation, and healing for all peoples in its universality and affirmation of the common humanity and dignity of every person.”
**Received an ARC via NetGalley**
[Content Advisory: descriptions of the slave trade and all the atrocities done in its name]
This is the year (2023) that we celebrate the 250th anniversary of the first singing of the hymn, Amazing Grace, by John Newton.
“The hymn has endured through two-and-a-half centuries and become today a powerful symbol for many people of hope in the midst of tragedy.”
This may be one of the most well-known songs in the country, but the story behind it— not so much. I grew up in the church and I had heard of John Newton, of course, but it was the post-repentant John Newton. The song’s message is even more powerful when you read of everything that came before it.
You’ll find Hindmarsh and Borlase’s book, Amazing Grace, to be enlightening, angering, and encouraging. It will challenge and convict but bring you to a place of hope and freedom.
Be warned: this is not an easy book to read. John Newton was an active participant in the slave trade from an early age. Not only was my knowledge of Newton expanded, but my knowledge of the slave trade was as well. It’s very hard to read about the dehumanization of the African people and the things that were done to them, the conditions and the abuse they endured.
“I was blind, but now, I see” is a poignant phrase. Utter blindness is the only explanation because there is no excuse for the near universal acceptance of the slave trade. And to God’s glory that even the deepest of sins can be forgiven. There is no wretch out of reach of God’s grace.
That is the story of John Newton.
“Where do we find hope today in the midst of deep divisions in society and violent disagreements? Where do we find hope for the human condition? Where do we find hope for all the griefs and sorrows that threaten to undo our own lives? Perhaps we need to look again at the perennial message of ‘Amazing Grace.’ Perhaps here we might find a renewed hope that however difficult the troubles in our lives, however deep our personal shame and regret, however dark the evil that stalks the earth, there is a mercy that is deeper yet, a forgiveness that makes all the difference, and a power for reconciliation greater than ourselves.”
The book is written from multiple sources including Newton’s autobiography, his diaries, logbooks, letters, and other published writings. There have been some creative liberties taken to fill in other facts and framework and thus this book would be considered a “dramatized biography.”
It didn’t read like a textbook. The writing was very well-done as they unraveled the story. Some of the language used was indicative of the times and not used in a condoning way (i.e. whore).
Even as the people in the story engage in sin in all matter of ways, including their words, the message of the book is not in accordance with that. The dignity of humanity, made in the image of God, is very much the conclusion. We are brought through the sin and failures of John’s life into his salvation and the continual process of being refined by the grace of God to the truth of humanity, sin, and reconciliation.
The Beginning
John’s father was an intimidating ship captain that instilled fear in John from an early age. Within the first chapter we see a six-year-old John sneaking out at night to see the dead body that was hung near the docks earlier that night. Shortly thereafter his mother dies of consumption. His father remarries and John is sent to boarding school where he endured beatings from his headmasters.
Considering this early trauma and the crude environment of growing up among sailors, it’s no surprise that John became a risk-taking, selfish, and rebellious teen. Many of his choices are driven by his forbidden love for Polly (Mary) who, after many tumultuous years, eventually becomes his wife.
When John finally gets to work on a ship as he had dreamed, the power goes to his head.
“He wore arrogance like a shield and used mockery as a whip.”
“Newton could barely utter a single sentence without resorting to profanities, and he had a particular disdain for anyone who declared himself a serious Christian.”
Until a series of events result in him being treated as a slave… or rather “servant of slaves.”
“Not an hour a day went by in which John was not humiliated in some way. He tried to ignore it, to block out the taunts and the abuse… He was trapped. There was no escape. All he knew— and he was ever going to know from this point on— was pain.”
These events were just the beginnings of the wild life of John Newton. The book continues and tells of more deaths and harrowing circumstances John finds himself in, some by surprise and some by consequence of his own behavior and choices.
In fact, the majority of the horror happens before John is even 28 years old.
We see many different forms of ‘faith’ in Newton’s life: from obedience and going to church because it was important to his mom; to complete rejection; to a near-death experience averted because of a church service inciting him to think he must be a saint in response; to finding obedience too hard and giving in to his fleshly desires and pleasures; to complete despair; and eventually to a right understanding of grace, mercy, and obedience out of love and gratitude.
The Slave Trade
The slaver ships would take goods from Europe down along the Guinea Coast to buy slaves. Once they got 100-200+ slaves they would make the trek across the Middle Passage to the West Indies to sell the slaves for sugar and rum and then head back to England. The voyages would typically take a year or more.
At one point, John lives in Africa with another slaver (Evans) and his royal, African wife (P.I.)— who was actually running the slave factory there. She had all the power and she didn’t like John so she turned Evans against him. He became their slave.
We know it is sin that corrupts. Slavery has been a historical staple in all cultures for many many years, though in different ways and practices. We can’t deny the major role white people played in the Trans-Atlantic slave trade business, but we also must be careful not to think that any one sin is bound to one race. Sin is nondiscriminatory.
- - - -
A few terms:
Royal African Company: held a monopoly on trade and shipped more slaves in trade than any other company
press-gang: the forced enlistment of men into the British Navy
bilgewater: water that collects at the bottom of the ship
thumbscrews: torture device often used on slaves
roundrobin: a petition, often against authority, which is printed in the middle of a paper and signed all around the outside of it to prevent the order of names or a ringleader to be identified; in this book, mutiny against the captain
- - - -
By the end of the book we are into the early 1800s and the public opinion about the slave trade is shifting. Hindmarsh introduces us to William Wilberforce and his dealings with Parliament to get the slave trade banned.
We hear the shocking tale of the Zong slave ship. After sickness struck their ship and they knew they’d suffer financial loss, the captain, knowing insurance didn’t cover profit loss due to sickness but did cover slaves thrown overboard as from storms, etc. he threw 130 slaves overboard alive in order to collect the insurance.
However, the insurance company refused to pay and the case went to court.
“Initially the jury sided with the crew, but the subsequent appeal— which created widespread publicity— ruled against the ship’s owners. It was a landmark decision, and one that brought the horrors of the Middle Passage to the public’s attention like never before.”
John Newton gave transparent and honest legal testimony against the slave trade.
He shared that “The people are gentle when they have no communication with the Europeans” and dispelled myths: “Most Africans did not endorse the trade. They were not naturally lazy. Their contact with Europeans did not civilize them but instead dragged them to the lowest levels of corruption.”
He also wrote against it, “‘There was nothing quite so iniquitous, so cruel, so oppressive, so destructive, as the African Slave Trade… [it] will always be a subject of a humiliating reflection to me, that I was once an active instrument in a business at which my heart now shudders.’”
We are also introduced to the relationship between John Newton and William Cowper, famous poet. Cowper (pronounced Cooper) experienced a lot of spiritual warfare and depression in his life, but he penned some very profound poems. Here are a few lines from his poem ‘Charity’
“But ah! what wish can prosper, or what pray’r,
For merchants rich in cargoes of despair,
Who drive a loathsome traffic, gauge, and span,
And buy the muscles and the bones of man!
Canst thou, and honour’d with a Christian name,
Buy what is woman-born, and feel no shame?
Trade in the blood of innocence, and plead
Expedience as a warrant for the deed?”
Newton’s Conversion and Hymn
Throughout his life Newton had several ‘come-to-Jesus’ moments in which he recognized God intervening in his life. However, it was indeed a journey to his salvation and his full realization of his sin.
The most major spiritual surrender happened when he found himself at sea in a vicious storm that left their ship in shambles. The crew even called him Jonah for bringing such devastation to their ship. The crew spent 27 days on board bailing water and trying to survive until somehow the ship found land again.
John finally had confessed in what he felt were his final moments, ‘I am a wretched sinner… Do with me as you please.’
“It was the moment where John finally placed his trust in the cross of Christ. It was the point when he finally realized that he needed God to do for him what he could not do for himself. He was a wretch, and he needed grace.”
However, there was more repentance to come because it was after this storm that John eventually becomes captain of his own slave ship.
“According to his logbook, he bought and imprisoned 468 African men, women, and children on board his ships. Sixty-eight of those people died on his watch, while the rest he delivered into the deadly slave system that powered the plantations of the West Indies.”
It is a lesson in cognitive dissonance that we can see Newton despairing of his (certain) sins and desiring to be obedient to God and do what is right and good, yet climbing aboard a ship and selling chained people like product.
“When John took his place on deck while the slaves were eating, surveying the men, women, and children that he had bought and held captive on his ship, he could only rest content and thank God. To his eyes, as he looked at men in leg chains, women fearful of rape, and children taken from their families, it looked like a peaceful, happy scene. he was so certain of this he made a point to write that they were ‘more like children in one family, than slaves in iron and chains.’”
“With few distractions and plenty of time alone in his cabin [to read, write, and pray], John was convinced that his time as a captain in the slave trade was a God-given gift that would allow him to mature as a Christian.”
It does not make sense. The blindness is blinding.
But thankfully, his story doesn’t end there, and after a few journeys at sea he is convicted more and more by what he is taking part in. Though illness was the catalyst to his leaving the trade, he eventually recognizes the horrors that he was part of.
He becomes ordained in the Church of England and writes many hymns to accompany his sermons.
“From his earliest childhood memories, John knew the power of hymns, and as a preacher he knew the limits of his sermons. He wanted people to be able to experience the grace and mercy of God for themselves up to a knowledge that went beyond the head and straight to the heart.”
On January 1, 1773, Amazing Grace was sung for the first time. At this point it was titled ‘Faith’s Review and Expectation.’ I think the eventual name change was a good choice.
But the lyrics of this song hit a different way when you realize the spiritual turmoil Newton had knowing his own wretchedness and accepting forgiveness for things too shocking to read.
“Through many dangers, toils, and snares
I have already come
This grace that brought me safe thus far
And grace will lead me home
Amazing grace how sweet the sound
That saved a wretch like me
I once was lost, but now I'm found
Was blind but now I see”
Modern Blindness?
One thing struck me as I contemplated the “appalling and near universal blindness” surrounding the slave trade. People in Europe put sugar in their tea, ignorant of the true price of that sugar. Or perhaps they had vague knowledge, but they were blinded to its sinfulness because they would rather have sugar than have to face the reality of how the sugar got to them.
I couldn’t help but think of a different form of human trafficking that is still prevalent today. I don’t think there is a universal blindness to the wrongs of human trafficking, but I do think there is a blindness to the market that fuels that human trafficking.
Porn.
This is not talked about in the book at all, this is a connection I’m making on my own that I felt compelled to share here. We are rightly horrified by the people who were willing to turn their back on the slave trade so that they could have sugar in their tea.
Yet people sit behind computers and phone screens consuming porn as if there is no harm in how that porn came to be. People are blind to the destruction that comes before and after porn.
People may not be sold because of the color of their skin, and we can be thankful for that, but the war on slavery is not over. People— namely children and women— are being sold as sex slaves and there seems to be a widespread belief that porn has no connection to it.
We are ignorant if we believe porn is an industry of righteousness, honesty, consensus, and freedom.
We may think we could never be like those Europeans. But sin. And our deceitful hearts. We are not immune to the lures of sin.
John confesses, “Custom, example, and interest, had blinded my eyes.”
“If something is accepted by everyone (custom), and everyone else is doing it (example), and it is to my benefit (interest), then we, too, are in danger of self-deception.”
Don’t be blinded by your desire for sugar. Let’s not wait for another Zong massacre before we finally open our eyes to the destruction porn’s market cultivates.
We learn many things from John Newton’s story, and the top of that list is God’s grace and forgiveness, but let’s not miss the conviction to treat humanity with dignity because porn and the industry it fills stands in direct opposition to that in every way.
Four Profound Truths
If you’re not sure what we should take away from this book, Hindmarsh and Borlase summarize the four profound truths we can learn from John Newton’s story:
- I can be forgiven. “Whatever shame or guilt you carry, however deep the regrets in your life, no matter what you have done, there is a mercy that is deeper yet.”
- I can be deceived. “If something is accepted by everyone (custom), and everyone else is doing it (example), and it is to my benefit (interest), then we, too, are in danger of self-deception.” “Majorities routinely oppress minorities and tell themselves convincing lies to justify this. Dehumanization is always a first step toward violence.”
- I can make amends. “even if it happens slowly and in stages… we must face up to the truth, repudiate what we once believed, and do what we can, however costly, to make amends.”
- I can be more like Jesus. “God’s grace changes us over our lifespan to make us more like Christ.”
Conclusion
I honestly thought I might be a bit bored by this book and had taken awhile to get to it on my list. Because I thought I knew what I was getting myself into.
I did not.
This is not a book that you say was ‘fun’ to read. But it was a powerful book, to be sure.
It enlightens you, educates you, and encourages you. It will make you feel sad and angry, but it’s a book of hope and forgiveness. It’s a book that reminds us that God is a God of both forgiveness and justice. In a world full of violence and oppression, we know that he sees and we know he will have final vindication.
It reminds us to reflect on our own sin. To confess where we’ve been blind. And to accept his forgiveness when we have repented. We are not disqualified from his grace. If God can save someone like John Newton, he can save us too.
We don’t have to have it altogether when we come to him. Newton didn’t. But God will continually refine us to look more like himself. His grace abounds!
“It is perhaps one of the most amazing things about God’s grace in the cross of Christ— that though the message of grace comes to us with impure hands, stained with violence, it yet offers hope and redemption to the wretched, and it plants the seeds of justice, reconciliation, and healing for all peoples in its universality and affirmation of the common humanity and dignity of every person.”
**Received an ARC via NetGalley**
[Content Advisory: descriptions of the slave trade and all the atrocities done in its name]
Content Warnings
Graphic: Slavery, Physical abuse, and Racism
Moderate: Violence
Minor: Rape
Reclaiming Masculinity: Eight Biblical Principles for Being the Man God Wants You to Be by Matt Fuller
challenging
hopeful
informative
slow-paced
5.0
I didn’t read this book to figure out how to be the man God wants me to be… because I’m a woman.
But I was curious how Fuller approached the term ‘masculinity’ in a time when it’s pretty much only used negatively.
I’m a woman, but I’m married to a man and I’m raising two sons. My husband is bombarded with the term ‘toxic masculinity’ and my sons will have to figure out their place in a world where they’re made to feel guilty just for being a male.
While this book is primarily written for males, I think women can benefit from reading this in three major ways: recognizing and encouraging biblical masculinity in our husbands, knowing what to look for in a potential husband if we are single, and knowing what to teach our sons if we are mothers.
Fuller acknowledges throughout the book the ways males have hurt others, often with their strength or dominance. But he offers this:
“I want to argue that there’s a difference between that definition of ‘traditional masculinity’ and what we could call ‘biblical masculinity.’”
The traits of ‘traditional masculinity’ the American Psychological Association have identified as often psychologically harmful are: “stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression.”
Fuller clarifies: “To say that some traits can be harmful if indulged excessively is not the same as saying that they always are.”
For example: “…we honor and give thanks for [soldiers’] stoicism and aggression during armed conflict… Competitiveness can be useful in driving innovation. If I’m in a building that’s on fire, I’d like the firefighter to assert some dominance and order me around.”
Certain traits are not inherently bad, but they can be used for good or for harm. So instead defining ‘traits’ of what a man should look like, Fuller provides principles in how men can be more godly men.
I like that Fuller points out how we’ve approached this topic in a negative way— stop doing this, stop acting like that— instead of offering young men a positive vision of what they should be striving for. Constant negativity demoralizes a person, but even in parenting you recognize the change in attitude and results if you shift from a negative ‘Stop hitting your sister’ to a positive ‘You need to have gentle and kind hands.’ It changes from ‘I’m bad’ to ‘I can be good.’
This book attempts to fill in that gap and provide men a positive and helpful framework for living in the world.
He quotes Jordan Peterson, one of the few who promote positive direction, who boils ‘being man’ into two directives: “taking responsibility and living for a purpose.”
These are good, but Fuller fleshes them out in this book and gives them legs, based on Scripture. We shouldn’t just be asking what kind of man or woman we should be, but asking what kind of man or woman God wants us to be. Because what the culture tells us and what God tells us, especially when it comes to identity, are two very different things.
In fact, the culture kinda just wants to throw out the term ‘male’ altogether. We get a hodge podge of contradicting ideas in which gender becomes a fantasy, men are oppressors, men should be more like women, women are better men than men, etc.
This book doesn’t tackle all of that and doesn’t get into the political weeds which I think was good for the purposes of this book. If you want to read more about some of the other tangents of this conversation, check out the list of related books at the end of this review.
To get right down to it these are his seven principles “that describe a biblical, healthy, confident, helpful masculinity”:
1. Men and women really are different (but don’t exaggerate it)
- He covers some controversial passages here (1 Cor 11; Eph 5) and reiterates that what is appropriate for dress and showing respect can differ according to culture and we can’t be too prescriptive here
- He brings in relevant studies that talk of the real biological differences in men and women, physically and neurologically, etc.
2. Take responsibility
- He looks at Adam’s role and responsibility in Eden showing men’s headship is grounded in creation and defined by Christ’s sacrificial love for the church (Eph 5)
- It’s important here to point out that Fuller rightly says that women are not called to submit to all men as many read out of that infamous passage. The biblical submission asked of women is in the context of her committed marriage to her husband with the expectation that the husband is loving her sacrificially not holding dominance over her.
3. Be ambitious for God
- This is the recognition of men’s bent towards achievement and recognizing what ambitions are selfish or not
- He talks about men’s relationship to work and encouraging men to be productive, not idle, with the emphasis on ‘productive’ not ‘paid’ work. There is always something to do that is productive, whether or not you’re getting paid for it. How you spend your time should signify serving in some capacity and with eternity in mind.
4. Use your strength to protect
- This (and the next one) may be one of the most contested ones in the list because of people’s very real experiences in which men were violent or manipulative.
- “Violence towards the wicked is required in order to provide protection to the innocent. So we shouldn’t be surprised that we see that same model in the Bible. God himself is described as a warrior who fights to protect his people.”
- Before your feathers are ruffled, he clarifies that the physical “protective, measured aggression” that Moses shows in Exodus when he comes down to the golden calf would not be condoned today but is the equivalent of church discipline— fiercely protecting the Word of God, God’s church, and God’s people. There is emphasis here on raising hands in prayer, not in violence, but still with a zeal to guard and protect what is good.
- He covers 1 and 2 Timothy 2 where the role of women in the church is discussed. (He holds a complementarian view if you’re wondering)
5. Display thoughtful chivalry
- He says, “Chivalry is using strength to serve.”
- He acknowledges that when women are antagonistic towards men opening doors or helping them, we shouldn’t be quick to judge because there’s usually an experience or a pain that may be behind that reaction. It doesn’t mean men stop helping women, and they can be gracious and unoffended when their help is rejected.
- There is brief talk of pornography here and how watching porn dehumanizes women.
- There is also a small section on how to treat women while dating and pursuing marriage.
6. Invest in friendships
- “Hardship + friendship = maturity
Hardship + loneliness= destructive sin”
- “when we talk about our triumphs it can create competition; when we talk about our failures it builds community.”
- We always need people around us who are willing to kindly rebuke us when we have strayed and men have a tendency not to keep close friends or talk of their failures, but this is essential for growth and becoming more Christlike.
7. Raise healthy ‘sons’ (sons is in quotes because, like Paul to Timothy, men can be father figures to young men or boys who are not their biological sons)
- “Part of training is discipline. Boys do need boundaries, and it’s kind to provide them. I’ve yet to see a tennis match where the players complain that someone has painted lines on the ground.”
- He reminds us that discipline should not be harsh, bullying, or belittling, but kind and wise.
- “Every Christian dad needs to model to their children that the Christian life is not one merely or primarily of moral conformity— it is a life of repentance and faith. It’s a life in which behavior flows out of knowing that God accepts us, not out of a desire to achieve acceptance.”
- We have to be ready to admit our own wrongdoings to our kids and ask for forgiveness.
“We can boil all of these down to something like this: Being a godly man means taking responsibility to lead, being ambitious for God’s kingdom, using your strength to protect the church and serve others, investing in friends, and raising godly ‘sons.’”
These points are simplified here. I don’t think you can just take this list and run with it without reading his explanations further. I know just the word chivalry probably conjures certain feelings for a lot of people. So this list is the bare bones and can easily be taken out of context and thrown out without giving Fuller a chance to show what he means.
In that regard, I think this would be a good book for a group of men to go through together. It’s short so it’s a pretty quick read and would foster some good conversations and areas where they can provide each other with accountability.
This book is not meant to be exhaustive or prescriptive. These are broad-stroke principles not daily routine schedules. I think there is always going to be a vagueness to ‘what should it look like to be a godly man or woman’ because we encounter so many diverse situations and challenges. It’s not a list of traits we can check off each day, but principles we can act towards based on a heart that is grounded in Christ’s love and sacrifice. There is room for differences here— every man is not going to look the same or like the same things, but ‘manhood’ is more defined by a right posture before God and towards others.
My husband didn’t read this book (at least at the time of writing this review) but I did discuss it with him to see what he thought about it. I asked what he would or would not want to read when he picked up a book with this title. He said he would be turned off if the author talked about masculinity being about ruggedness. (Fuller did not.) He said he would like to read about biblical masculinity being about men as bold leaders in ministry, in their homes, and in the world. About men being protectors and servants. (Fuller delivered.)
Obviously, my view of this book can only go so far. I’m not a man and I don’t fully understand the struggles that men face in being men. I don’t fully understand what they’re up against when they’re at the receiving end of ‘toxic masculinity’ rhetoric.
I do know that it’s a confusing time to be a man just as it is a confusing time to be a woman. It seems whatever we choose is wrong— according to the culture. But we can’t look to the ever-shifting definitions of the culture for this.
And that’s why Fuller’s book is important and helpful. He shows us the timeless truths of the Bible and the principles given on how we relate to one another and work out of God’s design for males and females.
As a woman reading this book, I feel like Fuller did a good job of defending women and validating a lot of the fears and anxieties women may have towards men that men don’t understand or think about. I appreciated the inclusion of the pornography discussion because that is too often overlooked or deemed irrelevant when that couldn’t be further from the truth.
I liked how he reiterated that getting married isn’t a qualifier for being a godly man. Paul and Jesus were both unmarried. But even unmarried, men will still interact with women and children and these principles can be applied in whatever situation we find ourselves in.
I also really appreciated his emphasis at the end of forgiveness and redemption. Some may read the book and think they’ve missed the boat on all of these principles, but it’s never too late and God’s mercy and forgiveness is abundant. None of us will perfectly carry out God’s design for us, but with the Spirit’s help, he will continually refine us until we are at home with Him.
I would definitely recommend this book for both men and women, but especially men, because ‘toxic’ is not the only way to describe masculinity, and God’s design and plan for men is important and essential. Women and children need men who desire to step into the role of sacrificial, servant leader who will protect and stand up for what is right and good with both zeal and compassion. I believe this book will set men on the right trajectory to that end.
Further Reading
The Problem of Porn by Vaughan Roberts (Fuller did not broach the topic of pornography in-depth but acknowledged its significance in the topic of masculinity. Culture’s view towards porn is troubling to say the least. This short book addresses it more directly)
Raising Confident Kids in a Confusing World by Ed Drew (this is a great resource for parents in how to talk to your kids about gender, friendships, sex, and marriage)
The War Against Boys by Christina Hoff Sommers (this is an informative secular book with some overlap in Fuller’s book talking about the differences between girls and boys and how ideas and policies meant to help girls are mostly just hurting boys)
Mama Bear Apologetics Guide to Sexuality: Empowering Your Kids to Understand and Live Out God’s Design
by Hillary Morgan Ferrer (this is a pretty comprehensive book about all things related to sexuality that is a really practical guide for parents in knowing how to talk to your kids about this stuff)
What God Has to Say about Our Bodies by Sam Allberry (this book talks about bodies and why they matter which is relevant to the gender discussion; there is also further discussion on gender roles in our culture and gender identity; would be especially helpful for men who feel like they don’t ‘fit’ in the box of ‘man’)
Men and Women in the Church by Kevin DeYoung (if you would like a short book that looks further into the controversial Bible passages about men and women’s roles in the church, this book is it. If you want a longer version, read Tim Keller’s Evangelical Feminism)
Eve in Exile and the Restoration of Femininity by Rebekah Merkle (if you would like to see a book on femininity in today’s culture, this may be a good option for you- if you’re looking for something blunt and straightforward.)
Gentle and Lowly by Dane Ortlund (for anyone who just feels like a failure and needs some hope and encouragement)
**Received a copy via The Good Book Company in exchange for an honest review**
But I was curious how Fuller approached the term ‘masculinity’ in a time when it’s pretty much only used negatively.
I’m a woman, but I’m married to a man and I’m raising two sons. My husband is bombarded with the term ‘toxic masculinity’ and my sons will have to figure out their place in a world where they’re made to feel guilty just for being a male.
While this book is primarily written for males, I think women can benefit from reading this in three major ways: recognizing and encouraging biblical masculinity in our husbands, knowing what to look for in a potential husband if we are single, and knowing what to teach our sons if we are mothers.
Fuller acknowledges throughout the book the ways males have hurt others, often with their strength or dominance. But he offers this:
“I want to argue that there’s a difference between that definition of ‘traditional masculinity’ and what we could call ‘biblical masculinity.’”
The traits of ‘traditional masculinity’ the American Psychological Association have identified as often psychologically harmful are: “stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression.”
Fuller clarifies: “To say that some traits can be harmful if indulged excessively is not the same as saying that they always are.”
For example: “…we honor and give thanks for [soldiers’] stoicism and aggression during armed conflict… Competitiveness can be useful in driving innovation. If I’m in a building that’s on fire, I’d like the firefighter to assert some dominance and order me around.”
Certain traits are not inherently bad, but they can be used for good or for harm. So instead defining ‘traits’ of what a man should look like, Fuller provides principles in how men can be more godly men.
I like that Fuller points out how we’ve approached this topic in a negative way— stop doing this, stop acting like that— instead of offering young men a positive vision of what they should be striving for. Constant negativity demoralizes a person, but even in parenting you recognize the change in attitude and results if you shift from a negative ‘Stop hitting your sister’ to a positive ‘You need to have gentle and kind hands.’ It changes from ‘I’m bad’ to ‘I can be good.’
This book attempts to fill in that gap and provide men a positive and helpful framework for living in the world.
He quotes Jordan Peterson, one of the few who promote positive direction, who boils ‘being man’ into two directives: “taking responsibility and living for a purpose.”
These are good, but Fuller fleshes them out in this book and gives them legs, based on Scripture. We shouldn’t just be asking what kind of man or woman we should be, but asking what kind of man or woman God wants us to be. Because what the culture tells us and what God tells us, especially when it comes to identity, are two very different things.
In fact, the culture kinda just wants to throw out the term ‘male’ altogether. We get a hodge podge of contradicting ideas in which gender becomes a fantasy, men are oppressors, men should be more like women, women are better men than men, etc.
This book doesn’t tackle all of that and doesn’t get into the political weeds which I think was good for the purposes of this book. If you want to read more about some of the other tangents of this conversation, check out the list of related books at the end of this review.
To get right down to it these are his seven principles “that describe a biblical, healthy, confident, helpful masculinity”:
1. Men and women really are different (but don’t exaggerate it)
- He covers some controversial passages here (1 Cor 11; Eph 5) and reiterates that what is appropriate for dress and showing respect can differ according to culture and we can’t be too prescriptive here
- He brings in relevant studies that talk of the real biological differences in men and women, physically and neurologically, etc.
2. Take responsibility
- He looks at Adam’s role and responsibility in Eden showing men’s headship is grounded in creation and defined by Christ’s sacrificial love for the church (Eph 5)
- It’s important here to point out that Fuller rightly says that women are not called to submit to all men as many read out of that infamous passage. The biblical submission asked of women is in the context of her committed marriage to her husband with the expectation that the husband is loving her sacrificially not holding dominance over her.
3. Be ambitious for God
- This is the recognition of men’s bent towards achievement and recognizing what ambitions are selfish or not
- He talks about men’s relationship to work and encouraging men to be productive, not idle, with the emphasis on ‘productive’ not ‘paid’ work. There is always something to do that is productive, whether or not you’re getting paid for it. How you spend your time should signify serving in some capacity and with eternity in mind.
4. Use your strength to protect
- This (and the next one) may be one of the most contested ones in the list because of people’s very real experiences in which men were violent or manipulative.
- “Violence towards the wicked is required in order to provide protection to the innocent. So we shouldn’t be surprised that we see that same model in the Bible. God himself is described as a warrior who fights to protect his people.”
- Before your feathers are ruffled, he clarifies that the physical “protective, measured aggression” that Moses shows in Exodus when he comes down to the golden calf would not be condoned today but is the equivalent of church discipline— fiercely protecting the Word of God, God’s church, and God’s people. There is emphasis here on raising hands in prayer, not in violence, but still with a zeal to guard and protect what is good.
- He covers 1 and 2 Timothy 2 where the role of women in the church is discussed. (He holds a complementarian view if you’re wondering)
5. Display thoughtful chivalry
- He says, “Chivalry is using strength to serve.”
- He acknowledges that when women are antagonistic towards men opening doors or helping them, we shouldn’t be quick to judge because there’s usually an experience or a pain that may be behind that reaction. It doesn’t mean men stop helping women, and they can be gracious and unoffended when their help is rejected.
- There is brief talk of pornography here and how watching porn dehumanizes women.
- There is also a small section on how to treat women while dating and pursuing marriage.
6. Invest in friendships
- “Hardship + friendship = maturity
Hardship + loneliness= destructive sin”
- “when we talk about our triumphs it can create competition; when we talk about our failures it builds community.”
- We always need people around us who are willing to kindly rebuke us when we have strayed and men have a tendency not to keep close friends or talk of their failures, but this is essential for growth and becoming more Christlike.
7. Raise healthy ‘sons’ (sons is in quotes because, like Paul to Timothy, men can be father figures to young men or boys who are not their biological sons)
- “Part of training is discipline. Boys do need boundaries, and it’s kind to provide them. I’ve yet to see a tennis match where the players complain that someone has painted lines on the ground.”
- He reminds us that discipline should not be harsh, bullying, or belittling, but kind and wise.
- “Every Christian dad needs to model to their children that the Christian life is not one merely or primarily of moral conformity— it is a life of repentance and faith. It’s a life in which behavior flows out of knowing that God accepts us, not out of a desire to achieve acceptance.”
- We have to be ready to admit our own wrongdoings to our kids and ask for forgiveness.
“We can boil all of these down to something like this: Being a godly man means taking responsibility to lead, being ambitious for God’s kingdom, using your strength to protect the church and serve others, investing in friends, and raising godly ‘sons.’”
These points are simplified here. I don’t think you can just take this list and run with it without reading his explanations further. I know just the word chivalry probably conjures certain feelings for a lot of people. So this list is the bare bones and can easily be taken out of context and thrown out without giving Fuller a chance to show what he means.
In that regard, I think this would be a good book for a group of men to go through together. It’s short so it’s a pretty quick read and would foster some good conversations and areas where they can provide each other with accountability.
This book is not meant to be exhaustive or prescriptive. These are broad-stroke principles not daily routine schedules. I think there is always going to be a vagueness to ‘what should it look like to be a godly man or woman’ because we encounter so many diverse situations and challenges. It’s not a list of traits we can check off each day, but principles we can act towards based on a heart that is grounded in Christ’s love and sacrifice. There is room for differences here— every man is not going to look the same or like the same things, but ‘manhood’ is more defined by a right posture before God and towards others.
My husband didn’t read this book (at least at the time of writing this review) but I did discuss it with him to see what he thought about it. I asked what he would or would not want to read when he picked up a book with this title. He said he would be turned off if the author talked about masculinity being about ruggedness. (Fuller did not.) He said he would like to read about biblical masculinity being about men as bold leaders in ministry, in their homes, and in the world. About men being protectors and servants. (Fuller delivered.)
Obviously, my view of this book can only go so far. I’m not a man and I don’t fully understand the struggles that men face in being men. I don’t fully understand what they’re up against when they’re at the receiving end of ‘toxic masculinity’ rhetoric.
I do know that it’s a confusing time to be a man just as it is a confusing time to be a woman. It seems whatever we choose is wrong— according to the culture. But we can’t look to the ever-shifting definitions of the culture for this.
And that’s why Fuller’s book is important and helpful. He shows us the timeless truths of the Bible and the principles given on how we relate to one another and work out of God’s design for males and females.
As a woman reading this book, I feel like Fuller did a good job of defending women and validating a lot of the fears and anxieties women may have towards men that men don’t understand or think about. I appreciated the inclusion of the pornography discussion because that is too often overlooked or deemed irrelevant when that couldn’t be further from the truth.
I liked how he reiterated that getting married isn’t a qualifier for being a godly man. Paul and Jesus were both unmarried. But even unmarried, men will still interact with women and children and these principles can be applied in whatever situation we find ourselves in.
I also really appreciated his emphasis at the end of forgiveness and redemption. Some may read the book and think they’ve missed the boat on all of these principles, but it’s never too late and God’s mercy and forgiveness is abundant. None of us will perfectly carry out God’s design for us, but with the Spirit’s help, he will continually refine us until we are at home with Him.
I would definitely recommend this book for both men and women, but especially men, because ‘toxic’ is not the only way to describe masculinity, and God’s design and plan for men is important and essential. Women and children need men who desire to step into the role of sacrificial, servant leader who will protect and stand up for what is right and good with both zeal and compassion. I believe this book will set men on the right trajectory to that end.
Further Reading
The Problem of Porn by Vaughan Roberts (Fuller did not broach the topic of pornography in-depth but acknowledged its significance in the topic of masculinity. Culture’s view towards porn is troubling to say the least. This short book addresses it more directly)
Raising Confident Kids in a Confusing World by Ed Drew (this is a great resource for parents in how to talk to your kids about gender, friendships, sex, and marriage)
The War Against Boys by Christina Hoff Sommers (this is an informative secular book with some overlap in Fuller’s book talking about the differences between girls and boys and how ideas and policies meant to help girls are mostly just hurting boys)
Mama Bear Apologetics Guide to Sexuality: Empowering Your Kids to Understand and Live Out God’s Design
by Hillary Morgan Ferrer (this is a pretty comprehensive book about all things related to sexuality that is a really practical guide for parents in knowing how to talk to your kids about this stuff)
What God Has to Say about Our Bodies by Sam Allberry (this book talks about bodies and why they matter which is relevant to the gender discussion; there is also further discussion on gender roles in our culture and gender identity; would be especially helpful for men who feel like they don’t ‘fit’ in the box of ‘man’)
Men and Women in the Church by Kevin DeYoung (if you would like a short book that looks further into the controversial Bible passages about men and women’s roles in the church, this book is it. If you want a longer version, read Tim Keller’s Evangelical Feminism)
Eve in Exile and the Restoration of Femininity by Rebekah Merkle (if you would like to see a book on femininity in today’s culture, this may be a good option for you- if you’re looking for something blunt and straightforward.)
Gentle and Lowly by Dane Ortlund (for anyone who just feels like a failure and needs some hope and encouragement)
**Received a copy via The Good Book Company in exchange for an honest review**