Mistress of the Art of Death #2: The Serpent's Tale by Ariana Franklin

Read: 7 July, 2009

In Serpent's Tale, we find that Henry II's mistress has died. Naturally Adelia, who now has a baby in tow, is called to solve the mystery.

In many ways, Serpent's Tale is an improvement over Mistress of the Art of Death. The plot is more of a mystery in the detective sense and Adelia does, actually, solve it and finger the culprit. There is also considerably less Mary Suism. The addition of the baby raises the stakes for Adelia, making the novel more suspenseful.

In addition, Serpent's Tale kept many of the good bits of its predecessor. There is still the interesting view of Henry II and the low key but definitely present feminism. Overall, this novel is a very interesting read.

Mistress of the Art of Death #1: Mistress of the Art of Death by Ariana Franklin

Read: 12 June, 2009

Something evil has taken hold of Cambridge. A child's body has been found mutilated, and now more children have gone missing. When the town finds an easy scapegoat in the local Jewish population, someone sends for a Master of the Art of Death, a sort of Medieval forensic examiner. What they end up getting is Dr. Vesuvia Adelia Rachel Ortese Aguilar of Salerno, a Mistress of the Art of Death.

Adelia's character borders on the Mary Sue from time to time and a far too great amount of ink is spilled on her various traits. She is, of course, not classically beautiful, but even this has become a standard Mary Sue designation. On the other hand, the story is interesting - so interesting that I nearly forgot how one-dimensional our main character is.

This is not a mystery in the Holmesian sense. We are not presented with all the facts while the detective works it out and then fingers the culprit. Rather, it follows the more standard line of suspense novels that merely construct themselves around a mystery - a mystery that solves itself when the culprit reveals himself to the detective. And so Adelia discovers where the culprit can be found and so he reveals himself. In my own clearly constructed vision of what a mystery should be, I see this as a failure. However, it does appear to be fairly standard in the genre and, at least, Adelia does use her skills as an examiner to some extent when figuring out where do find the baddy.

One thing I found quite interesting is the view of religion in the novel. Adelia is an Atheist. But somehow, Franklin manages not to make this seem anachronistic. Adelia is an 'Old Atheist' - she's polite about it and she is, still, half-immersed in the religious worldview. Even so, here is a novel that presents Atheism explicitly and in a positive light, without attacking religion or religious authority (a prominent religious figure is Adelia's good friend and supporter), and without making a big deal of it. It was refreshing to read!

Another aspect that I found very interesting is the resolution of the romantic sub-plot. Adelia does not simply marry her beau, sublimating herself and her career. Rather, she simply decides to indulge in her love and her sexual desires in a way that allows her to preserve her independence. Again, it was refreshing to read, as it isn't often that women are allowed a happy ending that is not marriage and loss of self.

Overall, Mistress of the Art of Death is an interesting and fast-paced read. While characterization may not be Franklin's strength, she does manage to distract the reader with and interesting setting, a suspenseful plot, and lots (and lots and lots) of ichy gore.

Autism's False Prophets by Paul Offit

Read: 29 May, 2009

Autism's False Prophets is a biography of a controversy. Offit traces the life of the autism-vaccine myth from the first studies conducted by Andrew Wakefield to the latest 'Mommy Warriors' crusade of Jenny McCarthy. Despite his obvious dislike for those who promote this 'manufactroversy' and fear for the children who are affected, Offit adopts a matter-of-fact tone. He covers the facts and dates of the various steps in the story with little subjective injection.

Offit clarifies many of the myths and misinformations surrounding the autism-vaccine scare. His writing style is accessible and interesting. And despite a very weak final line, I could not recommend this book any more highly for all parents and parents-to-be who have heard of the autism-vaccine link and are concerned (or who simply want to make a more informed choice).

Your Money or Your Life by Joe Dominguez & Vicki Robin

Read: 2 September, 2009

Your Money or Your Life is one part financial advice, two parts general life advice. The nine steps of the "program" are designed to help the reader think about their values and align their life so that there is as little that contradicts those values as possible. That these steps also help the reader get their finances in order, cut down on living expenses, and, eventually, become financially independent is almost incidental.

In following the steps and, according to the authors, learning to live (to truly enjoy being alive and filling the day with meaning as opposed to obsessing over how to get money, how to spend money, and how to pay the bills), the reader may also have more money available. Rather than 'your money or your life,' the end lesson of the book is 'your life and the money that facilitates its living.'

Whatever small flaws this book may have (the assumption that the reader is religions and American, some repetitive passages, the occasional Nervous Nelly advice), it more than makes up for by being among the first logically sound, no-nonsense, 'this won't be easy and the onus is on you to make it work' self-help book I've ever read.

While my family benefited little from the financial advice (nearly all the tips are things that we already do), I found the general life advice to be very thought-provoking. My husband and I have been inspired to re-evaluate our values and goals. In other words, there is something in this for everyone - even those who are not in debt and relatively financially secure. It would not be an overstatement for me to say that everyone, regardless of age and financial situation, should read this book at least once and, preferably, going through the first four steps.

Rich Dad, Poor Dad by Robert Kiyosaki

Read: 26 August, 2009

Given all the positive reviews that Rich Dad, Poor Dad has received, I had high hopes. Unfortunately, this was a fairly large disappointment.

Rich Dad is incredible repetitive - not only in terms of content, but also in the actual words used. For example, compare this passage on page 59: "In fact, if you really want to be confused, look up the words "asset" and "liability" in the dictionary. I know the definition may sound good to a trained accountant, but for the average person it makes no sense." to this passage on page 61: "If you want a lesson in confusion, simply look up the words "asset" and "liability" in the dictionary. Now it may make sense to trained accountants, but to the average person, it may as well be written in Mandarin." For all Kiyosaki's talk of spending big bucks to hire smart professionals, he doesn't seem to have felt that this applies to editors as well.

The book itself is short, but should have been much shorted. The first half is devoted to a sermon about how poor dads tell their kids to do well in school so that they can get a good job while rich dads tell their kids to learn to make money work for them instead of working for money. That's it, the first half. Once the actual meat of the book starts, at least the content is somewhat interesting (thought the writing style is as awkward and repetitive as ever). I hesitate to assume devious motives, but I wonder if the lack of content was a deliberate move to allow Kiyosaki to write several books instead of only getting royalties for one.

That a self-help book is lacking in content and practical ideas comes as no surprise. However, Rich Dad also failed to be inspiring. I don't think that this book would be a worthwhile read for anyone, especially since all the advice he gives is available in better-written form for free on the internet.

Quiverfull by Kathryn Joyce

Read: 10 August, 2009

Joyce examines not so much the Quiverfull movement as she does the Christian Patriarchy movement - Quiverfull, of course, being one component of it. The Patriarchy movement centres around the belief that feminism has caused a number of social ills that can be remedied only by having women leave the workforce and return home to be submissive wives and mothers. Quiverfull is the added belief that all attempts to limit the number of children a family has is an insult to God (the most famous practitioners being the Duggar family with their eighteen - and counting - children).

Joyce's analysis is mostly uncritical, her own feelings only rarely show through and, then, introduced explicitly as her own views. Her style is to simply narrate with few adjectives the views of her subjects and allowing them to speak for themselves.

Despite her fairness, Joyce's writing style leaves something to be desired. Her sentences are so long and cover so many different ideas at once that I frequently found myself having to go back and read again. This interrupted the flow of my reading and, therefore, diminished the power of Joyce's writing. The organization of the book seems to be haphazard with ideas coming at the reader from every direction. If any transitions are present, they are surely feeling very lonely.

Stylistic elements aside, this was a fabulous book filled with information on a movement that has, for the most part, remained outside the mainstream West's awareness. I highly recommend it for all readers interested in religion and what is happening under the surface in Christian extremism.

No god but God by Reza Aslan

This is quite a long review. If you want just the final verdict, it is this: An interesting book with some good qualities overshadowed by a persistent lack of authorial honesty.

Read: 31 July, 2009

I don't want this review to be about whether or not I agree with Aslan. For one thing, I simply do not know enough about the subject to do this well. Secondly, whether a book is good or not does not depend on whether the reader agrees with its conclusions; my own feelings on the matter are therefore irrelevant. Having resolved myself in this way, I will be restricting this review to an internal critique only.

Overall, Aslan didn't fare too poorly. His tone is largely reasonable throughout and, if read without close attention to detail, I could see this being a fairly persuasive book.

However, the details are important and, as we shall see, they are where Aslan keeps his devils. I was dismayed to see the number of rhetorical fallacies used throughout the book. Giving the benefit of doubt, I choose to assume that many simply result in Aslan's inability to reconcile his beliefs with some of the evidence he has found. He has likely tricked himself into blindness with regards to the evidence's significance (something that those of us without a vested interest in the topic are not so much in danger of).

This manifests itself most when he attempts to justify the actions of Muhammad. Perhaps the most grievous illustration comes in Aslan's discussion of Muhammad raiding caravans: "In pre-Islamic Arabia, caravan raiding was a legitimate means for small clans to benefit from the wealth of larger ones. It was in no way considered stealing..." This is followed, one paragraph later, with: Muhammad's followers "effectively disrupted the trade flowing in and out of Mecca. It wasn't long before caravans entering the sacred city began complaining to the Quraysh that they no longer felt safe travelling through the region" (p. 82-3).

A few pages later, we read that Islam teaches peace and that only defensive fighting is permissible. Aslan then goes on to say that: "It is true that some verses in the Quran instruct Muhammad and his followers to 'slay the polytheists wherever you confront them' (9:5); to 'carry the struggle to the hypocrites who deny the faith' (9:73); and, especially, to 'fight those who do not believe in God and the Last Day' (9:29). However, it must be understood that these verses were directed specifically at the Quraysh and their clandestine partisans in Yathrib" (p. 84). These "clandestine partisans" being the people that Muhammad suspected "at once" of treachery, though there were "many possibilities" (p. 89). In other words, Islam is a religion of peace, unless you suspect someone on circumstantial evidence of being in cohoots with guys its okay to attack because Muhammad just really doesn't like them. That Aslan, a seemingly intelligent and thoughtful individual, should fail to see the obvious issues in his arguments is astounding.

Aslan expends much ink talking about how Islam never forces conversion or treats non-Muslims unfairly, and yet an equal amount of ink appears to contradict this. Whether he talks about all the groups who rebel and refuse to pay the religious tax as soon as Muhammad dies (p. 110), or the public conversion of Muhammad's old enemy, Hind, who "remained proudly defiant, barely masking her disgust with Muhammad and his 'provincial' faith" (p. 106). He even mentions the "protection tax," or jizyah, forced onto all non-Muslims living in Muslim-controlled areas as though this were a perfectly acceptable way to treat human beings (p. 94).

So far, I have listed only examples that could legitimately stem from the author's lack of thoughtful consideration. I expect better, but at least it is a forgiveable offence. If this were the end of it, No god but God might still have received a positive review from me. Unfortunately, some of Aslan's word choices seem to indicate a more deliberate intent.

Sometimes, it is a problem of omission: "[F]rom the earliest days of the Islamic expansion to the bloody wars and inquisition of the Crusades to the tragic consequences of colonialism..." (p. xvi). Things the Christian West has done are "bloody" and "tragic" while things the Muslim East has done receive no adjectives at all? As is common in discussions of the tension between the East and West, there is no mention of the Battle of Tours. I have yet to figure out if this is simply obscure history that no scholar of Christian/Muslim issues has ever heard about, or if there is something more sinister in it's lack of mention.

Sometimes Aslan chooses positive words to describe acts that clearly couldn't have been all that positive. For example, he writes that Jews were expelled "peacefully" from a Muslim community, and then that: "only slightly more than one percent of Medina's Jewish population" were killed during this expulsion. Perhaps our definitions of "peaceful" differ.

And there there are his translations. Having no Arabic of my own, it is difficult for me to comment in any depth, but when I read a translation of a seventh century text that uses words like "atom" (p. 213), my anachronism flag is raised. If Aslan can so deliberately falsify his source text to add to its legitimacy, what other dishonesty might he have committed? His entire interpretation of the situation in Islam, both past and present, is called in question.

One of the grossest and most reprehensible examples appears in his (brief) discussion of the veil. As the only voice for the idea that the veil is a sexist tradition, Aslan refers to Alfred, Lord Cromer. Rather than dismissing his arguments (which is given so little page room that I can only assume they are inadequately presented), he writes: "Never mind that Cromer was the founder of the Men's League for Opposing Women's Suffrage in England" (p. 73). As though this one man and his personal character embodied the whole of the argument against the veil. As though discrediting a century old British lord was a legitimate way to respond to an argument that has so many promoters - many of whom are female, many Muslim, and many both. This is such a dishonest tactic that it even has its own name - the ad hominem fallacy.

I could go on. I filled many pages of notes during my reading, but this was never intended to be a page-by-page commentary.

This is an interesting book of apologetics from a more 'moderate' Muslim and it brings up qutie a few interesting ideas and arguments. The problem, however, is Aslan's inability to rationally consider and counter any opinions that he does not share. Reading this, I got the distinct impression that anyone who disagrees with him is quickly labelled as a Sunni tyrant/terrorist or a Western neo-colonialist. Aslan shows himself in numerous examples to be dishonest and, to make the identification of his lies and half-truths all the more difficult for the reader, he hides them behind a perfectly reasonable writing style.

I would recommend this book to anyone interested in Islam, or to Muslims wanting to learn about different perspectives. However, reader beware: read with several grains of salt handy.