Monday, January 28, 2013
I'm going to talk about how great the story was or about the character developement or any of that normal review stuff. What struck me about these books was the way the story was told. In the first book, you have a fairly benign story about a journalist who is hired to solve a 40 year old mystery. The title character in the books is pretty much a secondary character. Very little is told about her. It describes how she is in a strange position, being an adult but still under state supervision, and she is a very unusual person. She becomes the assistant of the journalist and together they solve the mystery. So, you would expect at this point, that this is a character that will have a series of stories like this. Sort of a Sam Spade type. Every book a new case. In all this, because of the way the first book ends, you get the impression that the journalist character might not even be in the other books. The last two books are actually a single story and it is all about this girl. Her past, and how that past has come full force back into her life and what she does to deal with it. There are three murders and the evidence points to the girl. Two of the vicims are writers working with the journalist from the first book. So he is involved, and the whole thing becomes him trying to find the truth as the events unfold. The story is spread out into the two final books f the trilogy. The reason I am so entranced by these books is theway the second one was written. It starts with the girl, and she hs a couple of events happen, none of which is too extreme except for the hurricane and the dead tourist, but she returns home and does a few things to organize her life situation. Then, the reader reads that she goes and meets with the victims. the next thing that happens is the two are dead and it looks like the girl was responsible. The weirdness is that for the next half a book, you don't hear a thing from or about the girl as the journalist begins to figure things out. Eventually, there are a couple of cryptic mesages to the journalist from the girl and it is far into the book before the writer starts telling her story and what she has been doing and what she does next, all the time the journalist is doing what he can. At the end of the book, the journalist finds the girl near death. The second unusual structure in the book is that, except for a couple of written messages between the two, a chance meeting where they see each other before the girl runs off while the journalist gets pounded, and the meeting literally in the last two pages, the two main characters have absolutly no interaction. Continuing the unusual nature of the story, in the third book, the girl spends most of it in some sort of custody or hospital, and though the two communicate, this main character spends most of the book in bed. All gets settled and the girl gets free in time to have an important encounter or two and then, at the end of the book, finally meets up with the journalist. that's it. three books with two main characters who establish a relationship in the first book, and then rarely interact for two more books. And the title character is absent for most of the second book, and in a hospital bed or jail for most of the third. I just thought this was a really unique way to tell a story.
Monday, January 7, 2013
Sunday, January 6, 2013
The controversy continues about the need for gun control. The people who commit atrocities in this country with guns or any other means, don't ever do it because the laws made it legal to commit it. Criminals commit crime and outlawing guns or anything, will not stop them from doing it. Let's face it, the large majority of these atrocities happen in gun free zones. Criminals break the laws and violate these spaces and the honest law-abiding citizens are nothing more than target. Chicago logged, as one of the two most restricted communities in the nation, their 500th homicide before the end of 2012. We can debate this all year, but the bottom line as far as the government using incidents such as what happened in Newtown, for imposing more gun controls on the honest citizens. This is all a goverment plan to remove firearms from the hands of the population. I'm not saying anyone in the goverment are planning on taking military control of the nation, but the 2nd amendment is there to insure it doesn't. Just because the current administraton isn't planning on imposing martial control over the country doesn't mean it won't happen if the populace has no way to protect itself from it. separate but related issue: On the TV just now was a discussion about gun control. It was mentioned about the newspaper that released a list of people who owned guns in NewYork. During the debate, A knucklehead kept saying it was all okay, because of the Freedom of information act. Now, I could be wrong, but the act is all about Goverment information, not private citizen's personal private information.
It bothers me, that when I watch TV or listen to the radio, people on the right are always pointing out how stupid the things the left says and does sound and are. What I've been doing is to go back and read history. read political theory and listen to lots more than I used to. What I have found is that there are two distinct ideologies at play in this country. Very few of the people in the media and apparently, even in Washington seem to realize this. The battle always goes to the most committed. I'm tired of "us" not understanding the real objectives and just laughing at the left because their explanations and reasons don't seem to make sense. When the progressive movement started, it didn't really have a home in American politics. Teddy Roodevelt found his seat in the Republican party, but never truly embraced the ideas of that party. This was continued with Woodrow Wilson, then Franklin Roosevelt, andit continues getting heavier and frequenter. In the late 60s, the young radical progressives attacked the Democrat party through a siege on the Convention in 1968 and slowly wormed their way in. This was done, because while sane Americans feared (rightly) the frothing at the mouth radicals like the Weather Underground, Saul Alinsky was teaching these same people how to infiltrate and adapt their behavior to become acceptable. So who are these people and what do they believe? Are they truly a threat to the American way of life? Without going into the entire history of the movement, I can define them this way. The progressives believe, that in the evolution of society, we have progressed beyond the ideas of free market capitalism. Franly, they say, leaving American businessmen to their personal freedom, they will walk over the lesser people in society. They believe society needs to be engineered by government. Rather than embracing the Constitution and it's principles of self-responsibility and limited government, they feel the Constitution holds Government back from delivering the utopian world we deserve. Apparently, we as a people have evolved to a point where the intellegent among us will be able to deliver a perfectly equalitarian society if the Constitutionalists would just get out of the way with their outmoded ideas. Bottom line here, is the debate between the believers in the Constitution and the Progressives. The terrible thing here is no one is attending the debate and worse, no one is on stage conducting it. No matter how you feel about either side, the two are incompatible with each other, and to quote Abraham Lincoln "A house devided against itself can not stand!" We need to talk about this, we need to learn what the two sides believe, and we as a nation needs to make an informed, conscious, decision between the two and move forward.