#15: The Physiognomy

Ford, Jeffrey: The Physiognomy. New York: Avon Books, 1997. Print. 218 pages.
-
SETTING: The Well-Built City, a world ruled by a merciless man, called The Master, who believes it is appropriate to exterminate people based on their physiognomies in order to create a utopia.  
-
SUMMARY: Physiognomist Cley uses his observations and measurements of people's physical features (i.e. eye color, width of the bridge of the nose, length of the great toe nail, whether or not a mole has a long strand of hair on it... I can keep going but for brevity's sake, I'll stop here.) to assess their characters and then use that information to kill or imprison the characteristically impure members of that world in order to stop them from marring it.
-
FAVORITE QUOTE: "'It doesn't matter what we were, Cley.  I was no innocent; none of us were.  We will head for paradise.  There is no room for hatred there.'" - Chapter 13, page 89.
-
Although I'm from Southern California, I have a love for the Bay Area that Los Angeles can never hope to compete with.  I had to visit San Francisco and Berkeley one last time before leaving for the East Coast, and during that week long trip I headed to Moe's Bookstore, one of Berkeley's biggest used book stores.  Not only is Moe's full of used books, but it has FOUR FLOORS of used books!  (For those who don't know or don't remember, I prefer used over new books because used books have so much more character and history.)  It's been a few months now since I bought this book at Moe's, but I somehow forgot about it.  Oops!  It was a completely random pick too, chosen because I liked the title.  And, hoooooooly crap!  This is by far the weirdest book I have ever read.  EVAR.
-
Things I liked about this book:

1. A whole lot goes on in a little more than 200 pages.  It's quite impressive.
2. It's so bizarre!!  The author definitely has some strange things going on upstairs, but it's undoubtedly brilliant.
3. The protagonist's arrogance is literally smacked out of him after about the first quarter of the book.  I wish this was a more common occurrence in reality... there are way too many arrogant people out there who are not nearly as awesome as they think they are.
4. The sulphur mine workers eventually turn into sulphur statues.  The explanation goes as follows: they spend so much of their lives exposed to the sulphur dust that it mixes with their biology, eventually taking over and solidifying the former mine worker into a statue.  Somewhat parallel to what mine workers, throughout history and in present time, experience(d), no?  They spend their adult lives working in the mines, only to die of some, usually respiratory-related, illness for which their exposures to dust and toxins in the mines were the direct cause.
5. The protagonist's arrogance leads him to botch a plastic surgery on the woman he is in love with. Her face is so damaged that anyone who looks at her is instantly killed.  Great example of how carelessness and arrogance can have serious consequences.  If you haven't picked up on it yet, I can't stand arrogant people!

Things I didn't like about this book and/or found strange:

1. Loads of violence and gruesome torture methods are used throughout the entire book.
2. The characters in this book use an opiate called "sheer beauty."  It is used intravenously, which led me to conclude that it is probably something along the lines of heroine.  What was really disconcerting was that the protagonist feels the need to use it while doing procedures because (a) he's addicted and (b) he thinks it enhances his performance as a physiognomist.  
3. The author could have done a lot more with this story.  It seemed like it was only half developed.  Perhaps he was going for that, but I would have enjoyed it more if it had a stronger story line.

-

Again, this was such a strange book!  There were some amusing parts that made me smirk, but it was otherwise just one weird occurrence after another.  I won't go so far as saying it was a waste of a read, because there is rarely such a thing (I can't say never because I have read some books that felt like a waste of time (case in point: the second and third Hunger Games)).  However, the history behind physiognomy and its use in the past to assess character is very interesting.  In all honesty, I think I had more fun researching the history of physiognomy than reading the book, but its the book that inspired me to conduct the research, so for that I'm grateful.
-
Recommend?  No.  But yes if really weird dystopias are your cup of tea.

#14: Dracula

Stoker, Bram: Dracula. New York: Barnes & Noble Books, 2003. E-book. 433 pages (actual text: 372 pages).
-
SETTING: late 19th-century London, England and Transylvania, Romania.
-
SUMMARY: In an attempt to increase the population in his vampire empire, Count Dracula takes measures to relocate from Transylvania to London, but is met with resistance by a group of four men and one woman.
-
I've avoided e-books since their first launch, but I received a tablet as a gift from the birthday/graduation/farewell party my parents threw me prior to my departure from Los Angeles.  Considering the long journey I had to DC (my sister and I took a 7-day road trip from LA to DC via New Orleans), I had to make use of it.  The tablet came with a few free classics already downloaded, Dracula included.  I think I may have started reading Dracula at some point in high school (or I might be confusing that with my attempt to start Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, which is also on my mental to-read list), and thought this would be a great opportunity to read it.  It's portable and easy to read in the car, and unless the tablet decides to crash (which it did twice), you're unlikely to lose your spot.
-
Things I liked about this book:

1. Mina Harker, the female protagonist.  Throughout the entire novel, the four male protagonists comment on how women are of a weaker disposition and therefore shouldn't do or be involved with [fill in the blank].  Mina disproves every assumption they make regarding women's abilities, and does so in a supremely intelligent and elegant fashion.  She always succeeds at everything she puts her mind to and is the strongest character in the novel.
2. The story is entirely related with a series of journal entries, letters, and newspaper clippings.  I've never read a book that presents its information solely using this format.  It was great!
3. Dr. Van Helsing is a physician, a lawyer, and awesomely brilliant.  He is my new fictional role model.
4. Get to re-learn all the myths surrounding vampires/vampirism.
5. It's an interesting story that somehow manages to keep you attentive to all the details.  

Things I didn't like about this book:

1. The second-class view the male protagonists have of women.  Thank goodness for Mina's character, otherwise I would have hated the book!
2. For the most part, Dr. Van Helsing spoke in impeccable English throughout the novel (German is his first language); however, there were random moments where he didn't use proper grammar, and I wasn't able to pick up on any pattern as to why the author did this.
3. Not quite something I didn't like, but I would have enjoyed it if the author provided an epilogue or something along those lines that expanded on the role and lives of vampires in his fictional world.  The story was about a contained, singular experience, and it would be interesting to read an extensive account of Dracula's world.

-
I've avoided e-books solely on principle because I like the idea of reading a physical book.  The smell, the texture of the pages, the overall ambiance that comes with an appropriately published and formatted book, etc. etc.  This is the first e-book I've read and it actually wasn't as horrible an experience as I expected.  It helped that I was reading an interesting novel, but the e-book experience can in no way replace the "traditional" book reading experience.  Since I received this tablet as a present, I'll continue to use it when it is convenient (i.e. during traveling), but I can now fairly say that I'll always prefer reading an actual book versus an electronic book.  Also, vampires are still as awesome in the 21st century as they were 2+ centuries ago.
-
Recommend?  Yes!  It was a fun read.

#13: All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten

Fulghum, Robert: All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten. New York: Random House, 1988. Print. 196 pages.
-
SUMMARY: A collection of random thoughts by the author with the premise that "most of what [he] really need[s] to know about how to live and what to do and how to be [he] learned in kindergarten."
-
FAVORITE QUOTE: "In fact, the only change [with Crayola crayons] has been to rename the 'flesh' color 'peach.'  That's a sign of progress." - page 48.  
-
This is another book that I've passed by frequently in my parents' home.  It's been lying in the same spot on the bookshelf in my childhood room for years, most likely left there after my sister read it years ago.  It seemed like an interesting read, but apparently not interesting enough until recently I guess.  It's kind of fun to think that all the major lessons in living were learned by the age of five...
-
Things I liked about this book:

1. It's a collection of the author's own records of his stream of thought at various times in life.  Any written record of conscious thought is amusing to read.  Just think about how amusing your own thoughts are, and then think about how much fun other people would have reading these thoughts.  I completed a similar task sometime in elementary school.  We were given 5 minutes to write and write and write every little thought that crossed our minds, and it was a fun and freeing exercise.  Even in adulthood, I find it beneficial to carry out this exercise when I have a cluttered mind, and I highly recommend you giving it a go.
2. The author writes extensively about really random, not often thought about topics, like jumper cables, butterflies, and mowing lawns v. leaving it au naturale.  
3. It's a quick, easy, leisurely read.

Things I didn't like about this book:

1. The book was separated into multiple sections, but I was unable to pick up on any pattern as to how the author decided on the partitions.  It was not organized enough for my liking.
2. It ends really abruptly, which is done on purpose by the author (he tells you he is going to end in this manner), but, as the reader, it left me feeling wholly unsatisfied, like I didn't get the main point behind why the author decided to write this book.

-

It's a short little read, and thus I will make this a short little review.  Read the book, take it for what it is, and enjoy it :)

-

Recommend?  If you have a free minute, then yes.  No rush to get to this one.

#12: The Tragedy of Richard III

Shakespeare, William: The Tragedy of Richard III. New York: Washington Square Press, 1960. Print. 148 pages.
-
SETTING: 15th century England.
-
SUMMARY: Chronicles the events that contributed to Richard III's coronation as King of England, and his subsequent death two years later.
-
FAVORITE QUOTE: "Murderer 2: The urging of the word 'judgement' hath bred a kind of remorse in me.
Murderer 1: What? Art thou afraid?
Mur 2: Not to kill him, having a warrant; but to be damned for killing him, from the which no warrant can defend me.
...
Mur 1: Remember our reward when the deed's done.
Mur 2: Come, he dies!  I had forgot the reward.
Mur 1: Where's thy conscience now?
Mur 2: O, in the Duke of Gloucester's purse." - Act 1, Scene IV, lines 111-116 and 127-131.
-
As you can see, June wasn't a particularly productive reading month; however, it was productive in many other ways.  For example, I spent loads of time with family and friends, and also developed an obsession with the TV show Futurama!  To get back into the groove of reading, I decided to pick up one of Shakespeare's plays.  I absolutely hated Shakespeare when I was younger, and actually wrote a short essay in my high school freshman English class about how much I "loathed him" (I actually did use the word loathe).  Now I understand that I was just too stupid to appreciate his brilliance.  Luckily, my brain has acquired some smarts since then, and I gave Shakespeare another try earlier this year.  Not so surprisingly, I found that I love his work now!  I usually split my reviews into a section about things I liked about the book, and things I didn't like.  Because I don't think I have an adequate knowledge of Shakespeare's time to assess logistical points of the play that I didn't like, I'm going to switch that out with a "characters I hated and things that really upset me in this play" section.
-
Things I liked about this play:

1. England!  Monarchy!  Kings, queens, dukes, duchesses, and all the fantastical, false images that surround such times and topics.
2. It's a play, and I really enjoy reading plays now.  Especially witty plays taking place in ye-olde-England (I stole this phrase from a friend).
3. The format of the play, which makes it easy to follow the characters and keep track of who is speaking when.
4. Gives an insight into just how horrible life really was back then.  Speaking for myself, I have this weird mish-mash in my head that jumbles the evils that I know existed during that time with the romantic notions that surrounds monarchies and royalty.  Throw in the skewed view I have of romance thanks to Jane Austen (whose stories take place in the 19th century, a whole other time period), and you end up with a horrible mess.  Plays like this one serve as a nice reminder of what reality was probably like in 15th century England.
5. The series of ghosts of the people Richard kills throughout the play that appear in one of his dreams.  They all tell him to "despair and die" right before the big battle at the end of the play.  Discouraging, no?  And rightly so!  He is an evil man.
6. The fact that Queen Elizabeth (Richard III's sister-in-law) doesn't give in to Richard's request that she woo her daughter (his niece) for him.  An uncle marrying his niece?  BARF.

Characters I hated and things that really upset me in this play:

1. Richard III.  He is pure evil.  Pure, pure evil!
2. Anne Neville.  She is pure stupid.  Richard III kills her husband, and somehow he managed to convince her to marry him.  Granted women had very little stability during that time and had to rely on men for their very livelihood, but I'm sure there were other options available apart from the man who murdered her husband!  And whom she claims to hate five minutes prior to accepting his proposal!  Fickle indeed.
3. Speaking of fickleness, the last thing I hated was the overall fickleness of nearly every character in this play.  Their loyalty changes sides every other moment, and they are the precise definition of the phrase, "every man for himself."

-

I spent the summer of 2011 in Mexico doing a research project, and supplemented much of my free time reading historical fiction novels about women who reigned in 15th/16th century England.  I was even more excited to read this play because I read The White Queen by Philippa Gregory during that summer; the novel is entirely about Queen Elizabeth (Richard III's sister-in-law).  It was interesting to now read a literary piece with Richard III as the main character and Queen Elizabeth as a supplemental character, because it added to my knowledge about the two historical figures.  Of course, I have to include the disclaimer that there is no way of knowing just how many of the facts that the fiction is based off of are truly facts.  But if we indulge ourselves and do believe all the facts are true, this play gave me a slightly better understanding of the history behind the House of York, House of Lancaster, the Plantagenets, etc.  Still, British royal history is really confusing, and I totally understand how people who are truly invested in the subject need to dedicate their lives to understanding just a small slice of that world.

-

Recommend?  Yes!