Take a photo of a barcode or cover
aeudaimonia's reviews
83 reviews
Till We Have Faces: A Myth Retold by C.S. Lewis
dark
emotional
hopeful
reflective
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
5.0
Deaf Republic by Ilya Kaminsky
challenging
dark
emotional
sad
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
5.0
Content Warnings
Moderate: Child death, Sexual content, Sexual violence, Violence, Police brutality
The Irresistible Revolution: Living as an Ordinary Radical by Shane Claiborne
adventurous
hopeful
inspiring
fast-paced
4.5
Fantastic for everyone who believes, or wants to believe, that there is and can be more to Christianity than the mainstream American evangelism in which we're immersed. His is a perspective, not a Gospel command--but it is a compelling perspective and at the very least offers hope for the Church that another Christianity is possible. Claiborne's authorial voice was hard for me to get used to--much more casual than the books I usually read and heavily reliant on the experiential. In the first chapter or so, I was a little turned off by that combination and highly suspicious of his authenticity and humility. By the midpoint, however, it reads more like an unapologetic vulnerability I'm inclined to trust, since, about 15 years later, he still is who he says he is (by all accounts).
Perusing some of the other reviews, two critiques in particular stood out to me. Firstly, that Claiborne is a bad writer. I won't deny that the writing of the Irresistible Revolution is unrefined, somewhat repetitive, and so casual as to seem irresponsible. But I think it's valid, too, that Claiborne is not a writer by trade; in writing this book, he was never trying to produce a literary masterpiece. In that sense, I think he executed relatively well what he actually set out to do. Nitpicking his style feels like a deliberately obtuse distraction from the heart of the book.
Secondly, some people seem to be accusing him of cherry picking Scripture. No shade to these people individually, but this is a ridiculous take. There are only so many verses you can "cherry pick" from the Bible before it ceases to be cherry picking and instead becomes what the Bible is literally saying. Idk.
My only real criticism is the lack of nuance. I can't be too mad; this book was written in 2005 and the kind of nuance I thirst after wasn't nearly as mainstream as it is now, 17 years later. Intersectionality is a big issue for me. "We can change the world"--yes! But the world hasn't given us all the same opportunities. Claiborne is a straight, cisgender, white, Christian man. No, he is not toxic, and yes, he's a different kind of Christian man, but the fact remains that he is at the top of the societal food chain. Talking about how many times you've been arrested because of your demonstrations and released because of your God falls flat with me. Yes and amen, hallelujah that God didn't put you in prison and keep you there--but let's not pretend that your whiteness doesn't protect you from the worst of police brutality and our biased judicial system. This lifestyle is substantially safer for Claiborne to practice than it is for women, BIPOC, and queer people. While Christians have never been called to a life of safety, I think it's an issue worth discussing.
The lack of nuance for which I can be more critical is his use of historical figures--particularly Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Martin Luther King, Jr. Regarding the latter, Claiborne at the very least doesn't make the very white mistake of taking him out of context and using his philosophy of nonviolence to maintain the status quo. But he cites both of them pretty often and, I think, neglects a certain complexity of their characters. (To be clear, though, I don't think every source you cite has to harmonize with your work 100%). So much of this book is about the lie of redemptive violence and the truth of redemptive peacemaking. Maybe this is just a personal hot take but I feel like you can't talk about how un-Christian redemptive violence is and then quote Bonhoeffer's (based) theology takes without addressing the fact that he may or may not have been affiliated with the 20 July Plot. These figures are complex and I love them for their complexity, and sometimes I felt like their complexity was compromised to keep the book from being 500 pages (not everyone's cup of tea, I know).
My criticisms constitute most of this book review, but this was still a 4.5 star read! On the whole I thought it was great! Keep living the revolution! And don't let my aimless rambling distract from the fact that I loved, loved, loved this book.
Perusing some of the other reviews, two critiques in particular stood out to me. Firstly, that Claiborne is a bad writer. I won't deny that the writing of the Irresistible Revolution is unrefined, somewhat repetitive, and so casual as to seem irresponsible. But I think it's valid, too, that Claiborne is not a writer by trade; in writing this book, he was never trying to produce a literary masterpiece. In that sense, I think he executed relatively well what he actually set out to do. Nitpicking his style feels like a deliberately obtuse distraction from the heart of the book.
Secondly, some people seem to be accusing him of cherry picking Scripture. No shade to these people individually, but this is a ridiculous take. There are only so many verses you can "cherry pick" from the Bible before it ceases to be cherry picking and instead becomes what the Bible is literally saying. Idk.
My only real criticism is the lack of nuance. I can't be too mad; this book was written in 2005 and the kind of nuance I thirst after wasn't nearly as mainstream as it is now, 17 years later. Intersectionality is a big issue for me. "We can change the world"--yes! But the world hasn't given us all the same opportunities. Claiborne is a straight, cisgender, white, Christian man. No, he is not toxic, and yes, he's a different kind of Christian man, but the fact remains that he is at the top of the societal food chain. Talking about how many times you've been arrested because of your demonstrations and released because of your God falls flat with me. Yes and amen, hallelujah that God didn't put you in prison and keep you there--but let's not pretend that your whiteness doesn't protect you from the worst of police brutality and our biased judicial system. This lifestyle is substantially safer for Claiborne to practice than it is for women, BIPOC, and queer people. While Christians have never been called to a life of safety, I think it's an issue worth discussing.
The lack of nuance for which I can be more critical is his use of historical figures--particularly Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Martin Luther King, Jr. Regarding the latter, Claiborne at the very least doesn't make the very white mistake of taking him out of context and using his philosophy of nonviolence to maintain the status quo. But he cites both of them pretty often and, I think, neglects a certain complexity of their characters. (To be clear, though, I don't think every source you cite has to harmonize with your work 100%). So much of this book is about the lie of redemptive violence and the truth of redemptive peacemaking. Maybe this is just a personal hot take but I feel like you can't talk about how un-Christian redemptive violence is and then quote Bonhoeffer's (based) theology takes without addressing the fact that he may or may not have been affiliated with the 20 July Plot. These figures are complex and I love them for their complexity, and sometimes I felt like their complexity was compromised to keep the book from being 500 pages (not everyone's cup of tea, I know).
My criticisms constitute most of this book review, but this was still a 4.5 star read! On the whole I thought it was great! Keep living the revolution! And don't let my aimless rambling distract from the fact that I loved, loved, loved this book.
Wuthering Heights by Emily Brontë
challenging
dark
tense
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.75
A work of absolute genius made a chore to read by some of the most unlikeable characters in literary history
Collected Fictions by Jorge Luis Borges
challenging
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? N/A
- Strong character development? N/A
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? N/A
4.0
Several weeks after I finished the book, this review won't be as detailed and nuanced as I'd like. For what it's worth, I did enjoy it. I usually rate anthologies 4 stars to cover the mostly good and the some bad; some of Borges's stories felt neither good nor bad, but intellectually inaccessible to me. I've never read an author who could write cogently about so many cultures and subjects, so widely fluent in history and philosophy. I'm sure that I'll understand some of these stories better if I return to them later, after further study beyond Borges's pages: the occasional inaccessibility seems to be to his credit. This book also represented my first foray into Borges's corpus and Argentine literature at large; I have much to learn yet.
In my opinion, Borges at his best is Borges on Argentina (and neighboring Uruguay). From "Man on Pink Corner" and "Funes, His Memory" to creative takes on Martín Fierro and gaucho literature, it was nothing less than a joy to discover the region and its history so intimately, through the eyes of one of its most learned men. While his stories about Europe, Asia, and the Middle East were by no means less skillfully written, they inevitably felt rather less authentic.
On that last point, I found myself considering more than ever whether some of these stories were Borges's to write. Specifically, his work features a plethora of Jewish characters--along with a subtle yet pervasive antisemitism. One story in particular, "Deutsches Requiem," I found irredeemably egregious:an investigation into a Nazi's soul, a subdirector of the Tarnowitz concentration camp, portraying him more like an anti-hero than anything else. Importantly, I am not Jewish, and all this should be taken with a grain of salt. Nevertheless, with Nazism on the rise globally, I can't help but think that stories like this cede too much ground. Sure, Borges doesn't suggest that this Nazi is actually a good man--if anything, he's more symbolic of the rule of violence endemic to the 20th century and beyond. But simply by drafting this character study at all, by making a symbol and an intellectual quandry of a fictional man who belonged to a very nonfictional party, who tortured and murdered very nonfictional people, innocent people--in my opinion, Borges goes too far here. Particularly since he himself was not Jewish, and since his Jewish characters by no means subvert antisemitic tropes and the same rhetoric that helped to fuel the Holocaust. In short, I think a discussion about who gets to write whose stories is very relevant.
Overall, however, I liked the collection and liked it more once I got used to his style. Towards the end of the book (corresponding to the end of his life) I thought the stories were almost too philosophical: almost every paragraph contained some "deep thoughts" and felt like Borges, now an elderly man, was just telling us what he had learned and what the world is like. This isn't a flaw per se, but generally I preferred his earlier writing--a little more intimate and a little less moralizing. Consequently I'm not sure about the last couple books, but the first few I'd love to return to eventually, whenever I have time and whenever I have the intellectual capacity.
In my opinion, Borges at his best is Borges on Argentina (and neighboring Uruguay). From "Man on Pink Corner" and "Funes, His Memory" to creative takes on Martín Fierro and gaucho literature, it was nothing less than a joy to discover the region and its history so intimately, through the eyes of one of its most learned men. While his stories about Europe, Asia, and the Middle East were by no means less skillfully written, they inevitably felt rather less authentic.
On that last point, I found myself considering more than ever whether some of these stories were Borges's to write. Specifically, his work features a plethora of Jewish characters--along with a subtle yet pervasive antisemitism. One story in particular, "Deutsches Requiem," I found irredeemably egregious:
Overall, however, I liked the collection and liked it more once I got used to his style. Towards the end of the book (corresponding to the end of his life) I thought the stories were almost too philosophical: almost every paragraph contained some "deep thoughts" and felt like Borges, now an elderly man, was just telling us what he had learned and what the world is like. This isn't a flaw per se, but generally I preferred his earlier writing--a little more intimate and a little less moralizing. Consequently I'm not sure about the last couple books, but the first few I'd love to return to eventually, whenever I have time and whenever I have the intellectual capacity.
Liturgy of the Ordinary: Sacred Practices in Everyday Life by Tish Harrison Warren
funny
hopeful
lighthearted
relaxing
fast-paced
4.0
Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy
challenging
dark
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.5
The Eclogues by Virgil
lighthearted
reflective
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
3.75
I don't want the 3.75 rating to convey a sense of disappointment, or - worse - to denigrate Virgil's obvious poetic skill. I only mean that (unless you're a classics major or otherwise passionate for bucolic poetry) this is not a pleasure read for a 21st-century English-speaking audience. Virgil's skill, I think, is not in content but in construction; the beauty is in the language itself and how he molds it to fit Latin dactylic hexameter. The Eclogues are beautiful, but translating them diminishes their beauty almost beyond reach for a casual reader.
(NB: Guy Lee's translation itself was lovely and, in my opinion, accessible. I loved his decision to render the dactylic hexameter into the English Alexandrine; it preserved the work's poetic cohesion and replicated as much as possible the original's cadence.)
The other issue for the casual reader is the pervasive repetition. As a Gen-Z American I feel hopelessly far removed from the world Virgil describes and celebrates. Occasionally a topic struck a chord (the then hot-button issue of land confiscation, for example) but, generally, the content felt so alien as to obscure or distract from the enduring human truths to be found in all literature.
If I ever have time to brush up on my Latin, I hope to reread The Eclogues entirely in their native language. No doubt my esteem (and star rating) will be all the greater. But, for now, and in English, a 3.75 will have to suffice.
(NB: Guy Lee's translation itself was lovely and, in my opinion, accessible. I loved his decision to render the dactylic hexameter into the English Alexandrine; it preserved the work's poetic cohesion and replicated as much as possible the original's cadence.)
The other issue for the casual reader is the pervasive repetition. As a Gen-Z American I feel hopelessly far removed from the world Virgil describes and celebrates. Occasionally a topic struck a chord (the then hot-button issue of land confiscation, for example) but, generally, the content felt so alien as to obscure or distract from the enduring human truths to be found in all literature.
If I ever have time to brush up on my Latin, I hope to reread The Eclogues entirely in their native language. No doubt my esteem (and star rating) will be all the greater. But, for now, and in English, a 3.75 will have to suffice.
Buzz Words: Poems about Insects by
lighthearted
reflective
relaxing
fast-paced
4.0
4 stars feels appropriate for a poetry anthology. The book includes poems from a wide variety of cultures, time periods, and languages (all, however, are given in English). Some, of course, I hated, but many more I loved: they're united by topic only, not by skill. Speaking of topic, my only complaint is that the poems are arranged by type of insect: bees and ants (the workers), spiders (the spinners), flies and gnats (pests), etc etc. I was sometimes weary reading 20 poems in a row about a single insect or two; I'd have liked it better if they were ordered alphabetically or chronologically by author to lend at least the illusion of variety. All things considered, however, a delightful little book and a great start for anyone who wants to read poetry but doesn't necessarily have the stamina to commit to a single poet's collection.
The Legend of Sigurd & Gudrún by Christopher Tolkien, J.R.R. Tolkien
adventurous
challenging
dark
sad
medium-paced
5.0
Rating this book - Tolkien's poetic reworking of the Old Norse lays (with supplemental information from the Prose Sagas) - is frankly beyond my intellectual capacity. 5 stars for my time and trouble! Before you begin, please read the introduction(s). You won't understand anything that's happening otherwise, and you won't understand why you don't understand (Norse skaldic verse is obscure and troublesome by design). Secondly, read it out loud! Tolkien went to great lengths to make it read like poetry rather than a mere translation. Silent reading, I think, actively diminishes the artistry and makes it harder to understand.
Additionally, for anyone nervous about the length of the book, the lays themselves are relatively short; the bulk of the page count goes to the introduction and commentaries on both the Völsungakvida and the Gudrúnarkvida. Consult them liberally! Christopher Tolkien took great pains to make his father's work intellectually accessible to Norse amateurs. Apologies for my unusual bossiness in this review but I love and appreciate this work so, so much.
Additionally, for anyone nervous about the length of the book, the lays themselves are relatively short; the bulk of the page count goes to the introduction and commentaries on both the Völsungakvida and the Gudrúnarkvida. Consult them liberally! Christopher Tolkien took great pains to make his father's work intellectually accessible to Norse amateurs. Apologies for my unusual bossiness in this review but I love and appreciate this work so, so much.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Violence
Moderate: Incest