TatianaBoshenka

Pretty good graphic novel, the second I've ever read. I liked this book less well than the first in the Sandman series. The character I do like, though he's often rather cruel. He's an eternal, and they aren't cruel or kind, really, they just are, I guess. Much less cruel he is than his sister Death, I suppose. The ending was satisfying when the right thing seemed to happen.

I think the graphic novel format is not one that appeals to me much. For one thing, it's hard for me to tell in what order I'm supposed to read things, and that continually brings me out of the story and back into the frame. These stories have a late-80s, early-90s sensibility to them, artistically, which for me interrupts their could-be timelessness. What's more timeless than sleep or death, after all? But Sleep's hairdo, though I suppose one could imagine it morphing through the years along with the world, looks rather dated. I think text avoids such datedness, and that's one reason I prefer it. Maybe in general I just like that it leaves more to the imagination.

The artwork is beautiful, yet I'd prefer it not be there. How odd! Anyway, if you like graphic novels and the horror-fantasy genre, you'll probably love these. I'm less enamored of them and probably won't read the rest.

A slim volume, filled with good stuff, The Wild Girls has the title story plus a few essays, poems, and an interview. It was lovely! I hope UKL publishes whatever comes out of her pen, long or short, fiction or essay, from now on. I can't bear to wait years between the big novels, you know.

The title story was wonderful though too short. I want a whole novel about these people, this world. I cared about them from the very start through the tragic end. The story makes me ask why is life like this? Why does it have to be like this? It's painful and true, and there is a sense in which it is overcome simply by seeing, knowing, understanding, and recognizing the truth.

The essays were good and to the point. She's such a wise person. I enjoy sitting at the feet of the master, listening to her observations. Her poetry, though so far it has never captured me and become part of my favorite poetry, is enjoyable to read. Maybe if I read it more I would find more in it. But for now I read them once and think "yes, that's nice" and pass on. Her prose is quite poetic, and some of her prose passages and turns of phrase that stick in my mind through the years are among the best poetry I know. So I should probably read her poetry with more attention. But so far I find them good but not riveting. I'd love to hear if others have seen more, and if they have favorites to point out.

A really stupid book that was all about girls trying to find husbands. Without any of the cleverness and insight of Jane Austen to remediate that fact. It was not among the worst books of all time, but still I can't believe my sister liked it. I considered it vapid, insulting, and with no redeeming value.

Wretched, wretched, this insulted my intelligence and I couldn't finish reading it. Someone handed it to me on an airplane. They had just finished it and I didn't have a book with me. Suffice it to say I'd rather be slowly roasted alive than have to finish this book. Save your neurons by sparing yourself this one.

Just finished the first of these, Rocannon's World, and enjoyed it a great deal. This is very early LeGuin, and her powers, while evident, are not yet fully developed here. It's rather interesting the number of different societies she sites on this single world, with multiple intelligent building and technology-using species. In many ways it's much more a typical or even formula science fiction story than her usual. But still you can hear her sparse poetic voice, her simple language that goes straight to the heart and spirit, and the power of her words. She was showing us then what she would become, a master writer, adept, wizard, mage. She has the sort of deep and simple wisdom that the earth has, or the water, just a pure and powerful presence that shines through behind and despite, even, the words. All her work comes highly recommended from me. I've started the second novel, Planet of Exile, already.

(Later) Planet of Exile is better than the first novel. It was a page turner. Not sure when this was originally published, but it must be an early work of hers because the language is the old sexist language that used to be standard until the 1970s or 80s. She uses "man" for "human" and so on. All the leaders of both societies shown are male. In many ways this is pre-gender-awakened UKL. She did have a great female viewpoint character who was very strong and definite in her choices and actions. I liked her a great deal. We can also see the beginnings of UKL's later moral complexity. Her characters are thoughtful but very much people of their time and place. However, the badguys aren't really shown at all. They aren't given any real humanity in the book, or not that any of her viewpoint characters are exposed to. They are rather like orcs, attacking in huge numbers and pretty easy to kill. This changes later in UKL's work, as pretty much all the characters are shown as real people, and even given sympathetic viewpoints which are nevertheless in conflict with the main characters. That is a hallmark of her later work, I think. In this one there's still a feeling of being more of a standard, normal work of science fiction. Her palpable sense of reality is starting to develop here, and her ability to show nuanced emotions and make us really feel them is still in nascent form. The love story in this one is nice, but not as organic and convincing as her love stories usually are. She's at the early stages, here, of learning how to say so much so powerfully without using words, as she does later.

Between the first and second novel in this book, I also reread the Annals of the Western Shore trilogy and loved it. UKL continues to develop as a writer, getting better and better with time. Now on to novel 3 in this book, which is called City of Illusions.

(later still) Just finished the last one, City of Illusions, and here she's getting to be a very good writer. I really couldn't put it down from the first to the end. Within the first page I already cared about the viewpoint character, and his family, the group with which he shared a home. By the way, these novels were written in the 1960s, so that explains the jarring sexism that runs through them, even though, obviously, written by a woman. The main characters are mostly male, the actors and do-ers, the ones we identify with. The women are strangely passive throughout, with a few notable exceptions. Hard to believe things can change so profoundly about our worldview in a few decades, and what an enormous relief it is to see how much better things have become in that time.

UKL's made up words have always sounded to me not at all made up. They're like Tolkien's words. They're part of the fabric of the world she's telling about, discovered and not invented. In this story, though, while there are many of the organic, realistic names and words, a few strike me as odd and made-up-sounding. There's also a false note of cheeziness introduced by the reference to the Tao Te Ching, all that far in the future long after the fall of any civilization we know. This brought to mind, hilariously, Captain Kirk reciting the preamble to the U.S. Constitution in the year 26 hundred whatever, apparently a cherished document of Federation history. UKL is a philosophical Taoist, of course, and it's rather sweet that she invokes its central text, but also somewhat of a false note to my ear. The more experienced UKL who wrote the Earthsea books never hit any notes that didn't ring completely clear to me. So it's rather neat to see her development.

Though I seem to be finding a lot to complain about here, that's deceptive. I loved this third novel, and on the basis of it I believe I'll raise my rating another star. The things that matter most she gets exactly right here. An uncanny ability to make me care about a character within the first couple of pages of the story, and a narrative that has depth, originality, variety, and great interest. Definitely recommended for fans of UKL, and for science fiction fans in general! This is a fascinating read.

A pretty good graphic novel, my first ever that I've read. I'd been hearing good things about it forever. Loved the last story in particular because of its understated way of handling profound content. I don't usually read or watch horror, usually because I find it silly. I wasn't aware that these books would be like that, and my lack of desensitizing to such things led to me having nightmares for several days afterward. I rather like being sensitive this way, and don't usually subject myself to anything creepy to avoid losing that quality. Sometimes, though, it's worth it because it's real, and Dostoyevsky who creeps my sister out and is way too much for her -- too anguished, too over the top -- I love. I think this book, while I'm not comparing it to Dostoyevsky, is similarly worth it. Until the end I might not have said so, but I very much liked the last story.

On to the next book...

I read this book because of other reviews on Goodreads that I saw, which highlighted some tactics that manipulative people use against others. They struck a chord of familiarity for me, as I've known various people in my life who have used these methods repeatedly to avoid responsibility for their aggression. I found the book most useful in clearing away the fog of confusion that such characters use to hide their true colors and avoid taking responsibility.

The biggest insight the book contains is the idea that not everybody has a conscience. That's something that the rest of us find really hard to understand and accept. Not everyone is motivated by desire to do what's fair and right. Not everyone feels rewarded by being part of a social structure in which everyone is loved and appreciated, and works for the good of the team. Some people don't get good brain chemistry from loving and being loved. They just don't feel it. So instead, since their brains don't reward them the usual way, they tend to focus more on trying to win, to control, and to be in power in every situation. That's what makes them feel good, so that's what they pursue.

The heart of the book is chapter 9, in which 18 common tactics are listed. There is a good bit of overlap between tactics, but they are worth memorizing, I think. It's important to recognize these people when we encounter them in our lives, to prevent the damage they can do if unchecked. I numbered the tactics for ease of reference. They are as follows.

1. Minimization -- e.g. "I barely touched her. She doesn't even have a bruise. She's just being a crybaby."

2. Lying –- Covert-aggressive people have no compunctions about lying, and indeed will say anything at all that gets them out of facing the consequences of their behavior.

3. Denial -- Simply saying the aggression didn't happen, doesn't happen, the victim is just crazy, the child has false memories, or whatever.

4. Selective Inattention -– Refusing to pay attention to anything said about the person’s aggression, to any attempt to address the problem. Being too busy to listen right now. Stonewalling.

5. Rationalization -- e.g. "She hit me once so she's only getting what she deserves. Beating kids teaches them how to protect themselves from bullies they'll meet in life. I'm teaching her fighting skills." Things that sound just plausible enough to turn aside the wrath of any accuser.

6. Diversion -- e.g. "What about what you did yesterday?" Any change of subject, especially to put the other person on the defensive, that has the effect of confusing the issue at hand and letting the aggressor off the hook.

7. Evasion (deliberate vagueness) -– e.g. “I’m not sure. We did a lot of things,” when asked a direct question. Any answer that isn’t a straight answer, particularly one meant to deceive by implying something that isn’t true.

8. Covert Intimidation (veiled threats) -– e.g. “jokes” about firing you (a boss), physically harming you (an abusive family member), euthanizing pets, abandoning children, self-harm, etc. Can sometimes be implied through posture or facial expressions. Often subtle.

9. Guilt-tripping –- Aggressive people are aware that others are more conscientious than they are, so they play on this to keep them insecure and on the defensive. If they suggest, even imply, that the person who's trying to address their aggression may be an imperfect spouse, parent, boss, or worker, their feelings of responsibility and conscientiousness kick in and keep them from pressing the original issue. The aggressor has no such concerns or compunctions about their own behaviors, but they’ve learned to use the fact that others do worry about such things to sidestep their own issues when confronted.

10. Shaming –- Use of subtle sarcasm and put-downs to increase self-doubt and decrease self-esteem of the people being manipulated. Sometimes this can be conveyed in glances or sighs, without even using words.

11. Playing the victim role – sometimes aggressive people can recast defense against their aggression as aggression by others toward themselves. They then pretend to be the victim of the aggression instead of the perpetrator, e.g. “You hate me. Why are you always picking on me?”

12. Vilifying the victim – In an attempt to gain the upper hand, the aggressor may simply resort to insults, e.g. “you’re a terrible spouse (parent), you suck, you’re boring, ugly, stupid, you have Asperger’s, you don’t understand people” etc.

13.Playing the Servant Role –- apparently some aggressors can gain control by pretending to be the servant. (One of the few of these tactics I haven’t personally experienced.)

14. Seduction –- apparently some aggressors gain trust and cover their aggressive intent by praising or flattering the victim. (Another tactic I haven’t seen in use.)

15. Projecting the blame –- this is finding someone else who is at fault for whatever the problem may be. It could be birth parents, friends, coworkers, ex-spouses, or the one who's bringing the issue forward. Anyone else will do to get the discussion off track and leave the manipulative person's own choices out of the question.

16. Feigning Innocence –- Sometimes all it takes to not be held accountable for aggressive behavior is simply to look innocent and pretend it never happened. Since such people have no compunctions about lying or deceiving, they’re quite likely to fool others in this way.

17. Feigning Ignorance or Confusion –- the same basic tactic as in 16 above.

18. Brandishing Anger –- people who manipulate can sometimes deflect accountability by flaring up in anger whenever they’re confronted. This keeps other people timid and off-kilter and prevents the true problem from being addressed.

19. Threatening self-harm –- this last one is one I added, something depressed or suicidal people can use to manipulate those who love them. It’s used often enough that I think it deserves its own number. Since the suicidal person cares less about their own well-being than others do, they can use direct or implied threats of suicide or self-harm to prevent anyone from upsetting them by calling them out on their aggressive behavior. In a sense, they hold themselves hostage, “Do what I want or I’ll injure your loved one (myself).”


That’s the complete list of tactics mentioned in the book, plus the last that I added. There are also 14 ways to stop letting oneself be manipulated in these ways. I’m going to give the letters for ease of reference.


a. Accept no excuses.

b. Judge actions, not intentions.

c. Set personal limits – if you have thoughtfully decided up front what you will and won’t tolerate, this helps you make the correct call in the heat of the moment.

d. Make direct requests – people can more easily comply with straightforward requests and requirements.

e. Accept only direct responses – don’t accept vague non-answers.

f. Stay focused and in the here and now – it’s more effective to address aggression as it happens, rather than talking about things that happened much earlier.

g. Keep the weight of responsibility on the aggressor – don’t let him or her shift the blame, lay guilt trips, or otherwise wiggle out of the issue.

h. Avoid sarcasm, hostility, putdowns – it’s far more effective to calmly and factually address problems rather than lashing out or letting annoyance or anger show.

i. Avoid making threats that you won’t carry through – only make if-then statements that you’re sure you will follow through on.

j. Take action quickly – the sooner you address a problem the more easily it can be corrected.

k. Speak for yourself – don’t bring up other people’s issues. Make “I” statements.

l. Make reasonable agreements – be willing to bargain and find win-win solutions whenever possible. Some things should never be bargained away, i.e. physical safety of all concerned or equal partnership in marriage, for instance.

m. Be prepared for consequences – if the aggressor has choices he or she can exercise, be prepared for the worst they can do. Accept the possibility that the aggressor may try to cause you harm in indirect ways, and do what you can to protect yourself.

n. Be honest with yourself – I think this means be sure you aren’t using one or more of these manipulative tactics yourself. Be willing to change anything that needs to change about your own self, too.


This book has been life-changing for me. The dynamic in our home is so much more positive now, and we’re able to make real progress. I recommend it for everyone who has coworkers, family, spouse, or children.

I don't really get this book at all, I don't think. I guess it was like one of the first things that resembled a novel that ever came out, when it came out. Maybe that's why it's so famous. But still, it must have something enduring to say for people to be still reading it today, mustn't it? The humor all seems to be of the sort that is ugly and at someone's expense, though. It makes me wince to read it. I didn't feel amused at all, in fact. Someone please explain it to me, why it's such a beloved book.

I do get that the reader feels affectionate toward Quixote, despite his dementia and psychoses. We feel in a way that he's admirable, even though he's totally disconnected with reality. I guess it shows that we wish life were more fairy-tale-like and less real than it is, with more castles and fewer inns, perhaps.... more courtly knights and fewer crazy maniacs. It pokes fun of much of literature for being so darn high-flown and unrealistic. But is that it? I can't believe it would have lasted centuries on the strength of nothing more than that. Please enlighten me.

Here's the quote that summed up the book for me: "To build a better world, we need to replace the patchwork of lucky breaks and arbitrary advantages that today determine success -- the fortunate birth dates and the happy accidents of history -- with a society that provides opportunities for all." The rest is substantiation for that one sentence. An interesting, fun, quick read. I love Gladwell as a writer but do question some of his conclusions. I liked this book, though, because I think a lot about how we as a society should take advantage of the human potential we have available, and I'm pretty sure we waste a large percentage of it. I think when we figure this out, the whole civilization is going to leap forward tremendously, like another agricultural revolution or industrial revolution only much moreso. I can't wait to see it happen, and I love thinking about (and nudging along) the process as it comes about.

Contact with the work and the ideas of Dr. Paul Farmer has changed my life. I see now as blindingly obvious something I never realized before, that the poor and powerless among us deserve the very best care of anyone. That healthcare, and by extension clean water, nutritious food, a decent place to live, and a good education are human rights that we as a society should work diligently to extend to everyone. Not only that, but it's highly doable, and we just need to go on and do it, and not pay attention to the idea that it can't be done.

You can feel in the book the real love that Paul Farmer and all those at Partners in Health (PIH) have for their patients. They don't stop at dispensing medicine but take responsibility to see that the patient gets what he or she needs to be well, whether it's food supplementation, a new floor and roof for their shack, a supply of uncontaminated water, or someone to come around every day and look after them and make sure they take their medicine. Their passionate commitment to helping people who need their help shines out like a beacon of hope in the world's darkness.

When I was a junior in high school, long ago in the newly-integrated Birmingham (AL) City Schools, a man named Paul Farmer headed a program I took part in called the Executive Internship Program. About 30 of us kids, black and white, juniors and seniors from schools all across the city, were selected by Farmer and formed into a cohesive, creative group of true friends. Mr. Farmer had a way about him that was contagious of treating everyone like they really mattered.

That was a fantastic group of people and we made close and lasting friendships there. At the time it was rare to see close friendships between black and white kids. I remember meeting one friend for lunch and having this elderly lady walk a big half-circle around us to get a good look at me and be sure I was really white, then staring at us in hostility because my friend was black. It made us giggle. I remember getting in trouble at work later on, when I was a co-op student in engineering, for taking a mixed group of black and white coworkers to lunch because they'd helped me a lot over several months by setting up my sales displays and so on. The company they worked for got extremely hostile to me for having the temerity to socialize in mixed-race groups at work. They called me some ugly names, in fact, and said they didn't want me to come back there ever again.

See, at that time the country had given up on grown-ups ever solving the problem of racial bigotry and had decided to make the kids do it for them. So we went to school together and did form real friendships, with the help of some great grownups like Mr. Farmer, and we learned not to care so much what people's ethnic background was. We learned to see each other as people who mattered.

I wonder now if it's possible that my Mr. Farmer from high school was Dr. Paul Farmer's dad. I read that his dad's name was indeed Paul Farmer and that he did teach in Birmingham city schools at one point. So it seems like it has to be the same guy, only the dates don't match up exactly (mine was in 1975) and the one picture of Dr. Paul's dad that I saw online didn't look at all familiar to me. I have no memory of what my Mr. Farmer looked like, actually, but I would think I would feel some glimmer of recognition if it were him. So I'm just not sure. But it's intriguing. I'd like to talk to Dr. Paul and see if we could figure it out. Dr. Paul's way of treating everyone like they really matter DOES feel familiar to me, and it's the same. So I feel as though he's part of my family. I think whether he is or not, I'll just claim him regardless. =)

I've been reading more about PIH, their model of treating the poor in Haiti, the work they're doing in Peru, Russia, Lesotho, Malawi, Rwanda, Mexico, Guatemala, and elsewhere, and the history of the organization. They've won a lot of battles, it seems, particularly in getting the drug companies to lower the price of drugs important for treating MDR-TB, multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis, and HIV AIDS. They've won over the WHO policymakers to the policy that it *is* worthwhile and responsible to treat the poorest, the sickest, prisoners, etc. with the best treatments we have. Before that the idea had been to let the worst most hopeless cases just die without treatment. They've done amazing things.

This book comes to me at a time when I've spent my last few years fighting with the nation's health care system to get my son treated for his Lyme neuroborreliosis. In the course of this struggle, I've come up against, time and again, people who can't see that they're choosing expedience and going along to get along over my son's life and wellbeing. I've also been struggling with my insurance company to get them to recognize that my struggle against Lupus, Fibromyalgia, Chronic Fatigue, and Immune Deficiency is real. Autoimmune disorders in general are fairly well hidden, plus they strike women far more often than men, so it's easy for the powers-that-be to dismiss and overlook them. Into this context of struggling against harsh and unfeeling bureaucracy, of wanting sometimes to scream in rage and frustration at the unyielding system, the huge machine, who cares not if my young son's life is at stake... in the middle of this drops Dr. Farmer's refreshing idea that people's lives matter. It flowed like a stream of sweet water into a parched desert. The kind you drink from and never thirst again.

So now I'm trying to find a way to help PIH's efforts in Haiti and across the world. This is something I know I want to be a part of. I know this idea is true. I have a sincere testimony from the depths of my deepest self that this is the right path for me to follow. As I said, this was lifechanging.

The book itself is excellent and I highly recommend it. I can only give it 4 stars, though, because as a book, it has some real flaws and left me ultimately disappointed. It's as though Tracy Kidder can't bring himself, in the end, to commit. He waffles. He sees it but then again he doesn't quite get it. There were many times I was deeply touched. The writing is definitely good. Do read the book. I think it's an important book. But if it leaves you disappointed in the end, as it did me, then turn to other sources of information. Go and watch Paul Farmer's talks online, there are tons of interviews and speeches he's made that have been recorded. Do that and then tell me if he's part of your family too, if you're part of our family. It's an awesome family, and I'm so glad to be a member of it.

This book is life-changing, in that it has changed the way I think about poor countries and rich countries. Before I read this, I considered people in rich countries to be very fortunate, and our job was to extend the same blessings to people in poor countries, to help them develop themselves the way we had developed ourselves in earlier centuries. I saw us as primarily separate societies, though of course linked by living in one world, and by the bonds of kinship in our human family.

But this book showed me that today's situation can't really be seen as separate from the social and economic history of the world. The last few centuries have seen the colonial powers (largely the same as the rich world today) pillage their colonies (largely the same as the poor world today) transacting a massive redistribution of wealth from poor to rich. The global economic powers today continue that redistribution, and the gap between rich and poor is getting wider all the time. I know that I right now, regardless of how unwittingly, am the direct beneficiary of that historical and ongoing grand theft. My relative wealth (I have clean water, food, a roof, dry bedding, indoor plumbing, electricity, internet) is not independent of their poverty, but it's part of the fabric of the same social and economic history. The wealth of rich countries didn't spring into being on its own, but was helped by innumerable interactions over a long period of time that were mostly tainted by slavery, racism, gender-inequality, class divisions, and historical and hereditary distributions of wealth and education.

In addition to the moral arguments, to the tale told again and again in the Book of Mormon, for instance, of inequality being evil in itself, of the wealthy wearing fine clothes and looking down their noses to those who can't afford them, of pride always going before the fall. In addition to the fact that we are all one human family, we're cousins to each other in very recent history, as genetics shows (our latest common ancestor living only about three thousand years ago). Totally apart from the fact that Christ tells us flat out that if we aren't one we aren't His. That King Benjamin exhorts us to give of our substance to the poor, and not to say "he brought on his own problems so I won't help him". In addition to all these things, we need to see that our wealth was in part stolen from those very poor whose fate we now hold in our hands.

I can't divorce a poor woman dying in childbirth because of a lack of the sort of care I take for granted from me sitting in a theater in my 3D glasses being entertained by the latest amusing spectacle at $15 a pop. These two seemingly separate things are part of one whole. We share one world, one society, one global economy, one human history. We're connected.

It's not like this is exactly a new idea, of course, but I wonder why I've been able to put it at the back of my mind for so long. It's odd how we can come to look on the horrible suffering of others as something we can't change and basically have little or nothing to do with, how we can separate it from our daily lives, and put these things into discrete mental compartments.

This is all about my reaction to this book, and very little about the book itself, which is a fascinating compilation of writings over 30 years about the problems of delivering health care to the poor, and analysis of the context in which these epidemics of treatable infectious disease have occurred. It's about structural violence, and how ideas kept in separate boxes are really part of the same whole, how economic and social rights are the most important human rights. About how it is nice to have a voice in government, the right not to be tortured, the right to be free from indefinite detention without charges, and so on, but those things are largely meaningless if one is dying of malnutrition, MDR-TB, or AIDS.

So what will I do? How will this change the way I live? Other than devoting a bigger chunk of my resources to supporting organizations like Partners in Health, I mean? I think I'm being called to devote my life's work to the cause of ending poverty. No other work or play could be more joyful or rewarding, not even watching on screen as beautiful people struggle for justice in 3D.

We've been studying the Holocaust lately. It started with a cd we fell in love with by Neutral Milk Hotel, a sort of love letter to a young girl long dead, to Anne Frank. The songs are wonderful and sad, with the most original arrangements for strange combinations of instruments; tuba and saw and who knows what. But just lovely. Heartbreaking and beautiful.

So we bought Anne Frank's diary on Amazon, and also this book by Viktor Frankl that I'd been wanting to read for a while. I have to say it's quite unusual in that the first half is his memoir of his experiences in the camps, and the second half is an introduction to his psychotheraputic system called logotherapy. The memoir part isn't just a narrative of the brutality and torture of life in the camps, which you can find in a number of places like Elie Wiesel's "Night". All the incidents in this narrative illuminate the central question of how is it that human beings can respond to such horrible conditions. His narrative lends support to his theory of mind.

He says humans have a will to meaning that is central to our being. It's stronger and more fundamental than either the will to power, or the will to pleasure. I understand and believe what he says is true. Logotherapy is the only psychiatric theory of mind I've heard that acknowledges the full dignity and moral agency that humans possess. I'm intrigued by his ideas, and many of the things he said resonated with me and rang true. I think I want to read more about it.

He shows that we may choose to respond to horrors of life on the basest level, as mere animals, or on the highest level with dignity and understanding, fully choosing our actions. Life can throw at one any number of horrors, everything may be taken from us against our will, but the one thing that can't be taken away is our choice of how we will respond.

The book itself is quite interesting, both parts of it. I've read it through twice now, so I can understand and internalize it better. The three paths he sees to various meanings in our lives are:

1) By doing, working, making, building, or creating something... that is, by achievement of some sort.
2) By seeing, appreciating, loving, enjoying, or understanding people or things... in other words, through our experiences.
3) By how we choose to respond to unavoidable suffering.

He asks us to live with responsibility for our actions and choices. He suggests to Americans that the Statue of Liberty on the east coast should be supplemented by a Statue of Responsibility on the west coast. I hope someone has erected one!

He asks us to choose our actions right now as though we had already lived to the end of a long life, and were looking back on ourselves. He wants us to make the choice we would make then, if we had chosen this time as we are about to choose. It sounds kind of weird and self-referential, but applied iteratively, it tends to bring forth our best response according to the light and knowledge we currently have. I think that's the very best we can do, morally. We will still make mistakes. We'll still be learning and growing our whole lives long, and coming to a better and better understanding of life as we live it. So we can't always know what the best long term answer should be. But if we give ourselves time and space to think out exactly what we want to do, if we want to live a fully realized, fully examined life, this suggestion can help us do it. We do generally act better when we think it through.

Because the body of this book was written right after WW2, there's a lot of what we now think of as sexist language, just as one sees in the title. He speaks of Man rather than Humans, and uses masculine pronouns throughout, even when the immediate examples he cites happen to be female. Of course, such was considered proper usage, and isn't evidence that he was any more sexist then than anyone else at the time, (which is to say, quite a bit).

Our other holocaust studies involve reading the contents of the US Holocaust Museum site, and various other holocaust history sites on the web. We've yet to reread Anne Frank's diary. For me it's particularly horrific to see engineering drawings of the death chambers designed for gassing and cremating the maximum number of people in the least time. I wonder how any engineer could bring himself to work on designing such a thing without continually having to stop and retch up the contents of his stomach. I know I couldn't. Maybe the biggest lesson to me in this whole thing is to be brave enough always to act in accordance with my conscience, be it at work or at home, in any interaction with others.

Frankl closes with this thought, "Man is that being who invented the gas chambers, however, he is also that being who entered those gas chambers upright, with the Lord's Prayer or the Shema Yisrael on his lips."

Logotherapy is as much a religion as a system of psychotherapy. I think it's the first such idea that doesn't clash with my idea of what a human is, of this clever fiendish animal with a divine spark. In the end, I love Frankl as a man who fully lived the ideas he preached. He was an amazing person, one of the great heroes of the 20th century.

I'm not sure whether to call this a memoir or a family history or what. I found this biographical book by the author of a series of some of my favorite books in childhood, The Great Brain series, to be delightful. Many of the characters we met in the kids books are here again in real life, plus a few others we haven't learned about before.

I loved the story of JD's uncle Will, his father's brother, who was a gunslinger and had made his fortune owning the best saloon in Silverlode. There were many colorful stories about him and his exploits.

I really adored the character of Mama, whose courage and convictions, and just her basic goodness are an inspiration to me. She was one of those believers who understood and lived the real gospel, the part about loving others even if they're different from us, and doing what's right even when it will get you shunned or gossiped about in the neighborhood. I just love Mama. Kids and dogs and people everywhere she went loved her, and so do I.

The exploits of TD and his great brain were briefly touched on. What is perhaps the true inspiration for the fictional story of Tom figuring out how to run Mr. Standish the mean schoolteacher out of town, Tom's brilliant plot to rid them of their Aunt Cathy (Papa's overly strict and overly literal Catholic sister who came out west to save them from their heathenism), was both funny and touching.

Overall, the book was like The Great Brain books, but just with some reality and adult complexity thrown in. There are lots of colorful characters which remind me of Faulkner characters, so real and so outlandish at the same time. They were sad and also funny: the doctor who was seriously determined to drink himself to death, who if you caught him first thing in the morning was a great doctor, but after his first few drinks would ignore any amount of mortal suffering to continue his quest.

The adopted brother, not a younger brother for JD whose parents died in a landslide, but rather a brother TD's age, a Huck Finn type whose father was an abusive and neglectful alcoholic who died young, was no less wonderful, and Mama's generosity and loving heart no less impressive than their fictional analogs.

All in all, I recommend this book to everyone, especially to those who loved The Great Brain books as kids. It's funny and sad, sweet and true and good.

Some of these stories made me so angry and sick I wanted to get out my Flammenwerfer of Ruinous Wrath and wipe the place clean. I'm so glad women's issues have finally begun to get a bit of attention from the powers that be... mostly because they want economic development to happen. It's not that they really care what happens to women and young girls. But for whatever reason, I'm glad it's finally coming to pass.

I see a time coming very soon when buying sex from a prostitute will be treated as being as serious a crime as rape, which for the most part it actually seems to be. Apparently most prostitutes are forced labor, and usually underaged, as well. Johns of the world, be warned.

I see a time soon when women will have full representation in political life, too. It's not a moment too soon.

This was a wonderful, haunting story. I was so captivated by it, and I still think about it a lot. It had moments of transcendence and of realization. It makes me think a lot about broader questions, about war, and feminism, and what we can do to change things in the world for the better.

Why do we limit people's scope so severely by seeing them as unimportant, as having little worth? I think this is the most important thing that we need to do to accomplish the change that has to happen to the world: we must see and acknowledge people's true worth, which is limitless. We have to stop setting up laws and systems that diminish people's potential instead of expanding it. I'm thinking of women in societies which enslave and devalue women, but also of the devaluation of poor people in almost all societies.

The issues explored are almost too deep and wide to encompass. This is the story of two women in Afghanistan. It's also the story of everyone. Sorry I can't be more coherent. I love this writer. This is an important book. But I don't know what I think about it. It hurts to even think about all these things. I don't know what it means.

I decided to read this book after watching Elizabeth Gilbert's TED talk a couple of times. I found her funny, engaging, intelligent, and insightful. And I found the book to be delightful from start to finish. She's got a very charming way of befriending the reader. She's honest about difficult things, and she's really funny. I laughed out loud a lot while reading this book. I also laughed in recognition at many of her insights about life.

I loved how she approached all the people in the story with a lot of respect, whether they were seekers of knowledge in an Indian Ashram, or peasants in Indonesia, or chic fashionable jet-setters. You get the feeling that if you met her at a party, you could become really good friends right away. I'm glad things seemed to work out so well for her. Just as in her TED talk, she talks about religion, prayer, and God in ways that are disarming, humble, and not at all annoying, which is hard. Her way of acknowledging and describing the role of the divine in her life isn't so jarring to modern scientific sensibilities as most. She isn't at all goody-two-shoes, which is refreshing.

I loved her insights about women and feminism, that we need to take over the functions of protection and discernment for ourselves that were in former times in patriarchal society performed by fathers, brothers, or husbands. Rather than just throw ourselves into the world with heedless abandon, as she had done when younger.

Much of the book was just a whole lot of fun, when she traveled and experienced other cultures and food, and made friends with such an interesting assortment of folks. I would have loved to take such a trip. She would be a fun and fascinating person to hang out with, I think.

A lovely quick read that I think most anyone would enjoy, about one woman's search for something-or-other which she seems to have found.