28. How to Read Literature Like a Professor

Hot to Read Literature Like a Professor: A Lively and Entertaining Guide to Reading Between the Lines - Thomas C. Foster

I was really hoping to enjoy this book more and to learn a lot more than I did. I picked up a few tips and hints, but nothing like I had envisioned before picking up this book. The biggest thing I learned was that even at a professorial level you are still limited by your own experiences and your own memory as to how you are going to translate or interpret literature. Everyone will see things differently. The same person at different times will see different things.

What is the point then? Mostly it is to get past the emotional reader level as the only reaction to a book. That will always be a prime reason for me to read. I like how a book can repulse me or make me smile. Those are emotional reactions. But this book tries to explain why I get those reactions on more than just a feel good or bad level.

It was interesting to read about the different topics the author wanted to discuss. There were chapters called: Every Trip Is a Quest (Except When It's Not), If It's Square, It's a Sonnet, When in Doubt, It's from Shakespeare..., ...Or the Bible, It's Greek to Me, It's More Than Just Rain or Snow, Is That a Symbol, It's All About Sex..., ...Except Sex, and so on. Each one of them showed how an author uses little tricks of the trade to relate his story back to something you have seen before in order to elicit a given response.

There were some highlighted one line tidbits throughout the book that explained a lot:
"The real reason for a quest is always self-knowledge."
"Ghosts and vampires are never only about ghosts and vampires."
"There is no such thing a wholly original work of literature."
"It's never just rain."
"Flight is freedom."
"Irony trumps everything."
"When writers send characters south, it's so they can run amok."

You know what really pissed me off about this book though? I was hoping to learn from it. I was hoping to garner some kind of secrets from the inner sanctum. I was hoping to get a peak into the workers of a secret society, if only for a second. I went in with high expectations and even higher hopes...until page three. Yep, page THREE!

The first example the author used to explain something he wanted his reader to understand...the one he found to be the perfect example to go first...was this...
"I always begin with the greatest quest novel of the last century: Thomas Pynchon's Crying of Lot 49 (1965)."
As you may remember from my review about two weeks ago concerning The Crying of Lot 49...I didn't like that book. So, this man told me on page three that he was one of those pretentious asses that is going to turn crap into something significant because it is so beyond anything of it's kind...blah blah. From that moment I knew I was not going to get what I was looking for and hoped to pick up a little thing here or there that I could use. I did that. But, overall the book ended up solving nothing and leaving a ton of stuff open to whatever the reader wanted it to be.

Is that a symbol for something? It can be if it symbolizes something to you. It is whatever it is for whomever wants it to be whatever they want it to be. Yackity yack yack yack. I think I will just stick to enjoying a book and not analyzing it through the eyes of Plato or Shakespeare. I am perfectly happy being one of the ignorant masses that will never be a snobbish member of the elite academia. Whatever.

I am glad I didn't pay for this one.

7. The Enlightened Bracketologist: The Final Four of Everything

The Enlightened Bracketologist: The Final Four of Everything - Mark Reiter and Richard Sandomir

This book shows me the most awesome idea I have seen in a long time. What is your favorite movie? What is your favorite restaurant? What is your favorite anything? This book shows a way to reach a definitive, once-and-for-all answer to all of those questions.

"What is enlightenment?

Better question: What is Bracketology?

Bracketology is a way of seeing the world so that we can become more enlightened- about what we like, favor, prefer, abhor, or abjure. It is a system that helps us make clearer and cleaner decisions about what is good, better, best in our world."

"Bracketology- the practice of parsing people, places and things into discrete one-on-one match ups to determine which of the two is superior or preferable- works because it is simple."

I had this book on the counter when friends came over this weekend. We made some brackets to figure out "what sucks the most" just for fun. It really was fun going match up for match up and figuring out why a hangnail sucks more than running out of gas, or vice-versa. Between the tree of us we came up with different answers to what sucks the most. There winners were terrorists, cancer and the IRS freezing your bank accounts. The process of reaching those conclusions from the beginning 32 sucky things was a lot of fun.

Later I took that a step further knowing I was going to be blogging about this book. I created a single elimination bracket of 128 books I liked. What would be my favorite book when they are all pitted in head-to-head?

There were some very tough decisions along the way. There were also some no brainers. It is easy to say "Slaughterhouse 5" beats "Logan's Run". It is not so easy when "The Great Gatsby" and "Into The Wild" meet in the sweet 16. That was one of the hardest decisions. I went with "Into The Wild" after much thought. I still wrestle with that one.

"Darkness At Noon" beat out "Shutter Island" then lost the next round to "The Kite Runner", which in turn lost in the following round to "Lolita". Any one of those four is an outstanding book. It stinks to have to eliminate any of them at all, but something had to win.

I had fun doing this bracket. The overall winner? For me, at this time, it was "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich" by Alexander Solzhenitsyn. I have no regrets in that book winning. It was great. Along the way it took down two outstanding books about Vietnam. "The Short-Timers" and "The Things They Carried". Both amazing books in themselves.

I am including a copy of this bracket below for your perusal. I am sure yours would be different. Go for it. I would love to see what happens with others doing the same.

You can get your own brackets here? http://www.printyourbrackets.com/

52. Your First Year In Network Marketing

Your First Year In Network Marketing: Overcome Your Fears, Experience Success, and Achieve Your Dreams - Mark Yarnell and Rene Reid Yarnell

Rah Rah! Sell some stuff!  Be a millionaire! You can do it!

25. Rules For Radicals

Rules For Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals - Saul D. Alinsky

I am supposed to write a scathing anti-liberal, "I hate commies" review for this book, right? I don't think I will. Not entirely anyway. I did not read this for that reason. I read it to try and understand where "students" of Saul Alinsky, including President Obama, are coming from. I read it not to judge the intent or results of the proponents of Alinsky, but to understand the tactics and methods used by those same people.

This reminded me of Sun Tzu's Art of War...but for leftys.

What I read was some very useful information on how to get a group of people to unite for a common purpose and to help guide those people to success. What is in this book would work for exactly that. What was interesting is that Mr. Alinsky's actions focused mostly on the business-worker relationships, but the same ideas have been expanded into the political arena today using his suggestions.

I flagged a lot of things I found interesting in this book for one reason or another. I guess I will just list a few and then discuss my thoughts at the time. First of all, what I found interesting, was that Mr. Alinsky wrote a prologue to the book. That prologue was more enlightening about the purposes and motivations behind the actions described in the book that the book stated itself. The prologue covered the basics of the why. I liked that.

Before I get too far, I think the tactics Alinsky wrote about are usable by any group attempting to alter the behavior of another group. Therefore, though the book was written for pro-union activists and liberals in the Vietnam War era, it is usable by my own conservative self today to fight against the very changes that were made in the last 30 to 40 years. That is pretty cool.

"Let us in the name of radical pragmatism not forget that in our system with all its repressions we can still speak out and denounce the adminstration, attack its policies, work to build an opposition political base. True, there is government harassment, but there still is that relative freedom to fight. I can attack my government, try to organize to change it. Thats more than I can do in Moscow, Peking or Havana."

Absolutely! I will continue to point out every fault I feel like poking at and every issue I take exception to.


"Remember: once you organize people around something as commonly agreed upon as pollution, then an organized people is on the move. From there it's a short and natural step to political pollution, to Pentagon pollution."

That is how people get manipulated by these folks. Rally around one issue and then intertwine it with a bunch of other garbage they would never have organized to support in the first place.


"In this book we are concerned with how to create mass organizations to seize power and give it to the people; to realize the democratic dream of equality, justice, peace, cooperation, equal and full opportunities for education, full and useful employment, health, and the creation of those circumstances in which man can have the chance to live by the values that give meaning to life."

Lots of beautiful words that can be used to describe exactly the same thing from any political perspective. Just because someone says that the way they describe will achieve these goals does not make it true.


Mr. Alinsky states "Today revolution has become synonomous with communism while capitalism in synonomous with status quo." Soon afterward he says "This is a major reason for my attempt to provide a revolutionary handbook not cast in the communist or capitalist mold, but as a manual for the Have-Nots of the world regadless of the color of their skins or their politics."

So, even if Alinsky is trying to separate radical revolution from communism, it is still the basis for what he believes to be better than capitalism. After reading the book it becomes obvious.


"Another example is today's high rise public housing projects. Originally conceived and carried through as major advances in ridding cities of slums, they involved the tearing down of rotting, rat-infested tenements, and the erection of modern apartment buildings. They were acclaimed as America's refusal to permit its people to live in the dirty shambles of the slums. It is common knowledge that they have turned into juungles of horror and now confront us with the problem of how we can either convert or get rid of them. They have become compounds of double segregation- on the basis of economy and race- and a danger for anyone compelled to live in these projets. A beautiful positive dream has grown into a negative nightmare."

Do-gooders failed to see all the consequences of their "help", as usual.


The "grasp of the duality of all phenomena is vital in our understanding of politics. It frees one from the myth that one approach is positive and another negative. There is no such thing in life. One man's positive is another man's negative."

Agreed...but there is such a thing as unconstitutional and anti-american. So, even if something is considered positive by some it does not mean it is American.


"The essence of Lenin's speeches during this period was "They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet."

Alinsky uses this to justify changing tactics or flip-flopping on whatever decisions were made in the past. It is all about what is needed to accomplish the goal at the moment. He goes on to say....

"Means and ends are so qualitatively interrelated that the true question has never been the proverbial one, "Does the End justify the Means?" but always has been "Does this particular end justify this particular means?"

So, every situation is measured on it's own merits. There are no absolutes. Everything is flexible. Everything changes. I find that to be very very sad. To truly believe this you can have no grounding. There is nothing except that very moment to respond to and then change again in the next moment.


"If you start with nothing, demand 100 percent, then compromise for 30 percent, you're 30 percent ahead."

That make sense all on it's own. The next paragraph states why he mentioned that in the first place...

"A free and open society is an on-going conflict, interuppted periodically by compromises- which then become the start for the continuation of conflict, compromise, and on ad infinitum. Control of power is based on compromise in our Congress and among executive, legislative, and judicial branches. A society devoid of compromise is totalitarian. If I had to define a free and open society in one word, the word would be "compromise.""

That is the entire basis for the way the liberals have whittled away at America. Ask for 100 percent on any issue, settle for a fraction of that in the name of compromise, and then use that settlement for the basis of asking for further advances...ignoring that there was a compromise already to reach the point they were at. As time goes by the advances are tremendous and anyone who says they have a problem with it is labeled as uncompromising, intolerant, and totalitarian. I dare anyone to deny that this has been the tactics used to advance America further and further left during my lifetime.



"All definitions of words, like everything else, are relative. Defintion is to a major degree dependent upon your partisan position."

That depends what your definition of sex is. Exactly!



"There can be no such thing as a "non-controversial" issue. When there is agreement there is no issue; issues only arise when there is disagreement or controversy. An organizer must stir up dissatisfaction and discontent; provide a channel into which the people can angrily pour their frustrations."

Why the sky is always falling, the other side is always trying to "kill grandma" or "hates the poor" etc. That is also why there are so many "agitators" out there stirring shit up every day.



The fifth rule of power tactics..."Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also, it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage."

I have seen this tactic used repeatedly in the last three years. The lies have been insane.


And then there was this little tidbit when discussin "ordinary people" using thier proxy votes to force companies to do the bidding of the organizations. "There will even be "fringe benefits." Trips to stock-holders meetings will bring drama and adventure into otherwise colorless and sedentary suburban lives."

What? Suburban lives are colorless and sedentary? Alinsky is going to bring them some adventure? Get out of here with the flowery "we do no wrong" garbage. Sell that junk to someone looking to buy it. That was ridiculous. He even goes on with that scenario to alter the way the Pentagon deals with businesses and makes some HUGE leaps with how businesses and the Generals relate with each other. Ugh.


So, overall I didn't hate the book. Yes, I do completely disagree with the left on numerous issues. I definately despise the tactics they use, especially during the ObamaCare fiasco in Congress...but now I understand where those tactics are coming from. I understand why they are being used and what the goal is in some instances. I also see how I can use them on a smaller scale. Oh yeah!  :-)

19. Shepherding A Child's Heart

Shepherding A Child's Heart - Tedd Tripp

A good guide to raising young children biblically.

I think the books ideas were great. I also think the author rambled a bit and made some assumptions concerning the dialog between parents a children, but overall he has good ideas.

At times I felt like I was reading parts of Steven Covey's Seven habits of Highly Effective People.  :-)

I wish there was a book like this for raising teenagers adopted from Eastern European institutions or for teenagers with Aspergers.

I'll give it a shot.

5. The Freedom Outlaw's Handbook

The Freedom Outlaw's Handbook: 179 things to Do 'Til the Revolution - Claire Wolfe

I must say right up front that I do think this book is geared toward people that are far more "outlawish" than I am.

I say that because there were times where the author defended David Koresh and the Waco garbage. She would say that the government was thuggish going against a few kind people for failing to pay taxes on a couple little guns. There was more involved with the Waco situation that not paying a few taxes.

Then she took the side of the guy who hid in the mountains for a while evading the cops on gun charges...I forget his name.

Then she said stuff about how the Unabomber wasn't caught by millions of dollars and man hours, but by his own brother turning him in.

She even made some statements about the Oklahoma City domestic terrorist attacks that casted doubt upon it even being a terrorist and maybe was our own government creating problems to help itself.

That kind of stuff is just crackpot bullshit and I discounted much of what the author had to say because I am not an extremist, can't support extremist tactics, and don't have much respect for people that go as far as the above mentioned individuals went...even if their point was to protect their constitutional rights.

That being said, this book did have a few little tidbits of information that I can and will use in my life. There are some interesting points of view that I had not thought about before.


"If the government issued permits for free speech, would you get in line for one? If your local sheriff was willing to grant permission to practice your religion - after you passed certain tests, gave your fingerprints and let yourself be photographed, would you apply? If your state allowed you to hold a political meeting, but only if you obtained the proper license and consented to having your name entered in a government database, would you lay your money down?

The proper answer is, "We don't need no stinking permits!" Right?

Then you don't need no stinking permit to exercise your right to own and carry firearms either"

I found that section to be interesting. The rights being spoken of are guaranteed by the Constitution. If one has been limited, why not the others? Actually, the others have been limited in small ways also. It is just to say that we are not as "free" as we like to run around shouting about to the rest of the world. We used to be, but we no longer are.


And then there was this...which is exactly how I feel about limited federal government:

"Fear is the most potent weapon of power-mongers. They spook us with some threat - which may be real or illusory. Then they promise to save us from it - as long as we just give up a few more billion dollars, a few rights, a little of our privacy, a lot of our independence, and ultimately all of our freedom.

They'll "save" us from foreign terrorists, drug users, abusive spouses, global warming, foreign invaders, foreign diseases, flag burners, left-wing radicals, right-wing reactionaries, immigrants, domestic terrorists, bad parents, racists, date-rapists, unfair employers, fast food, poverty, herbal supplements, imported drugs, deadbeat dads, people whose opinions hurt our feelings, unAmerican activities, obesity, crooked corporations, high medical bills, pollution, our own stupidity, and our neighbor's stupidity. They'll save us from "hate crimes", discrimination, immorality, gay-bashing, inequality, "gun violence", hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, and the consequences of everybody's bad choices.

Except that somehow they never do. And after all the trillions of dollars spent and giant (often heavily armed) bureaucracies erected to save us from every single other thing in the entire world including, I kid you not, excess caffeine drinking and kids who sass their parents, the government is big enough that who's going to save us from it?

It's hard not to feel fear these days, especially when we're sitting in front of the TV set or getting our daily dose of bad news from the net.

But it's crucial not to let that fear overmaster us. If we let it freeze us, then we've already lost."

So, this book is full of suggestions for people to do to protect their rights from the big evil government while we are all waiting around for it to get bad enough for the population to revolt.
While much of it is just too far out there for any mainstream society member to do, some of it is actually quite useful to even us "normal" people.

Here are some of the chapters:
-Don't give your Social Security Number...she means to anyone, ever. Burn the card and make up something or just refuse to answer. There is a lot more to it that that, but it was based in good practice and taken too far.

-Don't get all goo-goo about cops and soldiers. Yes, she is right. They are no better than anyone else. Some good. Some bad. Once again though, she took it too far.

Ahhh, ya know what? I don't feel like typing them out any more. It is kind of stupid to attempt to explain this book without having to explain where I stand of every single issue she brought up.

If you are into the whole extremist-survivalist thing (burying weapons stockpiles, etc) then you should check it out. Otherwise, it is a lot of over-the-top BS just to get to some very good nuggets of wisdom.

6. The Zombie Survival Guide

The Zombie Survival Guide; Complete Protection from the Living Dead - Max Brooks

I hate zombies!

This book is supposed to be some kind of field manual for when zombies attack. It could be anything from some low level skirmish with a single zombie wandering into the neighborhood, or an all out invasion of millions of zombies taking over the earth. This book teaches you how to protect yourself and your family so you can survive.

It is categorized as humor though it is not funny. It is a parody, not stand up comedy.

There are chapters that explain the myths and realities about zombies, weapons and combat techniques, what to do when you are defensive, offensive and on the run, what it will be like living in a world overrun by undead, and stories of "factual" and "documented" zombie attacks through the ages.

All this is written as if it is real. No clues as to it being a farce in any way. It stays true to the title and the goal of the book.

In case you care...zombies can only be killed by destroying the brain. Head shots from firearms, and axe in the skull, decapitation. Anything else is a waste of time.

Also...we should all build 10 foot high concrete walls around our homes and have sliding metal gates...and we need to keep thousands of rounds of ammo for all our weapons...and we need dirt bikes because the roads will be blocked...and we need to have a generator available that is pedal powered...and machine guns are a waste of ammo...and cut out the staircase in your home and use ladders because zombies can't climb...and own a really good machete...and don't go to the hospital or police stations during an undead attack...blah blah blah.

This book is stupid. Unless you are a real zombie fanatic don't waste your time reading it. I didn't hate it, but i feel like all I did was occupy some time.

75%

The Communist Manifesto

Yes the real Communist Manifesto written by Karl Marx.

Isn't that just a lovely piece of work?

Well, I figured I read the US Constitution enough times, but I never read this. So, now I have. The deed is done.

Culture Shock! Ukraine - Anne Meredith Dalton

This is a book written to explain cultural differences between Ukraine and us. Some of it came in very handy while we were there. Not so much in the bigger cities where Ukraininas have become more western tolerant, but in the smaller towns, where tradition still reigns.

I will never be sure, but I know by following s few of the guidelines in the book I should not have offended people. At least they did not look at me funny or have to correct me in my ways. :-)

The problem with the book is that it is dated. The world changes. The people change. The book remains the same. It is a bummer because it was useful when it was written. Now you have to glean out the stuff you can and can't use.