93. Defining Conservatism by Jonathan Krohn

I don't like to talk politics very much on the blog. I don't want to pretend to be the most well-informed person on current events and at the end of the day, this is for fun. It's not meant to be too weighty. But if you know me or have been reading for awhile, you're probably aware that I lean to the left. Some might say bleeding heart liberal. For the project, I have read some political books: The Audacity of Hope (definitely toward the left) and Game Change (more toward the left than the middle). So in the interest of fairness, I always intended to read something non-fiction that was from a conservative standpoint. Fair's fair, right? I wasn't sure how to start looking for something, though. Most of the conservatives that pop up on my radar don't appeal to me because they don't seem to be interested in a rational dialogue -- keep in mind, this mainly refers to people like Glenn Beck. I know there are serious-minded conservative voices out there, though; I just can't hear them over the noise of Beck et al. So when I saw Defining Conservatism on the new non-fiction shelf at the library, my interest was piqued. Maybe this was just the thing that I had been looking for?

Defining Conservatism is a passionate appeal to a political movement that is re-examining its identity as Republicans set their sights in 2010 and beyond. A dedicated young conservative, Jonathan Krohn presents conservative philosophy's basic tenets in this remarkably earnest and impeccably reasoned primer. This book, clear and informative, is a history lesson, a manifesto, and a roadmap for the future. It is Krohn's rallying call to action not just for conservatives, but for anyone interested in the political state of our nation. In Defining Conservatism, Krohn challenges "government expansionists," whose faith in Washington and the basic pillars of government exceeds their faith in the individual. At the same time, he boldly stakes out four unshakeable principles for conservatives to rally around:

Respect for the Constitution

Respect for human life

Belief in minimalist government

Insistence upon personal responsibility

Anyone interested in the basic differences between conservative and liberal thought will find Krohn's writing at once compelling, informative, intelligent, and -- for those who do not agree with him -- controversial. Defining Conservatism is a must-read for anyone who is interested in the basic principles upon which the United States was founded, and perhaps most importantly, for anyone who is concerned with the future of this country.

Summary taken from the book jacket copy. 

This book was in no way, shape or form what I was looking for. I bolded parts of the book jacket copy to indicate what must have appealed to me as I read it while at the library. I think I must have been skimming, rather than really reading. I brought the book home with me thinking that I would be reading about those four basic tenets of conservatism, which I actually don't find much fault with. (Seriously. At the root, we're not that far apart.) I thought the book would be accessible to liberals, explaining conservative principles at least partly in an attempt at a greater understanding between the two parties.

Krohn does go into detail explaining those basic principles. But I found that at every opportunity, he took pleasure in also explaining why liberals (referred to in every instance as "government expansionists") were wrong -- and dangerous. I found his writing to be obnoxious and offensive. One of his assertions is that liberals have no moral compass. I think he puts it as conservatives believe natural law and morals to be inflexible, while liberals change their morals based on context of situations -- thus having no true (read: inflexible) morals. That's the best way that I can paraphrase, something may get lost in translation. I wrote down a quote about morals, maybe it will give you an idea of how he writes on the topic:

"The so-called tolerant left claims that in order to have tolerance, one must first and foremost deny morality a stake or even a claim in society."

I have never been so frustrated in my life. The book is about 170 pages long, and I cried for most of the second half. I could rant and rave about what Krohn said and the rude way he said it, but it's really my fault for now knowing what I was getting into.

I want to wrap up this post with a couple of quotes from President Obama's commencement speech at the University of Michigan, which took place earlier this year. As I said above, I don't have a problem with the basic ideas of conservatives. I don't feel so far apart from them to preclude understanding or cooperation. But I think we have different ways of looking at things, and the quotes below express (more eloquently than I could) some ideas that reading Defining Conservatism stirred up.

"It was the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, who said the role of government is to do for people what they cannot do better for themselves."

"...government shouldn't try to dictate people's lives. But it should give you the tools you need to succeed. Government shouldn't try to guarantee results, but it should guarantee a shot at opportunity for every American who's willing to work hard."

92. L.A. Confidential by James Ellroy

Colin and I were looking for movie adaptation ideas, and he was reading titles off of some website. When he got to L.A. Confidential, he was all for it -- he said that I should really read this one and then we could watch the movie together. It turns out Colin loved the movie adaptation when it came out and thought it should have beaten Titanic for Best Picture. Okay, then: decision made. L.A. Confidential it is.

James Ellroy's L.A. CONFIDENTIAL is epic noir, a crime novel of astonishing detail and scope. It stands as a steel-edged time capsule -- Los Angeles in the 1950s, a remarkable era defined in dark shadings.

Pornography.

Police corruption.

Gangland intrigue.

A horrific mass murder that invades the lives of victims and victimizers on both sides of the law -- three cops treading quicksand in the middle.

Ed Exley wants glory. Haunted by his father's success as a policeman, he will pay any price, break any law to eclipse him. Bud White watched his own father murder his mother -- he is now bent on random vengeance, a time bomb with a badge. Trashcan Jack Vincennes shakes down movie stars for a scandal magazine. An old secret possesses him -- he'll do anything to keep it buried. Three cops in a spiral, a nightmare that tests loyalty and courage, a nightmare that offers no mercy, allows for no survivors.

Greed.

Perversion.

Ruthless ambition.

L.A. CONFIDENTIAL is incendiary, a novel as broad and explosive as its themes. Here is James Ellroy's masterpiece, his stunning gifts stretched to the limit, darkness to haunt you in shades of red, gray and black. 

Plot summary taken from the book jacket. Laying it on a bit thick, aren't they?

Ellroy's writing style was extremely off-putting at first and I had a really hard time getting into this book -- a bad omen, considering its 500-page length. I can't describe it really, but the style just didn't make sense to me and it was difficult to decipher what the hell was going on. It's a good thing that the plot is so damn intriguing or I might have considered giving up. After about 150 pages, I felt more comfortable with the writing and desperately wanted to make it to the end. It went pretty fast after that first 150, and I ended up finishing the book in two days, surprising myself. I liked the twists and payoff of the exposition, but I didn't think this was the best mystery/suspense/thriller that I've ever read -- maybe at heart, I'm just not a noir person?

One thing that I found really interesting, and I'm not sure if I liked or disliked, was Ellroy's incorporating actual people and events into his fiction. The gangster Mickey Cohen was mentioned in the first chapter, and the name sounded familiar but I didn't think much of it -- until Johnny Stompanato, one of his associates, came up. Now that name I know for sure. I'm the proud owner of Lana Turner's autobiography and her daughter Cheryl Crane's autobiography -- and Johnny Stompanato takes up at least a chapter or two in each. Stompanato dated and abused Turner and was killed in her home. The official story is that Cheryl stabbed him to prevent him from beating her mother, but there were a lot of rumors and other theories about what happened at the time. It was a huge scandal. So once I saw that name, I did some online research and found that Ellroy used a lot of historical information in the book, most notably the Bloody Christmas affair, which puts several plot points in the book into motion. I'm still deciding it that was cool or confusing. Probably both. 

And now for some trivia before I get into the movie adaptation that Colin loved so much. 

At one point, the name Barney Stinson came up -- we never meet this character but his name is provided as a criminal's drug dealer. Who cares, you ask? Well, Coin and I are big fans of the show How I Met Your Mother, and Barney Stinson is the name of Neil Patrick Harris's character. Coincidence? Hm...

This may be a spoiler, so please avert your eyes if you wish to remain spoiler-free. Pierce Patchett, one of the big baddies in the book, was from Grosse Pointe, Michigan. Just like me! This fact doesn't have a lot of bearing on anything, but it was interesting to me. In another world, maybe I would have been the Grosse Pointe native that ended up running a Hollywood look-a-like brothel in Los Angeles. Who knows?

Now, those of you paying attention will know that I read L.A. Confidential immediately after No Angel. This is apropos of nothing, except that in both books the city San Bernardino, CA, is referred to as "Berdoo" and "San Berdoo." What's up with that? I thought it was just a Hells Angels things when I was reading No Angel, but then it comes up in L.A. Confidential? What does it mean? I did some preliminary research online, and it seems that it doesn't mean much of anything -- "Berdoo" has been a nickname of San Bernardino for over 100 years. Shrug. Mystery solved, I guess.

I had never seen the movie adaptation of L.A. Confidential. All I really knew about it was that Kim Basinger won Best Supporting Actress for her role and she wore a really lovely green gown to the ceremony and was still married to Alec Baldwin at that point. Colin and I watched it just a few days after I finished the book, so everything was still fresh in my mind. And every time the movie deviated from the book, I couldn't help but point it out. Yes, I was that guy. Even though I knew they would have to trim down a lot to adapt the book, I was still surprised by how much that was different. I'm not sure why Kevin Spacey agreed to play Vincennes -- his entire background was cut out, as well as his romance, and (spoiler alert!) he dies sooner in the movie than in the book. What's up with that? Also, it's more noticeable to me when a movie takes itself very seriously than when a book does. I'm sure the book did take itself very seriously, but I couldn't help but notice it during the movie. At one point, White is beating up Exley and Exley is trying to convince him that someone is setting him up. He actually yells, "Think, goddamn you! Think!" I laughed. This was one of those times when I couldn't watch the movie objectively, so if you want to discuss it I suggest you talk to Colin. I didn't appreciate it as much as he did. 

91. No Angel by Jay Dobyns

My friend Ken told me about this book he was reading and he sounded really excited about it. The more he told me, the more interested I became. He generously offered to loan it to me, so I took him up on it.

Here, from Jay Dobyns, the first federal agent to infiltrate the inner circle of the outlaw Hells Angels Motorcycle Club, is the inside story of the 21-month-long operation that almost cost him his family, his sanity, and his life. 

Summary taken from the paperback back cover. It's pretty succinct, eh?

Okay, I want to get the bad out of the way because I have plenty of good things to say.

I usually don't despair when I read non-fiction books about bad people/things... it's generally an interesting topic and I can be a bit objective. But for some reason, this one got to me. I felt bogged down in the bad things that happen in this world -- a hand signal for gangbangs, a woman murdered for insulting someone in a clubhouse, so many people using/addicted to crystal meth. It just got to me. Not to sound naive, but there is just so much more to life, you know?

Also, I didn't get through this one as quickly as I usually do. It was good and interesting, but because it was taking longer to read, I felt frustrated and as if I didn't like it as much as I did. 

And onto the good!

While reading, you become completely immersed in this world, which is pretty incredible. Not everyone can write that effectively. And I came away with all this knowledge that I never thought I would have:

people use the abbreviation "OMG" for "outlaw motorcycle gang" (tee hee)

it is, in fact, "Hells Angels" and not "Hell's Angels" (apparently there's more than one hell based on where you are)

they also say 81 (eight one, not eighty-one) to refer to the Hells Angels (8 for H [the eighth letter in the alphabet] and 1 for A [the first letter in the alphabet])

I love finding a Detroit connection, and this book has a great one. When describing Slats, aka Joe Slatella, who ran Operation Black Biscuit:

"He'd worked in Detroit in the eighties and nineties -- the Vietnam of federal law enforcement..."

Wowza, right? Also, Slats named it "Operation Black Biscuit" because he's a huge Detroit Red Wings fan, and "black biscuit" is slang for hockey puck. (This was new to me -- I've never heard that, and my parents said that they hadn't either. But we're none of us huge hockey fans.)

This is possibly the best quote from a rough-and-tumble undercover ATF agent ever:

"October 5. On the way to the Patch, I stopped at a Starbucks. They already had the Halloween seasonal, a pumpkin-flavored latte with brown sugar cinnamon sprinkles. I love the seasonals at Starbucks -- I get them with extra foam and low-fat milk. Totally lame, but there you go."

Ooh, and get a load of this quote on the back cover:

"Fuhgedaboudit! Moving and frightening ... The most informative and authoritative book on undercover work since Donnie Brasco."

--Joe Pistone, aka Donnie Brasco, and author of the New York Times bestseller Donnie Brasco: My Undercover Life in the Mafia

Tee hee! That kind of quote takes balls, and I love that they put it on the back cover. I read Donnie Brasco forever ago, but I don't remember enough of it to compare to No Angel.

And those of you who enjoy the movie Hot Fuzz will understand that I'm completely paranoid that this post has "angle" instead of "angel" somewhere in it. And that's a mistake that spell-check isn't going to find! But in all seriousness, this book is pretty amazing. I recommend checking it out if you're interested in undercover work or motorcycle gangs or just want an incredible peek into a world that's completely different from your own.

90. The Big Sleep by Raymond Chandler

I decided to read The Big Sleep a long time ago when I saw it on one of my lists of classics. My interest was peaked because I had a vague idea of what it was but I wasn't sure. This work is referenced in pop culture all the time -- I heard the name Philip Marlowe pop up on Veronica Mars once -- so I thought it would be cool to go to the source, as it were.

There was no book jacket copy to speak of and I couldn't write a plot summary of this book to save my life, so please kindly visit Wikipedia to read what The Big Sleep is about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Sleep

The Big Sleep is a great read. I loved the writing style and the dialogue and it was fun to read. But here's the thing: I had the hardest time trying to follow the plot. Even the plot summary on Wikipedia -- I can't wrap my mind around it. So after a few chapters of reading and re-reading paragraphs trying to make sure I was taking all the action in, I let go a little bit. I tried to just enjoy the ride and stop tracking the details. I don't really like it when this happens, but sometimes it does and you have to decide not to get frustrated and give up entirely. Like I said, I genuinely liked the writing style and the dialogue so I didn't want to throw the book aside and choose something else. So all in all, I did like this one but I don't think I'll be picking up any of the other Philip Marlowe books any time soon.

89. Evil at Heart by Chelsea Cain

I went to the library a few weeks ago with a list in hand. I was on a mission. As I walked down the C aisle of the Fiction section, looking for Capote  and Chandler, Evil at Heart by Chelsea Cain caught my eye and I stopped. I read Cain's first two novels, Heartsick and Sweetheart, a couple of years ago and really enjoyed them.

Fun fact: I noticed that Nathan Fillion's character was reading one of them on an episode of Castle, although I can't remember which one. Probably Sweetheart.

So even though I had already somewhat decided that I had read enough mysteries this year, I decided to check it out. I was really excited to see there was another book in this series -- the second book was good in part because of a twist from the first one that must have been part of the plan all along. I really appreciate when authors have a grand plan, rather than continuing on for continuing on's sake or in an obvious bid for another payday. 

Please note: The review below does contain spoilers. Stop here if you want to read this series (and it's a good one) without prior knowledge. 

Gretchen Lowell is still on the loose. These days, she's more of a cause celebre than a feared killer, thanks to sensationalist news coverage that has made her a star. Her face graces magazine covers weekly and there have been sightings of her around the world. Most shocking of all, Portland Herald reporter Susan Ward has uncovered a bizarre kind of fan club, which celebrates the numbers of days she's been free. Archie Sheridan hunted her for a decade, and after his last ploy to catch her went spectacularly wrong, remains hospitalized months later. When they last spoke, they entered a detente of sorts -- Archie agreed not to kill himself if she agreed not to kill anyone else. But when a new body is found accompanied by Gretchen's trademark heart, all bets are off and Archie is forced back into action. Has the Beauty Killer returned to her gruesome ways, or has the cult surrounding her created a whole new evil? 

Plot summary taken from the book jacket.

As far as mystery premises go, this is a pretty good one. Gretchen, a notorious female serial killer, posed as a psychologist consulting with the very task force working to track her down. She and Archie, the lead detective, had an affair. And then she kidnapped and tortured him because, well... that's what she does. Now the task force knows who they're hunting, but their lead detective is in bad shape. That's some good stuff, right?

This was a good installment in the series; it held up well against the the first two. Some effed up things happen, but it is a thriller about a serial killer, so that's to be expected and it wasn't too over the top. I did pick up on a clue, so I felt pretty good about that. I liked the ending because Cain could return with another book but if she doesn't, it's still a satisfying ending to series.

I read up on Cain on Wikipedia and was interested to learn that she's from Portland, Oregon. I love my Portland-raised authors! Apparently she described the Green River Killer as the "boogeyman" of her youth. I do have a bone to pick with her, though. I didn't realize that she is also the author of Confessions of a Teen Sleuth: A Parody. I read that book awhile ago -- I was intrigued because I have a lot of nostalgia for my days of reading Nancy Drew. This "parody" was more like a mockery, though. I thought it would be written kindly, but I was really off-put by the condescending tone. I do not recommend it even one little bit. I hope Cain sticks to thrillers in the future.  

88. Proof by David Auburn

When the movie version of Proof came out, I somewhat wanted to see it. I love Jake Gyllenhaal and loved Gwyneth Paltrow at the time, which was before she became British and insufferable. Ultimately I thought the movie would be too sad, so I decided not to see it. I didn't think much of it until my friend Peter showed me the copy of the play that he found -- in perfect condition -- at a garage sale. He thought it might be fun to include a play in my reading project, which I thought was both smart and sweet.

We had kind of a long conversation about the book cover, by the way. Peter mentioned that he thought the woman on the cover resembled Mary-Louise Parker and I disagreed. I thought it looked more like Kristen Stewart -- most likely because of the sad expression. Miss Stewart is not all sunshine and rainbows, you know. We debated it for awhile, and I conceded that I could see why he thought it looked like MLP but the resemblance wasn't jumping out at me. I read over the back cover while we were talking about something else and noticed this line:

Cover photograph of Mary-Louise Parker in Proof by Jean-Marie Guyaux.

As it happens, MLP originated the role of Catherine. You learn something new every day.

On the eve of her twenty-fifth birthday, Catherine, a young woman who has spent years caring for her brilliant but unstable father, Robert, must deal not only with his death but with the arrival of her estranged sister, Claire, and with the attentions of Hal, a former student of her father's who hopes to find valuable work in the 103 notebooks that Robert left behind. As Catherine confronts Hal's affections and Claire's plans for her new life, she struggles to solve the most perplexing problem of all: How much of her father's madness -- or genius -- will she inherit?

Plot summary taken from the back cover.

I haven't read a play since I was in school, not that I can remember anyway. And even then, I don't know that I've read one that's left me speechless, as Proof did. I felt completely blown away, and just sat to digest it for a few minutes. It is, quite simply, brilliant. Smart and witty, sarcastic but heartfelt -- I don't know how Auburn did it. And I really don't know how he managed to craft such a pitch-perfect relationship between the two sisters. I have to go on record and state that neither of my sisters is like Claire, but the way that Catherine and Claire interact and the sense of the history between the two of them is just staggering. He got it just, absolutely, perfectly right. In general, I don't even know how to articulate a response to the play. l was amazed.

Colin brought home the DVD of Proof that I had been so reluctant to see. And no, it did not end up being too sad. It was a very well-executed adaptation and in particular, well-casted. I recommend seeing it if you haven't already but I think the experience of reading the play is more enjoyable.  

87. Breakfast at Tiffany's by Truman Capote

I have always loved the movie Breakfast at Tiffany's -- not necessarily for the story/plot but for the style, look and feel, lingo, etc. And Audrey Hepburn. She is the epitome of class and grace, and I just love her in the role of Holly Golightly. I actually own three copies of the movie: one on VHS, one on DVD, and one DVD in a box set with two other Audrey Hepburn movies. So when I was trying to think of books to read for the movie adaptation category and Colin suggested Breakfast at Tiffany's, it was a done deal.

When Breakfast at Tiffany's was first published in 1958, Time magazine described its heroine, Holly Golightly, as "the hottest kitten ever to hit the typewriter keys of Truman Capote. She's a cross between a grown-up Lolita and a teen-age Auntie Mame...alone and a little afraid in a lot of beds she never made." Of all his characters, Capote later said, Holly was his favorite, and it is easy to see why. This wacky hillbilly-turned-playgirl who lives in a Manhattan brownstone shares not only his philosophy of freedom and acceptance of human irregularities but also his fears and anxieties -- "the mean reds" she calls them. For her the cure is to jump into a taxi and head for Tiffany's; nothing bad could happen, she says, amid "that lovely smell of silver and alligator wallets," and her dream is to have breakfast in that soothing setting. "Holly Golightly is outre, funny, touching -- and real," remarked The Atlantic. 

This is from the book jacket. It's not a plot summary per se, but I think it's great. 

Relief! I really loved it. I had heard somewhere that they had to change a lot to adapt the book into a film, so I wasn't sure what to expect. I thought it might be grittier. But it was actually a really faithful adaptation, I even recognized some of the dialogue. The changes they made worked for the new medium very well. They changed the ending but really had to -- the novella ending is probably more true to life, but the movie ending is more satisfying and people can walk away happy, it feels more like an ending.

Side note: I didn't like the use of the n word, but I have a feeling it was accurate for the time and place/context. 

Breakfast at Tiffany's is the first book of Truman Capote's that I've read, and I'm not sure if I will read more of his work... all I really need to know about Capote, I think I do:

    

1. he wrote this novella

2. he was the basis for Dill in To Kill a Mockingbird

3. he was in Murder by Death

Although I bet a biography of his celebrity years would be full of dish... and I do love reading about the scandals of New York society. (I'm kidding a little bit -- I saw the movie Capote, which doesn't really make the case for his being a nice person, you know? I think that's why I would be hesitant to delve more into his work.)

And a final note: both the book and the movie can make you feel a bit sad about life, which I HATE, but I really like them more for feeling of the time, the glamour and clothes, and the lexicon, you know? I don't think that either will give you a case of the "mean reds," but consider yourself forewarned.