"The Elephant in the Playroom" by Denise Brodey

The rest of the title didn't fit up there so here it is:

"The Elephant in the Playroom: Ordinary Parents Write Intimately and Honestly About the Extraordinary Highs and Heartbreaking Lows of Raising Kids with Special Needs."

I asked my friend Jessica, who is an Early Childhood Education major specializing in Special Education, about if she would prefer to have a child with special needs. I mean, obviously everybody wants perfect children, who are always perfectly healthy, but does part of her want to use her unique talents for relating to and teaching kids with special needs? I don't remember exactly what she said. I'm interested in knowing what others think of this.

This book is written in brief essay form by the parents of kids with a very wide variety of special needs, from ADD to severe autism. Reading the parents' points of views, I started to address the question: "How would I deal with raising a child with special needs?"

My aunt once turned to my mom when she was pregnant with my brother and asked her, "So, what are you going to do if he's born retarded?" My grandma stepped in and said, "Then we're going to take that child, and love that child, and make that child our own." My mom was extremely grateful for this comment, because she herself had never thought much about it. But besides a strong knowledge that I will love all my children regardless of their abilities, I haven't thought much about the mechanics of raising a child with problems.

Like, for example, one major theme that this book addresses is how the parents figured out that their child was different. The pattern for many families seems to be that they have their first child who is a terror, or behaves strangely, or whose milestones are wayyyy off, and they don't even realize anything is wrong until child number two comes along, and they have something to compare with. I think many parents end up in a trap of feeling like they are somehow responsible for their child's disability. It's so weird that this is how our culture is; I mean, it's a bit odd when parents feel guilty about physical disabilities their children have, so why should mental illness be any different?

I never had considered that babies don't come out of the womb with a label on their head saying, "I have autism," or, "I have sensory learning disabilities." I suppose my own babies could have these things. We will have to wait and find out, I guess. (I'm mostly positive neither of them has an extreme case of a mental illness or learning disability because they are either at or above average with all their growth milestones).

Many children in the book had mild cases of asperger's syndrome. Some had ADD. I found them all fascinating to read about. All of the parents had a difficult time.

There was one particular parent with whom I totally disagreed. Her son had a mild form of autism, if I remember right. She was upset when the teacher at the school couldn't get him a one-on-one aid, or pay enough attention to him, or something. I think he was in a classroom of 5 or 6. She was explaining her frustrations to her friend (who was a teacher), and the friend said, "Well, the teacher has to think about the other kids in the class, too; she can't just focus entirely on your son." The mom of the autistic kid got so offended by this comment she almost completely cut off her friendship with the teacher lady. Seriously? I mean maybe I'm just sympathetic because I have had autistic students in my classroom before. She shouldn't have gotten offended; it's the truth! It's certainly too bad that it's that way, and obviously we're missing the tone of the conversation, but if the teacher friend was just making an observation about how the teacher had to pay attention to the other students, I think, "Well, duh!"

There were several other times in the book where I seriously wondered if I would have handled the situation the same way. Truth is, I'm not sure.

One thing I am sure about: parents of kids with special needs have a much harder time of parenting, and my heart goes out to them. It seems like it is a difficult, but extremely rich and rewarding experience. One that I'm not sure I want to have first hand!

"Plain and Simple: A Woman's Journey to the Amish" by Sue Bender

I finished this book a few weeks ago. I read it during Dan's night nursings. Maybe that influenced my opinion of it? All in all, I thoroughly enjoyed all the parts that weren't whiny self-analysis, so like 20% of the book?

I guess it didn't help that it was hard to respect a woman who would leave her husband and kid for weeks and weeks at a time on some strange unexplainable quest to live with Amish people. Even if she gained invaluable understanding about herself, even if the way it influenced her art was immeasurably good, for me at my current stage of life it is SO impossible to relate to even coming close to wanting to be apart from my family for that long. And then, there's the gaping hole in the story where she never, ever discusses that. I mean, she mentions her husband a grand total of once during the whole story? I'm sorry, if the book was supposed to be about your wonderful eye-opening experience, wasn't that part of the experience? And a significant part? Maybe not for her, but it would have been for me, I think.

I knew next to nothing about Amish customs and culture before reading this book. And honestly, although I learned some interesting things about them that parallel Mormonism, I was highly disappointed in the lack of basic information about them. I guess that's not what the book was intended to be, but I would have found it more fascinating than the inner thoughts of an artist living among them.

It's a non-fiction memoir type book, written by a clinical psychologist, so it's not like there really was much "plot" to expect, but here's the basic gist: woman feels drawn to the Amish, drops everything and goes to live with some for a while, experiences multiple epiphanies about life, comes home, repeat.

Maybe I just felt like she was whining when really she wasn't, because most of her "whininess" revolved around things that I must do every day in order for our house to function; things like the dishes and the laundry. I'm pretty sick of women complaining about things like that. Especially because recently I timed unloading the dishes, and it takes less than five minutes people! Quit complaining, it's annoying.

I also found her repetition annoying. I felt like in every chapter she came to some kind of life-altering epiphany about how to relax and enjoy the boring parts of life. But frequent epiphanies lose my interest quickly because they are mundane and hard to believe.

I think this *may* be an interesting book for our Relief Society book club. The other women might have insight on Bender's thoughts that could help me appreciate it better. All in all, this seems like a book which is better when read as a group (and not necessarily all of it!) and then discussed than read by one's self quickly.

Although, my opinion of Bender and her epiphanies increased significantly when, at the end, in the epilogue, she says that her experience with the Amish changed her but didn't make her want to be Amish. It was nice to know that for all of her epiphanies, she is still human and not able to completely change, even if she had a major, life-altering experience.

Mostly, the book left me with an extreme curiosity about Amish Quilts. I wish she had included better photos than the one on the front cover! I'd like to learn more about their quilts, as well as their dolls. Actually, I'd like to learn more about the Amish in general!

"Invasive Procedures" by Orson Scott Card and Aaron Johnston

Okay so I have about 10 books I haven't written a review for yet. But I just finished this one, so I am going to review it now.

All in all, it was okay. An entertaining read. Predictable. Slightly boring. He could have taken things to a much more exciting level. But then he didn't. For Orson Scott Card, it was disappointing. Of course, you can't really hold everything up to "Ender's Game" or you'd never appreciate any of his other work. Although, you'd think the editors would have caught the three glaring typos I found. It's a HUGE pet peeve of mine when I find typos in a book. I know there are typos on my blog, so who am I to judge...I guess it's just...sloppy...and if you're making a living at it, instead of a hobby-while-the-baby-is-nursing thing like my blog is to me, well, I think you should be able to avoid 99.9999999% of typos. One is forgiveable. Two is a bad editor. Three? Unacceptable.

Maybe I found this book boring because my husband and I talk a lot about DNA. Maybe if I weren't married to somebody working on the Thousand Genome Project, this stuff would have been more interesting. The whole time I was reading the book, I kept hearing Danny's laughter, "ha. Yeah....right." Basically, it's a crazed-scientist-wants-to-take-over-the-world plot, but involving some facts about DNA mixed with a lot of fiction. And homeless people and a scary, weird religion. And an "obedience drug" which is never explained or elaborated on. And a Mary Sue main character.

I guess what really sums up how I feel about this book is how I read it: I got it out of the library a few months ago, read the first three chapters, renewed it the maximum amount of times but then had to return it. It wasn't in the library the next time I went, or the next, or the next...I always checked. My library lets you request books and they will hold them for you. I didn't get around to doing that. But I always checked. I wanted to finish the story, just not THAT badly. And when it finally was there, I got it out and read the book in a few days.

I think it would make a good, entertaining movie. Kind of the equivalent of "Cellular". That was a fun, successful thriller that was never a huge blockbuster success. It isn't the next "Inception". The book reads like a movie.

Danny will enjoy it, I think.

"The Hunger Game" "Catching Fire" and "Mockingjay" by Suzanne Collins

No point in writing a review on just one of these fantastic books; if you read one, you have to read them all. And the back cover of "Mockingjay" is right; the sequels DO make the story better. I think it's because it's not the kind of sequel that is episodic. It just continues the story, sort of like the Harry Potter books. And like the Harry Potter books, I am so sad that I am done reading these.

All though, I will say, the night after I finished "Mockingjay" I had the most terrifying nightmare of my whole life. These books are not for the very young, or the very faint of heart. They are serious, and increasingly more violent as they progress. Nothing sexually explicit. But just when you think that things can't possibly get worse, or more demented, or scarier, they do. And that combined with my postpartum hormones made for very, very scary nightmares. Maybe it wasn't the best choice of books to read right now.

If you like Greek and Roman history, these books will be especially interesting.

If you like dystopian worlds, this will also be interesting. I felt like the book was kind of a cross between "The Uglies" and "The Handmaid's Tale" and even a hint of the last book I read, "Seeing Stars." Well...sort of. It really was its own thing.

I will say that the love story in these books is by far the most moving love story I've ever read! Very believable. And as the books go on, you realize that Collins is very good at showing rather than telling. But be prepared to read every paragraph; it's not one of those books you can skip ahead a few sentences to read the exciting dialog; if you do, you will miss something. Also, you need to pay attention the first time she describes a character; often that half sentence is the only description you will get. There was one character (Darius) who I had totally forgotten about, and when he came up again, I was confused and did not remember who he was.

She does a great job with showing the "panem et cirenses" idea. It's basically the idea that people will exchange their political freedom for cheap/free food and entertainment. If I were a High School English teacher, I would have my students analyze the meaning of hunger in the book. She does a great job with the entertainment part to the point where it's eerily spooky to actually read the book: after all, reading a novel to be entertained is pretty similar to watching the hunger games. I think it would be even more ironic if they end up making "the Hunger Games" a movie. I don't see how they can do it without it being one of the most disturbing rated R films in existence. So far I've resisted the urge to look up reviews of this series online, or anything about it online, so I can write my thoughts about it unbiased-ly (is that a word?).

I am so glad that Collins left out religion from her books. If she hadn't, it would have been so depressing. But because she did, she leaves us an alternative to her scary world which so closely resembles ours. The truth is that death is not the end, and if you have faith, you can hope for a better world. Not a dystopian, scary world. She does kind of leave it open as to whether or not you just witnessed the evolution of mankind, but it seems doubtful.

Interestingly, my husband seems to relate and like Gale more than Peeta, which is just so bizarre to me. Like, how could Gale possibly think that the prep team deserved to be punished the way they were? And how could he set up a death trap in that mountain? So horrible. Danny says he thinks they are totally justified. I have to keep my mouth shut so that I don't ruin the series. I can't wait for him to finally finish, which hopefully he will today!

I keep thinking about one of the things Peeta was supposedly coerced into saying, about how Katniss needs to find out who she is working for. I think he's right. But honestly, I'm not sure if that would actually be possible, given the circumstances.

The scary part is realizing at the end that they are still basically in the "Hunger Games", but the cirenses part, the entertainment part, is the current events. It's so spooky to think about how similar this is to our lives, and our world. Is this how our government controls us, by the "spectacle" of war? By distracting us and feeding us, so that we are willing to sell our political freedom - by becoming complacent?

What a warning. It's taken several weeks of reading scriptures and serious thought to stop being spooked by this book. I'm so glad that she didn't put religion into it; that way, the real world has the opportunity to be better.

I actually felt really sad when I finished this series because I felt like I knew the characters deeply. Collins is an excellent writer, and I think her books will stand the test of time. It would be so fascinating to see how the characters with Roman names relate to their real life versions. Like, is Plutarch really Plutarch? Hmm.

"The Year Living Biblically" by A. J. Jacobs

The following is something I wrote in an email to my in-laws that I never ended up sending. Sometimes, I dunno, I just sit down to write and I end up with a novel, something way, way, way too long for me to actually send. Plus, I realized that while I was trying to recommend them to read the book, I really ended up saying all the reasons they shouldn't read it. Finally, when I realized how much apologizing I was doing for Jacobs, I decided that there was no way I could honestly recommend it. And so why write a ten page email about a book I can't recommend?

But hey, that's what blogs are for!

"So Danny and I read a book that is really interesting and funny. Well, more accurately, sometimes I read passages of the book out loud to Danny. Also, I only read the first half of the book because I read a bunch of online reviews that criticized the second half. So, it's kind of silly that I'm recommending this book, since I didn't really read the whole thing at all, but honestly while reading it, I kept imagining what your guys' reaction would be. I think you'd think it was very funny.

It's called "The Year of Living Biblically" by A.J. Jacobs. It's not a book I would own, but rather one I would get from the library. And I totally hate the cover because it's just too over the top and slightly sacrilegious. And actually, there were a few parts I skimmed. But if you can get over these things, I can vouch for the first half of the book being quite entertaining.

It's about this agnostic American Jew who tries to spend a year living all the literal commandments in the Bible. The first half of the book focuses on the Old Testament, and the second on the New Testament. I think the reason he does a better job with living the literal commandments of the Old Testament is because they are way, WAY WAYYYYY easier to follow. For example, one thing he has to do is not wear wool and linen at the same time (Deuteronomy 22:11). Apparently there are Jews whose profession is to examine your clothing under a microscope to make sure it's not mixing fibers, because the labels can be wrong! So, this seems totally weird and crazy. But in the end, it's way easier to do than to follow Christ and believe in Him. I read about one chapter into the New Testament section, and he was basically explaining why he didn't think he could ever accept Christ as his Savior. Not very uplifting! Which is why I read the online reviews, and I'm glad, because now I don't have to waste my time reading something that's not going to be uplifting. Danny said, "Well, then he completely fails his goal to live the Bible literally, since accepting Christ as the Savior is like the one main commandment of the New Testament!" Very true. I can see how he would have had an easier time with the Old Testament anyway, seeing as he has his own family's heritage to lean on.

But the first part is hilarious and I learned a whole lot of things about Judaism that I didn't know/hadn't considered. Danny says that mostly it made him even more convinced that Jewish law/customs are totally...pharasee-ical? Like at one point he talks about how it was a commandment to wear tassels, and even though in the OT it mentions that there were several strands of blue thread in these tassels, for centuries Jews didn't put blue strands in because they weren't sure the exact shade of blue. Until recently, when scientists discovered the type of snail that would have made the blue dye used in Israel way back when. So now sometimes the tassels do have blue threads in them. Interesting.

He tries to keep the commandment to "spare not the rod" when his 2 year old son is misbehaving, and so he ends up getting a nerf stick. Which totally doesn't work; he whacks his son, but instead of disciplining him, his son just laughs and whacks him back with something else. That was funny.

But if you do decide to read it, don't have too high of expectations. He doesn't do as comprehensive a job as he possible could have, and the book mostly feels like he's doing a publicity stunt to sell a book. But I really did think parts of it were super, super funny. I think in the end, the main thing he gains from the whole thing is more appreciation for prayer. I mean, he was a totally a-religious guy before; praying several times a day every day for a year will definitely have some effect on you. I wish he had changed more; he says in the beginning that if his post-year-living-Biblically self were to meet his pre-year-living-Biblically self, they would probably thing each other was delusional. But even though it was happy that he gained some faith, of course it's still sad that he's still mostly a lost person. It seems there are way too many people like that."

My favorite experience of all involving this book was laughing out loud while reading one of the Amazon.com reviews. In the book, Jacobs describes how he is constantly reading the reviews for his other book (about his experience reading the whole encyclopedia). In the review for this book, somebody wrote something about how he knows Jacobs would be reading the review personally, so, um, hi? I thought that was hysterical.

If I were a writer, I would obsess over all my Amazon.com reviews, too.

"Seeing Stars" by Diane Hammond

This is a book about a bunch of teens and their parents who go or send them to Hollywood in search of fame. The final message of the book is: "Children need parents who love and care about them and who are involved in their every day lives more than they need fame and celebrity." I liked that message because it's very true.

There were some parts of this book that were really hard for me to believe. For example, how horrible and neglectful some of the parents were. They just carted their kids out to Hollywood and paid strangers to house them, seeing them only briefly at holidays. Two of the protagonists, Quinn and Allison, were essentially orphans.

Here's what I disliked about the book:

• Hammond used an overabundance of the f word, especially while narrating Quinn's thoughts. I suppose it made the story more real, but was it necessary?
• There was too much vulgarity, swearing, and especially taking the Lord's name in vain for my taste. I would not feel comfortable recommending this book to a church book group.
• I didn't think Angie and Laurel added very much to the book at all. Their story was totally separate from the others'. Their characters seemed very flat. Not to mention, if she really loved her husband as much as she professed to, why would she leave him during the last few months she had to live, to try to pursue her daughter's fame? That did not make much sense to me.
• There is one extremely graphic/violent rape scene that I walked right into, and while it was pretty short, I read more of it than I would have cared to. Reading that kind of stuff is totally damaging to the soul, in my opinion. I suppose it was a necessary plot point, and I ended up skipping the worst parts easily because it didn't go on and on for pages (I think it ended up being about 2 pages long), but I wonder: could Hammond have pulled off the same scene in a more tasteful way? BTW, I don't profess to know how to do that.

Here's what I really enjoyed about the book:

• As I grew to know the characters, their stories became like mysteries. Which one of them is going to "make it big"? Who is the next star going to be? Which one is going to go home? I honestly couldn't tell until the very end.
• The overall message is very good. Parents are more important to teens than fame. That was made clear by the attitudes of all of the characters, even the ones who end up "making it".
• It seemed like Hammond really researched this subject. There were so many interesting details that me, a layperson, had no clue about. Like, for example, have you ever really thought about how many takes they do while filming fried chicken commercials? Enough to have buckets by the actors' feet so they can spit out the chicken. Isn't that a nasty thought? So, basically one reason that this book was so successful was because the setting brought up some really interesting ideas that I had never thought of before, which force the reader to ask hard questions: "Should teenagers really be career actors?" "Who are these people I see in the commercials, really?" Hammond also pointed out things that I am sure happen, like producers putting their own family photos on the fridge in commercials, or hiring a person just to keep track of where props are exactly on set so that one take isn't missing a lamp, or the clock hands are in the same place.
• Hammond did an excellent job portraying believable young preteens and teens. Their behavior was just the right combination of bratty and innocent.
• Each character had flaws, but they were also mostly likable. Some were more likable than others, but that's true to life!
• The real antagonist of the book was not just one person, but rather the force that drives people so hard after fame that they end up neglecting their children. That, combined with general ambivalence towards parental responsibilities.
• She did a great job narrating. She showed the characters by subtly changing the narrator's voice when various characters were in the spotlight, even though it was third person. I really enjoyed her writing style.
• On more than one occasion she referenced some random trivial thing that I had learned (probably mostly from NPR) and thought about, but had never heard anybody else talk about before. It's hard to come up with an example, but I remember thinking, "Hey! She actually has heard that, too?" on more than one occasion.
• Hammond doesn't glorify celebrities for their celebrity status. She recognizes talent, and that acting takes work and skill. She did a great job describing the process of acting. But she didn't take part in the swoon fest that the rest of the world seems to automatically get when watching television and seeing someone whose name they know.
• Each character had a happy yet bittersweet resolution. I like that.
• The final line in the book was great.

So, all in all, I would recommend this book to my siblings, but probably not my parents or church book club.

"Freakin' Fabulous: How to Dress, Speak, Behave, Eat, Drink, Entertain, Decorate, and Generally Be Better than Everyone Else" by Clinton Kelly

One reason I really like Clinton Kelly is that he doesn't use his personal life to promote his career. Like, until I finally caved and read his Wikipedia page, I lived in blissful denial about his sexual orientation. He succeeds because of his overabundance of confidence. His credibility has nothing to do with his personal life, in stark contrast to the TV series "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" (this interesting insight is not mine; I stole it from his Wikipedia page).

Reading this book was like watching him on television. Except, I dunno, maybe it's because Stacy London, the "What Not To Wear" cohost, has always seemed much more over the top snarky than he does, I guess I always thought he was the "nice one". You know, good cop, bad cop syndrome? Well, without Stacy as the "bad cop", he seems a lot more snarky, and to be honest, borderline rude. Actually, in some cases it's not that borderline.

The book has great photography and design which is probably one of the top reasons I would have ever picked it up to read. It's like a magazine. The actual information within?

The book is divided into approximately the following sections (I may have missed a few, if so they obviously weren't memorable enough): how to dress, how to speak, how to drink, how to cook, and how to throw a great party. The section on how to dress was by far the most interesting to me (maybe because he has already proven his prowess on this front in my eyes?). The how to speak section was hilarious because of the example sentences he gave. Actually, that's the main reason why I checked the book out of the library.

This is my typical should-I-check-this-book-out test: I read the title, then I take the book off the shelf and look at it. I read the subtitle. If it's fiction, I try to read as little of the back as possible so that I can "get" what the book is about, but not have the whole plot ruined. Sometimes this involves reading the News Weekly reviews on the inside jacket cover instead of the synopsis on the back. There's nothing worse than knowing the main conflict before the characters do. I think the back of books should not contain anything more than you can get out of the first chapter, plus maybe a general statement on the theme of the book.

If the book is NON fiction, instead of reading the cover, I just flip the book open to a random spot and start reading. The books I check out are usually in this ratio: 90% nonfiction, 10% fiction (I think the books I actually read are more of an 80-20% ratio, though). This random reading will determine whether or not I check out the book, unless of course, it has piqued my interest in one of the previous steps. Usually I skip most of the books in the beauty section; they have titles like, "Make Your Skin Look 10 Years Younger!" But I saw Clinton's face on this book, and flipped to a page where he advocates using the subjunctive with this example:

"Instead of 'I wish I was a princess,' say 'I wish I were a princess.' (and for the record, I don't wish I were I princess)."

That cracked me up, I checked out the book, and read it.

Skipped the section on how to drink because I don't drink.

I also skimmed the section on language. The main reason he wrote it was, apparently, because he went to a prestigious (read: expensive) university and majored in communication, or something that required him to know grammar. The examples were funny, but a little too snide and sarcastic to read in one sitting.

I also skimmed the section on how to cook. He advocates memorizing how to cook 4 or 5 things, and nearly all of those special recipes were variations of Julia Child's recipes.

The section on how to throw a great party was 90% recipes for hors-d'oeuvres, which was interesting, but...I don't read recipes for fun, I read them if I'm trying to decide what to make! One really great tip that he gave for how to throw a great party is to not start making certain platters of hors-d'oeuvres until the first guests arrive, and then put them to work instead of sitting around in uncomfortable limbo. I know my mother in law does this, and she is the best hostess I've ever met.

So, would I recommend this book? Yes, if you're looking for some really light and fun reading. But you know, truth be told, at the end of my reading/skimming of the book, I mostly felt pretty trashy. Kind of the same feeling I get after reading People magazine. It's just so...worldly. I mean who actually lives the kind of lifestyle this guy is promoting? There are multiple references to promiscuity as normal, drinking TONS as normal, and obsessions with consumerism as normal. Even if those things technically are "normal", I don't want to be involved with them! And I personally think they aren't as "normal" as he insinuates between the lines.

I grew to view Clinton Kelly as a crotchety man in his forties who likes to pretend he's in his twenties, but whose real love is throwing parties and cooking for others. The only chapters where he wasn't as snarky or snide, and where he seemed to actually take a deeper interest in the subjects were when he described cooking and hosting. I bet he is a great host.

The main message of the book is, "Eat, drink, and be merry." So if you want some truly meaningful advice about how to be a better person, this is not the book. If you're looking for some shallow advice on how to do certain worldly things with more "style", illustrated with many glossy photos, this is a great read.

One last thing: the kinds of style advice he recommends are all general, timeless, and classic. So in that sense, there's another message to this book: "You don't have to be trendy to have style and class, you just have to perfect some basic aspects of fashion/cooking/hosting/drinking etc. and you will have style and class." I like that message because I have never had the patience/resources (both in dinero and ability to sift the "cool" from the "lame") to follow the trends.

"Beyond the Myth: The Story of Joan of Arc" by Polly Schoyer Brooks

Honestly, I only read the first half of this book. I'm not exactly sure why, because it was very interesting. The author dedicated the book to her daughter, Joan. Wouldn't it be fascinating to be a fly on the wall and see what really happened? Or to interview Joan herself, and find out what her motivations really were? She was only 14. I guess the main reason she accomplished so much was because a. her gender was so radical, b. she was a virtuous, faithful girl who stuck to her standard of virginity until marriage (which she never got to experience), and c. she had guts and confidence. She didn't actually ever kill anybody, just rallied lots of troops and instilled confidence in her cohorts and fear in her enemies. I would like to learn more about her, especially when I have adolescent girls in my house.

"Being the Mom: 10 Coping Strategies I Learned by Accident Because I Had Children on Purpose" by Emily Watts

This book was written by a self-deprecating, friendly LDS mom of five (I think?) kids. It was a quick, easy, fun read. I got it from interlibrary loan from a library in Salt Lake. It's always interesting to me where the ILL books come from.

And by self deprecating, I really mean it. She subtly puts herself down quite often throughout the book, which was a bit annoying. But I think she meant it to be humorous, as she actually seems to have quite a bit of self confidence and talent. I think it's just the "socially acceptable" way to talk about yourself; some women seem to believe that confidence comes across as pride. I think that's kind of weird. It was just part of the general tone of the book that made me think this, nothing super specific.

It was a very conversational, easy to read book. She gives her opinions on many things, including LDS doctrines relating to motherhood. Many of the stories she shared were interesting, but not very memorable. I don't remember the "10 strategies". Basically, the point of the book was, "Being a mom is hard, and so sometimes you just have to deal with being an imperfect mom, and that's okay, and actually better for you and your family." So, a good message. I enjoyed reading this, and would recommend it for LDS moms. I think maybe a non-LDS reader would not really "get it". I think the book will be far more enjoyable to read when I have older teenagers, because that is primarily what she wrote about.

"Twice Blessed: Everything You Need To Know About Having A Second Child" by Joan Leonard

Joan Leonard wrote this book to complain about how crappy and difficult it was for her to have a second baby. At least, that's how it felt. The book does not offer any new insight about how to deal with going from one to two children. Like, I could have written this book, with the knowledge I have from having one child, and being one of four kids. And just observing other people.

This book does not encourage you to have children. Kind of a shame, because the people who end up interested in reading this book (well, at least from the title and cover) seems mostly to be those who are pregnant with their second one, who are DYING for pregnancy literature about having a second child! I mean, come on, there are five million books out there detailing what life will be like when you get your first baby, but so far there has not been anything remotely useful that I have been able to find about transitioning from parenting one little being to two little beings.

Something else rather strange, Leonard believes that a "real family" is a family of four. She blatantly states how she was excited to finally have a "real family". What the heck? When you're married, you and your spouse are a family. I can sort of see why childless couples think having a baby will make them "have a family"; I totally disagree, but it makes a little sense. The family dynamic changes drastically when you add a baby. But what is "real" about having two?! I mean, this lady is clearly imposing her own family goals and values on the rest of the world and touting it as an "everything you need to know" guidebook. Stupid.

I think the book's intended audience is supposed to be people who are considering the possibility of having another child, not those of us who are already pregnant or have two. So she should have changed the title. And you know what, I'm not convinced that life with two kids is going to be as hard as she says. I was talking in the hallway with a mom in my ward who spaced her kids 14 months apart (just like Jane and this new baby will be), and her comment was, "It's way easier to have two babies than to have one baby and be pregnant." Then she had to run off and stop her kid from running away, or something. Which was too bad, because I really wanted her to elaborate on that. It's something I am really eager to believe.

I think mostly, if your attitude towards motherhood is, "Hey, being a mom is hard. Deal with it," you will not really like this book. It was kind of interesting to read, but mostly just a waste of time because I didn't learn much new that common sense hasn't already taught me.

"What Your Parents Never Told You about Being a Mom or Dad" by Stan and Jan Berenstein

Stan and Jan Berenstein wrote about something besides "down a sunny dirt road in Bear country"?! I had to investigate. Apparently, they have written quite a lot of books on parenting, including a guide on how to talk to your kids about sex! Now that sounds entertaining. But I'm fairly certain this was their first "parenting" book.

(I guess all of their books are about parenting, in a way. Very moralistic. I LOVED them as a kid, and we had about two billion of them, including the one about 'beary bubbies' - a spoof on beany babies.)

This book was not very well organized, but it was an enjoyable read. It skipped around a ton from topic to topic, and mostly it was a compilation of random humorous stories from their own or their friends' experiences as parents.

At the end of the book, I kind of felt like Stan and Jan were cynical, sex-obsessed alcoholics. I'm sure they just emphasized these types of jokes because, well, they are funny. But needless to say it was a very, very strange experience for me to hear their adult, non-children's-book-framed voices.

They wrote this book in an informal voice, which makes it almost conversational. And believe me, this dates them. They were definitely "old geezers" when writing this.

I was sad to learn, after reading this book, that they had passed away. I'd be interested in their biography. Something with a little less snarky tone, which also opens up their inner lives for the public to think about. Sound good?

"Life's Little Annoyances: True Tales of People Who Just Can't Take it Anymore" by Ian Urbina

Read the whole book here!

So this was the exact perfect book (yes, I read the whole 185 pages in one sitting) for me last night, when I got up at 12:45 and could not fall asleep until 3:45. It was mindless reading, while hilariously entertaining, and completely distracting.

The book contains examples of every day annoying things, and how various people have dealt with them. The best ones involved a combination of clever passive aggressiveness and profitable inventions.

Examples: Getting back at the roommate who steals the icecream you have hidden and labeled with your name by hiding a layer of salt across the whole thing. Haha!

The guy who went to the bank to deposit a $95,000 fake check, you know, the kind you get in your junk mail? And it cleared. And legally he could have held on to it, but instead he just wanted the bank to admit in writing that they screwed up. He ended up returning the money and writing an off-Broadway play about the ordeal, which lasted many long months. That was funny.

The guys who decided to collect a million free AOL CDs and then go on a road trip to AOL headquarters to deliver them, saying, "You've Got Mail!" I wonder if they ended up doing it.

The guy in the 15 item grocery line who, when there is someone behind him with more than 15 items, counts how many items he has out loud.

The guy who invented the CD case opener.

The guy who invented the Rejection Hotline.

The guy whose wife was annoyed because the waiter would always hand him the bill, even though she was the one to take her credit card out and put it in the carrier thing. His retort to her was always, "Well, I have the penis." This annoyed her a lot. He started signing his credit card in legible cursive: "I have the penis." Twelve years later, his wife saw him do it, and was annoyed. He said that nobody, not one of the restaurants they had been to in the last 12 years had noticed. That's funny.

The guy who was asked if he could be put on hold by Verizon, and he answered, "sure," but then realized the customer service person needed a "yes/no" explicitly stated. So he kept saying, "if you must," or "I guess," until the other person had to confront him on it.

The guy who gets his revenge on the annoying adult video store by honking every time he goes by, which invariably freaks out the customers going in.

The dog owner who made little flags with toothpicks and stuck them in dog turds in the park, to point out how people should pick it up.


My favorite: the guy who got annoyed at the cheesy motivational posters, and started Demotivators and Despair.inc, now a multimillion dollar company! Ha!

"Marcelo in the Real World" by Francisco Stork, read by Lincoln Hoppe

This was the first fiction book on tape I've listened to in a really long time. Except for one or two brief dialogs where it was hard to tell who was talking, the reader Lincoln Hoppe did an EXCELLENT job. So much so that I believe a large portion of why I enjoyed the book was the way he read it. It added so many different dimensions, the way he narrated Marcelo's voice.

I enjoyed the story. There were multiple layers of conflict. Marcelo was a very interesting character with a mild form of Autism. It seemed that Stork knew his stuff when it comes to Autism. But I don't really know because it's not something that I know very much about.

I was afraid for most of the book that there would be some elicit scenes. There weren't. I don't want to give too much away, in case you read it. I will say there were some of the scummiest scum bag of characters in this book, and there is some sexual content as well as some language. I think if this were a movie, it would be easy to make it PG, or PG 13, but you could also make it R. Mostly because movies with more than one or two instances of the f word are automatically R, and this book has several of those. I think Stork used it in a way that added to the story, although it was a bit annoying.

The target audience of this book is unclear. I wouldn't want to read it if I were 16 or younger, certainly not in a school setting. There is way too much blunt discussion of sex. There are allusions to rape. There is also a theme of religion. Marcelo is obsessed with religion. All in all, the religious discussions didn't even really phase me at all; they were interesting but not that crucial to the story.

*SPOILER ALERT!*

The conflict was good, the characters interesting (especially Marcelo), but the ending was lacking. It felt rushed and underdeveloped. Also, totally unbelievable. It didn't feel like he ever reached any sort of conclusion with Jasmine, even though that's what the author seemed to want you to believe.

The best part of the story, the part where Stork really succeeded in showing rather than telling was when Marcelo confronts his father about what is one of the most important conflicts in the book, which is Marcelo's realization that people with money get different service than those without. I think this was the climax of the book, when Marcelo asks his dad why Extelle (sp) gets different treatment than Vydromec (sp - hey, I didn't read it, I just listened to it)..

I would recommend this book, especially in audio book format. I don't think my in laws would like it, but probably my sister Sarah would. Maybe my mom would.

"The Total Money Makeover: A Proven Plan for Financial Fitness" by Dave Ramsey

This book is actually the November choice for my Relief Society's book club! That's kind of cool!

So, this was an excellent book. I really enjoyed reading it. I wonder if I would have liked it as much if our finances were different. We are very, very fortunate to not have debt (besides our house) due to wonderful parents and grandparents. I think probably I would have enjoyed reading the book if we had other kinds of debt, but most likely it would have felt a little bit like reading a book about losing weight from the point of view of someone who needs to, instead of someone who feels they are on track, i.e. it would probably have induced a major guilt trip. But I suppose that's a good thing if it motivates you to get your finances straight.

Although, the book does have lots and lots of motivational success stories from a wiiiide variety of people, sandwiched here and there. One of the pictures had an LDS family; we could tell (even though it was cropped) because the photo was in front of a temple. That was cool.

The book is not a method book, it's a process book. As in, there was not a lot about the specifics of what you need to do to balance a budget. Instead, it focused on why you should do certain things with your finances, and in what order. Not surprisingly, most of his "baby steps" follow counsel that the LDS Church gives. Actually, the guidance is also pretty much the same as what my non-LDS grandparents would say, too. They are simple, but difficult. It is not a "get rich quick" scheme.

I really like Dave Ramsey. Yesterday I kind of went on a "Dave Ramsey Binge" when I downloaded his "Ask Dave Ramsey" iPhone app, and listened to the calls nearly all day while doing chores or quilting. It was really fun. He's a fiscal conservative, as well as a political conservative, but I kind of think he's more libertarian than republican. Anyway, his talk show style is strikingly similar to Sean Hannity's, so why is it that I find him hilarious and fun to listen to while Sean I find obnoxious and rude? I think it's because the topic of finances is not nearly as controversial. For example, Dave Ramsey sometimes says things like, "You're acting like a FREAKING FOUR YEAR OLD! You need to get off your BUTT and DIG SOME DITCHES!" I dunno, there's something very gratifying hearing the truth told like that, as applied to an individual. I think it gets fuzzier when it comes to politics, though. Like, it sounds more like complaining when a citizen says the same kind of thing about his country. But I digress.

You can learn more about Dave Ramsey's baby steps here.

In brief, they are:
1. Save and maintain a $1,000 Emergency Fund
2. Get out of debt via the Debt Snowball method (pay your debts in order of smallest to largest)
3. Save and maintain a 3-6 month Emergency Fund
4. Save 15% of your annual income towards Retirement
5. Save for college tuition
6. Pay off the home mortgage
7. Build wealth, have fun, invest, and GIVE.

I think the main thing that I learned from reading this book is the advantage of a psychological boost when you focus all of your energy in one sector. I mean, that is pretty much the only "new" "breakthrough" thing. And even then, once you get to steps 4-6, you do them all at once.

The psychology is also applicable to baby step 2, the Debt Snowball. I mean, technically, you would save more money if you paid it off via the highest interest rate to lowest. But you definitely feel better as you accomplish something. I'm glad that he factors the psychology into the plan.

We pay extra on our mortgage now and always have. It's something both my parents and Danny's parents taught us to do. According to Dave Ramsey's plan, we should wait to do this until we have a fully funded Emergency Fund. I'm not sure that we're going to do it his way now, or what, but I can see the advantage of tackling one thing at a time. Either way we go, I checked out an amortization schedule for our mortgage earlier this morning. It was pretty much the most depressing thing I have ever seen in my life.

This book brought up some really great things for discussion between me and Danny, like:
- What constitutes and "emergency"? Are all car repairs an "emergency", or just the really big ones? Does Christmas count as an "emergency"?
First, Christmas does not count as an emergency. It comes around every year at the same time. We have to budget for it. We basically decided that we should start budgeting for some bigger one time expenses that we know will come up. Car maintenance and small repairs that will obviously continue to happen just from owning a car, those are not "emergencies". If suddenly the transmission went out? That would be an emergency. Although we'd probably just sell my car if that happened, because it's not really worth it to replace the transmission!

Does a baby count as an "emergency"? Yes and no, I guess. I mean, we're budgeting for more than what we think the baby will cost, and on top of that we've got some extra insurance. But if the baby were to be born via emergency c-section two months early? I think that would definitely count as an "emergency". Too bad you can't really plan with that!

- If Danny lost his job, how much money would we need to keep us alive for a month?
This was kind of difficult to figure out, especially factoring in private health insurance. It was also kind of emotional to think about, but I'm glad we did. Personally, the thought of Danny losing his job is probably the most terrifying thing to think about ever. It's a LOT less scary now that we have a plan in place, even though it meant having to think about a terrible situation. We should also write a will. One of the funnier myths that Dave Ramsey debunks in the books is this: "Myth: if you write a will, you will die. Truth: you will die, so you should leave a will." Haha.

- According to the recommended category percentages (based on Dave Ramsey and his team's vast knowledge and experience), how does our budget compare?
As in, if he recommends to spend between 5-15% of your monthly income on food, what percentage of our monthly income is spent on food? In looking at this, we discovered that we are doing great. That felt good. Oh yeah, Dave Ramsey totally pays tithing and recommends that everybody else pay it, too, no matter what step you are on! Isn't that so good???

- Does the 15% Dave Ramsey recommends you pay towards retirement include company matches?
The answer is no, you just count it as gravy.

- What are we going to do with our credit cards?
We decided to keep them and not use them. Our limits are pathetically low (which is a GREAT thing!), so much that if we did "max" them both out, we would still be able to pay them off each month. I think Danny's is like $200. We had been using them for routine purchases, but we're probably not going to do that anymore. I learned that you spend 18-20% more if you use credit, and I believe it. But they would come in handy if I'm stranded with Jane in an airport and need to buy a plane ticket home or something like that. Or if a situation arose where we didn't have access to a computer. Or if for some reason our credit union's website were down and we HAD to buy something right away. That last scenario has actually happened, so there you go.

The thing is, the plastic factor is not a temptation. I've used a debit card since the age of 15. They feel the same. To me, cash feels like "play" money, because usually when I have cash, it doesn't get accounted for in the budget (due to online banking). I don't think credit cards are inherently evil, but I don't really want to use one regularly. It's not been a temptation yet, and I don't want it to start being one any time soon.

I will say that I think the marketing of credit cards is evil. They prey upon the young, who are usually naive and ignorant. I'm glad that congress finally passed a "duh!" law that says you should verify if a teenager has a job before approving them for a credit card. Side note: I've gotten a credit card offer in the mail pretty much every day for the past two weeks. They just go in the trash.

One final thing about the book, and probably the number one reason I liked it: the Allocated Spending Plan. So, the book doesn't focus on the how, but it does include some budgeting forms in the end. I was super excited when I learned that one of the main forms was something I had already just intuitively started doing. Basically, it's a spreadsheet that helps you "spend" your paycheck before you get it it. But I really like that he has it set up to where each column is a paycheck, which is great because there are lots of one-time bills each month.

I would recommend this book to anyone, but especially to single or newly married people who haven't thought much about their financial future. I would also recommend Dave's talk show; it's funny and good.

"Embryo Culture: Making Babies in the Twenty-First Century" by Beth Kohl

I would recommend this book to anyone interesting in childbirth. Kohl is a funny, witty, intelligent writer. The book is written both from her own excruciating experiences with IVF, as well as a more impartial voice of facts and statistics.

I learned a LOT reading this book. For example, there were several pages devoted to Jewish views on ART (artificial reproduction technology). If a Jewish mom and a Jewish dad have their embryos implanted in a surrogate, the baby born will need to be baptized Jewish because religion is a matrilineal process, and technically the surrogate is the actual mother. Also, some Jews are anti-sperm/egg donation because it could result in, brain fart: what is that word for sex with a sibling? To my credit, it's not one I use very often! It could result in that if the kids end up marrying each other, which is clearly anti-Jewish law.

Other stuff I learned: one reason Catholics are generally anti-IVF is because of the strain it puts on a couple's marriage. There are other reasons, like the belief that "the marriage act" is the only legitimate way to conceive, and also that the way men usually give semen samples (masturbation) is immoral. I didn't know this was the Catholic take on things.

I also learned some extremely frightening things about China and abortions, but I don't even want to go there.

Mostly, I appreciated Kohl's personal transformation. She was very open about how her opinions about life changed through her years and years of IVF. She comes from a Jewish background faithwise, and is liberal politic-wise. (I google searched her name after reading the book because I was curious to see if she ended up using the last frozen embryos to have another baby, but the only places I could find her were on lists of contributors to liberal democrat politicians. She donated something like $25,000 to President Obama's campaign!). And even though her "transformation" leads her to opinions that are still far more liberal than my own, I sincerely appreciate her honesty. Whereas she had participated in the pro-choice side of an abortion rally earlier in her life, she realizes the absurdity and messed-upness of her spending tens of thousands of dollars, hours, and emotional energy units (whatever those are) in the infertility clinic, while millions of others willingly destroy the life she so covets.

I especially like her final conclusion about embryo donation, which I find to be the most honest thing in the whole book. She says she totally endorses embryo donation, after all, it is the scientific research and advances in technology that allowed for her to have her children at all. She willingly supports it, just not with her and her husbands' own frozen embryos. She's unable to part with something with such great potential. I really appreciate her understanding of the sanctity of life, not because it parallels my own beliefs very closely, but because she is a liberal who looked at the world with logic and came to much more "conservative" conclusions. It's pretty rare to hear the perspective of people humble enough to admit they were ever wrong about something, especially something as big as that.

The book is serious, though. It's not a light-hearted fluffy read. It will get you thinking, a lot. There were some graphic passages I skipped. In the end, the book really instills a deep respect and sympathy for people who do IVF. It sounds so hard. But Kohl unequivocally expresses how glad she is to have done it, and that she has her three daughters because of it.

"The Mr. Roger's Parenting Book: Helping to Understand and Encourage your Child" by Fred Rogers

The reason I got this book from the library is because Mr. Roger's is my mom's hero. She loves him. We watched his show all the time. I think my mom was very sad when he died. She has several "Mr. Rogers" books around her house.

(Snopes disproved this urban legend, but I still chuckle to imagine Rogers as a WWII Sniper with hundreds of tattoos on his arms and chest).

I appreciated this book. Its chapters are divided by topics like, "Toys and Playtime," and "Bedtime." Some of the chapters were more interesting than others. Actually, I was a little bummed to read some first-person stuff in some of the chapters that clearly was not from Rogers, but from a different female author. I flipped to the preface where I learned that there were several female M.D. moms who collaborated in the book. And when I mentioned this to my mom, she basically said that there are many things with the "Mr. Rogers" label on them that don't necessarily come from the Fred Rogers. That kind of made me sad, like somehow the information lost some of its authenticity. I mean, I would willingly believe nearly anything that this guy says! I watched him take off his shoes and put on a cardigan for years and years. But somebody who he endorses? It seems like a cop-out.

Anyway, the chapter I appreciated the most was the one about "Toys and Playtime." He talks about what kinds of toys are the best for children and why. He doesn't use scientific data, but just common sense. Children's "work" is play. Playing helps children learn. It helps them understand the world around them. Therefore, the kinds of toys that help children to learn the best are the open-ended ones that allow for an extensive use of imagination, toys like dolls, blocks, legos - anything that can be adapted to be used in different games. He specifically warns against too many electronic toys. You can only play video games one way. You can't change the rules or setting.

This holds true for what toys I enjoyed the most. Growing up, we had hundreds of stuffed animals, legos, blocks, plastic animals, cars, but most importantly: dress-ups. And playing dress-up (well that's not what we called it. If it was medieval it was 'Castle', if it was fae it was 'fairies', if it was Colonial New England 'Ms. Robin's Class' - hey, Felicity was my American Girl Doll!) was a central part of my childhood.

Rogers doesn't like toy guns, or other violence-promoting toys. But he also is realistic, which is something that I've noticed lots of anti-gun parents aren't, in that children can and will use anything, including bananas and sticks, to be a gun. But Rogers argues that children using sticks to play at "bang bang, you're dead" is different because he is not endorsing the game. He advocates talking about it with your children.

Danny is pretty skeptical of an anti-toy-gun rule. After all, he grew up with toy guns, and he's normal, relatively ;) We talked for a while about it. I mean, if Mr. Rogers says to do something, it's hard to argue that he's wrong. But on the other hand, I agree with Danny that not all toy guns are created equal, like there's a huge difference between a supersoaker water gun and a realistic pistol cap gun. I always thought that toy swords and light sabers were more fun than toy guns, personally, since you could actually whack someone with them. I'm pretttttty sure that our kids are going to grow up playing with supersoakers, but that cap guns are just too realistic/scary.

As for real guns, Danny wouldn't mind having them in the house, but I say absolutely no way while we have kids under the age of 18. He protests that it's important to learn gun safety, and I say it is to be done elsewhere, like scout camp. But I may acquiesce if we move to say, Montana. Here in the sprawling urban suburb of Katy, Texas, it's just not really necessary. Maybe his parents could justify it on their new 14-acre property in the mountains of Colorado...but I digress.

The most interesting part of the chapter was his analysis on why children play certain kinds of games. Peek-a-boo and other hide-and-find games might stem from a child wanting to understand about a parent leaving. Often times games are just extensions of children trying to make sense of the world around them. I bet there are some pretty interesting books written on this subject.

"I wear the Maternity Pants in this Family" by Susan Konig

This was yet another collection of short stories from the life of a mom. Is this some kind of new genre?

The back cover has the same picture, without the kids coming out of her pants. Danny asked, "So, which one do you think is more insulting?" That was a funny question.

I enjoyed this book, especially because not all of the stories were self/husband-deprecating. Some of them were, as seems to be the trend in this genre. But there were actually several stories with happy "endings" - obviously, real life doesn't translate into opening-conflict-resolution-conclusion format.

The book starts out with the most hilarious story ever. Konig is dropping her daughter off at kindergarten, and she thinks, "Ahhhh peace! Finally! I can have the time to all those things I haven't been able - " and then she promptly feels nauseous. Not just any nauseous, pregnancy nauseous. Her all-my-kids-are-finally-in-grade-school momming lasted about 6 minutes.

I think my mother in law would really, really like this book, or at least be able to relate to it in some ways. Both women had an unplanned, unexpected baby in their later years. Both of them were happy to have the baby, even if it meant some new life complications. Konig's writing is fun to read; she sounds a lot like my mom or mother in law. I enjoyed this; it's a quick read, doesn't require lots of deep thinking, which is kind of nice sometimes.

Maybe this is TMI, but I got in the habit while Jane was nursing to stash my library books at various places in the house, so no matter when Jane needed to stop and nurse, I would have something to read. I still do this, even though she is weaned. The nooks include our family room coffee table, the kitchen counter, my nightstand, a basket in Jane's room, and the upstairs bathroom. Where I put the books seems to be a subconscious reflection of what kind of book it is. This one? A leisurely bathroom reader. Hey, I'm in there ten billion times per day peeing 1/2 a teaspoon; the least I can get out of it is a few chuckles from a good book, right?

"Stop Dressing your Six Year Old Like a Skank: And other words of delicate southern wisdom" by Celia Rivenbark

On to less controversial topics...here are some of the latest books that I have been procrastinating reviewing.

This was a hilarious book of scenarios from this mom's life, and her opinions. It was hilarious because she wrote in such an informal, chatty style, and added lots of funny details. It was a bit caricature-esque, but I especially liked the very, very, very snide chapter about childrens' toys and how ridiculous it was that she couldn't even find a toy gun in the local Toys 'R Us because they have become so "offensive" and anti-PC, and also her commentary on what Barbie, Ken, and Midge's relationships might actually mean. Super funny.

She's not LDS, so some of her humor is a bit...well I think I ended up skipping or skimming a chapter or two. Or three. The one about sex, or marital problems. I don't need to be reading about that.

Honestly, it read like the Jenny McCarthy book, "Baby Laughs." It will put you in a good mood, but you may feel discouraged about the intelligence of mom writers.

"Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" by Lewis Carroll

(gosh, it's really hard to find the cover to a book that has a billion editions and has never been out of print!)

Danny and I read this book together after seeing the movie at the dollar theatre.

I had read it when I was about 14. I enjoyed it better this time. But I agree with Danny. I said, "Well, I'm not really sure exactly why this book is a Classic in English Literature." He said, "Yeah, well we probably 'get' about 10% of the jokes." This is almost definitely true. He also thinks the reason it's a "classic" is because little kids really like it, and adults like trying to find meaning in it, even if it's just not there. We both think the ending is such a lame, cop-out, deus-ex-machina type ending, but Danny said, "Well, maybe nobody else had done the it-was-all-just-a-dream ending before." Possible.

Reading this book takes me back to the old Disney Animated Classic, which frankly always scared me. But I think it's actually more a combination of "Alice" and "Through the Looking Glass". Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee aren't even in this book. Therefore, neither is "The Walrus and the Carpenter."

I think the most noticeable difference between reading it this time and last time was what I thought about "You Are Old, Father William." As a younger girl, ten years ago, I didn't get it and didn't think it was funny. But reading it with Danny was hilarious. Especially the part about how his wife has kept him from going deaf or something because she nags him all the time. Haha.

Danny and I noticed that any time Alice asks something that is a little bit reasonable, the characters change the subject. I thought the Mad Hatter was nice in the book, but Danny thought he was the snidest of them all. Like, he calls Alice a moron. Probably the nicest character is really the Cheshire Cat. They're all kind of weird and creepy. I guess opium will do that to you.

"Boys Adrift: The Five Factors Driving the Growing Epidemic of Unmotivated Boys and Underachieving Young Men" by Leonard Sax, M.D., Ph.D.

I picked this book to read because my favorite teacher in college was adamant about the typical American classroom being ill-fitted to the needs of adolescent males, and I saw that one of his five factors was "Teaching Methods". Here are all the factors that he goes into:

- Video Games
- Teaching Methods
- Prescription Drugs
- Endocrine Disruptors
- Devaluation of Masculinity

When I first got the book home, I read part of the intro out loud to Danny, who found the whole thing very interesting. He immediately agreed with all of them, except the "endocrine disruptors" factor, mainly because neither of us could quite figure out what it actually meant.

We basically read the chapter on video games together, which was super interesting to talk about. Danny plays video games and is a guy. I basically do not and I definitely am not. This book introduced whole new worlds of understanding about what playing video games actually means to males, which Danny understood, though probably had never before analyzed. One of the huge, HUGE differences between girls and guys is that guys are wired with the "will to power", some much more than others. That is why a video game that gives the guy ultimate power can be so addicting. Competition is much more important to guys, too. It's a way to bond. Dr. Sax gives lots of thought-provoking examples in this book, one of which was how if you put girls on a team to compete against each other in the classroom, they will usually not to very well because to them the relationships with the other girls, possibly those on the opposing team, are more important to them than winning. But with guys, competition can and usually does strengthen inter-guy relationships. This was fascinating to me. I used competition on a daily basis in my classroom, and I was okay with putting girls on teams based on their friends, but until now I didn't really have a rationale for why I did it; it just "felt right."

The main things I got from the video games section were: There will never be a copy of Grand Theft Auto (or any other such games that reward violence and immorality) anywhere within a 10 foot radius of my house, video games can be good in moderation and with parental awareness and involvement in their use, and a good way to wean a video game addict is to let/force them do something "will-to-power"-ey in the real world, like sports.

The next section was the teaching methods section. Every single point which Dr. Sax made I agreed with. It fascinated me to read. I want to read a book just about this subject. It's late, so I will not be going too much into depth about it. But the main things I got from this section were: If possible, and depending on circumstances, it is probably a good idea to wait until your son is 6 until he starts kindergarten (which is actually more of "first grade"). It will be an advantage to him in many ways. Also, if the boy is not thriving in his school, probably it has more to do with the school than the boy; one option is to send him to an all-boys school. Motivation dynamics are vastly different when boys are surrounded with boys instead of a mix of boys and girls. Finally, teachers should allow more competition and less sitting still in rigid chairs during their classes. This made me feel great; often in my classroom, we would go outside to do something.

The section on "prescription drugs" was mainly an analysis on the over diagnosis of ADHD in elementary school boys, and its effects later in life. This was interesting to me because this is what happened to my brother. According to Dr. Sax, Tom Sawyer probably had ADHD. The reason why Tom Sawyer wasn't "disordered" and my brother "was" has to do way more with their environmental expectations than their actual condition. Boys who are expected to sit still for too long have hard times paying attention. The main things I got from this chapter were: it is not a good idea for the Doctor to prescribe powerful meds like ritalin and adderal to "see if it will work" because they can seriously damage a section of the brain that has to do with motivation, perhaps permanently. Also, many boys are incorrectly diagnosed with ADHD; you don't have it if you never showed symptoms of it before you were an adolescent. Finally, the best way to treat problems with ADHD is to change the environment, not the child. Changing the school is more effective, healthier, and usually reaches the root of the problem.

Perhaps I would have been more skeptical of the idea that you should change the kid's school, if I hadn't been a teacher and worked in a school and seen first hand how vastly different school environments can be one from another. Also, my parents did this with my brother, and it worked. Instead of sending him (and all of us) to public school, they did lots of research and sent him to the best private school they could. It was a place where his (and all of our) intelligence was valued. Totally different goals and requirements (you had to do sports every semester) than public school. Joe went off drugs when he was a freshman, and has never used them since. He told me that they killed his motivation, just like Dr. Sax said they do. It impresses me that Joe was so sensitive to their effects on him. I'm glad he doesn't use them anymore even if he still has ADHD (which I am not to say whether he does or not, and frankly I don't care much because it's not going to affect the way I see him at all!), because I know that those drugs also affect his creativity and drive, which are both immense.

So the chapter on endocrine disruptors was basically about how different hormones in plastic have emasculating effects on animals, and possibly humans. It was terrifying to read about. You know what? We don't drink bottled water because it's too expensive. But my baby does drink from a plastic bottle. And the next one will, and the next, etc. To us, it is a factor of reasonableness. There is no way that we can avoid all plastic. The chapter also does not convince me that eating organic is the way to go; genetically modified foods are not necessarily those over-treated with pesticides (he didn't really go into this, but I've been thinking about it a lot). I think that scientists changing the genes of a plant is far less harmful than overspraying it with pesticides, but then again my husband is a bioinformatician, into genetics.

Bottom line: in my opinion, this chapter had the weakest arguments to support his theories, and it relied too much on a "shock and awe" method to impress his readers into believing him. Probably there is truth to what he says in this chapter, but he offers no viable alternatives so I can either cower in my house, fearful of all the different ways that plastic surrounds me, or I can just say, "Well, that sucks, better not think about it too much." If he wanted a call-to-action effect, he very much failed here, for me at least.

The final chapter was fascinating, but also felt doomsday-ish. He gives example after example of how men and masculinity are devalued in American society. I love that he did it in a way that was not devaluing to women. He was very careful about that, actually. I agreed with everything he said here.

By the end, I was worried that the book would offer no solutions to the problems. The final few chapters were excellent; they lead me to really, really like Dr. Sax as a person because he is so reasonable. I think the main reason he wrote this book was because, in his vantage point as a physician, he could see a growing epidemic of unmotivatedness in young men, and he really wanted to figure out why. I think the main point of the book is, "This is a problem, here are some reasons why, and here's a few things I think we might do but I don't claim to hold all the answers about what we should do so after reading this you need to go out and take action yourself." I like that he didn't claim to have all the answers. I really like how clear and honest he is. He is a reasonable, intelligent author and I really liked what he had to say.

I especially liked his definition of masculinity: "using strength in the service of others." What a powerful, strong, uplifting message. I also agree with him that in order for boys to become men, they need to be around men, because this shift is all about imitation. It is the same for girls, but the fact is that in our society boys have far fewer opportunities to be surrounded by good male role-models.

As I finished the book, I had a strong, clear impression that one reason scouting is so important in my church is to provide the boys with good male role-models. It's so important that boys get this. I am really glad that this program is emphasized and promoted in the church. Growing up, I was always jealous that they got to go camping and shoot guns and tie knots and stuff. Danny thinks a similar organization does not really exist for girls in the church because those are not things that adult women are really interested in doing (which is true; I'd way, WAY rather spend my weekend reading or swimming or sewing or cooking or basically doing anything else besides sleeping on the hard ground in a tent without air conditioning, running water, or sewers). I'm not making a statement on girls' needs here when I say that I think it's critically important for guys to be involved with an organization like scouts where they can be around middle-aged men. Boys need this, and it's great that my church has this, and emphasizes it so much (especially here in Texas, holy shmoly).

I would recommend this book. It's interesting. Don't get bogged down by the depressing middle. The end is good, but don't expect him to have all the answers. I'm really glad he doesn't; he allows you to devise your own, with the new knowledge you have. Dr. Sax is a great writer because he uses tons of examples and his own voice. He speaks for himself, not all M.D.s and Ph.Ds. I think my parents would really enjoy reading this book together.