Living Proof, by Kira Peikoff

Notes while reading:

(At 40%)  The theme seems to be the superiority of reason over faith, but the characters representing religion are caricatures.  At one point, a priest tells the main character, "Remember the whole idea of faith, Trent:  Let go of reason and give in to God's higher plan."  And then, "Think of Jesus.  You need to learn how to sacrifice your own desires in order to do something that will help others."  As I grew up in a Catholic family and went to Catholic schools for twelve years, I know that the church is not this crude or transparent.  They are much more subtle and vague, and actually pretend that faith and reason can co-exist.  Perhaps by growing up in a staunchly atheist home (her father is Objectivist Leonard Piekoff), Ms. Piekoff doesn't realize that all of her religious characters don't ring true.  But so far, it is a big stumbling block for me as a reader.

(At 70%)  At almost three-quarters of the way through, I'm seeing that Living Proof borrows quite a bit from Atlas Shrugged.  Since Atlas Shrugged is one of my favorite books, this might seem a good thing.  However, Living Proof doesn't have characters or a plot to match Ayn Rand's classic, so when scenes are borrowed, it detracts from the book.  One example is when Arianna and Sam overcome a major obstacle before government forces can stop them.  Arianna expresses that it seems silly that they feared the government forces and that they never really had to worry about them, which is how Atlas Shrugged ended with Dagney saying the same thing to John Galt.  I still experience a sense of awe in remembering that final scene from Atlas Shrugged, while I don't feel anything when Arianna says the same sentiment in Living Proof.

Another problem I've noticed in Living Proof is that Ms. Piekoff breaks Ayn Rand's first rule of plot:  make things as difficult as possible for the characters.  This was certainly true in Atlas Shrugged, when my heart ached for the characters at times.  In Living Proof, the bad guys could have been more effective adversaries. Instead Ms. Piekoff uses Arianna's progressing multiple sclerosis as a plot devise, which is not as effective as other characters acting against her.

(100%)  Well, I finished it and nothing from the resolution/climax changed my views on the book.  The ending was somewhat melodramatic in my view.  And the unrequited love angle between two people with a father-daughter relationship came out of nowhere and was somewhat weird.

Overall, Living Proof is a good first effort, but I'm surprised it was published.  But it was and has quite a few reviews on amazon.com, so that shows you what I know.  On a personal note, I feel kind of bad giving this book a poor review because any book by an Objectivist has to live up to the incredibly high standard set by Ayn Rand.  On the other hand, any fan of Ayn Rand should hold themselves to a high standard and keep working hard to attain it.

Open Season, by C. J. Box

Open Season is a pretty good first novel, but I didn't enjoy it as much as C. J. Box's later effort, Blue Heaven.  One problem I had with it is that the hero wasn't heroic enough.  He didn't seem to know what he wanted and for most of the book he just reacted to the actions of the other characters.

Another thing I didn't like was the theme, which is that endangered species should be protected regardless of the consequences to humans, including having their land and homes taken away from them.  This last criticism is political, not literary, so it doesn't count against the book for the purposes of this blog.

C. J. Box has a good style and he did a good job of letting the reader into the characters' minds.  He also excels at the conclusion to ramp up the consequences and tie everything together neatly.  Even though the middle was somewhat boring because of the timidness of the hero, the well-planned and executed ending makes the book worth reading.

Steve Jobs, by Walter Isaacson

I took a break from reading fiction to read the Steve Jobs biography which is everywhere!  It was a quick and entertaining read, but I was surprised with what a jerk Steve Jobs was.  I blame it on his parents who always gave into his tantrums and allowed him to form his bad habits.  On the bad side, he treated people like crap.  On the good side, he pushed people to be better and was honest about their work which ultimately made his Apple products better.

I've never bought an Apple product, although I have looked into them.  But I could never pull the trigger on one because I hate the closed system.  I don't want to be forced to use iTunes, or the iPhone app store.  I like freedom, even though it's messy.  I make the same argument for capitalism vs. communism.

Steve Jobs is the closest thing to Plato's Philosopher King that I've seen, and it works for Apple.  But I think it works because Apple products are marketed as hip and sexy, and they're sold to people who aren't technically savvy and who don't care about open vs. closed systems.  But now that the Philosopher King is dead, I predict Apple will fall from grace over the next few years.

The Dark Tower I, by Stephen King

I just don't like the fantasy genre.  I couldn't get through The Hobbit, I  didn't get into Wizard's First Rule, and I didn't like The Dark Tower.  My problem is that I can't put the characters and actions into context when they inhabit a world created by the author.

In The Dark Tower, the gunslinger is following The Man in Black and questing for the Dark Tower.  Why?  It's not explained.  Where did the Man in Black come from?  No answer.  The book does give all sorts of details on the gunslinger's past and how he became what he is, but it's some crazy other-world that doesn't makes sense and just raises more questions than it answers.

Some people just love the Fantasy genre, but I still don't get it.

The Mill River Recluse, by Darcie Chan

The Mill River Recluse was self-published on Kindle and was only 99 cents.  Now there are plenty of good novels out there that aren't accepted by a publisher, but this isn't one of them.  It has one glaring fatal flaw:  it's all set-up!  Most published novels (and virtually every Hollywood movie) has a four-part structure:  set-up, response, attack and resolution.  The set-up introduces us to the characters, shows us what they have at stake, and makes us care about them.  It's all a set up to the first plot point which then upsets their world.  The characters then need to respond to the first plot point, then attack it, and finally resolve the conflict.

The set-up can be one of the most enjoyable parts of a novel--it's often where readers fall in love with a book.  But a better analogy is that readers become infatuated with the book during the set-up.  Only when the book delivers a good response, attack and--most importantly--a satisfying resolution do readers really love a book.  On the other hand, infatuation can quickly lead to disappointment if the novel fails to deliver on any of the expected subsequent developments.  And disappointment is what The Mill River Recluse created in this reader.

The blurb on amazon.com for the book says, "But only Father Michael O'Brien knows Mary and the secret she keeps--one that, once revealed, will change all of their lives forever." This is the first plot point, but it comes at about the 95% mark while it should have come around 25% of the book. The first plot point is the major conflict in the story. Without conflict, you don't have a story, and The Mill River Recluse suffered because of it.

Carrie, by Stephen King

As odd as it may seem, I've never seen Carrie the movie so reading Stephen King's first novel was a new experience.  I think one of the things that makes King so popular is that he takes us deep into the characters' heads and lets us know their most inner thoughts, and Carrie was no different.  On the other hand, one of King's shortcomings is that his books often don't have a strong theme (Misery and Shawshank Redemption are notable exceptions) and Carrie also was no different.  The plot was fairly thin, but probably appropriate for a first novel.

The interspersion of clippings from newspaper articles and books was an interesting way to give exposition.  It also allowed a good deal of foreshadowing, which King is very skilled at.

Overall, Carrie was an entertaining read and a good preview of King's style which he continued to hone over his prolific career.

Skeleton Crew, by Stephen King

Steven King is such a good writer.  I really enjoyed most of the stories in this collection.  In reading these stories, it occurred to me that King excels at three of the six core competencies:  character, concept and writing voice.  He creates characters we care about, he always has an interesting, novel hook, and he strikes just the right balance of writing interesting descriptions without writing purple prose.  These three elements combine to create stories that begin wonderfully, draw the reader in and set up big expectations for the end.  Unfortunately, this is usually where King's stories fall short.  Because the stories aren't planned out with a structure, the endings are hit-or-miss.  Some in this collection, like The Jaunt, The Man Who Would Not Shake Hands and Survivor Type, had great endings.  Others, like The Raft, Uncle Otto's Truck, and The Milkman Stories just peter out without a strong conclusion or theme.  Nonetheless, all these stories are worth reading for their imaginative concepts and characters as well as their wonderful examples of strong writing.