You are SO right about "The DaVinci Code".

I went and checked your rating to see if you were being sarcastic or not. I still don't know. =(

I guess I'll figure it out if you say the same thing about my unkind reviews of Ishmael and The Giver. Then again, you may not want to interpose yourself with that awful mess.

In any case, thanks for the comment. It's nice not to have to exist in a void of utter relativity.

I thoroughly enjoyed Ender's Game, and look forward to reading more of the series. The Giver I liked as a kid, but I don't see myself rereading it anytime soon. The DaVinci Code is an entirely different can of worms. While interesting and well-researched, I found it to be utterly predictable and rather poorly written (much like Rich Dad, Poor Dad, actually). I'm not surprised that it's so popular with the masses, considering the reading level of the majority of this country.

Actually, the research behind it was really quite terrible. Brown just took the most common vague conspiracy theories about Catholocism--the sort of things one learns their first year in the seminary--and combined them with forged documents placed illegally in the French National Library by a con man. All of his assertions about the Knights Templar are from this completely unsubstantiated document.

When I first read the book, I thought it was vaguely interesting until I got to end and realized there was no bibliography. No one spends a year researching a book and then hides their sources. It was at that moment that I knew that Brown was not only a poor writer, but a sensationalist and hack, as well.

Very interesting. I never pay much attention to bibliographies, so I completely missed the lack.

hahaha! AMEN brother. I might have to adopt you and drag you to Easter dinner. Imagine the conversations... Old gramps might crack a smile for once.

(and can I borrow your shirt?)

Certainly, militarism and the brotherhood of arms is often idealized and romanticized, from Gilgamesh and Enkidu to Achilles and Patroclus to Henry V, as you mentioned. People do bond under stress, developing a reliance and necessary trust upon those around them, and getting rid of anyone who doesn't assimilate.

This bond can be strengthened even more when the mind and spirit of the soldiers is broken down, forcing them to work together just to get through the day. There is a reason the US military employs more psychologists than any other institution in the world: breaking down men and making them reliable and responsive to orders is a difficult task.

Historically, it was somewhat easier, since the men who formed the armies knew each other since childhood, meaning trust could be built between them over time. However, the romance of these fighting men relying one on the other has always been dependent on non-warriors.

The Spartans of 'Gates of Fire' were supported by their slave class and warrior kings like Richard the Lionheart and Henry V bled their countries dry to support the foreign wars that kept them away from their kingdoms for years at a time.

This military bond between soldiers is often a curious one, as it is not judgmental or based upon the character or personality of the other man. Even if you don't like a guy, you learn to deal with him. You still have to trust each other: even if you don't know his deepest thoughts, you have to be able to predict him.

Since this bond is not one of character, it's nature can change depending on the men involved. Sometimes one man supports another while he fights a hostile foe, and sometimes he supports his compatriot while they kill innocents and torch a village.

The military is a social tool, and may serve many ends. It is neither good nor bad, in and of itself, but is capable of producing some of the most admirable and some of the most despicable acts of man. Often one after the other.

When Shakespeare wrote Henry V, he was not just presenting a national epic of the romance of war, though if you concentrate on the glorious speeches, it might seem that way. Of course, the whole world seems different to the man who only looks at the glorious speeches.

Shakespeare's play shows both sides, the glory and the pillage, the upper class officers and their honor and the lower class soldiers and their savagery. In America we still draw our infantries from poverty and our officers from the elite.

This is not to say the upper class is morally superior to the lower, but rather that they can more easily afford to be honorable in a world that doesn't often reward it.

Heinlein was a military man, and Starship Troopers gives us the fruits of his experience. Like many of his books, he writes long diatribes about his philosophies. A man can be effectively right and still be talking out of his ass. If his protagonist suddenly launched into an angry rant about the proper way to plane a drawer, the soapbox might be easier to see.

One of the most difficult things in reading is seeing when an author is on his high horse even when he agrees with us. Seeing past the author's point of view is easy, it's seeing past ourselves that often eludes us.

There is a reason that Starship Troopers is the only sci fi book on the West Point reading list: it accords with military philosophies and it does so bombastically. It is as strong an argument for the military way of life as Stranger in a Strange Land is for Unitarian hippy love-ins.

Card doesn't start his rants until the second Ender book, which leaves Ender's Game mostly a fun adventure. However, some have pointed out that Ender's propensity to resolve all things by violence is condoned by the author, which is curious.

Usually, an exceptionally smart child (or leader) uses more subtle means and only resorts to violence when it is the most effective option. Resorting to violence too often lessens its effect and invites resentment.

On the playground and the battlefield, violence is often seen as its own justification, and that's been enough for colonialists, nationalists, and Action Movie plots. But violence can't be a solution, because it doesn't end: there are always others to take it up when the old guard dies.

Violence is a process, a tug of war through generations. The kid who was picked on in the yard grows up to pick on others. When a war ends and leaves some nation's economy and infrastructure devastated, that nation starts a new war to recoup their losses.

It's always curious when war is romanticized, because war doesn't really need it. War is waged to restructure wealth, land, and social orders. Men will serve and some will die and each will get his pittance and his stories and Agamemnon will get the lion's share.

It's structured like a corporation, except that the military has a special social dispensation to deal death to achieve its business. This means the stresses are higher and the employees take their jobs more seriously.

I don't say this to belittle combat, but rather to state that the romantic ideal of it is a bit silly. We don't war to kill evil men, we war to safeguard our habitual way of life, even at the expense of others. If we live for oil, we war for it, if we live for money, we war for that. So it has always been.

Why romanticize it? To feel better about it? To feel righteous? Surely, it makes it easier to do, but that doesn't make it honest. It's easier to kill a faceless man you believe to be evil, but there are no such men, or at least very few. On the other side of your barrel is usually some other poor, dumb bastard about to die for his country.

With death so close, tales of honor, bravery, and nobility seem more remarkable. They are circulated as the heart of the warrior, but honor, bravery, and nobility are not traits all warriors have, nor traits common men lack.

Anyone who romanticizes military life for such ideals is ignoring the fact that any man, at any time can give his life in service of the betterment of the world, can show his honor, his bravery, and his nobility and need never lift a gun. There are enough struggles in this world that we should never fear of an opportunity to show our character.

Yeah, Ender's Game is a fun book. I also didn't have much luck with Card's later stuff--too preachy.

The Anita Blake series is in my to-read pile. I've heard good things; hopefully they won't disappoint.

If you've already written some reviews at other sites, you could always copy/paste them to this one. I don't think anyone would begrudge you.

Thanks for the comment. Ta.

This book is hilarious when read with the knowledge of the fact that Card is a raging homophobe. Because he like puts these scenes in books where kids fight naked in showers, and boys kiss each other and share secret words, and other...things.

Well, maybe he thought it would make the book scarier if he put in things he was scared of, or maybe this is another case of a homophobe fascinated with gay stuff.

Quite a shame if the sequels are as opinionated as you say they are. I would like to give the second book a try, but I suffer from a condition where I must complete a story regardless of quality...

At least this book ends in a manner that one can just walk away from it satisfied...

Yeah, this one is definitely enjoyable. I, too, have had books that, for whatever reason, I felt I just had to finish, for the sake of completeness, even hough I really wasn't enjoying them--but sometimes I don't feel I can justify putting time and energy into something that is already disappointing me.

When I was having trouble getting into the second one, I asked around to a few people I knew, and according to them, it doesn't get better. Then again, I know some people who really enjoyed the entire series, but most of them liked the preachiness because they agreed with Card. I don't really like preachy authors, period--whether I agree or disagree with them, I don't think it makes for a very entertaining story.

Bravo!

It's odd that both Speaker and Game both end with good endings. I mean sure, the FLEET IS COMING OH SHIT in speaker, but it's kind of an afterthought. Plus I felt zero tension about that plotline in the book.

Thanks Howard.

I couldn't get into the second one long enough to get to the ending, but thanks for your thoughts, Andrew.

I liked this book. I was actually pretty surprised I liked it as much as I did. I cared less for the Meanwhile-Valentine-and-the-brother-she-hates subplots. They didn't really contribute very much to the story, other than to give her a method of leveraging herself off of earth. I thought it was a profound statement on the human condition when faced with "wartime" morality.

And as to dumbing things down... Don't confuse the purpose or intent of great works of literature with that of bestsellers. Mindless, but entertaining escapism, versus an introspective, hard-won intellectual pursuit. NOT criticizing, just saying, don't be so upset that when people are posed with taking a mental vacation or delving into something conceptually rich that requires effort to read and understand, most people will take the vacation. Or at the very least, don't be surprised. :)

"Don't confuse the purpose or intent of great works of literature with that of bestsellers."

I think in both Ender's Game and The Giver, the authors are trying to engage the reader in philosophical arguments, and I would hardly call them 'fun adventures'. In addition, I compare Ender's Game to Starship Troopers, which are both popular genre works, not thoughtful pieces of great literature, though they both analyze something about the psychology of war.

I don't see a point here where I'm comparing a rip roarin' adventure story to a high-minded piece of prose mastery. Indeed, in my last paragraph, I'd suggest The Illuminatus! Trilogy is twenty times more silly and adventurous than Da Vinci Code.

I haven't read Starship Troopers, so maybe I was mis-reading what you were trying to convey.

What I was trying to say (which I don't believe I expressed very coherently) was that the translation of a philosophical point or an existential quandary is often spelled out directly in bestsellers. So instead of having to read into allegory or search for a meaning beyond the text, its all there in black and white. I'm not attempting to disagree with you.I found myself thinking of Ender's Game after I put it down. Compared to, lets say The Hunger Games where I do feel like, when the book was done, so was I. Does that make sense? That is a form of escapism - which I agree, should be reserved for adults while we continue to urge children down the complex path of creating the own internal narratives. While basically agreeing with you on nearly every point in your review, I just don't see the problem with adults reading something dumbed down or having a "monopoly" on that sort of spoon-fed philosophy people get from some books.

Sorry if this was a "Meh" response - I came to the conclusion halfway through that enjoying this book and discussing it with friends was enough for me, and after having someone tear me a new one for something I didn't say in another review, I don't have much left to offer. Some of that misguided vitriol you mentioned...

It's true that things are often spelled out in bestsellers, but I don't think this is what makes them fun or escapist. I think the enjoyment of a low-key book comes from interesting characters, quick plotting, and exciting incidents.

Whenever an author sits down and tries to explain their philosophy, that's not the sign of good writing or exciting writing. I agree that a lot of bestsellers do this, but I think that's because a lot of bestsellers aren't very well written.

There are certainly some fun books that you can put down when you're done and not really think much more about them, but I don't think there's any need for long explanations in books like that.

Thanks for the comments.

I grew up loving The Giver, and I'm pretty sure it didn't ruin my mind. If it wasn't simple to understand I would have gotten bored and not read it thanks to my lovely ability to be distracted easily.

This review cracked me up! I'm so sick of this "we can't make the children overwork their little minds!" attitude. At the moment, I teach college freshman English, and even there you will find this same protective attitude, one that I usually toss to the wind. I taught Frank Herbert's Dune last year, and many students complained about it being too hard; that only made me teach it again.

I actually enjoy your reviews, Keely. Keep 'em coming!

Keely my dear cousin...I love you! :-D

Hephaestus said: "If [The Giver] wasn't simple to understand I would have gotten bored and not read it . . ."

My problem with it isn't the simplicity, it's the fact that it doesn't actually present us with ideas, but takes them for granted, as I explain in more detail in my review.

Lara said: "I'm so sick of this "we can't make the children overwork their little minds!" attitude."

Yeah, I know that unskilled teachers are only able to teach simple concepts, but a good teacher can teach any idea, if they have a good grasp of it. I saw a woman teach binary to fourth graders in five minutes, because she knew how to explain it.

Ariana said: "Keely my dear cousin...I love you! :-D"

Haha, very nice of you, thanks.

Thank you!!!!!! That is all.

Heh, glad you liked it.

This review was hilarious. Satirical, sarcastic, witty and just plain awesome! I loved the part "because children are just stupid versions of people." It successfully refutes and contradicts every lame argument people use to defend the typical dumbed-down aspect of children's literature in just half a sentence. Brilliantly put.

I have to say, I too am quite tired of that kind of attitude, to think that the more stupid literature is, the better it is for kids, which is a common argument to defend badly written books like Twilight and Eragon. It is always better to provoke thought from a child than to prevent it.

Glad to hear we're on the same page, glad you enjoyed the review.

Keely, reading your review just made my day. It was very well laid out and I think you deserve extra brownie points for the excellent vocabulary you used.

You seem to have a lot of pent up anger about books and the internet, which makes this site probably a boiling pot of stress for you.

Bukkrogers said: "You seem to have a lot of pent up anger about books and the internet, which makes this site probably a boiling pot of stress for you."

Actually, I find it rather amusing a lot of the time--hence the poodle thing, I figured that would tip people off to the fact that I tend to take the whole thing pretty lightly. I mean, most of the negative comments I get are so inexpert and hypocritical that it's hard not to laugh at them--and I certainly can't imagine getting very worked up about them--one might as well get angry at a toddler for spilling their juice.

Keely, you are an intellectual force to be reckoned with. I admire your depth.

Corey wrote: "Keely, you are an intellectual force to be reckoned with. I admire your depth."

I totally agree.

It's very humbling to hear someone express that--I just hope I can be a force for good. Thank you both for the kind words.