The Wild Vine: A Forgotten Grape and the Untold Story of American Wine, by Todd Kliman
This is a pretty fascinating book. Technically, it is a history book on a completely obscure topic (the history of a grapevine). But it reads more like a novel that chronicles the history of wine in America. In addition to an entertaining story, I found myself learning about agriculture, wine, and yes, history. The common term, "a new chapter in history" is taken quite literally in this book, where each chapter introduces a new event or character in the story.
To sum up the basics: the New World was promising, not just for expansion and discovery, but as a potential source for new crops. The hunt was on for a good American wine that could rival Europe's wines. For 300 years everyone was disappointed at the quality of wine the native grape (Concord) could produce. Even Thomas Jefferson, for all the things he accomplished in his lifetime, was unable to establish a vineyard that could produce good wine. Even the European grapevines that were brought to America failed.
Enter Dr. Daniel Norton, a medical doctor and amateur horticulturist dabbling in grapevine genetics. Half accidentally, half on purpose, a vine was born at his Virginia farm that was pest-and-disease resistant, and produced grapes that made good wine. As time passed, the vine made it to Missouri, which was set to become America's Napa Valley before California was known for anything but gold, eventually winning a gold medal in an international wine expo in Vienna, and medals in subsequent years as well.
Next chapter up: Prohibition. The vineyards were burned, but bootleggers in Missouri saved some vines in a hidden vineyard. Prohibition was lifted, but Missouri never recovered as a center for wine production, though that is changing today.
The rest of the book finishes the story of the Norton, and its return to its native Virginia. While reading the author's descriptions of the wine, I really got a sense of the spirit of America. To the author, if not to the reader, the Norton wine represents the rugged hardiness, the perseverance of the varied culture, and even the melting pot quality of collective "America." To drink a Norton wine, the book seemed to say to me, is to proudly engage in a patriotic show of love for your country.
Towards the end, I felt a slight shift of focus from historical to almost propagandist writing. However, it was not enough to turn me off to reading, and I felt drawn to the story enough to give the author the benefit of the doubt- that the Norton wine really IS that good. This book's story has all the qualities of a great Hollywood story- a main character (the grape) with a cast of supporting actors who all have unique elements they add to the story. A great victory (the gold medals in Vienna) against affliction from an antagonist (alternately, European wine, California, Nicholas Longworth) and an extreme setback (Prohibition) followed by a come-back. It includes a surprise twist near the end, though not the kind worthy of an M. Night Shyamalan movie. It even has sex appeal, though not in the way most would expect. The characters all have a deep passion and romance for the Norton grape, and a wine which embodies the wildness of early America- well, that's pretty sexy. It makes me wonder why this book has not already been turned into a movie, and the instant answer that comes to mind is the author's inclusion of nine pages of Bibliography which would suggest the research to indicate it is a true story. Hollywood can't stomach true stories.
In conclusion, I would recommend this book to anyone who loves obscure history, or history from a new angle, anyone who loves (or likes) wine, wants to learn more about wine, wants to learn about a native American species, supports local business, or just thinks the cover looks cool (the cover ROCKS).
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Tuck
Tuck, by Stephen R. Lawhead
This is book #3 in the King Raven Trilogy. My reviews of the first two books- Hood, and Scarlet- can be found by clicking on their names. If you couldn't tell from the names "Hood, Scarlet, and Tuck" all put together, this is a retelling of the Robin Hood story.
The story of Robin Hood as we know it takes place in England near Nottingham around the time King Richard the Lionhearted was ruling. But Sherwood Forest would have been a reconstituted forest at that time, not as hauntingly spooky or easy to hide in as a true virgin forest. So, the author sets the story in Wales during the time of King William the Red, and gives all the characters more-or-less the same names, but with the Welsh, Saxon, or Norman spellings and pronunciation, depending on where they are from. Thus, Robin Hood becomes Rhi Bran y Hud (King Raven the Enchanter), Will Scarlet becomes Will 'Scarlet' Scatlocke, and Friar Tuck becomes Friar Aethelfrith, a Saxon name so complicated that the Welsh (who call themselves Cymry) had to come up with a suitable nickname for him (they chose Tuck). Yes, the name changes seem complicated, but if you read it as if you've never heard the Robin Hood story before, then it will make perfect sense.
In the first book, we learn about Bran's rise from a wayward prince to a warrior king in exile. In book two, Will Scarlet is in prison, gets rescued through a daring plot by King Bran, and then they all go shoot some Freinc soldiers with arrows and declare war, despite their "army" consisting of 6 good archers. In this third book, Bran's army has grown a little, but not by much. Despite that, through hard work and careful planning, they are able to diminish the enemy's numbers by more than half. Bran journeys north to ask a neighboring Welsh kingdom for help, but discovers their king has been taken captive. A good third of the book takes place in the north, with Bran and Tuck adventuring with new friends and warriors they (and we the readers) aren't accustomed to being around. The strategic plan Bran cooks up for accomplishing their goals is simply ingenious, not only on his part but on the part of the author. The other plan, the one I mentioned in my review of Scarlet, is brilliant for its chemistry, but this one just made me laugh at the audacity- yet the genius- of it. If I had a mind like this author, I would have finished writing my own books by now.
After a sad disappointment, Bran returns home to find that, more or less, everything has gone to pot in his absence. But they press on and shoot a few more bad guys, which lands the whole army of William the Red at their doorsteps (not a spoiler- it says that on the back of the book). By this point in the story, enough plot has been set up that I can see where things might lead, so that by the last third of the book, most new developments had me saying, "YES! I knew that would happen!" But, it was not necessarily a predictable plot, it was simply that I got invested in the characters, which led to my fervent hope for something and then at certain points the author decided to relent and give me what I hoped for. There were quite a few places where things happened that I would not have hoped for, or did not expect, so it was not just a boring ending. In fact, it was quite an exciting ending, not unlike a Tolkien tale I've heard once or twice.
One thing I found interesting was the Author's Note which ended each book. The note at the end of Tuck cited the true historical accounts in which archers seemed to decimate an entire army, as a way to explain why some readers may find Rhi Bran's success with his archers (6 against 40) somewhat improbable as a plot line. By historical accounts and with the military technology of the times, a war could be decided by the number of archers on each side, and all other things being equal, by how many of the archers were Welsh. I particularly liked that tidbit of information, mostly because of my interest in strategy and military tactics in the context of a novel (it is hard to find a good story about war these days).
I recommend this book series to anyone who likes the story of Robin Hood, strong "heroic" type characters, medieval fiction, stories of ancient Great Britain, stories of "freedom fighters," brilliant and intricate plots, and archery. Lots and lots of archery.
EDIT: I've just browsed some other people's reviews, and I have to emphatically disagree with the one who claims Mr. Lawhead has good ideas but is not a skilled writer. He is quite skilled at depicting various accents and dialects, and despite the presence of 4 languages in 11th century Wales, it is not confusing to follow who is talking or why they are talking like that, not even when Alan a'Dale lapses in and out of multiple dialects. Additionally, for most of Scarlet, the book moves flawlessly in and out of Will's first person account, and a few third-person accounts that are needed in order to keep the plot up-to-date.
This is book #3 in the King Raven Trilogy. My reviews of the first two books- Hood, and Scarlet- can be found by clicking on their names. If you couldn't tell from the names "Hood, Scarlet, and Tuck" all put together, this is a retelling of the Robin Hood story.
The story of Robin Hood as we know it takes place in England near Nottingham around the time King Richard the Lionhearted was ruling. But Sherwood Forest would have been a reconstituted forest at that time, not as hauntingly spooky or easy to hide in as a true virgin forest. So, the author sets the story in Wales during the time of King William the Red, and gives all the characters more-or-less the same names, but with the Welsh, Saxon, or Norman spellings and pronunciation, depending on where they are from. Thus, Robin Hood becomes Rhi Bran y Hud (King Raven the Enchanter), Will Scarlet becomes Will 'Scarlet' Scatlocke, and Friar Tuck becomes Friar Aethelfrith, a Saxon name so complicated that the Welsh (who call themselves Cymry) had to come up with a suitable nickname for him (they chose Tuck). Yes, the name changes seem complicated, but if you read it as if you've never heard the Robin Hood story before, then it will make perfect sense.
In the first book, we learn about Bran's rise from a wayward prince to a warrior king in exile. In book two, Will Scarlet is in prison, gets rescued through a daring plot by King Bran, and then they all go shoot some Freinc soldiers with arrows and declare war, despite their "army" consisting of 6 good archers. In this third book, Bran's army has grown a little, but not by much. Despite that, through hard work and careful planning, they are able to diminish the enemy's numbers by more than half. Bran journeys north to ask a neighboring Welsh kingdom for help, but discovers their king has been taken captive. A good third of the book takes place in the north, with Bran and Tuck adventuring with new friends and warriors they (and we the readers) aren't accustomed to being around. The strategic plan Bran cooks up for accomplishing their goals is simply ingenious, not only on his part but on the part of the author. The other plan, the one I mentioned in my review of Scarlet, is brilliant for its chemistry, but this one just made me laugh at the audacity- yet the genius- of it. If I had a mind like this author, I would have finished writing my own books by now.
After a sad disappointment, Bran returns home to find that, more or less, everything has gone to pot in his absence. But they press on and shoot a few more bad guys, which lands the whole army of William the Red at their doorsteps (not a spoiler- it says that on the back of the book). By this point in the story, enough plot has been set up that I can see where things might lead, so that by the last third of the book, most new developments had me saying, "YES! I knew that would happen!" But, it was not necessarily a predictable plot, it was simply that I got invested in the characters, which led to my fervent hope for something and then at certain points the author decided to relent and give me what I hoped for. There were quite a few places where things happened that I would not have hoped for, or did not expect, so it was not just a boring ending. In fact, it was quite an exciting ending, not unlike a Tolkien tale I've heard once or twice.
One thing I found interesting was the Author's Note which ended each book. The note at the end of Tuck cited the true historical accounts in which archers seemed to decimate an entire army, as a way to explain why some readers may find Rhi Bran's success with his archers (6 against 40) somewhat improbable as a plot line. By historical accounts and with the military technology of the times, a war could be decided by the number of archers on each side, and all other things being equal, by how many of the archers were Welsh. I particularly liked that tidbit of information, mostly because of my interest in strategy and military tactics in the context of a novel (it is hard to find a good story about war these days).
I recommend this book series to anyone who likes the story of Robin Hood, strong "heroic" type characters, medieval fiction, stories of ancient Great Britain, stories of "freedom fighters," brilliant and intricate plots, and archery. Lots and lots of archery.
EDIT: I've just browsed some other people's reviews, and I have to emphatically disagree with the one who claims Mr. Lawhead has good ideas but is not a skilled writer. He is quite skilled at depicting various accents and dialects, and despite the presence of 4 languages in 11th century Wales, it is not confusing to follow who is talking or why they are talking like that, not even when Alan a'Dale lapses in and out of multiple dialects. Additionally, for most of Scarlet, the book moves flawlessly in and out of Will's first person account, and a few third-person accounts that are needed in order to keep the plot up-to-date.
The 5 People You Meet in Heaven
The Five People You Meet in Heaven, by Mitch Albom
This book is unusual. Most of the time when you read a book, you know that no matter how many bad things happen to the main character, none of them will be bad enough to kill, except maybe at the end if it is one of those tragic stories. This book is not like that. The first chapter is called The End, and it begins with "This is a story about a man named Eddie and it begins at the end, with Eddie dying in the sun."
Thankfully, the book doesn't open with a gruesome death scene, but explains a little about how Eddie got to his predicament that killed him, and then after that, Eddie finds himself somewhere else, where he learns that in heaven, before reaching his own paradise, he must meet five people who had influenced his life on earth in some way. They will each teach him a lesson explaining life, so that he can make some sense of his time on earth. Interspersed with Eddie's meetings with these five people, are snippets of the past, letting us get a glimpse of who Eddie was on earth. After all, we didn't really know him on earth, because the story began on his last day here. So we need to have some reference point.
I see this book as a work of philosophy, explaining a little to the reader about what life means on earth, and why we are here, and how we should live. Some people could object to the version of heaven as depicted in this book, but I don't really see the book as a work of theology. The setting of heaven seems to be simply the author's method for getting the points across.
Each of the five people had some quite startling things to reveal to Eddie, so it was interesting, and a very quick read. I would suggest this book to anyone. And everyone.
This book is unusual. Most of the time when you read a book, you know that no matter how many bad things happen to the main character, none of them will be bad enough to kill, except maybe at the end if it is one of those tragic stories. This book is not like that. The first chapter is called The End, and it begins with "This is a story about a man named Eddie and it begins at the end, with Eddie dying in the sun."
Thankfully, the book doesn't open with a gruesome death scene, but explains a little about how Eddie got to his predicament that killed him, and then after that, Eddie finds himself somewhere else, where he learns that in heaven, before reaching his own paradise, he must meet five people who had influenced his life on earth in some way. They will each teach him a lesson explaining life, so that he can make some sense of his time on earth. Interspersed with Eddie's meetings with these five people, are snippets of the past, letting us get a glimpse of who Eddie was on earth. After all, we didn't really know him on earth, because the story began on his last day here. So we need to have some reference point.
I see this book as a work of philosophy, explaining a little to the reader about what life means on earth, and why we are here, and how we should live. Some people could object to the version of heaven as depicted in this book, but I don't really see the book as a work of theology. The setting of heaven seems to be simply the author's method for getting the points across.
Each of the five people had some quite startling things to reveal to Eddie, so it was interesting, and a very quick read. I would suggest this book to anyone. And everyone.
Sunday, August 7, 2011
The Reason for God
The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism, by Timothy Keller
This book was excellent. It was broken up into two parts. In the first part, the author, a NYC pastor who has heard it all, took the most popular objections to Christianity and addressed them. I would not exactly say that he "refuted" them, because it sounds somewhat abrasive to speak that way. Instead, he discussed the implications of believing in each objection, and exposed each one as logically unsound. One particular thing that stands out is that unlike many religious people, the author did not use scripture to "prove" his point. When a person uses scripture as the foundation for an argument with someone who objects to Christianity, the other person can simply call the validity of scripture into question, thus causing the whole argument to fall apart. Scripture is useful for a lot of things- teaching, rebuking, correcting, training- but it does not make a sound foundation in an argument about the validity of the word of God. Mr. Keller uses philosophy and logical thinking to discuss scripture, and through logic explains that many of the objections to Christianity require a belief in some other unproven theory.
Take for example the objection, "There can't be just one true religion." In the United States, it is culturally important that we be sensitive to other people's beliefs. This allows multiple religions to have breathing room. But in the Middle East, almost everyone believes there is just one true religion. To state that "there can't be just one true religion" also asserts that your cultural beliefs are more important than others, and is a statement of belief which others do not hold and which you cannot empirically prove.
So, in the first part of the book, the author lays out reasons we shouldn't disbelieve, and in the second part of the book, the author explains by topic reasons to have faith in Christianity. Although this part is important, from a practical standpoint, I found the first part of the book more useful to me in answering not only questions I've heard, but questions I've asked myself. In particular, the question "How can a loving God send people to hell?" is one that I have wrestled with. One thing that stood out from that chapter was that it would be very unloving for God to allow people like Hitler into heaven. The question that follows is how can a loving God NOT send people to hell?" There would be no justice anywhere if that were the case. I honestly had never thought of it from that perspective before.
I think that this book is good for anyone who likes to think, who wants to view Christianity from a new perspective, who likes philosophical thought, or who has tough, unanswered questions about God, the Bible, or Christians. This book is NOT good for someone with a low reading level. I have done college-level reading in a short time and with no problem, but this book was a challenge for me (only in parts). In addition to reading (visual input), I had to supplement my absorption of this book by reading some chapters out loud (auditory input) and underlining key points (tactile input) in order to fully understand the concepts discussed. However, this was not for the entire book, only some of the deeper chapters. For the most part, if you can read at a high school or college level, you should be okay as long as you are interested in the subject matter. Lastly, from a Christian perspective, this book is helpful for grounding you in the beliefs you already have or may have been raised with.
This book was excellent. It was broken up into two parts. In the first part, the author, a NYC pastor who has heard it all, took the most popular objections to Christianity and addressed them. I would not exactly say that he "refuted" them, because it sounds somewhat abrasive to speak that way. Instead, he discussed the implications of believing in each objection, and exposed each one as logically unsound. One particular thing that stands out is that unlike many religious people, the author did not use scripture to "prove" his point. When a person uses scripture as the foundation for an argument with someone who objects to Christianity, the other person can simply call the validity of scripture into question, thus causing the whole argument to fall apart. Scripture is useful for a lot of things- teaching, rebuking, correcting, training- but it does not make a sound foundation in an argument about the validity of the word of God. Mr. Keller uses philosophy and logical thinking to discuss scripture, and through logic explains that many of the objections to Christianity require a belief in some other unproven theory.
Take for example the objection, "There can't be just one true religion." In the United States, it is culturally important that we be sensitive to other people's beliefs. This allows multiple religions to have breathing room. But in the Middle East, almost everyone believes there is just one true religion. To state that "there can't be just one true religion" also asserts that your cultural beliefs are more important than others, and is a statement of belief which others do not hold and which you cannot empirically prove.
So, in the first part of the book, the author lays out reasons we shouldn't disbelieve, and in the second part of the book, the author explains by topic reasons to have faith in Christianity. Although this part is important, from a practical standpoint, I found the first part of the book more useful to me in answering not only questions I've heard, but questions I've asked myself. In particular, the question "How can a loving God send people to hell?" is one that I have wrestled with. One thing that stood out from that chapter was that it would be very unloving for God to allow people like Hitler into heaven. The question that follows is how can a loving God NOT send people to hell?" There would be no justice anywhere if that were the case. I honestly had never thought of it from that perspective before.
I think that this book is good for anyone who likes to think, who wants to view Christianity from a new perspective, who likes philosophical thought, or who has tough, unanswered questions about God, the Bible, or Christians. This book is NOT good for someone with a low reading level. I have done college-level reading in a short time and with no problem, but this book was a challenge for me (only in parts). In addition to reading (visual input), I had to supplement my absorption of this book by reading some chapters out loud (auditory input) and underlining key points (tactile input) in order to fully understand the concepts discussed. However, this was not for the entire book, only some of the deeper chapters. For the most part, if you can read at a high school or college level, you should be okay as long as you are interested in the subject matter. Lastly, from a Christian perspective, this book is helpful for grounding you in the beliefs you already have or may have been raised with.
Possum Living
Possum Living, How to Live Well Without a Job and With (Almost) No Money, by Dolly Freed
The author of this book is amazing. The foreword indicates that Dolly Freed is a pseudonym, but whoever the author, she has a very similar mindset to me. She dropped out of school in 7th grade, with her father's permission, and spent the rest of her time learning things she needed to know from the library. She and her father bought an old store, renovated, and converted it into a house. She learned plumbing, electric wiring installment, masonry, heating and insulation, and tax assessment (or re-assessment) from the library. In 1978 dollars, they spent $1163 on two people for the entire year. They raised rabbits for meat, hens for eggs, and converted their backyard to a garden. They lived with very little waste; everything had a use, even the scraps. If the harvest was too big, they canned, dried, pickled, smoked, or froze what they couldn't eat for the winter, when there would be less available food. They got good clothes at Goodwill, which I can attest is actually probable. They lived in a nice, suburban neighborhood, and gave homemade wine as gifts for their friends. At the age of 18, Dolly wrote this book as a How-to-Do-What-We're-Doing book. If she didn't know how to write or become published, she went to the library to find out. As she grew older, and the book became fairly popular, she decided she wanted to become a NASA aerospace engineer. Then, she got up and did it. If it seemed like she had hit a dead end, she created her own opportunities to get where she needed to go. After meeting her husband at NASA and deciding she needed a career change, she created opportunities and became an environmental educator.
Why am I telling you about the author instead of the book? Because I really connected with the author. She had the right amount of witty-sarcastic comments, paired with a very clear and concise account of how to practice the skills she had learned (such as how to skin a rabbit or set up a solar heating system). Most of all, I like her because she is self-educated. I can give myself credit for 87.5% of my high school education, which I accomplished on my own through a correspondence school. The ability to learn independent of a teacher other than "life" is a trait I value in a person. I might not live exactly the way that is laid out in the book (read: I probably will never raise rabbits in my basement for meat) but there are plenty of good tips found in the book which I intend to put to use. One in particular is the importance (and ease!) of canning the extra produce you have for use a few months down the road, when those canned goods might not be as readily available. I have already put the advice to good use by making wineberry preserves and dill pickles from items I picked in the backyard. Although this book will not be the "frugalists' bible" as some have suggested it might be, I will definitely refer to it often for things I need to know how to do.
I would recommend this book to anyone who likes a quick and easy read, likes my kind of humor, has an interest in moonshine, has no job, or likes the idea of sustainable living.
The author of this book is amazing. The foreword indicates that Dolly Freed is a pseudonym, but whoever the author, she has a very similar mindset to me. She dropped out of school in 7th grade, with her father's permission, and spent the rest of her time learning things she needed to know from the library. She and her father bought an old store, renovated, and converted it into a house. She learned plumbing, electric wiring installment, masonry, heating and insulation, and tax assessment (or re-assessment) from the library. In 1978 dollars, they spent $1163 on two people for the entire year. They raised rabbits for meat, hens for eggs, and converted their backyard to a garden. They lived with very little waste; everything had a use, even the scraps. If the harvest was too big, they canned, dried, pickled, smoked, or froze what they couldn't eat for the winter, when there would be less available food. They got good clothes at Goodwill, which I can attest is actually probable. They lived in a nice, suburban neighborhood, and gave homemade wine as gifts for their friends. At the age of 18, Dolly wrote this book as a How-to-Do-What-We're-Doing book. If she didn't know how to write or become published, she went to the library to find out. As she grew older, and the book became fairly popular, she decided she wanted to become a NASA aerospace engineer. Then, she got up and did it. If it seemed like she had hit a dead end, she created her own opportunities to get where she needed to go. After meeting her husband at NASA and deciding she needed a career change, she created opportunities and became an environmental educator.
Why am I telling you about the author instead of the book? Because I really connected with the author. She had the right amount of witty-sarcastic comments, paired with a very clear and concise account of how to practice the skills she had learned (such as how to skin a rabbit or set up a solar heating system). Most of all, I like her because she is self-educated. I can give myself credit for 87.5% of my high school education, which I accomplished on my own through a correspondence school. The ability to learn independent of a teacher other than "life" is a trait I value in a person. I might not live exactly the way that is laid out in the book (read: I probably will never raise rabbits in my basement for meat) but there are plenty of good tips found in the book which I intend to put to use. One in particular is the importance (and ease!) of canning the extra produce you have for use a few months down the road, when those canned goods might not be as readily available. I have already put the advice to good use by making wineberry preserves and dill pickles from items I picked in the backyard. Although this book will not be the "frugalists' bible" as some have suggested it might be, I will definitely refer to it often for things I need to know how to do.
I would recommend this book to anyone who likes a quick and easy read, likes my kind of humor, has an interest in moonshine, has no job, or likes the idea of sustainable living.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)