Early Review of Richard Jackson's Confessions of a Terrorist: A Novel

Confessions of a Terrorist: A Novel by Richard Jackson
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

Advanced Reader's Copy Review:

The night I began reading Richard Jackson's Confessions of a Terrorist: A Novel, I didn't stop before finishing a third of it, it was difficult to put it down. Part of this is the style, it is written in the format of a Top Secret transcription of an audio or video recording of an interrogation of a MI5 agent and a terrorist/militant. There are no chapter breaks, so it's easy to just keep right on reading and the content makes it hard to simply close it and put it down.

Jackson, with this novel, seeks to shake up his readers' preconceptions and notions concerning those labeled as terrorists by the media. That seems to be one of his few aims: to show that those so quickly tagged as terrorists are human beings, having people they love, who love them; and who want people to hear them. Jackson writes: “I have rarely found artistic or media depictions of terrorists that seemed authentic or which corresponded to the completely normal, often intelligent, complex and committed people I had personally spoken to” (319). He presents the terrorist in this light; i.e. the opposite of the way they are usually presented in films and the media.

The author wants to put the readers in the room during the interrogation, to help them ask tough questions. Jackson lives up to his goal, stated on the jacket copy, to blur the line between the interrogator and the terrorist. There are passages that could catch readers nodding their heads in agreement and then, catch them feeling a twinge of guilt for doing so.

I read that it is in the style of Mohsin Hamid's The Reluctant Fundamentalist. I agree with that in that it is a story that takes place in an intense conversation between two characters: one a Westerner, the other a suspected terrorist. There the similarity breaks down. Jackson's novel is presented as a trascript (as I've already stated), with anotations by those higher up the chain of command; annotations that the fictional authority writes to convince others to expunge parts of the recording and the transcription to cover their collective backsides. Jackson recommends those who are inclined, should try to find as much information as they can, and to talk to militants, if possible.

If you enjoyed The Reluctant Fundamentalist, or are interested in a different perspective view on the issue of terrorists and their behavior, I highly recommend this novel. The author writes, “A novel like this is a small step, but a necessary one, to tearing down the veil of ignorance which currently lies over most of what we currently say and do about terrorism” (322). He also includes a suggested reading list for those interested in knocking down that “veil of ignorance.” I plan to re-read this novel, and to work my way through Jackson's "Recommended Reading" list on terrorism and terrorists.

View all my reviews

Get the Kindle version, here (the hardcopy is due out 3 June 2014):
Confessions of a Terrorist

Review of Devil's Highway

Devil's Highway by Luis Alberto Urrea
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

So many in the US complain about illegal immigrants, while forgetting that their ancestors once came to this country uninvited. And most of those who come, now, really don't want to; they have family back home and many of them can't find jobs, because the American corporations have pulled out and left few jobs and those that are available are worse than minimum wage here. Sadly, many of those who try to come to the US die in their search for a better life for them and their families.

This exposes the selfishness that often comes with abundance that many US citizens enjoy. All of us can gain perspective by thinking about the ordeals our ancestors went through so that we could enjoy freedom of religion and the abundance available in this country. And, in truth, there are people in this country who are so far from that abundance that they can't even afford to see it on TV. It's not helping them to keep the immigrants out. They don't have access to the jobs the immigrants are out for. The world is screwed up enough without our complaining about people trying for a better life. Many who complain, however, try to lump all illegal aliens into one group: drug and human traffickers.

I'm reminded of the way German-Americans, Japanese-Americans were treated during WWII, and the way many people of Middle Eastern descent were treated (are still?) after 9/11. It's fear--xenophobia! And it is sad and disgusting. Especially when it is those who are simply trying to pursue happiness or a little less sadness, or even a little more to feed, clothe and house their family.

These immigrants often die in a horrible way, crossing Hell trying to reach the Promised Land which despises them for no other reason than they aren't from here.

Yes, the drugs and crime are often part of it--but, NEWS FLASH! drugs and crime have been part of the culture of the US for a loooong time and it does NOT depend on illegal immigration to keep going.

This book gives names to a few of the hundreds that try to find a better life, it gives the outsider a view into the lives of the kinds of people they are, how they live, how they want what everyone wants: happiness and the chance to take care of their families. I can't imagine anything closer to Hell on Earth than what all these desperate men endured and what lead to many of them to their deaths. Luis Alberto Urrea also shows how our jobs are not really in danger of being all taken away by illegal immigrants; he gives the whole thing context in which to come to our own ideas about border crossing and immigration.

If you are interested in what goes on on the Mexican-American border; in what often happens to the people who try to cross into a better life; or in ways all this is handled by our respective governments, and what that means for citizens of both countries; this is a good read to has a few answers, while at the same time putting a face on the brave and desperate people.

View all my reviews
Get a copy here:
The Devil's Highway: A True Story

Review of Don Winslow's The Power of the Dog

The Power of the Dog by Don Winslow
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

This is a long book, but the length (as Jane Smiley writes about in 13 Ways of Looking at the Novel) is a promise, not a threat.

The action is quick, the tension is high and the conflict is believable. There are neither purely good guys, nor completely evil bad guys. It seems like Winslow covered everything from family to feigned friendship, from faith to agnosticism, from obsession to oppression.

The War on Drugs plays a major role in this novel, as does the U.S.'s use of that travesty and failure to maintain a large distance from Communist countries: in other words, to keep them from moving in right next door.

Winslow's characters are both likeable and not. Some, I wanted to side with initially, only to rethink my loyalty later. It really is a great ride through the psychology of trying to reach a goal that may be, when all is said and done, unobtainable: e.g. the War on Drugs. It's like a war against dirt, it is never-ending and demands constant vigilance (which, if truth be told, is a waste of time, i.e. dirt will win). I'm not making a judgment on drugs (or on dirt, for that matter), but on the ways in which the U.S. has "tried" to stop the flow of those drugs. Billions of dollars have been spent, and many of those billions have ended up in the pockets of the heads of the very drug cartels that were the targets of this fiasco called a war.

Winslow does an excellent job of presenting the history necessary to tell his story without dragging in so much as to make it a boring read. He uses what is necessary, leaves out what isn't.

At the very least, this novel has made me think about the U.S. relations with our neighbors to the south in North, Central and South America. Was the War on Drugs really just a way for the U.S. to keep Communists from moving in right next door? Did the U.S. supply anti-communist fighters, who also happened to be part of the huge flow of drugs into and money out of the U.S.? Will you read this book and wrestle with your own questions about these issues?

That's all I can suggest: read it.

View all my reviews

Get yourself a copy here:
The Power of the Dog (Vintage Crime/Black Lizard)

Review of The Devil All the Time by Donald Ray Pollock

The Devil All the Time by Donald Ray Pollock
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

Many times while reading The Devil All the Time I thought of Flannery O'Connor, especially her "A Good Man is Hard to Find." Also, a couple of times Joyce Carol Oates's short story, "Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?" came to mind. Both excellent stories, and I recommend them highly if you like The Devil All the Time. It's not so much in the way Pollock writes, he's not a copy cat, but has his own style and voice. It's more the content that reminds me of those other stories.
The novel follows the life of Arvin Russell: beginning with him and ending with him. The other characters, though initially seeming to have nothing to do with Arvin, all slowly become part of his story. I got the feeling of a drain swirling, with whatever is caught in that whirlpool moving ever closer to the center; in this case the center is Arvin. The characters are well written and the tension is pretty good and the chapters are fairly short: which means "I can get one more chapter in before I go to sleep." Then, four chapters later, I actually close the book. It kept me interested.
Pollock's novel is set in and around Knockemstiff, Ohio, which was new to me. And some of the description reminded me of Cormac McCarthy's novels set in Tennessee, especially the shorter ones, like Orchard Keeper, Outer Dark, and Child of God.
I stumbled onto Donald Ray Pollock during some research for another author. I found that Pollock had won several awards and honors for his work and decided I would read something by him. I was not disappointed.
If you like the stories mentioned above, or other stories, such as The Wettest County in the World by Matt Bondurant (recently adapted into the film Lawless), or Faulkner or McCarthy, then I would recommend The Devil All the Time. Now, that's not to say that if you don't like any of those I have mentioned, you won't like this book. The best I can say is: read it and see for yourself.


View all my reviews

Get your own copy, here:

Free Speech is Illegal, Now?

Saw a rather disquieting thing this A.M. on Facebook and felt compelled to look into it because my bullshit meter was cranked all the way up and screaming.

The headline: "NOW THE FIRST AMENDMENT! OBAMA SIGNED IN SECRECY THAT FREE SPEECH IS FELONY,ARE YOU AWAKE YET AMERICA?"

I watched the video, in which the newscaster mentions the name of this LAW: H.R. 347.

So, here's what I found out:

• This is old "news" from 2011
• It was openly passed by the Senate
• It is not as bad as these guys are making it out to be
• It applies to certain areas at certain times

The following was found on ACLU's blog (you know if anyone is keeping an eye on this kind of thing, it is them, right?):

H.R. 347, the 'Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011,' expanded the Secret Service's authority to regulate protests in and around areas where persons under Secret Service protection are located. It could be abused to interfere with lawful protest.

It could be doesn't mean it will be or that it has been. This is just another ploy to slander the President, just like the birth certificate fiasco. Anyway, it would be scary to lose the right to protest, but the President doesn't have that kind of dictatorial power. Another article on the ACLU blog, dated 8 March 2012, states: "The truth is more mundane, but the issues raised are still of major significance for the First Amendment."  You should read the rest of that article, if you haven't already;  but a couple of important excerpts are called for:

It's important to note — contrary to some reports — that H.R. 347 doesn't create any new crimes, or directly apply to the Occupy protests. The bill slightly rewrites a short trespass law, originally passed in 1971 and amended a couple of times since, that covers areas subject to heightened Secret Service security measures. 

AND

H.R. 347 doesn't directly address free speech zones, it is part of the set of laws that make this conduct possible, and should be seen in this context.

So, there really is not anything to get worked up about, is there? But, please, remember to check this kind of "IN SECRET," conspiracy theory stuff before scaring our pants off with it. Thank you in advance.

One of the first places I look when I even barely doubt the veracity of an issue is http://www.snopes.com. They discuss the origins of the fallacy in this way:

In February 2012, the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act was passed in the Senate by unanimous consent (as HR 247) approved by the House of Representatives by a lopsided vote of 399-3; the bill was then signed into law by President Obama.

It is an update to 18 USc 1752 - Restricted Building and Grounds, from 1971.

Another excellent source to check these things out is FactCheck.org. Especially if it is political in nature.
Here is the pertinent article, relating to this blog-post.

Think About It

Review of The Robber Bride

The Robber Bride by Margaret Atwood
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

It is not my favorite Atwood, but it kept me interested. Atwood does an excellent job of character building, almost Dostoevskian in the inner and outer depth and overall scope. Some of the action I have a little trouble believing, but Atwood does provide reasons, within her character development, for those actions (sometimes after the fact); they are just not the actions I would take or would, in most cases, expect someone else to take. I was a little disappointed, in other words, with how some of the characters reacted to the "antagonist," for lack of a better word. Personally, I expected (several times) this character to be beaten to unconsciousness or murdered, but alas....

If you are an Atwood fan, I don't think this book will disappoint. Like her of her works, it differs from the others, but still has the Atwood style, diction, beautiful language and excellent character development.

View all my reviews

Get your copy, here:

Review of Jerzy Kosinski's The Painted Bird

The Painted Bird by Jerzy Kosiński

My rating: 5 of 5 stars


Everything the blurbs on the cover said. It is heartbreaking, amazing, powerful. At times you want to turn away, but you don't; then, you realize that life is not always nice.

The protagonist changes many times throughout the book. He changes in order to survive, he changes because he sees something that he believes is better, or he changes because his eyes are opened and he sees how life really is.

Kosinski was accused of betraying his country, he was also accused of not going far enough in showing the horrors of war as the boy experienced them. Maybe it's autobiographical, maybe it's not. What is important is that it is a true picture of what happened to many during the years of the Second World War.

The author pulls no punches, so be prepared to read about depravity, hatred, racism, violence and even death when you pick up this book.

And prepare to be changed. I was.



View all my reviews

To get your own copy:

Review of Cormac McCarthy's Child of God

Child of God by Cormac McCarthy
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Coming to this book, I knew only that the main character, Lester Ballard, had some strange ways, but I didn't know how strange until several chapters into the book. It is an interesting read; McCarthy has a way of making it seem dream-like: broken up, but still flowing together. I'm not sure that makes sense, but that's how it reads to me. He kept the chapters short, most being only a single scene: some shorter, some longer. The short chapters coupled with Lester's bizarre behavior keeps you turning the pages, not to mention the "need" to know what happens....

There is a strong link to mythology in most of McCarthy's work and this book is no different. There are trips to the underworld, shape-shifting and tragedy among other motifs.

Without giving away too much, I will say that this book is not for the faint of heart. If Nabokov's Lolita bothers you, then there is a possibility that this will, too. It isn't exactly the same as Lolita , but the deviance of Lester, the main character, is very pronounced as is that of Humbert Humbert. But, in the case of Child of God, Lester is not the narrator.

I wonder if you could still call Lester a protagonist? He does change, but not much. The reader gets the sense that he is depraved right from the beginning. It's the level, or depth, of his depravity that changes.

The writing itself will not disappoint fans of McCarthy. His prose, as always, is tight and musical; the critics like to call it poetic, which it is. It damn near sings. I give it four stars simply for the prose. The content gives me pause; that's not to say that we should ignore it, it's just more unsettling than a book with a happy-go-lucky attitude and a bright happy ending. McCarthy almost never has happy endings and this is no exception. He does have "just" endings on occasion, or endings in which those who deserve it get it, if you get my drift.

I will read it again, simply because I love McCarthy's writing and want to learn from him. If I were reading it as a reader only, once would be enough--maybe more than enough.

View all my reviews

If you need your own copy:

Vague? From the Heart

James Poulos, on HuffPost Live: We Are the 47% episode, claims that Romney's statements, which I began discussing yesterday, were vague and simply campaign rhetoric.  Alyona Minkovski jumps in and asks, "Is it just about imprecise language?"  She goes on to question it.  And she nails it.  She asks if it isn't the general thinking in America that anyone who needs help from the government is a freeloader.  Sadly, Romney's words and attitude are part of our culture.  But in one way, these attitudes keep many who need help from asking for it.  So, where does that put Romney?  It's not simply about taxes, it's about caring; and clearly Romney doesn't.

I cry foul on Poulos's statement of imprecise language.  Romney's language is extremely clear, achingly precise.  He even uses the rhetorical repetition of "who believe ..."  He's trying to convince others, who most likely already think as he does, of something that is very real in his mind; but that's beside the real point. 

The more important issue is that this is Romney's attitude being revealed in a situation in which he thinks he is safe to say what he really feels, believes.  In this meeting, Romney speaks, as Poulos says, "almost stream-of-consciousness."  That makes my point all the more relevant.  Stream of consciousness means that you are not taking time to filter what is coming out of your mouth.  He is, in other words, speaking from the heart.  And his heart is hardened toward a very large number of United States citizens, including his own voters....  

You can read Romney's statements and watch the videos at here at Mother Jones.

Think About It!  

UPDATE:  I wanted to share this quote from Upworthy.com, "When These 6 People Think You Blew It, You Know Your Campaign Is In Trouble":

“I disagree with Gov. Romney’s insinuation that 47 percent of Americans believe they are victims who must depend on the government for their care. ... I know that the vast majority of those who rely on government are not in that situation because they want to be.”

          — Linda McMahon, Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Connecticut

Romney's Falseness Revealed

Mitt Romney never had my vote, but today he showed the world who he really is: "Romney already has trouble relating to the public and convincing people he cares about them. Now, he's been caught on video saying that nearly half the country consists of hopeless losers."

"On the tape, Romney explains that his electoral strategy involves writing off nearly half the country as unmoveable Obama voters. As Romney explains, 47 percent of Americans 'believe that they are victims.' He laments: 'I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.'"

These people he's talking about are responsible, or are trying very hard to be in this economic environment.  I know from experience that it is difficult to "care for your life" if you can't make enough money to do that; or if you're disabled (i.e. unable to work) and can't even afford the medical care you need.  Romney has an over-inflated self-opinion.  And worse, he doesn't care about others.  What's sad is that many of the people who will vote for him feel the same way. 

It's interesting to me that those who have never had to struggle to make ends meet, who have never had to work from dusk till dawn trying to keep a roof over their family's heads, who have never had to wonder what they would do if they became sick and unable to work and medical bills started mounting: it is interesting that they think all the people who need help are lazy losers. 

The people who need help are human beings. 

They are human beings.

This arrogant man needs to get off of his high and mighty pedestal and realize that. Sadly, he won't.  He's convinced that he is better than those people on welfare, those people on disability, those people on Medicaid or Medicare, even those people who will cast their precious vote for him.  

They are human beings; many of them are proud, they have their dignity, and don't want to ask for help; they struggle between swallowing their pride (which they only have because of thinking like Romney thinks: i.e. anyone who needs help is a loser) and letting themselves or family members go hungry, lose their homes, or die from treatable illnesses because they can't afford to live in this America we have all made. 

I'm much angrier than I may sound here; I am watching my language, because I want people to read this and especially to think about it.  Please, just seriously think about it.

Article by Josh Barro on Bloomberg which spawned this post and from which I quote above: "Today, Romney Lost the Election."

Think About It!

God is What?

Two things:

"He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love." 1 John 4.8

 "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." Matthew 10.28

Question:

Do I fear him because he loves me so much, or do I love him because if I don't he will send me to hell?

Second Question:

If I fear him and love him for the first, it is without merit; if I love and fear him for the second, I deserve to go to hell anyway for attempting a Blaise Pascal feint on him, and if God sends me to hell, then how can he say he loves me?

Thoughts:

I would never send someone I love even to prison, much less to an everlasting torment in fire that never stops. And I'm not even as good as God, right?

Several will almost assuredly immediately yell, "You took it out of context, you took it out of context."

Bull! Context is a golden calf that must be melted down, crushed and drank.  If these are out of context, then the Christian god is love only in a certain context and will send sinners to hell only in a certain context. That is not what the Bible says, is it? Does it say, "God is love, only in such-and-so a context"? No. Read the "context" and you will see that you cannot dispute this.

You want to see a biblical contradiction? It is this Matthew 10 verse alongside 1 Corinthians 13. Love and Hell from the same source? It is like attempting to mix clear water with bitter; all will be tainted..... None fit to drink.

Just think about it...