Ryan, Debi, and Toren Cragun's Blog

Snicket, Lemony. 1999. The Bad Beginning. HarperCollins.

Rating:
4

Summary:
relatively entertaining children’s book

Three children of very wealthy parents, Violet, Klaus, and Sunny Baudelaire, are orphaned when their parents die in a fire that also destroys their home. Their parents’ will specifies that the children are to be placed in the care of relatives if the parents pass away. The executor of the will, Mr. Poe (who also happens to be the banker managing the fortune), finds a relative who lives relatively close to where the kids had been living. The relative’s name is Count Olaf. Count Olaf is a tall, gangly actor with one goal on his mind – to somehow acquire the extensive Baudelaire fortune that is the property of the kids and will only be made available to them once they come of age. Speaking of age, Violet is in her mid-teens, Klaus is around ten, and Sunny is old enough to walk, but not old enough to talk; she is, however, quite fond of biting. It is also important to point out that the kids each have a certain specialty – Violet is very good at inventing mechanical devices; Klaus is well-read and generally quite brilliant, though his interest tends to lean toward biology; finally, Sunny is good at biting things.

The children quickly realize that Count Olaf has no real concern for them when they move into his ramshackle home. Their only comfort comes from their frequent visits to Count Olaf’s neighbor, Justice Strauss, a kind judge who feels a motherly affection for the children. It is only a matter of time before Count Olaf launches a major attempt to gain control of the Baudelaire fortune. His plan is to marry Violet, which is legal where they live as long as the underage individual’s guardian – Count Olaf in this case – consents to the wedding. Count Olaf sets up an elaborate scenario to achieve this end that includes staging a play about a wedding. The marriage is only foiled when Violet, at the last minute, outwits Count Olaf. In so doing, Count Olaf’s plan is made public. But before he can be arrested, Count Olaf’s co-conspirator’s (and fellow actors) help him escape so he can plot his next attempt on the Baudelaire fortune.

The children hope to be adopted by Justice Strauss, who seems keen to the idea, but Mr. Poe, a stickler for legal statutes, insists on following the will and looking for another suitable relative. The book ends with the children in limbo, awaiting word on who their next guardians will be and not knowing exactly what has become of Count Olaf.

Review:
I read this book for two reasons. First, a friend recommended it, indicating that the book was laced with humorous social commentary. Second, it was on CD and I was on a road trip, so it was convenient.

Perhaps the social commentary is hidden a little too well, because it certainly wasn’t obvious to the casual reader. I do think the book was entertaining, even for a 28 year-old who doesn’t read many children’s books. Particularly fun was the narrator’s continuous emphasis of the depressing nature of the books and the lives of the Baudelaire children.

But, despite the brevity of the book, I found this a bit repetitive by the end. Speaking of repetitive, another characteristic of the book also got on my nerves, though I can certainly understand why it is included. The narrator occasionally uses large words then proceeds to explain what they mean in that particular context. This is likely a useful tact for children, but for an adult, it’s only funny the first few times. After a while, I found myself urging the narrator to ‘get on with it’.

Overall, while the book kept my attention (it was only three CDs worth, so about three hours worth of listening) and definitely presents a humorous, novel approach to children’s fiction, I don’t think I would recommend this book for the majority of adult readers. It may entertain for a while, but it isn’t a story that needs to be told, nor is the social commentary dual-layered enough (i.e., fitting for both children and adults) that it warrants a close examination. Kids may and probably do find the book enjoyable; but I don’t think I’ll be reading the rest of the series.

(Note: I listened to this book on CD.)

S, Acharya. 1999. The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold. Adventures Unlimited Press.

Rating:
1

Summary:
Terrible; and I’m an agnostic

Supposedly, this book was written to refute the authority claims of Christianity. It claims it is going to show how Christianity is rooted in myth, falsehoods, and lies. The author tries to follow up on this claim by citing a bunch of arcane authors to ‘prove’ her points.

Review:
I have walked out of terrible movies, plays, and modern dance performances. But this is the first time that I intentionally walked away from a book. I literally put it down and said, “I see no point in subjecting myself to this drivel any longer.”

I’m an agnostic, though I talk like an atheist most of the time. Thus, I was excited to read a book that supposedly had a bunch of authoritative references that was going to refute the truth claims of Christianity. But I am also a graduate student in Sociology and have been trained to do scientific research (okay, social scientific). The very first thing I did when I got the book was to check the references in the back. The majority of them are books published by a company named ‘Health Research Publishers’. The name is remarkably misleading; as you quickly find out when you visit their website what they publish has nothing to do with ‘health’. Instead, they are “the world’s largest publisher of rare and unusual books” (quote from their website); these are essentially books that cannot get published elsewhere. What they don’t tell you is that they are not an academic press that would be concerned with historical accuracy. They are simply interested in controversy, and controversial is what most of their books are. So, before I even started reading the book, I was pretty confident it wasn’t going to be very good.

But when I read the preface, I knew I was in for trouble. Kenn Thomas, the person writing the preface, says the following about the author, “Under the flashing head of Bob Dobbs on her website and the words “God is BORG [resistance is futile]” are essays/rants on Earth and the cosmos, the existence or nonexistence of “God,” the spiritual paucity of organized religion, as well as conspiracy and UFO/alien realities. “The believers/theists feel my views are intolerant,” she [Acharya S] writes, “while the nonbelievers/atheists object to the mysticism and perceive me as creating new beliefs… While I do not wish to live in a world where everyone is deluded by blind belief, I also do not want to totally dismiss all imagination or color” (p. i). If you go to the author’s website (www.truthbeknown.com), that’s a pretty accurate description. She isn’t interested in historical accuracy, nor is she an atheist in the traditional sense of the word. She is a mystic, conspiracy theorist with no professional training.

Speaking of no professional training in empirical research… Later in the preface, Acharya S’s credentials are listed as, “She has traveled extensively around Europe and has a “working knowledge” of Greek, French, Spanish, Italian, German, Portuguese, and other languages. She has read Euripides, Plato and Homer in ancient Greek and Cicero in Latin, as well as Chaucer in Middle English, and has clearly sat down with the Bible – in English, as well as in the original Hebrew and Greek – long enough to understand it more than most clergy” (p. ii). It is also claimed that Acharya works at the American School of Classical Studies in Athens, Greece and has lead archeological excavations. These have to be the most ridiculous credentials I have ever seen. Supposedly she does have a BA degree (that’s a claim I don’t have the time to verify), but from what I can discern, that’s where the legitimacy ends. Her ‘scientific’ and ‘objective’ authority is based on travel (I’ve done that), being familiar with Romance languages (I can claim that), sticking a shovel in the ground (done that), and having read a few books in their native languages (I’ve done that too). There is absolutely no mention of a PhD or MA or anything else. What’s more, I went to the American School of Classical Studies website and there is no mention of Acharya S (I used their search engine and followed every link). My guess is she is a janitor or secretary, because she isn’t a faculty member. Conclusion – Acharya S has no professional training or qualifications to write an authoritative book on the origins of Christianity.

Moving on…

I was pretty confident after only the preface that this book was written for idiotic conspiracy theorists, but the author just had to go ahead and prove me right! The very first paragraph of the introduction had three major mistakes in it: (1) She says all religions have a god, gods, or goddesses. Buddhism has no gods. (2) She says nothing is more divisive than religion. Fascism is more divisive than religion, and that’s just one well known ideology. What about the KKK and white domination groups? (3) She says every religion has an enemy. There is no enemy other than oneself in Buddhism (p. 1). It quickly became plain that Acharya S has no clue what she is talking about.

But what finally tipped me over the edge, making me decide that absolutely could not read any further was when she claimed Marx and Lenin were believing Jews, “To deflect the horrible guilt off the shoulders of their own faith, religionists have pointed to supposedly secular ideologies such as Communism and Nazism as oppressors and murderers of the people. However, few realize or acknowledge that the originators of Communism were Jewish (Marx, Lenin, Hess, Trotsky) and that the most overtly violent leaders of both bloody movements were Roman Catholic (Hitler, Mussolini, Franco) or Eastern Orthodox Catholic (Stalin), despotic and intolerant ideologies that breed fascistic dictators. In other words, these movements were not “atheistic,” as religionists maintain” (p. 2). Lies, lies, and more lies. Yes, each of these individuals may have been born into families that belonged to these religions, but I know at least three of them were very open about their atheism – Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. They may have been raised in a religion, but most of them died atheists. Just because I was born into a Mormon family doesn’t make me a Mormon, though apparently Acharya S believes it does. (Which makes me wonder in which religion she was raised…) Does my birth religion trump my current religious stance? Does she really think that any right-minded person with a fourth grade education is going to believe the founder of Marxist socialism/communism, which is avowedly atheistic, is going to be an active, believing Jew? I don’t think I’ve heard such a ridiculous claim in that last, um, 15 years or so.

But because I actually spent money on this book (I have no idea why), I decided to press on. Acharya then says Hitler used religion to gain power, which is true, and that Hitler was actually an active Catholic, which is not true. Of course, all of her references are completely bogus. For a real reference on this see Sikkink and Regnerus in Christian Smith’s book Disruptive Religion (1996). She also says the Vatican supported Hitler. The above reference refutes that idea as well. Couldn’t she bring herself to read something based on empirical data?

I read about two more pages than couldn’t stomach anymore. I put the book down and don’t plan on picking it back up other than to get rid of it. I figure I’ll sell it (to some more gullible sap) or tear it up and recycle it. This has to be the most poorly written piece of trash I have ever read (well, partially read). I would highly suggest that Amazon stop selling it as it reflects poorly on them (that’s where I bought it) and that everyone that has a copy of the book tear it up and recycle it. The value of the recycled paper pulp is worth more than the thought that went into this book. DO NOT BUY OR READ!!!

Scheff, Thomas J. 1999. Being Mentally Ill: A Sociological Theory. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Rating:
8

Summary:
The book begins by arguing that the popular theory of mental illness – that it is biologically based – is not grounded in empirical data, “To date, no clearly demonstrable linkage between neurotransmission or genetics has been found for any major mental illness” (p. xii). The author takes this argument to the next step and argues that psychiatry is less a science than an art and that the entire psychopharmaceutical industry has a vested interest in continuing to claim that psychotropic drugs are effective despite substantial evidence indicating they are seldom more effective than placebos (see pp. 6 &12). As the author puts it, “ Clinical knowledge in psychiatry and the other mental health therapies is large and impressive, but so far has not been formulated in a way that would be subject to verification by scientific methods” (p. 3). Additionally, the author argues that psychiatry is one of the only professions (religion would be another one) where the need for the service is actually created by the existence of the service – people only become “mentally ill” when there is a body of professionals that exists to “treat” them (see p. 51). One example of this socially constructed need can be seen in a study discussed in the text, “Glass goes on to say that removal of the soldier from his unit for treatment of any kind usually resulted in long-term neurosis. In contrast, if the soldier were given only superficial psychiatric attention and kept with his unit, chronic impairment was usually avoided. The implication is that removal from the military unit and psychiatric treatment symbolizes to the soldier, behaviorally rather than with verbal labels, the “fact” that he is a mental case” (p. 110).

This ultimately leads the author to argue that most mental illness is actually social-psychological in nature and involves labeling theory. The basic argument of the book is that people have pre-conceived notions of what it means to be mentally ill and that they enact those notions either for ulterior motives (e.g., to get away from dealing with reality) or because they are ultimately categorized and labeled as mentally ill and thus they adopt the role of those who act that way (p. 86). The author also argues that mental illness, or what is labeled as mental illness, really should not be disconnected from its social context, even though that is regularly done in therapeutic settings, “One reason, then, that the behavior of alleged mental patients is thought to be meaningless is that the extremely brief and peremptory psychiatric and judicial interviews shear away most of the information about the context in which the “symptomatic” behavior occurred… The concept of disease, as it is commonly understood, refers to a process that occurs within the body of an individual. Psychiatric symptoms, therefore, are conceived to be a part of a system of behavior that is located entirely within the patient and that is independent of the social context within which the “symptoms” occur. It is almost a truism, however, among social psychologists and students of language that the meaning of behavior is not primarily a property of the behavior itself, but of the relation between the behavior and the context in which it occurs” (p. 180). In short, rather than viewing mental illness as a genetic or biological problem, the author is arguing that mental illness is socially constructed and conveyed through role adoption in specific social contexts.

Review:
I generally liked this book, though it does have one very significant problem that I will discuss below. I’m hesitant to accept the author’s purely social-psychological theory of mental illness, but I do believe that the real answer lies somewhere between the purely biological/genetic approach of most psychiatrists and the author’s theory.

The author makes another point about healthcare in general that I thought was worth noting. Anyone familiar with Type I and Type II errors in statistics will find this point intriguing, “Which error do physicians and the general public consider it most important to avoid: rejecting the hypothesis of illness when it is true, or accepting it when it is false? It seems fairly clear that the rule in medicine may be stated as: “When in doubt, continue to suspect illness.” That is, for a physician to dismiss a patient when he is actually ill is a Type 1 error, and to retain a patient when he is not ill is a Type 2 error. Most physicians learn early in their training that it is far more culpable to dismiss a sick patient than to retain a well one” (p. 104). And, as it turns out, in the very few studies that have been done locating at how often medical doctors commit Type I or II errors, it appears doctors are more likely to make Type II errors by a significant ration (in one study, 50:1 in favor of the Type II error) – that is, they diagnose someone as ill when they are not more often than they diagnose someone who is ill as not being ill (p. 105). The author makes this point in his discussion of labeling theory – the argument being that once a label is applied, the behavior of the patient begins to change. Thus, if doctors are more likely to label people ill even when they are not, they are actually contributing to the prevalence of disease, or, at the very least, disease symptomatology.

Another good point made by the author is that crime reporting concerning the mentally ill has the same negative effect as it does for race. Whenever a former mental patient commits a violent crime, the fact that the individual was a former mental patient is noted, just like when a black or Latino individual commits a crime. It is never specified in the news report when a mentally sane person commits a crime, nor when a white person commits a crime. As a result, the general sense in the popular consciousness is that former mental patients are more dangerous than people who have never been mental patients, which is not true (p. 79). The author ties this into the role expectations held by the general public concerning mental illness; those role expectations play a significant role both in determining the behavior of mentally ill people but also their treatment.

The major problem I had with the book is that, despite very clear and well-argued opening chapters, the second half of the book turned toward conversation analysis of psychiatric session transcripts without a clear explanation of what was to be achieved. It was mildly interesting to read the transcripts, but it was unclear both why the author turned to conversation analysis and what he hoped to gain from it. This change in analysis leads me to recommend the first half of the book but not the second.

Overall, even if the author overstates his theoretical position, I think what he has to say about the social-psychological origins of mental disease is important. It’s unfortunate there are so few voices making similar arguments in academic circles today – the use of psychotropic drugs seems to be out of control and it does not appear that anyone or any group has the wherewithal to rein them in. Additionally, this book is a relatively clear formulation of a social-psychological theory of mental illness, which is certainly worth reading for social researchers and mental health clinicians.

Gray, John. 1999. Mars and Venus on a Date: A Guide for Navigating the 5 Stages of Dating to Create a Loving and Lasting Relationship. Reprint. Harper Paperbacks.

Rating:
4

Summary:
I borrowed this book from my brother about four years ago. Four years later I have been married for three years and decided to finally read the book.

The basic idea of the book is that there are five stages to the dating process:

1. Attraction
2. Uncertainty
3. Exclusivity
4. Intimacy
5. Engagement

The rest of the book is a collection of insights on how to make relationships successful or how to recognize when it is time to end a relationship.

Review:
First, I must admit that being involved in a traditional relationship (I am a married heterosexual) the insights in the book seemed fairly relevant and well designed. But, this is also one of the problems I see with the book. The book is designed exclusively for traditional, heterosexual relationships. If you are not a man or a woman looking for someone of the opposite sex to marry, then this isn’t the book for you. The ultimate goal, as defined in the book, is marriage. If you are not looking to get married, then this isn’t the book for you.

The book is written from a very traditional perspective. With the increase in non-traditional relationships (homosexuality, bisexuality, cohabitation, etc.) this book could alienate a lot of people. Also, there are continual references to God throughout the book. These references often coincide with a concept the author calls ‘soul mates’. There is a trend in American society away from the traditional view of God, specifically seeing God as an active force in people’s lives. As a result, this book could also alienate those people that don’t believe in God or don’t feel that God is active in their lives. And the idea of soul mates (as Dr. Gray outlines it in the book it is the idea that there is one special person for you out there) is, in my humble opinion, very outdated. Perhaps Dr. Gray isn’t arguing that there is only ONE person that you could marry, but he seems to think that there aren’t very many – if there is more than one – and that they are hard to find.

Another major problem with this approach to relationships is that Dr. Gray presents relationships in a very functional sense. Let me explain… Instead of saying that perhaps the way people approached romantic relationships in the past (pre 1990) may not have been the best way to do it (men calling women, being responsible for everything that takes place, women being receptive rather than aggressive, etc.), Dr. Gray incorporates all of these things into his theory about how relationships and dating are supposed to work. He seems to argue that because these behaviors exist they must be necessary. This is a circular argument from which one cannot escape. They are necessary so they must exist. They exist because they are necessary. I would argue that the traditional dating patterns of bygone ages are outdated and anti-modal. Sure, he offers ideas and thoughts where men and women can change, but he also seems to be arguing that a lot of things should just plain stay the same. I disagree out right with this idea. We live in a different time.

I should also mention that the version I read is 370 pages long. It could have been condensed to about 150 pages and still covered everything he wanted to say adequately.

On the positive side, because I am in a heterosexual relationship, I did find some of Dr. Gray’s insights helpful. However, the one’s that I found applicable to my relationship I found by sifting through the broad, sweeping claims he makes about genders and in between comments about how God will help us find our partner and how we can find a soul mate; all of which I thought was worthless trash.

Overall, this book would be useful to someone that firmly believes in God, wants a traditional relationship with a woman, and believes that the old way of dating/courting is still the right way. If this describes you (it probably describes over 60% of the U.S. population, meaning Dr. Gray understands there is a market for this type of stuff) then this would be a good book. If you don’t meet this criteria, look elsewhere.

Glassner, Barry. 1999. The Culture of Fear: Why Americans Are Afraid of the Wrong Things. 1st ed. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Rating:
10

Summary:
Excellent introduction to the benefits of sociological thinking and skepticism

The book is primarily made up of discussions of unfounded fears and information that refutes those fears. For instance, the author presents the following information about people being killed at work, “About 90 percent of murders at workplaces are committed by outsiders who come to rob. The odds of being killed by someone you work with or employ are less than 1 in 2 million; you are several times more likely to be hit by lightning” (pp. 27-28). Other fears that are addressed include: flying, teenage pregnancy, drug abuse, and youth violence.

But the bigger message of the book, which is primarily addressed only in the introduction, first, and last chapters, is that there are several clear reasons why fear is so prevalent in U.S. culture. Glassner lays the blame primarily on three groups: The first culprit, according to Glassner, is the media (see pp. xx-xxi), who have an interest in reporting sensational stories to boost ratings. The second culprit is government officials, who emphasize fears in their efforts to convince constituents to vote for them. The third, and perhaps biggest culprit (especially in the sense that this group underlies the previous two) is the capitalists who stand to gain from selling products to “alleviate” people’s fears (p. xxviii).

One final point I think is worthy of mention in the summary is one made by the author concerning the perpetrators of fear. Glassner points out that a certain group of people tend to be closely involved in such scares, ‘secondary scholars’. By secondary scholars, Glassner is referring to false experts who present themselves as actually having legitimate credentials when they don’t. In order for people to lend credence to the unfounded fears, someone official-like seems to be required. There are plenty of people willing to play that role.

Review:
The only problem I had with this book is that it didn’t seem to have a clear structure. The author obviously had data on a number of cultural fears, but didn’t appear to have a format for presenting those fears other than to randomly put them all together into one volume. Coupled with the lack of format is the minor problem I noted above that the author does very little to actually incorporate his questions about the origins of these fears into the chapters on the fears themselves. Strangely, I found the lack of structure led me to lose focus, which, in turn, made the book more boring than it necessarily would have been if the questions driving the book were better incorporated into the body of the text.

Other than this one problem, the book is excellent. It is clearly written, timely, and poignant. I also found the arguments the author presents concerning the origins of fears in society – even though they are seldom mentioned – as convincing.

Another element of the book that could potentially be seen as a problem but I found refreshing was the author’s explicit skewering of conservative politicians. Glassner points out that conservative politicians spend millions of dollars encouraging a fear of liberals (p. 15). Glassner also skewers Bob Dole several times; in one instance (p. 124) pointing out Dole’s hypocrisy in condemning rappers but condoning the movie ‘True Lies’, which has the denigration of women as a primary theme (see also the quotes from pp. 72-73). Glassner also highlights George Bush Sr.’ s abuse of people’s fear of drug trafficking when he patently lied about a drug bust in a park near the White House (see pp. 133-136). Finally, Glassner illustrates that outright deceit leading up to war runs in the Bush family. George Bush Sr. had connections to a public relations firm that fed propaganda to the U.S. media leading up to his Gulf War (pp. 154-155). I can’t say I enjoy reading such stuff, but it certainly is informative and information that everyone should have.

I don’t want to start a myth, so don’t take this as fact, but I wouldn’t be at all surprised if this book was, at least in part, the motivation for Michael Moore’s movie, Bowling for Columbine. Moore’s arguments in that movie follow closely the arguments in this book. If anyone happens to know if this was influential on Moore’s movie, I’d be interested in knowing the truth.

Overall, I think this is an excellent introduction to the utility of sociological thinking. The author employs scientific methods and sociological data to illustrate that many of the most prevalent fears in our society are ill-founded and worse, designed to give people power (politicians) and money (corporations). I highly recommend this text for everyone, particularly those people who are easily swayed by appeals to emotion.