Ryan, Debi, and Toren Cragun's Blog

Yeltsin, Boris, and Valentin Yumashev. 2001. Midnight Diaries. Phoenix (an Imprint of The Orion Publishing Group Ltd ).

Rating:
6

Summary:
Interesting, though biased and limited to just Yeltsin’s perspective

The book covers highlights from Yeltsin’s tenure as the President of Russia. It does not cover his political life prior to his election as President nor does it cover his tenure in great detail. In fact, most of the book is made up of Yeltsin’s health problems and his post-presidential thoughts on the state of Russia. Several historical events that are highlighted include: his decision to resign as president; his relationship with Vladimir Putin; his involvement in making Russia a full-member of the G8; and his views on the conflict in Serbia.

Review:
First, let me just say that I found this book very interesting. I wasn’t sure what to expect was quickly engaged by the book primarily because it offers a very different perspective from what I’m used to – a former leader of Russia is writing very clearly (though not particularly eloquently) about his views on how the world works and his intentions while the leader of Russia. I had never been privy to this perspective and found it enlightening. That this is clearly a unique perspective becomes apparent when Yeltsin strongly criticizes the U.S. for its policies isolating Russia – especially after the fall of the U.S.S.R. – when it would have been in the world’s interest for the U.S. and Russia to develop stronger relations. The U.S. government discouraged trade with Russia among countries with which it had relations and still maintains something of a trade embargo with Russia. If I were the president of Russia, I wouldn’t look particularly favorably on the U.S. either.

Another engaging aspect of the book is that it allows for peeks inside Yeltsin’s private life. He talks a great deal about his family (more on his patriarchal views below) and his past times. He mentions that his net worth is about 8 million rubles (on 10/30/2004, that was only $280,000.00). I was surprised that he wasn’t wealthier, but he wanted to make it clear to the press that he had not benefited financially from his political career. Yeltsin also talks about some of his quirks. Apparently he used to be a big drinker. As I didn’t follow politics much while he was in power (1990s), I don’t recall the incident when he directed a symphony drunk, but apparently it caused quite a stir. I think my favorite personal note on Yeltsin is the fact that he likes to drive golf carts straight at trees and swerve at the last minute. He gets so close that he’s even had his personal guards bail out on him before. Hilarious!

As for the problems… First, the book is obviously biased. Yeltsin doesn’t present alternative perspectives and he certainly doesn’t paint anything he ever did in a bad light, including his deceit of the Russian people when he suffered a heart attack just before the election in 1996 and didn’t let the press or the people know. Somehow I don’t see that as honest, even if the party he was trying to defeat was the Communist Party. If your only source for information on Yeltsin is this book, you’re going to come away thinking he was a virtual saint, never having done anything wrong, ever. As far as the literary aspects of the book go, this is the only criticism I have. The rest of the criticisms are of Yeltsin and his policies, beliefs, and values.

I was appalled at Yeltsin’s anti-religion stance. Basically, religious liberties came to a head at a certain point during his presidency (I think 1998ish) and when the Russian Parliament tried to pass a law relaxing restrictions on new religions in Russia, Yeltsin opposed it. The basis for his opposition was that the Orthodox Church was against it. Yeltsin’s logic basically went like this: the Patriarch of the Orthodox Church of Russia said it would threaten their monopoly, so Yeltsin opposed it. Somehow he failed to see that the Orthodox Church wanted to maintain their monopoly and therefore wanted Yeltsin to oppose the legislation. Yeltsin admits he was stuck because most modernized countries encourage religious freedom and if he vetoed the bill he’d be criticized by the world community. So, he compromised by amending the bill and then passing it, even though he didn’t want to. It’s apparent he doesn’t think very highly of New Religious Movements (a.k.a. cults) like Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Hare Krishnas, etc. I’d be fine with that if he disliked all religions equally, but to somehow not recognize the drive towards monopolizing the religious market of Russia just stinks of ideological blindness.

Yeltsin also talks extensively about his views on family. He’s a strict, conservative, traditional, family man, but conflicted in this view. He seems to want his daughters to get good educations but then wants them to leave their jobs once they marry. However, one of his closest political advisors is his daughter, who seems to work full-time for him. I didn’t really understand it all that well, but he is unabashed in his support for his wife basically pampering him and doing whatever he wants her to do (e.g., cooking, cleaning, ironing his suits all night, etc.). This didn’t raise my estimation of him.

Overall, I’m mixed on this book. It’s interesting because it shows Yeltsin’s human side and his personal perspective on Russian politics. Yet it’s obviously biased and I certainly disagree with Yeltsin on a number of points. It was worthwhile reading, but perhaps accompanied by a more objective biography the biases would fall away and a clearer image of this now historic figure would emerge.

Clancy, Tom. 2001. The Bear and the Dragon. Berkley.

Rating:
4

Summary:
lacked depth and focus

I listened to this book on CD, which might explain why I don’t have all of the details and didn’t find the book too convincing.

Jack Ryan, now President of the U.S., finds himself in the midst of a major crisis as a failed assassination on the head of the Soviet SVR (formerly the KGB) is closely followed by the announcements of the discovery of gold and oil in Russian controlled Siberia as well as an increase in troop movements on China’s northern border.

Ryan’s associates, along with the help of a number of well located spies and CIA agents, including John Clark, accurately predict what China is doing, step-by-step, and are constantly ahead of them. Though the Russian army stationed in Siberia is out-manned and out-gunned, with the help of emergency troops, propaganda, and spy planes sent in by the U.S., they are able to essentially cut off and then destroy the army China has sent into Siberia to claim the newly found gold and oil.

At the same time, Ryan’s associates are also able to foil a plot on his own life and the story ends with the leadership of China being transformed from a despotic communism to democracy. Jack Ryan wins again.

Review:
As noted above, I listened to this book on CD. Apparently the paperback book has over 1,000 pages. I think most of my criticisms might be addressed by the fact that the version I listened to was abridged. So, you may want to read the book instead of listening to the CDs after you read what I have to say.

The first problem with this novel is that it tries to present an epic-sized battle with massive troop movements in a ‘world-war’ type scenario, but doesn’t really get into the thick of it. There are a few chapters from the perspective of the leaders of the different forces on the ground, but they are so sparse that you really don’t get a feel for what is going on. There is also a lot of intrigue going on in the FBI, CIA, SVR, and the leaderships of all of the countries involved (Russia, the U.S., and China), but the coverage of all of this is very shallow – you don’t really get a sense that the author has a clue what he’s taling about. This may be because the CD version is abridged, but there just wasn’t any real development of the war and everything that would go into.

Another problem was that this novel, despite supposedly being another in the Jack Ryan series, spends all of about 30 minutes actually following Jack Ryan. I didn’t feel like Ryan was the focus of the story at all. Perhaps, as noted numerous times now, this is taken care of in the actual novel, but I was definitely not impressed with the treatment of Ryan. As for the rest of the characters, the only one that really sees any development is the Japanese spy who develops a relationship with a secretary of one of the leaders of the Chinese government. I actually felt like I knew him better than the rest of the characters in the novel.

Overall, this may be a good novel, but definitely not in this format. I think I’d like to read the novel to really compare the two, but I definitely wouldn’t recommend this version.

Whisp, Kennilworthy. 2001. Quidditch Through the Ages. Scholastic.

Rating:
6

Summary:
Funny, likely prized by serious Harry Potter fans

The book was published as a charitable publication; all of the proceeds are supposed to go to a charitable organization with the writing and publication costs being taken care of by donations. As for the contents, the book covers the history and rules of Quidditch and talks about some of the professional teams in Great Britain.

Review:
First, the book is quite funny, with numerous humorous notes and stories. It is more reminiscent of Rowlings earlier Harry Potter novels than it is of numbers 4 and 5 that do have some funny elements but tend to be much more serious than the first three.

The book is also probably highly prized by Harry Potter fanatics because it further develops the already incredibly detailed magical/muggle world of the series. Rowling has accomplished something few other authors can claim – the creation of a credible world – and this is just another doorway into that world.

The only problem I could possibly see with this book is that it is hardly long enough to be called a book; it is more a monograph or pamphlet with its roughly 50 pages. Granted this is a fictitious history which means every detail and story has to be developed from scratch. What’s more, it has to be incorporated into the existing stories and future stories. Nevertheless, this can only be described as a ‘brief’ history of Quidditch.

Overall, you can read the entire thing in about 30 minutes and if you are a die hard Harry Potter fan you’ll probably appreciate it and find it disappointingly short. If not, it won’t likely keep your interest like the novels will. I’d recommend it for die hard fans but be aware that it is short.

Remaking the Godly Marriage: Gender Negotiation in Evangelical Families

Author:
John P. Bartkowski

Publisher:
Rutgers University Press

Date of Publication:
2001

ISBN:
0813529190

Rating:
5

Summary:
This book attempts to examine the processes involved in determining gender roles in evangelical families. To explore this process the author first gives a brief history on evangelicals, focusing on family life. He then moves to an analysis of popular, evangelical ‘advice’ books by people like Tim LaHaye and examines their content, trying to tease out the gender roles that are encouraged among evangelicals. Finally, the author spent about a year visiting an evangelical church in Texas and interviewing both the leadership of the church and the congregants. The observations and interviews combine to give the author a unique perspective as to how gender roles are negotiated among evangelicals.

Bartkowski recognizes from the literature he reviews that there are two poles on a continuum within evangelical thought as regards gender roles: The first camp is made up of the extreme essentialists who believe men and women were created different and unequal and should formulate their relationships that way. The second camp is made up of the Biblical feminists who believe that men are only to be the head of the woman insofar as Christ was the head of the Church – they should serve their wife and treat her with great care. But as this is a continuum, the majority of evangelicals are likely going to fall somewhere between these two extremes.

As a result of his observations and interviews, what the author ultimately concludes is that, even though the stereotype of evangelicals is that they primarily have patriarchal gender roles (husband is the head of the household, wife is subordinate to him), this isn’t always the case and, as a matter of fact, is much less the norm than it is the exception in this particular congregation. Even though by name and/or title the men in these families are the ‘heads’ of the houses, in actuality this really only means that if the couple were at loggerheads on a particular decision, the male would ultimately be the deciding voice. But, caveat after caveat precludes this outcome – men and women should negotiate and work together, resulting in relatively equal roles for men and women.

Review:
not clearly written; not surprising findings

In summary form (my summary, not Bartkowski’s), this seems like a straightforward and clear plan of action: see what the leadership of Christian evangelicals is saying then see what evangelicals are doing. It makes sense, even if the results aren’t particularly surprising. But the process of getting to point A, the review of the literature, and then to point B, the interviews and observations, and finally using those to come up with C, the conclusion, is a fairly agonizing process for the reader of this text.

Hands down the biggest problem, which is actually composed of a number of smaller problems, is the writing. I’m not sure how come it is so difficult for Bartkowski to clearly state what it is he is trying to do, but he doesn’t seem to be able to get his points across very well. I could understand if this were limited to the more theoretical discussions, which are generally abstract and difficult, as this is fairly common. But even Bartkowski’s accounts of his interviews are occasionally unintelligible.

Two of the biggest contributors to the lack of clarity were the lack of summary paragraphs and the point-of-view employed in writing the book. With the exception of the introduction and the conclusion (the two shortest chapters in the book), there are no summary paragraphs in any of the other chapters. The chapters just end, abruptly, as though the author realized he had nothing more to say on the topic and wasn’t going to recapitulate what he just spent twenty pages trying to explain. Based on my previous experience reading academic-oriented books, this is very, very unusual. Most texts in this vein are more summary than content. Perhaps Bartkowski is refusing to summarize in protest, but regardless of why he chose not to include summary paragraphs, I think it was a bad decision.

As for the author’s point-of-view (POV), it’s just plain odd. I’ve never experienced anything quite like it (except in some poorly written short stories I read recently). Essentially, the POV varies between two perspectives: the third person academic perspective, which essentially removes all personal pronouns from the writing; and a bizarre, first person POV. When Bartkowski switches to the first person perspective he seems to portray himself as actually learning the information at the same time as the reader, as though you are supposed to be in the same room with him interviewing the same people. Even when academics turn to the first person perspective to present information or clarify their agenda, it very seldom comes across as though you are sitting on their shoulder but more like a voice over explaining what is going to be happening next. I’m not sure what Bartkowski was trying to accomplish by writing about some of his interviews this way (or even if it was intentional), but it was certainly out of the ordinary and made for awkward reading.

I have but one additional criticism of the book: the findings aren’t surprising (combined, these two criticisms are so broad they really cover the entire book). I will admit that Bartkowski’s approach to firming up what most people would just assume (i.e. not everyone follows everything) was admirable and required a dedicated effort. But how many people with experience in any sort of congregation (with the exception of extremist cults/New Religious Movements) have found that everyone in the congregation adheres firmly and strictly to the guidelines of the leadership of the organization? Mormons, who are known for being automatons of behavioral obedience, aren’t even lacking in variable levels of adherence to the norms and regulations. This just isn’t surprising.

Now, with the criticisms out of the way, there are a couple of good points about this book. First, even though the primary findings aren’t very surprising, there is a secondary finding, which seems primarily over-looked in the text, that I found very interesting: the leadership of the organization itself was mixed on the ideal roles for men and women and this came across in their teachings and sermons. Bartkowski does address this point, but, and perhaps this is a clarity issue, it doesn’t seem to be the focus of any intense scrutiny. I think conflicted leaders are more interesting than adherents that follow the suggestions of the leaders to varying degrees. Bartkowski could have done more to address this issue.

Also, and this could be seen as a criticism but I’m choosing to see it as a point that could have warranted additional discussion like the one noted above, I found it very interesting that the congregation was middle-class and upwardly mobile. Though Bartkowski admits that this demographic feature of the congregation likely has something to do with the fact that gender roles are more equal in this congregation than they might be in other congregations (attributable to the fact that many of the women work), this is another very interesting issue that could have benefitted from additional scrutiny.

Overall, I can’t really fault Bartkowski too much for researching a ‘common-sensical’ issue – that religious adherents don’t always follow the guidelines of the leadership to the ‘T.’ Sociology is often the science of commonsense, and Bartkowski has really just affirmed the common-sensical understanding that there is variability in adherence to rules. But where Bartkowski can be faulted is in his writing. I don’t mean to harp on this fact, especially if Bartkowski just happens to have a hard time writing clearly, but clear writing does make a big difference when it comes to the intelligibility of one’s work. Perhaps the book would have been both more engaging and revealed more interesting findings had it been better written.

Bryson, Bill. 2001. In a Sunburned Country. Broadway.

Rating:
10

Summary:
Slightly critical, but highly entertaining and very inviting

The author, Bill Bryson, details his adventures touring much of Australia over a six-week period. In addition to detailing his adventures, the author also discusses much of the history of Australia, including highlighting many of Australia’s famous, infamous, and forgotten individuals.

Review:
Though I have not read many travelogues (I have read some of Jack Kerouac’s books), this has to be one of the most engaging and fascinating ones I have ever read. I’d hate to say it left me with the feeling that I don’t need to visit Australia in order to understand the country and the people, but I think it comes very, very close to doing just that (which would make it a good ethnography). Of course, understanding the people of Australia is just one aspect of the book… The book is also a brilliant marketing tool – I am now very interested in visiting Australia (I was only slightly interested before). Though, while very interested, I have to admit I am a bit hesitant given Bryson’s detailing of the dangers of visiting Australia – the most poisonous creature in the world (a jellyfish) inhabits the waters surrounding Australia, along with some of the world’s most poisonous snakes and spiders, and that’s not to mention the other dangers of the country – typhoons and a treacherously dry and bewilderingly large outback that has apparently been the undoing of many great explorers. Despite these worries, Australia sounds like a very interesting place to visit.

As far as the book goes, it is brilliantly written. I did find it interesting that the author never clearly explains what he is doing in Australia other than just traveling to write the book (I seem to recall mention of an assignment for a magazine, but I’m not certain…), but the specifics of why he is there aren’t all that important. What is important is that he meticulously documented what he did. Additionally, it was refreshing to read an interesting book that was also highly informative. I had no idea Captain Cook (the discoverer of Hawaii) also discovered, officially, Australia and claimed it for Great Britain.

While this is an all-around superb book, there were two stories that made me laugh until I was crying. The first was Bryson’s account of boogie-boarding. Having recently (2003) experienced something very similar in Hawaii, I felt a camaraderie against that particularly nasty form of torture that probably made this story funnier for me than for most. The second story that left me in tears was Bryson’s detailing of his introduction to Cricket. He happens to be driving on a very lonely stretch of road (which, from the book, seems to describe about 95% of Australia’s roads) when the radio stations begin to disappear. Finally he is left with just one station – a sports station detailing a game of cricket. Bryson proceeds to describe the game in such brilliant detail and with such subtle mockery and exaggeration that you can’t help but end up in stitches.

Interlaced among the humorous anecdotes and fascinating history is a not-so-subtle criticism of the country. Bryson details the ‘problem,’ as most Australians put it, of the aborigines. Apparently this group of people is even worse off than are blacks in America. It seemed as though most white Australians did their best to ignore the problem, but a problem it remains. The aborigines are disproportionately poor and much more likely to suffer ailments than are white Australians. Bryson’s exploration of the problem includes a visit with an advocate for aborigines who outlines many of the difficulties facing the group, but also seems to feel as though the struggle to help the aborigines is somewhat hopeless. He concludes by saying that about the only thing he can do to help them is to give them a voice. In what appears to be an otherwise prosperous and happy country, tucked under the rug is a serious problem that does not appear to have a good solution.

Overall, for anyone interested in visiting Australia or interested in that continent/country, this is definitely a must-read. Not only is it highly entertaining but it is informative and splendidly written. I highly recommend it.

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