Three-minute book review: Northanger Abbey by Jane Austen

Genre: Classics Recommended: Yes

Synopsis: A naive country gentleman's daughter samples the uppity social climes of Bath.

Opinion:
Who am I to doubt a Jane Austen, book, but it's apparent to me that the authoress got much better with age. Northanger Abbey was the first novel Austen wrote (but not the first published). She was just a teenager when she penned this one, and her characters and narrative are a pale reflection of the icons that would populate Pride and Prejudice, Mansfield Park, etc.

The story takes place mostly in Bath, which is a frequent destination in Austen stories. It was almost like I had been transported to Austen's world, but I happened to be stuck with a particularly dull set of acquaintances. I was tempted to peer across the concert hall into another box and see if something more interesting was happening there.

Still, trademark Austen wit is evident throughout as she wryly exposes the excesses of her own social sphere. I particularly enjoy her matter-of-fact explanations of plot recited directly to the audience. With a wink and a nod, these occasional sections relay the facts of story to the readers with an appeal that they use their own best judgement for how the particulars would occur. Sounds like a silly gimmick, but she pulls it off.


Why should I read it? If you'd like a more complete picture of Austen's writing career, this one can provide some background. Not her best, but still Austen.

Three-minute book review: It Ain't Necessarily So by David Murray, et al.

Genre: Current Events Recommended: Yes

Synopsis: An examination of the way media reports the results of scientific surveys and research. The subtitle is "How media make and unmake the scientific picture of reality."

Opinion:
I was expecting great things from this book, but I generally found it too politically skewed to be a reliable guide. The authors argue persuasively that the news media have ultimate control over the public's understanding of scientific "truth". Many times this leads to an inaccurate portrayal of the significance or accuracy of research. But the book's exclusive use of pro-Republican examples tainted the otherwise effective arguments.

Don't get me wrong, this isn't another book about liberal bias. Its main points are that reporters often over-simplify the results of a study to make them seem more definitive than they are. Or they practice "press release journalism", which means they just regurgitate whatever the source tells them, without providing context or opposing views.

The overall goal of the book is that citizens would use critical thinking when reading media accounts along the lines of "scientists have proved that..." I would just add the reminder that you should employ these skills when receiving information from conservative sources, too.

Why should I read it? If you'd like to become a smarter news consumer, there's some useful stuff here. But be ready to wade through a serious conservative bias.

SIFY News - comparing India's and Pakistan's military strength

It looks like war will be averted for now, but here is an interesting comparison of the militaries of these south Asian unfriendly neighbors.

AlterNet -- Israeli Repression and the Language of Liars

Interesting article. This is sort of how I felt when I heard some commentators trying to frame the argument as "democracy vs. totalitarianism". No realist would consider Israel a democracy in any important way.

They've got their reasons for what they are, but that doesn't mean that they are devoted to freedom.

AlterNet -- With Liberty and Justice for All

This would be an interesting article about the history of the Pledge of Allegiance, if the author wasn't so clearly opposed to the pledge itself. He sneers at the idea of a pledge serving a positive purpose in uniting citizens, instead claiming that any show of patriotism is actually contrary to the pursuit of liberty.

This quote (about the Supreme Court overturning the mandatory pledge in schools) sums up his feelings towards the pledge itself:

"Why? Perhaps the Court realized that at the height of a war against totalitarian regimes, a central feature of which was a slavish devotion to national symbols, compelling devotion to our flag was inappropriate. It contradicted the very spirit of the pledge, 'With liberty and justice for all.'"

Can someone explain to me why liberals are so opposed to outward shows of patriotism? My friends from the liberal slant cringe when they hear a patriotic song, or flag-waving of any kind. They consider all that stuff "fake patriotism". It seems like their motto is "if you can see or hear it, it's not patriotism."

It just seems like more America-hating, and I just don't get it.

AlterNet -- Roe v. Wade v. Ashcroft

This LA Weekly article says: "It's hard to imagine a politician with a more steadfastly anti-abortion record than John Ashcroft."

For all my other problems with John Ashcroft, that sounds like a vote of confidence to me. Of course, the author meant it as a slur.

In fact, his opposition to abortion makes him the equivalent of the Taliban, in the opinion of the LA Weekly.

Three-minute book review: Mansfield Park by Jane Austen

Genre: Classics Recommended: Yes

Synopsis: The romances, scandals, and social interactions of English gentry in the early 1800s.

Opinion: I became a Jane Austen fan against my will, and almost through osmosis. My wife watched the BBC/A&E series "Pride and Prejudice" about a thousand times, and eventually I found myself asking "What has that Wickam done now?" or "What did Lizzy say?" Finally I had to admit that I had fallen in love with the characters and language of Jane Austen.

After watching the basket full of recent Austen movies (and they're all wonderful), I found my way to Austen's books. Pride and Prejudice was first for me, and next Mansfield Park.

The official literary analysis of the book says that Mansfield Park and Pride and Prejudice were from two distinct stages of Jane Austen's writing. P&P has the lighthearted wit of a young girlish writer, while Mansfield Park is the more austere, serious work of a lady ten years older.

Believe it or not, the official literary analysis is pretty close to right. The moralistic Fanny Price would not look kindly on the tart tongue of Pride and Prejudice's Elizabeth Bennett. But personally I can't hold that against Fanny. The author presents her quick mind and sound judgement as things of beauty, and rightly so. She could hardly be called a prig simply because she sees through the facade of Mary and Mr. Crawford, who have all the wit of Elizabeth Bennett with none of the respectability.

Whew, enough analysis for one day. For lovers of language and wit, Jane Austen is for you. She wrote her novels with a wink and a nod to the reader. Her characters take themselves terribly seriously, but she never allows the reader to.

All in all, another "classic" that certainly deserves its acclaim.


Why should I read it? If you love good writing, you've got to read Jane Austen.


Check out these Jane Austen movies: Pride and Prejudice, Emma (BBC version), Sense and Sensibility, Mansfield Park, Persuasion

DigitalConsumer.org Home Page

These folks are pretty worked up about changes to copyright law.

Nytimes - In a Blinking Modem, a Code of Betrayal

Surprising no one ever caught this before.