Review of What is the What by Dave Eggers

It’s not very often you read a book that really changes your perspective on the world, but this was one of those books.  Now admittedly, I tend to stick my head in the sand when it comes to foreign affairs.  We have so many tragedies at home on a daily basis, how can I wrap my head around the civil wars, massacres, even genocides that happen in so many countries?

But of course we shouldn’t close our eyes to those things, even when there’s little we can do to help.  I read this book to learn, and learn I did.

This is an unusual book because it’s presented as a novel by Dave Eggers, yet it’s really an autobiography of Valentino Achak Deng.  In a Reader’s Guide posted on Valentino’s website, Eggers explains the reason it was written as fiction.  First, they wanted it to be in Valentino’s voice, but his English wasn’t strong enough to write the story.  Second, because he was very young when most of the events of the book happened, it wasn’t realistic to think his story could be considered strictly factual.  Third, in order to humanize the suffering of Sudan’s people, they felt it necessary to write creatively (for example by inventing dialogue).

In my opinion, they succeeded at what they set out to do.  First and foremost, their goal was to tell Valentino’s story and raise awareness of the plight of the South Sudanese.  This book really brought that story to life, in a way that was devastating but also inspiring.

The book tells the story of the Second Sudanese Civil War, a conflict that took place in the 80s and 90s, between the Sudanese Government and the Sudanese People’s Liberation Army.  Eggers explains that the Government is primarily the Arabic population of the North.  The Southern population of the Dinka people were mostly enslaved or killed.  This is the story of the Lost Boys, children who were orphaned during the war and walked hundreds of miles to find refuge.

I lifted this description from Valentino’s website:

The conflicts between northern and southern Sudan are often understood through their historical roots: centuries of exploitation and slave-raiding by the “Arab” north against the “African” south, followed by Britain and Egypt’s imperialist meddling. Arab tribes first arrived in Sudan from Upper Egypt and across the Red Sea during the Middle Ages, and colonial occupation began in the nineteenth century. However, it is impossible to explain Sudan’s recent conflicts from any single angle or with any simple terms. While religion, race, economic exploitation, and colonialism are all major elements in the crisis, none of these factors fully explains the situation.

Valentino is a young boy when he’s torn from his family and forced to run for his life.  He ends up with the “walking boys”, a group of boys who are being led across Sudan to safety in Ethiopia.  These boys walked hundreds of miles in horrible conditions to get out of the country alive.  As they walk, Valentino sees close friends die of starvation, disease, and murder. There are thousands of boys, walking in different groups, and when one boy drops, the others just have to keep going.

This book is vivid and graphic, but Eggers balances out the devastation with the occasional positive moment of people helping each other any way they can.  But even that can be devastating, because seen through Valentino’s eyes, he never knows when someone is going to give him food or fire a gun at his head.  He experiences both.  Yet through it all he maintains an optimism in human nature that’s naïve but believable.

One of the most striking (and thought-provoking) aspects of this book is Egger’s contrast between the dangers of living in the U.S. with the dangers of life in Sudan.  The boys in the book spend years dreaming of moving to the United States, yet life as a refugee in the U.S. is far from easy, and he’s provided with mentors and a support network for a while.  The book begins with Valentino opening his apartment door in Atlanta to a woman who needs to make a phone call – only he ends up robbed, beaten, and tied up on the floor.  Valentino wonders why it suddenly feels like life in Sudan was safer.

What I appreciated about this book was that it really put the events of Sudan in a context I could understand.  And that’s saying something.  Eggers uses a lot of “fictional” techniques to help the reader understand, like having the walking boy’s leader explain to Valentino the conflict between the Northern and Southern Sudanese (the Arabs and the Dinka).  I can describe it best by saying it reminded me of the movie Titanic, where James Cameron spends a lot of time having his characters explain how the ship works and what went wrong.  It feels a little forced but you need the information.

Eggers effectively puts the events in Sudan in a global context, explaining that the Islamic extremists actually sheltered Osama bin Laden during this time period and then he ties that to the events of September 11.  Similarly, Eggers writes a lot about aid workers who helped the refugees, and the impact of basketball star Manute Bol (also Sudanese) on the boys.  He also explains how the policies of other countries like Britain have impacted the war in Sudan and its likely outcome.

In the end, what gives this book such a punch is the voice of Valentino.  Whether fact or fiction, Valentino is absolutely someone you’ll root for.  Sometimes you think he’s going to conquer the world, and then you realize just how hard it is for him just to survive each day, whether in Sudan or the U.S.

Reading this book, I found myself looking up information about Sudan and wanting to know what happened between the time the book was published (2007) and today.   I also wanted to know how this book has impacted Sudan, and what happened to Valentino.  This is a book you’ll read and then look for a way you can help.  Valentino’s Foundation, or Eggers’ Voice of Witness site, will give you plenty of ideas.

Thanks again to Giraffe Days, for prompting me to open my mind by reading about other countries.  This was an excellent book and one I recommend highly.  It’s also my first book by Eggers, and I plan to read more.

Review of The Longest Way Home by Andrew McCarthy

This was a rare nonfiction read for me, and I really enjoyed it.  It’s a nice mix of travel, memoir, love story, and soul searching.  Let me say right off the bat: this isn’t the deepest book you’ll read this year, but ultimately it worked for me because I really liked McCarthy.

The book starts out with a short recount of the McCarthy you know – his quick rise from anonymity to a role in the 80’s film Class, to being a member of the “Brat Pack” and starring in Pretty in Pink.  And then there’s the McCarthy you don’t know but could have predicted – alcoholism, shunning fame, and then emerging into sobriety to find out the 80’s have left him behind.

But the cool part of the story is how he finds himself by traveling, takes a chance at becoming a travel writer, and becomes pretty successful (he’s an editor-at-large for National Geographic’s Travel magazine).

My cynical side reminds me that without his Brat Pack fame and money, he’d never be able to live the dream that is travel writing.  I took a writing class once where they said, two writing jobs everyone wants but you have to be famous to break into are children’s books and travel writing.  Did Nat Geo take a chance on McCarthy because he has a famous face?  Sure, probably.  Is he one of the only people out there that can afford a career writing magazine articles?  Yes.  But still, I have to think writing for National Geographic takes talent.

Here’s what I didn’t love about this book:  its pre-determined “home is where the heart is” conclusion.  Before you pick up the book you know this is about a guy who travels around the world to find “the courage to settle down”.  Which would be easier to swallow if I didn’t find the fiancée somewhat unlikable.  I’m sure it’s not her, just how he writes about her.  But if I didn’t know going in that McCarthy was going to come out happily married, I would have sworn, halfway into the book, that instead this is the book where he finds the courage to tell his clingy fiancée he’s just not that into her.

And what annoyed me about that is, he’s already had a child with this woman (strangely referred to only as D, even though full name and pics are in the back of the book), and is also raising his son from a previous marriage with her.  I kept thinking, “buddy, the time to worry about commitment is LONG past”.  But then I remind myself that two people can have kids and not really love each other, or not marry each other.  But still, marrying the woman who’s raising two of your kids while you sail around the world is sort of a no-brainer.

Oddly, even though McCarthy portrays himself as a somewhat neglectful parent and partner, I liked him.  Why?  Because despite his luck of having two dream jobs in one lifetime, I really identified with his insecurity and nervousness.  He says in the beginning of the book that his 80s movies were successful because that stammering shy guy he always played is who he is.  So he might be a master traveler, but he’s not mister life-of-the-party, the guy who makes friends wherever he goes.  Rather, he likes the solitude and introspection of travel.  He doesn’t want to have dinner with people he doesn’t know, but he’s perfectly comfortable climbing icebergs or hiking into the Amazon.  I could respect that.  When he gets stuck on a boat trip full of forced socializing, I felt his pain — and his need to run off as soon as dinner was over so he could have some time to himself.

This book made me think about the kind of traveler I am, and want to be.  I’m a fairly conventional, safe traveler, and even though I’d love to be more adventurous and see more parts of the world, I’m proud of where I’ve been.  My husband and I really think about the kinds of travelers we want to be – we’re not the kind of travelers who get to know strangers but we do try to be respectful and open to new experiences.  In other words, we try not to be Ugly Americans.  We may look ugly in our comfy walking shoes and PacSafe bags – but we try to be thoughtful travelers.

I say try because it’s not easy to balance the line between going places you’ve always wanted to see, like Italy and Greece, and experiencing remote and unusual parts of the world.  It’s also not easy to balance our ability to stay in nice hotels with the desire to be a little more “grounded”.  And then there’s the desire to meet people on our travels balanced with our terror of being stuck for days with a tour group we don’t have anything in common with.  There’s my own conflict between being adequately spontaneous but still planning a trip that maximizes our limited time.  Do we see the sites recommended by the guide book or set out on our own adventure?

I know, if that’s what I worry about, I’m lucky.  I completely agree.  The ability to travel is something I cherish.  I’m just saying that being the kind of traveler I want to be isn’t as simple as it sounds.

Travel isn’t just about seeing and trying new things, although it’s definitely that.  For me it’s also a great chance to step away from daily life for a little bit.  I find that distance really helps me reflect on where I’m going and what I need.  I also love the time I get to spend with the husband, where we can really enjoy each other’s company away from things like work, housecleaning, groceries, etc.  Every time we go on a long trip I think, can we spend 24 hours a day for two weeks together – and when you travel you’re really together – and I’m always happy to find that the answer is a definite yes.

Which is why I enjoyed reading McCarthy’s perspective on traveling.  He tells a great story in all the places he visits, from Patagonia to Costa Rica, yet it never sounds like something I couldn’t do.  Sure, he has the resources of National Geographic, while I have my husband and my Rick Steve’s tour book (in Europe at least).

So, to sum up this rambling review, I’ll just say I was unmoved when it came to McCarthy’s epiphany (clearly stated in the title of the book) that going home to someone who loves you is the best part of travel.  I already knew that.  But I did enjoy reading about all the parts of the world he visits, and seeing the world through the eyes of someone who basically has my dream job, plus the time and the courage to enjoy it.  Sure, getting married takes courage.  But so does seeing the world.  McCarthy just has to balance the two.

Review of The Baby Matrix: Why Freeing Our Minds from Outmoded Thinking about Parenthood & Reproduction Will Create a Better World

When I was thinking about not having children, in my early thirties, Laura Carroll’s book Families of Two was one I found helpful — and believe me when I tell you there weren’t a lot of resources out there.  Her book interviewed more than thirty couples who could be described as living fulfilling, happily married lives without children.  She wasn’t trying to be objective; rather, she sought to provide a point of view you won’t see reflected in our media anywhere.

So when Dr. Carroll asked me to review her latest book, I jumped at the chance.  Where books like Families of Two, or Two is Enough by Laura Scott, are aimed at people deciding not to have children, The Baby Matrix is aimed at everyone else.

The Baby Matrix is about pronatalism, or our society’s need to insist that having children is the right thing for everyone, and that people should have all the babies they want (and they should want lots of them).  Carroll is talking specifically about U.S. culture, in which we obsess about having children, throw new parents a million baby showers, and put families on TV who have 8 children or more.  Octomom anyone?  And that’s just a few examples.

“Having children remains the norm.  If having no children by choice was part of the norm, it would mean that those who make this choice would be members of a widely-accepted group and that we as a society have accepted their choice.  This is not the case.  Why does our society find this choice so hard to accept?”

This is kind of a personal subject for me.  I’m not saying I feel like a victim because I’m childfree – I’m happy with my choice and grateful I can live my life the way I want to.  But I do get a little bitter sometimes, because I can tell you this decision wasn’t easy.  And it’s made a lot harder by the million movies and TV shows that tell me parenting is the only way to live a fulfilling life.  Not to mention the friends and family who question whether I’m selfish and whether I’ll turn into some bitter, lonely  woman down the road.

So I appreciate finding someone, anyone, who shares my perspective.

Carroll defines pronatalism as “the idea that parenthood and raising children should be the central focus of every person’s adult life.  Pronatalism is a strong social force and includes a collection of beliefs so embedded that they have come to be seen as ‘true’.”

“The problem with pronatalism is that it leads everyone to believe they should have children – even people who shouldn’t have children.  And pronatalism leads people to believe they have the right to have as many children as they want.  This creates problems that extend beyond families and children who may be suffering from the effects of poor parenting.  At a time when we humans are consuming resources over 50 percent faster than the planet is producing them, every choice to bear a child has implications for the larger community.  That’s why this conversation about pronatalism is one that involves all of us, parents or not.”

Carroll begins by giving an overview of the key principles of pronatalism, and then explains why they are wrong and even harmful.  I won’t describe all of them, but here are a few:

• We have a biological instinct to have children.
• There’s something wrong with you if you don’t want children.
• The ultimate path to fulfillment in life is parenthood.
• We need children to be there for us when we get old.

Carroll goes through each of these and describes why the assumptions are wrong, citing research and studies to back up her convictions.  This part of Carroll’s book isn’t groundbreaking.  But it does raise some very simple questions and raises some very complex issues.  Why do we think everyone should have children?  These days people are lucky to have any access to birth control or family planning, and we’re not even willing to have honest conversations about how many children are too many.

Carroll points out that there are bigger implications of pronatalism.  It isn’t just that our pro-childbearing culture makes my life difficult.  When you think about the number of children who are raised by people who probably shouldn’t be parents, and the impact that has for all of us, it becomes a pretty serious issue.  Carroll isn’t saying we should pick and choose who gets to have children (although she gets uncomfortably close a few times).  But she does ask why NOT having children can’t at least be presented as a valid choice?

Think about it.  If someone’s really hesitant about having children, shouldn’t the default be choosing not to have them?

And then there’s overpopulation.  Seven billion people in the world and this country is doing everything it can to prevent people (both here and abroad) from accessing birth control and family planning.  All the while, we’re sucking up most of the world’s resources.

So why can’t we at least acknowledge that people who aren’t having children might be doing something positive for the world?  I’m not going to pretend that’s why I don’t have children.  But I do feel good about not adding to the numbers, and I also feel good that my husband and I can share one small car between us.  I’m no saint, but it would be nice if our culture didn’t make me feel like a freak of nature.

A lot of what Carroll writes about are things I’ve thought about.  And there were parts I wish she’d addressed more thoroughly.  For example, I’ve heard that the European countries with declining birthrates are struggling financially – they are, but are declining birthrates the cause?  Carroll addresses global overpopulation but I would have loved more analysis of what it means for a country to have declining birthrates.

Carroll touches briefly on a few other ideas that I’d love to think more about.  The first is how our concept of parenting has changed.  She mentions that parenting today is more stressful, that people feel more pressure to have perfect children.  I see that with my friends but don’t know if that’s a fair generalization, and if so what does that mean?  She also says our culture is getting more parent-centric, which means that in restaurants, grocery stores, and movies, children come before the rest of us.   My own pet peeve?  Those huge carts in grocery stores that are shaped like sports cars, fire engines, etc.  They take up most of the aisle.  Recently I was in the grocery store and three kids were in a cart that had a steering wheel just for them.  When did we let five  year olds drive the shopping cart?  And don’t even get me started on parent-only parking spaces.

Carroll’s point is simple – adults and children should respect the other adults and children around them.  But children shouldn’t get some kind of free pass to act in a way that’s rude to the people around them.

I love my nieces and nephew and I do think raising children “takes a village”.  I’m the first to say my taxes should be spent on good schools and health care for children in need, and that well-raised, well-educated children benefit all of us.  But I’m also for handing out birth control in high schools and providing free access to family planning for everyone.

Most of all, I’m for changing the assumption that everyone should have children, and that my life is pointless because I don’t have them.  Carroll’s book asks a few simple questions: why can’t both choices be treated as equally valid?  Why can’t we start asking people “if” they want children rather than “when” they’re going to start having them?  Why can’t we start valuing population control at least as much as we value reproduction?

There are a handful of books out there written for those of us who don’t want children.  This is the really rare book about not having children that is written for everyone else.  Now I just wish everyone else would actually read it.

You can read more about Dr. Carroll at her blog La Vie Childfree.  She also has a nonfiction book review blog called LiveTrue Books (featuring a recent guest post by yours truly).

Note: I received a complimentary copy of this book from the author.  The author had no input in the content of this review. 

Studying for the GRE at Forty

This is not a book review, unless you actually want to read a review of the Princeton Review’s Cracking the New GRE 2012.  This happens to be what I’m reading these days.  I’m thinking about going back to school for a master’s or a Ph.D., and that means taking the GRE.

I’m a good test taker.  Very good, in fact.  Something about the weird psychology of multiple choice exams — picking the best answer and ruling out the fakes — has always come easy to me.  But in recent days, the Education Testing Service, the Princeton Review, and even the New York Times have warned me that as a person who hasn’t been a student in -umm- a very long time, I shouldn’t be cocky.

The last time I took a formal, day-long examination was in 1996, the bar exam.  And the last time I took a “bubble” test?  The LSAT, 1992.  That would be 19 years ago.

The GRE is premiering its new and improved version beginning in August.  Now, I was pretty happy about taking the old GRE.  I’m actually good at those analogies and word puzzles that most people hate.  The idea of a new test scares me.  I’m an old-timer taking a brand new test.  And it’s been many, many years since I needed to know how to calculate the angles in a triangle.

I can do it.  I just need to get used to the idea that the test is taken on a computer (they didn’t have those in my day, heh heh heh), and actually adapts each section based on how you answer.  Princeton Review cautions that taking a test on the computer is harder than we might think, because we’re used to scribbling on the test form, crossing out answers, etc.  Can’t do that anymore.  Plus we’re actually given a limited amount of paper, so we either have to budget our scribbles, or stop what we’re doing, raise our hands, and wait for a proctor to come around with more paper. Damn them.

And even if I think taking a 4.5 hour test is no big deal, the Times cautions me to think again.  Sure, I work all day in front of a computer.  But when was the last time anyone timed my work?  And when was the last time I had to work for hours without getting up, checking email, or answering the phone?  A very long time.

Recently I had the experience of coordinating a group of 27 education experts (nearly all university professors) through the process of writing a series of paragraphs, in a specific format and using a specific program, and under considerable time pressure.  Most of them, even with their many, many years of experience, couldn’t do it.  Actually, they completed the task eventually but with a lot of hand-holding and hair-pulling (mine, not theirs).  Why?  They are used to working on their own time, writing their own way, and reviewing their own work.  And the greater the expertise, the more difficulty they had with the task.

I’m not saying I’m an expert — but when the Princeton Review tells me I need 4-8 weeks to study, I figure I better respect the book.  The Times informs me that older test-takers score lower, on average, than younger test-takers.  In other words, the 40-somethings score lower than the 30-somethings, who score lower than the 20-somethings.

So while a part of me scoffs at the idea of making vocabulary flash cards, I’ll do it anyway.  And here’s the thing.  Studying for a test after all this time is kind of fun.  Kind of exciting.  I actually like doing equations and figuring out word problems.  And I’m a serious enough test-taker that I don’t just want to be good enough.

I want to crush this thing.

I want to tell the New York Times what they can do with their statistics.

The only question is whether, at 40, I have the stamina to keep up.

Review of Two is Enough: A Couple’s Guide to Living Childless by Choice

I have to admit it, this book surprised me.  I didn’t feel like I needed affirmation of the choice I made not to have children. I figured a book that gave me a lot of reasons why it’s okay not to have kids would just be “preaching to the choir.”  I was wrong.

A couple of weeks ago, in my preview of this book, I said I was hoping for it to live up to its title, which is “A Couple’s Guide to Living Childless by Choice.”  I don’t want the why of living without children, I want the HOW.

This book is definitely more about the why.  The author surveyed and interviewed 171 respondents who identified themselves as “childless by choice.”  The survey focused on each respondent’s motivation for making the choice, with additional questions like “What particular events or defining moments in your life influenced your decision to remain childless?”.  The author then interviewed people to follow up with further detail about their lives.  Finally, she synthesizes existing research (and there isn’t much) on people choosing not to have children.

Scott’s research categorizes the childless by choice into four categories:

1) early articulators — these are the people who absolutely know at a pretty early age that they don’t want children.
2) acquiescers — these are the people who choose not to have children in part due to their partner’s wish not to have children.
3) postponers — these are the people who delay having a family and ultimately decide not to have children.
4) undecided — these are people still in the decision-making process.

When I first read these categories, I thought ugh, I don’t relate to any of these, because I hate the idea of being called an “acquiescer”.  It sounds like I put no thought into the decision when in fact I put years of thought into it.  It also sounds like I must be desperately unhappy and resentful when that couldn’t be farther from the truth.

As I got further into the book, and Scott interviews many of the “acquiescers” I was thrilled to find that these people felt almost exactly as I do.  And yes, that makes me feel validated.

Scott selects 18 typical motivations for not having children, and based on the surveys, calculates the ones people identified with most.  The top three are:

1) I love our life, our relationship, as it is, and having a child won’t enhance it;
2) I value freedom and independence; and
3) I do not want to take on the responsibility of raising a child.

Seems obvious, right?  But there are other reasons that scored lower, like concerns about the state of the world and not wanting to bring a child into the world right now; or wanting to pursue other goals or focus on personal needs; or concerns about passing down emotional problems experienced with their own parents; or simply not enjoying being around children.  There are also a lot of reasons that overlap, so respondents weren’t asked to choose one, but to rate each on a scale of 0-5 to indicate how applicable that motivation was to the responder in deciding not to have children.

The top three motivations were the same across the categories I described above, and fairly equal across gender.  Scott expresses surprise that in fact, men and women’s motivations for remaining childfree hardly differ at all.

Research shows that many of the childfree share similar characteristics.  We are more educated and less religious.  We aren’t necessarily more affluent, maybe because many people remain childfree to stay in artistic or nonprofit jobs.  We tend to have pets but don’t think our pets are “substitutes for children.”

Scott also theorizes, based on her interviews, that the childfree are more likely to be introverts (e.g., we need time to ourselves to “recharge”), and more likely to be perfectionist, Type A types.  We tend to be people who are more likely to feel better with organization and structure.  We are planner-types (although many people also prefer the spontaneity that not having children allows).  None of that is surprising, but it surprised me that it sounds so much like my husband and me.

Finally, Scott talks a lot about the misconceptions people have of the childfree.  For example, that we all hate children.  Or that we’re materialistic or selfish.  Or that most of us will change our minds later.

This book was not only interesting, but it made me realize how much it helps to hear that other people feel exactly the way you do.  So many times reading this book I felt, “that’s it exactly” and realized how rarely I’ve had those conversations with people.  This book is like having a conversation with a lot of other people who have the same experiences and concerns, the same feelings of isolation, the same worries about how to talk about things, how to explain yourself without sounding defensive, the same feelings of being almost universally misunderstood.

Strangely, it also made me realize an opposite fact: that there are lots of us childfree people, and we aren’t all the same.  I have a total of three friends who are decidedly childfree, and they have different motivations and lifestyles, which sometimes makes me feel like I don’t fit with the childfree any more than I do with friends who are parents.  For example, my three friends without children absolutely knew a long time ago that they didn’t want children.  I didn’t think I wanted kids but sort of expected to marry and have them.  When my husband and I became serious, and he said that he didn’t want children, I was relieved but also realized that this was a huge decision to make.  People act like giving up children for your spouse is the world’s most horrible decision, and I must be absolutely spineless.  But it’s not like that for us.

Also, my husband and I aren’t jetsetters, or artists, and we aren’t out saving the world.  In fact we enjoy a lifestyle very similar to those with children.  We live in the ‘burbs, we have stable jobs, we eat in most nights.  I’m sometimes insecure that we’re wasting all this time and freedom we’ve been given by not having children.

But why do I need to justify how I live my life?  People who don’t want children aren’t Mother Teresa or Picasso any more than we are selfish child-haters.  We are just people who don’t feel the need to have children, and who recognize that maybe, if we don’t really want them, it’s not a good idea to have them.

So, that’s the book.  It has its flaws — Scott has a tendency to spin her data to come to her own conclusions about how great it is not to have children.  I think as a writer, Scott is much too invested in her topic.  I wish this study could be enlarged and written by someone more neutral — although as Scott points out, no one can be neutral on this topic, so at least this book is written by someone who understands what it’s like to decide not to have children.

If you’re going through the decision process, I think this book would be helpful in allaying a lot of the fears you might have or misconceptions you might hear.  This book isn’t aiming for balance; there are better books I could recommend for that.  But I can tell you that most of what you’ll hear is the other side, so this book actually does help to balance the discussion.

If you’re like us, and you’ve made the decision, I think this book is helpful in terms of sharing resources and just letting you know there are lots of people like you out there.

Finally, if you’re struggling to understand someone who’s made this decision, I think this book would be really informative.  It’s the best inside look I’ve read about how and why people make the decision not to have children.

Review of Sunken Treasures: Wil Wheaton’s Hot Cocoa Box Sampler

I found this book for the Kindle for only $2.99, and since I’m a big Wil Wheaton fan it was an easy pick.  This is a book that Wheaton created and self-published, mainly to hand out at convention.   If you don’t have a Kindle it appears to be $21.95 in paperback.  I’m not going to recommend it for $22 — I suggest you buy any of Wheaton’s other books.  But for $2.99 this book is exactly what it’s billed as: a sampler of Wheaton’s work.  It’s a short, but fun read.

I really enjoy Wheaton’s books because 1) he’s led a pretty interesting life if you’re at all interested in Star Trek or acting or blogging; and 2) he writes in a really down-to-earth, regular guy kind of way.  And most of all, because in his writing, at least in Just A Geek (reviewed here) you really see him struggle to define his career and who he is.  And I can relate to that.

Some background information: Wheaton became a successful child actor when he starred in Stand By Me. A few years later he was cast as Wesley Crusher in Star Trek: The Next Generation (TNG), which, depending how old you were at the time, was huge.  Today a new Star Trek series is almost a given but at the time, the idea of recreating Star Trek was a pretty big deal.

Whether because of the writing or the acting, Wesley Crusher became the most reviled character on an otherwise much-loved show.  I will point out that with the exception of Patrick Stewart, no actors on that show were highly regarded for their acting, and I think none have gone on to other acting careers.  But Wheaton as Wesley Crusher was the worst of the worst.  From his hair to his one-piece outfits to his ridiculous storylines, he was just all-around bad.

Most of this wasn’t his fault, and to be fair he basically grew up on the show.  The real problem came after TNG ended.  Wheaton says he was “too recognizable for other work” but not a big enough star to get by on name recognition.  So,  unable to really break into acting, he was expected to attend Star Trek conventions where, sadly, he was the least-liked  guest. Thus he grew to hate Star Trek and everything associated with it.

Fast forward ten years, and during this time he’s gotten married, has two stepsons, a successful blog, and a growing writing career.  And as his writing has taken off, his acting seems to be as well, with roles on Eureka, The Guild, The Big Bang Theory, and others.  But he still struggles to get past the failed acting career and is love-hate relationship with the show where he spent ten years of his life.

Sunken Treasures is a collection of excerpts from Wheaton’s blog, WWdN, and his previous books, Dancing Barefoot, Just a Geek, The Happiest Days of Our Lives, and Memories of the Future. The first three are memoir-combined-with-blog-post kinds of books, and Memories is actually where Wheaton watches old TNG episodes, reviews them, makes fun of them, and grades them.  At the same time he is reliving his memories of being on the show, so it’s a real insider’s perspective.  And pretty hilarious too.  Sunken Treasures includes one chapter from Memories, a review of the episode “DataLore” where Data meets his evil twin brother.

Some of Sunken Treasures I’d read already;  it has a couple of the best pieces from Just a Geek if you haven’t read it.  In one excerpt, Wheaton is thinking about his decision to become a writer instead of an actor; and in another, Wheaton visits a TNG exhibit in Las Vegas and is struck by how much he loved the show, even though for years he thought he hated it.  I wonder how well this piece works out of the context of Just a Geek though.

The book also includes some very short fiction excerpts and a diary from Wheaton’s guest stint on a TV show, Criminal Minds.  If you’re at all interested in what it’s like to film a television show, you’ll enjoy this piece.  It went on a bit long for me but still was interesting backstage stuff.

Where Wheaton annoys me a little is when he talks about the craft of acting as if he’s Sir Laurence Olivier rather than someone filming a guest appearance on a crime show.  But I can’t fault him for putting 100% into each role, even if he maybe takes it a bit seriously.  I can’t say I put that much enthusiasm into my work every day.

At $2.99, if you’re curious, this is a great way to read a little of Wheaton’s work and get a feel for what he’s about (and, it’s one of the few books on Kindle that is actually lendable, so you can share it with a friend). I also recommend checking out his blog.

A Preview of Two is Enough: Living Childless by Choice

First off, a Happy Mothers Day to all the moms out there, including my own!  This being Mother’s Day weekend, it seemed appropriate timing for this post.

Recently I was looking at books on Amazon about deciding not to have children.  My husband and I made this decision about five years ago and it’s been a good one for us.  But I like to see what’s out there in the universe of books written about not having children, and I can tell you there isn’t much.

I picked up a book called Two is Enough: A Couple’s Guide to Living Childless by Choice. This is a preview, not a review, as I only read the introduction but already it gave me a lot to think about.  Two is Enough is by Laura Scott, a researcher who founded the Childless by Choice Project. She spent about five years surveying and interviewing people who are childless by choice, to be able to put some data on the question of why some people choose not to have children.  She is also childless by choice, and felt it was important that someone with that perspective conduct this research. Scott also has a blog on this project here.

You might wonder, if you haven’t thought about it much, why anyone would write a book about not doing something.  But for those of us who have chosen not to have children, it’s a pretty interesting subject.

The book’s full title appears to be a bit misleading based on the reviews and the introduction.  This is a book about Scott’s research on how childless couples describe their motivations for remaining childless.  It also sounds like an affirmation of all the positive things about being childfree.  And it’s a reminder to the rest of the world that we  “childfree” are sane, normal people even if we’ve made a choice most people don’t understand.

So sounds like more of a guide to choosing not to have children, rather than a “Guide to Living Childless” — but I really would like someone to write that book.  For me, the question isn’t “do I regret not having children” or worse, “do others regret having children”.  We all have to make a decision one way or the other.  I can’t say what my life would be like without children, and my friends and family can’t say what their lives would be without children.

But we all have to co-exist, not camp out on either side of the wall, which is what it feels like sometimes.

As I enter my forties, I’m comfortable with the decision we’ve made, but often less comfortable navigating the consequences of the decision.  I have the same priorities as most people: to be a good person; to be a good sister, aunt, and daughter; to make the most of my life; to be a good friend.  But being childfree, or childless (whichever term you prefer), affects all of those things.

I guess I really want a book that has recommendations like:  how to answer people’s questions about children without sounding defensive or making others feel uncomfortable; how to be a good aunt without imposing on other family’s holidays; how to ensure I have a fulfilling life even if I don’t have a child playing soccer or making art projects or singing in recitals; how to not feel self-conscious about having more money, time, or ability to travel than those with children; how to maintain a long and meaningful relationship with my husband without having children to talk about; and how to address the family conflicts that arise from not producing grandchildren.  Most importantly, how to deeply enjoy my life without children, but still stay close to my friends and family that have children.

I don’t think that book exists.  But certainly there must be people out there with thoughts on the topic.

Of course I’ve made a lot of assumptions about Two is Enough just by reading the introduction.  And it might be very useful for someone who has to make this decision.  So consider this Part I and I’ll get back to you when I’ve finished the book.

Review: Cinderella Ate My Daughter by Peggy Orenstein

The full title of this book is actually Cinderella Ate My Daughter: Dispatches from the Front Line of the New Girly-Girl Culture.  This is a book I would recommend to anyone with daughters – it’s aimed at parents of toddlers but covers issues that affect tweens and teens as well.  In fact I would recommend this book even if you’re an aunt, like me, or interested in child development, or even just because you’re female.  It will definitely get you thinking about what influenced you as a child and how girl-culture has changed (and stayed the same) since then.

Orenstein is a researcher who has been studying girls, education, and self-esteem issues for years.  Her book Schoolgirls, published in 1995, had a huge influence on me, and I hope has been an important resource for the field of education.  In that work, Orenstein studied whether classroom teachers devalued the work of female students and how that impacted girls’ self-esteem in adolescence.  Interestingly, today the prevailing view in education seems to be that boys are in much more trouble than girls – and yet girls still have to deal with self-esteem issues in a way that most boys don’t, from body image to eating disorders to sexuality.  There may be fewer restrictions on girls today but I’m not sure it’s any easier.

In this book, Orenstein focuses on phenomena that didn’t exist in the 90s.  She is now the parent of a young girl herself, so she talks about her own struggles to raise her child in a gender-positive way.

To start with, one thing that’s different today is the way products are marketed to the youngest girls.  Things that twenty years ago were marketed to tweens, and forty years ago were marketed to teenagers (like Barbies and makeup and cool clothes) are now aimed directly at your three year old.  And I’m not a parent, but I’m guessing that turning down a three year old who wants “that pair of shoes” can’t be an easy thing.

And so we get the Disney Princess merchandise.  In case you’re thinking the Disney princesses have been around for years and years, Orenstein traces the development of the marketing genius that is “The Disney Princesses.”  It began in 2001, when a Disney exec went to a party and saw lots of little girls in (gasp) homemade princess costumes.  He realized then that every girl wanted to be a princess (ugh) and who better than Disney to market it to them.  And now, ten years later, if you have a young daughter those princesses are EVERYWHERE.

As a parent herself, Orenstein struggles with “how much princess is too much” given the overwhelming array of products aimed at her daughter.  She has some really interesting discussions with other parents, and child development experts, around whether it’s the fairy tales themselves that should bother us or just the cute-and-prettiness of it all.  The parents she talks to say “I don’t really want my kids to know the stories, since the princesses are just these helpless girls who get rescued by princes, but I don’t mind them feeling pretty and special.”

Orenstein comes to the opposite conclusion, actually.  At least in the stories, the characters have context.  Most of them (except maybe Snow White, who really does nothing) have to overcome adversity, show courage, etc. etc.  We can and should be bothered that Ariel gives up her voice for the love of her prince, but at least we as parents can talk about those things.  The problem with the princess merchandise, Orenstein concludes, it it’s all about appearance.  She’s particularly bothered by the fact that the princesses just stare out at you from dishes, clothes, bags, etc. and they never actually interact with each other.   If it was more about friendship, that would be different.  But the princess idea is that the princess always stands alone.  She is special and unique, which is nice, but also has no girl friends.  (In the Disney movies, she has cup and saucer friends, or mouse or lobster friends, but girl friends?  No.)

Do we know how all this princess-y stuff affects young girls?  No idea.  Disney says after all, they are just giving girls what they want.  Orenstein explores two ideas I found really interesting.  One is whether much of today’s girly-girl culture is in fact coming from today’s parents.  Most of the mothers she talked to were raised by mothers in the 70s, mothers who worried about gender influences and tried to raise us in a more “gender-neutral” way.  Those parents rejected gender-specific clothes and toys and minimized any emphasis on our appearance.  They meant well — they wanted us to see all of our career and life options and feel good about ourselves. They themselves were rebelling against the strict gender roles of the 40s and 50s.   The problem is that for a lot of us in our 30s today, gender-neutral felt like a suppression of female identity.  The moms interviewed by Orenstein wanted their daughters to feel beautiful and special, to celebrate girlhood rather than suggesting that girls and boys should be the same.

Do girls inherently want everything to be pink and sparkly?  No.  In fact pink-and-sparkly didn’t really exist until this generation.  Orenstein explores what we think is nature and what is nurture at this point.  She traces the evolution of girls-and-pink to only a few generations ago – before that blue was considered a girl color, which is in fact why all the Disney princesses in the old movies wore blue.

What is “nature” for young girls, especially in the 3-5 year old range, is making some sense of who they are.  This is when they first learn that girls and boys have different parts, so it is at this age that they first begin to define what that means.  Orenstein learns that some gender differentiation at this age is actually developmentally important.  Toddlers don’t understand that biologically their genders are fixed regardless of whether they act like a girl or a boy.  So parents and teachers should actually look for healthy, positive ways for girls and boys to differentiate themselves, without completely separating the two groups.

One thing that Orenstein worries about is that today’s “pink-and-sparkly” culture for girls will cut them off from boys at an age where children should be interacting freely across genders.  Soon enough in their development, the girls will only play with the girls and vice versa.  But at these young ages their brains are still developing, and play with both genders is really important.  Boys and girls play differently at these ages but the important thing is that both can learn from each other.

I recently told a pregnant friend that I would buy her a pink Legos set for her daughter-to-be, so she’d have some of those good spatial development toys that boys get.  But Orenstein says no – first because the pink set is more expensive and much smaller than the “boys” set.  Second because that pink set further sets the little girl apart from her little boy friends.  If Joey comes over to play with Susie, and all of Susie’s toys are pink, Joey isn’t going to come over any more.  Or he’ll bring his own toys with him, which means that both children have to play separately at an age where they can learn from playng together.

In the long term, researchers worry (but can’t conclude) that this may have a negative impact on men and women’s relationships. Orenstein looks at studies that show that girls raised with older male siblings have an easier time forming quality relationships.  That makes sense to me – I had no brothers and boys felt like an alien species.  So the less interaction that girls have with boys at a young age, the less they may feel comfortable interacting with them when they get older.

This book will give you a lot to think about, but it doesn’t provide answers.  Orenstein raises a lot of issues that parents should think about, but the research isn’t there to say how all these things will impact our daughters.

The biggest problem with the book is that Orenstein jumps too quickly to other related gender influences on girls, like beauty pageants, the internet, clothes, and television.  This is not a long book.  She covers a lot of things too quickly, that don’t all feel connected, where I would have been happy for her to stay on the first topic.  But she’s a researcher, and a lot of the things she’s talking about are too new for there to be any research.  We can (and should) talk about the influence of social networking, for example, on teens and younger girls, but we can’t study it because it’s too new and changing all the time. Still, by the end of the book I felt like too much had been thrown at me, and in the end the Disney princesses are the least of your worries as a parent.

Orenstein concludes with some very good advice (I think) about parental limitations at different age ranges.  For example, you can forbid certain things of your toddler, where it might be very counter-productive to forbid them of your teenager.  At younger ages your child needs you to make decisions (e.g. what they can wear out of the house) and at older ages you can discuss issues with them, negotiate and compromise.  With teenagers, you want to keep the conversation open and do things with your daughter (like social networking) rather than forbid it altogether (ensuring that they will probably do it behind your back).

I can’t imagine how tough it is to be a parent.  I don’t know if this book will make you feel better or worse, but it shows there are no easy answers and no right approach to parenting.  I hope you’ll find it as interesting as I did.

Review: Just a Geek by Wil Wheaton

I bought this book for my husband, a big Star Trek fan.  But I’ll admit to buying it for myself too.  I’m not a Trekkie, but I loved Next Generation, and lately we’ve been watching Wheaton on The Guild, which is hilarious.  But Wheaton is also a blogger, and this book describes how he created his blog, how his blog developed and how it ultimately affected him.  Recently I read Wheaton’s introduction to another book about blogging, Jon Scalzi’s Your Hate Mail Will Be Graded.  Wheaton’s intro definitely sucked me in to reading more about him, and more about blogging.  As a new blogger I feel like this is a world I have to learn to navigate.

Wheaton was the star of Stand By Me as a child – the role of a lifetime for an unknown kid actor.  Then he turned that fame into a role on The Next Generation, which was the much anticipated spinoff to the Star Trek series.  He may have been initially the most famous actor on that show next to LaVar Burton.  The problem?  One, he was awful on TNG (or his character was written very badly, take your pick).  Two, like many a TV actor, he didn’t want to be pigeonholed to Star Trek, he wanted to get back to movies.  Three, he was a teenager on TNG and was suffering through the angst nearly all of us go through at that age.

He loved Star Trek, but grew to hate the show.  He did TNG gigs like conventions but hated them because he wanted to be something more.  He auditioned for other roles but didn’t get them.  Over a ten year period he gets more and more bitter towards the show, the industry, and himself.  Oh, and he also has a family to support, a wife and stepsons and no income.

The book begins when he starts a blog in 2000 so he can stay in the public eye.  He has enough of a fan base to immediately have a few hundred dedicated readers (which doesn’t happen for us non-famous bloggers).  He writes mostly about his frustration about being a “former child star” and “that awful Wesley Crusher”.

At times Wheaton can be arrogant, self-centered, immature (as a writer and actor, that’s hardly shocking).  But I felt like I got to know him by reading this book.

What I loved about this book: He describes battling between different “personalities” as a writer, and really struggles to find his own voice.  At first, as a blogger he is all bravado – he calls this voice “Prove to Everyone That Quitting TNG was not a Mistake.”  This voice doesn’t resonate with readers because it covers up his insecurities.  Another voice he calls “The Voice of Self Doubt.”  Wheaton has to learn, as a writer, to share who he is on his blog.  And that progression, revealed bit by bit with each blog post, was fascinating to read.  As a new blogger I have no idea yet how personal to be, how much to reveal.  Why am I writing?  Why do books matter?  Am I writing reviews or am I writing about how the book affected me?  Since my family is reading, do I watch what I say?  How much do you as a reader really want to hear?  And ultimately, if I put myself out there, will people care what I have to say?

In August 2002 Wheaton writes, “I’ve realized recently that I’ve changed dramatically since I started this website.  When it began just over a year ago, I was adrift, terrified that the Internet would tear me apart.  Well, it did and it turns out that was a great thing… it forced me to find strength within myself and not to derive my sense of self-worth from the opinions of others.”

I don’t have such a high expectation of blogging, but I do believe that writing has the power to affect how you think and feel.  It’s also scary as hell.

The other thing I loved about this book: Wheaton gradually discovers how much he loved Star Trek, and how lucky he was to be part of TNG.  He talks about how in the end he is “just a geek”, and by remembering how much he loves the show, he sort of recovers his childhood and comes to terms with his career.  Reading this book reminded me that I loved TNG, which in turn reminded me how much this blog, for me, is about coming to terms with my own geekiness.

When I was a kid I read.  A LOT.   I don’t regret reading a lot as a kid, even if it was to some extent a way of escaping the real world and avoiding real people.  But I struggle today to feel good about being that kid, the kid who hid in her closet so she could read, who used strange vocabulary, who jumped from sci fi to horror to romance to literature and back again.  That kid who felt that book characters were better friends than the kids at school.

Dr. Catherine Snow, an expert on reading, says you know when a kid is a reader, because they use big words and pronounce them wrong (having never heard them spoken).  That was me.  And I wish I didn’t care about being laughed at when that happened, but I did.

So for me, some part of this blog is about not hiding what I read or what I think.  I’m not the weird kid any more, I’m just an average every-day grownup.  But here on this blog, this is who I am.  Just a geek.