My thoughts exactly.
This deliciously clever plot kept me guessing until the very end. The book opens with a prologue set seventeen years before the present day. The main characters, law students, talk theoretically about how they, smart as they are, could commit the perfect crime and get away with it. Jump to Chapter One where they are both successful attorneys, married and with a young son. The murder case that they eventually get drawn into unfolds in the later pages and is anything but the perfect crime. The suspense builds slowly and inexorably as things go wrong and then wronger.
There is no snappy dialogue and black humor. This is a pure page-turner. There is a good deal of irony and poetic justice, however. Whether you’re the type who roots for Bonnie and Clyde or for the cops, there’s something for you in this story. I literally had a hard time putting it down. It’s the best mystery I’ve read in quite some time.
This is a travelogue by the Nobel-winning novelist. I first read this book when I was in high school, several decades ago. I remember being disappointed in it. It seemed like a pompous old man pontificating arrogantly about a hard-drinking macho lifestyle I found repulsive. It was also rather boring, talking mostly about mundane things like stopping at gas stations and hassling with border officials.
This time around, mandated by my book club, I reread it. I found it quite enjoyable, perhaps because I’ve become a pontificating old man. Don’t get me wrong. Steinbeck is shamelessly egotistical and wedded to a male-dominated anachronistic reality that no longer exists, if it did even then. But I picked up on many more of his mostly astute observations about people in this reading. Steinbeck clearly was a hearty drinker and could be pompous, but he didn’t display a mean streak that I somehow falsely remembered. He showed considerable tact and tolerance and was successful in bringing out both the good and bad in the people he met along the way. The writing was a lot better than I remembered, too. It’s a craft I have come to appreciate much more now. His devotion to his dog, Charley, was mostly touching, although should have been toned down a notch, but the devotion to his truck/camper Rocinante was truly over-the-top. Steinbeck’s choice of the name was eerily fitting since in the end he came across as very much like Don Quixote, an unintentional parody of a wandering knight of bygone days.
I listened to the audiobook narrated by Ron McLarty and the reader was outstanding, perfect for the role, all the way down to the regional accents.
Here’s another meaningless pop analysis of famous couples. I surfed the U.S. Census baby names data base for male/female names that shared a similar history. More specifically, I checked by decade starting with the 1880s and looked at the popularity rank of the 200 most popular boys’ names and 200 most popular girls’ names in each decade and measured how far apart the boy’s name and girl’s name were in the ranking in each of the thirteen decades. The closer they were in rank over the decades, the theory goes, the more they were destined to be together. I tried it on several famous or infamous couples. This list is in order of “most compatible” to least under this theory.
- Robert and Elizabeth (e.g., Robert Browning and Elizabeth Barrett Browning)
John and Mary (actually just entered as a control)
George and Martha (Washington)
Franklin and Eleanor (Roosevelt)
Albert and Victoria (Prince/Queen)
Clyde and Bonnie (Barrow)
Johnnie and June (Cash)
Juan and Eva (Peron)
John and Jacqueline (Kennedy)
Charles and Diana (Prince/Princess)
Robin and Marian (Hood)
Bradley and Angelina (Brangelina)
Paul and Joanne (Newman/Woodward)
Frank and Ava (Sinatra/Gardner)
John and Priscilla (Alden)
Many couples could not be tested because one or both of of them never made it to the top 200 names for any decade. Examples include John and Yoko, William (or Bill) and Hillary, Martin and Coretta, Mark and Cleopatra, Adam and Eve, Sean and Madonna, Sonny and Cher, Romeo and Juliet, Rhett and Scarlett, Tarzan and Jane, Clark and Carole, Humphrey and Lauren. As long as both names make it to the top 200 in at least one decade, the couple can get a score, but the scores don’t mean much. If one or both didn’t make it for many decades, then the score is skewed against them, even though they may have been right together in 225th place. I just didn’t have any way to measure it.
My wife and I placed just under Brangelina. If you leave the names of you and your significant other (or some other couple) in the comments, I’ll run it through my program and tell you how you place compared to these famous couples in the list.
The U.S. Constitution requires that every ten years a census be taken (actually the word “enumeration” is used) to determine the populations of the various states and that the results shall be used to apportion the number of Congresspersons allocated to each state. As the population shifts, states may gain or lose the number of representatives they are allowed. Consider the following chart, compiled from U.S. Census data. The dark orange states are those that lost two or more seats from the previous census period. Light orange is loss of one seat. The light blue is no change, medium blue is a gain of one seat, and dark blue, two or more. For a clearer version, click on the image.
It is obvious that the Northeast and Midwest in general have been losing representatives, and thus influence, in recent decades. This appears to be continuing. The West gained greatly in 1980 – 2000, but that trend seems to be slowing. Texas and Florida have been steadily and rapidly gaining. Next year there will be another census taken. It should be very important in determining the balance of political power in the future. This is not only because of the number of congresspersons changing from some states to others, but because that number is also the basis for the Electoral College. In other words, it can also influence the presidential elections in 2024 and 2028. One question that comes up in the news is whether people need to be U.S. citizens or eligible to vote to be counted. The answer is no. It’s based on sheer numbers, including children and non-citizens residing in each state.
The story is set primarily in the 1950s and ’60s but covers decades. Kya has lived in a shack in a North Carolina swamp since her childhood. She is abandoned first by her mother, and eventually by the rest of her family. She is left alone as a teenager to fend for herself, digging mussels to sell to an elderly black man named Jumpin’. Kya loves the marsh and its animals, as does Tate, a boy who turns into her childhood love and teaches her how to read. Then Tate goes off to college and Kya feels abandoned once again. She takes up with Chase, the local roue. Kya eventually becomes a recognized expert on marsh flora and fauna. There’s a murder and an investigation and a trial. I won’t say more on the plot to avoid spoilers.
Kya’s character is very sympathetic, unbelievably so. Everyone except Jumpin’ and the black residents call her The Swamp Girl and make fun of her. The local whites treat her as retarded when in fact she is, of course, the smartest one of them all. The writing is almost poetic at times but the politically correct bias (poor black = good; rich white = evil) grates and as a law enforcement retiree, I felt the author could have treated the sheriff better. It’s a worthy read, but its flaws forced me to drop a star from its rating.
The lives of two neighboring families intertwine in many ways in this well-written story. Two NYPD cops, partners for a brief time as rookies, end up living in the same small town upstate. One has a son the same age as the youngest daughter of the other. Relationships are close … until they’re not. This genre is not in my normal wheelhouse, but I enjoyed it very much. If I could give half stars I’d give it four and half, but I’m rounding it up to five. It’s a love story of sorts. Not a romance, but a love story. There’s no bodice-ripping, no lustful bedroom – or kitchen table – scenes.
The time frame covers 1973 to the current day. You could call it a family saga – or perhaps better, a two-family saga. Some of it is heart-warming, other parts heart-rending. It doesn’t always go where you want it to, but it ends up where it should. My wife doesn’t recommend very many books to me as our tastes are different, but I say to you men, listen to your wife if she recommends this one.
This book can be summarized in three words: get enough sleep. Beyond that, there isn’t much in the book that will surprise you. The author does a thorough (too thorough, in my opinion) job of describing all the ways sleep helps your body and how many ways lack of sleep hurts you. It really comes down to the same thing: get enough sleep. That’s what your mother told you. He describes many experiments, some of them ingenious, sleep researchers have done to prove the benefits of sleep. Sleepy drivers are more likely to die in a car crash. Duh. And so on. The workmanlike prose is very readable and understandable to the lay reader. I doubt reading this will change anyone’s behavior, especially since those who believe they function well on four hours a night aren’t likely to read it and will scoff at it if they do.
I was curious how long the average geocache lasts, so I did a little research.
I examined all of my finds (from GSAK) that have been archived, excluding events, CITOs and other event-type caches. The chart shows the median number of days between placement of the cache and the final log, which was normally the archive log.
I have a theory, several of them in fact, to account for the results. First of all, I think 2001 is a special case. Caches placed back in the very early days achieved a sort of iconic status and have been kept alive by others long after the original owner has left the geocaching world. This is true for the two year 2000 hides I found, both of which are still active. It is also true for many year 2001 caches that are still active, but not shown on the chart. I checked about half of my 2001 archived caches on the chart and three of those had been adopted during their lifetime. The same did not appear to be true (or as true) for the 2002 caches.
For 2002 and 2003, I believe the short duration was due to the learning curve of the flood of new cachers entering the sport. I know my early hides were not well-chosen spots. After a few that were lost to gardeners, thieving muggles, or construction crews I learned what kind of spots worked better. The period 2004 through 2008 shows pretty good consistency, with a median lifespan of about 2200 days (a little over six years). Remember, these are median lifespans. Half of the archived caches lived longer than that, and of course many are still active. For those years after 2008, the apparent shorter lifespan, I believe, is explained by the fact that longer-lasting caches are cut off by the simple fact that it hasn’t been long enough since those were hidden for them to live out a normal span. Put another way, one end of the bell curve of longevity (caches that last 8 years or more) is cut off by insufficient passage of time, causing the median age to be lower. I suspect that if this same exercise were to be done in five years you’d see caches from 2008 to 2013 or so have the same median of around 2200 days.
There could be other explanations. Since these are my finds, maybe I cached differently in the years 2005 – 2008 from later years. Maybe the changing rules from Groundspeak have caused people to hide caches differently. Feel free to posit your own theories in the comments.
I only got about a third of the way through this book, so I may not have given it a fair chance, but it should have hooked me in by that point and it didn’t. Meg is a blacksmith (although there was no evidence of that in the first third) who travels to Yorktown, Virginia to help out (meaning do all the planning work) for not one, but three, weddings, including her mother’s. She’s a total patsy. She meets a sensitive, gorgeous guy who is helping out his mother run the local bridal shop and despite drooling over him she believes her mother when she tells Meg he’s gay. Why? Because he is sensitive and helps his mother run the shop when she’s out of town. So Meg is an idiot and a bigot, too. At least I think so, but I can only assume that at some point later in the book Michael (who follows Meg around like he’s infatuated with her) will be revealed to be straight. Gasp! Who would have thought? Or maybe not. That’s not a spoiler since I haven’t read that far. Maybe I’m wrong. The murder (if it is a murder, since it still hasn’t been ruled a homicide at the time I quit) only takes place almost a third of the way in. The rest is reading about wedding stuff – themes, dresses, fittings, flowers, venues, etc. I had my fill of that and just had to stop.
I only picked up this book because the library recommended list described it as witty and the first of a long series (26 books according to Wikipedia). It won a bunch of awards, although I have no idea how as it was not very witty or funny. Maybe the mystery part was interesting, but it was too slow to develop for me. When you find that you can’t read more than 15 minutes of a book at a time, you know it’s time to move on to something else. In its defense, it was inoffensive and very much like every other cozy mystery I’ve read, so if you like cozies, go ahead and pick it up and ignore my review.