George: a magpie memoir by Frida Hughes
Frieda Hughes is the daughter of Sylvia Plath and Ted Hughes. She is an artist and poet and when living in Wales and renovating a house she finds an abandoned magpie chick after a terrible storm. She starts taking care of the chick, who she names George, and almost instantly her whole life revolves around him. When he is bigger and can fly she starts letting him outside assuming he will eventually go back to being a wild bird. But, she finds that he is very tame and often tries to play with neighbors and dogs like he does with her and her dogs. Magpies are often seen as a nuisance bird and are killed, so she decides she needs to build George an aviary where he can be safe. But just as the aviary is nearing completion George doesn't come home any more. So, Hughes basically starts collecting any random birds that need rescuing while also becoming increasingly unhappy in her marriage. George is never seen again and by the end of the book she is happily divorced and on her way to becoming a weird bird lady.
I was expecting this to be in the same vein as other animal/pet memoirs, but this whole book was pretty depressing. Hughes has health issues and an unhappy marriage for the majority of the book. Throughout the book she refers to her husband as The Ex, even though at that time they were still very much together. She also complains repeatedly about being known as Frieda-Hughes-daughter-of-Sylvia-Plath-and-Ted-Hughes but also draws attention to it herself throughout the book. Her fixation on George and then on a series of random birds seems unhealthy or very weird at the mildest. And I find it odd that George is never mentioned again, but the focus goes on all these other random birds. It was an odd and mostly depressing book. The very beginning with George was interesting and I think it could have been a good book. The overwhelmingly depressing tone just brought the whole thing down for me. There are much better bird/animal/pet memoirs out there.
The Foxfire Book of Appalachian Women by Kami Ahrens, ed.
This is a unique Foxfire book in that it's a collection of specifically women's stories. I liked that they included a few more modern or current stories and would have liked to have had a few more modern ones. It was also nice to have pictures of the women included in their chapters. There were a few common threads particularly with the older stories (women born in the late 1800's and early 1900's) - 1) many of them didn't think women should vote 2) many thought women shouldn't work outside the home at all 3) how important land was to them - more important than money and 4) many thought that they were much happier in their childhood than current/modern day children
Overall, it was an interesting book and a few of the stories I really enjoyed. The stories could be somewhat repetitive or similar so that was the only downside for me. I would really like to visit the Foxfire museum one day that seems like it would be really interesting.
My Stupid Intentions by Bernardo Zannoni
Archy is a beech marten who's born into poverty and ends up being sold to an entrepreneurial fox who knows how to read and write. Solomon the fox makes Archy his apprentice and teaches him to read and write as well. The only book Solomon has is a copy of the Bible and he is convinced that he is really a man who's been turned into a fox as a test by God. After learning to read, Archy is overcome by the weight of knowledge that he now has as a more intelligent creature. Throughout the book Archy struggles between his intelligence and his animal nature. While all the animals in the book are anthropomorphized to varying degrees some have more empathy and intelligence than others. Archy seems naturally more aware and intelligent and after an injury leaves him crippled he knows he will have to rely more on his mind that his physical strength.
This is a really unique book that is hard to review. In the description this book is compared to Pinocchio, Watership Down, and the Wind in the Willows. I could see this as a much darker version of Wind in the Willows. But honestly the book that kept coming to mind after finishing this one was The Goldfinch. This felt like an animal version of The Goldfinch with Archy struggling with his circumstances and often self-destructing when anything good comes his way. This book got very mixed reviews (I had to Google translate them as almost all of them were in Italian) and I could see why. I did like it, but it's odd and probably not for everyone. My favorite character was Klaus and that part of the book/area was probably the most like The Wind in the Willows. His character was so powerful and was really the perfect foil to Archy. Overall, a unique book that I will be thinking about for a long time.
Some quotes I liked:
"I was angry with God because I couldn't feel otherwise. Perhaps if I hadn't known about him I wouldn't have complained so much, I would have accepted everything as it came, like a real animal. But knowing whose world this was, I had no choice but to see him as an enemy. It was instinctual." (p. 79)
"My rage had faded, along with my despair. My journey had become a memory, a terrible but ancient tale. Clutching the pages in my paw, I felt their weight and understood that things had changed forever. I had trapped my prison on paper. Once more I was free - and sad." (p. 80)
"I no longer felt like an animal; I had traded my instincts for questions and doubts, for the exercise of reason and the falsification of my nature." (p. 107)
Madame Restell: the life, death, and resurrection of old New York's most fabulous, fearless, and infamous abortionist by Jennifer Wright
Ann Trow Sommers left England with her husband Henry and their daughter Caroline and came to America in 1831. Shortly after arriving in America Henry died, leaving Ann and her daughter struggling to figure out how to live. There were few options for women in the work world at that time and almost none for a single mother with a young child who couldn't be left alone. Ann ended up working for a pill compounder and learning to make pills that could prevent and end pregnancies. Soon she opened her own shop with her brother's help. After marrying her second husband, Charles Lohman, they created the persona of Madame Restell to boost Ann's credibility in the burgeoning medical field. Fairly quickly Ann and Charles became the most infamous abortionists in New York City, even opening additional offices in Boston and Philadelphia. But Ann's flaunting of social norms drew much attention to her and her work. Throughout her career she was disparaged in the media, arrested several times, and had several lawsuits brought against her. Yet, she kept doing her work. Was it because she felt it was needed work? Or was it because it made her extremely wealthy? I think it was probably a little of both. She grew up poor and was determined to never be there again. Her wealth also helped her flaunt society's prescribed role for women - even though Ann was a wife and mother, she was much more than that at a time when that was NOT seen as good. She was the breadwinner for her family as well and her husband was extremely supportive in a time when that was rare as well. In many ways she could be seen as ahead of her time.
With abortion always being a hot-button issue, but even more so now with Roe v. Wade being overturned, I saw this book and thought it might be interesting. Ann Lohman had an extremely interesting and unique life, but she was far from perfect. She didn't have many friends (because of her work) and she was often on the outs with various family members (even cutting off contact with her daughter for a time after she married a policeman). She also stole at least one baby from a woman who came to her, but wanted to keep her baby. And in the end she committed suicide after yet another arrest. I was genuinely shocked by the suicide. She did not seem like someone who would "give in" in that way after fighting so hard her whole life.
While Ann Lohman/Madame Restell's life was very interesting - this book was not. After the first few chapters it became extremely tedious with TONS of unnecessary details and the authors added comments. There were also DOZENS of rabbit trails about some random person in NYC at the time and why they were terrible/awesome/whatever that did not really add to Ann's overall story. I understand that with a historical non-fiction book like this you have to give some background, but it's a fine line between background and starting a whole other book. I also didn't like that the author made out anyone who was "against" Ann to be a horrible person who was obviously the real devil in the story. She made Ann into a modern-day heroine that she wasn't. We don't know if she was really ahead of her time in her views or she just fell into a very lucrative, yet illegal, career that made her extremely wealthy. I think Ann was extremely intelligent and driven in a time when that rarely worked out for women. I really didn't like the author's obviously added commentary throughout the book - if this woman is amazing just tell her story and it will be amazing. Overall, I think Ann Lohman was an extremely interesting person and was ahead of her time in many ways, but I wouldn't recommend this book. I definitely think it could have been much better done.
Some quotes I liked:
"By the mid-1800s, the streets of New York teemed with an estimated 30,000 homeless children. The miserable conditions they lived in were startling at best, but more often appalling...It's important to understand that there was a difference between society's treatment of foundlings versus orphans. Orphans were children who, while they may have come from respectable homes, had lost both of their parents, perhaps due to an epidemic or some other act of God. They were considered pitiable. Foundlings, however, were children who had been abandoned immediately after their birth. They were considered, in the words of New York's first chief of police, 'embryo courtesans and felons.'...Almshouses were where cast-off infants were supposedly cared for, but it's hard to say that they experienced much 'care' there...From 1854 to 1859, nearly 90 percent of the infants in those institutions died. Even at a time when it was estimated that a third of children died during their first year, the statistic was shocking." (p. 12-13)
"In the 1850s, Dr. William Sanger estimated that in New York, a woman would only work as a prostitute for, on average, four years before dying." (p. 18)
[Catholic Archbishop John Hughes spoke out openly against Madame Restell, so when she found out he wanted to buy land beside the new site for St. Patrick's Cathedral she bought it herself to spite him] "...Madame Restell decided to bring the battleground to her - and bought the plot on which he intended to build his house. There, she would build a house of her own, a house so ostentatious that parishioners at St. Patrick's would be forced to look at it every time they went to church. The land purchase would also serve to tell the archbishop who had the real power in New York City...When Hughes placed his bid on the plot of land across from where St. Patrick's would be built, he was shocked that 'Madame Restell had doubled his offer.'...And so, while the rest of the country pinched pennies, Madame Restell bought the land across from what would be St. Patrick's Cathedral for a total of $36,500 ($1,160,402 today). Spending a million dollars on a plot of undeveloped land in a largely unpopulated part of town to snub someone was absolutely her style." (p. 200-202)
The Accidental Homesteader by Kathi Lipp
Kathi and Roger Lipp are Accidental Homesteaders. They didn't start homesteading until they were in their 50's. Living in California, they were looking for a mountain cabin/vacation home but due to a series of events they ended up selling their townhouse and moving full time to their mountain house on 33 acres. Because of living 30+ minutes from the nearest town they sort of had to start homesteading. Now they garden, have chickens, heat their home with firewood, and are MUCH more prepared for unexpected snowstorm or power outage. In this book Kathi walks us through a year on their homestead - how they prepare for each season and what each season tends to bring. With lots of colorful pictures, recipes, and tips if you aren't already homesteading this book will definitely inspire you.
The only (small) downsides to this book were a few things seemed to be glossed over. She talked about having a generator for when the power goes out in the winter, but didn't specify was it a whole-house generator or what. Also, they seem to rely a lot on their weekly trip into town. Not to say homesteaders don't go to the grocery store or eat out, but it seemed more like they just live a more rural life not necessarily homesteading as I see it which is trying to grow or raise most of your food and/or make a living off your home/property. This is still a great book, but there were a few things that were just glossed over or not fully explained in my opinion.
Dinners With Ruth: a memoir on the power of friendships by Nina Totenberg (Books & Banter book club)
Before Nina Totenberg was a well-known reporter for NPR and before Ruth Bader Ginsberg was a Supreme Court Justice the two met when Nina called Ruth about a case she was representing on behalf of the ACLU. That turned into a lifelong friendship between the two women. In this book Totenberg discusses her friendship with RBG and also other influential friendships along the way. I think for women of that time who were working in male-dominated fields in the 1960's and 70's there is a unique bond because there are so few of you and you need to stick together and help each other. Even though Totenberg and RBG weren't in the same field they could definitely relate to each other in that same way. And as Totenberg points out the fact that she and Ruth were friends before Ruth became "the Notorious RBG" definitely cemented their friendship as well.
I honestly didn't know who Nina Totenberg was before this book was nominated by one of my book clubs, but I knew who RBG was and for that reason alone I wanted to read the book. I agree with some of the reviews that the title makes you think the book is exclusively about Ruth and Nina when it's not. I did enjoy Nina's story, but would I have picked up a book just about her? Probably not. Plus, this book had a LOT of sadness and death in it. Nina is widowed and her first husband was very ill for several years, then she goes over Marty Ginsberg's death, Cokie Robert's death, and of course at the end Ruth's death. I think it would have been sad regardless, but I've had a few sudden, unexpected deaths in my circle recently and it was a little too much for me right now. I think someone who followed Nina Totenberg's work for NPR would like this book better than someone who's an RBG fan hoping for more insight (which seems like many reviewers were hoping for).
Some quotes I liked:
[After Nina was blackballed for joining the prestigious Cosmos Club in DC] "Unbeknownst to me, after my rejection Ruth was invited to visit the Cosmos Club, and at the end of the tour of its lovely interior, her escort asked her to become a member. Ruth demurred, and either then or later said, 'You know, I think that a club that is too good for Nina Totenberg is too good for me, too.' It says everything about Ruth that she never told me about this; I heard the story from someone else." (p. 96)
[After Totenberg covered the Clarence Thomas Supreme Court confirmation hearing that included Anita Hill's sexual harassment claims she was on a flight.] "On board, a flight attendant recognized me. She grabbed my hand and would not let it go, profusely thanking me for bringing attention to the issue of sexual harassment and helping to start a public discussion. And that was the thing. I, who had spent years fending off unwanted advances, had not fully realized what a festering wound this issue was for so many working women." (p. 115)
[On Ruth's friendship with Antonin Scalia and hers with Scalia and other conservative judges that she didn't agree with personally but managed to still be good friends with them for years and years] "In our current climate, could a Ruth and Nino [Antonin Scalia], a Nina and Nino, or a Nina and Ted friendship ever take root and thrive? And what does the answer to that question mean for all of us?" (p. 158)
The Golden Girls: a cultural history by Bernadette Giacomazzo
I LOVE The Golden Girls and still watch the show all the time. So, when I saw this book I knew I wanted to check it out despite the mixed reviews. And after finishing it the mixed reviews were correct in my opinion - it wasn't a great book. The subtitle of this book is "a cultural history" but it's a pretty light history. The author goes over how the show was created, and each character with her list of top 10 episodes for that character (I would have liked more of an explanation for how/why she picked those specific episodes too). Then she gets into some of the hot topics that the show covered and how it was ahead of it's time and a trailblazing show. But all of these things were just very quickly covered and often with added commentary that seemed kind of forced. While the author repeatedly says she's not going to "woke-check" the episodes, it also seemed like she only focused on the topics and episodes that would be considered "woke" today - AIDS, gay/transgender issues, homelessness, illegal aliens/immigration, etc. While never talking about some of things that the show joked about that would now be seen as sexual harassment or even sexual assault. The show is a product of its time and was still way ahead of its time in many ways. I just didn't feel like this book really lived up to its title The Golden Girls: a cultural history. But, it is a book about the Golden Girls so it was still a fun, quick read - just not as thorough as it could have been. In my opinion Golden Girls Forever by Jim Colucci was a much better Golden Girls history.
Some quotes I liked:
"But what is it, really that makes The Golden Girls so iconic? What makes the show so important, so unique, and so timely in the twenty-first century?...Whether they were addressing homosexuality, artificial insemination, or AIDS, the tough topics were fair game. But they didn't beat us over the head with proselytizing or morality - rather, they addressed even the toughest topics with equal amounts of humor and love, proving to all of us that we, too, could handle them in the same way." (p. 147)
"Prior to the debut of The Golden Girls, women older than fifty were depicted as dowdy, matronly, and all but nonexistent outside the core of their nuclear family. They were blank slates - they were asexual - they were little more than an extension of their families. But thanks to The Golden Girls, older women were seen in a whole new way: as career professionals, as warm and understanding friends, and as fully realized sexual beings." (p. 147)
