Historical Accuracy or Happily Ever After

While visiting a lover the other day, she told me that she had a book that she wanted me to read, because the main male character reminded her of me. I said, sure, after which she handed me a historical romance novel, Libertine's Kiss, by Judith James.

Being a guy, my normal preferred reading material does not usually include romance novels, but I have read some, particularly to research the occurrences of libertine characters in this genre, which is a fairly common character subtype.

As I took the book from her and read the blurb on the back cover, I immediately had to laugh -- the main character shared my first name. The book's setting is the 17th century Restoration court of Charles II, who could have accurately been called a libertine king. The author's note stated that the main male character, William De Veres, was based on John Wilmot, Earl of Rochester, a noted libertine and poet in the court of Charles II. He was also the subject of the Johnny Depp movie, The Libertine.

As this book was classified as a romance novel, however, I already knew how the book was going to end -- in a monogamous marriage, at which time the libertine would cease being one. This is what the romance novel industry calls the "HEA"; the "happily ever after" formula, which is ubiquitous to every romance novel.

Because of this, I knew the book was going to be a disappointment from the beginning, as it could not remain true to history, nor to the real person that inspired the novel's male lead if it were to adhere to the HEA formula. Indeed, I could imagine Wilmot's sardonic laughter if he'd been able to read the book and see the character he'd inspired go completely out of character during the course of the novel.

And not only did the characterization of the male lead deviate from actual history, so did the female lead's view of what marriage should be deviate from 17th century norms in general, which I'll further elaborate on later below.

Nevertheless, I decided to go ahead and read it, anyway. The book proved to be an engaging read, with the author throwing in snippets of Wilmot's actual poetry throughout the book. Many times during the book, the male lead expressed thoughts that could have come out of my own mouth; enough so that I wondered if the author had read my blog.

To cite a few examples, when asked why he'd ended up as a libertine, he explained to the female lead that it was simply his nature, which is something I've done many times myself.

In another scene, he proposes marriage to her, knowing that he needed to get married sooner or later if he was to have heirs. He reasoned that he might as well do so with a woman he cared for. When she asks if he would remain sexually faithful to her, he honestly tells her no, respecting her enough to be honest with her. When she protested, he explained that there was a difference between sex and love, implying that one should not be inextricably bound to the other.

And this brings me to the book's flaws. The female lead, who was a widow, rejected his initial proposal because she vowed she would not remarry for anything but love. But such a sentiment would have been far less common in the 17th century than now. People then married much more often for practical reasons and love, if present, was considered icing on the cake, rather than the reason to marry in the first place. A woman of that time would not have demanded sexual exclusivity of a prospective husband, however much she might like it, as random dalliances would have simply been considered the nature of the male beast.

Then there were the trite, cliched plot devices that could have been done away with and still allowed the story to adhere to the HEA ending.

The first cliche was that the male lead was a libertine simply because he was a damaged, psychologically tortured man, having been molested as a teen by his tutor and for having had dysfunctional parents. Rarely in romance novels is a libertine a libertine merely because he like frequency and variety with his sex life. The assumption is that every normal person desires a lifelong, monogamous marriage.

The second cliche that left me rolling my eyes in disbelief was that the male lead immediately lost the desire to have sex with other women the moment he took up with the female lead. He became de facto monogamous at this time, despite his claims to the contrary. This is completely unbelievable, as no person who'd been a libertine his entire would suddenly lose that proclivity at the drop of a hat. Indeed, I would imagine that a libertine who'd made the decision to start living a monogamous life would not lose the desire for sexual variety and would have to work very hard to maintain a monogamous life.

Taken as a whole, however, this book was an interesting read, but I strongly believe the author would have done much better had she written it as straight historical fiction. If she'd done so, she would have been free to write the main characters in a more historically accurate manner, rather than as a romance, where she was hamstrung by the romance novel formulaic HEA requirement.

Indeed, Paula Reed's historical novel, Hester, which takes place along the same time period as Libertine's Kiss, did just that, which served to produce a superior novel. Her libertine character, John Manning, is much more genuine and believable than James' William De Veres.

Just my .02 cents.

Book Review: Hester: The Missing Years of the Scarlet Letter by Paula Reed

Hester: The Missing Years of the Scarlet Letter
by Paula Reed

St. Martin's Press, February 2010
ISBN: 978-0-312-58392-7, ISBN10: 0-312-58392-3,
6 1/8 x 9 1/4 inches, 320 pages,

When Paula Reed asked me to read through a draft of her book, Hester, a couple of years ago, I was at first a bit hesitant that I would be able to give her a useful and informed opinion. I’d never read Hawthorne’s Scarlet Letter all the way through, having been put off by his writing style the one time I’d attempted to read it. And despite being a history buff, the 17th century is not an era that I am much familiar with.

Nevertheless, I decided to go ahead and share my thoughts, as the opinion Paula sought from me was whether the character of John Manning, the philosophical libertine who became Hester’s lover and friend, resonated with me. As one who has spent my adult life living the life of a libertine without shame and as one who has always been interested in philosophical questions, this was something I felt I could adequately do.

In our blogs, I’d previously expressed to Paula that I’d like to see her write an unapologetic libertine character who did not change his ways by story’s end. She assured me that she’d remembered these blog conversations when creating Manning.

To answer Paula’s original question, I would say that John Manning’s character did indeed resonate with me. Unlike improbable romance novel libertines, who always, without fail, decide all they ever really wanted was a wife and children by story’s end, Paula Reed’s John Manning rings true to reality as he stays true to his self.

While reading, I often found myself nodding along with things he said, agreeing and understanding exactly where he was coming from. To quote Paula’s own words, John Manning “never changes, never repents, and remains a dear friend of Hester’s even after their sexual relationship ends.”

As well as being Hester’s friend and lover, I saw John as a steadying influence in her life, bolstering her resolve to live without shame or apology, especially during the times when her confidence faltered. He was, to use an expression my father often used, her “BS detector”, just as she was the “BS detector” for everyone else.

What I think I enjoyed most about this book, were the questions about the nature of sin, shame, integrity, and the dictates of individual conscience vs. religion that ran through the novel, which I thought best addressed by Hester’s conversations with John. And, of course, I found it particularly appropriate and satisfying that Manning worked for the downfall of Puritanism.

One thing I particularly liked was how Sir John Manning was eulogized in the Epilogue:

“There lies Sir John Manning,” proclaimed Lady G--- “an impenitent sinner and the only man who never lied to a single woman. Not so much as ‘I shall see thee in the morning.’”

“He may never have lied to one,” avowed Lord H---, “but God knows he lay with more than his share. Can’t hate him for it, though. Many an Englishman benefited by way of a more skillful wife.”

I have to say that I would be quite happy to be eulogized similarly when my time comes.

Though I’m sure that those who have read Hawthorne’s original novel will enjoy this book as a companion novel, it also works well as a standalone for those, such as myself, who did not read The Scarlet Letter. Highly recommended for those who enjoys historical fiction.

Quiz Question From Goodreads

When I get bored, I go over to Bookreads and answer some questions from their "Never Ending Book Quiz". One question I came upon made me smile; it was as if it had been written especially for me.

The quiz follows below:

Which of the following famous libertines was a real person?

1. Romeo
2. Don Juan
3. Casanova
4. Lothario

A box of cyber condoms for all correct guessers.

Book Review: Highest Duty

I was very much impressed with Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger when I first heard of the tragedy he and the rest of his crew averted back in January.

After reading this book, I'm even more impressed with him. Not just a recounting of the Flight 1549 incident, this book is a biography that highlights the many experiences in his life that served as preparation for the role he played on January 15, 2009.

His book was motivational and inspirational without being preachy or religious. It was quite obvious that Captain Sullenberger has great compassion for humanity in general, as well as being a thoroughgoing professional. And, though he'd not apply the word to himself, a true hero in a time when Americans are in need of genuine heroes.

I give this book five stars.

Self Censoring Readers

Recently, I overheard two women at work talking about the books they'd read. One mentioned to the other about a novel she'd read where the main plot was about one woman's adulterous affair. She asked the other woman if she wanted to borrow the book. The other woman declined, stating she didn't want to read about such things because she thought adultery was immoral.

I rolled my eyes at this, thinking this woman must be very limited if she restricted herself from reading books about topics she didn't agree with, even if it was fiction. What was this woman afraid of, I wondered. Did she think if she read a story about adultery, that she would suddenly want to have an affair?

People read about things all the time that they'd never do in real life. Mysteries and crime novels are quite popular with a lot of people, but it doesn't mean that such people approve of murder or will suddenly go on a killing spree because they like reading a good mystery.

It really boggles my mind at how depressingly narrow-minded so many people can be.

There She Goes Again

Ann Coulter is playing the victim card yet again.

She was scheduled to appear on the Today show the other day to promote her latest screed of bile, which, considering her latest "poor me" performance, is ironically titled, Guilty: Liberal “Victims” and Their Assault on America.

However, the show postponed her appearance in order to devote more coverage to the current Israel-Hamas conflict, including Matt Lauer's interview with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Coulter's reaction was immediate and predictable. She claimed that she'd been "banned" from NBC for life". She also told Fox News’ Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes that NBC had booked her only as a "charade" to keep her from going on other shows.

Wah, wah, wah.

Coulter's so-called "ban" turned out to be of only one day's duration, as she was interviewed by Matt Lauer on Wednesday's show.

Coulter's behavior was quite predictable. She is a publicity whore of the highest order and though I'm certain she fully understood the reasons why her appearanced on the Today show was postponed, she chose to exploit this opportunity for even more media exposure. By playing the victim, she was assured of being cussed and discussed on the air, over the web, and in print. She'd reasoned it had been far too long since she'd stirred up crap and jumped on this opening like stink on shit.

With Coulter, it's always Same Shit, Different Day

Thoughts?

Monogamy Is Monotony

On Alternet this morning, I read an article, Why Relationship Sex is Boring, by Esther Perel, author of the book "Mating in Captivity". In this article, she makes the point:

The very things that nurture love -- comfort, stability, safety -- can extinguish sexual desire.

I pretty much agreed with what she had to say and my comment on the article follows below:

Monogamy is Monotony

I think the author pretty much hit the nail on the head.

I've found that once I get to know a partner completely and that there are no more surprises left, nothing new to learn about this woman, then boredom sets in and desire flies out the window and the sex becomes routine and mechanical. And all the sex books and new positions and new settings in the world don't change the fact that I'm having sex with the same old partner.

It's quite similar to what would happen if you decided to eat your favorite meal 3 meals a day, 365 days a year. What was once your favorite meal, quickly becomes "the same ol' thing", no longer anything special.

After a brief failed marriage in the 80s, I decided that marriage and monogamy were no longer for me, as it wouldn't be fair to me or to any woman I might marry. Since that time, my relationship/sex life is to have several "friends with benefits" relationships going concurrently, with the occasional one night stand thrown in for added variety. I live alone, maintaining my own space.

There's no domestic dailiness to kill the desire, living apart keeps us from knowing every small detail about one another, and having several relationships at once keeps excessive familiarity away longer. And when any one of these relationships runs its natural course(they typically run from one to five years), I tend to remain friends with them.

I only had the one child from the failed marriage and had no desire for more, so my life didn't upset the lives of children, as I've kept my relationship life separated from my role as a parent.

I can't advise anyone else how to conduct their lives, but I can say it works for me.

Burned

I've been using Ebay for eight years now, since the fall of 2000. In all that time, I've never had any problems with the purchases I've made.

Until now.

About three weeks ago, I bought two books from two different sellers. I got an automated response from both sellers acknowledging my order and that the payment had gone through. The first seller also contacted me personally to thank me for my order, advising me of when the order would be sent. The second seller never contacted me personally, but using Ebay's tracking system I saw that my order had been marked as "shipped".

The first order arrived promptly within a week. Great -- another smooth transaction completed. The days, then weeks dragged by, and the second order never arrived. Every day I'd check my mailbox, to find nothing but ordinary mail in there.

I went back to the seller's page to read their feedback again and found that new negative feedback had been left for them -- the customer never received their book and the seller never responded to the buyer's emails. I began to get a bit nervous, but considering that this was the seller's first negative feedback, I hunkered down to wait it out.

When I reached the last day of the estimated shipping times for the book, I contacted the seller, in accordance with Ebay policy, and waited the required 48 hours for a reply. Unsurprisingly, the seller ignored my email, just as they had with the previous customer. I left scathing, negative feedback for the seller, warning other potential customers away. I've filed a claim and now I'm waiting for it to be resolved. I don't really want money back -- I just want the damned book I ordered!

Have any of you been burned on Ebay or another site, and how did it eventually turn out for you?

On My "To Be Read" Pile

I've finished the excellent Dresden Files series by Jim Butcher, which were recommended to me by John Sherck (thanks, John). I've finally started Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell by Susanna Clarke, which had sat on my "to be read" pile of books for an extended period of time after I'd read a positive review of it on John's blog. I have to say that this one is more of a slow read, largely because of the old fashioned writing style. I'm only a short ways into the book, however, and I'm willing to give it a chance to pick up.

I've not posted any booklists in quite some time, so what follows is a list of books on my current "to be read" list.

The first two books, unsurprisingly, come from reviews on John Sherck's blog. I've done well with books he's recommended to me in the past, so I consider him a good source of reading ideas.

Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom by Cory Doctorow

The Shadow of the Wind by Carlos Ruiz Zafon

Click on the links to go to John's blog to read more about these books.

Another source of reading ideas for me is Alternet. The books below were featured in articles on that site. The descriptions of each book come from Good Reads

Sex in Crisis: The New Sexual Revolution and the Future of American Politicsby Dagmar Herzog

There is a war on sex in America—and conservative evangelicals are winning. Only three decades after the legalization of abortion, the broad gains of the feminist movement, and the emergence of the gay rights movement, America has gone frigid.

Republicans—and even many Democrats—insist that abstinence is the only acceptable form of birth control, and fully 50 percent of American high schools teach a “sex education” curriculum that includes deceptive information about the prevalence of STDs and the failure rate of condoms. Students are taught that homosexuality is curable, and that pornography is addictive.

Americans are not anti-sex, but they’re increasingly anxious about sex—largely due to the tactics of the Religious Right. Afraid of sounding unelectable, American liberals have failed to challenge its retrograde orthodoxy. We are all evangelicals now.

How has the Religious Right achieved this ascendancy? Surprisingly, argues Dagmar Herzog in Sex in Crisis, Evangelicals have appropriated the lessons of the first sexual revolution far more effectively than liberals. With the support of a billion-dollar Christian sex industry, evangelicals have crafted an astonishingly graphic and effective pitch for the pleasures of “hot monogamy”—for married, heterosexual couples only, of course. This potent message has enabled them to win elections and seduce souls, with disastrous political consequences.

Fierce, witty, and brilliant, Sex in Crisis will force America to confront its national sexual dysfunction—and rally all but the most pious hot monogamists to demand a more sophisticated national conversation about the facts of life.

Shock Jocks: Hate Speech and Talk Radio: America's Ten Worst Hate Talkers and the Progressive Alternatives
by Rory O'Connor

The highly politicized and often factually challenged world of talk radio dominates a sizable portion of America’s airwaves. But the dirty secret of talk radio’s success is the use of hate speech masquerading as free speech. In this book, Rory O’Connor tackles the “hate talk establishment” and shows how huge media conglomerates not only make hate talk possible but make it enormously profitable.

He profiles the country’s ten worst shock jocks, including Don Imus, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Michael Savage, and describes how they use the guise of “not being politically correct” to ratchet up their anti-gay, anti-woman, and overtly racist language. He then shows how their celebrity leads to a climate that not only tolerates but actually perpetuates racist, sexist, homophobic, and xenophobic attitudes — making America a coarser, more dangerous place. A survey of the small but growing universe of progressive talk radio offers a respite from the verbal violence.

Considering how much I monitor right-wing talk show host, Neal Boortz, I thought this book might be interesting.

I Don't: A Contrarian History of Marriage by Susan Squire

A provocative survey of marriage and what it has meant for society, politics, religion, and the home.

For ten thousand years, marriage—and the idea of marriage—has been at the very foundation of human society. In this provocative and ambitious book, Susan Squire unravels the turbulent history and many implications of our most basic institution. Starting with the discovery, long before recorded time, that sex leads to paternity (and hence to couplehood), and leading up to the dawn of the modern “love marriage,” Squire delves into the many ways men and women have come together and what the state of their unions has meant for history, society, and politics – especially the politics of the home.

This book is the product of thirteen years of intense research, but even more than the intellectual scope, what sets it apart is Squire’s voice and contrarian boldness. Learned, acerbic, opinionated, and funny, she draws on everything from Sumerian mythology to Renaissance theater to Victorian housewives’ manuals (sometimes all at the same time) to create a vivid, kaleidoscopic view of the many things marriage has been and meant. The result is a book to provoke and fascinate readers of all ideological stripes: feminists, traditionalists, conservatives, and progressives alike.

I didn't find the last book on Alternet, but rather on Amazon when I lookd up the previous book on marriage:

The Samaritan's Dilemma: Should Government Help Your Neighbor?
by Deborah Stone

For at least a generation, experts have warned us not to reach out to others. Too much help makes people passive and dependent, we are told, and self interest is the only motive that spurs people to work and contribute to society. Liberals and conservatives alike have endorsed this new moral code for government. The Samaritan’s Dilemma challenges this conventional wisdom. We are born needing help, we die needing help, and we live out our days getting and giving help. We live by everyday altruism. So when leaders define the ideal citizen as someone who pursues his self interest and withholds help from others, good people are repelled by politics.

Dobson's Perfect Candidate

Several months ago, Focus on the Family's James Dobson blasted John McCain for being insufficiently conservative and vowed not to vote in November if he happened to be the Republican nominee.

More recently, he condemned Barack Obama for his inclusive vision of Christianity, accusing him of "distorting" the Bible. "I think he's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own world view, his own confused theology," Dobson said. Apparently the concepts of feeding the hungry, clothing the poor, caring for the sick, and blessed are the peacemakers are not in Dobson's Bible.

Dobson's statements and actions this year clearly show just how extreme and out of touch he is with mainstream America, both liberal and conservative.

The Daily Kos metioned someone that would be more in line with Dobson's values if he were a candidate, but apparently Lord Voldemort might even be too liberal for Dobson, as he's apparently endorsed McCain ;-): Voldemort (R) officially endorses McCain

As seen on the back of Dobson's car:

Bachelors: Being Single is Better Than a Bad Marriage

In a new book, "So Why Have You Never Been Married? - Ten Insights into Why He Hasn't Wed", author Carl Weisman explores the reasons why some men don't get married.

He got tired of being described as a playboy, a loser or a commitment-phobe, so he wrote this book, based on surveys of over a thousand unmarried men, to answer the question of why a growing number of eligible men were steering clear of marriage.

The overwhelming conclusion he came to was not that bachelors are afraid of marriage, per se, but rather that they are afraid of making a bad marriage by marrying the wrong person.

In 1980, only about 6 percent of men in their early 40s had never married but this number has now risen to 17 percent. More people of both sexes are opting out of legal marriage, as there are fewer social or religious pressures on people to get married.

In his survey, Weisman found three types of bachelors: 8 percent who never want to marry, 62 percent want to marry but who have unrealistic expectations for a wife, and about 30 percent who are undecided.

Four out of ten bachelors did not want children, three out of ten wanted children, with the rest being undecided.

Financial issues also played a role among these bachelors. Some low-income bachelors chose to remain single because they didn't think they could adequately support a wife and/or family. More affluent bachelors were afraid of a bad marriage leading to a messy divorce with their ex "taking them to the cleaners" financially.

Weisman's research also punctured the myth that unmarried men were necessarily unhappy. "A compelling issue was how many of them had found contentment in a never-married life," he said. "They had created lives full of careers, friends and ambitions. It was not like they walk around all day worried about not being married."

Though he didn't really touch on men like me who remain unmarried by philosophy, I suppose I could be included with the 8 percent who don't want to marry, even though I fit one of the stereotypes he was trying to avoid. (I know, I know, I was once married, but my heart was never in it, and it was so brief, that I feel more like a bachelor than a divorced man).

Thoughts?

Thoughts on the Sexual Double Standard

I read an article on Alternet this morning about the sexual double standard: "He's a Stud, She's a Slut"

This article, based on the author's book of the same name, focuses on the fact that women have traditionally be more negatively judged for being promiscuous than men have been. However, she greatly overstated her position by saying, "'Slut' is applied to women engaged in any activity besides knitting, praying, or sitting perfectly still lest any sudden movements be deemed whorish." She was similarly simplistic when she assumed that promiscuous men are always viewed in a positive manner.

My reply to this article:

I am one of those males with a lot of sex partners the author speaks of. The author is essentially right to say that my female partners are judged much more harshly than I am, though men like me don't go entirely without being judged negatively either.

Men like me are commonly viewed as being "afraid of commitment", "emotionally unavailable", "immature", "jerks", "assholes", "sexist", "misogynist", and so on. Need I elaborate further? I could, because I've heard it all.

But this wouldn't be any more true for me than it would be for a woman who similarly prefers variety and novelty in her sex life.

Nor do I apply a different standard to women who prefer casual sex than I do to myself, as that would be highly hypocritical to say the least. Indeed, where would I be at if all women were strictly monogamous, one-man women? Instead, when I find a woman who is like me, I feel as if I've found a kindred spirit.

And I'm not particularly fond of the words used to describe the actively non-monogamous male than women are thrilled by the word "slut". This is mainly because such words connote a rather mindless, thoughtless approach to sex, rather than the deliberately promiscuous-by-philosophy approach that I have taken.

Rather, I've adopted a term hundreds of years old to self-define my sexual inclinations: libertine. This has the benefit of being a value-neutral term equally applicable to both men and women.

I never refer to a woman as a "slut", nor would I care to be described as a "player". I refer to all people who prefer a variety of casual sex partners as libertines instead.

Thoughts?

Current Booklist

This is the book I'm currently reading, which is the fifth of a currently ten book series known collectively as The Dresden Files by Jim Butcher. The main character is a private detective, who is also a wizard. I came upon this series awhile back when looking for books that would appeal to adult Harry Potter fans. And this series fits the bill nicely, while also appealing to fans of more traditional detective novels.

Following below are a few books I hope to read soon.

The 18th book in John Sandford's Lucas Davenport mystery series

Escape by Carolyn Jessop

This is a tell-all memoir from a former member of the FLDS church.

Beyond Straight and Gay Marriage by Nancy Polikoff
The Publisher's Weekly blurb sums this book up best:

Polikoff, who has taught, litigated and written about family law, civil procedure and sexuality for more than 30 years, deftly argues that the law's narrow definitions of family and marriage no longer work in today's society—not just for the LGBT community but the country at large. With many households following untraditional family models, Polikoff says, we need to look at ways the law can change to value all families beyond those created by marriage, including same and different-sexed, married and unmarried couples. Polikoff draws on legal history and contemporary (often eye-opening) court cases to make her argument. Topics such as inheritance, tax consequences, workers' compensation death benefits, social security, probate, adoption and health care, plus their impact the diversity of today's family units are simplified for the reader. Polikoff wades through legislation and legalese with style and substance, plus a touch of flair. Impeccably researched, the book offers an evocative read that takes in the full breadth of the issues affecting marriages and avoids pedantry while remaining persuasive.

I'd be curious to know what my readers are reading and planning to read in the near future.

Frustration at the Bookstore

I've not been having very good luck recently when it comes to shopping for books.

I went into the bookstore yesterday looking for a few specific books. One of the books was the second of a Star Trek trilogy and had been recently released on the 29th of April. I'd bought the first book of the trilogy in this store the day it was released, so I was surprised to see that they didn't have the book.

When I went to the front desk, they looked it up for me. They found the book on their database with a note saying that the store wouldn't be carrying that book.

WTF? Why on Earth would a bookstore carry the first book of a trilogy, then decide not to carry the other two. If they weren't going to carry all three, then there was no point in stocking the first one. And it's Star Trek; it's not as if the books won't sell.

I was also looking for the paperback release of another series of books, which again, they didn't have.

I ended up leaving the store empty handed and irritated.

My town has only one mega bookstore, in this case, Books A Million. I've noticed that they're carrying far fewer books than previously. The politics and current events section, for example has more books displayed with the front cover showing, rather than shelving them with the spines showing. The only reason to shelve in this manner is to make fewer books fill up the same amount of space.

At the same time, they've recently devoted an entire aisle on both sides to those Japanese longer-length comic books, which has taken space away from other books of a more serious nature. Catering to the lowest common denominator, yet again.

Books A Million has had a monopoly in our town for nearly ten years, as the next closest mega-bookstore is thirty miles away. Thankfully, this monopoly is about to come to an end, as a new Barnes and Noble store is currently under construction in my town. I can only hope that it will not follow the same stocking decisions as Books A Million and I'll be able to find the books I'm looking for without always having to order online.

On a related note, I went to buy a new pair of sneakers today, as I had a fifteen dollars off coupon for the store. I found the shoes I wanted, but none in my size, naturally. I'd checked online to see if that store had the style in my size before driving there, which the website assured me that it did. I guess I could order them online, but shoes are something I like to try on before I buy to make sure the fit is correct and that they're comfortable.

Thoughts?

How Much Money Is Enough?

This past week, Harry Potter author, JK Rowling, has been testifying in court in a suit she brought against a fan, Steve Vander Ark, and publisher RDR Books, for attempting to turn Vander Ark's long-established website, The Harry Potter Lexicon, into print version. The Harry Potter Lexicon is a popular reference site to the popular book series.

Rowling claimed that publication of the lexicon has "gutted" her plans to publish a comprehensive Harry Potter Encyclopedia and that Vander Ark's book would be plagiarism. Vander Ark's publisher contends that the books would fall under a fair use allowable by law for reference books.

I don't buy Rowling's contention. First of all, Vander Ark's Lexicon is simply a handy guide to the Harry Potter world; it only arranges Rowling's own words by topic in encyclopedia form to make it easier for fans to look up things. He doesn't claim that he wrote any of the original material. In other words, he's an arranger, not a composer. Anthony Falzone, the attorney representing the book's publisher, countered that the encyclopedia, meant to be a companion to the books or the films, not only does not diminish the original novels, but actually enhances the enjoyment of them. Falzone said the point of the Lexicon is "to organise and discuss the complicated and very elaborate world of Harry Potter". Indeed, what's the point of buying the Lexicon, if one does not buy the original books first?

Secondly, the Lexicon was not meant to supplant Rowling's planned Encyclopedia and cannot for one simple reason. His Lexicon is limited to material already revealed in the books. Rowling's Encyclopedia, on the other hand, will contain background information not included in the books that will flesh out what has already been written. This information was not included in the novels so that the novels would flow better and for reasons of avoiding excessive verbosity. Rowling's Encyclopedia, above all, will answer all the unanswered questions readers still had after finishing the final novel. Most Harry Potter fans will want a copy of both the Lexicon and the Encyclopedia and, if made to choose, nearly all would choose Rowling's book over Vander Ark's.

Rowling has said "This isn't about money." I don't buy that, either. For one thing, the Lexicon site has been online since 2002 and Rowling never complained about it until Vander Ark planned to turn the site into a book. Warner Bros. had even flown him to the set of the fifth Harry Potter movie and used his lexicon every day during production, without Rowling objecting to his role as a consultant.

Earlier today it was announced that Judge Robert Patterson advised Rowling to settle her dispute with Vander Ark out of court.

Having read the various news articles about this case in the last few days begs the question: How much money is enough? JK Rowling is already the richest woman in the UK, considerably richer than the Queen herself. Her suit against Vander Ark, whose internet Lexicon has only served to help increase popularity of Rowling's books, smacks of petty greed in my view. She'd be much better off if she simply let it go and not fret over any small profit Vander Ark could gain from the publication of the Lexicon, as it could only be a paltry sum compared to her fortune.

This is just my opinion and your mileage may vary, of course.

A Woman After My Own Heart

While checking my email earlier today, I got an email from the Huffington Post with a list of article links. When I came upon one entitled, "Less Monogamy, More Fun", I immediately clicked. It seemed as if there was someone writing for them who thinks like me.

I know some of you are sick of my posts on the monogamy/libertine thing, but I didn't have anything else to write about today, and I thought my response to this article would make a good post, nonetheless. Feel free to stop reading now if you are sick of the topic.

The author, Suzanne Portnoy, is a woman after my own heart. Portnoy is the author of two books, The Butcher, the Baker, the Candlestick Maker and The Not So Invisible Woman, two erotic memoirs that recount her sexual adventures,

She is 45, divorced five years ago after a monogamous marriage. Single again, she came to the realization that monogamy was no longer for her. "When it comes to relationships, I opt for the plural over the singular, the now over the forever. When I want an orgasm, it's just a phone call away," she said.

Amen. A woman after my own heart, my female counterpart.

I wrote a rather lengthy reponse, which I had to cut down considerably because Huffpost has a 250 word minimum. The entire comment is posted below

I am the author's male counterpart. I'm in her age bracket and I've always lived an openly and unapologetically non-monogamous life. I'm not "polyamorous" in that I don't love everyone I have sex with, nor am I a swinger, as I'm not in an emotionally monogamous marriage and I don't approach my sex life as an organized couples activity. Neither am I a "cheater", as I'm not married, nor do I ever agree to sexual exclusivity with any lover. Rather, as my handle indicates, I'm a libertine, a sexual and emotional free agent, being not socially, physically, or emotionally monogamous.

I do not believe that humans are naturally monogamous and I have no desire to try, preferring to live in harmony with my own nature. My sex/relationship life consists mainly of having several "friends with benefits", along with the occasional one-night stand. From time to time, I have deeper emotional relationships,

I like the freedom to come and go as I please and it's easier for me to avoid sexual ruts, which tend to be created by excessive familiarity; the same old, same old, with the same old person. As one author put it, I don't do well, "mating in captivity".

There are quite a few other women like her,out there -- I've slept with quite a few of them. They're not wanting to put in the time and emotional effort into a committed monogamous relationship for many valid reasons. Some have recently divorced or broken up from long term relationships and don't want to jump into a new one -- but still have sexual needs. Others have busy careers that are the main focus of their lives -- but still have sexual needs. Others simply prefer to live alone and maintain their emotional independence -- but still have sexual needs. There's nothing wrong with any of this, as long as those involved are on the same page and accept the nature of the relationship. I've spend my life being the friend with benefits to many such women and will continue to do so as long as I'm able.

Many women are realizing what most men have always known -- that sex and love are not the same thing, nor should they always have to occur together. Sex with love is a fine thing with the right person, but sex without love with agreeable partners can be a mighty fine thing, too.

Naturally, the libertine life isn't for many people -- but neither is the monogamous life. But there's room for both kinds of people (and many other variations in between!) out there.

Live and let live, I say.

New Books For Deep Space Nine Fans

Fans of Deep Space Nine have four new books to look forward to this spring. Three of the books are a trilogy all bearing the subtitle, Star Trek: Terok Nor. These books are a prequel to Deep Space Nine and tell the story of the Cardassian occupation of Bajor before the Federation took over in 2369 and cover the years 2318 to 2369.

The first in the trilogy, Day of the Vipers, 2318-2328, was published last week and I'm reading it now. The other two, Night of the Wolves, 2345-2357 and Dawn of the Eagles, 2360-2369, will follow in monthly intervals. This is a story I'd long wished that would be told and from what I've read of the first book so far, they're doing an excellent job of it.

The fourth book, Fearful Symmetry, picks up the threads of unanswered questions from the third season episode, Second Skin, where Kira discovers that there was a Cardassian spy who had been surgically altered to look like her. The episode ends without revealing what had happened to this Cardassian spy. This book will answer that question. As this was one of my favorite DS9 episodes, I especially look forward to this novel.

Book Review: The Lost Life of Eva Braun

The Lost Life of Eva Braun
by Angela Lambert

Few biographies have been written about the mistress of Nazi leader, Adolf Hitler. Many students of World War II wonder how any woman could have loved Hitler or dismiss her as a shallow bimbo who was just as evil as he was.

This book explores these questions and portrays Braun as an average, unremarkable German woman of her times who was no more evil than the average person.

The author covers Braun's childhood experiences, focusing on the typical cultural attitudes of the time and her father's strict parenting style in particular. These experiences molded her into an impressionable 17 year old who was easily susceptible to the charisma of an older man who had the aura of power about him (his election as Chancellor was four years in the future when they met).

Several chapters deal with how their relationship grew and developed, including their sexual relationship, which was perfectly normal, despite urban legends claiming that Hitler was gay, impotent, or into odd fetishes.

One chapter speculates on what, if anything, Braun knew about the Holocaust, with a follow-up chapter asking what could she have done, even if she'd known. Related to these questions is coverage concerns Hitler's misogyny; how he generally disapproved of women being involved in politics and how political topics were never discussed in mixed gatherings; that most high-ranking Nazi women were deliberately left in the dark about the grisly details about the Holocaust and conduct of the war in general.

The book also explores how she willingly chose to share Hitler's fate, despite those around her, including Hitler, urging her to save herself.

In essence, the book shows her life as representing that of many Germans of the time -- of how millions of average, unremarkable, otherwise moral people could be taken in by someone like Hitler, and continue to do so, living in denial, even after it was obvious he was leading Germany down an evil path.

The author relies heavily on the accounts of those who knew her personally, including one still-living cousin who visited her at Hitler's private home, the Berghof.

Overall, I liked this book, with one quibble: The author includes several short segments comparing Braun's life with that of her mother, a German woman of roughly the same age and background. I understood that the author's purpose was to underline Braun's utter ordinariness of how evil is capable of seducing good people, but these digressions are distracting and the author would have been able to make this point sufficiently without these segments.

I give this book four out of five stars.

Looking Back At the 70s

Recently, I read an article on Alternet that was a review of the book, The Great Funk: Falling Apart and Coming Together (on a Shag Rug) in the Seventies (Farrar Straus Giroux, 2007). In this book, the author, Thomas Hine, blames the culture of the 1970s for most of the woes facing America today. He refers to the 70s as "slum of a decade" in which "the country was running out of promise." In his view, the 70s falls short of the standards set by the world-changing 60s. "The politicians were awful. The economy was awful. The insipid harvest gold and avocado kitchens were awful," Hines says. "Finding your identity was extremely important," he wrote, when "each family member dressed to express" -- with enormous clashing checks and plaids, with star-studded lace-up boots and "fun fur" skirts and factory-embroidered faux batiks."

Most of the commenters disagreed, including me. I said, in part,

I came of age in the late 70s, graduating from HS in 1976.

The 70s were a great time to grow up. When I was in high school, there were no metal detectors nor cops roaming the halls. There were no moronic zero tolerance policies -- teachers still used good old common sense back then. "Helicopter parenting" was almost unknown.

I remember reading that in 1973, one person working full time for the minimum wage could keep three people above the poverty line. Now, the minimum wage won't even keep one person above it.

I remember being able to fill my first car up from dead empty to full on just five dollars. Nowadays, that five dollars won't even bump the gas hand up a notch.

Student loans didn't leave you in six figure debt for decades back then. And you didn't need 15 years of experience and a college degree to get any sort of a decent paying job in those days, either.

No one had ever heard of AIDS in those days -- the worst STD you could get back then could be cleared up by a prompt trip to the doctor.

People were less politically cynical back then. At that time, the ERA seemed like a lead-pipe cinch to pass. The right to choose had been established, with women and minorities making gains everywhere and the gay rights movement was beginning to gather steam.

Up until the late 70s, religious people practiced their religion privately and didn't think they had the right to take over the country to replace our democratic republic with a theocracy. Everyone said "Happy Holidays" and "Season's Greetings" without any Christian whining about being a discriminated-against victim.

And not everyone wore those loud double-knit polyester plaid and checked leisure suits in flourescent bug-guts green. It was mainly older guys with a midlife crisis who tried that crap back then. Most guys my age wore jeans, with t shirts in summer, flannel shirts in winter, with sneakers or engineer boots.

I remember the 70s with much fondness. If I could have my cell phone, computer and internet back then, I might even want to go back there to live.

Those of you old enough to remember, how do you view the 70's?

Nanny State: Book Review

Nanny State: How Food Fascists, Teetotaling Do-Gooders, Priggish Moralists, and other Boneheaded Bureaucrats are Turning America into a Nation of Children
by David Harsanyi

"The free man owns himself. He can damage himself with either eating or drinking; he can ruin himself with gambling. If he does he is certainly a damn fool...but if he may not, he is not a free man any more than a dog"
--G.K. Chesterton

This quote, at the beginning of David Harsanyi's "Nanny State", succinctly sums up exactly what is wrong with the explosion of "nanny laws" in western society.

"Nanny state" actions are policies such as bans on smoking in public places, high taxes on junk food, bans on recreational drug use, gun control, a legal drinking age or legal smoking age that is higher than the age of majority, political correctness, censorship, certain types of regulations concerning consensual sex between adults, zero tolerance policies, and content regulation. Such actions result from the belief that the state or the local government has a duty to protect citizens from their own harmful behaviors, and that the state knows best what constitutes harmful behavior. The author defines the nanny state as, "a place where government takes a hyper-interest in micromanaging the welfare of its citizens, shielding us from our own injurious and irrational behavior."

Harsanyi believes that government acting as in loco parentis is dangerous because, "the more government feels comfortable subverting our right to live as we wish -- while not hurting others -- simply to create a more agreeable society, the state will feel increasingly comfortable sabotaging our rights on all fronts." In other words, "nanny laws" are a dangerous slippery slope.

He also believes that a nannyistic government goes against the intentions that the Founding Fathers had for our government. Harsanyi points out that it specifically subverts the notion of the "pursuit of happiness". He explains that the pursuit of happiness should be "tethered to the pillars of liberty and responsibility"; which gives us the right to be "wrong, dumb, and irresponsible".

Both conservatives and liberals are concerned about "nannyism", though they define what constitutes inappropriate government intrusion differently. Harsanyi, a libertarian, takes a balanced view in that he tars both conservatives and liberals equally with the "nanny" brush.

Harsanyi notes that there has been little protest against the proliferation in the last twenty years ago of such laws and policies and asks the question, "When exactly did you lost your right to be unhealthy, unsafe, immoral, and politically incorrect? What if I want to be fat, drunk, immoral, and intolerably foolish?"

The author states: "The Nanny State will argue that there is no excuse for government to protect a mentally stable citizen from making his or her own choices and that words and ideas like 'freedom' and 'responsibility' must again be injected into any conversation or debate about laws that affect personal behavior."

In the book, Harsanyi devotes chapters to different types of nanny policies: food/obesity policies aka "The Twinkie Fascists", anti-alcohol policies, anti-smoking policies, zero tolerance policies and other school-related nannyism, "family values" nannyism; i.e. those who attempt to legislate personal morality, anti-porn censorship and other anti-sex policies, policies that hamper those who wish to start small businesses, anti-gambling laws, among others. The last chapter deals with how society pays; what the negative fallout results from such paternalism.

I found myself in agreement with nearly all the author had to say, with the exception of his views of laws designed to protect the welfare of animals. I believe that laws are necessary to protect pets and other animals, as they cannot protect themselves from cruel and/or irresponsible humans. Otherwise, this book is a real breath of fresh air in our increasingly busybody, politically correct, and self-righteous society.

I recommend this book to anyone to cares about personal liberty and the rights of competent adults to live however they wish as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others to live differently.