code name verity: definitely a book review

In a world where young adult books and media are filled with romance, angst and sex, I was in search of an "easy" read to kickstart my fiction reading for 52x52, and I wisely approached my good friend Anna for a recommendation to help me avoid being dragged into another Twilight experience. Somehow in my teen years I skipped right over the young adult fiction section of our library in favor of high fantasy and historical adult fiction, with the exception of that unfortunate saga, and I am wary of wandering in that direction without assistance. True to form, Anna was most helpful - I was given my choice of seven books, each with its own unique recommendations and warnings. Being in a thoughtful mood, I gamely selected the volume associated with "beautiful friendship" and "deep emotional trauma." It was that, and so much more.

Elizabeth Wein's code name verity is the first person narrative of a British intelligence officer caught in German-occupied France in the throes of WWII. Knowing that a bullet to the head is the most likely end to her time with the Gestapo, and in order to avoid (or at least lessen) the torture inflicted on her, she agrees to write down everything she knows of the British War Effort, although not quite in the way her antagonists might expect. Doing justice to the literary traditions she loves, the story she weaves is full to overflowing with love, joy, sorrow, and pain... and a deep, abiding friendship that comes more fully to life with each successive page.

If I tell you any more, I will have said far too much. The first reason I loved this book was because it gave me new insight into the European arena of World War II, in part because it was a woman's perspective, but also because of its attention to geography. In this book, as in the war, more than winning and losing are at stake; the enemy threatens the very things that make us human, and casts a pall over the glory and beauty of the country it invaded first: Germany.

Anna was right - emotional trauma is the best way to describe the experience, but not in a depressing way. Wein's writing is open and honest; her characters' personality and pain are intertwined on the page, and are a reflection of the hope and pain combined in the allied forces whose job it was to fight the Nazi regime. And all of it is made possible through the breathtakingly poignant story of two girls who had the sense to realize that they had met their best friend.

And they make a sensational team.

*****

As an aside, I hope I don't insult anyone by saying that I wish Suzanne Collins had given her brilliant idea for the Hunger Games books to Elizabeth Wein, because code name verity accomplished everything that the Hunger Games promised but failed to deliver in terms of emotional impact, character development, and cultural critique.

The Life of the Beloved: A Book Review (of sorts)

I've been saying over and over to myself, "If an election is the end of the conversation, you're doing it wrong." Now that there have been a few days to absorb the fallout of our most recent election, I wonder what I should put my hand to next; I have many opinions about said fallout, but I think you'll agree with me when I say that I want to wait until some of the right-wingers have simmered down a bit.

To continue the conversation, then, I suppose I will turn inward. I recently joined a very secret society whose goal is to have all of its members read at least 52 books in 52 weeks. It is called 52in52 and... I guess it's not so secret anymore. No matter, you'll probably hear a lot about it this year. My first choice for this challenge was Life of the Beloved by Henri Nouwen, and although it is brief (119 pages) it has really given me a lot to think about.

What He Said

Nouwen had a friend who asked him to write something about spirituality that would speak to his "secular" friends in New York City. The preface and the conclusion tell the story of their friendship, and everything between is written in a very personal tone - the book is more like a letter than a manuscript, and that very thing makes it difficult to breeze through. You don't just skim a book when the author seems to be speaking directly to you, telling you that you are Beloved.

That word - Beloved - is the way Nouwen describes the entire human experience. He says that we must first realize that we are Beloved, and we spend too much time listening to voices that tell us we must earn Belovedness. Second, we are in the process of becoming Beloved; our life experience is completed by being "taken, blessed, broken and given," being sensitive to our Belovedness and realizing that we never have to compete for value and love. Finally, living as the Beloved, we have the joy of knowing that being Beloved is not a "spiritual" thing, it is an identity that we can embrace and a promise for the future, when there will be no more lying voices telling us we are worthless or cursed.

Some Reflection

I definitely recommend this book to anyone, anytime. If you read the preface and epilogue you find that  Nouwen's friend liked the book, but didn't think that it was exactly what he and his secular friends needed because it assumed certain things about reality that they were unwilling to accept. From my perspective, however, it was exactly what I need to hear and what I want my friends and students to hear. You are Beloved. Everything else in the world feeds you lies, but this one thing cannot be changed, even if you choose to forget it: You are Beloved, and there are incredibly practical steps that you can take toward recognizing and accepting that Belovedness.

It was kind of a big deal to me, because I tend to accept what other people say. I spend a lot of time listening and reflecting, trying to understand why and how people and things work; this may surprise some of you, but I do this more than I talk. I am quick to assume that the next person knows better than I do, which looks a lot like humility and is rather healthy in most conversations.

Sometimes that compliance isn't so healthy, however. After 20-some years, I know exactly what it feels like to hear my failures and others' criticisms sneak up on me and whisper in my ear that if I don't make the grade, I am a bad student; if I'm not around, my friends will forget me; if I'm not interesting, no one will care. This book challenges this way of thinking at its core and begs me - and you, if you read it - to remember:

"These feelings, strong as they may be, are not telling me the truth about myself. The truth, even though I cannot feel it right no, is that I am the chosen child of God, precious in God's eyes, called the Beloved from all eternity and held safe in an everlasting embrace." (49)

I feel bereft, having 'finished' this book without experiencing all of the profound change it recommends. Life does not afford the time to dwell on every word, but having been read, these words are going to stay with me. Read it, and I pray they will do the same for you.

Who am I voting for?

Since I went ahead and said that it's okay to ask other people who they are voting for, I have been encouraged to put forth my own two cents. That's the problem with asking questions, isn't it? When I answer you may discover that I am more ignorant and unlikeable than you originally thought. So I'll start you off easy: tomorrow I will not vote for Mitt Romney; I will also not vote for Barack Obama.

Now that you've judged, if you're still with me, here are some of my reasons.

In the interest of fairness and honesty, I am conservative and unlikely to vote for Barack Obama. I've heard a lot of interesting arguments for the President, but it takes a lot more than hope for change to bring me around to that way of thinking (primarily the Keynesian way of thinking). So, the question for me has become, do I vote for a "conservative" candidate who is electable, but in whom I may not necessarily have any confidence? To be completely honest, I came close to choosing not to vote this year, because neither of my "options" seem optimal.

But wait. Why is it that I have only two choices? As Americans we expect - sometimes demand - more options than that when we're shopping for milk and bread; what happened to our enthusiasm for the democratic process? No, don't answer that, I'm sure to be depressed. What my complaint really comes down to is the fact that I don't like having only two parties because they are so polarized that other voices are rarely heard, and maybe you agree that it's just not healthy. Sure, there are a lot of crazies out there that have been weeded out by the parties... but I'm sure you can agree that quite a few lunatics have managed to slip through in the past.

My father isn't thrilled with my current decision-making process. You probably won't be either. But tomorrow I'm not necessarily casting a vote for the president, I am casting a vote for the process: I am voting libertarian. Not because I think he can win, or even because I agree with all things libertarian, but because I want more options. I want honest discussions. I want the opportunity of a voice that is more than a straight party vote.

As I write, I realize that this seems ridiculous. The presidency is such an important thing - why would I use that vote to make a statement? Quite simply, because I don't think there is any other way for me to make a statement. And before you tell me it's impossible... according to Gary Johnson, if 5% of America made this choice, the third party would have equal access to the ballot and to federal funding. Think about that.

So many other things I would like to say, but I need to leave it now and look for a Higher Ed article. Happy Voting.

Who are you voting for? Some conversational advice

I will add to my previous comments about political conversations that this way of talking and thinking is very hard. I wrote that post on a happy afternoon after a long conversation with people whose thought processes are similar to my own, although their conclusions differ wildly. I am quite aware that this is not always the case, and that there are people who make these conversations painful no matter how hard you try. I name no names.

I don't want to seem naive on this point; I interact with enough people every day, even on a small campus, that I know how difficult it is to have hard conversations graciously when the other person seems dead set against that very thing. Even when they are on board with your approach, basic cultural and vocabulary differences sometimes make meaningful conversation practically impossible. So here are a few quick tips on talking with people who disagree with you on politics - or any other sensitive topic:

1. Remember humanity
I do mean that you should remember that you are human and they are human, and for that very reason you will both be wrong about something. However, I also mean that everyone should remember that our conversations have implications for the rest of humanity, for the great questions of life and death, poverty and wealth. If you are in a position to talk about these things, you are probably in a position to do something about them. It's really not about you at all.

2. Benefit of the doubt
I tend to think that I am better at this than your average grad student - why do we immediately assume that because someone believes x, they will also affirm r, e and m? Just because someone thinks differently does not mean that they have sold their souls or that they would affirm the agenda of a totalitarian regime. As you can see, these other letters simply do not follow, except in the word extreme.* 

3. Practice
This may seem callous of me, but at some point conversations have to come down to personal integrity. You're probably not going to convince "the other guy," whoever they are, that you are right and their entire cognitive framework is skewed, unless you have unwittingly stumbled on a great work of the Holy Spirit. Which is possible. In most cases, however, you can talk until you're blue in the face only to discover that they weren't listening to you at all, but instead assuming that you affirm r, e and m as well as x. So do this instead of asphyxiating: get in the habit of communicating what you want to say clearly, concisely, and respectfully. Even if that person never gets it, perhaps the practice you have in this conversation will help you be more graceful and persuasive in your next encounter with disagreement.

I hope to soon write a response to my own question: who am I voting for? Hopefully it will be done before election day, but as I said... if an election is the end of the conversation, then we're doing it wrong.

*see what I did there?