Archive for the ‘Inspirational stuff’ Category
Reflections on Good Friday
Tomorrow is Good Friday, the day Christians observe Jesus’s crucifixion. It can be a very depressing day, partly because the idea of anyone being crucified for any reason is abhorrent, mostly because Jesus is adjudged one of the best people who’ve ever walked the face of the Earth even by most non-Christians. (Of course, Jesus is seen as the Son of God by Christians.) But he died via crucifixion, in agony, despite his goodness/divinity.
Yet for whatever reason, most non-priests would rather speak of Easter than Good Friday. Granted, Easter is a much easier holiday to speak of as it’s a day of celebration, forgiveness, and hope. (I wrote about Easter last year.) It’s a day that should be celebrated. But we also need to consider the importance of the day that preceded Easter — the day made Easter possible. That day is Good Friday, one of the worst days in the history of the world . . . the day the Son of God was “cut down to size” and forced to endure horrible suffering, then death, mostly because the politicians of his time were afraid of him.
Without getting too much into Jesus’s story (that’s for the Bible to tell, not me), I believe the reason we still observe Good Friday is because as a people, we cannot believe that perhaps the best person ever created was treated this terribly. Most religions, aside from Judaism, see Jesus, bare minimum, as a very good man: for example, some Buddhists see Jesus as a bodhisattva — someone who’s delayed his entry into the positive afterlife because he knows people alive on Earth need his help.** Others see Jesus as an important prophet, even if not the very last Son of God; the religions who see Jesus this way include the Church of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) and all branches of the Muslim faith (including my favorite branch, the Sufis).
That the politicians of that time could see Jesus, a very, very good man who helped others and went out of his way to do so, as some sort of threat to themselves still rings true 2,000 years later. That even the Son of God could be treated this way, with such callous cruelty, does not sit well with anyone of any reputable faith.
The good news is, we haven’t forgotten what happened to Jesus, and others like him (many other Christian and non-Christians). And because we haven’t forgotten, such terrible things as crucifixions became less common in the Western World within decades, then nearly extinct within a few hundred years.
Of course, the fact that Jesus was killed in this particular fashion — the most revolting, scary, dishonorable death known to the ancient world — resonated with anyone who heard it as the disgusting, disgraceful act that it was, which might be why crucifixion eventually died out. (Yes, Emperor Constantine I abolished it throughout the Roman Empire in 337 due to his faith in Jesus. But many others were disquieted by it before Constantine took his first breath, otherwise Constantine wouldn’t have been able to outlaw this form of punishment.)
Christians view what Jesus did as transforming the worst imaginable form of death into a sacred thing. Jesus took the pain of the world on his shoulders (and hands, and feet), and was able to largely keep from bitterness. Then, he was cut down from the cross and laid in a tomb.
Jesus died on the cross and is said, by Christians, to have saved everyone else who believes in Him from sin, and that is a weighty message indeed. But to put it in plainer, more secular, terms, we should try not to lose hope no matter how bad things are. Because no matter how bad we think it is, there’s always the possibility something better can happen. Which is why the death, and resurrection, of Jesus Christ should be of interest even to non-Christians.
———
** Please excuse this very rough way of looking at Buddhism; while I know better, I can’t seem to explain it any better than this. My late husband Michael was a Buddhist, and my late best friend, Jeff, admired Buddhism also . . . I’m sure they’d do a better job explaining Buddhist views on Jesus, but I hope this will serve.
2012 US Women’s Figure Skating Championships — Wagner Wins, Czisny Second
Folks, last year I wrote a blog about Alissa Czisny (link is here), and that blog goes double for her performance this year in the 2012 United States Women’s Figure Skating National Championships even though she came in second to Ashley Wagner.
Watching Czisny skate last evening, I was struck again by her elegance across the ice, the perfection of her positioning, her excellent spins, and her gritty determination. Though Czisny fell on her first triple Lutz (her most difficult jump) and turned out of another attempt at the same jump, she otherwise made no obvious mistakes; this is quite difficult to do, because once something goes wrong in a performance, it can be difficult to hold it together.
I applaud her determination and persistence; coming in second to Ashley Wagner (who skated by far the best program of the night, with six clean triple jumps) is not a defeat. And as Czisny said herself to NBC Sports reporter Andrea Joyce, sometimes you can learn more from your imperfect programs than your perfect ones, which shows how strong Czisny’s mental perspective is overall.
Czisny should be named to the World Team as she came in fifth last year. Had she come in third at the US Nationals, she’d have had a harder time to get onto the World Team, though it might’ve happened anyway as the US has to know Czisny is their strongest competitor overall, and is by far the US’s best chance to medal at Worlds.**
But keep your eyes on Wagner; she’s a very strong skater with good jumps, good spins, and some nice artistry to her. (She’s friendly with my favorite figure skater, Johnny Weir, too, so that doesn’t hurt her in my eyes, either.) She, too, has an excellent chance to get a medal, providing she hangs on to her composure.
More thoughts about the women’s championships: it was nice to see Caroline Zhang do well and come in fourth, as it’s been years since she skated a clean and effective performance. Zhang skates a bit too slowly for my taste but the way she moves is impeccable and her spins, while slower and less precise than Czisny’s, are probably the best of all the American women aside from Czisny.
Agnes Zawadski, first after the short program, fell into third place. Zawadski is only seventeen years old, so she has plenty of time to compete among the best in the United States, and eventually, the world. I really enjoyed her short program and see big things ahead for her if she can only get a handle on her nerves.
Otherwise, I felt sorry for Mirai Nagasu; she came in seventh, and had a wildly inconsistent performance. I think Nagasu needs to speak with Czisny once this season is over, because Czisny is the skater who’s most likely to understand what Nagasu has been going through.
See, once upon a time, Czisny was not a model of consistency, either, partly due to a lack of good jump techniques with the triple jumps. But she’s worked through that and has come out more confident, more dedicated and with everything you could ever want in a figure skater on the other side. Maybe Nagasu can do the same thing down the road if she just learns to trust herself and her ability.
Here’s hoping.
———-
** UPDATE: Czisny was indeed named to the World Team along with Wagner. Congratulations!
Life, the Universe, and the Unexpected
Sometimes, life throws you something you really didn’t expect.
Take my good friend Jeff, for example. About a month ago, he felt ill but had no idea what was going on; he was taken to the hospital, where he was found to have a massive infection. He nearly died, as he had to have open-heart surgery due to the infection being too well-rooted in his heart (the antibiotics started to kill it everywhere else, but not in his heart); at the age of only forty-seven, he came way too close to death.
Fortunately, he has survived that. And he sounds like he’s on the mend, though the road back from this is likely to be a long and difficult one. But I have hope that he will fully recover, as his mind, voice, and most of his memories are intact. (More about this below.)
A health crisis like this was completely unexpected — who would ever think something like this would happen? And having gone through something like this, except worse, with my late husband’s Michael’s sudden passing seven years ago didn’t make this any easier from my perspective; I really wanted to be there for Jeff as I care very much about him, I wasn’t able to get there (he lives several states away), and he nearly died.
I’m very glad he survived. (This is an extremely basic way to put it, of course, and I wish I had a better one. But sometimes, the plainest words speak best.) I will do whatever I can to help him in the difficult journey that lies ahead . . . wishing I had better words than this to explain what’s going on, but that’s the best I can do.
Jeff’s near-brush with death has shaken my own faith rather badly. I realize that in no valid religion or spiritual practice will it ever say that good people should survive such terrible things; Michael didn’t survive, though he fought harder than anyone I’ve ever seen to do so, and he was by far the best person I have ever known. (I’m sure he went to the Good Place (TM), too, or wherever it is wonderful people go after this life ends.) But for Jeff to first suffer the vagaries of this horrible economy, then have this happen to him and me having no way to get to him to even try to help, seems to add insult to injury. (Not to me. To my friend.) And that he’s going to have to work like the dickens just to get back to where he was . . . well, that he has the chance to do so is what I’d prayed for, so I’m glad of that. But it seems . . . unjust, at best.
Of course, no one ever promised that life would be fair, even to good people like my friend. But does life have to be this unfair?
I know, I know. We don’t have all the answers. Sometimes we can’t even ask the right questions. Being able to persevere is what makes the difference, to my mind, between a successful person and an unsuccessful one. And I know Jeff will persevere, because I view him as a successful person (I always have), no matter what’s going on all around him externally.
Jeff’s mind has returned to him, thankfully, but not all of his memories have. I’m happy he remembered I am a saxophonist; when I told him that I’ve been playing, and am now in a symphonic band, he was very congratulatory and he meant it. But he’s forgotten all about his favorite of my unfinished novels, CHANGING FACES — the one I’m working on for NaNo right now — though he remembers the Elfyverse (the completed and looking for a home novel ELFY, the in-progress AN ELFY ABROAD and the prequel, KEISHA’S VOW), which I found out when I mentioned the latter novel.
When I told him that he’s been asking me for the past two-plus years to please finish CHANGING FACES and be done with it, I got no reaction from him; then I explained how long I’ve been working on it, and that I’d written 6000-plus words into chapter 20 and have 600-plus in chapter 21 after it being stalled out for nearly one and a half years. He recognized that as an achievement, and congratulated me on it, but it didn’t really mean much to him because he can’t remember the plotline, at all.
That the main reason I started working on CHANGING FACES as my NaNo project is because I wanted to do something, no matter how tangential, that I felt Jeff would appreciate as my way to honor him and what he was going through. Maybe it sounds silly that this was my motivation for re-opening this MSS, but there it is.
I wanted to write something that I felt Jeff would like to read down the road, when he’s again capable of reading well (right now, he isn’t, and this is a skill he’ll have to work hard to regain). So writing this newest chapter of CHANGING FACES was my way to express to my friend Jeff, without words, “I believe you have a future, and I want you to read this in that future.” But I wasn’t able to explain this well to him tonight. At all. (Though of course I’ll try again tomorrow, providing I’m able to reach him.)
Jeff is a very spiritual person, with a strong grasp of what’s going on in this world; to my mind, he nearly personifies the phrase “down to Earth.” He’s an intelligent, funny, interesting person with a great many gifts and talents, who’s been hampered by a pitiful economy and a less than stellar personal situation that was all of a sudden made much worse due to his health crisis. Jeff is a writer, a Webmaster, and is very hard-working in his own idiosyncratic way; I’m very grateful that he’s doing so much better, and I believe his strong will and deep faith will sustain him over time.
All that being said, I wish this hadn’t happened to him. Because he truly doesn’t deserve it.
Performances, Chaz Bono, and DWTS
This week on “Dancing with the Stars,” it was Broadway Week — meaning every star had to do a ballroom dance of some sort to a Broadway song and also put some “Broadway inflection” into his or her routine. Chaz Bono and his professional partner, Lacey Schwimmer, drew the tango — not an easy thing to dance to a Broadway tune — and the theme to Phantom of the Opera.
Now, I’ve written before about my liking for Chaz Bono before; I believe what he’s doing, in being open about his past gender identity struggles and being the first transsexual contestant ever on DWTS, is a very good and empowering thing. I also think that as a heavier person, he dances well and shows that it’s a complete myth that “big people can’t dance.”
His routine tonight to “Phantom” was a tough one; his partner, Lacey Schwimmer, told him early on that he’d have to “step it up” and do more difficult choreography — that the “super-basic” routines he had learned up until now wouldn’t work. (Note that last week’s samba routine was not all that easy; what I think Schwimmer was referring to was the rhumba routine and some of the routines before that, which were at the most basic level.) I think this was difficult for Bono to hear, but he handled it, learned his routine, and performed it well.
Then came the judges, who were more critical than Bono had anticipated (they were about what Lacey Schwimmer expected, though of course I’m sure she’d hoped for better); they said that the role of the Phantom “did not suit” Bono (both head judge Len Goodman and judge Bruno Tonioli said this pretty much word-for-word, while judge Carrie-Ann Inaba said it in a slightly kinder way, referring to the “challenge” of acting a character that is not your own), that the dance of the tango wasn’t fiery enough or precise enough, and that Bono altogether “lacked the sense of menace” that a dance like this requires (Goodman, again). No mention was made of the fact that Bono danced most of the dance in the half-mask of the Phantom; no mention was made that Bono’s movements were sharper and crisper than they’ve ever been, and that the form of the dance was preserved throughout.
As a performer myself (though not a dancer or actor), I’ve been there. So I have some words for Chaz Bono that I hope he’ll heed tonight: “Mr. Bono, please, do not listen to the harshness of these critics. You have to understand that as a performer, not everyone is going to appreciate what you do, and you can’t do anything about that. You can only control what you can do — which you did, as you danced the best I have ever seen you on the entire season of ‘Dancing with the Stars.'”
Or, in other words — I think the critics, while they’re certainly correct about the forms of the dance and maybe had a point about being more emphatic in your movements (the only way you could possibly have been more “menacing,” it seems to me, behind the Phantom’s half-mask, is to be very direct, cutting, and emphatic), are flat wrong about how you danced.
Look. Your partner, Ms. Schwimmer, is correct about the way the judges will act. This is just what they do; some of it is for effect, because they want to make a better show — and some of it is just how they are overall.
Schwimmer knows this; she’s been dealing with these same judges now for several years. All of her training is meant to help you withstand their criticism; she is an exacting teacher, yes, but also a kind and honest one. She isn’t known for cursing or being upset with her pupils, in the main; she’s known for being able to teach anyone — including Steve-O of “Jackass” fame while he was just “getting clean” after finishing up some rehab for alcohol and drug addiction — to the point that her partners actually learn the dances, rather than just the routines.
Do you know what that means? You’ll remember how to rhumba years from now. You’ll know how to do the cha cha cha. You’ll understand the tango, and be able to do it again once you’re off the show — that’s because she does teach the “super-basics” as well as the flourishes a show like “Dancing” requires, because she wants you to understand the dance as well as perform it.
The upshot of all of this, Mr. Bono, is this — it was very hard for me, as a viewer, to watch your face fall once you’d performed your routine to “Phantom of the Opera.” I didn’t like seeing that, because that made me think that you’ve forgotten the most important person in the equation — you — and are basing your opinion of yourself on what other people think rather than what you think about yourself.
Granted, this can be very tough to do as a performing artist. I have been there (I once had someone criticize my oboe playing who had listened to three hundred clarinets in a solo-ensemble music contest; it was the one and only year I didn’t go to the state contest in high school — I was the only oboist this judge heard all day, too, which made it all the more unfair) and I know how difficult it is.
Here’s another example for you: I once had a saxophone lesson when I was going for my Master’s degree where I asked my professor, “Did I do anything right today?”
His answer was, “Of course! But if I don’t tell you what you did wrong, how will you ever improve?” (Note that I was an “older” Master’s candidate, going for my Master’s past age thirty because I believed in myself and felt I still had a chance to improve my playing and perhaps work in my field. I still believe that if my hands co-operate, I will be able to once again get back to where I should be and I really wish to work in my field, which is performing, teaching, and composing music.)
This is why I have great sympathy for you doing something so far out of your “comfort zone,” because you obviously believe it’s the right thing to do.
I think what Lacey Schwimmer is doing by giving you criticism about how to improve your dancing and your overall performance is meant so you can take the criticism, incorporate it into your performance, and become a better dancer. It certainly is not meant to wound you (even though it hurts, and badly, at the time).
As a performing artist (no matter how long I’ve had to be idle due to my carpal tunnel syndrome and other issues), I know that when fifty people compliment you, but one is highly critical, you tend to remember the one person who was so critical like it’s a burr under your skin. I can only imagine what it must be like to hear yourself be criticized like that by three judges on national TV.
I know that I, as a viewer, saw both improvement and personality in your dance. And I believe that as a performer, you did your job, because you did the very best you possibly could — you lived up to everything your teacher asked of you — in the best way you possibly could do it.
So what I’d like most to tell you is this: keep on dancing, Mr. Bono. You’re doing a fine job; you’ve learned a lot; you’ve hung in there and you’ve done everything in your power to improve and you have, indeed, shown improvement. And while your overall likeability is one of your greatest strengths, do you know what your best strength is? Your perseverance.
So keep on keepin’ on, and non illegitimi carborundum.
———
Oh, one other thing: if I listened to “the critics” regarding my saxophone playing (now that I can’t do as much as before, or at least as quickly as before), I’d not even be making the attempt to play. So yes, improvement must be taken into consideration here — which is why every single week, I’ve voted for Chaz Bono and Lacey Schwimmer and it’s why I plan to keep doing so.
Brewers win game 5 in 10 innings, Advance to NLCS
Game five of the NLDS between the Milwaukee Brewers and Arizona Diamondbacks is over, with the Brewers winning, 3-2, in ten innings. But let me set the scene for you, as this game was even more exciting than the scoring shows.
The Brewers led, 2-1, after Yovani Gallardo had pitched a smart and gutty game through six innings. Both relief pitchers, Takashi Saito and Francisco Rodriguez (K-Rod), pitched well enough in their innings (Saito the 7th, K-Rod the 8th) to keep the game 2-1. The Brewers went into the top of the 9th with Brewers closer John Axford, who hadn’t blown a save since April, brought into the game to close it out.
But sometimes, the best-laid plans of mice and men do not work. Instead, Arizona tied the game at 2-2, though Axford was able to get three outs and preserve the tie (he still got a blown save).
The ninth went by quietly, as only Jerry Hairston, Jr., hit the ball hard (and, unfortunately, right at Gerardo Parra in left field). No runs, no hits, no errors.
The tenth inning rolled around, and Axford was still in there. Axford had only pitched two innings seven times this past year; he usually is a strict one-inning closer, partly because of how successful he’s been. As Axford had not looked all that good in the ninth, I was very concerned — however, Brewers manager Ron Roenicke made the right move to leave Axford in as he breezed through the top of the tenth.
In the bottom of the tenth, J.J. Putz, the D-backs closer, was brought in to pitch to preserve the tie. Craig Counsell went up to bat; he lined out to right field. Carlos Gomez came up, and hit a single to left field. Now Nyjer Morgan stood at the plate, and he’s been a tough clutch hitter for the Brewers all season long; I’m sure D-backs manager Kirk Gibson knew this, but he also knew that Ryan Braun and Prince Fielder (the Brewers #3 and #4 hitters) were up after Morgan and so Gibson elected to take his chances with Morgan.
At this point, Gomez stole second base, but was unable to take third on a wild pitch by Putz.
Pitch after pitch went by; finally, Morgan got a pitch to hit and roped a single into center. Gomez is the fastest man on the team, so I knew if anyone could score from second base, Gomez could do it. And Gomez did it — he scored easily — which means the Brewers won, 3-2, and will advance to the National League Championship Series against the winner of the St. Louis Cardinals-Philadelphia Phillies matchup, which is currently in progress. If the Cardinals win that game, the Brewers will have home field advantage in the next round of the playoffs; if the Phillies win, the Brewers will not.
This is the first post-season series the Brewers have won since 1982. Like the ’82 Brewers, it took the ’11 Brewers five games to win the series; unlike the ’82 Brewers, they were ahead, 2-0 (the ’82 Brewers were behind, 0-2, even though they, too, had home field advantage; unlike this series, until game five, every road team had won the game). And in this one, the ’11 Brewers did not win a single road game — but they didn’t have to, either.
Now, the one thing you need to be aware of is that Sam Ryan, reporter for TBS, was on the field right after the Brewers won the game. Morgan dropped a few “f-bombs,” which I would’ve told you were quite predictable — but Ms. Ryan doesn’t seem to understand things like this.
This is the same reporter who didn’t seem to know who in the world Brewers Hall of Famer Robin Yount was when she spoke with him during game 2; Yount was very polite to her, but if I had been Yount, I would’ve pulled her aside and pointed to Yount’s retired number #19, which is prominently displayed at Miller Park (the Brewers’ stadium). I would’ve told her that I was a first-ballot Hall of Famer, too, and one of the few players to ever win Most Valuable Player awards at two different positions, shortstop in 1982, and center field in 1989. And next time, that she should do her homework or stay home and let someone who knows more about baseball get paid.
There are many female baseball reporters who would’ve done a better job than Ms. Ryan did, during game 2 and at the end of game 5; I do blame her for even putting a microphone on Morgan because while I really like Morgan as a player, he’s a high-strung guy who’s been known to lose his cool before.** (Granted, he was on a huge emotional high at this point. But he’s not like Brewers sluggers Ryan Braun, Prince Fielder, Corey Hart or Rickie Weeks; Morgan doesn’t have that level of self-control and everyone should know it unless they’re completely clueless, like Ms. Ryan apparently is.)
Anyway, Axford ends up with the ultimate rarity for a closer — a blown save, and a win. I’m sure he’ll take it, as will all Brewers fans.
What a game. What a finish.
Let’s hope the Brewers have something left for the NLCS, where Zack Greinke will be pitching game 1.
——————-
** Now, does this excuse Morgan for dropping the “f-bombs?” No, not really. It makes it comprehensible, but it certainly isn’t excusable. Morgan should know better.
Persistence is Key
Nothing gets done in this world without one, simple truth: persistence.
Without persistence, we wouldn’t have one of our greatest American Presidents, Abraham Lincoln — admittedly an exalted example — because what most people fail to remember from the 1858 Lincoln-Douglas Debates is that Abraham Lincoln was then a candidate for the United States Senate from Illinois. And he lost, which ultimately was a great thing for the country (how could Abraham Lincoln have become President in 1860 if he’d been a sitting Senator?), yet he couldn’t have known this in 1858.
In the writing field, the career path of Sharon Lee and Steve Miller has already been discussed, extensively, by me, as they are shining examples of what persistence, faith in yourself and genuine talent can do to keep dreams alive.
In the music field, the career of Art Pepper (1925-1982), alto saxophonist, is an insightful example. Pepper had major drug problems, and ended up in prison for over ten years in the 1950s, just as he was starting to make a name for himself. He resumed his career after that ten years only after he met his third, and last, wife, Laurie; some of his best work was recorded between 1975 and 1982, the year of his death. In his autobiography (transcribed by Laurie Pepper), STRAIGHT LIFE, Pepper described the difficulty he had in believing he could still make great music, and credited his wife, Laurie, for her faith and belief in him until the end of his life. (Sometimes, behind every great man really is a great woman.)
And not everyone becomes famous or appreciated his or her lifetime; Charles Ives (1874-1954) is a famous example in music (he was a composer, but was known more for being an insurance executive than as a composer or musician). Ives’s best-known composition, “Variations on America,” features bitonality and polyrhythms, and was far ahead of its time in how melody and harmony were conceptualized. Ives, in general, was at least fifty years ahead of his time in how he conceptualized harmony and melody. (This is partly why Ives’s music wasn’t much appreciated until he was near death, and afterward.)
Going on with this theme, Emily Dickinson (1830-1886) was barely-known during her lifetime; she’d written thousands of poems, but only a dozen were published during her lifetime, often altered by publishers to “fit the rules of the times.” (Haven’t we all heard this, writers?) She was known for writing poems without titles; for using “slant rhymes,” or close-to rhymes (like “ill” and “shell”); for short sentences, and for unconventional capitalization and punctuation.
All of these examples — every single last one of them — shows the importance of continuing to do whatever the person (or people) in question was good at, because by doing so, that was eventually what caused the breakthrough in every single life. It wasn’t always noticeable at the time — I’m sure Sharon Lee and Steve Miller had no idea their Liaden Universe (TM) books had become so popular before the advent of the Internet (they’ve said so, in other places) — but that was what did it for them.
In other words, PERSISTENCE IS KEY. Because we cannot force a breakthrough; we might not even recognize a small breakthrough when it happens. But we can persist, and keep on going; we can continue to believe in ourselves, and keep up “the good fight,” while refusing to surrender our creativity to anyone for any reason. And being married to a good person — as Sharon Lee is to Steve Miller, as Charles Ives was, to Harmony Twitchell, as Art Pepper was, to Laurie Pepper — can really and truly help.
It is that last quality that I tend to highlight, being fortunate enough to marry the right man for me, Michael B. Caffrey, and I do my best to remember, every day, how much faith and belief he had in me. But all of the other qualities — talent, self-belief, drive, honest ambition, a willingness to “do your thing” regardless of what anyone else thinks about it — are just as important; in some cases, like Emily Dickinson’s, if a person was relying on finding and marrying the right person to propel him or her to greatness, it just wasn’t going to happen.
So I urge you, once again, to keep on trying. Refuse to give up, no matter how long it takes. Give yourself a chance, even if no one else will . . . and do your best to let your dreams take shape.
My favorite “comfort books”
After several extremely trying days, I read some of my favorite “comfort books” in order to feel better and be able to keep going. And that got me thinking about what, exactly, is a “comfort book?”
To my mind, a “comfort book” is one that will give you a positive feeling time and time again. It’s a book that gets your mind off your troubles, or at least diverts you from them somewhat. And it’s a book that you tend to admire for some reason — maybe due to how well the writer in question uses language, maybe because the characters “speak” to you, maybe because it has a bright and lively feel to it, or maybe just because these characters have survived something terrible but have lived to tell the tale.
These books all inspire me to do more, be more, and to keep trying, no matter how hard it gets and no matter how long it takes. Though the plotlines are disparate, and the situations all over the map, they all have in common one thing — they reach me, no matter how awful I feel, and no matter what sort of chaos is going on all around me.
So in no particular order, here are my favorite books that I turn to again and again when I’m feeling the most down and out:
MIRROR DANCE, Lois McMaster Bujold — Mark Vorkosigan’s story goes from anti-hero to full-fledged hero, has huge peaks and miserable valleys, and contains some of the best writing of Ms. Bujold’s career to date.
CORDELIA’S HONOR (omnibus of SHARDS OF HONOR and BARRAYAR), Bujold — Cordelia Naismith Vorkosigan’s story is humane, interesting, revealing, and engaging. Cordelia makes her own life her own way, yet realizes she’s as fragile down-deep as anyone else. Finding a mate as extraordinary as she is in Aral Vorkosigan is half the fun — watching what they accomplish together is the rest. This is my favorite of all Ms. Bujold’s novels/novel compilations; it also was my late husband Michael’s favorite work by Bujold.
Poul Anderson, the “Dominic Flandry” series (two outstanding novels in this series are A KNIGHT OF GHOSTS AND SHADOWS and A STONE IN HEAVEN) — Flandry is an interstellar secret agent, a literate and erudite man with impeccable taste who still manages to be a flawed human. He’s also a bon vivant with an alien valet and a romantic heart buried beneath his cynical exterior. If you haven’t read any of these stories yet, you should.
André Norton, FORERUNNER FORAY and ICE CROWN — Note that Miss Norton wrote many, many outstanding novels in the science fiction, fantasy, romance and historical romance fields; these are my two favorites. The former novel has a heroine in Ziantha who goes from unwanted child to highly-trained psychic, albeit in thrall to the latter-day version of the Mafia; how she breaks free and finds friends and companions is well worth the read. The latter features Roane Hume, an unwanted cousin forced to do her uncle’s will on a backward planet that knows nothing of space travel or advanced societies; Roane finds her own inner strength and throws off her shackles while finding the right man for her (more alluded to than delineated, but there), proving that knowledge indeed is power. (Note that André Norton was Michael’s all-time favorite SF&F writer. He had good taste.)
Stephen R. Donaldson — A MAN RIDES THROUGH. This is the second book of the “Mordant’s Need” duology and is a rousing tale of romance, mistaken motivations, political intrigue, and contains an unusual magic system dealing with the shaping and control of various mirrors. The two main protagonists, Terisa and Geraden, go from not knowing anything to being supremely powerful and confident in and of themselves while maintaining their fallible, undeniably human nature in a realistic way that reminded me somewhat of medieval epics (albeit with magic). Excellent book that works on all levels, and as always, Donaldson’s command of language is superb and worth many hours of study.
Rosemary Edghill, TWO OF A KIND and THE SHADOW OF ALBION (the latter written with André Norton) — the first is a hysterically funny Regency romance, the second is an “alternate Regency” with magic. Excellent books.
Mercedes Lackey, BY THE SWORD and Vanyel’s trilogy (MAGIC’S PAWN, MAGIC’S PROMISE, MAGIC’S PRICE) — both emotional and well-conceived, these books draw you in and don’t let go. Ms. Lackey is one of the most popular novelists in fantasy literature, and it’s easy to understand why.
KRISTIN HANNAH, WHEN LIGHTNING STRIKES — I go back to this book again and again because of the strength of its romance between contemporary woman Alaina “Lainie” Constanza and the outlaw John Killian in 1896; this is a paranormal, time-traveling romance that gets everything right. The characters are engaging though deeply flawed, and have had terrible things happen to them in the past but manage to overcome all difficulties by believing in the power of their love — but taking time to get there, which makes things far more realistic.
Linnea Sinclair, AN ACCIDENTAL GODDESS. I enjoy all of Ms. Sinclair’s work, but it’s the story about psychic priestess Gillaine “Gillie” Davré in the far future (she’s a Raheiran, is also a soldier and member of the Raheiran Special Forces) that always draws me back. Gillie is a complex heroine that, despite her special abilities (of which she has many), still remains a flawed human being. (The Raheirans think of themselves as human. Other types of humanity, such as the Khalarans Gillie works with, tend to think of them as lesser Gods and Goddesses, which discomfits Gillie no end.) Her love story with Khalaran Admiral Rynan “Make it Right” Makarian, a man as complex and interesting as she is, holds my interest time and time again.
Jane Austen, EMMA and MANSFIELD PARK — these are my two favorite novels of Miss Austen’s output, partly because the first is a biting satire and the second a morality play in addition to the “comedy of manners” Miss Austen seemingly could write in her sleep. I appreciate Miss Austen’s work more and more as I get older; her craftsmanship was outstanding and her eye for detail even better. (Note that Jane Austen, like André Norton, was one of Michael’s favorite writers. It was because of Michael’s insistence that I re-read EMMA and realized the fluffy nature of it concealed biting wit and savage satire, then I went on to re-read everything else.)
Finally, there’s the writing team of Sharon Lee and Steve Miller and their entire “Liaden Universe” series. I can’t say enough how much I admire these two writers, how much I appreciate their fine series of books (twelve or so to date), and how much I’m looking forward to GHOST SHIP, the sequel to both SALTATION and I DARE.
These books are all emotionally honest, they get the issues right, they don’t play games with the reader and the way these writers use the English language is superb. I gain more every time I turn to these authors and their books, and I believe you will, too, if you give them a chance.
Barb Caffrey's Blog 