Social Distancing is a Two-Way Street

As coronavirus (COVID-19) sweeps the United States, health experts agree that the best way to slow the transmission of the virus is to stay home.  That way you're not at risk of getting infected, and more important, you're not able to become a link in the infection chain that is spreading the virus to vulnerable people like the elderly or infirm.

But for those of us who have to go to jobs away from home, "social distancing"--remaining about 6 feet away from other people--is the next best thing.  (Of course, this goes hand-in-hand with proper hygiene.  And it's not foolproof, since the virus can hang in the air or sit on surfaces.)  Lots of people are talking about social distancing.  But in my experience over the last couple days, hardly anyone in my area is putting social distancing into practice.

This weekend I sallied forth to do my music work and necessary grocery shopping, determined to stay six feet away from other people.  But everywhere I went, people wouldn't stay six feet from me or from anyone else.  Several different people came up at different times and started talking to me from such a close distance that I could feel their breath on my face.  People from different households were sitting right next to each other or standing shoulder-to-shoulder talking.  People in grocery stores were clustered close together.  People were handing items back and forth.

By this afternoon, I was about ready to give up on ever keeping that six-foot distance.  How in the world can you stay six feet away from people if they won't stay six feet away from you?  Social distancing is a two-way street.  It requires cooperation.

If I have the virus, I don't want to give it to you.  If you have it, I don't want to get it from you (and give it to other people).  This social distancing is in everyone's best interest.  Even if you're not concerned about catching the virus yourself, and even if you're not in close contact with someone elderly or sick that you're trying to protect, think of the people that you could infect farther down the line!  Say you have the virus and unknowingly spread it to another young, healthy person who survives the virus.  That person may end up giving it to an elderly person who dies from it. 

I guess many people around here are thinking they probably don't have the virus.  "Probably" isn't good enough.  Look at the numbers all over the Internet.  The virus is spreading, and sooner or later, it's bound to show up in our communities.  We have a duty to protect the vulnerable among us, starting now.  If we wait until the virus is confirmed in our communities, it may already be too late. 

I don't mean to be a prophet of doom.  Here's my point.  As coronavirus spreads, it is killing people, particularly the elderly and those with health problems.  Don't be a link in the chain of the virus!  Follow the instructions that have been widely circulated by health experts!  Stay home if you can, and if you must go out, actually stay six feet away from other people!  It's the pro-life thing to do.  It's the right thing to do.

When I have to go out and about,  I will do my best to stay six feet from you.  But I can't do that unless you stay six feet away from me.

"Little Women" 2019: A Review

When I saw the trailers for Greta Gerwig's Little Women this past fall, I thought for sure I was going to hate it.  But when it came out, my mom saw it and liked it.  Then some friends invited me to see it with them.  And now I've seen it not once, but twice, and have a lot of opinions on it.  So I'm bringing back this old blog from 2018 to share my thoughts on the movie.  Warning: this post contains spoilers, both for the book Little Women and for this movie.  If you haven't read the book, please go read it now...you're missing out on a classic!

Note: I have seen three other movie versions of Little Women, starring Katharine Hepburn (1933), June Allyson (1949), and Winona Ryder (1994).  A few comparisons to other movies, particularly the 1994 version, will come up in this post.

Flashbacks Everywhere

The biggest thing that sets this version of Little Women apart from other versions is the use of flashbacks throughout the story.  The movie starts with Jo in New York, from the second half of the book, and flashes back to scenes from her childhood.  These flashbacks continue throughout the whole movie.  I found it confusing, even though I know the story of Little Women forwards and backwards.  For people who haven't read the book, these flashbacks could make the plot wholly unintelligible.  I finally discovered a clear way to tell what was flashback and what was the current time: the flashbacks were filmed in yellow light, whereas the non-flashback scenes were filmed in blue light.  

I liked the flashbacks in one way: they made some interesting comparisons between the first half and second half of the book.  This especially helped the Amy and Laurie romance plotline (which I'll get to in a bit).  

Jo March: Saoirse Ronan

Jo's character seemed fairly true to the book.  She was passionate, tomboyish without being over-the-top, and loving towards her family.  I liked her attitude in the scenes where she had to talk to the publisher, Mr. Dashwood, about her writing; she wasn't too brazen but she wouldn't back down.  There were a couple spots where her character did things Jo wouldn't have done in the book.  On Meg's wedding day she pleads with Meg to run away instead of getting married.  Jo in the book would never have done that, no matter what her private feelings were about her sisters getting married.  Also, late in the movie, when Jo is lonely after Beth's death, she writes a letter to Laurie saying she had made a mistake in refusing him and wants him to come back.  Book Jo would never have done that either!

Meg March: Emma Watson

 

I will confess that I had a really hard time imagining Emma Watson as Meg March, both before and during the movie.  I do think that Watson's Meg was sweet, and her character had lots of lines directly out of the book (perhaps more than any other of the sisters).  But she seemed awfully bright and bouncy and young to be Meg. The Megs in the other two movies seemed far more mature.  I could have more easily seen Emma Watson as Amy!  

Beth March: Eliza Scanlen

 

I really liked this Beth.  She was sweet and kind, and her character seemed believably introverted.  The movie included lots of little moments from the book that other movies had left out: Beth "feeding" her old doll Joanna at the table, Beth making embroidered slippers as a thank-you for Mr. Laurence and then going to thank him for the piano, and Beth going to the seaside with Jo to try to get well...there are probably others that I've forgotten.  

Amy March: Florence Pugh

In this movie, both the older Amy and the younger Amy are played by the same actress, Florence Pugh.  The viewer sees her first as older Amy, traveling through Europe with Aunt March.  It's a bit of a shock to see the younger Amy (who is supposed to be 13) played by the same actress!  They did change her hair (she wore braids to be younger Amy and a bun to be older Amy), but with her low voice and mature face it wasn't convincing that she was the other girls' younger sister.  I think her performance as the older Amy was fantastic.  Florence Pugh showed that Amy actually cares about Jo's feelings (which is hard to tell in the 1949 and 1994 versions of Little Women) and did a great job of portraying her character after she's grown from a spoiled child into an admirable young woman.  But a number of her younger Amy scenes seemed unconvincing to me.  Also, she showed so little emotion after burning up Jo's story that I would never have believed she was sorry for it!

Laurie Laurence: Timotheé Chalamet

Laurie has always been my favorite character in Little Women, and I feel strongly about the way he is portrayed.  This Laurie seemed a lot younger (and more Dickensian) than I had expected, but my heart warmed to him almost right away.  He was lively, mischievous, and passionate, and he delivered Laurie's lines wonderfully.  (Also, he was just so adorable!) I liked Christian Bale's portrayal of Laurie in the 1994 version of Little Women, but he always seemed like Bale playing Laurie, not Laurie himself.  Timotheé Chalamet was Laurie.  That being said, there was one spot where Laurie behaved in a way that was out of character: he showed up drunk to a party at which he was supposed to be Amy's escort.  Book Laurie would never behave that way. 

Mrs. March ("Marmee"): Laura Dern

I had conflicting feelings about the casting of Laura Dern as Marmee.  On the one hand, she was kind and portrayed emotion well, and there were a couple great scenes with her giving advice to Jo.  On the other hand, she seemed more like another March sister than their mom.  Unlike the staid, calm Marmee of the book, Laura Dern's Marmee could be found baking bread in the middle of the night and running wildly around with her hair down. (I have more to say about the hairstyles later.)

Aunt March: Meryl Streep

My apologies to Meryl Streep fans: I couldn't stand her as Aunt March.  All this Aunt March wanted was for the March girls to marry rich men, which she said was the only respectable way for women to get money to live on. In Aunt March's view, marriage was an "economic proposition," a phrase that was repeated throughout the movie a number of times to show that life in the 1800's was unfair for women.  The use of Aunt March's character to prove a feminist point wrecked her as a character.  Also, Aunt March in this movie was an ogre with no real affection for her nieces. At Meg's wedding she told her she was ruining her life by marrying a poor man. She offered to take Jo to Europe and then rescinded the invitation without warning. She told poor 14-year-old Amy that she would have to marry a rich man and support the family.  Aunt March in the book is cranky, but nothing like this!

Professor Friedrich Bhaer: Louis Garrel

 This Professor Bhaer seemed like a great match for Jo.  He didn't seem incredibly old, his accent was charming, and his kindness was evident.  Best of all, he didn't back down when Jo got upset after he told her he didn't like her stories.  In the 1994 version of the movie, Professor Bhaer back-pedals and tells Jo she should write what she wants and that his opinion doesn't matter.  In this version, Bhaer tells her bluntly that what she's writing is not good.  He does this at the risk of their friendship, showing that he is a man who values honesty and integrity above anything else.  But after Jo leaves New York without telling why (Beth was ill), Bhaer comes to find her, because even after her harsh words to him he still cares about her.

John Brooke: James Norton

 

James Norton played John Brooke according to the book.  He was a believable tutor for Laurie, a believable suitor for Meg, and a believable soldier and helper for the March family.  Although his character wasn't in a lot of scenes, he did a good job with his part!

I can't find any pictures of Mr. Laurence (played by Chris Cooper) or Mr. March (played by Bob Odenkirk).  Mr. Laurence had some great scenes with Beth, and Mr. March was great in the couple scenes in which he appeared.  I wish we had seen more of both of them.

Relationships

One thing I really liked about this movie was the attention to the Laurie/Amy relationship.  Instead of the romance between Laurie and Amy coming out of nowhere near the end of the movie, it was built up over a long period of time.  It was clear that young Amy had always been fascinated with Laurie, and that the grown-up Amy suited him much better than Jo ever would have.

On the first viewing of the movie, I thought the relationship between Jo and Laurie really needed more airtime.  All the essential Jo/Laurie scenes were there, but I wasn't getting the impression that Laurie liked Jo until he proposed to her.  The second time I saw the movie I noticed that Laurie looked at Jo a lot in other scenes. His interest in Jo was conveyed not by words (as in the book or the 1949 Little Women) but almost entirely by facial expressions.  I would have liked to see Laurie more obviously interested in Jo.

One relationship that could definitely have used some more time was the relationship between Professor Bhaer and Jo.  In this movie, he meets her, learns she's a writer, and sees her from afar enjoying the opera.  He sends her a set of Shakespeare and asks to read her work.  He tells her his feelings about her work, and she leaves angrily.  Other movies (especially the Winona Ryder version) make it clear that Jo and the Professor get to know each other over a space of time.  This movie leaves no time for them to get to know each other before Jo goes back home.  Then Bhaer comes back near the end of the movie ready to propose to Jo.  Why? According to this movie, he barely knows her!

Meg and John Brooke were cute together, although their relationship didn't get much screen time either.  I liked that the scene where Meg buys the too-expensive dress fabric was included in the movie.

Costumes and Hairstyles

Let me rant for a while: I hated the costumes. The costume designer for this movie was Jacqueline Durran (the same woman who designed the out-of-period costumes for the Keira Knightley Pride and Prejudice in 2005 and the live-action Beauty and the Beast in 2017).  Speaking about Little Women, Durran said: "When I first met with Amy Pascal, the producer, and Greta, I got the feeling that while they wanted it to be accurate to the period, they didn't want something that felt too strictly Victorian in a way that meant you couldn't identify with the characters."

With this rationale, Durran felt free to make all sorts of wild clothing choices that departed from 1860's style and from the book.  Jo wore men's pants under her dresses (the pants were obvious when she hitched her long skirt up to her waist to run through a crowd).  Laurie's clothes were a mishmash of styles from the very early 1800's to the 1880's. Marmee was dressed like a "Victorian hippie" (in Durran's words), wearing paisley prints they wouldn't have had at the time and eschewing corsets and the Victorian clothing silhouette.  The characters wore lots of mismatched prints, both at home and out in public.  The whole thing was supposed to show the Marches as rebels against the conventions of the time. 

In the book, although the Marches had a lot of strong ideas about things that were going wrong in their society, they didn't dress in a way that would have seemed scandalous to Victorian minds.  When Meg and Jo are leaving for the dance near the beginning of the book, it's clear that both girls want their clothes to be proper (even Jo acquiesces when Meg tells her it's improper to dance without gloves). Marmee calls after them to make sure they have clean handkerchiefs. Jo laughs that Marmee would say that if they were running away from an earthquake, and Meg replies, "It is one of her aristocratic tastes, and quite proper, for a real lady is always known by neat boots, gloves, and handkerchief." Marmee in the book is careful about appearances and propriety.  In no place is she shown as a hippie, and in no place is it hinted that the Marches dress in a way that others would consider scandalous.  They just aren't rich.  I think the directors and costumer of Little Women dressed the characters not as they are portrayed in the book, but as they wanted to imagine them.

My same complaint applies to the hairstyles.  In this movie, the March girls (especially Jo and sometimes Meg) run wildly around with their hair down in a way that they never would in the book.  It would have been considered extremely improper.  None of the Marches' hairstyles look even remotely Civil War-esque, except some of Aunt March's hairstyles and a couple of Amy's later hairstyles.  When the girls do wear their hair up in the movie, it's parted on the side, and Meg has long 2010's side bangs.  It only takes about two seconds of Google to find that women in the Civil War parted their hair in the middle.  Why did the moviemakers choose to ignore this? I have no idea.


Other Notes

I really liked that at the end of the movie, the whole family was at Plumfield to celebrate Marmee's birthday.  This happened in the book, but it wasn't in any of the other movies.  I loved how it showed all the sisters and in-laws and kids interacting.

The feminist element in the movie was, in my opinion, overdone.  The idea that marriage in the 1800's was unfair to women came up over, and over, and over, until I was heartily sick of it.  Louisa May Alcott didn't say anything like that in Little Women. On the contrary, she had Marmee (the voice of wisdom in her book) say: "To be loved and chosen by a good man is the best and sweetest thing which can happen to a woman."

Overall, I enjoyed this version of Little Women a lot. There were many great scenes that weren't included in any other movie version, and I really liked a lot of the characters.  The things that I didn't like about the movie weren't numerous enough to spoil it for me.  I do recommend that anyone who wants to see this movie see another version of Little Women first, because this movie is such an unconventional take on the story.  For my part, I would like to see it again (although I may wait until it comes out on DVD.)

If any of you have seen the movie and have thoughts on it, I'd love to hear about them in the comments!

 

 

Goodreads: Pros and Cons

I was going to write quite a different post today, but I got sidetracked and went down an Internet rabbit hole, ending up on goodreads.com. And it occurred to me that after using Goodreads since about 2014, I have a number of opinions on it...both good and bad.

Pros

• Goodreads lets you track which books you've read when. This is by far my favorite feature of the website.  Especially when I'm reading a long series of books, I tend to forget which ones I've read. I can't remember whether or not I've read Carry On, Jeeves because I'm getting it confused with Thank you, Jeeves. Goodreads gives me a place to keep track of all that. 
• Goodreads lets you see what your friends are reading. This is very helpful when your friends have similar taste in books. I've discovered so many good books by seeing them on friends' Goodreads updates!
• Goodreads lets you review books easily.  There's a 5-star rating system for those who just want to give a quick impression of whether they liked or disliked the book. (Usually I fall into that category.) But you can also leave as detailed a review as you'd like. When I absolutely love a book and want all my friends to read it, or when I detest a book and want to warn everyone against it, I'm likely to take some time and write a review.
• Goodreads numbers books in order within a series. I hate reading books in a series out of order, so I like this feature a lot!
• Goodreads lets you set your own reading challenge. This is another one of those things that you could do on your own with pencil and paper, but Goodreads makes it really convenient and also tracks whether you're ahead of or behind schedule.

Cons

• Goodreads book recommendations are terrible. I don't know that I have ever read a book that Goodreads has recommended to me. None of them has ever been appealing enough for me to actually read. They say they base their recommendations off the books on people's "read" shelf; I don't know what algorithms and lists they're using to make these recommendations, but they're not working for me. The only way I find new books on Goodreads that I actually want to read is by looking at what my friends are reading.
• The Goodreads blog has an obvious leftist slant. I can't stand to read the Goodreads blog because it seems every other post is advertising books by third-and fourth-wave feminists. When it's not doing that, it's advertising books about gay marriage. 
•  Goodreads can distract people from actually reading books. If I turned all the time I spend on Goodreads into actual reading time, I would surely be farther along in my reading than I am now!

Do you use Goodreads? If so, what are your thoughts about it? Please let me know in the comments!

Movie Review: By Way Of The Stars

Recently my sister and I discovered a six-hour miniseries called By Way of the Stars, which ran from 1992 to 1993. It was produced by Kevin Sullivan, who produced the Anne of Green Gables movies and Road to Avonlea, and it features quite a few of the main actors from Road to Avonlea. On a scale of 1 to 10 (with 1 being absolutely horrible and 10 being the Colin Firth Pride and Prejudice), I would give this movie a 9. Or possibly a 9.5.

The story centers around a boy named Lukas (Zachary Bennett) in 1800's Prussia.  Everything is going well for Lukas until he sees evil Count Otto von Lebrecht (Hannes Jaenicke) murder a man...and Otto realizes Lukas has seen the murder!  In no time Otto frames Lukas's father for stealing and has him clapped in prison. He intends to murder Lukas as well.

Lukas has a plan: to get himself and his father to Canada and far away from Otto.  With the help of a family friend, he helps his father get free from prison.  But the father and son get separated.  Lukas starts off for Canada by himself.  But soon he has a traveling companion--Ursula von Knabig (Gema Zamprogna), Otto's teenage niece, who now knows about the murder and is running away from her uncle.

Lukas and Ursula's trip is filled with dangers...hungry bears, con artists, river rapids, warring Indian tribes, and the indefatigable Otto, to name just a few.  But it's also filled with good moments.  They meet kind people on a wagon train who help them.  Ursula meets a young surveyor named Ben Davis (Michael Mahonen), and a romance begins between the two young people.  Lukas meets a young Cree brave, Black Thunder (Eric Schweig) who is impressed by his courage and wants to help him find his father.  And that's what Lukas wants more than anything in the whole world.

A lot of this movie rides on the acting skills of Zachary Bennett, who plays Lukas.  If he hadn't been so good at his role, the whole story would have flopped.  Lukas has to be mischievous, brave, stubborn, heartbroken, terrified, generous, and overjoyed, and all of these things have to be convincing.  They are convincing.  Lukas makes the watcher care about him and what happens to him and his father.  I cried when Lukas cried and rejoiced with him when he was happy.

The supporting characters in this movie are great, as well.  Lukas's father Karl (Christian Kohlund), a hot-tempered artist with a fierce love for his son and a passion for justice, is a complex character who goes through a lot of growth throughout the story.  Count Otto, so outwardly charming and friendly to those who don't know his dark secret, is a well-done villain.  (I nearly howled every time he appeared again just a couple steps behind Lukas and Ursula.) Ursula is a great sidekick for Lukas, being spunky and determined, and her romance with Ben is adorable.  (I'll admit, it makes me happy that her name is Ursula.  I don't see characters with my name very often.)  There are many other great characters...Lukas's grumpy grandfather, Ursula's saintly mother, the wagon train leader and his wife, the priest at Fort Garry, and a kidnapped girl named White Feather, to name just a few.

One of the things I always look for when I watch a movie is the costuming, and this movie didn't disappoint me!  The costumes of the Prussian nobility and the Prussian lower class look good (I haven't done research to see if they're authentic to the time period, but they could be.)  Lukas's outfits are especially good as he goes from blacksmith's apprentice to horse trainer to boy on a wagon train.  The children's clothes get gradually raggier and dirtier, just enough to be realistic, the more they travel.

The musical score for this movie, done by John Welsman, is also gorgeous. So is the scenery, especially the Western scenery.  I'm not sure if it was really all shot in the wilderness (the only filming location I can find listed is Uxbridge, Ontario), but it looks like it.

Because I like putting faces to names, here are a few pictures of the main characters in By Way of the Stars. 

Lukas (Zachary Bennett)

  

Lukas has a big heart and great courage.  He loves animals, especially horses.  He's always finding himself in trouble!  You may recognize the actor as Felix from Road to Avonlea.

Count Otto von Lebrecht (Hannes Jaenicke)

  

Otto is pure evil...but unfortunately most of the people close to him don't know it!  He's determined to catch Lukas and kill him so Lukas can't tell anybody about the murder he witnessed.

Ursula von Knabig (Gema Zamprogna)

  

Proud of her position as a count's daughter, Ursula starts out as a stuck-up, spoiled girl.  But traveling across the wild West, she comes to see that true worth doesn't come from someone's rank in life; it comes from the way they act.  You may recognize the actress playing Ursula as Felicity from Road to Avonlea.

Karl Bienmann

Lukas's father is an artist, a dreamer, and a fighter for justice.  He goes to the New World to escape Otto and then goes on a long journey to find his missing son.  On the way, he struggles to understand the attitudes of the people in the United States about race following the Civil War.

Ben Davis (Michael Mahonen)

Ben is a young surveyor traveling west.  He's kind, honest, and sacrificial.  He has also fallen head over heels for Ursula von Knabig.  You may recognize the actor playing Ben as Gus Pike from Road to Avonlea.

Francoise (Tantoo Cardinal)

 

 Francoise is the kindly wagon train leader's wife.  She gives out good advice right and left!

Black Thunder (Eric Schweig)

Black Thunder initially distrusts Lukas, but ends up respecting him deeply for his courage.  He works hard to help Lukas and his father find each other.

In summary: This is an exciting, heartwarming movie with great acting and beautiful costumes, music, and scenery.  I recommend it highly!

A note: If you watch this, make sure you get the 6-hour version.  There's an abridged version out there that has been cut down to two hours and leaves out most of the story.  You can find the full version available to rent or buy on Gazebo TV through Sullivan Entertainment's website.  (You can buy a physical DVD from them too, but since the company is in Canada it's pretty expensive for them to ship to the US.)

If you've seen this movie, I'd love to hear your thoughts on it!

 

My Favorite Short Story Collections

As much as I love reading novels, I also really enjoy short stories.  They're especially good when you don't know what to read and don't want to commit to a lengthy work.  Here are a few of my favorite short story collections.  I'd love to hear your favorites in the comments!

The Complete Works of O. Henry

O. Henry's short stories speak eloquently of the pains and joys of the human experience.  His characters deal with familiar themes--love, poverty, misunderstanding, and so forth.  The settings for the stories vary; O. Henry's characters may live in the middle of bustling New York City or the vast plains of the West.  His writing style is humorous with a touch of pathos.  A couple of my favorite O. Henry stories are "The Ransom of Red Chief" (a classic) and "Madam Bo-Peep, Of the Ranches." 

End of the Drive by Louis L'Amour

If you like Westerns, you should try Louis L'Amour's short stories.  He wrote a lot of them, and I haven't been able to read many of his collections yet, but one that I really like is End of the Drive.  It contains seven fantastic short stories and one novella, "Rustler Roundup."  In L'Amour's stories, brave men and women of the Wild West face incredible odds from outlaws, rich men running towns, corrupt judges, and the like.  The suspense in the stories is enough to keep you on the edge of your seat, but at the same time you can read with the comfortable knowledge that in a L'Amour story good will always triumph over evil in the end.

The Complete Father Brown by G. K. Chesterton

I've mentioned these stories before on this blog in my post about fictional detectives.  They're not just mysteries; they're also studies in character.  Father Brown, the hero of the stories, understands human nature through shepherding the people of his parish.  He can solve crimes because he understands the motivations behind the criminals' actions.  The stories are often scary, usually humorous, and full of Catholic wisdom.  Some of my favorites are "The Blue Cross," "The Queer Feet," and "The Flying Stars."

All Creatures Great and Small by James Herriot

 

 

It may be cheating to put this book on here, because All Creatures Great and Small has an ongoing storyline as well as individual stories.  But in general it behaves like a short story collection, so I'm putting it in this list.  Herriot's tales of his life as a veterinarian in the Yorkshire Dales of England are exciting, entertaining, and heartwarming.  (One warning: he does talk about animal diseases and operations in a lot of detail, so if that bothers you you probably don't want to read this book!) If you like this book, you'll enjoy its sequels: All Things Bright and Beautiful, All Things Wise and Wonderful, The Lord God Made Them All, and Every Living Thing.

Lord Peter by Dorothy L. Sayers

 

 

Usually Lord Peter Wimsey mysteries run to hundreds of pages.  This book is the one exception.  Lord Peter's cleverness and wit shine through every one of these short mysteries, which range from mysterious hieroglyphics on tile floors to little boys accused of stealing peaches to murders.  (I just bought this book at a used bookstore a couple weeks ago and can hardly wait to start re-reading it!)

 

 

Why I Love Inter-Library Loan

First of all, I'm sorry for this post being a day late.  Library work and a lot of driving yesterday left me with no time to write blog posts!

I've always loved libraries, ever since I was little.  Starting when I was about five, my parents would take me to the library and keep an eye on me in the children's section while I looked at books.  I would find some great books--(and, admittedly, some duds)--to check out, and for the next day or so it would be nearly impossible for my parents to drag me away from the books to do school or chores.
I suppose my parents must have curated my book selections to some extent, since this was the late 90's and there was plenty of garbage in the children's literature section along with the good books. But the whole experience left me with a deep-seated appreciation for libraries which continued through grade school, high school, and college. 

The only thing that always frustrated me was the limited number of books in any given library.  I wanted more Edith Nesbit books?  Too bad.  I was interested in G.K. Chesterton?  Good luck finding even one book by him in the public library.  Then I discovered inter-library loan and all that changed.

I'm not sure how it works in all the US states, but in Michigan, using a service called MeLCat (Michigan eLibrary Catalog), it's possible to get books from all over the state.  You just have to have a library card from a participating library.  Instead of being limited to the books in your local library, you can now find almost any book you want.  (The only books I've failed to find on inter-library loan, so far, are books that are long out of print.)  Even some big university libraries, like Wayne State's Purdy-Kresge Library, are involved in the inter-library loan program!

There are only a couple downsides to inter-library loan.  One is that books can take a week or two to arrive.  In my opinion, though, it's well worth the wait!  Lately I've been making my way through a lot of P.G. Wodehouse, some Louis L'Amour novels, and some sequels to The Scarlet Pimpernel...none of which are at my local library.  The other downside to inter-library loan is that they usually don't let you check out very many books at a time (I believe five is the limit here in Michigan).  This one is harder for me to work with, but I try to send back my books quickly after finishing them so I'm allowed to check out new ones.

Inter-library loan has expanded my reading horizons greatly.  I no longer walk into my local library and groan about how few books there are there that I would ever want to read.  Nowadays I walk into the library, go straight to the front desk, and pick up the books that have arrived for me from faraway libraries.  It's wonderful.  I don't know who was responsible for starting the inter-library loan program in Michigan, but I would like to shake their hands and thank them.

Poem for the Triduum: "Two Trees"

Short blog post today.  I wrote this poem on Good Friday two years ago, and I thought it was fitting for the Triduum we enter into tonight.

Two Trees

The tree that brought man death

Stood in the garden lush and beautiful,

Untainted by any breath of sorrow,

Risen from the sweet earth

Bursting with the life of God's creation.

And Adam, as yet unfallen,

Master of that garden, having been given

Authority over all other creatures,

A proud lord saw himself

And wished to have the greatness of his God.

So he took the fruit.

And instead of greatness he was given death.

The tree that brought man life

Stood on a bare hill devoid of beauty

And on it hung a Man

Racked with torments, despised by all,

Yet He was in truth the Lord of all creation.