actually, I’m not finished with this book (like many of Deepak’s that I always seem to be reading parts and pieces of) but I did turn it back into the library this time. Although I’ll get it out again soon. Actually, I think the idea has been as important as the actual techniques in the book.

Whatever this book is about, it isn’t about walking the AT. Bryson (despite his protestations at the conclusion) did not walk the AT. The really sad part is that the only worthwhile parts of this book are about he and Katz WALKING the AT. Which they did a LITTLE of. They walked from Springer to Clingman’s, then rented a car to Shenandoah and walked a LITTLE there, then they dropped out of the 100 Mile Wilderness after a day.

And when he writes about walking, he has something to say. Otherwise he gives miniature and mostly wildly inaccurate lectures about murders on the trail, forest pests, Stonewall Jackson, and the like.

On top of that, at first I thought he just was a regular Yankee bigot and didn’t like Southerners but turns out he doesn’t like anyone, at least not from the way he characterizes everyone else as miscreants.

Despite all the reasons I didn’t like this book, it still gets an “it’s ok” rating because he really would be a good writer, and he is when he has something to say.

but she is not a writer. She regurgitates names who were at parties but she never really tells a story. She never captures the essence of any moment except maybe doing acid in San Francisco when she says, wow or something similarly inane. And in the end, she whines and whines about how little money she has while she’s telling of her trips around the world. And she claims, of course, that it was really her that both these men really always loved, which I’m thinking, you know, probably not.

Authentic but not really a great read.

you know, Shirley is interesting, just not that interesting. And especially not in this book.

This is a great great great movie and was in the $5 bin at Wal-Mart so we got it to see again and again and again.

toward the beginning, I was irritated because I could clearly see how this story, the conflict of this story, was going to work out. But I enjoyed the story anyway because Kingsolver is so good with a character.

I really like Newt. I know that is probably not a popular position, but if you will listen to him talk, he really is bright, and he really does have some ideas that are workable. Unfortunately, this book puts Newt’s idea of God first in the solutions. If we just pray in school, and say “under God” in the pledge of allegiance, it will be ok.

Well, Newt, that isn’t it. In fact, it is the whole paradigm of schooling that is flawed. I think you say “God” so much because you’ve screwed up so much in your own life along those lines (marriages, affairs, etc.). Now, I don’t really care that much, but I am saying that those aren’t ideas for real change any more than Obama saying “change” again and again and again makes for anything resembling real change.

What we need is government out of it, and people into it. However, that requires people to live more simply (not just have the bumper stickter) and to actually work and do things like grow their own food. Newts included.

you know it had to be an interesting book. He’s a decent writer although my husband thought the prose stilted and only made it through 1/3 of the book. I was mostly charmed. I think one has to be charmed by people who tell as many of their mistakes as successes.

His weakness is his contempt of the native backwater people, which is mitigated somewhat by his obvious real affection for them.

We have a couple of Seymour’s later reprints on country and homesteading skills, which are valuable resources. I think this was just an early version of those. And I was hoping for more stories because, having read Fat of the Land, I know the man can really tell a story.