Book Review | Stonewall: Breaking Out in the Fight for Gay Rights

Rating ⭐⭐⭐⭐

While the book is not without issues, some of which it acknowledges head-on, this is still a good introduction to the Stonewall Inn aimed at teens, and what the riots meant and continue to mean for the LBGTQIA+ community specifically, and society in general.

While we are not nearly as far along as we should be in the acceptance of the community, it was an entirely different world in the summer of 1969. Then, it was still a criminal offense to be gay. A CRIMINAL OFFENSE. You could be fired from your job, go to jail, be diagnosed with a mental illness, and don't forget being disowned by your family (which sadly still happens often today).

As you might imagine, that meant there was relatively little safety for these men and women at the time, many of whom were forced to stay closeted in order to survive. One such place that offered a sense of safety was The Stonewall Inn, though even that was not guaranteed because police raids were common. It would be one such raid in June of 1969 that ignited a revolution that would demand gay rights. This revolution is not over even in 2020, as we face the uncertainty of future Supreme Court appointments which could lead to the overturning of Windsor v. United States - something we can not let happen. It is so important that younger generations understand the battle it has been to come this far to ensure equal rights for all, and something we can not let slip away.

That night, a community decided it had had enough. Enough harassment, enough persecution, enough. The air was thick with tension and the crowd refused to disperse. There would be no fading quietly into the night this time.

This book is by no means an exhaustive history, nor is that its intention. Instead, it serves as a well-written and concise introduction to one of the most important events in the last six decades in the United States. It is easy to read while still be thorough in explaining how and why the riots started. A movement existed at the time, pressing for more rights for the LGBTQIA+ community, but this really kicked things into high gear and forced the nation to look at what was going on, how our own citizens were being hounded and demoralized and ridiculed, beaten, and murdered - all for something they literally had no control over.

The major issue I take with this book, and hence only four stars, is that it largely omits the usual crowd that is forgotten/left behind - the cis women, transgender men and women, and all people of color no matter where they fall on the spectrum. There are so many people who contributed to this fight, and I highly recommend checking out The Book of Pride: LGBTQ Heroes Who Changed the World by Mason Funk. It is a must-read and would greatly fill in the gaps in this book about Stonewall.

(link goes to Goodreads)

The book was incredibly off-balance in this regard and silencing voices within the community does a disservice to everyone. I don't think it was intentional, but it is something we need to be aware of. It may also be that gay white men were the most vocal and visible in that particular moment, I do not know. I need to read more about Stonewall to find out. Even if that is the case, then we must work doubly hard to locate those marginalized within the larger group already marginalized in order to make sure all experiences are seen and heard.

While the main focus of the beginning chapters is Stonewall and its aftermath, the book then moves further along, describing how the activism that came from Stonewall grew into the movement to defeat AIDS, up to where we are today. Even though we as a nation are farther along than some countries in terms of laws and protections, the fight is not over, and likely never will be. But we can continue to push back when we see hate and prejudice rear its ugly head. We do not need to tolerate intolerance, don't let anyone make you think otherwise.

While I would not recommend that this be the only book one reads about Stonewall, I definitely think it is a good place to start, especially for YA readers. There are several books on my TBR geared toward adults that will flesh out and dig deeper on the many complexities of that night, and the following years.

Recommended.

Book Review | Not So Happily Ever After: The Tale of King Ludwig II

Rating: ⭐⭐

When! You! Use! Lots! Of! Exclamation! Points! You! Lose! Credibility! As! A! Historian!

Okay, so they were not that bad, but they were there. A lot.

Look, I love exclamation points as much as the next person and am guilty of using them a lot. Even in work emails, where I always make sure to use the same number or less of exclamation points as the person I am responding to. But the thing about non-fiction, and a story like this in particular, is that the facts speak for themselves. There was plenty of astonishing information contained here, that the exclamation points were not needed to highlight how crucial the info was. It became a silly distraction for a story that deserves to be analyzed and discussed.

I remember hearing of "Mad" King Ludwig in German classes a bit (I took four years in high school and was even German Honor Society President for the last part of senior year. Can't speak a lick of it, except basic phrases. Yet, I can still read some of it decently. Funny how our brains respond to foreign languages) but of course the purpose of said classes were mainly to learn the language. Still, I was always hypnotized by the poster of Neuschwanstein Castle and it remains on my bucket list to this day. I mean seriously, look at it. How can anyone not be drawn in by its breathtaking beauty, both the castle and the surroundings?

Turns out, Ludwig II commissioned the castle, and a slew of others, and got himself into debt over it. He used his own money, but when that ran out he borrowed from his own government against future income coming to him from properties and as you can imagine, that did not go well.

After ruling over twenty years, doctors who never examined Ludwig personally declared him unfit to rule on the grounds that he was crazy (based on notes, letters, and testimonies some from servants), and he was eventually placed under house arrest after a coup by a jerk who wanted the power for himself and had been the de facto ruler of Bavaria for years with Ludwig distancing himself more and more from government life.

Truthfully, Ludwig was eccentric. There is no denying that and we have seen over the course of hundreds of years what marrying your cousin means for the children you produce. Everyone ends up deformed, crazy, or both, to some degree. Some just hide it better than others. Still, based on what I have read here and other research I did as I was reading, I don't think Ludwig was crazy. I do think being a product of hundreds' of years of inbreeding played its part, as did having parents who were purposely hard on their oldest child in order to 'toughen him up' for the day he would eventually rule. I think Ludwig's life might have gone quite differently had he not been the heir. He might have been left to his imagination, the operas he loved so much, and the stories he created in his head. He comes across as a sensitive child and yeah I know child-rearing was a bit different back then, but the impact of treating extra sensitive kids in harsh ways to "toughen them up" rarely goes well.

After Ludwig's house arrest was in place, he would regularly take walks with one of the doctors who had declared him insane. One night in particular the two men would leave the grounds and never return. This is where the story really gets interesting, as no one knows what happened that night that lead to both men being found dead in the lake which they were often seen strolling around. Conspiracies abound, and I do love a good intrigue (if you can guess the movie that line comes from, you get a cookie. It's a great movie!) The men were found in roughly four feet of water, so drowning is not considered a cause of death for Ludwig, as he was a strong swimmer and swam in the lake many times as a youth. An interesting fact observed was that the men's watches had stopped nearly an hour apart, which makes this all the mysterious - especially considering that Ludwig's watch was the one that had stopped first.

So, what happened?

Most people think Ludwig was trying to escape (I think so too, based on facts that would come out in the years following his death). Others think he was assassinated to prevent him from ever returning to power again (those in rural Bavaria especially loved Ludwig and to them he was a hero, a Fairy Tale King who brought them gifts when stopping by their homes to seek shelter on one of his many midnight sleigh rides. Like I said, dude was eccentric). There are reports that several boats were on the lake that night manned by those loyal to the deposed king. Earlier in the day, Ludwig has often been observed looking out the window at the lake, even using a telescope. He'd previously gotten a message to his beloved cousin Sisi, and many think they had hatched an escape plan. This makes sense when it was revealed that Sisi had actually been at the lake with a carriage for several house. While she had made a quick getaway at some point, carriage tracks were discovered near where she was staying. Now, here's where I am unsure about things, because decades later it  claims were made by various people that Ludwig had been shot. At one point a family member claimed the coat they had in their possession was the very coat Ludwig wore the night he died, and there were two bullet holes in it. This family member and her husband later died when their home burned down and they were killed in the fire. The coat, and the watches of the two men for that matter, had long-since disappeared.

One would think, surely the autopsy and investigation would reveal some answers. Except, there was no investigation. Imagine that. Whether he was assassinated, or shot by guards who saw him trying to escape, I do believe he had been shot. But this still does not account for how Dr Gudden would not have died for another hour, when his watch stopped. The theory has been proposed that he had simply forgotten to wind the watch and it stopped at 8 AM. Those close to the doctor did not believe that would have ever happened, as he was always punctual and never forgot a task such as that. The punctuality is what caused the search for Ludwig and the doctor to begin with, as Dr. Gudden had a train to catch that night, but was not back in time to board. 

Another interesting note is that Dr. Gudden had always taught his students that one should never be alone with a "crazy person". Orderlies had always joined the men for their walks, but from a distance. Yet this night in particular, Gudden waved them off, and he set off with Ludwig alone. I don't know what this means, if it was an unfortunate coincidence, or what. He was one of the doctor's who helped secure the "diagnosis" for Ludwig, so why would he potentially be helping him escape? Unless it was an assassination and the doctor was accidentally killed? But again, then how do the time differences make sense?

Basically, it is an endlessly intriguing event and a sad end to a life that was not meant to be lived as a king. But Ludwig had ruled for 22 years as such, and I think he was determined to get his throne back.

If you are new to Ludwig's story, as I still am, I don't think I would recommend this book to start with. It was just kind of silly sometimes. I made tones of notes as I was reading but when I went back to goodreads to look at them, so many were "truncated due to consecutive passage length restrictions". Does any one else have this problem? I try so hard to highlight things shortly, even dividing important paragraphs up into small chunks of two sentences just to avoid this damn truncation and no matter what I do it does not help. However, I was able to salvage a couple quotes to show what I mean about the exclamation points and in general the not-serious tone of the book.

"But wait! This is a book about King Ludwig, not King Otto. That's right. But the fact is, King Ludwig II spent the first few days of his life named Otto" (2%).

"One relative even married her own nephew! With such a heritage, what did the future hold for Ludwig? No doubt his parents were curious" (3%). What is even the purpose of this part? And WHY the exclamation points?!!!!!!!

"A typical day in Ludwig's childhood involved waking at 5:30 and spending an hour on homework before breakfast" (7%). Pretty sure it was not called homework.

"He had very little sense of humor and took life seriously. No joking around for Ludwig!" (8%) WHYYYYYYY THE EXCLAMATION POINTS?!!!!!!!!!!

"Handsome, dark, moody, and brooding, Ludwig had a lot in common with Mr. Rochester (you'll have to read Jane Eyre to understand)" (29%). These asides are as dumb as all the exclamation points!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"...favorite activity involved Ludwig using a map to calculate the distance to a specific destination he wanted to visit (not an easy task in the days before the Internet)" (47%) You mean GPS? Or are you referring to the largely unnecessary (now) MapQuest?!!!!!!!

"Every fairly tale needs a villain, whether it is a witch, an evil stepmother, or perhaps a big bad wolf. Johann Lutz plays the role of the big bad wolf in our story" (69%). This tone is annoying!!!!!!!

"This meant that he had the royal family's tacit approval for taking action against the king!" (69%). OMG STOP!!!!!!!

"This was his worst nightmare come true. He felt buried alive!" (84%). I can't even anymore!!!!

And that is where I will end with the examples because honestly, this review is much longer than I anticipated and enough is enough. When I first picked it up I didn't not pay attention to any categories it was in (I grabbed it for free from Kindle Unlimited). But I quickly assumed by all that nonsense mentioned above that maybe this was geared toward middle/high school? But to me that is also kind of disrespectful of those age groups, almost like talking down to them? I don't know. I checked goodreads first and none of the categories indicated middle grade or high school. On Amazon however, and it does says grades 6-12.

Even knowing the age level as I was reading did not stop these things from annoying me. They just felt so out of place in a non-fiction text. I will definitely be looking for other books on the life and death of Ludwig II and I would encourage you to do the same.

I will also leave you with a final quote to sum up my feelings on the subject and his questionable mental state:

"Cousin Sisi was probably closest to the truth when she declared, 'He is not mad enough to be locked up, but too abnormal to manage comfortably in the world with reasonable people'" (64%).

Paperback Crush: The Totally Radical History of '80s and '90s Teen Fiction

Rating: 2 Stars

I was super excited for this one, but it left me completely underwhelmed. Given my love of books from my childhood and teen years, I was deeply sad when I finished the book because it was not at all what I thought it would be. Seriously, only being able to muster two stars for this book is crushing my soul. But I have to be honest. So, honestly, this book was a huuuuuuge disappointment - and the two stars are generous. The only reason it is even getting two stars if because of the nostalgia it did provide in certain sections.

In the synopsis on Goodreads it says, "A hilarious and nostalgic trip through the history of paperback pre-teen series of the 80s and 90s". I must have missed the humor part, which I suppose is possible, considering the fact that I ended up skimming quite a bit toward the end.

So the book was divided up into sections based on love, friends, family, school, jobs, danger, and terror. The author pulled from many series and authors over and over, and the general structure of the book didn't make a lot of sense to me. I feel like there could have been a better way to discuss such pivotal books (no, I don't mean they're great literature, but be honest, these books made so many kids into readers. That counts for a lot, even if they don't stand up well to the test of time). Maybe if the bigger series could have had their own chapters, or at least their own extensive sections, then the content would not have felt so scattered and all over the place. For example, Sweet Valley was discussed at length, but spread out over those multiple chapters, so the book felt disjointed. There was also not nearly as much a discussion on Fear Street as there should have been, and again I think this is owed to the poorly structured way the book was written. Fear Street really only fits the categories of 'danger' and 'terror', so there was not nearly enough written about the impact of these books - or Goosebumps for the bit younger crowd. And if you're up for a debate, there weren't nearly enough pages devoted to Christopher Pike either. Ah, memories. To go back to the days of simplicity, when the biggest kerfuffle was arguing over who was better, Stine or Pike. Personally, I preferred Stine because I loved all the history that went into Fear Street, like the original trilogy saga. Plus one can't forget the Cheerleaders series, and Fear Street Seniors. Man, I loved those books. Pike kind of freaked me out, his books always felt darker to me, which is a laugh now when I look back at how dark and crazed Stine's books also were. Seriously, a whole group of seniors were dying and no parents thought, "Hmmm, we have multiple really scary incidents and strange, violent deaths here in Shadyside. Maybe we should leave so our kids don't DIE." But that was the beauty of it. It was teen and pre-teen fiction; we ate it up, it didn't always have to make sense.

My number one issue with this entire book is that honestly, it felt at many times like the author didn't even love the books as a kid nearly as much as the title and blurb implied. She was so critical of nearly every book, author, series, whatever. It really was not a fun book to read. What I wanted (and thought I was getting) from this was a trip down memory lane with books that I devoured as a middle school and high school student. I wanted to know more about how they came to be, the authors, etc. Instead, this text is peppered with long and short diatribes lamenting the lack of diversity - a topic so many other reviewers have also commented on. We live in an era very different from the one that produced these books, even though it was only 20-30 years ago. It does not make it okay to exclude diverse casts of characters, but at the same time, nothing about those books is going to change now. So instead of constantly going on and one about how white upper middle class the books were, save the critical analysis for a book that is set up to be just that. In fact that would make an interesting book and I would read it, but this one is practically a bait and switch. It pulled me in with the promise of nostalgia for books I read and reread and reread until they fell apart, but then hit me over the head time and again with how this lack of diversity is awful and we are all bad people for loving these books. You know, when we were kids. Okay, so the author does not go so far as to say we are bad people, but man, it really felt like that was an underlying current sometimes. Luckily, though I no longer read teen and YA books, this problem is being remedied every day. There are a slew of amazing books coming out all the time that include worlds and characters now more reflective of our time and place. Having representation in reading material is so crucial, especially if we want to make sure all kids have the opportunities to learn to love reading.

I did love the cover. it was just about the only thing that was perfect here. If that cover doesn't scream 80s and 90s teen lit, I don't know what does. I really, really love the cover.

So instead of a lighthearted celebration of teen lit from two-three decades ago, we get a book that is critical of the entire genre - and the snark isn't even funny, it's just mean. Being objective, and completely eviscerating are two totally different things. Maybe Moss felt like if she did not complete talk down on some of these books, she would lose some street cred or something, because seriously, I do not know why she chose to write about this topic - though she stated upfront she was a fan. Perhaps the author would have better served her subject if she had taken on the task of discussing why these books became so popular - particularly The Baby-Sitters Club and Sweet Valley - and allllll the spin-offs (not to mention movies and/or television shows).

The final blow for this one, the reason it truly should be no more than a one star rating, was the complete lack of attention to the Baby-Sitters Club series. There was hardly anything at all written about that series, which was arguably bigger than Sweet Valley. It was completely unacceptable that so little ink went into giving that series the same attention that others received. On the other hand, as I think about it, perhaps that is for the best, because maybe had she devoted more attention to it, she would have torn it completely apart just like all the others.

Review Bomb: Pop Culture/Social Media

Time for another review bomb. I am liking this format much better, especially for books that I did not really care for/weren't for me. This time around the topic is, as you probably guessed by the title, about pop culture and social media. Two of the books focus directly on social media, and one is about paparazzi/celebrities. Unfortunately none of the books were that great, but perhaps you will see something in them that I did not.

 2 Stars (for me), 4 Stars (for its actual target audience)

This book was poorly placed. I found it while browsing in the adult non-fiction section of my fave Christian bookstore. Had it been in the teen/young adult section, no problem, I would not have purchased it. But even reading the back did not indicate right away that it was geared toward a younger crowd. I am 35, and while Facebook and I have been together now for thirteen and a half years, I am beyond the age of needing something like this.

That being said, this would be a fantastic book for a youth group to read (and as such, I have given my copy to our youth pastor so he can look over it and use it as he needs it. There are a lot of great discussion questions scattered throughout and plenty of Scripture as well. In looking at it from a parental perspective, it would also be a great one for parents to read WITH their teen. I think it would open up some really honest lines of communication to help these young adults and teens trying to navigate this completely tech-saturated world we now live in. That's something they don't seem to understand, once you put something online, it loves forever. Even if you delete it, it is never really gone.

The author makes another great point that nothing online is really as it appears. One of my pastors also talked about this in a sermon a couple weeks ago - you don't see anyone posting pictures of their dirty kitchens or their perfect little angels turning into demons and having meltdowns in the grocery store. It is a harder concept I think for teens and even young adults to grasp - you see what people want you to see and a lot of time it is just a mirage. The author discusses this and encourages her readers to really think about this and why that social media presence is so important to them.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 3 Stars

For being such a slim volume, there was a lot more research included than I thought there would me. My initial assumption was that this would be another quasi-celeb (Stolz was a contestant on America's Next Top Model, then a host for MTV) memoir about ridiculous social media-related anecdotes. It was that, completely, but not as shallow as I anticipated. Stolz backs up much of what she is saying with research. It was not terrible, and she is a decent writer. It is also a fairly quick read. Her addiction to social media is a little alarming though. Like, slow down. Seriously. On the other hand, it was great that Stolz was so honest about her own addiction to social media and the technology we have at our fingertips. She started the book by trying to go a week without her phone. I don't think I could do that, but not for social media reasons. I only have one single app on my phone - Goodreads. But I need my phone for things like driving directions and talking to my family, as I do not have a land line. I will be the first to admit that I was seriously addicted to Facebook, especially when it first came out (I have had an account since 2005, way back when it was only for specific colleges' students). But now I am a mom and I spend most of my time on Facebook posting pictures of my daughter and I and our various adventures, as our family is two states away and we only get to go home twice a year. I have considered more than once deleting social media accounts, but then that kind of puts the kibosh on my blog. I mainly use Twitter to talk about books I am reading, to interact with authors and fellow bloggers, and harass Dan Jones (which I also use Facebook for). When my laptop was out of commission for a week not too long ago, it was MAGICAL. I could still access Facebook and Twitter on my phone, but I did not really want to. A social media break would do everyone a lot of good every so often - Stolz included!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 2 Stars...and that's being generous

I have to be honest and admit that I went through a celeb-obsessed phase. I would read all the weeklies - US Magazine, In Touch, etc. That time also coincided with my eating disorder so I was also pouring over the pages filled with 'thinspiration' actresses who always seemed to be a kind of thin that I could not attain.

This though...is different. For three years Buhl became the one taking the photos, and getting them sold to those magazines I needed each week. And her thought process is kind of...warped.

The tidbits about the celebs she covered was really interesting and in that aspect this was a perfect summer read that requires no real thought or effort to think - except for the occasional 'Did she really just think/say that?' - and is a quick read. It was when Buhl's personal life began weaving in, as always happens with careers/jobs, and that was less interesting to me. It was obviously important to her own story, and her pregnancy provided an exit from being a paparazzi, but still.

The weirdest thing about this was to me was her perception of the celebs she covered regularly. Celebs and the Paparazzi are not friends; they can't be, based on their actual relationship of one person making gobs of cash off photos of the other. That part came across as really delusional, specifically in her interactions with Katherine Heigle. "Katie" was nice and polite to Buhl, but seriously, they were not friends. It was weird that she even thought that, for the briefest of moments. And don't even get me started on the whole weird thing with Adrian Grenier.

Despite my disdain for people who make a living off invading the privacy of others (I'm talking about the celebs out grocery shopping with their kids, not those tipping off the paparazzi about their location), it was kind of interesting to get a look at the job from the inside. Buhl discusses the tools of the trade and all the tips/tricks she learned on the job. Example: If you are in an elevator with a celeb, don't you dare snap a single picture. Once you're out of the elevator though, the celeb is fair game. Can you imagine how awkward that elevator ride would be if they knew you were to take a zillion pictures of them? Yeesh. She is also kind of contradicting of herself at times. Buhl goes on about all the things a celeb can do in order to diminish their appeal to the paparazzi, but then also discusses the lengths she personally went to in order to get shots of certain celebs who very much liked to keep their private lives private - case in point, Jennifer Aniston. The whole thing with Kate Bosworth was pretty bullshit too. Bosworth is apparently very protective of her privacy, as she has the right to be - she (and any celeb) doesn't owe anyone anything, especially in the comfort of her own home. Yet Buhl recounts a story of spying on Bosworth at home, using binoculars and states, "We relish how infuriated Kate would be, if only she knew." Are you kidding me? You're kind of an awful human for that.