The Year of Living Biblically by A. J. Jacobs is exactly what it claims to be. I mean this statement in a way that goes beyond the simple aptness of the title. Say what you will about the merits of the project, but this is an excellent proposal for a book, and it is aptly executed by Jacobs. The seemingly simple concept is stretched for over 300 pages. After the first chapter or so, the reader pretty much gets the idea–but the book does remain interesting and entertaining for its entirety.

This journal of Jacobs’s experiences and thoughts are relayed in a blog-like format. Each chapter, which corresponds to a month, consists of multiple sections (“posts”), corresponding to the events and reactions of the day. To ensure a complete experience, Jacobs will often set himself specific rules or behaviors to focus on for a set time. I was a big fan of the Blogging the Bible sereis by David Plotz, but there were several aspects of Old Testament law I was completely unaware (for example: I’d somehow managed to remain unaware of both shofar blowing and various bird egg rituals). Jacobs frequency admits his obsessions with his Amazon.com rankings, and the placement of his previous book at airport stores. There is very clearly defined target audience for this work. Jacobs consistently hits the target dead center, leading to the unsurprising popular success of the novel.

I feel a little odd about this. It is generally advisable to review the book you actually read, not the book you wish the author had written. And like I mentioned, Jacobs succeeded in writing an interesting and readable book. But it is clearly aimed at the airplane-reading/book-of-the-month level. But I am an inherently selfish reader, and this book often was not what I wanted it to be. Whenever there is the opportunity to expand in some detail on the historical basis or philosophical implications of some topic, Jacobs consistently demurs. Instead, a witty declaration is offered, and the narrative amiably advances onward. Two examples stand out, but there are many others.

First, the notion of the relationship between the first commandment and strict monotheism. Part of the goal of the project is for Jacobs to “get into the head” of the ancient Israelites. Here is the entire discussion of how many gods there really are (pg 183 of the paperback, Day 154):

Even more exasperating: If I do get to the bedrock, it may be such a strange bedrock that I won’t be able to process it. In Karen Armstrong’s terrific book A History of God, she says that the ancient Israelites weren’t really monotheists. They believed in the existence of many Gods. Hence, the command “You shall have no other Gods before me.” It doesn’t say “You shall have no other Gods at all.”

Could I ever hope to get into the skull of an ancient Israelite who beleved in several gods? Do I want to?

End chapter. End thought. That’s as deep as we go on this point.

A second example: just who are the Samaritans and what is their religion? Pg 219 (Day 204):

On the cab ride back to the hotel, my mind keeps coming back to the Samaritan Bible. So similar, but so different, too. What if history had taken a left turn? What if the Samaritan Torah had become the standard, and millions of Semitic faithful flooded to Mount Gerizim every year to sacrifice lams, except for a few hundred people called hte Jews, who worshiped at an obscure site known as the Western Wall?

On these points Jacobs does offer some more details in a the appendix. But I would have preferred some more elaboration on the importance of historical contingency in what we now think of as the sacred. That seems like a relevant discussion if one wants to really get a grasp on religion and society.

I would have enjoyed a more fleshed out discussion of points such as these. But, then, those are the types of issues I’d find myself grappling with in such a project. Perhaps Jacobs simply had different concerns. Or, maybe he simply (and probably correctly), had a keener sense for what the audience really wanted.

I’ll come right out and say it. This book was pretty much incoherent. The author, Mr. De Bona, Jr., often confuses laws of the physical universe with tenets of philosophy or psychology that simply cannot be applied in that way. Here’s a sample:

The law of inertia ranks high in importance when used to justify the beliefs of the atheist. The law of inertia is the prime factor governing the continuance of all functions of life. It explains in a natural way why matter tends to continue doing in the future what it is doing at present. It explains why man wants to continue his life in another everlasting world.

Granted, this is quite funny when you read it because it is so obvious that the reasoning is (generously) faulty.

The book contains an entire chapter focusing on how the brain works without commenting on atheism and another chapter on bible contradictions that looks like it was copied from a website. In fact, I was baffled by the book’s subtitle as the only mention of “Geology” that I could find was a reference to carbon dating in one sentence of the first chapter of the book.

The final paragraph of the chapter called “Conclusions” ends with:

Most religious people believe that there is a soul separate from the material body that transcends the body after death. Atheistic belief is that the body functions only with the matter it contains. There is no separate soul. There is no life after death. The purpose of life is to achieve happiness through accomplishment here on Earth.

It might seem like just a poorly edited paragraph, but it is even worse because the subject of this paragraph neither follows from the rest of the chapter, nor is it ever mentioned in the entirety of the book.

When it comes right down to it, this was the worst book I have read about atheism. Ever. At least when a religious author writes to denigrate atheism they are usually coherent (even if the logic is often flawed). Mr. De Bona should give up this kind of writing immediately.

I rate this book as a half star for two reasons.

1. It was mildly entertaining because it was so bad (Think Army of Darkness).
2. If I gave it zero stars it could have been confused with five stars and I couldn’t stand the thought of that.

Rating:

If you were to sit down in a bar filled with more than 20 different Black humanist men and women and ask each one of them to tell you their life story, this book might be the result. The authors candidly relate their experiences with religion and how they have come to the humanist perspective.
For many around the globe, religion is a backdrop that influences every part life. This is even truer for many people of African descent who have had to struggle with being atheists and freethinkers in a world of theists.
Although they are a diverse crowd, each author has their own piece of wisdom to share. Some are just starting down the path of humanism, while others have been free from religion their entire lives. Some have come to be humanists by embracing reason and becoming convinced that there can be no gods while others have become disenchanted with religious institutions and discouraged by the ineffectiveness of prayer.

Rating:
The essays in the book range from confused to enlightening with the majority being on the confused side of the scale. I was hoping for a book that focused more on the interaction between the both the Humanist and the Black side of the picture, but many of the essays feel more like they have been written by Humanists who just happen to be Black.
That said, the few authors that really shine (Seattle Atheists’ own Pat Inniss among them) make this book worthwhile.

Edited by: Ayn Rand, 173 pages
Reviewed by: Marcus Dunavan

Ah yes…Ayn Rand. What is there to say?
Ms. Rand and Mr. Brenden are definitely true to form in this quick series on essays about the objectivist philosophy. Not only are they redefining words to get a rise out of the reader, but they make logical jumps that are not justifiable. Among the odder idealistic ideas you will find in this book:
In bowing down to rationalism as god Rand makes many statements like the following which are clearly false due to the great number of counter-examples.
“Happiness is a state of non-contradictory joy … Happiness is possible only to a rational man, the man who desires nothing but rational goals, seeks nothing but rational values and finds his joy in nothing but rational actions.”
George Bush looks pretty happy to me…
Ms. Rand rants for pages about how horrible “sacrifice” is and how we should never sacrifice one thing for something less valuable. The whole time she ignores the definition of sacrifice which is to give up something of high value for something of even greater value.
Nathan Brenden and Ms. Rand both ascribe homosexuality to failings of an individual’s rationality.
Finally whole chapters are devoted to why we need unfettered capitalism. There are no mention made of classic problems that have plagued this idea such as the tragedy of the commons or the problems of collective action.

Rating:
Despite all the poorly argued essays, there are a few of real worth. Rand is at her best when discussing the true roles of government which she says is to enforce agreements between people, protect them from other people, and protect them from the government. If you just have time to skim, read the “Man’s Rights”, “The Nature of Government”, and “Government Financing in a Free Society” and you won’t be disappointed.

Most people by now have heard the controversy surrounding James Frey’s memoir “A Million Little Pieces.” Frey has been accused of embellishing or flat out fabricating the facts of his addiction and subsequent recovery. Fabricated or not, “A Million Little Pieces” remains an honest examination of addiction, relationships, and the beginnings of sobriety.

The story opens with Frey waking on plane, a hole in his cheek and his four front teeth missing. Questioning the attendant, he discovers he is on his way to Chicago where his parents are waiting to check him into rehab. He is a major addict, having consumed any and every drug at his disposal, committing various crimes and destroying personal relationships. Soon after checking into rehab, Frey begins his inevitable indoctrination into the world of 12-step programs. He is told by counselors and patients alike that he will never maintain his sobriety without the 12-steps. But Frey is an atheist and therefore will never get past the 2nd step (Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.) Instead, he latches onto another philosophy to help him through the difficult path to recovery.

Both atheism and taking personal responsibility for one’s actions regardless circumstances are the main themes of “A Million Little Pieces.” When confronted by his family, Frey refuses to blame anyone but himself for his addiction and his actions. While most stories about addiction insist that the only way to get clean and sober and stay clean and sober is by finding the root of your problems (usually blaming a dysfunctional childhood full of abuse, addiction, and mental illnesses) and then giving up your will to a higher power in order to reach and maintain sobriety, Frey never succumbs to this cliché. He never gives up his will to anyone or anything, instead relying on his inner strength.

When I first read “A Million Little Pieces”, readers could assume that the story was a true memoir, to the best recollection of the author. There were parts that I found difficult to believe, including an excruciating trip to the dentist without the use of anesthetic. While the revelation that “A Million Little Pieces” is in part, or possibly in whole, fiction, this doesn’t take away from the power of this story, and may in fact explain why James Frey isn’t dead or in prison.

Although the themes will be of interest to many readers, Frey’s writing style may not appeal to all. At the beginning of the book, most paragraphs are short, consisting of one or two words. This reflects Frey’s frame of mind at the time. The paragraphs get longer, but there is a lack of quotation marks to indicate dialogue.Addiction is complicated and recovery doubly so. I admire Frey’s assertion that one can achieve sobriety without the crutch of a higher power. It was refreshing to read a story about addiction that doesn’t dwell on blaming the addict’s parents or childhood for the addiction. It’s definitely not a warm and fuzzy book with a tidy happy ending, but it will leave you thinking about addiction in a way that many refuse to consider.

Rating: