The Lost Symbol

Yes, I was one of the millions to read this book within the month it came out. I borrowed it from my mom and read it in less than a week. (If I had a little more energy, I could've read it much faster.) I'm feeling a bullet list coming on, but first I can say I enjoyed the book. It wasn't fabulous, but it was typical Dan Brown: action packed, twists and turns, short timeline (this one took place in less than 12 hours), and cheesy but fun.

+ When I first had the book, I skimmed through the super short chapters (his effective technique to keep you reading) and read some of last lines in different chapters. Most of the chapters end in cliffhanging lines like, "But she was no longer on her feet. She was airborne," or "And then he started screaming and pounding on the walls once again," and so on. I was laughing because it so reminds me of every David Caruso line before the opening theme of CSI Miami. So dramatic, with the gruff voice, the putting on of the sunglasses, and the scream into The Who's "Won't Get Fooled Again." Effective, yet so cheesy.

+ I enjoy Robert Langdon as a character. Even though he's been around for three books (and now Hollywood movies), I do still find it refreshing that a geeky professor can be the hero. Sure, it makes for a little less thrilling of a film, but in a book it works. You can also totally tell Brown bases parts of Langdon on himself. Langdon gets crap for his turtlenecks and elbow-patched blazers. Funny, do does Brown.

+ The premise was interesting. I liked that the book took place in D.C. We were there a couple years ago, so the landmarks and the architectural elements (for example the painting on the ceiling of the Capitol building) were very familiar to me. It was also interesting to learn about the Freemasons, on who the book's central mystery surrounds.

+ The symbolism references can also be interesting, but sometimes too intense. I found myself skimming over some of the long-winded explanations for different things. While it's cool to learn that our founding fathers had a very specific plan in mind when designing D.C., I don't need to read on about it for five pages. Get back to the action.

+ The ending was just OK. The mystery and the revelation at the end was nowhere near as fascinating or intriguing as The Da Vinci Code. Sure, Brown messes with religion (and science) once again, and I could see some people balking at his musings, but the end result was anti-climatic. I half-read the last 40 pages while watching the Vikings game, and I don't feel I missed much.

End thoughts: Not worth $25, but if you liked his previous novels, this one falls right in line with those. Borrow it or get it from the library.

What to Expect When You're Expecting

So yes, this is what I've been reading for the past 12 weeks, which can only mean one thing. Come April, things are going to change around our house.

But, in keeping with the theme of this blog, I'll fill you in on my thoughts of this book. I think it's just OK. When you find out you're having a baby, at least for me, this seems like the must-buy-first book. Everyone reads it, right? I find the first page of each month interesting, because they tell you how big your baby is each week and what part of them is developing that week (though sometimes that can be a little gross, too.) I also have gotten some helpful advice from the Q&As, learning when certain feelings and experiences are normal, etc.

However, I find the book a bit preachy, as well. The authors can take a bit of a holier-than-thou attitude about certain topics, such as organic foods, breastfeeding - you know, all the hot topics of pregnancy and parenting. I don't respond well to that - I try to be more of "to each their own" type of person: you make your choices and I'll make mine. So, I've found that I only read those parts of the book that I enjoy and I skip the rest. Same goes for other parenting books, magazines and Web sites that I come across.

My husband has read So You're Going to Be a Dad and The Expectant Father and he enjoyed both very much; the first is very humorous and the second more serious.

My rant on journalism today

I'm a journalist. But I'm not the kind of journalist that goes out and nabs the "tough stories." I write and edit for consumer and business magazines. Very little controversy there. However, as someone who went to journalism school and feels she knows a lot about her profession, I feel I can say this: I hate the news.

My hatred for the news has grown consistently and exponentially over the past several years. Why do I hate it? Because those reporters, those network anchors - they're lazy and they're scared. Nearly every time we watch the news at home, which is more and more infrequently lately, I turn to my husband and say:

"Being objective DOES NOT mean you can't ask tough questions. Come on."

I'm tired of network and cable news channels just replaying snippets of the president, republicans in Congress, whomever, spouting the latest crap and then leaving it at that. What? Where are the follow up questions? Where is the research to prove them wrong or right? Why don't you point out how they're being hypocritical? Doing these things does not make you a biased journalist - it makes you smart. It makes you act like a watchdog for the people, which by the way is your job.

You know who was the best watchdog for the people? Tim Russert. That guy didn't care who sat at his table each Sunday morning, he asked the tough questions. He listened to his guest (democrat or republican) and then proceeded to show them a clip of themselves months earlier saying the exact opposite thing. Did this make him biased? No. He was holding our leaders accountable and he was searching for the truth. And I liked that about him. (I have to admit I haven't watched David Gregory in this role. Maybe he does the job just as well, but I don't know.)

(There's another man who shines in this area, though he doesn't call himself a journalist. Jon Stewart. Sure, he may lean left politically and be a comic by profession, but he's not afraid to throw up clips of the president when he's screwing up or Nancy Pelosi when she stumbles over her words, just as he's not afraid to devote 10 minutes to the grossness that is Glen Beck.)

I think I really started turning off the news when the health care stuff kicked into high gear over the summer. The whole "death panel" conversation had me in a tizzy. To me, it didn't even seem like the reporters had actually read the bill. The American people are not going to read this bill for themselves. It's the responsibility of reporters (both print and TV) to spell it out for us. Tell us the truth, and if the truth comes out in favor of the president, that doesn't mean you're biased. Or vice versa. (This was also around the time Obama's citizenship was being questioned. I was so disappointed that story made it on TV news so many nights that it did. Why is that even a story? He was born in Hawaii. Done. Over. Next.)

Anyway, long rant longer, Eric Black of MinnPost has an awesome column that talks about just this stuff - the responsibility of journalists and how they're failing. He points to an amazing article in the Columbia Journalism Review about how journalism is becoming irrelevant. It is. Either people think all news organizations are biased, or they're like me and just sick of the laziness. The author, Brent Cunningham, says some wonderful things and makes valid points. For example:

Meanwhile, American journalism, too, is in a protracted moment of painful change. Both its business model and its sense of mission are in full retreat. Much experimentation is under way, with different financial-support structures, narrower editorial missions, collaborative projects, etc. There is an urgency, a humility, at news outlets about the need to rethink things that is long overdue.

So the press needs a new mission, and the nation needs someone to help initiate and lead the discussion of what kind of place America will be in the twenty-first century. It is not at all clear that our best news outlets have the will to become true arbiters of our public discourse, but given the increasing inadequacy of the journalistic status quo, and the nature of the challenges facing the country, such a mission shift could offer a crucial way forward for both the press and the public.

If you don't want to read the long Cunningham article, Black does pull some other great snippets in his own column. To all of it, I can only say: Right On. And then hope for a change.

Blogfest 2009

Thanks to PopCandy I discovered Blogfest 2009: 40 authors, 14 questions, 2 weeks, 1 blog. Simon and Schuster got together several of their young adult authors to answer different questions every day for two weeks. The questions range from "Have you ever just wanted to give up?" to "Is it harder to write the first book opposed to the second?"

I've read through the first two days of answers, and they're pretty cool. I'm not familiar with many of the authors as I don't read too many young adult novels, but I like how their answers really vary. I also like how some are long-winded as you'd expect a writer to be, and others have really short answers.

My favorite answer so far came from Neil Shusterman on "What was the first thing you wrote?"

The first thing I remember writing was a Halloween story in third grade. My teacher (who didn’t like me very much) gave me a D-minus on it, because in this story, the ground opened up, swallowed my third grade teacher, and closed up again, squirting blood everywhere (I didn’t like her much either.) She used to get so annoyed at me, she would throw me out of the classroom, and send me to the library just to get rid of me. That’s where I developed a love of reading, and eventually writing.

Hilarious! I plan to keep reading for the entire two weeks. I'm especially interested in the answers to the questions "Is it difficult to get a book published" and "Who are your favorite authors and what are your favorite books?" I can only imagine how different the answers will be.

Book Headlines

Here's a list of book-related articles I've discovered recently:

+ A few weeks back I happened upon this article where the world's second-largest publisher says eBooks will kill the hardcover. It's an interesting discussion because when Amazon can offer books for your Kindle for just $9.99, and you're the type of person who reads on a Kindle (I am not), why would you ever actually purchase a book again? I find it more interesting of a discussion as to how $9.99 was established as the price (similar to how did iTunes establish $0.99 for a song?). Because once that price is established, no other seller can really dare to charge more than that. (We can get into why this is a problem with the Internet, too: can't start charging people for online content when you've been offering it up for free for so long. But I won't go there.)

Some can suggest that physical books may go the way of the cassette tape, VHS or perhaps soon the CD or regular DVD, but I believe books will be around for a long time. Sure, publishers might have to renegotiate the ways in which they work, but who doesn't these days (i.e. newspapers/magazines)? Because, like the end of the article says, books have been around for hundreds of years, and you can't say that about the VCR or the CD player. I bet we won't even be able to say that about the iPod.

+ If you're into cooking, here's a list the Star Tribune put together: 20 cookbooks every cook should have. I don't own any of these, but then, I'm nowhere near a cook.

+ Minnesota Monthly has a nice Q & A with locally based, but nationally known author Vince Flynn. He offers up some great stories about the White House and other political figures. It's an interesting, quick read.

+ This was a big week in books because Dan Brown's sequel to Angels & Demons and The Da Vinci Code, The Lost Symbol arrived on shelves. It broke a first-day record, selling more than 1 million copies. If you pay attention to big-time book news, it's no surprise that publisher Knopf Doubleday was counting on this book to make its year. I even heard rumors that a delay in the book's publishing actually caused the hurting publishing house to layoff a bunch of people several months ago. Can you imagine if your book was the lone book that was possibly keeping a publisher afloat? That's insane. What tremendous pressure. EW's review wasn't stellar, but I don't think that matters to Robert Langdon fans. I enjoyed the first two books, as quick, suspenseful reads, so I'd read this one too, though I don't think I'd purchase it for myself.

Book Clubs

Yesterday, local online news source MinnPost launched its Book Club Club (BCC), a place where Minnesota book clubs of all shapes and sizes can register (for free) and be part of an online community. From the looks of it, BCC will feature different reading-related posts on which book lovers can comment. One of the first posts provides a timeline for the evolution of book clubs in the United States. It's very interesting; some of the highlights:

+ While it would be silly to believe Benjamin Franklin didn't have something to do with book clubs back in the day, I love that a majority of book-club history revolves around women.

+ I also love that in the late 1700s, Hannah Mather Crocker took the position that the study of science and literature was much more important for women than other "frivolous" activities. I can only imagine what activities she was talking about.

+ Mail-order book clubs (ex: The Literary Guild) began in the 1920s. By the 1980s, when big-box discounters really flourished, these mail-order clubs felt the hit.

+ And the best line from the timeline: "It is estimated that there are more than 5 million book club members in the United States. Most clubs have 10 or more members. 70 to 80 percent of clubs are all-female." It goes to show you that women love to learn, we love to socialize with each other, and we're all about putting those two things together.

You can also catch part I of an eight-part series on book clubs in Minnesota.

Lack of reading inspiration

I'm not sure I've ever gone a full two weeks without a post. But the past month and a half have seen a lack of reading on my part. A big reason for it is because the book I've been reading hasn't been all that fun of a read for me and it took me a long time to get through. I also don't have any unread books on my shelf right now that peak my interest. My mom just loaned me Pillars of the Earth (which numerous people I know have read and have loved), but the thing weighs 10 pounds and is 1,000 pages - so it's a bit daunting to try and start it.

I have been reading lots of magazines though. My husband had like 6,000 Northwest Airlines frequent flier miles and when NWA merged with Delta, his miles were no good. So, to "make up" for it, they offered us the opportunity to get magazines for his miles. So we ordered like six new magazines for free. We had just purged and stopped subscriptions a bunch of magazines to save money, but these were free, so why not? We now get Health, Fast Company, Allure, Travel + Leisure, Details and Esquire (again) - this is on top of Entertainment Weekly, Motor Trend, Playstation, Wired and Sports Illustrated. (I also get Glamour as a replacement for the defunct Domino, and I'm sorry but Glamour sucks - bad design, bad edit, bad everything.)

So, we've found ourselves surrounded by piles of magazines, trying to read them all. However, if I just flip through Allure and Glamour and recycle after 10 minutes, I don't feel so bad, since we're not paying for them.

POTUS and Reading

Because the Obama's took a vacation last week, it was necessary for the White House to release a list of books the president was bringing along. I find it all pretty ridiculous, and as the Slate column eludes, it just leads to an over interpretation of his leisure reading material. Can you imagine the thought that goes into this list? There has to be meetings about it, right? "He should have a couple of novels, so he doesn't look too snooty..." "Oh, but he has to read something pertinent to present day, like the environment..." "Something historical, too!" But if this is the case, according to Slate (who is going along with the over interpretation), the meetings weren't completely successful:

But his list is also clearly not poll-tested. Women played a key role in Obama's victory in 2008. They're swing voters. And yet all of Obama's authors are white men. The subject of the longest book, John Adams, is a dead white male. Obama couldn't get away with that in an election year, and, given his aides' penchant for cleaning up little things like this, we'll soon see the president with a copy of Kate Walbert's A Short History of Women.

In the end, do we really care? Does it really matter? Nah. I just want a president who reads, period. And I have no doubt our president has done a little reading in his lifetime. I actually think less of the publicized lists because I think they're manufactured. Maybe Obama really doesn't want to read those books. Maybe he's a closet Twilight fan (doubtful, but fun to imagine nonetheless). Or maybe he just wanted to take this vacation as a break from all the crazy and just spend time with his ladies. Perhaps instead reading bedtime stories to the girls, and spending the evening talking to his wife.

What do you think? Do you care what our president reads? Or does it just depend on who our president is to care what he reads?

****

I have to geek out for a second and summarize what comes to mind whenever I see the acronym POTUS: The very first scene in the very first episode of The West Wing, when Sam Seaborn is awoken out of the bed he shares with a beautiful woman to a text message: "POTUS fell off his bike." (Or something like that.) "POTUS?" asks the woman, wrapped in a sheet, looking over Sam's shoulder. "Who's POTUS?" As he dashingly hops out of bed and starts to dress, Sam says in all seriousness with a hint of a self-important tone, "The President of the United States." Gosh, I miss that show.

In Defense of Food

Editor's Note: I'm happy to present a guest post written by my co-worker and friend, Marni. She's our foodie in the office, and her knowledge of Twin Cities restaurants and all-around food facts are greatly appreciated. She recently finished In Defense of Food by Michael Pollan. (She read The Omnivore's Dilemma a while ago as well.) I have yet to read these books, but I know many people are interested in this theme, so I wanted to share Marni's educated and thoughtful comments. Thanks Marni!

I know it’s the fashionable thing to say now, but seriously, Michael Pollan’s writing in this and The Omnivore’s Dilemma has changed the way I think about food. I no longer pay attention to the “nutrition facts” (you’ll read in the book how we can’t really prove half of what we think we know about nutrition) on a bag of bread or box of crackers—I read the ingredients. I hear Michael Pollan’s voice in my head: “Does this item have more than five ingredients? Would my great-grandmother recognize this item as actual food? Would she ever have cooked with guar gum?”

Of course it’s impossible to expect all Americans to fundamentally change the way we eat—our way of life is dependent on the fact that we can purchase goods that are shipped from far away, that are pumped with preservatives, that last forever in storage and only take minutes to prepare. So while I think Pollan’s general rules of thumb are helpful, most people aren’t going to follow them religiously. At some points he gives some pretty pie-in-the-sky advice too, like how eaters should “involve themselves in food production to whatever extent they can, even if that only means planting a few herbs on a sunny windowsill or foraging for edible greens and wild mushrooms in the park.”

Foraging? For mushrooms? In the park? I think at one point he also recommends people buy a whole pig or sheep and freeze the different parts to make it more cost-effective to purchase grass-fed, organic meats. And while I don’t think there’s any inherent problem with this advice, it’s the best of all possible worlds he’s talking about here. Like I said, too many other things in our lives prevent us from living like this any more. Other parts of our culture—driving to work on highways, telecommuting to get more done, sitting in front of the TV and computer—they’ve all coevolved with this food system that we have today. We would no longer know how to function if we actually had to cook every single meal with natural, in-season ingredients, when really it wasn’t so long ago that that was the case. In that sense, the book causes you to think not just about how you eat, but about how you live. Because Pollan shows you how inextricably the two are linked.

I suppose Pollan can assume a level of commitment to quality food in his audience because of the very fact they have picked up his book. But I think the best of this book lies in what you personally decide to take away from it—not in following everything he says to do. Like tonight, I had a tasty frozen pizza from Target’s organic-imposter Archer Farms brand. It was delicious. But those are more of a treat for me now than a norm. When I go to the grocery store I really do think of the book’s mantra, “Eat Food. Not Too Much. Mostly Plants.” And once you read the book and understand what that means, you can pretty easily begin to apply it in small ways that I think, at least for me, actually make a difference. I cook more now. I eat more fruits and vegetables. Of course I still indulge in frozen pizza, Cheetos and other “edible foodlike substances” from time to time, and I have yet to start an adorable windowsill herb-growing operation or forage in the park for mushrooms, but I guess you’ve gotta start somewhere.

Summer of Movies, Part II

I didn't plan to write a second act to my first post, but I've seen another handful of summer flicks (and I'm lacking in book posts right now) that I thought were worth mentioning.

Public Enemies: We saw this movie over Fourth of July, I believe. There were reasons I liked it, and some things that were disappointments. Johnny Depp and Marion Cotillard were wonderful. I absolutely believed him as John Dillinger, and their love story was sweet and sultry. I thought the action scenes were pretty well shot. It was interesting to learn about the beginnings of the FBI, bank robbers' lifestyles and the mixings with the mob. It was also amazing to see them have shoot outs in plain daylight and get away. Crazy. However, I thought the movie's cuts between scenes were poorly done and the swelling music was rather cheesy. The sound and the coloring seemed off too, and because I talked to others who saw the movie at different theaters and said the same things, I don't believe this was just at my viewing.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince: I already made some comments about the movie in this post, but I'll just reiterate a little bit. I still love these characters to no end, even more so now that they've grown up. While it's hard to condense these books down for screen, I think the film did justice to the book. The only part that lacked for me was the ending. I think the drama could've been played up so much more here. It kind of fizzled. But that's just a small part of the entire film, which I greatly enjoyed. Ron during the quidditch match was hilarious - well played!

500 Days of Summer: This was a trailer I watched at the same time as the Away We Go trailer back in April. I knew I had to see this movie, too. While she tends to play similar characters, I have a tiny love for Zooey Deschanel. And I loved this movie. It's not your typical romantic comedy in any way, and it really gets to the heart of the relationship. The time-shifting technique works well here, and the writing is so funny. I'm not unique in saying that my favorite scene is Tom's post-intimacy song and dance: Who doesn't love Hall & Oates' "You Make My Dreams," and when Tom looks in a store window to see a historical movie stud staring back at him, I almost died laughing. Fabulous and fun this movie. (For the boys out there, the hubby loved this one too.)

District 9: This was the hubby's choice, and he loved it. I thought the movie was interesting in its obviously "bigger meaning" ways. To think about how we separate those different than the majority is pretty sad. It also makes you wonder what we would do if beings from other worlds were to enter ours. But because of the deeper issues it raises, the movie depressed me, which means I didn't enjoy it very much. I have trouble enjoying depressing movies, but that's just me. The effects were great for such a small budget and the main actor, Sharlto Copley (who has never, ever acted before), was pretty bloody brilliant, especially when you know he improvised quite a few of his lines.

We don't have any movies on the list currently (I think I'll keep The Time Traveler's Wife for rental), but I know fall will bring several more we want to see including New Moon, The Informant, Shutter Island, Couples Retreat, Whip It, Where the Wild Things Are, and Sherlock Holmes. How about you?

Book Clutter

One of my bffs put me on to Unclutterer, a blog about getting and staying organized. I try to check it a couple times of week, and one post from last week fits right along with this blog: Clear Bad Book Clutter From Your Life and Your Bookshelves. Not only does the author say it's perfectly OK to put down a bad book, but she also encourages us to abandon bad books from our homes entirely.

I've talked about my thoughts on "bad" books before. I said that as I get older, I find it an awful waste of time to keep reading a book that can't seem to hold my interest. This has happened more and more lately, and I'm happy to hear someone else (Unclutterer, as well as the Washington Times article she references) say it's OK.

Also, I tend to go through my bookshelves once or twice a year and pack up a bag for the half-priced bookstore. I have one paper bag full now, but I think it's time to do another go round. I only want to keep the classics in my mind (Harry Potter, David Sedaris), my absolute favorites (see sidebar), and those I think others might want to borrow someday (Twilight, most recently). It can be hard to part with books, but I find if I go in with little emotion about it, it can be a quick and easy task.

How often do you purge your bookshelves? What books must stay on your shelves, whether considered "clutter" or not?

I Was Told There'd Be Cake

I just finished Sloane Crosley's I Was Told There'd be Cake, a book of essays of her "coming of age" in Manhattan. Essay compilations can be hit or miss. You have authors who consistently knock your socks off (Sedaris) and others who don't. I'd say Crosley falls in between somewhere. I wasn't too entertained by a few essays, but others made me smile and nod in agreement. [Added 8-12-09: Crosley has been nominated for the Thurber Prize for American Humor - congrats!]

After I read the book, I listened to a Barnes & Noble podcast that interviewed the author. Listening to her speak about her work, it made me appreciate it more. The book actually stemmed from an e-mail. Crosley decided to compose a humorous e-mail on her adventure in moving from one Manhattan apartment to the other, basically just a rant about her experience with lots and lots of detail. A friend at the Village Voice saw some potential in it, had her add an introduction and, bam, she’s writing for them.

She said the book is about “dashed expectations,” which makes perfect sense and is completely relatable (how often do you expect something, anything in life to be awesome and it turns out not to be?). For example, she was disappointed by her first apartment, her first volunteer job, her first real job, her first bridesmaid experience, her first non-one-night stand. That’s what these stories are really about and once I heard that, more of them became relevant to me and I understood the book a bit more – and found I liked it more than I thought.

I also liked that she didn’t focus on what a lot of female writers focus on: dating. She had maybe two references to dating/sex in the book, but otherwise, she said she purposely tried to sidestep that stuff. While dating mishaps are funny, too, sometimes it's nice to read about other things, like turning 16 or moving to Australia. In the interview she says, “You just jump into it and hope your weirdest, more bizarre experiences someone can relate to.” Overall, more hits than misses in this book.

Jennifer Johnson is Sick of Being Single

A couple weeks ago I read Jennifer Johnson is Sick of Being Single by Heather McElhatton (another freebie from work). The novel follows the path of Jen, a single Minnesota girl who works downtown at a Macy’s-like department store (in marketing). She has a love-hate relationship with her sister, a gay best friend, a big mouth, an infuriating boss and a long string of bad dates. The book has all the ingredients for a typical, ho-hum chick lit novel. But I give McElhatton some credit, because this one is a bit different.

Her characters are hilarious. I laughed out loud quite a few times. I loved all the Minnesota references. Jen does meet a man and “nab” him, but the way their relationship goes from there is not like every other female-centered novel. There are no cute little jealous misunderstandings, the man is far from Prince Charming, and though she always wanted to meet the man she’d marry, Jen remains, in the long run, slightly ambivalent about it.

It really is a different type of novel masked at chick lit, starting with the Barbie doll on the cover. You can even read nearly the entire thing and think you’re reading a Bridget Jones or Jennifer Weiner book (though this is written better), but you get to the end and…whoa. Threw me for a loop and I closed the book with some shock, some sadness, but then some pleasure because, jeez, I didn’t know that was coming.

The Lovely Bones trailer

You can click here to watch the trailer for The Lovely Bones. I really enjoyed this book, and I was anxious to see how they would make a movie about it. But after watching this, I'm not sure. The heaven scenes look a little too trippy and the suspenseful music and scary scenes at the end don't really remind me of the book I read. I'm sure I'll still see the movie, and I'm sure different trailers will come out that I'll probably feel differently about, but after first viewing, I have my doubts.

For the Love of First Grade

When we were at the theater waiting for Half-Blood Prince to start, we saw a “first look” at the new animated movie Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs. It’s based on a children’s book by the same name. [Description from Amazon: “If food dropped like rain from the sky, wouldn't it be marvelous! Or would it? It could, after all, be messy. And you'd have no choice. What if you didn't like what fell? Or what if too much came? Have you ever thought of what it might be like to be squashed flat by a pancake?”]

I loved this book as a child, however, most everyone I know has never heard of it. I gave it to my nephews for Christmas, and no one there had ever heard of it. The friends we were at the movie with had never heard of it either. I’ve had the same experience with other books and authors from my childhood: William Steig (he wrote Shrek, by the way, but also lovely books like The Amazing Bone and Dr. De Soto), James Marshall (Miss Nelson is Missing, Miss Nelson is Back - hilarious), Tomie dePaola (Strega Nona = love for me), Nancy Carlson (meeting her was an elementary school highlight) and so many more.

The one thing all these books have in common? My first grade teacher, Mrs. Larson. I’ve always held a special place in my heart for Mrs. Larson. I think her class is where I got my love for reading. Also writing. She had us write about our weekends every Monday and I loved those assignments (Over the weekend I…). She was encouraging. You always wanted to get your paper back with a little pop bottle drawn on it, because that meant she’d buy you one from the teacher’s lounge for doing such a good job. She was fun. I always wanted to make her proud.

I owe a lot to Mrs. Larson, perhaps more than any other teacher I had, and she taught first grade. First grade. It goes to show you how experiences when we’re young can truly shape us.

Do you have a teacher or another adult who shaped who you’ve become or who guided you toward who you are now?