Mike Maden. Tom Clancy: Line of Sight. New York: Putnam, 2018. Print.

The latest installment of the Tom Clancy Estate novels is an entertaining story. It contains some of the usual things that made Clancy’s novels so popular. There is an apparent terrorist plot that could cause multiple nations coming to war. There is some of the latest technology that could be used for nefarious purposes. There is a cast of curious characters.

Most of Line of Sight is set in Sarajevo, the infamous capital of the nation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Like some of Clancy’s other novels, we get a lot of historical background. Sarajevo is where the Austrian Archduke was assassinated to begin World War I. It was the site of the 1984 Summer Olympics, still probably the best television presentation of any Olympic event.

In the 1990s it was besieged for four years during the civil war that started after the breakup of the Soviet empire and Yugoslavia. Much of the history is narrated through the eyes of a Bosnian tour guide who had a twenty-five-year-old connection with the Ryan family. And it looks like there will be an ongoing connection as Jack Ryan, Jr., has fallen for her.

While the story focuses almost exclusively on Jack, Jr., a U.S. government secret agent and son of the the President, the Hendley Associates tech guru Gavin does some technical wizardry which helps out (bails out?) Jack.

And it looks like a group of terrorists—possibly Bosnian Serbs allied with Russia, or maybe Bosnian Muslims (“Bosniaks”) allied with Turkey or Al Qaeda or ISIS or all three—have stolen some new thermal weapons from the Russians. Only maybe, they were allowed to be stolen. These weapons are non-nuclear, so they are legal according to current international treaties and conventions, but their thermal abilities make them every bit as deadly as an atomic bomb.

Besides Aida, the Bosniak tour guide whose eye was saved in the nineties by Jack’s mom, eye surgeon Dr. Catherine Ryan, there is Topal, the Turkish ambassador who seems to be everywhere; Kolak, a Croat Bosnian police detective who seems to know more about Aida and the Ryans than he is letting on (after all, Jack, Sr., is President of the United States); and Emir, a Muslim nationalist (terrorist?) who has had a lifelong crush on Aida; among others. One suspects Emir may be more in favor of Sharia Law simply because under that, the women have little or no say in whom they marry, so the umma might decide that Aida should marry him.

Unlike any other Clancy book I have read, Line of Sight reads more like a James Bond story. Bond also used gadgets and technology. Bond also usually worked by himself. This story is much less about the team—Hendley Associates, the Campus, or even the U.S. Government—instead, it is almost strictly about Jack Ryan, Jr. Indeed, Jack is in Bosnia on a brief vacation. Also, more like Bond and less like traditional Clancy, there is more sex. It is not especially explicit or pornographic, but Ryan, Jr., indulges a number of times, more like James Bond than John Clark or Jack Ryan, Sr.

There are some clever plot twists. Not only is there a serious terrorist threat, but a very secretive crime syndicate has apparently put out a contract on Ryan, Jr. It seems they want his head, literally. It is unclear whether the syndicate has a connection with any terrorist organization, but the actors in that group also hail from Eastern Europe.

I recall watching a film, that was a spoof on action films, I forget the title or much about it. One of the characters said he was not going to join a certain virtuous hero because in movies sidekicks like him always get killed. He said you could pick out the guy who would get killed in the first five minutes he appeared on the screen. I felt that way about a certain character. I was not wrong about who got killed, but the outcome—how and why—was still a big surprise.

As always, there are some trenchant political observations.

In the President’s mind, D.C. was one giant Hungarian cluster dance, with occasional interruptions of clarity and purpose, but only when the national interest was properly communicated to and understood by the preening peacocks on the Hill. (16)

“A democracy cannot survive identity politics. Bosnians must think of themselves as Bosnian, first and always. All religions are respected in your country [i.e., Bosnia], and everyone has equal rights, and there has been peace. But all of that is at risk if ethnic identity trumps democratic ideals.” (25)

“Europe’s always been that way. They never carry their full load, and they seldom follow through.” (125)

Line of Sight is quite contemporary as no one, even in the Balkans, really knows what Turkey is up to. Is the current president a nationalist, an imperialist, or is he trying to be the leader of a new caliphate?

The last four chapters (only 11 pages in all) are a kind of epilogue. Some of Clancy’s novels end with ironic comeuppances, none perhaps better than in Rainbow Six. Each of the brief last chapters in Line of Sight does the same. Some are even funny.

If the reader does not mind the parallels with Bond, Line of Sight is worth reading to the very end.

Franklin W. Dixon. Tagged for Terror. New York: Archway, 1993. Print. The Hardy Boys Casefiles.

I picked this up simply for nostalgia. From about ages 8 to 13 I devoured many Hardy Boys mysteries: The Tower Treasure, The Melted Coins, The Phantom Freighter, and so on. Friends would trade them, and sometimes we would compare them and discuss them. The Hardy Boys Casefiles is a newer series, and as of 1993 there were already 77 of those. “Mr. Dixon” keeps cranking them out.

This book followed much of the same formula as the old ones with a couple of exceptions. Apparently now people actually hire Frank and Joe Hardy. In this case they are hired by a small airline that has had difficulties with luggage theft. In most of the older ones, the brothers just happen to stumble into a case that their father was working on. Yes, Fenton Hardy is investigating these thefts, too, but his sons are formally taken on as well.

The boys are hired as luggage handlers, and almost immediately their two roommates are suspected of helping the ring of thieves steal the luggage. They realize there must be an insider. Who else would be able to sabotage the plane used by airline CEO Mr. Eddings? It seems that luggage with certain silver tags are especially tagged for theft.

Frank is attacked in the airport and found unconscious on a luggage conveyor belt. Someone shoots at a car they are driving. And the mysterious Grey Man shows up.

In most ways the story was a lot like the originals. There is always a cliffhanger at the end of a chapter. The end of the book introduces the reader to the next mystery. One major difference was that in Tagged for Terror someone dies. That rarely happened in the original mysteries.

It was entertaining to read the blurbs and advertising matter. Besides a list of the 77 current titles, we learn that there is a whole series where the Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew work together on cases. Similarly, there is a shorter series where the brothers join Tom Swift.

The authors? Of course, the Hardy-Drew books are said to be co-authored by Dixon and Carolyn Keene. While Victor Appleton still “writes” the Tom Swift stories, the Hardy-Swift ones appear to be by Franklin W. Dixon alone. We know who they really are, don’t we?

Richard Wheeler. Witness to Gettysburg. New York: Penguin, 1987. Print.

I had heard about this book and recently had the opportunity to get a hold of a copy. It was worth reading.

It happens that many of the things I have read about the Battle of Gettysburg were written from the perspectives of one person or maybe a handful of people. For example, the book The Killer Angels which inspired the Gettysburg film tells the first day mostly from Buford’s perspective; the second day focuses on the 20th Maine and Joshua Chamberlain; and the third day is mostly from the Confederate perspective, especially Longstreet and Pickett. Other works I have read over the years have been memoirs, so those clearly do not always bring in the big picture. Some of those include Longstreet’s memoirs and the regimental history of the 14th Connecticut.

Witness to Gettysburg gives us the big picture. It actually starts with engagements which led to the battle, so it includes chapters on Brandy Station and Winchester and follows a few other cavalry skirmishes which would lead both armies to Adams County, Pennsylvania.

A good part of the book is quotations from many witnesses: officers and men from both armies, journalists, and numerous civilian inhabitants of Gettysburg. Wheeler does try to tell the complete story. Fighting was often going on simultaneously in different locations. Even after the second day, it appeared that the Confederates might still gain the upper hand. The book is largely based on primary sources and is very effective in telling the story.

From reading Witness to Gettysburg, I have appreciated that Michael Shaara in The Killer Angels (and, thence, the script writers for Gettysburg) many times quotes people directly from the eyewitness accounts. Yes, a lot of times Lee or Hancock really did say those things. (The film takes a few more liberties by having a few fictional or minor characters hear these things that were actually reported by others.)

We are reminded of some interesting episodes. An eighty-year-old Gettysburg resident named John Burns was a veteran of the War of 1812 and Lundy’s Lane (that battle is mentioned in The Scarlet Letter). He grabbed a musket and actually acquitted himself quite well in shooting at the Confederates.

A soldier from Virginia named Wesley Culp was a Gettysburg native who had moved to Virginia and joined Lee’s army when the war started. Not only was he killed in his hometown, but he died trying to take Culp’s Hill, a slope named for his family, “and a stranger thing still that he died while assaulting the hill on behalf of his family’s enemies.” (229)

This reviewer’s one criticism is that Wheeler does not always give the source of his information. There is a bibliography in the back, so we can assume for example that the quotations from Longstreet are from his memoirs or Hancock’s are from the book that his wife would write. However, many we can only guess the source.

One example was especially frustrating to this reader. My father’s family is from Pennsylvania, and one soldier who is quoted is from Pennsylvania and has the same family name as my father’s grandmother and a number of his cousins. It would have been interesting to me to see if there was a family connection with that person, but I have little idea about where to begin to find out.

Having said all that, this book is well worth reading for its detail, its perspective, and for its fair handling of the bloodiest battle in North American history.

Permit me to add one additional side note. Reading this book inspired me to re-watch the Gettysburg movie. It is one of my favorites, and I was looking for a reason anyhow, having just finished teaching a school quarter on literature of the Civil War. The scene at the end of the second day where Longstreet is talking to Hood in the barn which has been converted to a Confederate hospital has an anachronism. The birds chirping in the background are House Sparrows. They are native of Eurasia and were brought over at different times, but there were not any in Pennsylvania until a thousand were imported to Philadelphia in 1869. The other identifiable bird in the film was the Killdeer, a plover which likes to nest in open fields. They would have been likely in the fields of Gettysburg in 1863, at least before the battle, which is when we see and hear one in the movie.

Travis Smith. Superhero Ethics. Conshohocken PA: Templeton P, 2018. Print.
Superhero Ethics is fun. It is also a challenge. Travis Smith presents arguably the ten most popular and typical comic book superheroes and examines them from an ethical perspective. While the book’s trajectory is to present a case for who is the most ethical and worthy of imitation, each character has something the reader can admire and emulate.

Smith pairs similar supermen and makes a case for which of the two is worthier. He then takes the five remaining and compares and contrasts them to come up with a finalist—the one whom we can not only admire (they all are admirable, after all), but who speaks most directly to our needs and our own temperaments.

First off are two beasts, as Smith calls them: The Hulk and Wolverine. Both, Smith says, “represent the need to preserve our humanity despite the animal that resides within us all.” (15) Both do promote the moral good, but, as people say today, they have anger issues. We can certainly appreciate them. There is a reason why they are popular with adolescent boys—young men who are experiencing internal and emotional changes and looking for a way to fit in.

Nowadays, bright young Banner types [Bruce Banner, Hulk’s alter ego] with natural aptitudes for math and science are rewarded for pursuing groundbreaking work while neglecting their education in humanities, where better judgment and greater appreciation for moral complexity might be fostered. (26)

Wolverine’s way of taking responsibility is to accept who and what he is and make the best of it, no matter what nature, misfortune, and other men have done to him. (27)

Clearly there is more, but those insights give us a sense of those superheroes’ characters and, perhaps, why they are appealing.

The next two that Smith compares are Green Lantern and Iron Man. Both Hal Jordan and Tony Stark are flawed men, but they are “beacons of imagination.” Jordan/Green Lantern creates something out of nothing to overcome obstacles and save galaxies. Stark/Iron Man believes that any problem can be overcome by science, and then proceeds to prove it.

Tony Stark’s view of the world, though, is mechanistic rather than ethical. He typifies “the modern conception of the universe”:

It’s not random, but what order it has is mechanical, not moral. Understood that way, the universe does not tell us what we should or should not do, but knowing the rules by which it operates gives us power over it and allows us to manipulate it as we please.(52)

The Green Lanterns of the universe and the Guardians behind them have almost unlimited power. This often is a problem and why Green Lanterns can get demoted. This is the problem with monarchies, oligarchies, and other types of despotism.

The ruler who governs his subjects’ lives totally, even ostensibly for their own good, makes them at worst his slaves and at best something like pets. In attempting to save everybody from all possible harm, he or she ends up harming everyone more deeply by removing from them all responsibility for themselves. Responsibility for oneself is a precondition for living with dignity and sine qua non for obtaining the good qualities of character that are constitutive of happiness. (53)

Can you tell from such language that the author is a college professor?

Often people compare Iron Man and Batman because both men have no explicit superpower (though neither did Hal Jordan till he became a Green Lantern) and both men can create their own specialized gadgets because they are wealthy. Indeed the most popular meme from a recent Justice League film comes when someone asks Batman, “What exactly is your superpower?” and Batman replies, “I’m rich.”

Superhero Ethics, on the other hand, compares Batman and Spiderman side by side. The two are both costumed as unpleasant animals to conceal their identities, and both are far more human than super. Indeed, Batman, other than being athletic, intelligent, and wealthy, has no special power at all. Spiderman was a complete nebbish until he received that radioactive spider bite. More than any of the other superheroes, he has the most personal problems.

Because Bruce Wayne and Peter Parker are the most human, they are the most mistrusted. Can they be relied upon? Are they mere vigilantes? The local newspaper suspects Spiderman of being a criminal.

While both men have their problems and have been tempted to quit their roles many times, Smith sees Batman as far too serious. It is not a coincidence that his true nemesis is someone called Joker. At least Spiderman can swing from his webs shouting, “Woo-hoo!”

Unlike the other superheroes who are wide-ranging, Batman and Spiderman identify with their localities. Batman looks out for Gotham. It may be New York noir, but it is his city, and he often works with the local police commissioner. Spiderman works near where he lives (Queens?) and calls himself, “Your friendly neighborhood Spiderman.” It is not even his city that he looks out for, but he does care for his neighborhood.

Both Batman and Spiderman display an admirable sense of responsibility. They come across as the most human of the superheroes, although Smith notes that Bruce Wayne is more of an alter ego of Batman than the other way around. When Wonder Woman catches Batman with her Lasso of Truth, he tells her that his real name is Batman. No one would disagree.

Next Smith compares Mr. Fantastic and Captain America. Both are idealists. Mr. Fantastic is a true intellectual—interested in the life of the mind. Other than family or close friends, he is not a people person. Science makes him tick, but not in the morally suspect way that Hal Jordan and Tony Stark sometimes operate.

Unlike Superman, Captain America still believes in truth, justice, and the American way. Like Mr. Fantastic, he did not start out with superpowers, so he knows what it is like to be an ordinary mortal, yes, even a “90-lb.weakling” to quote the old comic book advertisements.

Finally there are the two who perhaps have most obvious and unassailable superpowers—and red capes—Superman and Thor. Neither are actually human, though “Odin put Thor in the body of crippled physician so he would learn humility.” (122)

One question Smith asks is simply this: “Is Superman too good?” He’s got a whole array of superpowers and always seems to be aware of what is going on. He is good because he understands the big picture. As has been said, “The will of God is exactly what everyone would do if he knew all the facts.” Even when he is not flying faster than a speeding bullet and using all his super senses, his alter ego Clark Kent is gathering more facts as a newspaper reporter.

The final chapter is a synthesis of the other chapters. Here the author makes a case for which superhero is the most admirable, the one we can learn the most from and most worth imitating. Smith believes he speaks to us today the best. All have traits worth imitating, but which ones are the most ethically superior?

No spoilers here. Read it and get persuaded yourself.

One side note about the Fantastic Four is worth mentioning. Smith reminds us that the the Fantastic Four represent the four traditional elements: earth, the Thing; water, Mr. Fantastic; fire, the Human Torch; and air, the Invisible Woman. However, their personalities do not really match the traditional psychological understanding of the elements.

The intellectual Reed Richards is clearly the melancholic temperament of the group—and that is associated with earth, not the fluidity of water and Mr. Fantastic. Ben Grim is the one closest to air, the choleric temperament. Even his name suggests bile. Being invisible is Susan Richards’ skill, which is temperamentally more like the phlegmatic or water-borne temperament. Johnny Storm , the Human Torch, is the most emotional as his name suggests. He is the one member of the Fantastic Four who does carry his sanguine personality alongside his matching element of fire.

In other words, students, if you are analyzing Shakespeare, Aristotle, Hawthorne, Cummings, and many psychologists, do not look to the Fantastic Four as literary matches.

Derek Prince. Why Bad Things Happen to God’s People. Shippensburg PA: Destiny Image, 2017. E-book.

Derek Prince was one of the finest Bible teachers of his generation. I have a few friends that even today frequently listen to him on YouTube. I am more of a reader, so when I saw an opportunity to obtain Prince’s classic on the Book of Job at a reduced price, I took it. It was more than worth it.

I have read other books on Job. I have researched the understanding of the Book of Job reflected in Moby Dick. I even directed a production of MacLeish’s J.B. Henry Morris, for example, had a good detailed commentary on Job.

Why Bad Things Happen to God’s People is not so much a commentary as it is an analysis of the way God deals with people sometimes. Prince tells us that there are basically two reason why we go through hard times, “and both of them are for our ultimate good.” (8)

The first reason is to deal with sin in our lives. For example, once I was ill for three days. The Lord said it was because of some idle words that I had said. I did not argue, and three days later I was fine. (I also recall how one of my friends was so kind to me while I was sick.)

The second reason is initiated by God “out of his desire to raise us up to a new level of intimacy with Himself.” (8) That is really what is going on in Job.

According to Prince, mankind’s biggest problem is that we want to be independent of God. He even says:

The problem was not that Adam and Eve wanted to be like God. Actually, that is not a bad motivation. However, they wanted to be like God without depending on God. (8, emphasis in original)

Prince admits, “I don’t have all the answers.” No, he does not have the Book of Job completely figured out. Instead, he says, that Job is “less about the answers and more about a new revelation of who God is.” (52)

Prince notes Job 42:7-8. In these verses God notes two things about Job’s drama. (1) Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar did not speak the truth about God. (2) Job did.

So when Job complains, “God has taken away my justice,” he is speaking the truth. Job’s friends—and they were friends, after all, they ministered to him for a week before saying anything—who said that God must be punishing Job for a sin were not speaking the truth.

I have always been reluctant to attribute truth to even some of the reasonable-sounding passages or promises spoken by the three friends. Prince says the same thing. (He purposely skips over Elihu, the young man who speaks up later in chapters 32 through 37.)

Prince notes that

In most cases the average religious person would have reacted just the opposite of the way God responded. They would have agreed that what the friends said was right and what Job said was awful! (58)

You see, Satan is the accuser (see Revelation 12:10). That is what he does at the beginning of Job. Sadly, Job’s friends do the same.

Satan always has a way to attribute the worst motives to God’s servants. This contains a warning for us because there is much negative being said about the church and servants of God today. (70)

Again,

It is the will of God for us to prosper. But there is very little in the New Testament to suggest we are destined to prosper by contemporary materialistic standards. (87)

When Bildad says that it is presumptuous to say that a man can be right with God, Prince points out that a key theme in the Bible from Enoch to John is just the opposite. “Righteousness, in fact, is the whole issue of [the Book of] Romans.” (96) Jesus’ main opposition came from religious and political leaders who were self-righteous, in other words “without depending on God.”

It is Satan who argues that we cannot be right with God. Of course, we cannot on our own. Now Job lived before Jesus, who confirmed God’s eternal covenant through the blood of the Cross. Still, he had a Messianic hope. He longed for a mediator. (Job 9:32-35) He believed God would send a redeemer and that he would live on after his death. Job had an eternal perspective “…no matter what happened to Job’s body, he knew that it would be resurrected.” (110, cf. Job 19:25-27)

Prince also notes that Job was no stoic. “Job really releases his feelings—and I believe that is absolutely the right reaction.” (99) Anyone who has read the Psalms knows that David also let his emotions out.

The heart of the matter with Job is this: Job had all these bad things happen to him because he was righteous. And “God never did anything but uphold Job’s righteousness.” (102) Prince declares, “God tests us because He is proud of us and wants to bring out the best of us.” (105)

He notes

Throughout the Scripture you will never find God being offended or condemning anyone for speaking honestly. He may correct them, but he never condemns them. (107)

Prince sums up the first part of Job’s story by saying that people make two presumptuous mistakes concerning God. They say that (1) innocent people are not afflicted with suffering, and (2) everything is fair, so if people get a bad deal, it is their fault. Both are simply not reality.

When Prince focuses on what God says out of the whirlwind, he again emphasizes its truth.

Do we know how to treat the wicked? Do we know how to bring them into subjection? The answer is definitely, “No!” I am thankful God knows how to deal with the wicked, and we should be prepared to leave the job to Him. (127)

God is the one to ultimately deal with Satan. Prince says God says, “[L]et Me run My universe My way.” (129)

God is not remote and indifferent in regard to His creation. He is continuously and intimately concerned with all his creatures, whether it is a donkey, goat, raven, eagle, or lion. (130)

“When Job encountered the Lord, it finished all his questions.” (133)

“There is not way to develop endurance except by enduring…This is the key to progress in the Christian life.” (144)

“Do not feel you must understand everything. You must trust in God’s goodness.” (150)

None of us will ever fully understand God and His ways. If we could, He would not be God and we would never learn to trust Him. As Job learned, God knows what He is doing—and that must be sufficient for us. (169)

God was proud of Job. He said, in effect, “Well done, good and faithful servant!” (See Matthew 25:23) May He say the same to us.

Andy Siegel. Jenna’s Case. New York: Rockwell P, Print. 2018. A Tug Wyler Mystery.

This is the third Tug Wyler mystery we have reviewed. This one is the most moving. As with the others we have reviewed, these may be less mysterious and more a legal conflict. This one does have some action which puts Attorney Wyler in danger, though.

Jenna is a fifteen year old double-dutch jump rope champion from Brooklyn. She is injured in a minor accident and the surgeon persuades her to have breast reduction surgery, which she consents to. When she comes to after the surgery, she has had a complete mastectomy.

She may have been self-conscious before, but now she is devastated. It is giving too much of the story away to tell how a homeless teen from Brooklyn ends up getting represented by a high-powered malpractice lawyer, but she does. Tug Wyler is both appalled by what happened to her and out to get her some justice. Indeed, as a person who has worked with teens most of my life, I cannot imagine a girl going through what Jenna went through. It certainly resonates.

Jenna is homeless, but not entirely without a family of sorts. Her mother has died under mysterious circumstances. Her stepfather is a low-level street hoodlum, but he is the closest she has to a legal guardian. And he truly cares little about her or anyone other than himself. Although he approved the surgery, he was pretty much gone from her life until he got wind that she might be getting a big payout from the lawsuit against the doctor.

There are also some hospital records missing. The doctor was supposed to record that he removed 150 grams of tissue from each breast, a standard procedure in this case. However, such verification seems to be missing. The doctor was paid by Medicaid, which does not normally pay for cosmetic surgery.

It smells fishy. And it really begins to stink when Wyler gets threatened and abducted by two men who end up getting killed by a third man. He is blindfolded the whole time so does not see any of them until he is freed and sees the corpses of his two abductors.

There is always at least one unrelated subplot in Tug Wyler stories. After all, most lawyers are working on multiple cases at a time. This one involves the son of the capo of a crime family. He is trying to sue someone for negligence which caused a broken leg. Wyler is convinced the case has no merit, but he also realizes that turning down the case could mean that he has become an enemy of organized crime.

Jenna’s Case develops out of the criminal underworld—street crime, organized crime, and even medical criminality. It is an emotional case, but also one that makes us appreciate what a good lawyer can do—and what honest doctors do, for that matter.

Andy Siegel. Elton’s Case. New York: Rockwell P, 2018. Print. A Tug Wyler Mystery.

Here is another installment of a legal mystery starring medical malpractice specialist Tug Wyler. Elton’s Case is another fascinating read. It is a combination of a legal suspense novel, à la Grisham, with something of a mystery, as in the old Perry Mason stories. It is for most readers a lot of fun, with, I believe, some insight into the law itself.

Elton is a man who spent ten years in prison for a crime that he did not commit. He was exonerated, but by then he was wheelchair-bound, apparently (should I say allegedly?) because he was beaten and manhandled by some guards who did not like him while on a transfer between prisons.

Since this unfortunate event, he has spent ten years trying to get the City of New York to pay for his medical costs and otherwise pay for damages and pain. He is demanding six million dollars. The City of New York, on the other hand, claims he is faking it. Wyler notes, among other things, it is hard to fake a catheter to urinate and to pretend to have atrophied leg muscles.

There are a couple of things that make this case a little complicated. Elton’s case is referred to Wyler by a friend who is a criminal defense lawyer. Most of his clients are unsavory characters, and it almost seems to Wyler that Elton is a little too glib.

The city has a prison guard who can testify that she saw Elton stand up out of his wheelchair to beat up a man who had given him a hard time. (Before his run-in with the law, Elton had been a Special Forces soldier.) Elton, however, has a tape recording of the same corrections officer threatening him because he was involved in selling contraband in the jail that competed with her own underground operation.

Elton has also been accused of rape. His (alleged?) victim tells one story; Elton tells it a very different way. His victim is also a crackhead who may be living under an alias to avoid legal problems herself. And if Elton has the spinal injury he claims, he probably is physically incapable of rape.

And even though the city maintains that Elton has been faking his injury for ten years, they are willing to pay him millions of dollars to settle the case out of court. It seems odd that if they were so certain he was falsifying his injury, why they would actually end up willing to pay him more than his initial demand in order to avoid a hearing in a court.

Like Nelly’s Case, there is a subplot involving another client in a completely unrelated case. In this instance, a woman who had been an actress and model was treated for thirty-four years for difficulty swallowing. The doctor is using outdated methods, and even when she was first diagnosed, the radiology report was very different from what the doctor said it was.

In those years she was unable to swallow solid food and subsisted on food that could be liquefied. Wyler, naturally, is upset at the doctor, but the woman seems to have fallen for him after all these years. The reason she sought Wyler’s help was that the doctor is retiring and no one else does those treatments. She admits that she does not need the money, but she also wants an explanation from the doctor who seemed genuinely concerned for such a long time.

Of course, there is much more. There are numerous interesting plot twists. In one chapter it may appear that Elton does not have a chance if his case goes to court; in the next one new evidence turns things around for him. All the while, Wyler himself may be in trouble because if it can be shown that Elton’s claim was fraudulent and Wyler knew it, Wyler could lose his law license for defrauding the government. But why, then, does the city keep raising its offer to settle the case?

The lead lawyer representing the city keeps telling Wyler to accept the city’s offers or Wyler himself could be in trouble. At the same time, he is telling Wyler that he is acting on the orders of his superiors, but he refuses to let Wyler talk to them or even tell him who his superiors are. It may have something to do with the fact that it is an election year.

There is a lot of entertaining material in here. Not only are there a number of unanswered questions—these books are called mysteries, after all—but there are a number of thorny and clever legal questions that strike the reader as being realistic. This stuff really could happen.

N.B.: This novel contains the conflicting testimonies of the rape along with another brief sexual encounter. For this reason the book may not be for everyone.

Max Davis. The Insanity of Unbelief. Shippensburg PA: Destiny Image, 2012. E-book.The Insanity of Unbelief may be the book to turn the heads, if not the minds, of unbelievers who are readers. There are other books out there that have led many people to Jesus. McDowell’s Evidence that Demands a Verdict, especially the first edition, was very effective in ministering to the modern mindset. More recently, Lee Strobel has had a series of books that seem to be effective. Even the fictional Left Behind series has led people to a serious engagement with the God of the Bible.

The Insanity of Unbelief is a little different. The author, like Strobel, was a journalist. Journalists and policemen from my experience tend to be the most skeptical of anyone. They have heard it all. They often assume anyone they are interviewing is at least concealing some truth if not lying outright. So, yes, Davis tells a little about his own experience.

Still, what he emphasizes is the incredible effort it takes to not believe in God or the Bible. Yes, he does take some of the same arguments used by McDowell, Strobel, and others: the reliability of the Biblical sources, testimonies of believers, and statements of scientists.

But Davis includes documented testimonies of bona fide miracles complete with “before” and “after” medical reports. He also notes reasons why even some scientists believe in God and fairly shallow reasons why others do not. The Insanity of Unbelief is weighed a little in the direction of science because in the last two centuries, a common argument has been “religion is unscientific,” even though the scientific method emerged from people with a Christian and Biblical worldview.

His approach is not unlike that of Jesus Himself. Jesus would often first perform miracles or do something else to get people’s attention. Once he had their attention, then He would tell them about God. His opponents never denied that He had done miracles or believed certain things about God. They simply called Him a liar, a troublemaker, or a demoniac.

So the author presents documented miracles and other testimonies, including testimonies from the Bible. The reader is confronted with the reality of Jesus. Will the reader look into Jesus more or dismiss Him like Pilate or oppose Him like the High Priest?

The Insanity of Unbelief, then, focuses as much on why people do not believe. From observation and experience, unbelief is usually a matter of the will. People just simply do not want to believe.

Davis challenges that attitude. As a teacher, I sometimes attend conferences and teachers meetings where many of the attendees and participants are agnostic if not atheist. (I could go on a rant about how the public schools prohibit teachers from talking about religion—especially Christianity and Judaism—but it is perfectly permissible for atheistic teachers to promote their beliefs and even intimidate students who question them.) One morning at one such event, I carried a copy of the book I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist. It was a lot of fun. Just the title got people’s attention. Some were hostile; some laughed. One person I recall said, “Just when I think I have it all figured out, some argument turns around and bites me in the head!”

This reviewer also personally resonated with this book because it just so happens that it mentioned three men whom I was acquainted with at one time. It quotes two astronomers that I knew. Owen Gingerich was a believer in Christianity and a devout Mennonite. He notes that:

If we regard God’s world as a site of purpose and intention and accept that we, as contemplative surveyors of the universe, are included in that intention, then the vision is incomplete without a role for divine communication, a place for God both as Creator-Sustainer and as Redeemer. (29)

The second astronomer I knew, Robert Kirshner, discovered what is called the Boötes Void, a region in the sky that is comparatively empty of stars and galaxies. This is in the vicinity of the North Star and the constellation Boötes. I have no idea whether Dr. Kirshner is a believer today, but Davis notes Job 26:7 which tells us that God “spreads the northern skies over empty space.” (153)

Even Werner Heisenberg, discoverer of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which I have heard used as an argument against order and purpose in the universe, wrote:

The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you. (31)

…Or, instead of the bottom, perhaps at the extreme north?

The third scientist, one of the finest teachers I ever had, made a very interesting confession. It is typical of many of the “cultured despisers” of religion (to borrow Schliermacher’s phrase). Nobel Prize winner George Wald said:

I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution. (32)

Even from these examples, we begin to see the crux of one of Davis’s arguments:

IF ANYTHING EXISTS, SOMETHING MUST BE SELF EXISTENT. (37, author’s capitals)

He goes on to explain, quoting author Dean L. Overman:

To be rational the atheist must show how something comes from nothing. Otherwise the existence of something is not explained…One has to have a starting point, and if an atheist is not going to beg the question why her starting point exists, she must begin with really nothing—what Francis Schaeffer called nothing-nothing. (38, ellipsis in quotation)

There is much, much more, but in our postmodern and progressive culture, The Insanity of Unbelief may be the cure for the insanity suggested by the title of the book. It presents the challenge in such a way that if one does reject God’s gospel, it is for the reason Dr. Wald did above. Yet Jesus Himself tells us it is the truth that sets us free. (John 8:32) Look into it yourselves…

Steve Demaree. A Body on the Porch. Amazon, 2016. E-book.

This is a lighthearted murder mystery. Cy Dekker from Hilldale, Kentucky, is vacationing in Tennessee and strikes up a conversation with a man while waiting in line to be seated at a restaurant. He tells this stranger he is a retired police detective. The stranger then says, “If I have a murder mystery to solve, I can call you.”

Dekker replies that he is retired, and would only respond “if you found a body on your front porch.”

About a week after returning from his vacation, Dekker gets a phone call from this stranger (“I don’t know why I gave him my business card”) saying that he, indeed, found a body on his front porch. Since the caller is from a town even smaller than Hilldale, Dekker keeps his word and comes to his town to solve the murder.

Dekker’s best friend is a retired police sergeant whom he recruits to help out with such cases. Lou Murdock has a unique gift which helps him solve crimes. God gives him clues. Sometimes they are dreams, sometimes they are impressions. In A Body on the Porch, they are mostly movie titles.

We get the story from Dekker’s perspective. He is a widower with a girlfriend—and a neighbor who is convinced that she is to marry him. He also likes to dine out. He is a connoisseur of American cuisine like barbecue and cheesecakes. Indeed, he and his girlfriend have decided to hold a tournament style taste test to determine, over an extended period of time, which is the best Cheesecake Factory cheesecake. So far they have sampled four but hope to sample over thirty and then take the “sweet sixteen” to the next stage.

The murder itself is unusual. It seems as though the victim was poisoned, shot, and run over by a car. Also it seems that no one really knows who the victim is. He is a relative newcomer to town, and he clearly had some secrets he was reluctant to let anyone know about. He rented an apartment on a quiet street where it seems no one knew anyone else. Yet it turns out that someone connected to him had rented the same apartment earlier and had died while he was living there.

Yes, it is an intriguing puzzle with a good number of laughs. After reading something quite heavy like Ahab’s Wife, this provided a nice escape and a little comic relief.

Sena Jeter Naslund. Ahab’s Wife. New York: Harper, 2003. E-book.

Ahab’s Wife is a first-person narrative told by the woman who would become the wife of Captain Ahab of Moby-Dick fame. It is easy enough to dismiss her as following in the footsteps of the wife of the first Ahab, namely Jezebel. Like the evil queen of the Bible, she rejects God and commits some terrible sins. Of course, being written at the turn on the Twenty-first Century, we could not have a literary heroine any other way.

Una Spenser shares her life story in over a hundred chapters, perhaps echoing Moby-Dick. She grows up in Kentucky rebelling against her puritanical father, joining relatives who keep a lighthouse off the Massachusetts coast, and eventually disguising herself as a boy and going off to sea. She ships out on a whaler called the Sussex, sister ship of the Essex. The Essex was sunk by a whale and inspired Melville’s Moby-Dick.

The Sussex also gets shattered by a whale, and Una and her two boyfriends are the only survivors. This trio becomes a kind of unholy trinity, but Una is such a good storyteller that we go along with her adventures. She does not even meet Ahab until about halfway through the story, and as Moby-Dick suggests, she is not married to him very long.

In the course of her life, Una travels with a dwarf, thus echoing her namesake from Spenser’s Faerie Queene. She hides a fleeing slave woman, who ends up escaping to Ohio across the ice floes on the Ohio River like Eliza in Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Indeed, there are literary echoes throughout the story. The chapter in which she encounters Nathaniel Hawthorne is especially entertaining—though unlikely. Hawthorne is wearing a black veil over his face, but the dialogue is pure Hawthorne. Indeed, it is one of the few episodes which do not present a far more radical position than one would expect even from a nineteenth century Unitarian.

Ahab’s Wife is just simply too modern to really have us accept it as a nineteenth-century story. Yes, Una becomes friends with Margaret Fuller, the transcendentalist writer (and model for Hawthorne’s Zenobia in The Blithedale Romance), and Maria Mitchell, the first person of either sex to discover a comet using a telescope. So we do get the idea that Una is “out there” or “on the cutting edge,” but this reader had trouble suspending some disbelief to accept her in that time period.

Having said that, the author is a skilled writer. There are many elegant turns of phrase. The female characters are all pretty sympathetic, so we get a sense of a feminist sisterhood. Ahab also comes across as the striking personality he is in Moby-Dick, which makes him attractive to a much younger Una. He also accepts her in spite of some of the past sins she confesses to. The book is faithful to Ahab and the historical figures she encounters.

For fans of Melville or the Transcendentalists, this could be an interesting read. There are also some profoundly disturbing scenes. At one point I had to quit reading it for a week and was unsure whether I should bother to continue it. I am still ambivalent about having finished it. I understand its cleverness and appeal; after all, the original Ahab was attracted to Jezebel. The Faerie Queene’s Una stands for truth. This Una, like Jezebel, stands for herself.