Close to Shore: The Terrifying Shark Attacks of 1916

   "We're not just afraid of predators, we're transfixed by them, prone to weave stories and fables and chatter endlessly about them, because fascination creates preparedness, and preparedness, survival.  In a deeply tribal sense, we love our monsters." ~E.O. Wilson~

   So begins "Close to Shore"...

   When I first saw this book I was like, O-M-S-J, a non-fiction book on sharks!  I love sharks, love the ocean, and this is the true story of one of the worst shark attacks (and first recorded) in the America.  This horrific event was the basis for Peter Benchley's "Jaws", which of course led to Speilberg's movie adaptation of that book.  I've read and seen "Jaws", the book was fantastic, the movie was fantastic, but no fiction can ever compare nor compete with true events.  I enjoyed Capuzzo's style of writing, it was clear, concise, focused on the facts and not the sensationalism that most writers would have focused on.  This story didn't need sensationalism, the events were sensationalist enough.  Now that's not to say Capuzzo didn't squeeze out a bit of overactive drama, he did, but it wasn't over-the-top annoying and only sparingly.  He stuck to the facts and turned out an amazing and heart wrenching story.  He did a very clever few chapters from the shark's perspective, what it was feeling and thinking while it prowled the ocean and river of the East Coast.
  Capuzzo paints a detailed portrait of life and the people, and people's mentality, of the early 1900's.  The age of industry and automobile.  Beaches were a privileged past time, not the sun bathing, beach volleyball, girl/guy watching, water sports entity as we know it today.  Men and women wore "bathing costumes"; men shirt & shorts, women full bodied bathing costumes that covered all, and I mean all.  The latest fashion sweeping 1916 was a women's bathing costume that revealed ankles.  It was scandalous and some women were being arrested for it.  No, that's not a joke.  There were beach patrols that roamed the beaches measuring bathing costumes and making sure no tantalizing ankles were being scantily and seductively shown.  We laugh and scoff at such nonsense, because now women are practically naked on the beach, some are actually naked, which makes very happy I live in this era and not 1916. :)
   Capuzzo did a great job of not just giving us facts from this event, but also weaved an America that was on the threshold of a World War.  I had just finished Fall of Giants, which again I must rec every single person to read, and it was so cool to be reading 2 books based in the same era.  Capuzzo did painstakingly thorough research and you can tell from all the delicious details.
   Though in fact Capuzzo did do his due diligence and consulted with top ichthyologists both past & present, it is still undetermined what species of shark it was that savagely killed 4 people, including one 11yr old, and wounded one child.  The general consensus is it was a bull shark, as bull sharks are the only (large) shark that can survive in both salt and fresh water.  Bull sharks are extremely aggressive and have attacked people in rivers as much as the ocean.  So it would stand to reason it was a bull shark.  But there is also solid argument that it was a great white, and Capuzzo does an amazing job of explaining why it is very possible to have been a great white.  The high tide, the unusual shift in currents, full moon, all contributing factors for this "rogue" shark.  The attack scenes were setup with a tense suspense.  The reader, sitting engrossed in this lead up to the inevitable, tensing from the suspense and build up, only to be rocked into terror and shock at the brutality in which Capuzzo describes each attack.  I physically shuddered at one such scene.
  Though I am a lover (and bit obsessed) of the ocean and all that inhabits it, this book made me reticent to ever enter the ocean again.  Of course I will, if I ever perish in the ocean I will consider my soul's return to whence it came.  This quote from the book is touches on my emotional awe, respect and love for the ocean and its denizens: "It was said that the ocean flowed in the veins, that blood was nearly the consistency of seawater.  In the ocean a man escaped the Industrial Revolution and rediscovered his eternal self, was fully human again."  But this book def makes you think twice about swimming in the open ocean, or in its shallows.  It does not paint sharks as mindless killing machines, it does not preach stay out of the ocean.  No, it tells a story of a horrific and tragic event, human's ignorance (of that time) of the wilderness of the ocean and its inhabitants.  It's an intellectual read, a wonderful work of non-fiction that reads like fiction at times.  I can't rec this book enough.  Read it, but do it in the winter time so by the time summer rolls around it won't be lingering in your head and make you trepiditious to enter the ocean. Let me conclude this review with a quote from the book, a quote (one of many) I love:
     "We've forgotten what the ocean is.  The ocean is a wilderness.  We would never enter the wilderness without being aware of the dangers, its predators.  Yet we think of the ocean as our giant backyard swimming pool." ~George Burgess-Ichthyologist~
XXX rating.  Stay Booked! Happy Reading!

Into the Wild by Jon Krakauer

"So many people live within unhappy circumstances and yet will not take the initiative to change their situation becasuse they are conditioned to a life of security, conformity, and conservatism, all of which may appear to give one peace of mind, but in reality nothing is more damagging to the adventurous spirit within a man than a secure future." ~Chris McCandless~

    I consider myself a newbie when it comes to non-fiction.  I've really only been reading them for 6yrs steadily.  I've maybe read 1-2 every 2yrs in my 20's and that's a very generous estimation.  More like 1 every 4yrs.  It wasn't until my late 20's/early 30's I really started reading more non-fiction.  Why?  Well the way I look at non-fiction is this, we are getting a true story or rather a story that is supposed to be true.  My problem with non-fiction isn't that they aren't good reads, my problem is we get the author's biased view of the subject.  No matter how much a author is supposed to be objective and impartial one can't help but having their work influenced by their own beliefs.  When I read about a true event or individual, I want just that, the truth.  I don't want someone's version of the truth.  If an author likes the subject they will paint the subject/event favorably, if they don't like the subject/event then it will be given an unfair and unbalanced view.  So this is why I am very hesitant to read non-fiction novels.  Having said that, I have indeed read some amazing non-fiction books and Into the Wild is one of them.  In the very beginning Krakauer admits; "I won't claim to be an impartial biographer.  McCandless's strange tale struck a personal note that made a dispassionate rendering of the tragedy impossible.  Through most of the book, I have tried-and largely succeeded, I think-to minimize my authorial presence.  But let the reader be warned: I interrupt McCandless's story with fragments of a narrative drawn from my own youth.  I do so in the hope that my experiences will throw some oblique light on the enigma of Chris McCandless."
  Fair enough.  Krakauer not only voices my very concern with non-fiction novels, he confirms it.  I am more forgiving because Krakauer admits that it will be biased to influence the reader what he felt for McCandless and McCandless's story, but that it will be limited.  OK Krakauer I respect that and I'm intelligent enough to know when you're inflecting that "authorial presence".  So on I read....

   Books synopsis: "In April 1992 a young man from a well-to-do family hitchhiked to Alaska and walked alone into the wilderness north of Mt. McKinley.  His name was Christopher Johnson McCandless.  He had given $25,000 in savings to charity, abandoned his car nad most of his posssessions, burned all the cash in his wallet, and invented a new life for himself.  Four months later, his decomposed body was found by a moose hunter..."

My synopsis: I have to admit at first I thought, "Pfft some rich spoiled punk, who is given everything, wants to "find himself".  Big deal".  And I was right, but I was also wrong.  This book made me a bit frustrated because I went from, "This kid is a stubborn moron.  Spoiled and pissing away his life" to "I can totally relate to what this kid is thinking and feeling".  McCandless is truly an enigma.  He craves solitude but loves company.  He wants nothing to do with money and material things, even those material things he desperately needs to survive in the wilderness.  McCandless meets new folks across his travels and every one of them seem fully enamored with him.  He makes indelible impressions everywhere he goes.  So why if this extremely gifted, intelligent and well bred youngster is all these things and so well liked, is he willing to go into one of the most dangerous wilderness's in the world?  This is what Krakauer tries to find out and in the process  uncovers a very complicated, contradictory, heartbreaking and frustrating, yet inspiring story.  This is really as far as I'm going to review this book.  I think it is something everyone should read and determine their own pov.  I will say one thing and it is in regards to McCandless and it is this.

  McCandless is complicated yet simple.  He is hypocritical yet honorable.  What leads him to go off on this journey of life, of self are issues with his parents.  But this is also a bit schizo because he has friends that say he loved his parents and others that say he couldn't stand them.  We do learn what the issue is later on, but to me that issue is just a cop out.  I think the bottom line with McCandless is he was searching for something, I think we all are in some way or another, but he didn't know what that something was.  I don't think he was anti-social or suicidal yet he did show those attributes at times.  I just think he was a kid that said f**k it, I don't know what I want, where I want to be but I know right now none of this is it.  He read and was influenced by works of Tolstoy, London, Davies & Thoreau.  The romanticism of nature and wilderness of living a spartan life and the personal issues he was having led him to this journey of self discovery.  McCandless took those works and views to heart and decided it was how he was going to find, whatever it was he was missing inside.  There is really nothing about McCandless that makes him more special than any other confused youngster in this world.  There are kids all over the world that come from worse backgrounds, who struggle and fight and scrape to survive and make better lives for themselves and no one is writing stories about them.  McCandless was a wealthy kid, though his parents fought and scraped for everything they had and made a success of their lives by hard work and dedication, Chris McCandless did not.  This is not to take anything away from him.  Problems are problems and he had problems, no doubt.  If it weren't for Karkauer's stirring portrait of McCandless, he is just another lost youth trying to find himself and does so half-assed and that leads to his death.  I mean he hitchhiked across America and could've gotten picked up by the wrong person, murdered and that ends the story.  He was lucky.  I will now contradict myself, I admire McCandless for his tenacity and fortitude.  He may have not known what he was looking for, but he went out in search of it when so many of us settle and lead mediocre stagnant lives.  He was stubborn and wanted to do thing his way, I can relate, I'm the same way.  He wasn't a complete idiot as some think.  He studied plants and animals and wildlife and the areas he was going to be venturing through.  It is undetermined what killed him but more than likely it was due to ingestion of poisonous vegetation.

  His death is sad and it broke my heart when I read the scene when his sister, the one relative he was closest too, finds out of his death.  Utterly heartbreaking.  I can honestly say this was an emotional roller coaster of a read that at times had me wanting to sell everything I own and go out on my own adventure in search of who I am.  And if I were younger and did not have a daughter I just would, but it would be foolish and selfish.  So I pick my adventures in other ways and like McCandless I do  everything my way, I never settle.  But unlike McCandless I face my problems head on.  Life isn't perfect and the easiest thing in the world is to pack up and walk away from it all, it's a lot harder to stay and face it head on.  And that is what this book does, makes the reader examine their own life.  The reader knowingly takes a journey in McCandless's life, but by doing so unknowingly begins to examine their own life.  The emotions we feel aren't just directed at McCandless and what he believes and stands for, but at ourselves for the things we don't stand for.  And maybe we aren't mad at McCandless for his journey, but at ourselves for the lack of one.  Excellent read.  Highest rating XXX

The True Story of a Thief, a Detective, and a World of Literary Obsession

The Man Who Loved Books Too Much by Allison Hoover Bartlett
I was just perusing the book section at Sam's Club and as I passed this book I only glanced at it.  I had to double back because I wasn't sure I read the title right.  'The Man Who Loved Books Too Much'.  I was entranced.  This book sought me out not the other way around.  I had to have it.  I hoped, as I was picking it up, that it was non-fiction.  I mean how cool would it be if there really was a master book thief!  But to be honest it didn't matter if it was non-fiction or fiction because something in me knew this was going to be a great read.  And to my extreme delight, it was non-fiction.  As I read the synopsis, my inner & outer book nerd was gigging out big time.  I was a giddy kid about to open an xmas present.  Here's the publisher's synopsis: "Rare-book theft is even more widespread than fine-art theft. Most thieves, of course, steal for profit. John Charles Gilkey steals purely for the love of books. In an attempt to understand him better, journalist Allison Hoover Bartlett plunged herself into the world of book lust and discovered just how dangerous it can be."
You can see why my berdy (book nerd) senses were all tingly!  I couldn't wait to delve into it.  I finished Bossypants and immediately began this book.  At the very 1st page I knew... Love.  Love is what I was going to feel for this book.  But I'd started books before and thought I was going to love them, only to be disappointed, Water for Elephants anyone?  So I subdued my enthusiasm and Love and just read.  Every page was great.  It was like taking bite for bite of mom's home cooked meal.  Savory and better with each forkful of delicious food, so to was reading each page.  The reader is welcomed with a prologue of Bartlett's telling of the discovery of an old, rare book that a friend happened upon.  She is lent the book and you get the sense that she, will somehow not be returning it.  
She takes us through a book fair on her way to meet a rare book dealer to get the scoop on the story of a book thief.  We are introduced to the "protagonist" and "antagonist", Ken Sanders being the former & John Charles Gilkey being the latter respectively.  But these were not ordinary hero & villain characters you'd expect.  Obviously this is non-fiction so the flare and elaborate persona is tempered by the actual real life persona's.  Ken Sanders is a rare book store owner and "is the self-appointed "bibliodick" (book dealer with a penchant for detective work) driven to catch Gilkey".  He "has an ample paunch, a thinning ponytail, and a long black-and-white beard".  Sound like your normal "hero" of lore?  The thief, Gilkey is equally unimpressive in appearance and stature.  These "ordinary" men, we find out, are far from ordinary.  We are introduced to extraordinary situations, people, obsessions and a world we are completely unaware exists, at least I didn't know. The story itself doesn't play out like fiction like The Devil in the White City (my fave non-fiction book) but it is engrossing.  There is no deep dark lurid and seedy book scene.  We're not taken to a world of bookophile (google it. eww) or any such perversion.  But we are taken into a world of true obsession of love, love for books and rare objects.  It's an addiction for some as serious as gambling.  The problem with some of these addicts, Gilkey especially, is they don't have or want to spend the money for these rare treasures.  And who can blame them?  A rare book can go anywhere from $50-$500,000.  Gilkey claims that unfair.  How can real book lovers ever be able to hope for a decent collection?  He stole because he believed the system was wrong and he deserved to own those books.  And I have to tell you the more I read the more he was convincing me.  I mean one of my dreams, and one I've had since I was kid, was to have a house with one room filled with nothing but books, from floor to ceiling, wall to wall books and a comfy chair in the middle for me to read till my hearts content.  How could I, a mere ordinary individual obtain such a dream?  Well if I were Gilkey I would steal that dream.  Yes his reasoning made sense to me.  Almost convinced me we all had that right to not only have the dream but do whatever it took to fulfill it.  Yes he almost convinced me.  Almost.  But of course there are 2 sides to every story and that is def the case here.  Damn it!  Lol.  Gilkey's righteousness was dubious.  The book stores he stole from were privately owned, like majority of rare book stores are, and these owners had to take the loss, because their insurance wouldn't pay up.  But put that aside, these book store owners are fiercely dedicated to their books.  These books become their treasures, their children.  They scour yard sales, white elephants, book fairs for that elusive rare book that an unknowing seller is selling for far below it's worth.  The obsession is like an unquenchable fire burning in these true bookies, bibliophiles.  They truly hurt when their books, their babies, were taken from them.  So I found myself not only seeing Gilkey's pov, but also the pov of these book sellers.  My view would change from chapter to chapter.  I'd be like, "Yeah good for you Gilkey!" to "Oh Gilkey you are a bad man!".  I couldn't believe the depths to which he sank to scam and thieve books.  And not just books!  He stole credit card slips from working at Saks 5th Ave and would go on trips to New York, Europe and all over California (where he is from).  He spent majority of his life in and out of jail.  He amassed somewhere between $100,000-$200,000 worth of stolen books!  I was appalled and envious at the same time. 
What I also loved that Bartlett did with her storytelling, was to not only go into the main story of Gilkey & Sanders, but she delved into the history of bibliophilia.  There was a Spanish Monk, "Don Vincente in the the 19th century who stole from libraries and ancient monasteries.  He disappeared only to resurface as the owner of a well-stocked antiquarian book shop in Barcelona, where he had a reputation for buying more books than selling them.  He kept the rarest books for himself.  He got into a bidding war at an auction for a book he was obsessed to own, Furs e ordel regne de Valencia (Edicts and Ordinances for Valenica).  He was outbid by Augustino Patxot, a dealer that owned a shop near Vincente's. Vincente appeared to have lost his senses, mumbling threats in the street, and did not even take the reales de consolacion, a small payment the highest bidder had to give to the next highest bidder according to custom at Spanish auctions.  Three nights later, Patxot's house went up in flames, and the next day his charred body was found.  Soon, the bodies of nine learned men were also found, all of whom had been stabbed to death.  Outbursts at the auction had made Don Vincente an obvious suspect.  When his house was searched, the Furs e Ordinacions was found hidden on a top shelf, along with books that had belonged to the other victims.  He confessed to strangling Patxot and stabbing the others only after the magistrate assured him that his library would be well cared for once he was incarcerated.  In court, when the judge asked the accused why he hadn't ever stolen money from his victims, he replied, 'I am not a thief!' Of having taken their lives, he said, 'Every man must die, sooner or later, but good books must be conserved.'"  This is a common way of thinking with book thieves.  They believe that their "acquisitions", of rare books, was not theft.   And who knew, as stated above, that book theft is more widespread than fine art theft.  At first I was like, "Really?".  Then a sense a pride overtook me and I was like, "Sweet!".  Weird right?  Not if you're a bibliophile.  I laughed when I read this because I never leave any items in my car visible.  Just don't want to tempt a thief to break in and take said object.  One thing I never worried about leaving in the open though, books.  I was like, "Who the hell is going to steal a book?!".  I fancied myself the last real bookie of the world, because we are as rare as the books these dealers seek. 
Long review short, too late! Lol.  I'm a dork.  I loved this book.  Not only for its fantastic and unique story and quirky characters and surrealistic situations, but because it is a book for book lovers.  There is absolutely no way you don't like this book if you are a true bookie.  I always said I was going to get every Stephen King book in hardcover.  After reading this book, I not only want every SK book in hardcover, but want every book I love in hardcover AND as 1st editions.  I can feel the spark of obsession being ignited in my boul (book soul).  I foolishly believe I can quell the flame before it consumes me, but deep down I know better...