Book: Crime and Punishment

I’m not quite sure how I managed to procure a copy of this book, especially since I never bought it. I think it may have come from my parent’s library and was quietly pilfered when I moved out. Whatever the case may be, I have had this book on my bookshelf it’s been calling to me to be read for quite some time.

I finally took the initiative to digest the pages of this book and am glad that I did. This book fascinated me. Maybe I’ve watched too many crime shows but getting inside criminal’s heads is something that piques my interest.

This book is the story of a young man, Rodian Rashkolnikov, a former university student, who decides to commit a crime under the rationalization that there are some people for whom the law does not apply. The way that Fyodor Dostoevsky writes the thoughts and behavior of a criminal kept me completely absorbed.

Though the vocabulary can be difficult at times and the story jumps around a little bit, with other side stories coming in at odd times the reader is never bored. At least I wasn’t. I always had to know what was going to happen, if Rashkolnikov was going to break under pressure, was he going to be found out? Maybe I have a macabre sense of humor but interspersed in the tale were some moments that made me laugh out loud. Let me just quote on spot that exemplifies the vocabulary but also the humor:

“Pyotr Petrovich belonged to that class of persons, on the surface very polite in society, who make a great point of punctiliousness, but who, when they are directly crossed in anything, are completely disconcerted, and become more like sacks of flour than elegant and lively men of society.”

The image of a sack of flour sitting in a chair all dressed up and trying to look proper just seems humorous to me.

I highly recommend reading this book. It is worth working through the occasionally long paragraphs of psychological dissection of the criminal psyche and seemingly random interjecting side stories to see a story not of redemption or punishment but of hope and enduring love.

Book: The Princess Bride

I believe that most of the people, if not all (if Zach watched it), that will be reading this post have seen the movie created from this book. Therefore I do not feel a quick recap is necessary. I guess this post will be shorter and sweeter than most.
I have always loved the movie. It is perhaps my most watched movie unless you count the innumerable snippets of Beauty and the Beast I saw the year my sister watched the cartoon daily. In high school the highlight of my chemistry class was when the student teacher said, “Let me explain,” then under her breath she added, “No, there is too much. Let me sum up.” Awesome. Unfortunately that line doesn’t appear in the book. Neither is the scene where Inigo is in the forest outside the town and calls upon his father’s spirit to lead him the the Man in Black. Those are two of my favorite parts of the movie, so for me the movie will always be treasured.
However, there is so much more in the book that can’t be put on the screen. As many don’t know, or at least I didn’t when I first picked up the book, part of the book’s title states it is an abridgement of the original by S. Morgenstern. This is not the case but gives Goldman a method to which he can insert the parts of the story which in the movie correlate to the grandpa reading the story to the sick boy. I feel some of the best of humor in the book comes from the parts where the author interjects notes of his “abridgement.”  For example, seventy pages that list the hats that the princess of Guilder packs to hide that she is, in fact, bald. Something that Prince Humperdink simply cannot live with and thus begins his journey to discover a suitable woman to be his future bride and leads him to discover Buttercup. The book also goes into much more detail about the relationship between Wesley and Buttercup, which greatly adds the their story.
The last big difference to touch on between the book and the movie is the ending. The film closes with the legend of the four best kisses of all time. That kiss happens at a very different time in the book and the ending is much more interesting. I guess you’ll just have to read the book and tell me if you think it’s as interesting as I did.

More: Birthday!

As many people who might read this post know my little family is transplanting to another state for work reasons. Luckily for us we were given the choice of when to move. We deliberated long and hard but the final decision was made, at least in my mind, for one big reason. My little girl was going to turn 1 year old after one of the given dates. For this reason we decided to wait till closer to the end of the summer to move. Well, the birthday came and what a party it was! Below are some pictures of the very ducky occasion.

The birthday girl had never really had cake before so she didn’t quite know what to do with frosting or chocolate cake. She did, however, make a terrific mess.

More: Zoo Animals

Serena decided that for her birthday she wanted to go to the zoo so we packed up the family and headed up to Salt Lake City’s Hogle Zoo. Lily loves animals, especially birds so we had a great time. Lily has learned the sounds for fish and elephant so when we saw the elephants she performed for us. Wednesday was a great day to go as there weren’t too many people and it wasn’t too hot. Serena and Lily did show off their fashion while we were there. Overall we had a great time. Fun animals, fun family outing.

Book: Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?

I finally read a book! I've been having a really hard time picking up a novel since I finished school. I think the weekly 100+ page assignments that I sometimes read along with the plethora of research articles I had to read burned out my desire to read for a while. But I did it!


The book that broke down the wall was Philip K. Dick's "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep," a groundbreaking science fiction novel that has inspired writers and readers since it was published. It was made into a film called "Blade Runner" that premiered in 1982. This book isn't long or difficult to read, although it had the words verisimilitude and perspicacity on the same page. It's an interesting read if not for the story itself but for the examination of what it is to be human.


The basic plot is that after World War Terminus radioactive fallout has covered pretty much the whole earth, wiped out most wildlife and can change DNA in living humans. Because of this people began to emigrate to the new Mars colony. To incentivize emigration the UN promised an android to each individual/family that emigrates. The problem is that occasionally these androids kill their human masters and return to Earth and try to blend in with humans. The main character, Rick Deckard, is a bounty hunter or a policeman who's job is to find these rogue androids and "retire" them.


The driving theme in the book is that the only way to tell the difference between the newest androids and humans is to test their empathy. Androids cannot connect with other life while humans can. The author brings this idea out through a neo-religion called Mercerism. Each household has a device called an empathy box where the user can connect to everyone else using the device and can feel what others feel and share their own emotions. Androids cannot use this device which further disassociates them from humans.


However, as the book continues Rick Deckard finds he is losing pieces of his humanity as he has to track down the androids and retire them. He find he is simultaneously losing natural empathy for humans and gaining it for androids. This is the idea that I found most intriguing in the book. It's not a new idea. Friedrich Nietzsche wrote "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster.  And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.” I've seen this idea repeated a few times in the movies and on TV. This aphorism was quoted on CBS' Criminal Minds and is in Joss Whedon's Serenity. The question from Nietzsche to Serenity is can we destroy/rid ourselves of our enemy without partially becoming like him? In various ways it is true, to rid ourselves of monsters we have become a form of monster.  Rick Deckard finds his job becoming very difficult as he begins to have empathy for the androids. He sees that to destroy the unfeeling creatures he has to distance himself from them emotionally. When one of them gets under his skin he finds he is conflicted. How can he kill something he cares for? 

That's the question for all of us. How do we get rid of something terrible without losing part of ourselves in the process? Can we? 

More: Family Updates

It’s been a while since I posted and a few things have happened. First of all, and probably least importantly, we’ve moved. The apartment building we were in was bought by NuSkin to make more parking. Now the three of us are staying in southern Provo till the job situation straightens out. Secondly, I PASSED THE NCLEX!!!! Woohoo! I am officially a registered nurse, I’ve already started getting questions from family and friends about health stuff. It’s great! Thirdly, Lily is growing up way too fast. I don’t have pictures of everything she’s learned to do so I’ll list some of them and post some pictures of her absolute cuteness. She’s obviously crawling all over the place, she gets to her feet and can now get back down to her knees, she opens any drawer or cabinet with a handle within reach, she feeds herself Graduates (puffs for babies to eat), searches for items she’s dropped, waves hello/goodbye, claps, and destroys any tower of blocks I build. Here are the pictures, hover over them for a description.