New England College Books

I got thru the book which is why I gave it 2 stars instead of 1. The writing was not polished, very fragmented. It was easy to figure out the ending before reading it. I was not impressed with this book. Save your time & money for something better.

I discovered Peter Abrahams when I read his newest novel, Oblivion, last year; I became so engrossed in this book that I finished it in a day. Only recently did I realize that Abrahams has a large body of previous works, and so Crying Wolf was my first sampling of what else he had to offer. Although I found this novel also to be very readable and entertaining, it lacked the thrilling, exciting nature of Oblivion, which I found a bit disappointing.

First off, Crying Wolf is not a suspense novel (the book jacket makes it out to be much more of a thriller than it actually is). Rather, it is a more of a character study told from two main perspectives. First we have Nate, a smart teenager from a small town and a meager background who, with the help of scholarships, is able to attend Iverness, an exclusive private school. Contrast this with Freedy, a young man in his 20s who grew up on the wrong side of that same college town and is constantly looking for an easy way to make it big. Freedy's path unexpectedly crosses with that of Nate and his two college friends, rich twins Grace and Izzy, eventually leading to the short suspense sequence which makes up the end of the book.

Although Crying Wolf was not as exciting as Oblivion, I didn't find it to be boring, either; I enjoyed Abrahams's character development and his interesting plot variables, although I found the latter to be a bit far-fetched at times. Similarly, it seemed a bit two coincidental that a somewhat minor character throughout the book, Professor Uzig, was suddenly shown to have a more major role in the very end. One final issue is that I easily deciphered a major plot twist long before main character Nate was able to do so. Despite these minor flaws, however, I enjoyed Crying Wolf and am still interested in reading other works by this author.

I came across this book in my public library, and noticing Stephen King's praise of the author, decided this book would be worth a read.

The book did manage to keep me thoroughly interested, all the way through the end, but I still have several complaints about the structure of the book. Abrahams does an excellent job of developing his characters and the relationship between Nat, Grace, and Izzie. He also describes well the (deteriorating) mental state of Freedy. In my opinion, the most well-developed character was Freedy. Sadly, in his description of the characters, Abrahams occupies the most of his book--the first 200 pages. For the remaining 150 pages, he rushes through the plot of his book. His characters make hasty decisions, and his sub-plots are all but breezed over.

Nat needs $7,000 to remain at Inverness, but refuses to borrow the money from the twins. This is understandable, perhaps a testament to Nat's pride. But, if Nat did not want to borrow the money from Grace and Izzie, I have to wonder why he did not even hesitate to agree to a plan to extort one million dollars from their father. As far as the sub plot, Freedy's quest to find his father, Abrahams almost forgets to include it. He quickly breezes over it in perhaps 10 or 20 pages. Overall, the entire plot of the story seems rushed and crammed into the last 150 pages of the book.

While I am no author, I feel Abrahams should have seriously changed the structure of his book. He should have spent less time developing the characters and expanded both his main and sub plots. Especially, he should have spent more time on the sub plot since it creates a nice new set of circumstances regarding the characters and ties them together even better. The Nietzsche motif in the novel also ties in the sub plot.

Overall, this book was based on an excellent idea. Abrahams should have thought this one through more and expanded the action-filled plot more. Three stars out of five.

I picked up this book because Stephen King claimed how Abrahams was one of the best suspense writers. Man, was I disappointed. This story has no substance, hollow characters, and an unsatisfying ending. I am stunned that some critics wrote favorably about this book. For shame.

This was the first Peter Abrahams book I read and I felt misled by the build up he had from Stephen King.
True, the plot was diverting - even entertaining. But, far too many coincidences. Too predictable. Is it possible for a lad - even one from the midwest - to be as naive as Nate is painted?
Still, I won't give up on the author on the basis of one book.

Was there a plot here? Oh, I must have missed it.

This read more like a collection of connected stories than a novel. The voices of the three narrators are compelling, but the book suffers from a lack of focus. The central conflict, involving the sister's illness, is marred by her disappearance, leaving the main character to meditate about the issues of mortality, love and family, stalling the story's momentum. The anecdotes from academic life, though entertaining, are distracting, because the minor characters arouse more curiosity than the main players.

Why does a man think that to be a man he has to use the "f" word constantly? In all its parts of speech. That was a major turnoff about this book, plus I thought it rather...I hate to say it...dumb!

One of the characters in this uncompromising book remarks that life always takes place "in the middle of all this," and it certainly does. This is a long journey in a short book and each page is fresh, beautifully conceived and wonderfully well-written. What a pleasure!

There's going to be a wide disparity of opinions about this book, since it deals with a hot-button, emotional subject: a sibling dying of cancer. For my money, the book and especially the writing are on the mark. For all its seriousness, it's also brutally funny, as we follow Martin self-destructing as he tries to give solace to his sister.

I was fortunate to have professor Newhall as a teacher. Because of that, I found the book engrossing. His former Williams students, and perhaps other history professors interested in comparing their philosophy of history and teaching with prof. Newhall's, will no doubt likewise find the book of interest. The casual reader, interested in gaining some new insights into the politics of the world, may be caught by Newhall's wry, slightly cynical and ironic attitude and glean some nuggets worth harvesting.

While I thoroughly enjoyed the class I took with him -- I wish I'd been more fully able to appreciate at the time the richness of the experience being offered to me -- I find, upon reading the book, that I disagree with many of Newhall's opinions, particularly about the wisdom of being in Vietnam (he supported the idea). Nevertheless, he certainly presents his points of view vigorusly and well, and even though I disagree, his ideas cause me to think -- and of that he would be well pleased.

I have not read this book, but Perry Miller taught another Harvard Professor named Alan Heimert, whose book I just finished reading. Heimert is not a Christian, but is extremely sympathetic to the Puritans. His book was highly criticized by his secular colleagues because of the importance he placed on Calvinism in the formation of the American Government. It is an excellent history and provides a great deal of insight into the life and circumstances of America's most influential New Light Puritans, including Edwards, Whitefield, Bellamy, Davies and Parsons, and their struggle to maintain the purity of the Church against the challenges brought forth from an un-regenerate clergy, rationalism, and the rank capitalism of the Old Light Party.

Considering the only other review for this book currently available, I felt compelled to write a review that is actually about the book, not the subject of the book. A Harvard professor deserves at least that. Perry Miller's classic introduction to the New England Puritans remains an essential text for anyone seeking to understand the complexities of a much maligned and often misunderstood religious movement. An understanding of the New England Puritans is absolutely essential to an understanding of American History and American society. Miller does not espouse the doctrines of Puritanism; he provides a concise and helpful historical background and then guides the reader through some representative samples of their writing. This is not a book designed to convert someone to Puritanism. A sidenote: The Puritans referred to in this book have not existed for centuries, so I assure you no reviewer of this book actually left the Puritanism described in this book.

I would certainly disagree with Mr. Richard's assessment that the Puritanism of this book no longer exists today. The very reason why Puritan literature and its history is so prevalent today is because so many Christians are reading and following the writings of the Puritans of three centuries ago. That is just not a proper assessment of "modern puritanism". Yes, much has changed in three hundred years, but not the faith of the Believers who are Reformed in their theology and life. And yes, the Puritans in this book have been dead for a long time, but their writings and the Faith that they passed on is not dead but living strong today.

I've read a considerable number of Fred Kaplan's articles,
and am impressed by his insightful writing. I always come
away with the sense that here is not only a thoughtful
writer, but also a good guy. So I bought his biographies of
Dickens and Henry James, and read James first.

It took me until page 387 to finally get hold of what was
the matter with this biography. If I'm on, it's very
simple. Kaplan doesn't like James. He doesn't like the
man. He doesn't even seem to like James's works
particularly, or certainly as much as a Professor of English
would be expected to like them. Or if he does, he's hiding
it pretty well. Only occasionally does one see any real
appreciation of James's works. There is relatively little
positive discussion of the luminous language, the
intertwined subtleties, the profundity of empathy and
insight, the remarkable evocation of time and place.
James's various stories, and even the great novels, are
dealt with largely in terms of how much money James made
from each, or which of his family or friends are
characterized there.

But the problem isn't one of weak or wrong-headed literary
criticism. It seems, rather, to be one of personal
antipathy. That is pretty odd, to say the least, since it
is difficult to imagine someone deciding to write a major
work on a major figure without at least a reasonable degree
of admiration and personal regard for the man. Here,
instead, there is a strange undercurrent of resentment that
colors and shapes the slant, the emphasis, the
interpretations of a range of James's experiences and
choices. It isn't the resentment of envy for the genius of
James's work. It doesn't seem to be about the work at all.
Rather, it seems to be about the way James chose to
live his life. There's no room here to carefully document
it, but I think a reader can readily see it by watching for
quotations from a letter or note of James, and then looking
for Kaplan's tiny, very slightly jarring negative spin, each
tiny distortion piled on top of the last until, after a few
hundred pages or so, what's going on becomes clearer.

I had read Toibin's graceful novel on James, which made me
want to read next a scholarly biography that told more about
the life of this gentle, refined man whose beauty of
language reveals, with brilliant precision, what is actually
happening beneath the surfaces. I wanted to be able to see
more clearly what James saw. Kaplan's book isn't that
biography. I'm reading the classic work by Leon Edel, and
things are much better now.

I hope Kaplan likes Dickens.

Fred Kaplan is a determined Freudian. His greatest joy appears to be linking James's novels, stories, and plays to his quasi-sexual relationships with his family. This is not entirely implausible, given the sexual oddness of most of the James clan. However, Kaplan could have written a much shorter and more engaging book had he refrained from prurient speculation that rarely adds anything to the elegance of James's work. He ought to have played to his strengths -- a devoted scholar of James's correspondence, he's pulled many amusing and enlightening bits from the great volume of letters James left behind. Particularly good fun are James's judgments on fellow writers like George Eliot and Flaubert. Who knew the creator of such beauties as Isabel Archer was so good at describing ugliness? For celebrity snark, circa 1910, check out "The Imagination of Genius." But for a decent biography, stick with "Henry James: A Life" by Leon Edel.