the_jesus_fandom's reviews
354 reviews

I thought this was another book from when I was younger (you know, about actual dolphins...) but I was pleasantly surprised to find out it was about Dunkirk! That's one of my favourite stories from history.

The protagonists are about my age (17-ish), and I think the violence that comes later in the book is also not very suitable for people younger than 15. Then again, I read the Hunger Games at age 12 (not my mom's fault, I found it in a hotel), so maybe I'm being too protective of the smaller ones.

Anyway. I was glad that the book adressed issues like passivism (the kind where people don't wanna fight). The protagonist is mad that his older brother, Andrew, doesn't want to fight in the war, and has some pretty good arguments for it. Then, when he sees the death and destruction at Dunkirk and realises that's what his side would have to do as well, he sees why Andrew wouldn't want to be a soldier. Later, Andrew tells him he would have done the same (i.e. also go help evacuate soldiers from Dunkirk), showing he is no coward. In the end, the book makes no judgement but does make some very good points for both sides.

I wasn't so sure what I thought of John's mistrust of the boat caretaker. The man does turn out to be selling things on the black market, but other that he's okay. John, however, blackmails and dislikes him for some reason... it's a bit weird.

Spoiler

In the end, Pat dies. I don't have a problem with this, per se, because a lot of people died and that's the truth. But it annoyed me that this happened because he went back without John. He basically died off-screen, and it's the last major plot point in the book. This makes the ending, where John can feel no happiness because his friend is dead, just such a downer. I know it's a war and all, but it felt like it wasn't fitting: no focus on the fact that John's dad is suddenly there again (for some reason), no focus on all the soldiers John saved, just pain. And I understand that that's what it must be like. I just prefer a book that also gives the reader some hope.

All in all, I liked the book, despite some of my problems with the climax. It was a fun, but also very sad, image of what it was like there at Dunkirk. Definitely worth a read

Don't get me wrong, the main idea of being loving to everyone is good.

But. First of all all of the teacher's mottos or whatever were stupid and relativistic. Like, if you have the choice between being right and being kind, choose kind? Okay, sure, bro.

Also, the book makes being kind the most important thing in the universe. It's not. It's loving God and your neighbour as yourself. What's the difference between being kind and being loving? Love isn't always nice. It wants what is best for other people. Kindness will only get you so far, real love is what the deal is. I don't know whether I'm explaining this right. It's just... kindess is raised up on this pedestal but it just isn't the answer. Love is.

And the whole "thanks for sending me to school" thing was annoying but I guess this kid is kinda different cause of his face. He prolly does need to be surrounded by kids all day to get friends.

This review was originally posted on homeschoolingteen.com

For the video review, click here.

As a child, I was very vocal about my being homeschooled: if I was in the room, everyone would find out about it within 10 minutes. Because of this, I encountered quite a few stereotypes regarding homeschoolers: apparantly, we have no friends, are really smart – or really dumb – and we always vote conservative. One stereotype, however, I never heard: that of us being hippies. Surely, nobody could really believe that? Well, a certain group of people certainly does seem to believe it: authors. They typically portray homeschoolers as naive, otherwordly martial arts enthusiasts. In these books, the homeschooler has to go to a public school for the first time, and there encounters all-new, life-changing things such as wedgies and peer pressure. During their stay, they change everyone for the better, showing them the more simple and beautiful parts of life while simultaneously learning to look outside their own narrow world.

Schooled by Gordan Korman is just such a book. 13-year-old Capricorn has grown up with his grandmother Rain on a hippie compound called Garland. When Rain falls out of a tree and lands in the hospital, Capricorn – Cap for short – needs a place to stay. He finds a room with a social services worker called Mrs. Donnelly, who happens to have grown up in Garland and spends the rest of the book privately reminiscing about the horrible time she had there, even describing it as a cult. Meanwhile, Cap goes to the local public school, where he promptly gets chosen school president so that everyone can make fun of him when he inevitably fails. But of course, he doesn’t fail. Instead, when he leaves, the entire school is changed for the better and misses him. And then, seeing Cap needs school and friends, Rain decides to give up their farm, go live in the city, let Cap go to school, and let him watch reality shows because he needs a normal childhood.

My main issue with this book is how it portrays homeschoolers as the most out of touch aliens. Cap gets compared to a time traveller from the past various times. It admits that Cap is far ahead of his classmates in his studies, but he’s very far behind in everything else: he has never seen a girl up close before, doesn’t know what 9-1-1 or a policeman is, doesn’t understand the concept of a locker or speakers, and for some reason doesn’t know how to shake hands. I am willing to give that some homeschoolers might – and I say might – be 60’s type hippies who grow their own food, are vegetarians and believe in Zen Buddhism. I am also willing to acquiesce that a small part of homeschoolers is very sheltered. An even smaller part might be so sheltered it could be considered abusive. But at this point, we’re down to a tiny percentage of all homeschoolers. Most of us do understand how money works and what the phrase “get a life” means.

I also feel as if this book required no research whatsoever. If the author had done his work, he would have found that homeschoolers are socially more advanced than their peers. If he had done his work, maybe Cap would probably not have been a liberal pantheist but a conservative monotheist. As it is, the author doesn’t seem to have needed more than a vague knowledge of what homeschoolers are about to write this book. All of the information on what hippies did and believed was common knowledge, and I’m assuming the author got all his information about high school from his own younger years. This is just a very low-effort “what if?” story that rehashes old, dusty stereotypes and neglects to step out of any proverbial boxes.

Spoiler

The ending to the book is completely ridiculous: Rain takes Cap back to Garland, but she soon realizes he isn’t happy anymore. I can understand that: after all, he left behind all his friends. So what does Rain do? Does she decide to let Cap hang out with his friends, who only live 10 minutes away, keeping the rest of their lifestyle as it was? She does not. Rain goes big or she goes home. Not only does she decide to sell the farm and move to the city, from now on Cap will go to school and will be allowed to watch as much Tears and Trigonometry as he wants. This “twist” ending is very confusing, as it makes Rain completely betray all her previous convictions. It’s also just plain unrealistic. If a parent believes they’re doing what’s best for their child, they aren’t going to abandon the entire plan if their child feels sad about it. That’s not how parenting works.

The underlying assumption of the book’s grand solution is that homeschooling is the problem. If only Cap weren’t homeschooled, he would have friends, know about real life, and not mess up financially. That’s not how it works. And I personally don’t see how Rain had to go live in town to help Cap have friends. They have transportation. Furthermore, Cap going back to school seems counterproductive to me, especially since he got beaten up a few days before he left. And really? Watching Tears and Trigonometry is suddenly very important for the developing teenager? I don’t see why on earth Rain would teach Cap all these things about violence, meditation, openness and all that his entire life only to let all of those beliefs go in the end. This entire point is very unclear in the book. I think maybe she never really believed it, or she saw the error of her ways or something. To me it seems fake. You don’t just reverse your entire worldview withing a few weeks.

Now, I want to make it clear that some people really should not homeschool their children. The increase in child deaths by abuse in the past one and a half years has made that point for me. And some homeschoolers might indeed live like Capricorn and Rain. But I believe it’s very harmful to only write books about these types of homeschoolers. You’re only strengthening the stereotype. And the people who hear these stereotypes are the future lawmakers of our countries. You know, the “experts” who are “genuinely concerned” about homeschooled kids and therefore want to make homeschooling as hard as possible for normal people who have never abused a child in their life.

I would like to end this review with a plea to all non-homeschooled writers trying to write a book about homeschoolers: can you please do your research? There are quite a lot of homeschoolers around if you try to find them. Go visit them, talk with them, try to see things from their perspective. Because, potentially, a book about a homeschooler who has to go to school for the first time is amazing. But they’re not just fun books that you can write without putting in the effort, and I’m really getting tired of seeing the stories told from the perspective of people who don’t know what they’re talking about.

This was my first venture into Christian fairytale retellings, and I have to say I like it. (Also... I accidentally read this first, thinking it was the first book, but it didn't really matter.)

I thought the love story in general was very sweet. The thing is, though, that it didn't feel special. It felt like any other love story... I don't mind that, but it felt lacking. I also had that feeling about the climax: it was just over too soon. I guess you could say that there had been enough action earlier, but I felt some more happenings were in order there.

The villain being just the slimiest, grossest human alive was rather uncomfortable, but that was obviously the intention.

So, yeah, I liked how the Word of God was incorporated in the story, and I definitely enjoyed reading it - I tried to read it whenever I could because it excited me - but it didn't feel very special or anything.

Yes, I am once again back (I read this book and the one before it within one day, so yeah)

Anyway

Dislikes

1) “‘Curses! Ye gods,’ I muttered naughtily” Enola, shut up.

2) An explanation for the disappearance of Dr. Watson is that “he might have been attacked by an anti-vaccination mob”. This is the second time in the books that anti-vaxxers have randomly been mentioned like this. It serves nothing but the author’s political agenda.

3) Okay you know what I am sick and tired of Sherlock and Mycroft being portrayed as soooooo sexist. They stop going to a certain shop because the owner is now a strong-minded woman, which they can’t stand; Sherlock doesn’t notice the weird bouquet Mrs. Watson receives, cause, y’know, he’s a man and therefore doesn’t think flowers are worth noticing; he doesn’t even look at Enola because she’s just a lady… First of all, the worst thing canon!Sherlock says about women is that he does not trust them. He actually compliments women’s keen insight more than once. Secondly, Sherlock the detective looks at and deduces things about everyone. He should have noticed Enola’s disguise, seeing as to how he’s literally a master of disguise himself. And the flowers? Yes, I think that if the great detective’s personal friend went missing, he would be smart enough to realise that a weird bouquet like the one mentioned is off… especially since he knows Enola and her mum are communicating through flowers. His mind is already on flowers! Also: “Neither of them [Sherlock and Mycroft] could imaginatively enter the mind of any woman”. Have you not read A Scandal in Bohemia?

Basically, what I’m trying to say is that this author needs to chill. Yes, women had less rights in Victorian (that’s the age, right?) times, but not every single frickin man was a sexist!
You also get annoying tidbits like this: “I firmly believe that the whole reason women must wear long skirts is so that they are unable to do anything worthwhile.” First of all, Enola, you really think there is some nefarious plot going on to stop all women from being themselves??? Through skirts???? Please shut up. Second of all, this is in the middle of a chase scene. Can we cut the political stuff and get to the action, please?

There’s a part where Enola complains that men are idiots and that being beautiful will get you way more attention.

Oh, and Enola tells a story of a women who was put away into an insane asylum because she sat down on the ground in her dress and her husband thought it was less embarrassing than divorce. Um….. okay. This author really wants to portray these times as just a living hell, doesn’t she?

Basically: It wasn’t that bad! And men aren’t all trash.

4) The above example is the only reason Enola ever gives for her not wanting to marry ever. That’s the only reason. Once again, if women are so cool, why is matrimony such a bad thing?

5) “[…] there were always a few eccentric amateur scientists, followers of Malthus and Darwin, trying to cross-pollinate orchids in hothouses”. Once again Malthus and Darwin being amazing geniuses. But… why not mention Gregor Mendel? You know, father of modern genetics? The guy with the peas? Yeah, he actually discovered something instead of repackaging old ideas in shiny new paper. If you’re gonna talk about cross-pollination, this man might be worth a mention. It’s because he was a devout Christian monk, isn’t it?

6)

Spoiler

The villain is a mentally ill woman. I dislike this in general, because it’s easy for authors to use this as an excuse for a flawed plot: it doesn’t have to make sense, because the villain’s crazy! It also makes for gruesome scenes. And yes, this book has them. The lady’s face got eaten by rats.

7)

Spoiler

“she made a much more satisfactory man than a woman, and it was narrow-minded of Pertelote to think otherwise” ….wut? This is about a woman who has literally no face left, disguising herself as a man to take revenge on Dr. Watson…. And this is what we have to say about it? Okay then.

Likes

1) Dr. Watson is the main focus, and that is as it should be. (although, since he’s missing, and the book is from Enola’s perspective, we don’t really see him a lot)

2) Secret messages through flowers are one of my favourite tropes. Do people still read things into bouquets like that?

3)

Spoiler

Mycroft seems to care a bit more about stuff than was previously thought. Oh, and he knows about flowers!

4) The bittersweet reunion scene was very beautiful.

5) Sherlock Holmes himself is also shown to be more and more caring about his younger sister.

6)

Spoiler

The fact that Enola guessed the solution because asparagus sounds like a spear of gus which sounds like Augustus which is the name of a guy recently put into an asylum is kinda hilarious to me. It should be in the dislikes, but it’s just so funny and preposterous how she keeps stumbling into clues that I’m gonna put it here.

So there you have it! More feminist, atheist propaganda, but at least there’s flowers and lots of Dr. Watson content.

Great book that's easily understood.

(I gotta admit I'm kinda stumped about the Viginere cypher at the end, so if any of y'all figured it out plz hmu)

Some of you may be wondering: why am I still reading these books when they annoy me so? Well, first of all, the premise is actually really fun. It's making my imagination machine work overtime. Second of all, the tension is actually really good. Third of all, I refuse to read any of those sub-par teen versions of Sherlock Holmes. This is the best option.

But, anyway, despite absolutely hating the premise, this book was enjoyable to me! I've decided to accept that this version of Sherlock is just a lot less intelligent. I'd rather he was, but the whole series would crumble if Sherlock knew how to actually solve stuff. And it's gonna make for an adorable scene (his bumbliness) so I'm just chalking this up to character interpretation.

Likes

1) In the prologue, Mycroft brings up an excellent point: 'It is the girl's future that is at stake, not her immediate survival. What is to become of her in a few years?' Of course, he and Sherlock are still mostly interested in getting Enola a husband, but he still has a point. Enola is 14. She needs some more education, of whatever sort. Or, as Sherlock mentions later: 'Does any respectable and responsible older person have a care for you? [...] If not, then you cannot possible be safe; any female dwelling alone is a magnet for crime.'

2) There's some guy named Baron Dagobert Merganser. In the Netherlands, Donald Duck's uncle (Scrooge) is called Dagobert.

3) Enola has to make sure her aristocratic accent doesn't slip through. I liked this bit of realism.

4) The riddle that Enola wrote was pretty catchy

5) And now... the reason I liked this book! Sherlock and Enola have quite a bit of interaction, and this is the first we see of them working together. It was very cute, especially since

Spoiler

Sherlock was hurt and Enola was helping him. Yes, I love whump when done right.

Sherlock shows actual love for Enola, and even Mycroft is starting to warm up.

6) There's a non-sexist man in here!

Dislikes

1) "Society-watching was a pursuit that, being a person of democratic convictions, I had scorned, up until now." What does that even mean?

2) This is the fourth book in a row in which Darwin and evolution are mentioned for no good reason.

3) I'm okay with long words, but "dolichocephalic" is overdoing it.

4) I have to admit I'm very prejudiced against stories where girls try to get out of arranged marriages. It's not that it's wrong for them to want to be happy, it's just...
Okay (1) if you've lived your entire life in a culture where it's normal, you will probably accept your parents' decision (

Spoiler

unless your future husband is as horrible as the guy in this book

). (2) Quite a lot of the time, parents actually... cared about their children. Yeah, weird concept, huh? So when they were looking for partners, they would also take the character into consideration.
I guess my problem with the trope is just that it portrays the entire world as anti-women and makes everything seem way worse than it was.
It also makes for a perfect opportunity for Enola to complain about marriage again: 'It had to do with the lock part of the wedlock. Trapped. Horrible, irrevocably trapped' Just because a character doesn't want to marry doesn't mean she has to hate marriage! Nuance exists.

5) Enola continues with the "not like other girls" - spiel by disguising herself as beautiful. Yeah, basically she says her brothers won't recognise her if she looks beautiful... I could read this as being insecure, but it comes across as "I'm not like other girls. I don't care about looks". Except she's constantly calling everybody ugly.

6) Enola steals candals from a chapel, which isn't great. But my bigger problem comes later. Enola talks about feeling "revulsion" while "appropriating altar candals and baptismal water". Apparantly the church is something to be grossed out by.

7) Enola assumes Cecily's father is marrying her off because he's embarrassed by her kidnapping in book something (i don't remember which one it was). She says: "And marrying his daughter to his sister's son was exactly the sort of thing Sir Eastace would do. I remembered how his concern had been all for hushing up scandal, rather than for his daugher's safety, when Cecily had been kidnapped." Now, first of all, we've never even met the man. We don't know how concerned he was. I recall it was he who contacted Sherlock Holmes about it, although I might be wrong. Whatever the case, simply assuming the father doesn't love the daughter because he doesn't love the poor is a bit of a stretch.

8) Enola doesn't say a proper hello to her landlady and her servant (idk was it a servant) at one point, and her excuse is: "the deafness of the former and the humble status of the latter rendered any explanation unnecessary" Yeah, cause you don't have to be polite to the deaf and those of lower social status than you.

So... yeah. The only reason I gave this three stars is because of the sweet scene between Sherlock and Enola.

This was a pretty fun book, and I thought it was pretty original how we didn't really get any introduction to the characters, but just dove headfirst into the story and learned during it.

Idk what I thought of the mystery, I got confused halfway through, although I did kinda know the villain once they appeared. I liked that the protag has PTSD and needs to learn how to deal with it, and the relationships were sweet.

I'm a big fan of the corny, over-the-top British humour, so that was another pluspoint.

I remember nothing except that Enola's mother is selfish, irresponsible and should not have had children.

The notion that teenage Enola gets to gallivant around London on her own because she's soooooo mature and capable is laughable

Also unrelated but my phone keeps changing "Enola" to "Ebola" lol