Try a Little Happiness

If you know me and/or have read much of anything I've written lately, you know that I have been studying JOY and all things to do with joy and happiness, so (and as a Christian) choosing to read Jennifer O'Neill's THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS: 21 SPIRITUAL RULES TO SUCCESS was a no-brainer (especially I got it for my Kindle for next to nothing).  I would give the book more than 3 stars if the author wasn't a psychic.  The title includes the word "spiritual," so as a Christian, I was thinking of "spiritual" in terms of the Christian faith.  Thus I was disappointed when I realized, about halfway through the book, that Jennifer is a well-known psychic.  Normally I do a little research on authors before I read a book by a new, unknown (for me) author, but this time, I was so drawn to the title (and the sunflower on the cover) that I didn't bother learning anything at all about the author.  As a woman of faith, I am not happy to learn that Jennifer is a psychic.  With that being said, though, Jennifer doesn't write this book with psychic overtones--such that would (or could) offend a person of the Christian faith.  She writes it simply about real life and the real way to spiritual happiness.  I find no fault with the way she wrote the book or with what she says in the book.  In fact, I'm sure I will not only refer to Jennifer's book often, but that I will definitely re-read it every couple of months, at least.  Her "spiritual rules to success" ring true and I know that everything she says makes absolute perfect sense.  If we all pursued happiness as Jennifer suggests, the world certainly would be a brighter, happier, sun-shiney place full of shining, happy people!!!!

I like this book....I don't like this book...I like this book...I don't like this book....

I did NOT expect to like James Patterson's ZOO.  So why did I buy it then...and read it in two days?  Curiosity.  I'd seen the previews for the televised version and I admit it:  I was very curious.  But as usual, I prefer reading the book first when I know a tv show or  movie is based on a book.  There are a few things about ZOO that are little unrealistic that takes away from any level of reality, but suspending reality is the whole point of a good book, right?  With that being said, though, I honestly don't think that Oz and Chloe would have recovered as quickly as they do after the lion attacks in Africa.  Chloe does shake a bit and Oz gets her to talk in an attempt to help her calm down--you know, giving her something else to focus on, but it's just difficult for me to believe that it would have worked as well as it appears to do.  Personally, if I had just not only witnessed such a savage lion attack, watching my friend die a violent death, I feel pretty confident that a panic attack would be warranted and would not be kept at bay just because I am able to talk to someone else to get my mind off what just happened.  You know what I mean?

The other thing that really ticks me off about ZOO by James Patterson is that Oz has been telling everyone for years that animals were going to turn on humans, but he himself keeps a CHIMPANZEE in his own home!!!!  And he acts surprised when Attila, the chimp, goes bezerk!!!!  He puts his head in his hands and moans that he just doesn't understand why Attila would do this.  Really?!  Seriously?!

One other thing....how much did Michael Ledwidge do in the writing of this book?  Was the book really written by Michael but because James Patterson put his seal of approval on it, the book got his name?  Why does a big-name author like James Patterson need a co-author?  Why does he HAVE a co-author?  I'd love to know more about this cohort writing team.  I admit that I've done no research on this book even though normally I don't begin reading a book without having done some research on the book and/or on the author.  So I'm completely clueless as to who Michael Ledwidge is....and why he is mentioned on the cover of the book as a co-author with James Patterson.  If I were to have a chance to interview Patterson about this book, that would be the first part of my interview!

Why is the book titled ZOO, btw??  They do call the animals-attacking-humans ZOO at one point, but even the guy telling Oz that has no idea why.  Apparently it's an acronym, but no one knows what it stands for.  The only two animals in the whole book that go rogue in or from a zoo are the two lions (a male and a female) in the Prologue to the story (201).

That brings up another question....throughout most of the story, they talk about how the animals attacking are all males, but yet in the very beginning of the book, it's a male and a female that kill together and then escape the zoo.  Neither of these animals is mentioned again in the whole book.....If they're important enough to be in the Prologue, why don't we see them again??

Oh, and the book opens--the whole first half of the book--with LIONS attacking and eating humans, but then it's DOGS.  Patterson throws in racoons, bears, and rats, and the chimp comes back into the story--briefly, but according to Oz's findings, it's ALL animals.  Does Patterson only focus on lions and dogs because there just isn't enough time or space in a novel like to this to tell the story of all the animals attacking, killing, and eating humans???  It just seems that if Oz's theory is truly true, as it appears to be, then more animals would be included as part of the story of animals killing and eating humans.

If you do choose to read ZOO, you should go into it with your eyes wide open.  This is an apocalyptic story.  In an apocalypse, there is no respecter of persons--except, of course, for the protagonist of the story itself.  Some parts of this story are very difficult to read, but at the same time, those characters come and go as quickly as the pages of their story.  They aren't developed enough to FEEL anything emotional regarding their deaths beyond the "that's awful" that we all feel when something terrible happens to someone.  I'm definitely curious to see how the tv show handles this book and the horrific scenes described.

Why am I so drawn to such horrific stories?????

*As a side note, I don't know if Patterson gets a little lazy with his wording or if he is just having a little fun, but he throws in the following:

          "Strapped into the wailing, shuddering army helicopter..., we...swung low as a sweet chariot..." (198).

          "'The bombing campaign was nothing more than a lot of sound and fury, signifying jack *@&#'" (317).

          "...Charles Groh and I were...trying to brainstorm. It was more of a light brainshower--we were too spent and frazzled to stir up a storm" (334).

          "Alvarez hoisted his new toy to his shoulder, ready to blast the dog to kibbles and bits" (346).

          "'What's the story, morning glory?'" (348).

          "'Surely you're joking.' 'No siree. And don't call me Shirley'" (349).