“This Is Climate Change: A Visual Guide to the Facts” by David Nelles and Christian Serber

I had a really annoying conversation about climate change with my parents over Christmas, where I felt sure my parents were wrong but I didn't have enough information to prove it. My mom magnanimously agreed that the climate is "currently in a warming trend" but she simpered with condescension as she stated humans have no control over the climate. My dad went off on a tangent about dendroclimatology (reading the climate records in tree rings). Sam got so mad that he walked away. I felt helpless.

After stewing about it overnight, first thing next morning I decided it was time for me to arm myself with information. I searched online for books that I hoped would provide unbiased facts, and ended up ordering four. 

This is Climate Change (which, ugh, I can't help singing to the Nightmare Before Christmas theme!!) is the one I chose to read first, since it seemed it would give me a brief but broad overview and promised to be easy to understand--and it delivered. Best of all, it clearly refuted some of the "facts" that my parents had spouted. I hate that my memory is terrible and that the information in this book can't just reside in my head, but I've got the next best thing--the book itself. I'm definitely going to keep it to use as a reference. 

I think this book does a really good job of showing that the rise in greenhouse gases is unquestionably caused by human activity. It starts by explaining that greenhouse gases have always existed, and have always naturally varied, but several different charts make it clear that the sharp increase and current trajectory clearly started with industrialization. Let me stop for a second and mention, via principle of charity: maybe, as well as also believing that the climate is in a warming cycle, my mom also believes its rate of warming is influenced by human activity and she just doesn't believe there's anything we can do about it? (I was too irritated to clarify this during our conversation.) But the book also makes it clear which human activities contribute to this rise, and that a decrease in these activities will result in a decrease of anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

My dad claims that attributing global warming to increase in atmospheric CO2 is "old science" and that recently the focus has been on methane. I said (even before reading this book!) I didn't think that was true, and that while methane was also important, it had less of an effect because it didn't hang around as long. My dad countered that methane and CO2 have a similar half-life, which I thought was completely wrong, but I wasn't sure, so I let it drop. Well, guess what? Atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is up to a million years; atmospheric lifetime of methane is 12.4 years. (Disclaimer: I don't actually know if this might have something to do with the amounts of each gas that are present. The concentration of CO2, measured in parts per million or ppm, is much higher than the concentration of methane, which is measured in parts per billion or ppb. Plus it's possible we were talking at cross-purposes and were both right: my "hanging around" time might not mean the same thing as "half-life." My knowledge doesn't run deep enough to answer these questions.)

My mom thinks that the recent rise in CO2 levels is "majorly impacted by the great increase in huge forest fires, and the solution is to plant more trees." The truth is that 85% of global CO2 emissions are from the burning of fossil fuels, 5% is from cement production, and 10% is from land use (slash-and-burn clearance of rain forests, and I would assume we can include forest fires in this category). Majorly impacted? Sure. The majority of impact? No. Plant more trees? Sure. This will solve everything? No. 

The jury is still out on dendroclimatology. My dad says that the visitor's center at Petrified Forest National Park has a chart showing spikes in greenhouse gases in past millennia to levels that are just as high as those we see today. This book does not address dendroclimatology, but it does cover ice core samples, which show this: Over the past 800,000 years, concentrations of CO2 have gone up and down, staying between 160ppm and 310ppm, until human activity became a factor. When this book was written in 2021, CO2 was up to 404ppm. I googled it just now, and the most up-to-date figure is 419.07ppm. Methane concentrations have varied from 330ppb to 750ppb in the past, but were up to 1,843ppb when this book was published, and were 1,902ppb in 2023. Nutshell version: atmospheric CO2 and methane concentrations are at the highest they've ever been, and getting higher. I wonder if the dendroclimatology chart at PFNP does not extend to modern measurements? If the chart is based solely on tree ring data from petrified wood, it would not be surprising if the chart does not include recent data. Anyway, maybe someday I'll be able to see it myself to find out.

My parents didn't say anything about this in our climate discussion, but I've definitely seen this sort of thing posted online: "Melting ice won't raise the sea level. Displacement! I can science!" What these people are missing is knowledge of the difference between sea ice and land ice. It is true that melting sea ice will not cause a rise in sea levels, but melting land ice (specifically the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica) definitely will--and already has. And just because melting sea ice doesn't contribute to rising sea levels doesn't mean it isn't a problem, because it does contribute to a feedback loop that accelerates global warming (see "ice-albedo feedback"). 

So that's all I have to say about that. This is a really helpful book and I highly recommend it. I would be super interested to hear how a climate-change-denier reacts to it, but *only* if they actually read the whole thing and take the time to understand it, and *only* if they're not allowed to arbitrarily decide that the facts that don't fit their worldview must not be true. (This book has tons of sources that can be reached through an online bibliography here.) Here's one more little interesting tidbit which I did not even realize until I reached the end of the book: it was originally written in German by two university students who wanted to "find a book that explained the nuts and bolts of climate change and presented the scientific evidence in a way that was concise and enjoyable to read" but they found that book didn't exist . . . so they wrote it themselves! It was great to have the opportunity to read this book without having to write it first. 

“The Words That Remain” by Stênio Gardel

Here's the book that won the 2023 National Book Award for Translated Literature. When I first started reading, it was more out of a sense of duty than anything else (tempered a bit by curiosity). I wanted to compare it to Sam's translation and decide for myself which one should have won. 

If I had judged only by the first few pages, I would have given this book a strong thumbs down based on the commas alone. OMG, the commas. There were WAY too many of them. (But, oof, what do you do when you've met the author and the translator, even if very briefly, and they both seemed like such sweet and kind people? Well, I'll tell you what I do. First, I tell myself they'll probably never come across this blog post anyway. Second, I tell myself . . . they won the National Book Award. That should more than make up for anything negative I might have to say about their book!) 

Anyway, commas: I know that French writing seems to aggressively overuse commas and has far fewer periods (and thus longer sentences) than English writing. My guess would be that Portuguese is the same way. And my first instinct was to assume that the translator adhered far too faithfully to the Portuguese syntax when translating this book into English, making for awkward reading. Not to mention there was a sprinkling of what had to have been typos, and some awkward, foreign-seeming word choices. (Yes, life in Brazil is foreign to me, but this book was about Brazilians living in Brazil and they shouldn't sound foreign to each other.)

However, soon it did not matter. The story was very intense, full of sadness and tragedy, and by about halfway through it was really very compelling. It starts when Raimundo is an old man who has finally learned how to read and write. Now, at long last, he is able to read the letter that his young lover, Cicero, had written to him decades earlier. But first we go back to Raimundo's teenaged life, so that we can grow up with him. I found the story very evocative of the experience of a gay man in a time and place when finding acceptance was difficult, even impossible. The shame he is made to bear is in conflict with his internal feelings: how can something that feels so pure and right be something to be ashamed of?

And I got used to all the commas. It came to seem integral to the story, told in a breathless, fervent way, and if I tried to imagine shorter sentences I couldn't. It would have been a very different book, and I'm not sure I can say it would have been a better one.

Spoiler alert: we never get to read the letter! I can understand this choice, though. Most obviously, the letter was private. If  Raimundo never let anyone in his life read the letter, why should he allow me, a total stranger, to read it? But also--I feel like no matter what the letter said it would have been some sort of disappointment or letdown. One step further, though: it is not clear to me that Raimundo even reads the letter. He definitely opens the envelope. He definitely could have read the letter. But did he?

“Baumgartner” by Paul Auster

I found this little gem in Collected Works last month. (I've told you about them before, but in case you don't remember--it's a great little bookstore in Santa Fe, and you should totally check them out if you ever get the chance.) 

It was exciting to spy this book on the shelf. I didn't even know Paul Auster had had a new book published! I've only read his New York Trilogy, but I really loved that. When I saw this one I grabbed it, made it past that depressing and weirdly stark cover photo, and for some reason didn't do my usual dip test (reading a random selection from somewhere in the middle of the book). Instead I started reading at the very beginning. And I read, and I read, and I kept on reading, standing right there in the bookstore. I don't remember exactly how long I stood there, or exactly how many pages I read, but it was obvious I just needed to buy the book. So I did.

This is the story of some old guy named Sy Baumgartner, a retired professor who lost his beloved wife, Anna, nine years ago. He is still grieving, but he is also living his life as best he knows how. The story itself is a weird mix of mundane daily life or throwbacks to the past, and the profound thoughts of an intelligent soul. One of my favorite sections discusses the idea that losing a loved one is like becoming an amputee. You eventually end up with a prosthesis, but you will never be free from the phantom limb pain. 

I really liked this book. It didn't hurt that it was quite short; I'm not sure I would have enjoyed it so much if it was a huge chunk, but as it was, I took my time with it, savoring it, and still didn't spend ages reading it. I wasn't quite sure what to make of the ending--not that it was inscrutable, but it was surprisingly if quietly tense for a little bit; though, I guess, why not go out with a bit of a bang instead of a whimper? And I found it odd that the cover photo wasn’t taken anywhere near where the novel takes place (which, by the way, was on the periphery of my old stomping grounds, so that was kind of fun). But overall, definitely two thumbs up from me.

“Miss Marple’s Final Cases” by Agatha Christie

Here lies the end of Jane Marple. (Don't worry, she doesn't actually die, you know.) She had a good run! And a book of short stories is a nice place to ease my way out. I'm certainly glad that Nemesis wasn't the last Miss Marple book I read. 

Two of these stories ('The Dressmaker's Doll" and "In a Glass Darkly") don't actually have Miss Marple in them, and are tales of the supernatural rather than straightforward, solvable mysteries. Which is fine--I still enjoyed reading them--though they seemed a bit out of place in a book titled Miss Marple's Final Cases. And two of the stories, surprisingly, don't involve murder! "Strange Jest" is basically about buried treasure and "The Case of the Perfect Maid" is about theft. The other five stories, of course, have all the Marple and murders one can expect. 

It's been a nice, cozy six weeks. Bye, Miss Marple!

“Sleeping Murder” by Agatha Christie

I hope you're not getting bored of reading about Agatha Christie novels. I certainly am not getting bored of reading them! I'm even a little bit sad that I only have one Miss Marple book of short stories remaining. On the other hand . . . I'm not sad to the point of wanting to binge Christie's other 52 books. I am looking forward to a bit more variety in my reading diet in the near future.

So, Sleeping Murder. I’ve definitely read this one before, and I even remembered (correctly) who the murderer was. So I didn’t  have the fun of guessing this time, but that didn't matter, because I really love this story. I think my favorite part about it is the slow reveal about the house. It’s so deliciously suspenseful and intriguing. Gwenda buys a house and it feels like home and she makes discovery after discovery about it . . . if I hadn't already known the truth, I wonder if I might have guessed it?

While chronologically this was the last Miss Marple book published, I understand now why it was sold in the first of three boxed sets. This book actually takes place before The Mirror Crack'd From Side to Side. I have deduced this based on two facts. In that book, Colonel Bantry has already passed away, and Miss Marple has aged enough that her doctor has told her she must stop gardening, whereas in Sleeping Murder, Colonel Bantry makes a brief appearance (because he is still alive, not because he is a ghost!) and Miss Marple spends quite a bit of time pulling weeds (and this is not because she is given to ignoring her doctor's orders). The interesting explanation for this temporal discrepancy is explained by Wikipedia: Agatha Christie wrote this book in the 1940s but it was not published until after her death.

"Nemesis" by Agatha Christie

There's no question that this is my least favorite Miss Marple book. Not like I hated it or anything, but if I were to rank them, this one would be at the bottom. (Yes, I know I have not finished all of them yet, but I'm already halfway through the last novel and my current impression is that it may actually be my most favorite; then there's one more book of short stories, which I can't imagine being either my least favorite or my most.)

The annoying thing about Nemesis is that Miss Marple (and, thus, the reader) is so in the dark throughout the entire thing. Not only is there a mystery, but it is a mystery as to what the mystery is. (Even typing that makes me want to roll my eyes.) I found it quite frustrating. It somehow made it feel boring without actually being boring.

Mr Jason Rafiel (Miss Marple's partner in crime-detection from A Caribbean Mystery) has passed on (no, he wasn't murdered!) and has left Miss Marple a mystery to solve. But he refused to leave her any information as to the nature of that mystery. It's all up to Jane to figure it out. Little bits of information drift her way, and she's got to sort through them  and determine what may be significant. After a few days of wondering, she's told Mr Rafiel had paid for Miss Marple to go on a tour of famous English houses and gardens. Maybe the mystery involves one of the other guests on the tour? Then she is invited to spend a few days at the house of three sisters who knew Mr Rafiel. Maybe the mystery involves one of the sisters? 

I didn't really guess what the mystery was (it's all so vague, right up until the time it's actually explained) but by page 242 (out of 265 . . . so, with no time to spare!) I almost guessed whodunnit. I was off by one degree of separation as to the who, but I knew the what and the where before it was made plain.

“At Bertram’s Hotel” by Agatha Christie

Bertram's Hotel is tucked away in a quiet corner of London. It's so utterly proper and demurely luxurious, beautifully restored, with impeccable service and upstanding elderly clientele. It's like a time capsule, preserved from the memories of youth, and there isn't anywhere else like it. But, really, how could it be so perfect? 

That's what Jane Marple begins to wonder as she observes her fellow guests and the staff serving them. And when Canon Pennyfather disappears, Miss Marple once again has a mystery on her hands (though, surprisingly, not a murder--yet!)

At first, the main question is whether Bertram's Hotel (and its cast of characters) is exactly what it seems. It becomes more serious when death makes an appearance. 

I had a guess as to the truth about Bertram's Hotel on page 120. I was partially right but mostly wrong. I corrected my guess on 142 (out of 265) and was right. I also managed to guess correctly about the identity of the eventual murderer!

“A Caribbean Mystery” by Agatha Christie

This one was like a season of White Lotus, with the ritzy tropical resort as a backdrop and murder in the foreground. Miss Marple's thoughtful nephew, Raymond West, gives Aunt Jane an all-expenses-paid trip to the West Indies for some much needed rest and relaxation, never imagining that she would find herself embroiled in mystery yet again. (I mean, does he not know his aunt at all??)

This time, the story starts with murder long past. Fellow resort guest Major Palgrave loves to subject any available listener to his vast arsenal of stories from his past, one of which includes the claim that he possesses a photo of a murderer. When Major Palgrave turns up dead, Miss Marple knows that murderer must be present, and she must act quickly to ensure he (or she!) does not kill again.

I made my first guess on page 17, but by page 44 I had decided that first guess was wrong and I moved on to two other people. By page 139 I decided I was right about one of those two (but not the other one). But I also suspected two others, so I’m not sure it counts. 

I also knew who the woman by the creek was. But this was because of the short story "A Christmas tragedy" in the book The Thirteen Problems, not because of my genius. 

“The Mirror Crack’d From Side to Side” by Agatha Christie

A glamorous movie star moves to St Mary Mead (into Colonel and Mrs Bantry's old house, no less!) and the village is starstruck. But on the day of a charity fete hosted at Gossington Hall, a local woman is poisoned--and rumor has it, the poison was meant for Marina Gregg. 

Well, you're never going to believe this. I guessed the truth of the matter on page 98 (out of 280). I wasn’t sure, but I guessed, and I was right. I wrote it down and everything, and I did not waver (well, I may be slightly exaggerating there). 

I Guessed The Solution! What does this mean? There are several possibilities. 1. I’m getting good at this. 2. This was one of Christie’s less clever books. 3. I’ve read this book before and subconsciously remembered the solution. 4. Some combination of the three. 

I guess I will never know which. 

“4.50 From Paddington” by Agatha Christie

“I,” Sam said, “am married to an Agatha Christie addict.”

Why, yes, Sam, I believe you are. 

Unfortunately as I write this it is two weeks after I finished reading, and I'm really struggling to remember this book. It's the one that was also published under the title What Mrs McGillicuddy Saw, and it starts with a friend of Miss Marple's boarding a train. On that train ride, Elspeth's train briefly runs parallel to another, and during those moments, she sees into a compartment on the other train--where she witnesses the strangulation of a stranger. Mrs McGillicuddy is both horrified and perplexed--what can she possibly do?

Well, she does what any friend of Miss Marple's would do: tells Jane all about it and asks for her help. Miss Marple is able to make a few deductions on her own, but she reaches a point where in-person investigation is required, and her rheumatism won't allow her to undertake this personally. She enlists the help of the most efficient Lucy Eyelesbarrow. 

Beyond this I have very little in my notes (all that remains is "Misdirection" and "Poor Emma") and what little else I can remember would be a spoiler to relate. I'm sure I did not guess the solution or I would have written that down. I'm also sure I enjoyed reading just as much as I expected to (I only would have made a note of it if I hadn't enjoyed it). 

“A Pocket Full of Rye” by Agatha Christie

Are you tired of Miss Marple yet? Unfortunately I gotta say sorry not sorry. At this point, reading these books falls somewhere between compulsion and addiction. I love puzzling over the plots (even though I invariably fail to uncover the solution and I eventually need to have it explained to me).

Here's a series of murders that seems to follow the old familiar nursery rhyme. There are blackbirds baked in a pie, an unscrupulous businessman named Rex (get it--like a king?) and his young wife who dies while eating bread with honey. There's even a maid in the garden hanging out the clothes. But who wanted them all dead, and why? Well, the why is usually pretty easy; it's mostly either love or money. But which one here?

Did I guess whodunnit? No, I did not. I mulled over various possibilities but I mostly settled on one lovely person who actually turned out to be completely innocent. Why do I always suspect the nice normal people? Does that say something about me?

“They Do It With Mirrors” by Agatha Christie

Funny, I was sure I’d read this one before, and by page 24—it was the line “her head kept its eager birdlike tilt” together with the titular reference to mirrors—I thought I knew at least part of what had happened (or would happen). As it turns out, I must have been remembering a different book! And this self-imposed red herring kept me wrong-footed all the way through.

In this story, Miss Marple is sent to visit an old schoolmate, Carrie Louise, where she lives on the grounds of a reformatory founded by her (third) husband, Lewis Serrocold. Carrie Louise's sister Ruth has a feeling that something bad is about to happen, and she's sure her old friend Jane can suss it out, whatever it is. The cast of characters is a bit convoluted, with various children and stepsiblings and the like. Can Miss Marple root out a potential murderer before it's too late? Or is Carrie Louise not even the one in danger?

Did I guess whodunnit? Well, if I hadn’t been so distracted by what I thought was the solution, I might have guessed right. As it was, I knew the drama in the study was not to be taken at face value. In hindsight, the killer was obvious. But I didn’t believe it until I was forced to.