BOOK REVIEW - "TRACING KILLER EVIDENCE" (DAKOTA K-9 UNIT BOOK 5) BY JODIE BAILEY

 Why is a serial abductor becoming a serial killer? Should forensic artist Isabella Whitmore be more concerned about this fiend targeting her or FBI-agent and former fiance Liam Barringer, who came to her rescue with his cadever finding K-9 Guthrie? And are there any other shocking surprises are face Liam as he tries to protect Isabella and bring down a gun-running ring?

We have reached the middle of the Dakota K-9 Unit series with Jodie Bailey's "Tracing Killer Evidence." This is a beginning to end thriller that also deals with the fact that you might be operating on incomplete information. As usual with Jodie Bailey, I feel inspired, as well as wonderful characters.

As mentioned, this is the mid-point of the series (book 5 to be exact). This book, like the others, has a story of its own, but there are other concerns that run through the book, such as who is running a gun ring and who killed one of their fellow officers, Kenyon Graves, leaving his twins without a father. Thus, the question is if you can read this book before its predecessors without spoiling them and with keeping from feeling lost. With this book, as typical, you can enjoy the story by itself, but as regards to spoiling: PLEASE. READ. THESE. BOOKS. IN. ORDER! 

I am  a fan of Jodie Bailey (I've read 19 books of hers at this point), of Love Inspired Suspense (109 of this imprint read) and the K-9 series (I'm in my 7th series, with 55 stories read). So will it surprise you to give it my total approval?

MOVIE COMPARISONS: "FIREFOX" (1982) AND "BLUE THUNDER" (1983)

 

Name the movie. It's about a super airbound war-machine, with technology so advanced the pilot could as quick as a thought launch an attack. The hero, who has war induced Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, knows his job is to steal that machine to keep the bad government to use it for their nefarious purposes. Hint: the movie's poster is pictured above. Second hint: there is more than one correct answer.

"Firefox," adapted from Craig Thomas' '77 novel and directed by Clint Eastwood in '82, is the name of an experimental military airplane that not only is fast, but it is capable of eluding radar. Additionally, the pilot wears a helmet that reads his thoughts and automatically does the assigned task. "Blue Thunder," directed by John Badham in '83, is an experimental police helicopter that is equipped to perform surveilance, both by sound and sight. If the pilot is wearing the helmet and turns his head, the weapons turn in the same direction.

Michael Gant (Clint Eastwood) in "Firefox" and Frank Murphy (Roy Scheider, one of my favorite actors) in "Blue Thunder" were both exceptional pilots (Murphy was able to fly a loop with a helicopter, which is supposed to be impossible, but of course Murphy did it at the end). Both, as mentioned above, dealt with trauma from being in the Vietnam War. Gant's job was to steal the Firefox from the governmental baddies; Murphy stole the Blue Thunder after learning the evil plans of the governmental baddies.

And here's where these two super-pilots take their sophisticated machines in two opposit directions. Or to put it a different way, what is the role of OUR government? "Firefox" is a cold-war era espionage adventure where our government (the good guys) sent Gant to Russia to steal the Firefox before the Russians could use it. "Blue Thunder" is described as neo-noir, where our government (the bad guys) were planning on using the Blue Thunder for surveilance and quelling domestic unrest, so Murphy steals it and destroys it after an exciting but somewhat implausible climatic dogfight. 

The difference affected the movies. "Firefox" received a PG rating in the pre PG-13 era, and possibly could have kept that rating after PG-13 came into being. "Blue Thunder" got an R, and like most movies, could have been a better PG (or PG-13) movie than with the R. The enemy in "Blue Thunder" was an officer in the military Murphy had dealt with. In Firefox, the antagonists were the Russian military and government, where the two sides treated each other with respect and without personal animosity. For example, during the final dogfight between Gant and an equal Russian pilot, Gant lost control of the plane due to his PTSD, the Russian gave him a thumbs up when he was able to regain control. You wouldn't be surprised for Eastwood to direct a pro-US movie. Likewise, it wasn't a surprise for Badham to have an anti-war movie - in addition to "Blue Thunder," '83 saw the release of "Wargames," also directed by Badham and also wary of our government.

From here, I'm making comments of the movies more from an artistic perspective than my previous look at worldview. 

As I mentioned before, "Firefox" was based on a novel. Which was better? Good question. The movie had three divisions: 1) Gant's recruitment and training, 2) Gant arriving in Russia and getting to the plane, and 3) flying the plane out of Russia. In the book, the first section was a brief prologue, with the ten chapters equally dealing with the other parts. In this, I think the book was stronger - the first section was a little slow for an adventure. However, two of Gant's allies in getting to the plane died after seeing they did their job; the book had those two die not knowing if they succeeded.

Let me move to the characters of the movies. "Blue Thunder"  was my fifth Roy Scheider movie, including "The French Connection" and "Jaws", and I consider myself a fan. I only saw three Eastwood movies before "Firefox," and I didn't enjoy them as much as the Scheider films. I liked their portrayals. Both movies also introduced me to actors I've grown to like: Freddie Jones as Gant's recruiter (I loved seeing his joy when Gant succeeded in stealing the plane) and Daniel Stern (Marv in "Home Alone) as Murphy's observer and partner. 

As far as story-telling, I will admit "Blue Thunder" had a more interesting start, though both movies smoothly moved into the main plot. After that, I think "Firefox" was better. Part of it was being loyal to the book. However, it also was more realistic in parts than "Blue Thunder." They did end off with the character heading into the horizon (Gant flying the plane into friendly airspace, Murphy walking beside the train track with the demolished Blue Thunder in smoke behind him). 

Which did I enjoy more? Let me answer it this way. I watched "Firefox" four times - twice in its theatrical run, once on TV, and a few years ago on DVD. I might watch it again. I've never thought of watching "Blue Thunder" a second time.

BOOK REVIEW - "COLD CASE PERIL" (DAKOTA K-9 UNIT BOOK 4) BY MAGGIE K. BLACK

Why is a driver with blaring rock music trying to force dog trainer Micah Landon off the road Was this due to him looking into who killed his mother a decade earlier by a hit and run driver? Or could it be connected to a guns case officer Lucy Lopez and her K-9 partner Piper are looking/sniffing into? 

Maggie K. Black's "Cold Case Peril" is the fourth novel of the Dakota K-9 Unit series. As you would expect if you read any of the books in this collection or previous series by this imprint, you have exciting action and characters you care about. For example, there is the interaction between Micah and his half-brother dealing with the loss of their mother. 

Is this a series that you need to read in order? I would highly recommend it. Yes, it is written where you can enjoy the story without being lost or spoiling a previous story. However, this series is one where you'd enjoy it more reading the books in order.

By the way, in spite of the main male character having a name that sounds like a popular actor, there are no references to Little Joe. Sorry.

I recommend both this book and the full series (this is book 4 of 9).

BOOK REVIEW - "WHAT DOES THE BIBLE REALLY TEACH ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY?" BY KEVIN DEYOUNG

 This book, "What Does the Bible Really Teach about Homosexuality?" is on a subject where the majority of people have a strong opinion and a good number of which are unwilling to show tolerance for the other side. One question, though, is whether one believes the Bible is an authoritative, inerrant, infallible, and accurate source we're to consider the Word of God written so we can understand it or if fallible men (we all fall into that category) know what's best with a changing of minds from the traditional to the anti-traditional.

Author Kevin DeYoung points right off in the introduction states the book is a Christian book with a narrow focus to defend a traditional view of marriage. Thus, we should expect him to present that view as the best alternative.  

Part one of this book focuses on Scripture, with chapters 1-5 dealing with, respectively, Genesis 1-2, Genesis 19, Leviticus 18 and 20, Romans 1, and 1 Corinthians 6/1 Timothy 1, all of which deal with God's design for marriage and teachings on Homosexuality. The second part deals with answers to seven pro-LGBTQ+ arguments (one per chapter).

There are three appendices after Chapter 12. The first two address the issues of gay marriage and same-sex attraction. The third appendix is titled "The Church and Homosexuality: Ten Commitments." DeYoung points out the different groups of people we're dealing with - in other words, we wouldn't treat a person who's asking questions and possibly struggling with the issue, a sufferer who has been mistreated by the church, and an activist who has less tolerance for traditional Christians than they think the Christians have.

Allow me to offer some insights both from before reading this book and looking at negative reviews. One is that those who consider that the Bible is authoritative and opposes homosexuality is based on what the Bible says. Okay, maybe not much but what it says is consistent. On the other hand, I've seen inconsistency with the arguments of those who affirm that lifestyle - some say that the Bible doesn't mean what we think it means while others say it does mean what it says, but it is a reflection of the views of that time and not God's view. 

Also, I see the cliche that those oppose LGBTQ+ are hateful in the criticisms of this book. However, if we believe that lifestyle is leading a person to judgment, which is more loving? Allowing them to leap off lemming cliff and face condemnation? Or to warn them and plead with them to avoid the destruction they're headed to? If you read the whole book, you'll see it is focusing on the actions being wrong, but God desiring the person would turn and avoid destruction.

BOOK REVIEW - "SHATTERED SANCTUARY" (THE ERIN DELANEY MYSTERIES BOOK ONE) BY NANCY MEHL

 

Mystery Writer and former police-officer Erin Delaney's only friend is an ex-FBI Behavioral Analsyst she has never met in person; will that friendship endure spending some time together in an isolated cabin? Oh, did I mention that there is a ghost walking around? No? How about the body the local police discovered?

"Shattered Sanctuary" is the first book in Nancy Mehl's new "The Erin Delaney Mysteries," and it is what you expect. A well woven mystery. Creepy villains. A nail abiting Psychological Thriller. And it delivers.

Longtime Mehl readers like myself (this is my 21st novel of hers I've read) will be happy to see Kaely Quinn-Hunter return early in the story; Quinn was the main character in a previous series and guested in another novel ("Dead Fall"). My interest piqued with the title "Shattered Sanctuary" because Mehl also had a trilogy called "Finding Sanctuary," and I wondered if there was a return to that small Midwest town. It didn't take me long to realize this was another small town called "Sanctuary," this time in the Smokies.

Yes, this is the first in a series, and usually there is no need to worry about if you're spoiling a story by reading it out of order, but would the return of Kaely change that? In my opinion, not at all. Yes, reading the "Kaely Quinn Profiler" series would help you get to know her, and the same is true with "Dead Fall," but it won't have an effect with enjoying this new tale.

As usual, I highly recommend this novel by Nancy Mehl. By the way, I also recommend the"Kaely Quinn Profiler" trilogy and for that matter, the Quantico Files trilogy, of which "Dead Fall" is the middle story. And I'll add the "Finding Sactuary" series to the list, though it's in a different genre.

AN EVENING HANGING OUT WITH PETER IN NEVERLAND - MOVIE REVIEWS OF DISNEY'S "PETER PAN" AND SPIELBERG'S "HOOK"

 You may have remembered that last year I spend a few hours, watching both Disney's '51 animated and '10 live action films titled "Alice In Wonderland." Well, this year I decided to watch Disney's "Peter Pan" ('53) and "Hook" ('91).

There is a noticeable difference between my Alice binge last year and the Peter Pan double feature: As I mentioned, both Alices were Disney pictures. "Hook" isn't a Disney movie. In fact, one thing that I noticed was there was an allusion to Tinkerbell drinking poison to save Peter's life, as in the original story and plays, as opposed to her rescuing Peter from a bomb in the Disney version.

When I was young, I loved Peter Pan. It was onc of the Disney albums telling the story with a short illustrated version that I had - probably my second favorite (Jungle Book taking first place). However, it wasn't until seeing this movie again that I realized  that Peter was a womanizing flirt, mad when jealous Tinkerbell tried to have Wendy killed, laughing when jealous bikini-clad mermaids tried to drown Wendy, and having Tiger Lilly dance for him.

While I didn't catch this when I was 10, I did pick up on the racial slurs towards Indians (would characters in an English story that takes place in a fantasy world accurately be called Native Americans?). Even as a kid, I cringed wht the "What Made The Red Man Red." This was the first exposure I had to racial prejudice.

I am surprised at my typing this review, but "Hook" is more of a family film than the Disney classic. I will say it had a slower start before the film picked up. But Robin Williams, Dustin Hoffman, Julia Roberts, and Bob Hoskins (playing Peter, Captain Hook, Tinkerbell, and Mr. Smee respectively) did a great job in making this entertaining. 

Before I forget, I'll mention that my first introduction to Peter Pan was on the Disneyland dark ride (as was the case with Alice in Wonderland). This was the original version, where Peter was no where on the ride except for his shadow (the idea is for the rider to view themselves as Peter; same was true with the Alice, Mr. Toad, and Snow White rides).

THANKSGIVING THOUGHTS.

 

Cartoon from James Lawson. Used by permission.

This week, I saw a couple of posts and and heard a podcast dealing with Thanksgiving. 

Let me start with this cartoon by James Lawson that has blessed me for years. I do, however, have an answer or two about why pilgrims are loved and Puritans are hated. It has nothing to do about doctrine, but rather who is the oppressor and who is oppressed. The Pilgrims are seen as victims to the bad Church of English who were persecuting them. The Puritans (at least some of them), on the other hand, were the oppressors. The existence of Rhode Island is proof of that, where Roger Williams and other Baptists fled to.

Switching gears but not leaving the cartoon yet... To be honest, I don't think the Pilgrims are as beloved as they used to be. Is doctrine involved here? Good question, but if it is, it's not that the hatred toward the Pilgrims/Puritans' Reformed Doctrine but the doctrine that is shared by all believers.

This is related to an article that was on the Indianapolis Public Library's website. There question is what indigenous peoples think, giving the answer that they see Thanksgiving as a day of mourning. They gave a link to see for the indigenous people's view of colonization. First, let me state that I don't think that the original residents of this country were treted right by some of our ancestors. Howver, should we have what has been a day of celebration of faith and family and for the unenlightened, football (the enlightened, like me, have the TV tuned to America's Dog Show) and feel guilty for something that we personally didn't do and something that we can't undo even if we wanted to (which I do).

Let me share a couple of thoughts I've heard before, but Al Mohler (President of The Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville) reminded me. First, Thanksgiving is uniquely American holiday. Second, even the non-Christians are thankful, but to whom? Doesn't this show that we're not as secular as the world wants us to be?

Again, happy Thanksgiving. Hope your day is blessed.