About fifteen years after my grandma died, her book collection was one of the things we got sorted through. It was filled with paperback mysteries, thrillers, and romances from the 1970s and 80s with fifty-cent price tags and cover designs when graphic designers were still meticulously hand-painting the illustrations. I never really read the synopsis of the ones I kept; instead, I just chose the ones where she left notes in the margins, hoping to get a glimpse of a woman I never really knew.

(My personal favorite is "Strikly Speaking" by Edward Newman whose author now sports a pen-scribbled handlebar mustache and soul patch with a single-word review in her block-lettered handwriting on the back cover that says "THIS STRICKLY SPEAKING STINKS!")

I picked this book out of the pile because I liked the charming little pen and ink illustrations by Burt Silverman. But I had no idea what I was getting into when I picked it up this morning and decided to read it on a whim. This book is of its time, and I'm not its intended audience. It's the 1980s equivalent of a low-stake fantasy genre--just sub out the word fantasy for Christianity and trade the magic system for prayer/faith/divine intervention. However, I think no stakes/no conflict is probably more accurate than low stakes.

My rating is more about the nostalgia of physically reading the tiny yellowed book itself and less about the story on the pages--it smelled faintly like old cleaning solutions and my grandma--which summoned a half-remembered memory of her in her living room reading on the couch.

Review to come

My family has loved the Lilies of the Field movie as long as I can remember, so when my brother picked up this book at the Rummage Sale, I was really excited. It was a quick read, but just as delightful as the movie, which, I am happy to say, was executed beautifully in light of the book.

One of the few books I've found that wasn't as good as the film version. The film, starring Sidney Portier, is one of my favorites. I've seen it several times. The few changes of the story from page to screen are good ones, actually making the story better, in my opinion. Most screen plays have to condense a book for a two hour film. Seldom can anything be added, but James Poe was able to write an outstanding script, adding dialogue that worked even better than the book in fleshing out the characters. In combination with Portier's Oscar-winning performance under director Ralph Nelson, we get a gem of a film that takes us beyond the book.
I see this has become a review of the film when I'm supposed to be writing about the book. Pardon, please.
The book is good all by itself. Perhaps it could have been longer. When I really like a story, I want to linger in it--savor it. But, this book is more of an over-sized short story. My copy has just 127 pages. It's a wonderful story of concise writing, with a nice addition of pencil sketches by Burt Silverman. There are excellent life lessons to be learned or revisited. I highly recommend the book and the film. I do think you'll like the book better, and appreciate the film more if you read the book first.
This book frequented high school English classes in the 60's and 70's. It certainly wouldn't hurt the youth of today to learn a few of these lessons. Might make the current climate less divisive and a lot nicer if folks took these lessons to heart and acted upon them.