BagEndBooks

This was a fast and funny read, which was just what I needed after Doctor Zhivago.

The good: This was a hilarious book about the difficulties of having a large family. It was told from the point of view of the father, and it was hilarious. I felt like it could have been longer and included more misadventures for the family, but I did find the book to be a fantastically funny adventure.

The bad: I got frustrated every time Tom or Pat would pray for the pope to come to a "practical decision on the pill." Right and wrong isn't always practical, and, even though I doubt very much it was intended that way, the fact that the timing of the prayers always happened as chaos was erupting almost seems to imply that they would have liked less children, which makes it sound like they are wishing away some of their children. Again, I doubt that it was intended that way, but I still found these prayers to be frustrating. Also, we don't find out what happened in the end. The book is subtitled "How Pat and Tom Buck raised 11 children-and survived." Surely if they'd had another baby that would have found its way into the subtitle? There is also a picture of the family on the cover flap and there are eleven children, the youngest, Adrian I assume, appears to be between the ages of 3-5, so if they had had another child at the end of the book then the child would likely have appeared in this picture. I feel this book could use a sequel, and that it could have some of the kids' points of view as well as the father's.

The ugly: "Although it might appear to the contrary, it is not intended to make a case for the canonization of Margaret Sanger." Okay, this book was published in 1967 and Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in 1973, so the author couldn't have known what a plague Sanger's organization would be on society, but even in jest, 'canonization of Margaret Sanger' is not a phrase that I have ever wanted to hear or see or even contemplate anywhere, ever. And even now, Margaret Sanger's racist ideas and arguments for eugenics and forced sterilization are well hidden from the public, so how could they have known that Sanger was a sick racist who wanted to eliminate minorities only one year after the woman's death. But I still never wanted to see or hear those words strung together in that manner. I wish that the book could be re-released (along with a sequel) with those words eliminated from the introduction so that more people can enjoy this book again, and without having to have the idea of Margaret Sanger being anywhere within one-hundred-thousand miles of canonization put in their head.