Malc
To paraphrase Dr. Doofenshmirtz: If I had a nickel for every author I've read who's been associated with both Bethlehem Seminary and Canon Press, I'd have two nickels. Which isn't a lot, but it's interesting that they're both excellent Christian authors.
Naselli provides in this book good, practical reading advice from a thoroughly Christian worldview. I brought 6 main takeaways from this read:
- You can skim some books, read some quickly, and read still others in close detail. All of these constitute "reading". There's no need to understand every sentence of every book you read, and obligating yourself to that is a great way to kill the joy of reading.
- When you do read a book in detail (micro-reading), going over the same text again and again can unveil lots of detailed meaning and really help things stick. In my experience, this is particularly useful when reading Scripture.
- Read old books. In fact, read a lot of old books. Maybe even read more old books than you do new books. In Naselli's view, this helps prevent chronological snobbery. This seems like a solid idea that would help prevent ideologically siloing ourselves in recent times only. However, it seems difficult to put into practice.
- Read fiction. This is closely related to Naselli's point about reading for pleasure. Even for adults, stories are good things to immerse ourselves in. After all, we all find ourselves in the one great story, so it's good and natural that we are drawn to secondary ones. Reading nothing but dry, practical literature seems to me another great way to kill the joy of reading. It occurs to me that perhaps the most natural way that adults find themselves reading fiction is when they read it with their children, who pull us back into such novels just as soon as we've substituted Lord of the Rings for Atomic Habits.
- Use Zotero. This point came from the excellent appendices of this book. I've been wondering how best to catalog and organize my household library, and so far this software seems great for it.
- Use ordered lists for clarity. :^)
The only thing I can really criticize this book for is 1) being a drier, less interesting read, and 2) being not well-suited for the audiobook format, which I read it on. The first point probably cannot be helped all that much, although I have certainly read practical books that I expected to be dry but surprised me. The second can be prevented by reading the physical book instead. I see this work as something to go back to and reference, and as Naselli himself says, audiobooks are hard to study.
On a final note, Naselli's love for God and for pure wisdom radiates through this entire book. I get a similar impression when reading Joe Rigney, which for me is a huge compliment because Rigney is one of my favorite authors, full-stop. It is really nice to read someone who embodies personal discipline and piety, which are virtually nowhere to be found in the nonstop indulgent babbling of online social platforms. In a way, this book reigned me in from reading so much of that, and reminded me that Christian authors with righteous character should be the majority of my reading. Plus, this review ended up being much longer than I intended, which hopefully says something good about this book rather than something about indulgent writing of my own.
To paraphrase Dr. Doofenshmirtz: If I had a nickel for every author I've read who's been associated with both Bethlehem Seminary and Canon Press, I'd have two nickels. Which isn't a lot, but it's interesting that they're both excellent Christian authors.
Naselli provides in this book good, practical reading advice from a thoroughly Christian worldview. I brought 6 main takeaways from this read:
- You can skim some books, read some quickly, and read still others in close detail. All of these constitute "reading". There's no need to understand every sentence of every book you read, and obligating yourself to that is a great way to kill the joy of reading.
- When you do read a book in detail (micro-reading), going over the same text again and again can unveil lots of detailed meaning and really help things stick. In my experience, this is particularly useful when reading Scripture.
- Read old books. In fact, read a lot of old books. Maybe even read more old books than you do new books. In Naselli's view, this helps prevent chronological snobbery. This seems like a solid idea that would help prevent ideologically siloing ourselves in recent times only. However, it seems difficult to put into practice.
- Read fiction. This is closely related to Naselli's point about reading for pleasure. Even for adults, stories are good things to immerse ourselves in. After all, we all find ourselves in the one great story, so it's good and natural that we are drawn to secondary ones. Reading nothing but dry, practical literature seems to me another great way to kill the joy of reading. It occurs to me that perhaps the most natural way that adults find themselves reading fiction is when they read it with their children, who pull us back into such novels just as soon as we've substituted Lord of the Rings for Atomic Habits.
- Use Zotero. This point came from the excellent appendices of this book. I've been wondering how best to catalog and organize my household library, and so far this software seems great for it.
- Use ordered lists for clarity. :^)
The only thing I can really criticize this book for is 1) being a drier, less interesting read, and 2) being not well-suited for the audiobook format, which I read it on. The first point probably cannot be helped all that much, although I have certainly read practical books that I expected to be dry but surprised me. The second can be prevented by reading the physical book instead. I see this work as something to go back to and reference, and as Naselli himself says, audiobooks are hard to study.
On a final note, Naselli's love for God and for pure wisdom radiates through this entire book. I get a similar impression when reading Joe Rigney, which for me is a huge compliment because Rigney is one of my favorite authors, full-stop. It is really nice to read someone who embodies personal discipline and piety, which are virtually nowhere to be found in the nonstop indulgent babbling of online social platforms. In a way, this book reigned me in from reading so much of that, and reminded me that Christian authors with righteous character should be the majority of my reading. Plus, this review ended up being much longer than I intended, which hopefully says something good about this book rather than something about indulgent writing of my own.
Added to listWant Hard Copywith 7 books.
I read this with the men's Bible study at my church over the span of approx. 14 months. DeYoung's commentary is clear and concise as always, and also a good springboard for group discussion. It would function just as well for an individual reading plan.
I think my only real criticism is the usage of the 1988 CRC version of the Heidelberg Catechism text. Comparing it to other (older) translations, it's softer in language originally written as harsh, and overall just changes things around a little too NIV-style for me. Not anything I would consider to be a deal-breaker, though.
I read this with the men's Bible study at my church over the span of approx. 14 months. DeYoung's commentary is clear and concise as always, and also a good springboard for group discussion. It would function just as well for an individual reading plan.
I think my only real criticism is the usage of the 1988 CRC version of the Heidelberg Catechism text. Comparing it to other (older) translations, it's softer in language originally written as harsh, and overall just changes things around a little too NIV-style for me. Not anything I would consider to be a deal-breaker, though.
Note: I listened to the audiobook.
The Only Band in the World is an... okay look at Twenty One Pilots behind the scenes. I read it because I wanted to learn more about the band, their history, their worldview, etc. Ryan Bird clearly has a significant amount of history with them, and the UK magazine Rock Sound's extensive coverage of the band is a clear example of that. Due to this, though, the book offers a limited perspective because it's written by one man about his experiences with the group, rather than anything approaching a systematic or detailed history of them. There are some external facts, such as record sales or charts, but there's not much else on that front. These things aren't bad in and of themselves, but are simply part of the way the book is presented. It is anecdote and interview-centric.
The interviews
Much of the book acts as a re-publishing of articles that were originally released in Rock Sound issues. The interviews themselves are good, offering insights into the philosophy of the band and how they approach the different circumstances they find themselves in over the years and across album cycles. However, the articles appear copy-and-paste verbatim, including time-relative language (i.e. Bird telling the audience that they will enjoy Trench when it comes out). This confused me for a bit until I realized what was going on. If you're going to write a book, then there's got to be a better way to stitch these accounts together rather than just making a carbon copy of the magazine article. It feels rather low-effort.
It was great to hear the previously-unreleased interview from the Scaled and Icy era after Bird wasn't working on the magazine anymore.
"This little maneuver is gonna cost us four years"
Bird establishes a solid chronological account of his stories and experiences. We start out with an overview of the Vessel-era band, then get an interview before the release of Blurryface, continuing on at fairly regular time intervals until mid-Trench era. Then, suddenly, we make a four-year jump from the middle of Trench era (2019) to the end of Scaled and Icy (2023). Now, I understand that Bird was not writing for Rock Sound anymore by '23, but it was a disorienting time jump that didn't offer any of the before-and-after-the-album perspectives from the band that we got for Blurryface and Trench. We get a retrospective look on SAI, the COVID crisis, touring - but nothing from "the thick of it" during that actual time period.
A book about TOP, or a book about Bird?
By far the most serious criticism I have of this book is how author-centric it is. Not only is the book written from Bird's perspective, but it is also about him. Now, maybe I'm just being a hater, but the description of the book promised me "a rare and unique glimpse into the heart and soul of one of the world's most important bands", not "a rare and unique glimpse into the heart and soul of Ryan Bird." You could perhaps argue that his personal experiences make the book better in that it's an example of the band's message profoundly affecting someone. Nonetheless, I found it distracting at best and self-centered at worst. Let me explain.
Bird dedicates an entire chapter to cancer in three forms: the actual disease, the My Chemical Romance song, and the cover of that song by Twenty One Pilots. One of the reasons why the topic is so personal to Bird, and part of why he asked TOP to cover it, is because both his brother and close friend died from it. That's brutal, and quite topically linked to the songs themselves and how the cover came to be. It's a personal story worth expressing. However, my sympathy turned into a blend of disappointment and some level of indignation when Bird promptly turns around their deaths to be about him. Him, and how his benign tumor became a constant source of distress for him over a long period of time because of the fear the deaths of his loved ones had created. His brother and friend were barely touched on compared to the words that Bird dedicates to describing all of the terrible anguish afflicting him due to his concern about the tumor. He didn't suffer from cancer, the tumor was only ever benign, and the only real symptom we read coming from this is all of the negative emotion he experienced over it. How in the world does that rank higher than actual victims who died from cancer?
Once I got over my relative astonishment, I began to notice that the rest of the book was often made to be about Bird as well. The book is littered with humblebrags about his personal success as a music journalist and his closeness with the band. This is no show of jealousy on my part (I desire neither to be a music journalist nor to necessarily be BFF's with TOP), but rather an observation of how author-centered a lot of this book is. He frequently mentions how he was the first person to interview the band together at the start of Trench era; describes personal interpretations of lyrics, lore, and events; and even randomly gives advice to the reader. Huh?
Really, it's quite telling that TOBITW opens with an overdramatic description of a depressing aura in Britain after the Brexit vote. Not only does this function as little more than an unnecessary political statement in a book about a band that has been silent on Brexit, but Bird also assumes that his reader will readily agree with him on the issue. It may surprise him to know that Twenty One Pilots really do have fans - many of them - that aren't on the left.
In short, Bird's personal commentary, interpretations, waxing philosophical, and even giving advice(??) to the reader was all unwelcome to me.
Tidbits
A few other things I thought were interesting:
- Tyler’s early work being major-chord dominant was partly because he learned major chords first while teaching himself piano. He felt the need to temper the happy sound of the music with more somber lyrics. I thought this was a great piece of information, as someone learning piano myself.
- One of the opening anecdotes tells of someone coming out as gay in front of Tyler Joseph and Josh Dun because the band gave him the courage to do so, right in front of his confused friend. It occurs to me that because TOP indiscriminately validates peoples’ fears, anxieties, and insecurities, none of them are presented as “wrong” to feel, and in fact should be conquered and fought. So, even if you are (perhaps rightfully) fearful about peoples’ response to a sinful desire like homosexuality, this should be fought and battled past according to the TOP worldview. It would be interesting to know if the band originally intended this or not. It's difficult to tell what is authentically part of the band's worldview and what was co-opted by far-left social movements.
Note: I listened to the audiobook.
The Only Band in the World is an... okay look at Twenty One Pilots behind the scenes. I read it because I wanted to learn more about the band, their history, their worldview, etc. Ryan Bird clearly has a significant amount of history with them, and the UK magazine Rock Sound's extensive coverage of the band is a clear example of that. Due to this, though, the book offers a limited perspective because it's written by one man about his experiences with the group, rather than anything approaching a systematic or detailed history of them. There are some external facts, such as record sales or charts, but there's not much else on that front. These things aren't bad in and of themselves, but are simply part of the way the book is presented. It is anecdote and interview-centric.
The interviews
Much of the book acts as a re-publishing of articles that were originally released in Rock Sound issues. The interviews themselves are good, offering insights into the philosophy of the band and how they approach the different circumstances they find themselves in over the years and across album cycles. However, the articles appear copy-and-paste verbatim, including time-relative language (i.e. Bird telling the audience that they will enjoy Trench when it comes out). This confused me for a bit until I realized what was going on. If you're going to write a book, then there's got to be a better way to stitch these accounts together rather than just making a carbon copy of the magazine article. It feels rather low-effort.
It was great to hear the previously-unreleased interview from the Scaled and Icy era after Bird wasn't working on the magazine anymore.
"This little maneuver is gonna cost us four years"
Bird establishes a solid chronological account of his stories and experiences. We start out with an overview of the Vessel-era band, then get an interview before the release of Blurryface, continuing on at fairly regular time intervals until mid-Trench era. Then, suddenly, we make a four-year jump from the middle of Trench era (2019) to the end of Scaled and Icy (2023). Now, I understand that Bird was not writing for Rock Sound anymore by '23, but it was a disorienting time jump that didn't offer any of the before-and-after-the-album perspectives from the band that we got for Blurryface and Trench. We get a retrospective look on SAI, the COVID crisis, touring - but nothing from "the thick of it" during that actual time period.
A book about TOP, or a book about Bird?
By far the most serious criticism I have of this book is how author-centric it is. Not only is the book written from Bird's perspective, but it is also about him. Now, maybe I'm just being a hater, but the description of the book promised me "a rare and unique glimpse into the heart and soul of one of the world's most important bands", not "a rare and unique glimpse into the heart and soul of Ryan Bird." You could perhaps argue that his personal experiences make the book better in that it's an example of the band's message profoundly affecting someone. Nonetheless, I found it distracting at best and self-centered at worst. Let me explain.
Bird dedicates an entire chapter to cancer in three forms: the actual disease, the My Chemical Romance song, and the cover of that song by Twenty One Pilots. One of the reasons why the topic is so personal to Bird, and part of why he asked TOP to cover it, is because both his brother and close friend died from it. That's brutal, and quite topically linked to the songs themselves and how the cover came to be. It's a personal story worth expressing. However, my sympathy turned into a blend of disappointment and some level of indignation when Bird promptly turns around their deaths to be about him. Him, and how his benign tumor became a constant source of distress for him over a long period of time because of the fear the deaths of his loved ones had created. His brother and friend were barely touched on compared to the words that Bird dedicates to describing all of the terrible anguish afflicting him due to his concern about the tumor. He didn't suffer from cancer, the tumor was only ever benign, and the only real symptom we read coming from this is all of the negative emotion he experienced over it. How in the world does that rank higher than actual victims who died from cancer?
Once I got over my relative astonishment, I began to notice that the rest of the book was often made to be about Bird as well. The book is littered with humblebrags about his personal success as a music journalist and his closeness with the band. This is no show of jealousy on my part (I desire neither to be a music journalist nor to necessarily be BFF's with TOP), but rather an observation of how author-centered a lot of this book is. He frequently mentions how he was the first person to interview the band together at the start of Trench era; describes personal interpretations of lyrics, lore, and events; and even randomly gives advice to the reader. Huh?
Really, it's quite telling that TOBITW opens with an overdramatic description of a depressing aura in Britain after the Brexit vote. Not only does this function as little more than an unnecessary political statement in a book about a band that has been silent on Brexit, but Bird also assumes that his reader will readily agree with him on the issue. It may surprise him to know that Twenty One Pilots really do have fans - many of them - that aren't on the left.
In short, Bird's personal commentary, interpretations, waxing philosophical, and even giving advice(??) to the reader was all unwelcome to me.
Tidbits
A few other things I thought were interesting:
- Tyler’s early work being major-chord dominant was partly because he learned major chords first while teaching himself piano. He felt the need to temper the happy sound of the music with more somber lyrics. I thought this was a great piece of information, as someone learning piano myself.
- One of the opening anecdotes tells of someone coming out as gay in front of Tyler Joseph and Josh Dun because the band gave him the courage to do so, right in front of his confused friend. It occurs to me that because TOP indiscriminately validates peoples’ fears, anxieties, and insecurities, none of them are presented as “wrong” to feel, and in fact should be conquered and fought. So, even if you are (perhaps rightfully) fearful about peoples’ response to a sinful desire like homosexuality, this should be fought and battled past according to the TOP worldview. It would be interesting to know if the band originally intended this or not. It's difficult to tell what is authentically part of the band's worldview and what was co-opted by far-left social movements.
