Post-American Civil War "inspirational" romance novel set on a Plantation in 'Dixie' isn't a thing I'd normally read. But see, I have this friend who recommended Tavia Gilbert as an audiobook narrator and I wanted to read a stand-alone book before committing to an "impossible to keep up with the reading order" series.

You can thank Tavia Gilbert for the second star, because without her voice and narration I wouldn't have finished this book.

Olivia is a destitute widow of a traitor and Ridley is a traitor soldier for the North looking for a new start. He's determined to learn horse-mastery from a black man he met during the war and she's relying on nepotism for her new start. Of course nothing goes as planned, but I did like the parallels of Ridley learning to handle a skittish mare and gaining the animal's trust just as he had to earn Olivia's trust.

The thing is, the setting is inherently racist, but the story didn't have to be. Alexander could've shown just how ugly and difficult it was for everyone to adjust to the end of slavery, but instead she tiptoes around the issue. Sure there are overtly racist characters who are frowned upon but mostly tolerated and there's actual violence, but that too is sanitised.

The black characters, freed slaves, have returned willingly to work on the Belle Meade Plantation. Apparently all of them since no one is mentioned missing or departed. Suspending my disbelief on that and accepting that the loyal servants stayed for whatever unmentioned reasons, they seemingly have no life outside serving their white betters and worshipping in their church. All the delightful characters I wanted to know more about existed only to share their wisdom with the white protagonists on their way to enlightenment and God. And yet, somehow, Alexander finds a way to add depth and complexity to her secondary white characters...

Then there was the owner of Belle Meade Plantation, General Harding. A Confederate soldier who refused to cut his beard until the South won the war. Spoiler: His beard remains uncut at the end of the book. He continually idealises the South, but is never forced to admit that he wants to reinstitute slavery. He agrees to pay his black workers the same wage as their white counterparts when someone suggests it him but at the same time voices his opinion that the black race is only fit for manual labour. He respects Robert Green, his head hostler, a black man and former slave, but doesn't even think about promoting him to the position of a foreman.

And for all this he is venerated. Harding is respected by the main protagonists who both come to see black people as people instead of cattle to be auctioned. General Harding is so respected by the romantic hero of this book that Ridley Cooper cannot leave Harding's employ without revealing his secret about fighting for the North and against the South and in doing so Ridley risks losing the extra pay he earned for himself. No, Ridley chooses to let General Harding decide whether or not Ridley should keep the money.

The underlying theme in this book is getting the Belle Meade Plantation, and by extension the South, back on its financial legs. It's just a little difficult to see under all that inspirational frosting.

Yle radio 1 (think of BBC but Finnish) is doing a reading of Quran with a Finnish imam Anas Hajjar and professor Jaakko Hämeen-Anttila, who discuss and explain the suras. Pekka Hotinen hosts the discussions and Pekka Savolainen narrates.

There'll be 60 parts broadcasted twice a week (I think), but I'm an unreliable radio listener and I'll be finding the episodes on iTunes podcasts and you can too.

There's a difference between Jesus of Nazareth and Jesus Christ, despite what you might've thought. One is a Son of Man, a historical figure, a man who lived and died in the first-century Palestine, the other, a Son of God, is a creation of his followers and a central figure of a religion called Christianity.

For me, the best part of Zealot was the historical context. I don't know nearly enough about what scholars call the first-century Palestine. I knew that it was ruled by Rome and maybe a handful of dubious details. I didn't know about a string of revolutionaries who called themselves messiah, who came before and after the Nazarethian nor did I know about the intricacies of Temple rule. I can't say I know any of the intricacies now, but at least I know where to start looking if I ever want to find out: a third of the book is dedicated to notes and references.

One thing I wasn't a fan of, was Aslan's use of language. It felt rambling to my tired mind and I had to read with a dictionary open on the bedside table.

Aslan focuses on the man, who wittingly navigated the political and religious climate of his time. It's a narrow look and doesn't leave room for any kind of speculation outside Jesus' public opinion. According to the author Jesus wasn't an apolitical figure who just wanted different races to get along, but a poor woodworker who wanted to change the rule and make life better for his fellow Jews.

Despite my Lutheran upbringing kicking back a few times, I'm inclined to agree with Aslan. I do think that Jesus was just a man who lived at the right time at the right place and that his followers build a cult around him. Everything else is left up to faith.