Close Enough, Better than a Cigar

Continuing on my Succos reading spree, we have Lauren Willig's first stand-alone.  I finished the Pink Carnation series during my summer reading and then went back to the stand alones now.  As you may recall, I've found the Pink Carnation series to be less satisfying than it used to be.  The writing somewhat too flippant, even anachronistic, the romances too similar / not angsty enough, the plots a distraction.  I was ready to move on, and I think so was Lauren Willig, which is why she started on this (even before the series was finished).

The first stand-alone, The Ashford Affair, was written a few years ago, and, while there were lots of updates / teasers when it was written, some of them aren't fresh in my mind.  I think it was supposed to be inspired by Out of Africa, which I haven't read, and the Mitford sisters, which I have (at least The Pursuit of Love).  It *strongly* reminded me of the latter (like I think it deliberately followed the plot line of a poor but practical cousin and belle-of-the-ball debutante who runs off with husband after husband), and reminded me, too, of other books / plots that I couldn't even bring to mind. I knew exactly what would happen, not just because the book didn't keep it a secret, but because you just know that's the type - happy-ish ending but not without some tear-jerking.  It actually bothered me how familiar it all seemed, still not sure if that's only because of the Mitford / Downton Abbey side, or whether I really have read more in the same vein.  So much for the familiarity of the setting  / plot.

What about what really matters? Well, first of all, this was, like all of LW, a "time slip" novel, where the modern-day heroine learns about her ancestor's past.  My initial thought was that this device is unnecessary and distracting, the historical plot was enough and the modern story could not be fleshed out enough to be enjoyable. But I was wrong.  It was actually quite enjoyable and well told, and quite a good romance.  There was definitely a little bit too much melodrama about the discovery of Grandma Addie's past (not to mention that it was difficult to reconcile the dignified old woman Clemmie knew with the historical Miss Addie Gillecote).  But thoroughly enjoyable romance novella.

Back to the historical story, other than being shades of the Mitfords and mostly predictable, was it good? For one thing, it was not written in the, frankly, a bit silly style of the PC series, but in a more serious tone, in keeping with the more serious story.  I think it was a good trade-off. I don't need the seriousness of complex relationships and the shadow of WWI, orphans, and influenza, but the writing was a pleasure.  And I guess I really do just like historical England, because even though it was not my time period and there was all that serious stuff, I was still totally happy to read it.  The romance was also not my type (star-crossed lovers, not will-they-won't-they) but still satisfying in the end I guess.

In the end of the day, it wasn't my *ideal* setting or story, but it was close enough to both to be thoroughly enjoyable, due to the excellent execution.  Definitely looking forward to the next one (and the one after that, already published, and the one after that, still to be published :))

Verdict: 4/5

Different Medium, Same Great Story

Another one of my home library collection (of course), but with a twist - this one comes with a play review! (Aren't you lucky? :)) So some months ago, I saw advertisements by the train station for the off-Broadway show... Daddy Long Legs. Now if you think I was going to miss seeing that, I don't know why you're reading this blog. I've watched the Fred Astaire movie more than once and that one doesn't come *close* to being an accurate depiction of this beloved book.  I've looked for the silent version with Mary Pickford but wasn't able to find it (I should look again, that was a while ago).  And I've read the hard-to-find, not as good, sequel as well. So yeah, this is a book I go the extra mile for :) And I read the NY Times review, which was quite positive (the complaint was the story doesn't translate well for the modern ear, but since my ear is very old-fashioned, that's not a problem :)) So anyway, I knew I had to see it. Couldn't generate much interest from my cl girls, so I went with Dov's family, who are always up for a show. Well they all enjoyed it, and I LOVED it. I was grinning from ear to ear the whole time. Like, really. I know the book really well and the script followed it quite accurately (left out parts, but most of the lines were close to verbatim, and the plot followed basically exactly I think). So it was one of my favorite books, brought to life in a very-well done way, and on top of that... POV! POV! POV! While the letters are all written by Jerusha (of course), here we see Jervie's reaction... and his gradual fall in love with the writer.  And it's sooo well done. There's an aspect of guilt Jervis felt that I didn't really think of when I read the book, but it's quite plausible.  And his wry reading of the letters (mostly verbatim from the book) adds to the humor and whimsy of the writing.  The growing romance was nicely emphasized. And the finale gloriously angsty and satisfying in the end.

So of course I had to reread the book... and here I ran into the same problems as my last read - overfamiliarity + spoiled by explicit romance. The play followed the book so closely that I felt like I had just read the book, so lots of the great lines and romance didn't hold enough surprise for me. And though I am usual satisfied with imagining Jervis's POV as he reads the letters, having just seen it laid out in front of me made me miss it. So while I loved the book as always, I can't say I enjoyed it the more for having just watched it (this is in contrast to say, Persuasion, where watching the movie just made me appreciate the book all the more. I'd say this is a testament to how excellently done the play was).

To top it off, Huvi wanted to see the play too... so I went back again. I was certainly concerned I wouldn't enjoy it as much the second time around, and it did take me longer to get into it... but amazingly enough, I loved it the second time around  as well, at least by the end.

Daddy Long Legs is an incredible book and the play did an incredible job translating it.  Bravo all around, and I can't wait till the play has receded a little in my mind so that I can reread the book again :)

Verdict: 5/5

The Wrong Way To Write a Romance

Next, next, next.  One you haven't heard of, since it's a brand new book from a first-time author.   I heard of it on Lauren Willig's website (where else? I guess Austenprose :)) and she pretty much raved about it.  Beatriz Williams's Overseas, a time travel romance.  Time travel I can take or leave (I do like Outlander of course) but romance I can always take... at least if it's romance in my style.  Question is, was this? We'll get there.  Meanwhile, all signs pointed positively, since there definitely wasn't much else in this book besides the romance (a little mystery, but it didn't look too overwhelming).  And, you know, rave reviews... certainly worth a shot.

So at the start, it was all very promising.  Heroine is fairly successful and very pretty nice girl, hero is billionaire hedge fund manager who is also gorgeouso.  And he woos our heroine with every luxury we can think of, and with every gesture of romance too.  OMG... who even wants that?! I mean come on, he loves her right away, he tells her he loves her right away, and she loves him right back! How boring can you get? Quite boring I will tell you.  On and on about his dedication and love/obsession with her and we're supposed to be enjoying it.  But I tell you, I was NOT.  I just get absolutely nothing out of hearing his speeches and watching his oh-so-sweet overprotective behavior.  Yes, yes, yes we get it, you love her, now finish this up already.

I mean, there is a point to the story of course - this is a time travel tale, and it switches back and forth between some "future" time back in the past and the present (2008) and we have to resolve how we get from one to the other and what happens at the end.  I found the ending somewhat interesting, if more than a bit of a cop out.  It's kind of funny actually, since the whole time we're all worried about this big cataclysmic danger that turns out to be mostly a storm in a teapot.  But anyway, who cares? Like I said, I can take or leave time travel.  The big disappointment here was the total, complete UTTER lack of what  I consider good romance.  Are there really people who enjoy such drivel? I guess there are... (and I'm sure there are *plenty* who would say the same about the drivel I enjoy :)) But what I'm almost reminded of is the Mark Helprin book I read last summer that I hated so much.  Both just kind of revel in whatever they're talking about without really caring too much about advancing a plot.  Of course, a plot advances, but the extraneities are too excessive to be considered anything but the main point of the book.  And as the main point, seriously, if I wanted to read about great love, I'd read Shakespeare's sonnets or something.  Not someone's overblown ideas about what constitutes ideal romantic devotion.

So altogether, thoroughly, thoroughly disappointing.  Somewhat surprising, given that I'm all for romance with not much else getting in the way.  But I guess there's a wrong way to do everything.

Verdict: 2/5

Full of Sound and Fury, Signifying Nothing (wow!!!! go me and shakespeare :))

Agghh!!! It's August!!!!! There are a few reasons for me to panic about that, but as promised, I did finish that substantial item on my bibliogenda, and am now ready with a review.  This one was quite a while in the waiting even before I started the book about a month ago (was it that much? Almost, at least).  I really enjoyed Mark Helprin's Freddy and Frederica, I remember laughing out loud more than once (which is surprising for a book that looks like some fairly literary goods).  So I assumed he was one of those "good" authors whose books are actually enjoyable, and I chose Winter's Tale, which seems to be his masterpiece, as my next of his reads.  I got it from Pikesville, returned it six weeks later, got it out from Towson, returned it six weeks later, put it on reserve at the NYPL, let the hold expire, got it out from the NYPL, returned it two weeks later... maybe that wasn't exactly the sequence, but this book is over 700 pages long and there were always holds on it in NY.  It just wasn't happening.  But, you know, fifth time's the charm, and maybe it helps that it's summer, but I was finally able to keep the book out for more than two weeks - which gave me time to actually finish it!

From the beginning, this book was... well, not Freddy and Frederica, that's for sure.  Maybe I was supposed to take that one seriously, but I don't think so, and I certainly didn't - the whole book was a magnificently composed farce, but with a redeeming ending.  Winter's Tale isn't farcical at all - at least, it doesn't seem to be.  It takes itself all too seriously.  At first, I withheld judgement - there was pronouncement after high flown conceit after dramatic foreshadowing, but I figured maybe this was one book that had a right to comport itself in such a grand fashion.  After all, wasn't it supposed to be an epic tale? And at the beginning of the second section, it seemed like my faith was not misplaced - the prose seemed a little less florid, the events a little more everyday, the characters just slightly more sympathetic. That lasted... well, not too long.  Most of the rest of the book alternated back and forth between moments I found myself caring, and passages I was just like, whaa?  The plot made some progress, but for every new development, there were three high flowing descriptions of the city, or of nature, or of some mystical force, or who knows what.

I got less and less patient with the non-story part of the book, but I still held out hope that the ending would be spectacular, rewarding me for slogging through.  There was definitely some potential for it - there was an almost Dickensian complexity of relationship among the characters (like that? :)) and there was a setting of events going a hundred years back.  But to counterbalance that, instead of seeking to tangle things up as much as possible so that we could be stand back and admire as the knot came undone, the book advances more by "magical" elements than anything else.  You wouldn't think I'd be so bothered by the lack of self empowerment in this book, but if felt like the author was some omnipotent being throwing plot twists at his hapless creations.  Now of course that's exactly what was happening, but can you let us forget that for a second? Instead, we are continually reminded that what we are reading is an epic tale, a tale of great scale and grand power, and how do we know that? Because we are told that, flat out pretty much.

And when we finally slog through that momentous build up, here's the shocking part - NO twist.  Or almost no one anyway - we knew Peter Lake would be important, we knew the city of justice would be revealed, we knew the dead would be brought back to life.  What we didn't know was *how*.  And guess what *how* was? It just happened! Peter Lake killed himself, Abigail came back to life, and the city was filled with light.  Huh? Where did that come from? Well the author's head, that's for sure.  It's possible he wanted to write a description of the Messianic era, that's really what it reminded me of more than anything else (or more like a pagan/Christian rendering of one).  But, putting aside that it's not like we can ever know or even imagine what that era will be like, it really doesn't make for very compelling reading.

I actually have an impressively literary explanation for why I didn't like this book.  One of the important elements of narrative literature (thanks yet again, Mrs. Janney!) is conflict.  It can be man vs. man, man vs. nature, man vs. himself... but it's got to be man vs. something.  In the 700+ of this book,  I really couldn't find a central conflict.  So despite the impressive build up to the final "Golden Age" of the ending, the plot just had no footing.

And what about the writing itself? I suppose it was good, if you go for that sort of thing (condescending or what? :)) I mean full beyond of extended metaphors and descriptions of nature, man, time, elements, whatever you want.  Paeans to New York, which were mildly interesting, since I do like New York.  But all of it just seemed like someone trying to make things sound more significant than they actually are.  Trying, and, at least in my book, not succeeding.  Occasionally, there was an impressive turn of phrase, but for the most part, this is the writing parodied by the Bulwer Lytton Content (look it up, and then the Little Lytton Contest - it's even funnier).

I was so confused by how ungood this book was, I went and read the Wikipedia entry.  I found out that 1) it's not considered that amazing and 2) Mark Helprin is really full of himself and more than a little unusual (and that's not because he's a Republican :)) So I guess I just had the wrong impression of the book's place in the American fiction canon.... but it didn't live up to my expectations after Freddy and Frederica either.  Oh well... a month wasted (not really of course, I don't usually regret reading things :))

Verdict: 2/5

PS - http://vellumpire.blogspot.com/2010/04/interim-post-hang-in-there.html we do go back far, me and this book :)

Ms Austen She Is Not

Continuing with my usual practice of picking up books recommended on Austenprose, I took The Three Weissmans of Westport out from the library when I came across it on the shelf.  I heard about it as a modern retelling of S&S - *not* chic lit - that got rave reviews, and did not bother to reserve it based on the dual signals of S&S and *not* chic lit, but when I saw it, I was like, well why not, rave reviews, huh? So out it came, and it was actually the first of all the (okay, not all that exciting) titles into which I ventured, due to its status as the only book with a hold on it (since, filled I think).  But before I even started it, Chava tried it, and informed me that she found it fairly unfun to read.  Now that was not a good sign, because to Chava, *not* chic lit doesn't spell doom in the same way it does to me.

Anyway, once I started, I was surprised by Chava's opinion.  Being an S&S retelling about two Jewish girls, there was a lot about it that reminded me of Allegra Goodman's The Cookbook Collector.  That title was not a real retelling, just one that purported to be in the spirit of S&S.  It did have two sisters, one the practical one, one the dreamer, so I suppose that classification is not unwarranted.  Anyway, Chava loves Allegra Goodman, while I am not as much as a fan (if you want to know why read this).  So this book was about secular Jews, but still very Jewish Jews, and it was pretty much for women by women about women kind of fare, so I definitely felt the similarity.  But, at least initially, I found T3W (like that? :)) to be much lighter, much less literary and therefore much more fun.  Like, if not chic lit, then at least nothing with any pretensions beyond a desire to entertain.

That was in the beginning.  But as the S&S plot dictates, the story got more serious.   And as the plot thickened, the characters... whined.  I mean, I don't like Marianne even in the original.  But Eleanor's all right, and I have nothing against Mrs. Dashwood.  But here it was like, I don't know why anyone finds Miranda endearing, she is, as she styles herself, a nightmare.  And as for Annie, it's not like you have to be pathetic, secretly sorry for yourself, and kind of dull just because you're more practical than your sister is.  So, as S&S isn't exactly laugh-a-minute fun anyway, here we have a tense story with annoying people taking center stage.  And as for light... not a whole lot of fluffiness, and very little dark humor to lighten the mood either.  Meanwhile, the book got more and more, I don't know if you want to call if more philosophical, more pretentious, but more happy to make blanket statements about life and whatnot.  The one I was really unimpressed by was on page 118 - I remembered the page so I could refer to it later... but I now don't feel like getting the book out of my bag to cite it, so I guess you'll just have to go look it up yourself to satisfy your curiosity :) But anyway, the point was, instead of being a more light and funny take, it was this heavy handed adaption... with not much point, because it's not like any of the Weissmans are realistic and relatable or like their story is a common tale.

At one point, I was thinking, maybe it's my fault for getting this out - after all, S&S is my least favorite Jane Austen.  I haven't read it in a while, and my presumption has always been that I would develop more toleration for it rather than less, since that's been the general trend for me for a while.  But here's the thing - S&S was enjoyable reading even when I read it last in 12th grade - I just hated the ending.  The two romances are neither of them at all decent by my standards.  Eleanor and Edward know they love each other from the beginning, their obstacles are no source of decent angst, just annoying.  And as for Marianne... she doesn't even love Colonel Brandon at the end, and who cares about her anyway, she's an idiot.  But like I said, Jane Austen is Herself, and she keeps it light.  Not here.  It's almost blasphemous the way these whiny authors think they are carrying on the comic tradition on Jane Austen.  Or maybe they don't think so, they just like recycling her plots.  If that's the case, I have plenty of sympathy. Nothing I like more than a good modern retelling of P&P. But when they choose S&S, I suppose I have to be on my guard, at best...   I mean, it's simply not a plot I love (which won't stop me from watching From Prada to Nada, of course :)).  But here's the kicker - after a whole book of tense whining and depressed moments, we are finally supposed to end up with Eleanor and Edward, and Marianne and Colonel Brandon, right? Wrong, apparently.  She goes ahead and changes the ending! Why? I don't know, I don't think it really adds much thematic value.  Maybe she thinks her way is more realistic? I think it's mostly just for shock value.  But unfortunately, since I had pretty much lost interest in the book by that time,  I don't know if I cared enough to be really shocked.  More like disappointed.  Is nothing sacred? Okay, that was facetious, but seriously, this book was no good enough to merit its own ending.  And I am therefore demoting it from 2 to a

Verdict: 1.5/5

Sidenote: I looked back at the review on Austenprose, and it turns out she was not one of the rave reviewers - she thought pretty much the same thing I did, and she gave it 3/5, which is quite low for her. I really should read those reviews a little more carefully :)

Someone Thinks She's a Big Girl...

When I read Prom and Prejudice a few weeks ago, everyone (well more than one person, I think) asked me if I had read Enthusiasm (another P&P-inspired, though only in a very loose sense, high school chic lit). I said no, because I had heard from a few sources that it wasn't great (s.b. that she gets together with the wrong guy - I have no idea why I even listen to her anymore on that subject :) and the sp.s that it was weird or something).  But I heard from a few other sources (Aliza) that it was decent, and since Sarah Sp. owned it, I figured it was worth giving a whirl.  First of all, as it turns out, I had read it, which I realized as certain parts seemed very familiar.  Can't remember whether I liked it or not the first time... though my guess is that I mostly enjoyed it at the time, since it's a fairly innocuous high school romance. Uh oh, I know you're saying (just let me have that one :))... Rochel has no patience for high school anymore, right?

That's exactly what I said... but the truth is, this really was the chip on my shoulder talking.  The book wasn't high school in the sense that it dealt with the usual young adult sagas of friendship, parents, school and of course boys.  I mean, it dealt with all those things, but Julie (main character)'s voice isn't so whiny I can't stand it or anything.   And I don't feel any marked lack of sympathy for her petty little issues... well maybe a little bit annoyed with the way she gives into Ashley (best and crazy friend), but in general, she's a good kid ;).  The problem is actually in quite the direction - I felt like I'd taken a wrong turn from the parking lot and stumbled into the Globe Theatre or onto the Yorkshire moors (was that not poetic? :)) Julie's secret longing for the man (boy) she (thinks she) can't have... Parr/Grandison/whatever his name is penning anonymous poetry in her honor.  Never mind that I'm not quite sure what took them so long to get together, because I wasn't convinced they couldn't have sorted everything out months earlier, you cannot expect me to believe high schoolers ever achieve this depth feeling, or that if they do, it has any lasting meaning whatsoever.  It was actually ridiculous... but I think that was kind of the point. The book was an homage to Jane Austen, I suppose, because Ashley and Julie love P&P... but I think it drew more than a bit on Romeo and Juliet and such, and I think was deliberate.  Nothing like a light take on a tragedy as a stage for subtle humor, I suppose.

And in that vent, it was on the funny side, I guess.  Not laugh out loud or anything, but it's certainly less annoying to think of it that way than to take it seriously.  Or not too seriously anyway... but it's not entirely farcical.  The truth is, the only enjoyment to be got out of it relies on suspending all skepticism and buying in to the romance.  As a reward, you get... well I suppose you get angst, but I have to say I didn't even really enjoy the angst... maybe because I failed in total suspension, I don't know.  But I just couldn't see enjoy the pining like I usually do :) Still, you know, he's a nice guy, very talented, and all that other stuff too :) and she's got plenty going for her too.  It was nice when they got together at the end, and it wasn't total torture waiting for them either.

Verdict: 2.8/5

P&P Cute as Can Be

As you may have noted in the post below, the next book on my list after that infamous one was another from the P&P genre, again recommended on austenprose.  This one is a modern take on P&P - that's another category that always peaks my interest.  I sent a link to Sarah Sp., and she not only promptly ordered it, she made sure I got to read it first - really Elisheva read it before I did but that's because I didn't go pick it up.  And she left in for me to pick up before she left on her trip so I felt very much in debt to both those wonderful girls for their considerate care - thanks :) Anyway, this one is a YA novel... I feel like that's been done before but I can't recall that I've read any previous takes.  So there was some excitement in it, tempered by my ambivalent attitude toward YA chic lit.  I mean, come on, we all like a little fantasy, but does anyone believe in happy-ever-after for these guys? More like happily-until-graduation at best... And of course there's the thing that I just find high school drama overly compelling - I mean, of course I sympathize with their friends issues and their parents issues and their college issues... but that's all so over for me I just have a hard time getting in to it (am I being an old crone? I don't think so, so maybe there's something else I just find uninteresting? No it's pretty much that I have no patience for people who I simply view as immature babies - and yes, I know that to much of the world, that's exactly what I am :)).  Anyway, the point is, it's not like I was expecting *that much* from this book.

Actually I feel like I knew exactly what to expect from this book:
1) YA - so inherently less interesting, see above
2) Pride and Prejudice - so a great romance :)
3) Pride and Prejudice retold - so somewhat off-tune at times, where the details are a bit forced.
And that pretty much sums up what I got, so brilliant me :) You know, I just realized I haven't posted the book title yet - it's Prom and Prejudice, by Elizabeth Eulberg.  Anyway, right off, I got annoyed because the main character was a teenager in a fancy school who doesn't really fit it in - so we've got #1 right off - high school angst up to the ceiling.  Besides that, I didn't like that she was the one who didn't fit in, the uncool one - Elizabeth may not be as rich as Darcy, but she's pretty much it in her sphere.  And she's pretty happy with her life as it is - other than the fact that there's no one for her to marry of course.  But trust me, if she was writing a book, she would not launch into complaints about her neighbors within the first two pages... That being said, Lizzy in this book doesn't hate her life that much... she has a chip in her shoulder about her ridiculously entitled classmates, but then Elizabeth has a bit of chip in her shoulder too... when it comes to Darcy at least, not really any place else that I've seen.  And more about her ridiculously entitled fellow students - that's shades of #3, where the story is stretched to fit the P&P plot.  Of course fancy boarding schools are full of snobby kids... but as nasty and at the same time as vanilla (not like we're talking drugs and whatnot) as these? nah... and I feel like part of the reason the setting is just so over the top was that the point of the book was more modern P&P than realistic and compelling high school tale.

....But why would  I complain about that? I have zero interest in compelling high school novels :) And yes, there was lot that felt forced about this book... Darcy for one does *not* seem like a seventeen-year-old.  And Wickham's evil influence on the weak and vain Lydia? Yeah, it's not the Girl Scouts, but she isn't exactly ruining her sisters' chance at a normal life forever... But the truth is, forcing is really a natural product of trying to turn a nineteenth century novel by a master writer into anything else... I am even ready to be *slightly* more forgiving of Regina Jeffers... well maybe not.  But when you read a P&P inspired book, you just can't complain that it's not as good as the original.  And more importantly, you can't complain that it's not as good as other books of its "other" genre, because they really have another goal in mind.  So I definitely give Prom and Prejudice some slack when it comes to eye-roll worthy situations.  And there were a few of those, but nothing too overwhelming really.

So #1 and #3 were right there... what about #2? And of course, since that's the reason I read this book, that is of course the crucial question.  Drumroll please.... Yes! We had #2.  Quite a decent romance.  I mean, totally cutesy of course, this being high school, but Darcy done right, even as a teenage boy, is still dreamy :) Dignified but such a softie underneath :) wise, kind, handsome, capable... oh come on, he's Darcy :) Can you see I can't stop smiling? I don't know why you'd expect anything otherwise.  Okay, I'm getting a little too rhapsodic, because of course Will Darcy the Pemberley Academy student is not Fitzwilliam Darcy of Pemberley, Derbyshire, but he's nothing to sniff at.  And he loves our Lizzy of course.  Our Lizzy herself is not a bad sort either - she's smart and capable and phenomenally talented musically, which was a nice bonus.  So yeah, it was a good story.  But it was high school after all that.  There's just no angst, because there can't be.  Even I can't suspend my disbelief enough to think anyone's lives are going to be materially affected if these characters never get over their initial, unfounded, dislike.

I'd say the best I could say about this story is that it's cute.  Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I've read even some regular old chic lit that I'd give a higher rating than cute too... not that much, admittedly.  And on the plus side of recommendation, Huvi and S.b. both read this over Shabbos too, and they both thoroughly enjoyed it.  Found it cute as I did, but apparently don't have the same hang-ups about high school and so were able to enjoy it a bit more thoroughly.  Bottom line: I'm not telling you you have to read this, but I'm pretty sure if you take the very minimal time it takes to get through it (we're really talking an hour or two), you won't regret it.

Verdict: 3/5

What Happens When You Read Old Chic Lit

I've delayed shamefully in reviewing my fourth last days read, but I was wallowing in a sea of disinterest in any extra effort, having spent the week taking care of things in my new NY apartment... farewell, home and all I know and love :( Seriously, wasn't in the mood of reading and certainly not of reviewing... but now I'm back in Baltimore, for Shabbos at least, and I know I've got to finish this up so I can move on with reading this weekend (hopefully more on that on Sunday :)) Anyway, continuing with the trend of over-indulged chic princess lit, (pretty impressive I think, 3/4 were actually part of this sub-genre) we have the original princess chic lit novel (or at least one of them that I can think of), Bergdorf Blondes.  Back when this was written, I don't think there were so many books about rich, pretty, fashionable girls whose only problems were catching a man... unless those books took place in the nineteenth century (oooh, snaps :)) This book wasn't written so much as a romance as an expose, or at least documentary, or the "Bergdorf Blonde", i.e. Upper East Side single gal, lifestyle. 

And I'm pretty sure that when it was written, it may have been a bit of a novelty to read about that kind of girl.  The girl who shops at sample sales, has a team of beauty experts, eats out at Michelin-rated, vacations in Italy, in St Tropez and whenever... okay, it's still fun to read about it, but it's not a novelty anymore.  And that means that a book can't be based *solely* on the lifestyle to be interesting.  At this point, it's more like, okay, I get it, stop trying to impress me, you and e/1 else :) (in chic lit anyway :))  And I don't find moi's (yes her name is moi) disingenuous flaunting of her lifestyle quite so adorable as I might have.  I mean, is the book meant to glorify, to condemn, or simply to illustrate the lifestyle? moi herself vacillates between stupid/needless indulgence and disapproval of some of her friends' over-the-top antics.  Make up your mind! B/c I sure already have - this lifestyle is fun to read about, but like, don't make such a big deal out of it - it makes you seem so.... nouveau riche :)

So basically, my feeling about this was, why did I like it so much the first time I read it? I think it's because 1) like I said, the first time I read it, there weren't a million books just like it and 2) I wasn't really expecting any romance at all, so the romance was a quite a pleasant surprise.  But this time, I read it more for the romance and all the other stuff, while funny at times, was more distracting.  And the romance is just not a huge part of the book.  That being said, it's a pretty darn cute romance, with none other than an English lord SLASH up and coming director! playing the male lead :) He's a lot more attractive than she is, to say the least.  And towards the end of the book, (the last... 4th maybe?) the romance comes more into focus, so I started to enjoy it a lot more.  And by the end, I'd say I look back on the reading experience with more pleasure than exasperation.  And I think in a few years, I may even read it yet again :)

Verdict: beginning: 2/5, end: 4/5, overall: 3/5
Food: s/t I don't enjoy and then get used to? that's a hard one, it's usually the reverse... maybe I should go with the was a novelty, but now kind of passe aspect - like a chicken caeser salad.  It used to be I was happy to get any grilled chicken salad, even *w/o* dressing... but after quite a number of boring old lettuce, tomato, and grilled chicken mixes, I need a little more than that to get me excited... like a chicken cobb salad - yummers :)