Comfortable, Elegant, and All That Is Good In Life

You know I like to start out with my recommendation source... I have to say, I finally have one I can't really easily identify :) Cold Comfort Farm has been on my list of "Books to Read" for years, under the category "English countryside types."  Now, I don't know why I originally put it on my list (Lauren Willig? :)) but Stella Gibbons is only English countryside in the most literal sense.  Recently, I read the Wikipedia summary of the book (or maybe it was just of the author) and discovered that, in fact, Cold Comfort Farm is a humorous take on English society books of the '30s.  So we're talking not only funny, which actually English countryside typically is, but completely filled with levity (I wanted to say levitous, but I just couldn't :)).  And better, we're talking high society, babe ;) not those boring working class stiffs tat typically inherit rural literature :)  Once I realized this, I put the book rather up on my todo list, and got on line at the library to wait my turn.

Cold Comfort was a surprise delight from the start.  The main character, Flora, is not only a perfectly lovely society girl of nineteen, pretty, popular, and educated (if not rich :)) she's adorable, smart, and utterly capable.  She reminds of what Emma thinks she is (a rather astute observation if I do say so myself :)) - she likes to organize everyone's lives, and she's actually good at it.  She's also totally irrepressible, writing to each of her relatives for an invitation to mooch off them until such time as she sees fit to move on (to get married, perhaps? :)) And she gets welcomes from each of them too.  But she chooses to go stay with her disturbingly strange cousins at Cold Comfort Farm, and proceeds to amuse herself with fixing up their wretched lives.

Now here's where the book could have gotten really boring, or worse, tense.  But instead, Flora remains totally in control of her absolutely bizarre relatives' various hang-ups and shenanigans.  And I'm telling you, they are bizarre.  But since the whole book is very clearly a joke, I could just relax and enjoy the joke of these larger-than-life, and for the most part, cruder than life, characters and their little neuroses.  Flora keeps everyone well in hand, and takes good care of disposing of every one to his or her greater happiness.  And she keeps herself pretty happy and very well liked while doing it.  At one point I noticed that not only were the characters simply out of this world outrageous, the setting, which takes place in the "near future" (which I interpreted to mean maybe within in a year of publication date 1932) actually takes place in some futuristic version of the 50's.  But it's funny, because far from greatly advanced, the book feels like a throwback to the last days of good English society - but why would I complain, that's exactly the society I like best :)

So Flora keeps herself, and us, entertained by meddling in all her silly cousins' lives, to their great benefit.  I'm sure you're asking by now, what about Flora? Well Flora's nice little love interest is introduced right at the beginning of the book.  There's not much suspense, since as far as I could tell, they liked each other immediately, and not much interaction, as Flora was far away in Susssex and only communicated with her Charles through letters we never see.  But you know she's going to be okay, not left alone at the end.  Since I didn't really expect the book to be a romance, I didn't mind the mostly lack of pathos threaded through Flora's own story.  But then, in the last chapter of the book, an extra bonus treat - she managed to finish up with a spectacular last chapter of a romance.  Despite my assumption that Flora's and Charles's romance was a foregone conclusion, there was apparently some suspense left between the two. And it made for some beautiful storytelling wrapping that suspense right up :) So not only thoroughly enjoyable, but a nice little tip at the end :)

Verdict: 4.5/5

A Book About Memory That Sticks In Your Head

Guess what? A totally new and different source of reading material! A few months ago, I decided to watch clips from the Colbert Report (I think someone I went out with mentioned the show so I got in the mood) and the interviewee was Joshua Foer, a journalist who won the US memory championships after a year of training.  Being a journalist, he wrote a chronicle of that year, and, for whatever reason, I decided it would be fun to read that chronicle.  The premise was that this was something that anyone could do, that the best memorizers in the world don't actually have special memories.  Of course, I am very interested in good memories, so I definitely wanted to hear about how good the best were :)  That being said, I was definitely somewhat hesitant about reading a first person account by some amateur...  But, you know, he was on the Colbert Report :) (not really, I've never read anything  I heard about on that show before).  And there were like 200 holds on it, so I figured it was probably decent.

So when I finally got ahold of it,  I read about the first 10 pages on the way to work.   Some lady on the subway saw it and ask me how I liked it, and I was totally positive - after 10 pages - of a non-fiction book! So definitely an easy start.  He writes really easily, very conversationally.  And he grabs you right away - certainly the journalist in him :) The beginning is kind of this grandiose intro to the whole idea of the sport of memory and the its methods, but Foer (I'm going to be very professional :)) knows that we find it skeptical.  Everytime I say, yeah but... but what's the point? but is that really what makes it work? he asks the same question.  Sometimes he doesn't really answer it, but it's nice to know he's listening :) I mean there are definitely times he waxes a little too rhapsodic on the subject, or tries to shoehorn the entire universe and a new philosophy in to what is pretty much a neat trick.  But in general, he keeps it pretty real.

So it probably would have been a decent read even if it was all about his year as a memory acolyte.  But most of the book consists of tangents about either the history of memory, known great minds, or (mostly) the psychology of memory.  The last of these is something I of course find intersesting, and something about which I know surprisingly little.  The only book I can think of that really discussed how memory worked in any detail was Godel Escher Bach, and that was written like 30 years ago! A lot of what Foer talked about was either new to me or only known in vague terms.  And more than interesting, I actually found it relevant.  It's almost funny how many times since I've read the book I've thought about the way I memorize things or the way my mind works or something else that puts me in mind of the book.  I've definitely referenced it at least twice in conversation.  Slightly embarassing, because I don't even know if you could call this book pop psychology, it's written by a *journalist* but well, it's not like psychology is really science anyway :) And he did do his research.  So we get light sprinkles of all the most engaging sciency stuff wrapped up in an easy-on-the-eyes first person narrative.  A lot of fun AND educational :)

Verdict: 4.5/5 (For what it is of course, not like I'm going to read this 30 times more)

So Much Potential...

There's a book I read sometime last year, can't remember exactly when, but it must have been before April since it's not in the blog :) Anyway, the book in question was Julia Stuart's The Matchmaker of Perigord, about a little provincial French town.  It was my kind of French town - kind of light and funny, irreverant - a fictional version of Peter Mayle's Provence books.  The book, since it was essentially a book about the town, was like that too, of course.  So anyway, comic travel book, about France no less.  Sounds good, so I read it.  And it was fine, pretty much what I expected, not at all a waste of time.  So when I saw Julia Stuart's new book, The Tower, the Zoo, and the Tortoise, on the shelves of the Mid-Manhattan library (yes, we're talking about that time back how many months ago when I went and browsed the shelves - up top for 10 times renewal :)) I didn't hesitate to take it out.  The first thing I noticed when I bothered to look at the jacket was that this book is not about France at all, but about the far more whimsical, and just as foreign in its own way, Tower of London.  Specifically, about the life of a Beefeater in the Tower of London.

Actually, I think this setting has a whole lot more promise than the French countryside.  My love for all things English remains intact and the Beefeater compound has a great mix of historic potential and absurd situational comedy (do I sound like I know what I'm talking about because I totally made that up).  It's definitely less educational, because less real, but oh so fun.  As for being real, I really should have read this with my computer (of course it got read on shabbos and the train so that didn't happen) because I just kept wondering what was real and what was totally fabricated.  Most of it was, I'm pretty sure - but even if only little bits were real, how cool to live in the Tower of London.  And not only that, but even more fun in a way, the Beefeater's wife work in the London Underground Lost Property Office.  Now I am *very sure* that her occupation is entirely made up, the lost property office is nothing but a repository of random junk, but whose dream isn't someone turning up all those years later with the long-lost old friend?  It's like a mystery with no tension :)  So all in all, there's a lot to be said in favor.

What's the catch? I'm not the only one who's tickled pink by this whole scenario.  And, not content to stop while she's ahead, the author can't go like two paragraphs without inserting a twee or profound yet sprightly tale of whimsy.  And mostly of them are completely gratuitous.  Totally unlikely stories about people we don't care about that are ridiculous rather than meaningful.  After a while, they really started annoying me.  Not only was the story not moving, but I felt like I was reacting exactly opposite the moving way I was supposed to.  About three-quarters of the way on, it starts moving a bit but unfortunately not to anywhere much.  The thread throughout the book is that they are torn about by the death of their son, which apparently the Beefeater thinks he caused.  At the end we find out why - and it wasn't even a decent reason! It's because - get this - he *yelled* at him the night before! I mean really? Why try for profound meaning when you have to use *the death of child* and *still* can't write something good and heartwringing?! So basically, even the cute part of the story was overdone to the point where I just wished it would all go away, and then, the story just disappointed in the end.  Oh well...

Verdict: 2.5/5

There is a Time and a Place, and This is Not It

Yet another selection drawn from suggestions on Austenprose - Major Pettigrew's Last Stand, by Helen Simonson.  This one, at least as far as I could tell, has nothing to do with Jane Austen.  It's just an old-time English manners and people getting married tale, at least of a sort - contemporary but almost feels like a throwback.  Anyway, it's apparently fairly popular, there were quite a number of holds ahead of me.  And it took me two times getting it out till I got up to it, not that that's an indication of anything more than that my reading list is severely backed up.  Anyway, I did finally get to it over the last days, and then neglected to review it till now (I guess it's less than a week, not really so bad).  I have to say, this has not been a riveting intro, and for that I am sorry.  Moving on...

The book jacket describes Major Pettigrew as this extraordinary and very lovable character.  I suppose he was lovable, but I tend to like most main characters in the books I read.  As for extraordinary? For the most part, he seemed the very prototype of an English gentleman.  Maybe extraordinary in the sense that I don't know how many proper English gentlemen there are left.  But, really, he could have walked out of the pages of Agatha Christie.  And while he was lovable, a lot of that was in contrast to the many rather loathsome members of the supporting cast.  But not loathsome in the sense that I joined him and the author in their righteous indignation.  More like loathsome in the sense that, okay, sure you made this character hateful so he's hateful.  My point is, you can't really get up on your high horse about proper behavior when the improper examples seem so manufactured.

But that's a minor point.  I think for me to judge this book, the most important thing is for me to know what I'm judging.  This task is not trivial, since I think the book itself wasn't quite sure.  Parts of it were quite light, ensuring me that I could take its ups and down with a grain of salt and just enjoy the character interaction.  But the more I read, the more I realized this book was meant, if not as a serious tome, than at least novel with serious themes.  So leaving aside that I have little interest in reading novels about religious prejudice in England, how was the book in this context? Meh... I mean Major Pettigrew's and Mrs. Ali's story was sweet, but I thought at times a little... forced I guess. Towards the end, there was a runaway escape from her domineering brother and then an attempted murder AND suicide.  It's like, wow, have I wandered into The Kite Runner? (Not that I've ever read that, but presumably that where such antics about oppressive Muslim culture belong).  Well I guess I'm not being fair - the point is, these things do exist even in England, which is sad, but which we all know.  And I don't think that a book about an English gentleman is the place where you expect to encounter these cases.

And what about the more traditional English themes of family and neighbors? Like I said, the Major's ungrateful and rather vulgar son Roger is certainly not a sympathetic character.  But he's also not a particularly realistic one.  How did two such wonderful people as the Major and his late wife end up with a son whose manners and whose character is, in a word, execrable? Umm, maybe because in fiction anything goes?  But it certainly doesn't wring my heartstrings any when I see no connection to something that I can ever see happening - imo, kids are mostly like their parents.  And if the parents see no need to teach their children the right way to behave, then they aren't very good people themselves.  The neighbors too, while mostly insensitive and often rude, seem like they would be the exception in the normal English country village, not the rule.

Themes of diversity and racism can always strike a nerve, especially as I know there is plenty of anti-Semitism alive and well in English country villages.  But I just felt like I got ripped off with this book - I mean it was reviewed on Austenprose! And while the Major and Mrs. Ali's romance was the thread that kept the book going, in the end, it seemed almost secondary to its racially and ethnically charged backdrop.   Important as these issues may be, no one thinks they're any fun.

Verdict: 2.5/5

How Mattering More Than What

Okay, on for review of the first days' real reading material - Lisa Lutz's latest, a non-Spellman files joint effort at a comic mystery.  It's amazing that I've been writing this blog so long that I'm getting up to authors' second new books since I started... but in this case, that's only because I posted about the book a while after I read it, so I don't know if it's time to start waxing nostalgic :) Anyway, I think we were all ready for the Spellman Files to end even before the last one, so we were certainly happy that this latest is entirely independent of Izzie and her gang (though there's Spellman #5 out next year, which I shall certainly be reading, don't get me wrong :)) But other than being non-Spellman, I don't know that there was much to recommend this project.  It was an innovative idea, (or not hugely overdone anyway): Lisa Lutz and an ex-bf writer friend of hers would write alternate chapters, not discussing the plot beforehand.  Let the story unfold how it would, with the only guidance that it be a whodunit, with some resolution at the end.  I don't have any objections to the idea, but the descriptions made the book sound... well kind of horror-meets-kitsch, which just wasn't something that appealed to me all that much.  And it's not like I adore Lisa Lutz all that much... I mostly read her books for the romance, though the comedy is none too bad, of course.

But of course, it wasn't like I wasn't going to read it... because, of course, I don't exactly have to expend much to put it on reserve at the library.  And in this case, because my wonderful cousin Sarah Sp (see you really should read my blog ;)) is boycotting LL over her last book, the library was kind of my only avenue - which was just fine, because I put it on reserve months ago and got it immediately upon publication.  ANYWAY... I'm sure you want to hear about the book already.  The first thing I realized upon starting (just the intro, not even the book) was that the format was a big part, if not the whole point, of the book.  Every other chapter belongs to either Dave or Lisa and in between, we get notes discussing the previous chapter between the two authors.  So besides the unfolding mystery for Paul and Lacey, we get the story of how this book got written.  Or not exactly that, more like a running commentary on all that was lacking in the previous chapter.  And there are plenty of within-the-text jibes back and forth too.  So that the characters sometimes voice concerns about the narrative or make a slightly out of place comment, clearly the message of the current writer to his/her counterpart.  Whatever, the point is, it's funny.  And we never forget just what is really going on in the book.

The mystery itself... well don't take it too seriously, that's for sure.  First of all, my assumption is that most mystery writers have a pretty good idea of unfolding events from the beginning.  I would think it's fairly difficult to produce a well-crafted whodunit, one with a really satisfying ending, without knowing where every lead is headed.  But in this case, not only did the format make advance planning impossible, the authors didn't even try, forgoing narrative integrity for the chance to get the book at on Lisa/Dave's chosen track.  But it doesn't really matter, it's not like this book was meant as a serious mystery novel anyway.  And the back-and-forth, no-respect-for-reality bonanza of dead bodies and petty criminals makes that very clear.  It also makes the book funny, at least in its own way.  And I'll take funny over a good mystery any day.

I don't know why I'm giving this book such serious attention.  It's really very simple. The book itself is okay funny when it's read as a farce, which I think is definitely as intended (I don't even think it's in the mystery section of the library). The far more compelling narrative is that between the two authors, as played out somewhat in their notes, and more within the main chapters.  I'm pretty sure their petty jibes and textual battles are at least somewhat fictionalized, but I'm okay with that.  They're still funny.  Bottom line, I think Lisa Lutz sees herself more as a comic than as anything else, and I don't think anything in this book proves her wrong.

Verdict: 3.5/5

Post for Completeness' Sake

In the category of so junky I'm not really going to review it, we have Julia Quinn's latest, a combined effort with two other authors who don't normally make my reading list, but who share JQ's regency romance genre.  So yeah, it was regency romance.  Three novellas (if they can be dignified as such) within a story... JQ's was I think the best... they were all pretty much as expected, but not like I regret reading it or anything :) trash is trash, but whatever, it can have its moments :)

Journey Once More to Far Off and Fairytale Lands

Just in time for my one year anniversary, I've got yet another AMS to review.  I think I've done one from each of his series already (No. 1 Ladies, Corduroy Mansions, 44 Scotland Street, Isabel Dalhousie, and also one independent), and since it's been a year, he's back with another No. 1 Ladies.   This was comes with some additional excitement for me, since I just went with Aunt Sarah and the lovely Sp girls (all except Ah!) to see the author in person.  It was an NPR-sponsored event, so not free of, what was to me, intrusive liberalism, but the man himself was delightful, just delightful.  He was polite, well spoken, quite amusing... I must say, more likeable than some of his characters :)

Anyway, I wouldn't say more likely then Mma Ramotswe., though.  She's quite a lady, that one.  I think I mentioned that I thought she seemed a little full of herself in the last book (only at times, of course)  but I really didn't get that feeling at all this time.  I don't know if it was my positive association with the author, if it was genuinely better than the last one, or if I was just in the mood for some light fiction after the fairly heavy fare of this past month :).   I can ask the Sp.s was their take is, as they are coming for Pesach (I'm journeying home on the Megabus right now myself).  But whatever the reason, I found The Saturday Big Tent Wedding to be as thoroughly enjoyable as any of the series.  Mma Ramotswe was wise, very wise; her talents in negotiating all matters of the social and emotional labyrinths were in demand and well showcased I thought.  Sometimes, I agreed with hers decisions, others I sat back and admired her ingenuity.  Of course, it's fiction, but I can still recognize a good woman when I see one :)

So Mma Ramotswe shines as always.  Mma Makutsi was her usual self as well, not as admirable, but not unlikeable all the same.  All was well with these two characters, though there were some pretty serious matters brought up in the course of the book, one in particular, I felt quite serious (involving Charlie).  But they were resolved without pain, and fairly quickly, by Mma Ramotswe (so funny how i never knew how to pronounce that before now :)) - quickly because the book was fairly short, not something I often complain about :) (especially when there's little plot to compel drawing out the narrative, as is the case here as with all the No. 1 books).  And other than the small matters, what was there... I felt less philosophy than usual.  Much made of the differences between men and women, as usual, but I think I noticed it more because AMS pointed it out as an important theme in his books (he does write a lot from women's POV, and does a fair job of it I think - maybe because he himself appears to be a quite a refined  person).  A lot about Botswana, especially old Botswana.  I don't necessarily agree with all the gender discussion (I mean, I'm not a feminist, but I think I have more equality in my relationships with men than they do), but that's definitely colored by my position as a working woman in the US (and of course frum, where our women, contrary to some's belief, really do wear the pants - metaphorically, of course ;)) rather than one in the more "traditional" nation of Botswana.  AMS pokes fun at those of us who view Africa as a huge backward continent, but his books, show that, while they may have cars, and phones, and internet, in many ways they are, if not backward, quite different and closer to the old rural societies of a century ago.

At least that's what his books say, in their praise of traditional Botswana.  It is an admirable country, whether real or romanticized (it is of course, admittedly, at least somewhat romanticized).  But AMS does such good job, not only of potraying Mma Ramotswe's love for the ways of her country, but drawing us into its bucolic charms through every aspect of the novel - plot, characters, and especially the spartan yet smooth and gentle language.  It really is a cup of red bush tea :) (That is a consummate treat, simple to procure, wholesome, and delicious to the senses - at least if you ask Mma Ramotswe :))

Verdict: 4/5

The Man, Myth... Mr. Mark Twaaaain!!!

AAAAAAT LAAAAAAAAAAAAAAST mmm mm mmm mm mm mmm mmm…. (that's the Etta James's song, if you didn't catch the reference)… I'm sure you've all been wondering what's been going on.  I haven't posted since March, and in the process, have missed my one-year anniversary! (April 11).  I know the questions that were running through all of your heads… is Rochel abandoning us? Has she left the labor of love that is book review blogging behind as she heads off to brighter ventures? Was she - gasp - *kidnapped*?! Never fear, loyal followers.  I have merely been reading *the same book* for the past month.  It was a long book, in my defense, over 700 pages.  I only read around 250 of them, towards my condemnation though :)  My hunk of reading material these past weeks has been non other than the newly-published Volume I of… Mark Twain's autobiography.  He dictated that it not be published until 100 years after his death, which came by this past year.  I had to wait through around 300 people on the hold list before me, so when I got it, you better believe I was going to read it.

And I did.  I carried it back and forth for a month, reading it every day on the train.  (My Shabbosim happened to be busy for the past few weeks).  The funniest thing was what a conversation piece a 700 page tome by a famous author can be.  I must have talked to five different strangers about how much I was enjoying it (or not).  I gave them all the same answer - it's great.  Because it was pretty great.  The man is a master, we all know that.  He's one of the greatest humorists ever, and he pretty much invented the American personality.  Maybe a little brash, not as cultured as his European part, but we love him all the same, he's intelligent, he's moral, he's altogether superior.  Mark Twain's characters are like this, and the funny thing (or maybe it's not funny?) is that he is too.  I find myself agreeing with him much, though certainly not all, the time.  His political opinions, his values, he's just seems like he's on the right track.  But it's not like i'm evaluating him for a shidduch, I don't even know why I'm talking about this.

The point is, was the book good? So, first of all,  it wasn't unbelievably good or anything.  I mean, it was an autobiography, i.e. non-fiction (or ostensibly so :)) and therefore, mostly lacking in any driving plot.  And this one was even more lacking than most, since Twain's much trumpeted format is to talk about whatever he feels like at the moment (the book was dictated).  He makes much of this celebrated method, mentioning it at numerous times as the only way to write an autobiography.  And he's right, it keeps the book fresh and light.  And if I can't write a book report on "The Life of Mark Twain" now, I think I have a good idea of the man himself.  Maybe that's why I went off on the above tangent.  The book is really an illustration of his personality, not his biography at all.   

So we're taken on a tour of Mark Twain's philosophies, his memories, and his views on the matters of the day.  The philosophies are sometimes interesting, sometime not so much.  The matters of the day are at times laughingly archaic, at times eerily relevant.  And the memories… well the memories are sometimes tinged with sadness, something achingly poignant, sometimes light and amusing, but always evocative and always exquisitely related.  It's amazing how much we can care about people who died over a hundred years ago, when Mark Twain cares too.   He's definitely right about this format of autobiographing being compelling.  It doesn't move that fast, but it's rarely boring (other than the 10 or so page description of his houses in Florence, which I could have done without).  I definitely feel like I would have liked some more background.  Despite explicitly writing for the audience of 100 years in the future, Twain seems to assume we know as much about him as any of his most devoted contemporary readers.  I don't know about you, but that's certainly not true about me.  So it got a little annoying at times, but only a little.   There was repetition occasionally too, natural in a book that was dictated only by what was on his mind, but, again, only a little annoying. 

Overall, what can I say about this book? Well I'm definitely going to be reading the next few volumes, whenever they're released.  And I'm going to be re-reading his other books too.  Not like I wasn't a Twain fan before, but now, it's personal.

Verdict: 4/5

My Kind of Fantasy Land

So if you read the blog even more avidly than all those other people who read my blog, you may have noted my comments discussion with abg, advising her on good reading material for her vacation.  My strongest suggestion was to get in to Jasper Fforde; though it turns out abg was not enamored of his books, I feel like he's one of that elusive few, male authors whose books I like.  The reason, of course, is that his books are comedic.  Not strict comedy maybe, but definitely light-hearted.  They are also very clever fantasy - taking place in an alternative universe where the fictional characters we know and love are real.  Real and living in a world very similar to our own... except that instead of atoms, they have text. The idea isn't that radical.  But the execution is so good. I mean, yeah, I'm the girl whose favorite sporkle category is literature, so I'm predisposed to like it. But come on, metaphor as the elusive element? Gray's Anatomy the hospital? Footnotes as a communication device? It's just cute :)  Actually, abg agreed with me on this; she just thought that despite all this, the books were tense.  And they are tense - they have a bit of the thriller about them, as so many fantasy books do.  But I just don't think it takes it over or anything - or maybe the sheer absurdity of the villains and various hazards just distracts me from any sense of danger.  I think it's like Terry Pratchett in a way - go, British male writers of comedic fantasy! :)

Anyway, that's as far as the series goes (it's the Thursday Next series, by the way, he has some other books too).  I read them a few years ago, and the sixth one just came out.  So first of all, it's not exactly like I remembered everything from the previous books, which was annoying, but you know, you can mostly pick it up (if the author is at all decent anyway).   And with these books, there's so many little cute jokes I miss, it's not like I get everything anyway.  Like in this book, Thursday is bribed to advertise the Toast Marketing Board.   And only then did I realize that though there were constant references in it to previous books, it is never explained what it is - because she went back and added them gratuitously to the narrative! and cute again :)  The point is, even if you don't get everything, there's enough clever little references you will pick up to make yourself feel smart and get a real kick out of the books.  And with this book, it mattered even less than usual... because the book wasn't even about Thursday.

Okay, here's where it gets clever.  So in Fforde's universe, book characters are real.  Thursday Next has had books written about her (in the series, don't worry, it doesn't get that self-referential - at least not yet :)) so she has a fictional self.  So even though when we open up the book and the narrator is referred to (by others I mean, it's first person) as Thursday, it takes a while to figure out that this is not our Thursday.  But the cool thing is that we like her anyway, because she *is* Thursday.  Or if not exactly Thursday, close enough with her that we still feel like we know her.  Actually, I find entire concept pretty mind-blowing.  I mean our Thursday is fictional, this Thursday is fictional, I don't remember the books well enough to notice the personality differences, but still, he tells us this is the fictional Thursday, and all of the sudden I like her, but I feel *just a little* more distant.  Really makes you think about psychological effects and all that.  Oh and the best part of another Thursday was that she totally hero worships our Thursday and it was tons of fun to hear how everyone thinks she's awesome.

So the book was totally brilliant in that respect.  And it had all the hallmarks of a Thursday Next, where the BookWorld mirrors ours so novelly (cute pun, no? :)) and we get to meet all our favorite (and not favorite) larger than life characters.  It had the usual, I suppose tense and dangerous plot, which was as usual not too tense for me because it was just so overblown.  My only complaint was I did feel that some of the cute punny features of the Book World felt a little too pat.  Like, okay, take any vaguely literary detail and insert it in place of something non-literary - presto, the Book World equivalent.  It felt a little too mad-libby at times. But it was okay, it felt just right in others :) And Jasper Fforde shares with Terry Pratchett a predilection for making over science (physics and chemistry) to fit the fantasy world, which of course I like - it's funny how much I like science,  I should really read it more :)  Anyway, that was really my only complaint... so no surprise -
Verdict: 4.5/5

Y'all Just Ain't That Charmin'

Full disclosure on this one, I kind of cheated.  My books were due on Thursday, and this one had holds on it so I couldn't renew it.  Now it wasn't like I was dead-set keen on reading this book - I just grabbed it off the shelf when I went browsing for the first time in a while - but, you know, once I get something out, I like to give it a whirl.  So  I was debating if I should return it and forget about it, return it and put it on hold, or keep it out a day extra and finish it.  I went to amazon.com, read the reviews, and decided to keep it and finish it, wasting $.25 but okay.  But of course, then I had already read the reviews, and if you think I'm above being biased by someone else's opinion... well, you're wrong, that's all :)

But let's pretend I just read the book without hearing any outside opinion first... I'm pretty sure it would have been much the same anyway.  The book in question is Saving Cee-Cee Honeycutt, but Beth Hoffman.  It's pretty and floral, all pink, purple and green.  And that's not just the cover.  Cee-Cee Honeycutt is a twelve-year-old girl whose mother is severely mentally ill. So not exactly a happy childhood.  But then her mother dies, and Cee-Cee goes south to live with her great-aunt Tootie in Savannah Geo-gah.  The rest of the book... well I suppose it's about saving, as the title suggests, but it mostly seems like a celebration of Southern cliches to me.  I'm not one to care much about plot, but I must say I was impressed by the complete lack of one here.  The book jumps from incident to anecdote, each one charming, amusing, or poignant in its own way (or some combination of the three of course).  It's pretty amazing actually - just when you think there's going to be some follow through, the previous chapter's storyline gets resolved and we get treated to something new.

I'm sure you asking, but would you complain about that? It's not like I've ever complained about light and easy stories, and I did describe this one as charming and amusing.  Well, first of all, that charming and amusing was more a description of the what the book (or the author) thinks of itself, not necessarily how I feel.  But, it's true, at times, even most of the time, there was a lot to enjoy in this not very deep novel.  So why are you detecting a slightly sardonic note in my faint praise? Because even though I'm just fine with a book that wants to do nothing but amuse and entertain, I think this book aspires to more than that.  This is a book that wants to do two things - examine the healing process of a child coming from a broken home and celebrate the bright and bountiful world that was the old South.  As far as the latter goes, I don't believe a word of it - the South wasn't this kind and gentlemanly paradise, where (almost) all the women are good and loving.  And I'm not even talking about the ugly racial and economic divides.  Even within the privileged upper class that Tootie rules, it wasn't all coming up roses all the time.  And while I don't mind being fed a little feel-good myth once in a while (not at all actually), this was more like a binge-worthy onslaught of fluffy fairy tales.

But at least as far as the South goes, the book does a good enough job of potraying it as intended.  My far greater objection was to the more serious lost childhood storyline.  First of all, I'm not going to disagree that a girl who grew up with a mother who seemed to be severely bipolar, and certainly very mentally unwell, is in need of a lot of help and loving.  But Cee-Cee, who tells the story first person, does not exhibit very much damage at all.  She's kind of quiet and in amazement about all the good bestowed her, but the most of the hints that all is not well come from overheard conversations between Tootie and her cook, Oletta.  I don't get very worried about Cee-Cee, and my heart therefore just can't get that warmed at her eventual blossoming.  And I just can't get into all the pseudo-significant events along the way either.  There's a death, a racial episode, an endangered hummingbird... each one treating with all due pathos in its turn, and all undue pathos too.  I can't count the number of times where *something* happened.  It was then that... it was that... that was the... let me tell you something, girl, if everything that happens is a revelation, ain't nothin' much left covered.  Basically, I couldn't go far just enjoying the story before some annoyingly maudlin or tremblingly stupendous *moment* interrupted.  With all that, I did manage to finish it pretty fast, so it wasn't all that hard to get through... I guess

Verdict: 2.5/5

A Set of Fangs Doesn't Have to Hurt

If you're a frequent reader, you no doubt have noticed that there is a proliferation of Austenalia out there in bookland.   You are of course not the only one who's noticed - Michael Thomas Ford, for one, came up with the bright idea of an Austen-vampire mashup... obvious, in a way, given that other ubiquitous (okay, far more ubiquitous :)) creature du jour.  Actually, sad as it is, he is not the only one to come up with this - I say sad, because while Ford's novel is completely tongue-in-cheek, and quite funnily so, Mr Darcy, Vampyre and Vampire Darcy's Desire (I think those are the two titles I know) capitalize on the dual trends with an absolute straight face.  Because Darcy is just so much better with fangs.  Anyway, in this case the pairing was made only for for the sake of humor.

Jane Goes Batty (currently under review) is actually the second book in the series.  I read the first last year, I think off a recommendation on Austenblog, because I wasn't reading Austenprose at the time (and Austenblog still had regular posts :( ).  I was slightly hesitant (for obvious reasons, and also because, as always male authors are a warning sign) but I thoroughly enjoyed Jane Bites Back.  It could have gone either way, since a lot of the potential in the situation of Jane as a vampire is that Jane is alive today.  And Jane being alive today means Jane can see what we've done with her books... everything we've done.  So, very realistically, Jane is not altogether enthusiastic about her fandom, at least elements of it.  But there's a fine line to tread here, since what is Michael Thomas Ford, but another lowly plebian trying to ride the Austen popularity wave? In any case, he does manage to tread the line pretty well.  I'm not saying his Jane isn't a little too vulnerable at times and a little too snarky at others, but she's believable.  I think if Jane Austen was a vampire who couldn't reveal her true identity she might well struggle with the lack of appreciation shown her and the sometimes misplaced homage to her works.  I don't think she would suffer from writer's block or have trouble getting her novels published, but okay, it's permissible.

Most importantly, you don't have to take anything these books say seriously, because they don't take anything seriously at all.  The writing is... well if not juvenile, simplistic enough to be understood by the masses so even the most dramatic moments have a kind of drab ordinariness about them.  And right when things start gettings tense, everything just kind of resolves itself without too much effort.  It's great, at least for the book's purposes.  No matter what kind of ridiculous antics everyone is getting up, you can take it because it's all in good fun.  And I think there's definitely room for fun here - I mean yes, I read Twilight and yes, I read Mr. Darcy's Diary et al. - but I know they're kind of silly :)  And Michael Thomas Ford does a good job with pointing that out using just the right kind of gentle jibing.

Besides all this, it's fun to read about Lord Byron, and Charlotte Bronte, and Jane Austen.... like my version of a tall tale :) And the story itself ain't bad either - quite a decent romance going on, if you were wondering (not a real romance of course, the author is a man).  But in any case..
Verdict: 3.5/5

And I totally forgot...
100 POSTS!!!! Yay!! :)

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 :)

A Series Settling in to its Genre

Well it took me long enough, and it's not even original... Before I had even finished Flavia, part II (a.k.a the purple book) Sarah Sp. told me she had purchased part III.  Whatever reservations I had about The Weed that Strings the Handman's Bag (oh, that was the title :)) I certainly enjoyed it enough to read the next one, so I put it on the top of my list.  I then proceeded to take a week and a half to finish, but to be fair, that was without reading at all on Shabbos (busy with Peryl's sheva brachos).

It was much the same as the other ones, an English countryside mystery, mostly driven by Flavia's energy and imperturbability (I must admit I thesaurused that from unflappability, which I think I used already, but it was at the tip of my tongue).  It also continued the pattern (is it a pattern after two times?) of becoming more of a mystery and less of a genre bend than its predecessor.  Well you know that didn't particularly warm it to my heart.  And the mystery itself, while full of promising elements (Gypsies, forgery, old secrets, religious fanaticism) didn't *quite* deliver... some of those plot twists could fallen by the wayside without changing the outcome much.  But okay, like I care about the crafting of the mystery... it's much more important to me that the sleuthing be ever-intriguing... and I suppose every outlandish extra helps.  So I'm not really complaining about that, just commenting.

If I am complaining about anything, it's of course about the non-mystery segment of the novel.  I keep on waiting for Flavia's family life to change, for her to have some epiphany, for her sisters to suddenly grow up, for her father to thaw out... but thus far, not much.  On the father front, there were some tender moments (points) but I am increasingly mystified by Feely and Daffy.  One presumes they are not meant to be monsters but the way they torture Flavia does not strike me as the normal playful teasing of sisters.  It's so incongruous with the dignified tone of the book it almost makes me wonder if Alan Bradley has some hangup about it.  In the first book, Flavia gave as good as she got, which freaked me out a little too... but I feel like it just keeps getting worse, not better, with every book.  And I'm definitely starting to get tired of it. But I hold out hope and wait, hoping that every book will bring about that much needed revolution (preferably with Harriet (Flavia's mother) coming back from the dead - you heard it here first :))

So with all that, Flavia is still a lot of fun to hang out with.  She's smart and capable, indefatigable and ever resourceful.  And excellent sleuth and one whose little idiosyncrasies are easily excused by her tender years.  And though the mystery isn't my prime motivation for reading this book, the author manages to keep it interesting.  And those little scraps of humanity and progress I perceive every now and then from Flavia and her relations are better than nothing.  It wasn't bad, it wasn't bad at all.  And I'm looking forward to number four.

Verdict: 3/5

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

A Good Ride, If a Slow Finish

After my grand rush to post last Friday afternoon, I didn't even finish a book last Shabbos.  I didn't finish one this whole week in fact, until last night.  But, not to get behindhand, I brought my laptop home with me from work (yes I did, and mostly just for this :)) and am writing this on the train.  So what is this? It's a review of a book I started back in December, brought home with me a few weeks ago, but which kept getting pushed back in the queue because I had borrowed it from Sarah Sp. rather from the library. It's a book I borrowed almost immediately after finishing its predecessor, #1 in the series, which I reviewed back in October (and which, incidentally, also took me a few tries to get through).  It's a book falling in my exception to the rule, written by a male author who is also English and comic.  In short, it's The Rope That Strings The Handman's Bow (or something close to that), #2 in the Flavia de Luce series by Allan Bradley.  It's not actually a book that particularly deserves that fanfare-ish introduction, but it was fun to write :)

If you recall (and do I even need to say it? I know you don't :)) I enjoyed the first one despite its mystery genre, because I found Flavia delightful and the setting, 1950's English country, just like home :) (well home a century late, maybe :)) But Sarah Sp. had told me that Yaffa had told her that the second wasn't quite as good, and anyway, in a book that owed so much to the freshness of its narrator, the second one would be hard pressed to deliver.  That's not particular to this series; in general, you can get away with less of a plot in the first one, because whatever little twist led you to write the book can carry the day on its own.  But by the second, you usually need to bring something extra, or it's just more of the same.  Anyway, I was ready to be forgiving of #2 not quite living up to #1.  And specifically, I was kind of expecting the mystery to take more of a central role than it had in the first one, which of course means more of the book in which I am less interested.

To my surprise, I found that the mystery was not in fact front and center at all.  Well… that's not quite true, the book did revolve around the newly introduced characters of Nialla, Rupert, the Inglesbys, Dieter, etc. all of whom are involved in the whodunit.  But the murder doesn't even happen until about a third of the way in, and for most of the rest of the book, Flavia isn't directly after the culprit.  She's chasing around answers here, there, and everywhere, but not in a particularly directed manner.  Just your usual (or unusual) nosy eleven year old.  So in that sense, it doesn't even feel much like a mystery.  Just good old suspicious Flavia, poking her nose in everyone's business.  And doing a great job of it too! That's really the main reason to like Flavia, she is a very capable girl.  Thinks on the fly, puts it all together, and pretty near unflappable.  She's just fun to hang around.   Especially in short twenty minute bursts of reading, which is mostly how I got this book finished.  And it's a sign of how much I enjoyed it that it wasn't easy to close the book at the of the train ride, especially as I got closer to the end.

Yesterday, I was almost thinking of reading it at work, it was getting so exciting.  But then, I didn't.  And when I finally read the last few chapters last night, it was kind of weird… because it never really ended.  The mystery was solved, but it stayed in the background as much as it had been the whole time.  Flavia just figures it out, tells Inspector Hewitt the whole story and that's it. Now the truth is, this was better than repeating the first book's tense and dangerous climax when the culprit nabs Flavia, but it was so non-eventful I was like… that's it? There's not another chapter? A bit of a letdown…. but only for a second.  And that I got over it.  It's not like I was left without closure.  It was just that the book never really reached the peak of the crescendo I was expecting.  But that didn't make the rest of the climb less captivating.  

Verdict: 3.5/5

Chic Lit Fails Its Litmus Test

I've been a very lazy girl... and now it's a few minutes before shabbos, and I might be finishing more than once book this shabbos, and certainly one, and I still haven't reviewed last Shabbos's reading, so here it is, nice and fast. I finished all my library books, was supposed to make progress on my non-library book backlog, but then I went home and for Shabbos and someone had gotten out the Jill Mansell book that I hadn't read, Rumor Has It.  If you really read this blog carefully, you would remember that I reviewed another one of her books a while ago, to high praise, for being a piece of good chic lit.  This book was the same I suppose... well not quite, it was classic Jill Mansell, light, bright, easy, romantic comedy with lots of interlocking stories... but the main story was frankly not compelling at all.  Likeable characters, but no mystery, no tension, as both basically acknowledged they liked each from the beginning.  Oh well, easy to read, but not the best in the universe.

Verdict: 3/5 - b/c this is my genre, when all is said and done

Man, Men Just Can't Write (chic lit)

After some delay, here's the third of those P&P books that I mentioned were on the agenda - Pemberley Ranch, by Jack Caldwell.  Jack, you say? Would that be Jack as in John, an undoubtedly male appellation? That's what I said too, which is why I was initially not really interested in this book.  It's a retelling of P&P, which I never object to, in the Old West, which is a familiar and well-enough beloved setting, but I approach all male-authored books with a deep sense of caution, if not one of suspicion (and with good reason, as there are at least two previous examples on this blog of men writing books the way men do... and that means not in a way I enjoy.  Anyway, I didn't really pay attention to the review on Austenprose, but then Sarah Sp. emailed me a link, and since she seemed interesting and the library had it, I thought I'd give it a whirl.

Laurel Ann on Austenprose had mentioned that this book is only *very* loosely based on P&P... I'd say it's loose to the point that P&P is more of an inspiration than a basis.  The characters have similar names... Beth Bennet, Will Darcy... and some of the same relationships (though not all... Colonel Fitzwilliam is Darcy's employee, not his cousin).  Their personalities... some follow as closely as is reasonable, while with others no attempt is even made.  As for the plot... well there was hate-at-first-sight , two proposals, and Darcy saves the day... but I have to say, that was about it.  My point is, this was *not* P&P... but who cares? It's not like it would have been P&P done right anyway.  The front cover had a quote saying it was P&P crosses Gone With the Wind... it does take place in the aftermath of the civil war, but I'm not sure how much they have in common other than that.  It was closer to Harvey Girls than to either of those two, I'd say, or to the Virginian.  It feels wrong to compare those classics in any way with this book, but hey, if it's P&P crosses anything...

So let me evaluate this book without reference to P&P, or GWtW, or whatever else... yes, it was stupid.  It's published by Sourcebooks, which seems to be the premier source for Austen paraliterature of all varieties of fluffiness and junk.  Huvi pointed out a few rather infelicitous phrases, but nothing I hadn't seen before... non-sequiters, overly dramatic flights of fancy... but I found it rather easy to ignore.  The truth is, I think I knew right away this book was going to be stupid, so I didn't bother investing.  It moved pretty slowly, but actually picked up speed whenever it veered from P&P, maybe because I didn't actually know the story already :) And the western drama was... western drama.  Guns, cowboys, and lots of blustery speech.  So... well, so male.

In the end of the day, that's what amused me most about this book.  How utterly male it was.  First of all, the women are totally less sympathetic than usual, more sappy and idiotic.  And the men are strong, wise and brave.  Oh and the guns.  A lot of threats and a fair smattering of violence too.  And then there's the male perspective of romance... really it almost takes all the fun out of it.  Just so much less subtle.  But you know, almost funny in a way, at least in this book.  When I first read the author blurb, I'm like who is this guy? What kind of guy writes a Jane Austen inspired novel? But after reading, my conclusion is that whatever inspiration Ms. Austen offered Jack Caldwell, it's not exactly what she intended or what we would necessarily expect.  And I guess it worked for him, because he certainly had fun with his fairly unrealistic but very faithful-to-form cowboy romp (is that word too sissy? sorry 'bout that, I reckon :)) It sure was funny to see Darcy in jeans and hear the uncouth syllables of Texas emanating from that silver-spooned filled mouth.

So yeah this book was dumb, don't get me wrong.  But I don't actually care, since I never thought it was going to be decent.  And I was of course, proud to be right was again... men just can't write books I want to read (except English comic writers, of course :))

Verdict: 2/5

0 To 60, Maybe a Bit Slower Than Usual

So if you noticed last post, I most carefully did not mention what exactly my exciting next-on-list title was. That was because I did not want to ruin the full effect of the following story:

As many of you know, (and I know there are *so* many of you :)) one of my favorite authors is Lauren Willig (and as previously mentioned, definitely my most followed one).  Last Thursday, she was in Manhattan doing a reading for the brand-new Pink Carnation tale, The Orchid Affair.  Having never attempted to attend any sort of this kind of event, it nevertheless entered my mind to go.  I mean why not, I'm in Manhattan anyway, it was starting at 7:00... But I felt kind of weird about it, naturally, so I put the question to my trusted advisors, the gg... and they pretty much all said, go for it! So I did.  It wasn't spectacular or anything, but I'm glad I went, it was fun to hear the author's take on the book.

Her take was that this book was different for two reasons: 1) The characters were more bourgeois than aristocratic and 2) The male lead was French... and a French revolutionary at that!  #1 was an obvious minus, as you know me and my snobby tendencies :) But at least it wasn't a noble marrying beneath him/her... a'la The Scarlet Pimpernel :) (not really, I don't really mind it in Sir Percy and Marguerite).  And they weren't low class, just not noble... actually Laura is artsy, kind of like Marguerite, and Andre is pretty bourgeois, but raised to a fairly high position by the revolution.  So in the end, it wasn't too much of a minus at all.  As for #2... well yes, I'm a total Anglophile, but I usually dive wholeheartedly into whatever I'm reading at the moment, so switching perspectives really isn't too much of a hardship for me.  So you wouldn't think I'd mind #2 at all.  Besides, given that this is Lauren Willig, I knew he wouldn't really be all a'la lantern les aristos (wow, I just looked that up, I actually got it right! go me :)) and he wasn't... so far from it actually, I thought it might have been a little more believable and still very doable if he had been a bit more in between... but enough said, don't want to spoil the surprise for you :)

Anyway, the truth is, neither of those two differences made much impact on my enjoyment of the book in themselves... but they did contribute to what I felt made this book very different than previous ones - a much more plot-driven, spy-centric storyline.  I mean, there's always some mystery/danger/drama somewhere in these books, but it's often (sometimes more often than others) almost the backdrop to the characters' developing relationship and/or the social scene of the time/place.  And since you know I'm not reading these books for the thrill (at least the thrill of a noble life on the edge), I'm perfectly happy with that balance.  This book, with the far more immediately dangerous setting than Regency London or far-way British India of early Napoleonic France, had a whole lot more of the spy stuff, and not really quite enough of the good stuff... These were characters with a job to do, and they spent most of the book doing it.  Yes, there was early admiration on both sides, but it really wasn't anything they paid any attention to, or anything we paid much attention to either for that matter.

I mean, it's not like I wasn't enjoying it... it's Lauren Willig after all, I would like her books simply because I like her books (familiarity breeds fondness? :)) And there was a brewing romance, if a subtle one... and the history was interesting as always, the writing as usual light, funny, and very well constructed.  But you know, I wasn't *loving* it (as is evidenced by the fact that it took me an entire week to get through (though I did read it every night, I just fell asleep reading it every night)).  Anyway, that was until about half way through... and I can literally mark the moment when the pace picked up... actually, it was when Andre's true allegiances are revealed so perhaps I am wrong in saying they were too extreme.  Realistic they may not have been, but fun they were.  (Except that the nuanced view of the world opened up by taking the other side's point of view for once is entirely lost, as Andre turns out to be not really on the other side at all... but perhaps I have said too much once again, I shall desist :)) Anyway, the point is, half way through, the book got good.  The romance picked up, most definitely, as the characters interacted more - and we had the treat of them playing a fake family, always a great opportunity for... out of the ordinary situations.  And the spy part picked up too, in its own way - though it does recede for i'd say the third and fourth fifths of the books.  But that was good - not too much tension, as as soon as things got really scary, we stopped spending so much time on them, and starting spending more time on things we cared a little more about :) And then of course at the end, it went back to the spy stuff for a final finish, but that's typical and totally expected, acceptable, and even necessary.  So all in all, entirely satisfactory.  Maybe not the absolute best, but I think I would say one of her smartest books.  And in case you were wondering, Colin and Eloise's story continues to amuse, even if it is not as necessary as it once was, now that there an old fuddy duddy couple :)

Verdict: 5/5

Surprisingly, Junk Can Be Really Good

I think I mentioned that I had three P&P inspired books to read and review, meaning I've got one more left.  And though I haven't mentioned it yet, I acquired quite an exciting next-on-list on Thursday (more on that sometime soon, I promise :)).  And yet, neither of those two anticipated readings is tonight's topic.  Why? On Friday, I went to the library to pick up one of the many new books I put on reserve.  This one was Susan Elizabeth Phillips's latest.  Who's she? I'd say that of the authors whose books I read regularly, she's just about the... well trashiest, to put it bluntly (actually, there's one trashier, whom I have mentioned here previously... 10 points if you can find the post :)) She writes contemporary romance, pretty much chic lit, but without the urban setting or nasal twittering common to a lot of books answering to that genre.  But you know, we're talking stories that are unabashedly about two people getting together, without much else going on.  Nothing I'm complaining about, you understand, but anything that should make me drop everything and read? I wouldn't think so...

But on the train on the way home, I did not continue reading the P&P western (yup, no joke :)) I need to get through so I can get to the good stuff.  After reading the inside cover the new SEP, Call Me Irresistible, and noting that she uses characters from some of her other books, I remembered how much I love the dumb things... and I just couldn't put it down.  I started it on the train and on Friday night, instead of picking up either of the two books that were ahead of it on the line in my head... I let this one jump ahead.  And not only, I did *not* fall asleep three chapters in, like I often do on Friday night; I read the *entire* thing - straight.  So what gives? Am I that shallow? Well, yes.  Not that I didn't know it before, but clearly that is really all I care about in a book - good solid romance :).  But still... if there's anything this blog has taught me (wow, I learn from myself :)), it's that I actually do care about decent writing.  And as important as plot and characters are, I can't enjoy them if I'm disturbed by clumsy phrasing, by ridiculous and implausible speeches / behavior, or by a whole lot of irrelevant who knows what.  The point is, there are a lot things that make it hard to enjoy a really trashy book, even if the premise is everything I could ask for (not that it often is).  So clearly... that is not the case here! I can be snobby about Susan Elizabeth Phillips, but she knows her stuff.

Yes, in order to enjoy her books, you need to buy into whatever she's selling 100%.  Chava was flipping through the book last night, and she was like, I don't get it why does she like this guy... or some such thing.  And I was like Chava, whatever, just go with, clearly he's a good guy because that's the entire point of the book.  Just suspend your disbelief and enjoy.  Because seriously, these are books are really just here to entertain.  Almost everyone is perfect in their own way, except for the obligatory villain of course.  But everyone else is really nice and fun once you get to know them.  And everything works out for everyone too.  And it's never in doubt that it will.  And not only is it never in doubt for us, it's not really in doubt for them either.  I mean, there are moments... but even the most stressful ones don't really disturb the equilibrium.  The only thing that does... why all that wonderful angst of course.  So we've got no tension except romantic, A-OK there.  And very minor plot outside of our feature couple, A-OK again :)  In fact the only thing that wasn't 100% A-OK was that SEP usually puts plenty of male perspective in her books, and this one had almost none until towards the end.  I kept waiting for it, but I think she must have felt it wouldn't work in this one... so oh well, I have enough of an imagination to manage without it :)  Was totally fun in any case.

Here's my main point - or I guess my main question.  Am I crazy? Definitely not totally, since a lot of people love her books (I mean people on the websites I read of course :)) But is she really that good at what she does? Or was I just in the mood for good junk? Probably a little bit of both... but I guess the only way to find out is to read more in her genre... to which I say, no thanks.  The truth is, I have tried similar stuff and it's often pretty unreadable.  And come time to think of it, a lot of her oler books were pretty unreadable too.... or at least less readable than this.  Maybe she's getting better? Nah, I'd probably enjoy most of them just as much ;)  So I guess I do have pretty low standards.  So note to everyone reading this - do *not* pick this up from the library now.  Especially not on my say-so.  I think this one is really for me only... And if you do want to read it, call me first, and let's discuss :)

Verdict: 3.75/5

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

So Bad It's… No, It's Bad

OMG I have been DESPERATE to write this review! So as you probably know, one of my chief sources for books these days is Austenprose.  There are a million and one P&P paraliterature books coming out lately, but I only find certain of them interesting - specifically, I have no interest in prequels or sequels, but I am a dedicated reader of same-quels (like that? :)).  I had read up to this point six - yes 6 :) - versions of P&P from Darcy's POV.  Some are better than others of course, all are not worthy of being mentioned in the same multi-volume tome as the original, but all of them up till now have been pretty fun.  So it wasn't like I was going to say no to yet another one - Regina Jeffers's Darcy's Passions, this despite the fact that she has published other P&P-inspired books and I had no interest whatsoever in reading them.  Anyway, I put it on reserve at the library (this was the third of the three reserves I picked up right before I left to Israel) and started it on the plane on the way back from Spain.  It took me a while to finish, but that's par for course these days, doesn't necessarily say anything about the book… and my main complaint with this book was not that it was boring.

So what was it about it then? WHERE DO I START?! Seriously, this is HANDS-DOWN the WORST book I have EVER finished, and quite possibly the worst book I have ever STARTED.  Are these caps annoying you? Take that twinge of impatience and multiply it… then raise it to the same power… and do whatever else you have to do until you're shaking your head in DISBELIEF… In the introduction to the book (yes, the book has an intro. :) - I can't even say that without shaking my head :)) the author states that she has taught in English literature.  I actually flat out do not believe her.  The grammatical errors in the text are *egregious*.  Aliza cited misplaced modifiers, but I don't even know what those are.   She made the basic mistake of using the inappropriate subject after a intro phrase (don't know the technical term, but it's the one for phrase like this : "Although handsomer than Mr. Bingley and now rumored to have 10,000 pounds per year, most of the assembly found him…") Then there's the complete misuse of transitions like "yet" and "however", when in fact the phrases in questions are either complete non-sequiters or in need of no transition whatsoever.  And seriously, is she UNAWARE that there is exists a tense known as PAST PARTICIPLE, to be used when referring to a continually occurring circumstance, so that it doesn't seem like we are flipping back and forth between two times and two locations… unless this rewrite contains the addition of a time machine? (man, I'm having fun with my scathing condemnation :)) 

Moving on from grammatical concerns, we have the next favorite red-pen markup to worry about - "word usage!" Sometimes it's a weird tone, sometimes it's unwieldy, sometimes, sometimes it's funny, and sometimes it's *just plain wrong*. Take this one - I read it aloud to various people and burst out laughing each time - "howbeit pale" - that's just an excerpt from a longer passage, but seriously… I actually don't have a clue what she meant to be saying with that one. Anyway, the list goes on - I'm just flipping through it looking for these examples and I amazed all over again.  Over and above the clumsiness of the wording, there's blatant anachronism littering the pages.  "I bet", "phenomenal father", "you're amazing" ?! Since when does P&P take place in current-day America (and yes, I know there are multiple versions that do - I will be reading and reviewing another one shortly :)) I definitely have a bee in my bonnet about anachronisms, but HOW MUCH EFFORT DOES IT TAKE to say "I surmise" instead of "I bet"?! It seems like nothing but deliberate disregard for historical accuracy, which the author may find cute but which I find slightly repulsive - really, that bad.  

So what else do we have? Well there's her completely inaccurate portrayal of Darcy, Elizabeth, and everyone else in the book.  But it's not like I could really expect anything better.  Any time you read something like this, you're risking a totally skewed portrayal of the characters - yes, this one was worse than most, but I don't know if I can even complain… All right, I can complain - Elizabeth was alternatively flirtatious and idiotic and Darcy was by turns maudlin and overly-anxious.  Whatever it was horrible.  And that was before they got married.  The author takes it upon herself to continue the story after they get married at which point the characters become UNRECOGNIZABLE.  And not just unrecognizable and Darcy and Elizabeth, fairly unrecognizable as human either.  They sit there swooning over each other and declaring their love ad infinitum.  We know, we've heard, we don't even care anymore, and can this book pleeeeease be over so I can write my review? 

There was literally nothing to like about this book.  I think one time (can't remember where), I thought there was a fresh take on one the scenes… so it wasn't all bad from start to finish, I *guess*.  But it pretty much was.  Literally, I was just sitting on the train and shaking my head as I read, alternatively wincing and grinning in disbelief.  I guess in the end of the day, I enjoyed hating a book so much… and I did get through it, and got to this fun part :) Congratulations to me!

Verdict: 0/5 (Earlier in the reading I was going to give it a 2 for being "so bad it's good" but I couldn't.  I just couldn't.

A Good Romance, If a Stretched One

I'm not sure if I've mentioned her before, but Sharon Shinn is one of the 15 or so authors for whom I keep track of new publications (wow those prepositions were hard to get right :)) Anyway, her chief appeal is that she seems to be as big a fan of romance as I am :) That is, her books are technically science fiction/fantasy - actually, they *are* SF/fantasy - but she almost never fails to offer up a good romance as well.  The first book  I read of hers, Archangel (wait, now I remember, of course I've mentioned her before, I reviewed The Alleluiah Files a few months ago), was described to me by Peryl as a romance disguised as sci-fi.  That's not really true, as I've discovered since reading both genres a little more widely, but I'm not sure I would even want it to be true, since that would make the book a lot more trashy.  Anyway, the point is, Sharon Shinn's books are mostly composed of world description and a good romance, often with some transparent morality lesson woven in.  Her series that just finished up last year, The Twelve Houses, exemplified this, and also contained the added element of a continuing plotline involving political unrest in the fantasy land of the setting.  I had thought her new book, Troubled Waters, was the start of a new series set in a new world, but I'm not quite sure now that I've read it.  In any case, that's the book I'm reviewing now… which is all I really had to say :)

So like I said, what I mostly expect of these books is a decent romance, while I tolerate whatever else Sharon Shinn throws in there as she pleases.  In this one, I kind of liked what she threw in there anyway, it was a rather simple world where the emphasis was on the five "elements" of air, earth, fire, wood, and water.  There were very few complicated rules (some innocuous details about blessing coins light enough to be charming) and most of the magic seemed to be centered on our very powerful heroine (yay :)) You know I never say no to the main characters being awesome… and here we have the head of one of the most powerful families in the land along with the king's most trusted advisor, a pretty cool man in his own right too (I was going to write guy, but he's just not the type ;)) And big bonus, the plot was mostly court intrigue rather than national danger / war, which was a nice change from the Twelve Houses.  Because court intrigue can be dangerous, but it just doesn't reach to the level of tension of all out battle.  And we all know how much I *dont* like tension :) The book actually reminded me of Court Duel in that respect - though court duel did have the threat of war underlying all the polite chit-chat - it was just very underlying and didn't really emerge all that dramatically :) (one day I'll reread court duel and then you'll all get a more thorough review, don't worry :)) ANYWAY, what I'm saying is that there was really nothing not enjoyable about the rest of the book.  And it even ended pretty solidly, with nothing much left unresolved, which makes me think that there might not be a sequel in the works.  I mean, I guess there's room for one (though I'm not sure who would feature as the romantic couple) but there certainly doesn't need to be one… which of course makes this ending all the more satisfying. 

So that's all well and good, I'm sure you're saying :), but what about the romance? Isn't that why you read these books in the first place? Yes indeedy-do, you are correct in that assumption (not surprisingly, since I think I stated it very clearly a few paragraphs ago :)) Anyway, the romance… so I said to S.B., if I had read this book a few years ago I think I would have thought the romance was AMAZING.  He likes her from the beginning, there's TONS of interaction, and they don't get together till the end.  What more could I need (other than more from the guy's POV, of course :)) So it was good… but it was a little weird too.  They really both like each other from the beginning, and while they don't acknowledge it, they don't really hide it either.  So there's very little tension of the good sort (romantic, that is :)) Maybe I would always have noticed this? I'm not sure, but I definitely noticed it now.  Was *quite* a weird dynamic.  Like if these characters were other people or in other circumstances, there would have been no romance (at least in the sense I define it) at all.  But these characters (proud, stubborn, very different) and these circumstances (tense, happening times) mean that there is a whole book for them to play out the courtship dance.  So okay… I can enjoy that, even if it takes just a *little* more effort than usual.  And the truth is, these days I find myself saying sometimes, but *why* does he like her? where's the attraction, the shared sympathies? (also something I never paid much attention to before - I wonder if it's the blog or just getting older?) In any case, there was none of that - they make sense together, two powerful people (with complementary personalities, as is emphasized to some length in the book - since the whole premise of the world is elements and how each person is drawn to one of the five).  So they make sense, and I don't have to get annoyed about that at least.  All in all, quite satisfying… Nothing to complain about, lots to enjoy… no wonder I had no trouble getting through this book, between a late Friday night, sleepless Shabbos afternoon, lazy motzei Shabbos, and relatively early night at a luxury hotel, all in the midst of my vacation :)

Verdict: 4/5